Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.

And I'd almost guarantee that the writing would be chock full of sexist comments and other shenanigans... It'd be a field day for people like Sarkeesian.

That's if it is written by someone incompetent, or whom refuses to question their own biases and think about what they're actually writing.

Granted, this applies to a lot of writers, and certainly a lot of video game writers, too. But it doesn't HAVE to be the case.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.

And I'd almost guarantee that the writing would be chock full of sexist comments and other shenanigans... It'd be a field day for people like Sarkeesian.

Sarkeesian loved veronica mars. She even did a video asking for more girl detectives. I think she would like a game staring a female detective no matter what era it was in. Also having a female main character dose put a different spin on sexism depicted, so like your going to get different reactions.

Ah right, I forgot about that. This is definitely true.

 Melissia wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.

And I'd almost guarantee that the writing would be chock full of sexist comments and other shenanigans... It'd be a field day for people like Sarkeesian.

That's if it is written by someone incompetent, or whom refuses to question their own biases and think about what they're actually writing.

Granted, this applies to a lot of writers, and certainly a lot of video game writers, too. But it doesn't HAVE to be the case.

The thing is, IMO, a detective game set in the 60s should be fairly "accurate" to the time. This means you'd see a lot of comments/lines as we did in Mad Men that are blatantly sexist in today's world, but were accepted as the "norm" back then. IIRC, that 1940s detective game had quite a few "sexist" lines... PCs or even the Detective's partners calling women "toots" and such was true to period, but still would be inappropriate in today's world (not saying that it doesn't happen today, just that it's accepted as being inappropriate now)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing is, IMO, a detective game set in the 60s should be fairly "accurate" to the time.

Why?

The idea that the technological and aesthetic setting of the time necessarily needs to be associated with the gender norms of the time is very restrictive on the creativity of the writers involved.

 Lynata wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:You know, I too was perplexed that there wasn't a customization option in DXHR. You could slightly customize Denton in the first game, so logically, there should have been some minor customization options in HR as well.
It doesn't really detract anything from the game, but it is inconsistent.

I remember it bothered me that you couldn't make the character female as it was possible in DX2.
Primarily because, in response to the media's inquiries into this "step back", they went with some weird PR spin about how they "couldn't have told the same story with a woman", which really rubbed me the wrong way. I would have perceived it differently had they just said that they didn't want to invest the necessary amount of cash, but this way it comes off as either dishonest or sexist.

Plus, Jensen really looked awfully cliché, and character customisation may have allowed to mix it up a bit even if we had just made him black (would've fit the voice better anyways, imo ... but now I may be dipping into clichés myself ). Still it wasn't quite as bad as the protagonists in other games, and I ended up enjoying it nonetheless thanks to its gameplay and world design - in spite of what I still consider a drawback.

They aren't entirely wrong about that, unless you factor in same-sex relationships. Which is a whole different can of worms, that probably needs a thread of it's own.

I do agree that Jensen just oozes with manufactured (heh) cool guy though. VG cats even made fun of that at one point.

It reminds me quite often of my character.


Basically the point was that the character at the beginning was a normal character, and throughout the story slowly starts to degrade and wither. And something happens to him and forces him to wear a mask that covers his face. He has black hair and a pale face.

I think the problem though in games is that they are cattering to the everyday person. Instead of making unique characters.

I mean how many characters that are men do we remember really well?

I remember Captain Walker(Spec ops:the line), Booker (Bioshock), Leon Kennedy (Resident Evil 4), Master Chief (halo), The Rookie (Halo ODST), Buck (Halo ODST), Commander Shepherd, Mario (Super Mario), Link (Zelda), Nathan Drake, and Lee Everett (The Walking Dead Game).

Those are the only ones that come up to me as being memorable. You know How I remember the first two? because they did something radically different from other characters. They were soldiers at war, but they were human beings, they were fleshed out. Booker is mysterious in his motives, and Walker is just a PTSD strucken soldier.
The halo characters had lovable personalities. Commander Shepherd is memorable because of what you could do.
Lee Everett is the only character on there that is a minority character. Because minority characters are rare in games.... For some reason.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:You know, I too was perplexed that there wasn't a customization option in DXHR. You could slightly customize Denton in the first game, so logically, there should have been some minor customization options in HR as well.
It doesn't really detract anything from the game, but it is inconsistent.

I remember it bothered me that you couldn't make the character female as it was possible in DX2.
Primarily because, in response to the media's inquiries into this "step back", they went with some weird PR spin about how they "couldn't have told the same story with a woman", which really rubbed me the wrong way. I would have perceived it differently had they just said that they didn't want to invest the necessary amount of cash, but this way it comes off as either dishonest or sexist.

