BruceVC

Fresh bread Its one of the only thing I don't buy in the supermarket, but stop in a bakery near by to get it when it still warm and they also experiment with various additions! Anyway, bread, load of butter and ontop roasted peppers(paper,oven,oil,garlic,wait) and load of salt. Its one of those childhood fancies of mine, that I just can't give up. ahh its always nice to spice up your menu. Btw, we recently experiment with making sushi,and I warmly recommend it, its extremely fun to make and experiment with, its like giving a lego for a child for the first time. Mor the way you described that bread has made me hungry, it sounds delicious

Ideal male and female forms depends on culture where question is asked. Often most important factors that impose those ideals are roles that said culture sees to be most ideal roles for males and females. And as idealistic roles in our culture changes and fragments it also make people criticize mediums that are monotonic with their idealization and even more so when medium uses idealization that make other gender look like passive objects, when cultures (at least Western cultures) have started to more and more despise people that don't take care of themselves, which causes more and more people despise passive characters that can't do anything else than look pretty in some standards. There is whole industry that specializes on marketing who constantly research different groups of people idealize and how they react when they saw those ideals realized. And how make products look like they are part of peoples ideals. But as ideals change from group to group, marketing works usually best when it is targeted only one specific group especially when we speak small segment products like what video games were in 90s. And when product type's imago is created around to idea that it is only one group of people, that idea can become as self feeding monster, as culture around said product type and therefore marketing for said product type focus only that one group of people, even after the fact that products from said type of products are used at least in some extend by people from all the groups. And when culture sees product type so that it is only for one specific group of people, then product makers that do produce said products in said product type often also make their products work for that one group of people, even though they don't do market research to see who they should aim their product. Objectification always coincides with idealization, as most often your aim is to make people want things that you objectify and to do so you need to make your objects to be ideal objects that people want to own. But in games you most often also want idealized subjects that people want to be. And then there is that grey area where you subjects are also made objects of desire, which blurs roles of subjects and objects to one big mess, where people don't know do they want to be the subject or own the object or bit both. As all matters of cultural view there is no final arbiter, but only ever changing consensus of people that changes from group to group and place to place. Which means that everyone has their own idea what is ideal and how it should be accomplished. And like every social issue, people try change other people point of view using different tactics from friendly debate to scare tactics that make people with different view become silent and doing so excluding (or at least try to exclude) them from general consensus. One could always argue that if you exclude or try to exclude people you are doing something that is morally wrong, but one could also always argue that things that are good for you are morally right. And as there is no absolutes when it comes things like morally wrong or right, which means that one can always argue that things are morally right or morally wrong. Although general consensus about morality in society usually is the thing that people refer when they speak about morality of things, but as general consensus of people is always changing and evolving it also means that one never can say absolutes that are morally right or wrong. But at the end society decides if things that one does are morally right or morally wrong, but other (and future) societies can give different answer to subject. When people who aren't target of product like said product it is usually seen as positive thing by product maker, but it can also bring subcultures around product which product maker don't like and it can cause general consensus of people see product in different light than it is marketed and therefore can change future of product. NOTE: This is long idiotic philosophical pondering that should not be considered to be anyway serious and you should question its factuality. It was written only to entertain myself. I'm sorry you didn't mean what you said because that's one of the most interesting posts I've read in ages, some really good thoughts and I agree with a lot of it

that is funny. But what I'm saying makes sense if you take the emotion out of the debate

sometimes you really make me laugh

I can see your logic but no unfortunately that's not how it needs to be. You need to see this as a step to address an aspect of social justice so in this case the correct choice doesn't need a majority agreement because some in the majority don't really understand the debate in the most accurate context

Some goods question, but we need to keep it simple and reasonable. I'll be the final arbiter and it makes sense as I understand the issue?

