Sakai

That's because some people treat games as vehicles for their political/moral agendas first, entertainment products second. So whatever negative effect inclusion of certain topics may bring, it is a worthy sacrifice in the name of whatever they're doing it for. It was a question, not an opinion. A question that you can't answer, apperantly.

It's already been discussed what issues that option would bring. From how people are supposed to adress PC, to the way society in general views that sort of thing. It is far more than just something you choose when creating your character. But even if it were just that, neither you nor anyone else even seem to be able to define what non-binary is, yet you want it to be added anyway? Never said it couldn't, but it's not a free for all either where you can add whatever you want without consequence.

That it was impractical to add representation of a tiny minority of people based on the amount of work it would take. And that comparing an RPG based on a late medieval period with Sims is somewhat silly. Verisimilitude is important, and if you start adding modern issues to a setting they do not belong, it can quickly destroy the players immersion in that setting. And btw, i still don't have an answer on what is non-binary in the first place, and why you need it when he/her doesn't imply anything other than your genitals.

Gender identity is not the same as sex. You can read about it here. It's not the same as your sex. As far as I understand it, to break it down very simple it works like this: You can be born inside a man's body and also feel like a man. Or you are born inside a women's body and feel like a woman. In these cases you are cisgender. Your sex and your gender align. But you can also be born in a man's body but not feel like a man (or feel like a woman in a man's body). Or you are born in a woman's body but you do not feel like a woman (or you feel like a man in a woman's body) . Then you would be transgender. Furthermore there are people who reject the gender roles altogether, and they see themselves neither as woman nor as man INDEPENDENTLY from their body. Or they see themselves as both. So again, sex is NOT THE SAME as gender identity. Also, as I have previously pointed out, even the sex is NOT a binary option since intersex people do exist. Remember, the game asks you for your sex, not your gender. I know what gender dysphoria is. And that's not relevant to this discussion. Obviously, anyone who identifies as the opposite sex, will play as that sex in a game. Or at least i can't imagine why the wouldn't. What i don't understand is this gender roles thing. Since when gender roles became a thing? So much so that some people feel like they need to be called anything other than he/her. Maybe i missed something, but i always thought that he/her, again, mostly refers to your genitals, and is not in any way shape or form a comment about your "identity", whatever that identity may be. So why all the fuss about the "non-binary" stuff when there was no binary to begin with when it comes to who you are.

What is "gender identity" exactly? And why anyone needs accepting it, whatever it may be, when the male/female choice only refers to your genitals.

Something i don't get is when exactly male/female started meaning anything other than someones genitals? Why are some people so obsessed with this non-binary stuff, when that choice is literally just a choice of a character model and doesn't describe your personality in any way whatsoever.

That seems to me much more like the problem with the writers imagination, if they keep writing the same characters, than any real limitation.

That's a bit of a narrow minded perspective. Watch Rammstein live shows. Sure, they make good music, but they are also so much more than that. They are as much performers as they are musicions. Similarly with games, they can be about combat or whatever, but they also can be much more than that. And my point wasn't that "attractiveness" of a companion is somehow more important than anything else, but rather that it is weird to judge people for wanting a companion that is attractive. Games, and RPGs in particular, are wish fulfillments, and romantic/sexual fantasies are no less valid than any other.

I find this kind of attitude peculiar. It's one thing to say you don't want romances to be shallow, as they often tend to be in Bioware games, but another to be so sex-negative. What's wrong with wanting a visually pleasing female character? I doubt that if a woman made similar request about male characters, you'd say the same to her. But if a man asks it, then it somehow becomes morally wrong. As if it is a sin to even mention the words woman and sexuality in the same sentence. Also, how exactly is pointing out the demographics that are beyond our control a "self-fulfilling prophecy"?

After reading Eisenhorn i would absolutely love a 40k RPG. Although chances of that happening are probably close to zero.

Do you have any proof of that? Because some files present in the base game means nothing by itself. They could've started develpmont on the feature before the release and couldn't finish it in time. In fact, i'm pretty sure that's probably what happened since to claim otherwise is just insane. But even if that was the case, how do you know that it's Paradox's fault and not Obsidians? You don't, you just do a whole lot of assuming. Yeah, so this whole rant was about a single piece of DLC, and you don't know anything else about Paradox... Good to know.

None of the features that Paradox DLC's add are in the base game before the release of said DLC.

Any features that are added in DLC's are not present in the base game. Locked or unlocked. The way Paradox DLC's work is with every update you get some of the features for free (mostly minor one and bug fixes and such), and the rest you have to pay for. So you are raging over a misunderstanding. Unless you're trying to suggest that they develop all the features for their DLC's before the actual release of the game and then cut most of them to sell later... Which would be quite the claim. Not really. They changed prices like a month or so ago. It had nothing to do with Steam sale. And recently they released a statement that they are going to change them back, but couldn't do it before the sale because the only way to do it at this point would be to take their games off Steam completely.

Not just sex, a relationship, which started in the books. But sure, fine. Whatever you say. Witcher is an adolescent power fantasy that i greatly enjoy and will continue to enjoy for years to come probably. Good day to you.

That is because novels, and consequently the games, don't equate sex with love. Both Geralt and Yennefer have sex with other people in the books, but they only love each other. Now, i would argue that's a very mature approach, whether you agree with it or not.

Try to romance both Triss and Yen and then tell there are no consequences.

To blame Witcher for being a power fantasy is very bizzare though. PoE is a power fantasy as well. Quite literally almost every single game out there is a power fantasy in one way or another. They're adding romances in PoE 2 now too. So i'm guessing it mean it's going to be "adolescent" too, since that seems to be the definition.

Wow, i guess people see what they want to see.

You clearly haven't read the books and know nothing about the character, or the universe. His physical prowess aside, he was after all created for that particular purpose, Geralt is an extremely flawed character. And a tragic one at that. Both the books and the games explore deep phylosophical and psychological themes that are hardly relevant to an "adolescent boy", as you put it. In fact, the main theme of them both i would argue is Geralt's love for his adopted daughter Ciri. Is that an adolescent fantasy to you? Maybe if you missed all of that, the issue is with you, and not the games?

Man, i was expecting it to be bad, but this bad?

No reason for sarcasm. It is a curious phenomena that males are sexualized all the time both in games and other media, yet no one seems to care,but a sexualized female is somehow wrong. By the way, another interesting piece of information is that Bayonetta was designed by a woman, not a man. So again, not as simple as one might think. But in any case, this is all offtopic.

What is this then? Should we blame women for enjoying sexy romance novels?

I said nothing about female characters. I don't see how more or less of those would attract more women. That argument is as simplistic as your comment about "big breasted killer machines". My point was that there is an entire spectrum of games that appeal for various reasons to all manner of people. Neither female games like mentioned in the article have any obligation to cater to men, nor games that are played primarily by men should be made more female friendly just because. Not to say they shouldn't of course, but that should not be treated as some kind of moral responsibility.

That statistic includes mobile, casual, facebook and pretty much everything else. So in practice it doesn't really mean much. "Core" games are still being played primarily by men. Here's a good article on the subject. https://medium.com/@adrianchm/women-and-video-games-f0eb7a7d75fa#.vk17oadh5 There are games that sell millions of copies yet are played mostly by women. Their devs openly admit that they cater to them. And this is not a controversy, no one's saying that they should be made more "male friendly". I see no reason why male dominated games should be any different.

Well, that's one way to argue a point. Just say that anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong. Personally, I quite like the way it looks. Better then the sloop from your picture anyway. I also couldn't care less whether it's sufficiently "realistic" or not.