Plus, Jensen really looked awfully cliché, and character customisation may have allowed to mix it up a bit even if we had just made him black (would've fit the voice better anyways, imo ... but now I may be dipping into clichés myself ). Still it wasn't quite as bad as the protagonists in other games, and I ended up enjoying it nonetheless thanks to its gameplay and world design - in spite of what I still consider a drawback.

They aren't entirely wrong about that, unless you factor in same-sex relationships. Which is a whole different can of worms, that probably needs a thread of it's own.

I do agree that Jensen just oozes with manufactured (heh) cool guy though. VG cats even made fun of that at one point.

I won't be making that thread.

Square actually did a neat job with jension. They feel like a very grounded part of the world with a past, history, personality and ties to the different people and things. You meet people form their past, you even get to read a letter about their dog. The note worthy thing is that I don't think any of traits that make them up relie on them being a man, white. Even the same sex thing wouldn't actually stand out as odd in the setting.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:The whole story is a continuation of Alice's stories.

Oooh, okay. I thought it was a re-telling of sorts. Well, so much for that then!

Melissia wrote:I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.

Sorry, I meant a police detective, not "private eye", and the former simply wouldn't get hired. The latter would absolutely be possible, and I agree that a clever dev could even make social biases a sort of additional challenge of the narrative, not only telling a story but adding social commentary.

Unfortunately, in the current cultural climate, I have a feeling no Triple-A studio would touch a concept like that out of fear for it tanking in sales due to its niche nature, and indie devs generally stick to other genres, though interactive novels might come fairly close if you don't mind missing out on FPS/3PS action (some of those are actually fairly cool! I can recommend a few if anyone is interested).

But this seems like a topic more suited for the other thread (I still feel it weird/wrong that we have two when it's the same problem).

CthuluIsSpy wrote:They aren't entirely wrong about that, unless you factor in same-sex relationships.

Either that, or simply make the damsel a female character's sister. There, importance of the plot device preserved.
Or (oooh, twist) a female Jensen would have to rescue a male lover. Though I have a feeling that girl-on-girl would, ironically, be more mainstream with the target audience?

I remember that comic, tho! Awesome.

nomotog wrote:Square actually did a neat job with jension. They feel like a very grounded part of the world with a past, history, personality and ties to the different people and things. You meet people form their past, you even get to read a letter about their dog. The note worthy thing is that I don't think any of traits that make them up relie on them being a man, white.

+1'd
A nice summary.

You have not played the game yet? What are you waiting for!

 Lynata wrote:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:The whole story is a continuation of Alice's stories.

Oooh, okay. I thought it was a re-telling of sorts. Well, so much for that then!

Melissia wrote:I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.

Sorry, I meant a police detective, not "private eye", and the former simply wouldn't get hired.

Unless you ignore that aspect of history. Emperor knows that games ignore non-essential historical facts all the time.

If you're entirely and wholly constrained by historical fact, you will make boring games. No exceptions.

Doesn't British television have a whole genre of women Detectives in historical periods? It's pretty common and is not attacked for showing historical prejudices. It's only when a media revels in them that they get criticized.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Doesn't British television have a whole genre of women Detectives in historical periods? It's pretty common and is not attacked for showing historical prejudices. It's only when a media revels in them that they get criticized.

Not sure if it's a genre, but I do know of a famous example of what you described - Miss Marple.

She's an old lady who can solve pretty much every murder mystery.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Doesn't British television have a whole genre of women Detectives in historical periods? It's pretty common and is not attacked for showing historical prejudices. It's only when a media revels in them that they get criticized.

Not sure if it's a genre, but I do know of a famous example of what you described - Miss Marple.

She's an old lady who can solve pretty much every murder mystery.

Yeah its not exactly a female thing, the detective genre is just detectives, I think sex doesn't really seem to play a role, so I guess its all about equality really.

I love Miss Marple though she was good, but I cant think of many more.

Maybe DCI Tennison from Prime Suspect? I used to watch that. Oh and maybe one of the female detectives off "The Bill"

Murder, She Wrote: The Game

Why not.

Melissia wrote:If you're entirely and wholly constrained by historical fact, you will make boring games. No exceptions.

Naah. I think you just have to spend more brainjuice, and I firmly believe the outcome would be more compelling - as far as my own preferences are concerned, anyways. I like realism!
It's like in 40k authors are playing fast and loose with the background for quite the same reason - the belief that they'd write "boring stories" if they allow themselves to be "constrained" by a canon. I just couldn't disagree more. Working within firmly established confines, accepting the world "as is" and still managing to insert an entertaining story into this pre-established setting like a puzzle piece seamlessly fitting into a gigantic picture, that's the art. And various games as well as books show that this is quite possible.