No. You're trying to rationalize instinctual behavior, which is a frequent amateur mistake. Females' lives are built around their instinct to attract the strongest of males and get their sеmen. It may sound chauvinist, but I mean no offense. It's just that it's really all there's to it. Heh...not like I'm not familiar with that line of thought, since I've used it in my pessimistic moments re: the essentially unchanged nature of humankind. And yes, despite our intellect we are still instinctual creatures who react without thought to certain stimuli. Fight or flight, fear of unknown/different, and of course the oo-la-la. But the nature of humanity is not always the same thing as the culture of humanity, and that's where using that as an argument against change falls apart. People wanting/wishing to be as attractive as possible to find mates, natural thing and I doubt you'd find anyone to argue against that. What is culturally considered attractive, however, is ever changing and is definitely not ruled by instinct alone, but by whatever is the fad at the time. People's interests change, on a cultural level. At one time pudgy women were the height of sexual attractiveness for some. For others it was an exposed ankle. For still others it could be the bone in their perfectly shaped nose or how long their artificially-stretched-from-birth-via-metal-rings neck is. I believe the objection to objectification sometimes (or often) stems less from an objection to sexuality itself and more from how unreasonable that objectification is vs. any reality of what's reasonably physically possible. To most of our "modern" culture, for example, something like forcing girls to bind/literally cripple their feet as a pinnacle of beauty is/seems barbaric, because it's not something reasonable/humane to expect people to do in order to feel like they're attractive/have social worth. While fantasy Barbie-Doll proportions isn't in the same league as crippling one's feet, as this culture of ours evolves and changes, it's not necessarily unreasonable to think that a culture might eventually deem it unfavorable to use such as a socially-influential measurement of worth. Or such objections may end up petering out and going nowhere. Not for me to say. At any rate, just because we have roots that stem from instinct, in the long run that's usually a poor excuse for justifying not even attempting social/cultural change, if and when a time comes that enough people in a cultural group want change. ...myself, I'm still waiting for the day that flat feet and broad, short-fingered hands are considered the height of female sexiness. I'll have it made then. Never mind that I already have a mate. I can't wait, because then I'll still be considered super-sexy when I'm 65! Good post, the one thing missing from these discussions is that we don't get enough comments from our female members about these topics. I know one of the reasons for this is because we don't have a large number of female members who actively participate on the forums but its good to get your opinion in this debate Hey, I registered here on the forum specifically to answer your question. Was lurking for a long time, so here goes. I don't care a gram about body types that female characters have in games, and I find this obsession with *female representation* extremely bothersome. I've been gaming for over 20 years, and never once have I been made to feel inadequate because videogame character X had large boobs (I have small boobs, personally. I don't care). And in my opinion, people who care are just fishing for things to complain about, because this "issue" is less then trivial. If some girls feels pressured to do a surgery because Lara Croft has large boobs (I'm simplifying here), it sems to me that the problem is her self esteem, not Lara Croft. But that's what a disturbingly large part of internet population likes to do very much - blame others and paint them as responsible for their personal hang ups. Games have been presenting idealised male and female body types basically since the graphics got good enough to do an approximation of a human body. Truth is, no one cared until women started complaining, now it's suddenly some huge issue that we are facing. And when you bring up the fact that men are isealized and sexualized in equal measure, you get that it's somehow still worse for teh wimminz. It's not - take a look at a poster for Deus Ex Human revolution, you know the one with Jensen reclining on his couch all topless and moody. Yeah. And you know what? It's okay. Both complaints (about idealization of men and women) are extremely trivial, imo, and not worth bandwidth that's gets wasted on them. Games are not real life, they're escapism. I, a heterosexual woman, like looking at sexy men doing sexy things. I am terribly sorry, I don't want some fat guy with acne and bad haircut in my escapism. Just a wild guess here, but I imagine hetero guys aren't particularly keen on on an important female character in their game having a moustache and 7 chins. Bottom line, we like pretty, sexy things, and there's nothing wrong with that. Another moment worth considering is money. Correct me if i'm wrong, but different body types mean different body models in game, which cost money. In a single game, there's usually a single male body model and a single female body model, so naturally, the developers lean towards more typical body type (idealized, of course). It would certainly look strange if all women in a singe game were short and chubby, for example. With the body model which is close to average, it's not s noticeable that they're all the same. Again I could be wrong because I know very little about actual game development. That's my perspective, take it or leave it. That's an interesting read and you make relevant posts. But I also think you are missing some key points in this discussion. And they revolve around a few things that include the marketing of men as the primary gaming target and misperception around what they want to see in games in most games men are not objectified, they are idealised. There is a huge difference Read these two links to get an idea what I'm talking about http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