Matter of preferences, I'm sure, but certainly simple adherence to a canon doesn't make anything boring. And ultimately, real life is just a sort of canon, too.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Not sure if it's a genre, but I do know of a famous example of what you described - Miss Marple.
She's an old lady who can solve pretty much every murder mystery.

Hooo boy, I remember that show from when I was young.
But Miss Marple was a private detective, too, not a police officer.

Vulture calls the genre "British Women Getting it Done."

http://www.vulture.com/m/2014/07/best-of-streaming-tv-shows-about-british-women.html

It also includes non-detectives. Prime Suspect and Hetty Wintrop Investigates were my favorites.

To be honest, Adam Jenson from Deus Ex: Human Revolution does look awfully like his voice actor, Elias Toufexis. - So I can't really blame them for that.

He certainly looks a lot closer to his character than Mark DeMeer as male-Shepard. On another note, male-Shepard has the strangest baldspot (or line), I've ever seen. Seriously, it's like his electric shaver ran amok.

Incidentally, you could change Lara's clothes in the newest Tomb Raider game, they didn't do the whole damage stuff, but you could do it.

Personally, I'm of the view that character customisation should be in a lot more things. Ok, fair enough if it's imported from other media (EG The Witcher, but the hairstyle thing seems a bit random and weird. Or, well, Batman. Because Batman.) but, more customisation seems harmless in probably the vast majority of computer game situations out there.


On the slightly off-topic thing. - Don't forget about Ros Myers from Spooks.

Compel wrote:To be honest, Adam Jenson from Deus Ex: Human Revolution does look awfully like his voice actor, Elias Toufexis. - So I can't really blame them for that.

Really? Okay, that's kind of cool, I like it when games pay homages like that. BioWare did a similar thing with Samara, and her voice actress even occasionally cosplays the character.

I suppose the physical attributes being close to the cliché was just coincidence, then. At least he's not buff.

... still, those glasses...

 Lynata wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you're entirely and wholly constrained by historical fact, you will make boring games. No exceptions.

Naah. I think you just have to spend more brainjuice, and I firmly believe the outcome would be more compelling - as far as my own preferences are concerned, anyways. I like realism!

So you'd like a civilization game where you were forced to make the exact same decisions as the historic leader you picked?

In order to have a "historical" game, you must violate history, or not have a game at all.

Staying true to period is a bit different Mel'...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Staying true to period is a bit different Mel'...

Every game makes a decision on what bits are important to "stay true to", and what bits can be discarded.

No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.

 Lynata wrote:
What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age?

The former two are stories about a specific character. The latter two are more about narrative than a specific character, as, especially in the case of Mass Effect, it doesn't matter who or what Shep is, because the same things happen anyway.

Melissia wrote:No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.

I thought we're taking this for granted, specifically because it's so obvious. That doesn't change the fact that I (and others) can enjoy setting-based limitations. Look at the real world: it obviously has a ton of limitations in place. Yet does anyone believe that you can't experience stunning adventures in it?

I see setting-based limitations a bit like weaknesses in character designs. They may appear like a flaw, but ultimately result in a more immersive experience due to feeling more believable.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The former two are stories about a specific character. The latter two are more about narrative than a specific character, as, especially in the case of Mass Effect, it doesn't matter who or what Shep is, because the same things happen anyway.

That's kind of claiming a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. If you made Jensen customisable, you'd still get the same story with the same things happening, right up to the "push one of three buttons" ending. The only thing that makes characters like Jensen or Lara specific is designers taking choice away from you instead of leaving multiple options.

Crafting a well-rounded narrative that caters to multiple styles of gameplay certainly adds some workload, but ultimately makes for a (subjectively) more compelling experience due to leaving more agency (assuming that we want to play games to have an effect on the world, otherwise we could just watch a movie instead).

The irony is that DXHR actually does give you a bunch of choices resulting in your character receiving different treatment from the NPCs (example: lethal or non-lethal approaches affecting the cops' reaction to you), yet apparently having Jensen be an Asian or a black dude or a woman would have been "too much of a change". Wut? Different personalities, styles of problem-solving and opinions on various topics (right up to choosing whether or not humanity should embrace augmentation) are okay, but appearances are too much?

Nope, I don't buy it.

 Lynata wrote:
assuming that we want to play games to have an effect on the world, otherwise we could just watch a movie instead

I disagree here. Certainly you cannot take the pure challenge/problem solving part of the equation. You might want to play game that combine a set story like a movie and some challenging gameplay mechanics, but without wanting your gameplay to influence the story.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I disagree here. Certainly you cannot take the pure challenge/problem solving part of the equation. You might want to play game that combine a set story like a movie and some challenging gameplay mechanics, but without wanting your gameplay to influence the story.

But in that case your actions still "have an effect on the world", by either driving the narrative forward, or failing to do so. By taking on those challenges and solving those problems, you become the hero.
Alternatively, for games like minesweeper and tetris that don't really have a story, I added the "assuming" part, but I'm sure that these games are not what we are discussing here.

It's why I worded this part of my sentence like that instead of using a simpler way.

Melissia wrote:
No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.

Sorry Melissia but no.

A game can literally be anything. It could be prescripted and or it could not be because in the end everything in the game is scripted.

The Stanely Parable being one of the examples of this.

Is the stanely parable a documentary because it follows a completely set path? Is call of duty less of a game because it is based on historical situations?

We cannot decide what is and what is not a game. That is not up to you to decide.

Its a completely illegitamte fallacy that anyone that argues what is. And what is not a game, does not even know the definition of a Game. A Game is a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules (borders etc) and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

What is a video game? A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen.

This is a broad definition because it has to be broad.

That's kind of claiming a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. If you made Jensen customisable, you'd still get the same story with the same things happening, right up to the "push one of three buttons" ending. The only thing that makes characters like Jensen or Lara specific is designers taking choice away from you instead of leaving multiple options.

What choice? The problem with that idea is that they don't take away any choice except for what your character looks like. In the end all your choices are completely scripted.

Lets say you are playing an action RPG called skyrim.... You are going through and fighting dragons and you customize your character. Your path is completely predetermined from the get go. The only choice you actually have as a player is should I play this game? All the choice you make in that game are scripted to work that way.

There are no choices in games. Everything is prescripted. Everything you do in a game is designed that way.

Crafting a well-rounded narrative that caters to multiple styles of gameplay certainly adds some workload, but ultimately makes for a (subjectively) more compelling experience due to leaving more agency (assuming that we want to play games to have an effect on the world, otherwise we could just watch a movie instead).

True. Thats why David Cage's games are considered some of the worst in history. Because they rely too much on cinematic and not enough gameplay story telling elements.

I disagree here. Certainly you cannot take the pure challenge/problem solving part of the equation. You might want to play game that combine a set story like a movie and some challenging gameplay mechanics, but without wanting your gameplay to influence the story.

I think the problem with that is that is a very old way of thinking. The newer thing right now to do is to have mechanics as metaphor or in addition to the story line. Like how in Spec Ops: The Line you could move your gun around during 'cinematics' sometimes and commit an action.



Games are more or less entertaining because they offer something different than movies. Players interact with games. And no other medium can do that effectively and be visually stimulating.

By taking on those challenges and solving those problems, you become the hero.

Most games are about empowerment. Feeling this power within you that you are the hero of the story. That you are on a grand adventure to save the world.

Or destroy it.
(But it doesn't always have to be about empowerment it could be about dis empowerment as well)

Every game makes a decision on what bits are important to "stay true to", and what bits can be discarded.

No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.

Wait just re-read that.

So are you basically implying that games cannot be documentaries? Or Games should not go too far to staying true to the source material?

Because I have yet to see a documentary game.

 Melissia wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you're entirely and wholly constrained by historical fact, you will make boring games. No exceptions.

Naah. I think you just have to spend more brainjuice, and I firmly believe the outcome would be more compelling - as far as my own preferences are concerned, anyways. I like realism!

So you'd like a civilization game where you were forced to make the exact same decisions as the historic leader you picked?

In order to have a "historical" game, you must violate history, or not have a game at all.

Wait. So you mean to tell me that Gandhi actually was NOT a blood thirsty, nuke happy tyrant!?

 Lynata wrote:

Melissia wrote:No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.

I thought we're taking this for granted, specifically because it's so obvious.

Except that it is not. "Realistic" is more of a marketing ploy than anything these days, people think it sounds nice, kind of like how stores put $9.99 instead of $10.

Except that it is not. "Realistic" is more of a marketing ploy than anything these days, people think it sounds nice, kind of like how stores put $9.99 instead of $10.

Its more on the line of that they are trying to be more realistic.

The simple fact is that most coding is preventing people from doing things. ITs prevention code, its called stupid proofing. As we the designers are setting up the rules of the world.

So When they say realistic.

It basically means More Realistic than last time.

As most times code is improved to allow for more restrictions on the game as the code becomes more elegant and the engine is willing to handle the rendering of images onto the screen.