I'm big supporter of interesting lore and history in games so any additional information is always useful

My girlfriend described it as True Blood minus the nudity. I said "what the point then"? She agreed. I hear you, I suppose its a change to not be see another Vampire series and there is interesting backgrounds to the various characters that will be revealed as the series progresses. And there is sex but yes no clear nudity

I sort of second this. On the one hand, seeing Blake Lively getting boned never gets old. Neither does watching gnarly Afghan veterans ambushing Mexican drug dealers. John Travolta is also rather good as a corrupt DEA agent. But there's something... meh about parts of it. Del Toro and the lovely Salma Hayek feel like they are both going through the motions and the narrative (through Lively's character's voice) is twee. However, as Bruce says, it's a good movie overall and definitely worth a look-in if you like glossy-but-dirty crime thrillers. I know you not nitpicking but I thought both there characters were really interesting and multi-dimensional. For example Salma was this hectic, hard core cartel leader yet you could also empathize with her around how she ended up in the position and her relationship with her daughter. In fact now that I think about it all the characters had interesting stories But either way its a great movie

I'm starting a new software implementation at a big military and aero manufacture in South Africa. So I'll be busier than normal the next 2-3 weeks as I have to be onsite every day

I don't know Malc if I can get you to agree with my perspective and embrace various social issues that would be a huge victory. As I mentioned before sometimes its just about giving someone a different perspective, so now next time you buy a game maybe you buy a game a game that doesn't objectify women...small steps Malc ...small steps...."Rome wasn't built in a day" Bruce, the biggest problem is, that we are multicultural bunch. What is considered as objectification in one country is considered as completely normal and in some cases even endorsed by women/minorities... Sorry to say that, but I really do not consider and never will consider bigger boobs in a game/movie/comic as an objectification... believe it or not, I have some female friends with bigger boobs than Lara Croft in Tomb Raider 2... natural boobs, just so you know :D Looking for me on big or small cups in an entertainment media does not affect my thinking about women at all, because for a girlfriend I always pick a girl with smaller cups. I just find smallcupped girls more attractive and not even 200 hours long hungarian porn session can change my preferences on boob/ass/intelectual properties of women or how I respect and treat women... And a game can not change that as well... I play games because they are not real, and I do not have problem nor am I troubled if someone uses sometimes politically incorrect jokes... Because I am from Slovakia, a country which joined EU only few years ago, lot of people in online guilds which I was part of, made jokes about me being from third world country... I was having fun with that, and most of the time, I joined the fun to add some more funny stories from my country to spice up the fun... It really looks to me last few years, that people nowadays are doing everything to make comedy/parody/jokes as something outrageous, and should be avoided in modern society at all costs... Thanks for explaining your position on this topic, you make some good points as usual I would like to respond but I can only do this tomorrow Sure no worries looking forward to it. I like this board, because man can have meaningful and intelligent discussion here, even with people with opposite view on some topics (of course not counting discussion about NWN with Volo, that case is lost ). It's hard to find internet boards with that attitude... And one more thing I forgot to add to my previous post, or more like, it sparkled in my mind at later hour For some reason, I really do not know why, but in real life I feel outraged, when some lady acts as true damsel in distress. But in games, I do not mind that concept at all. I have enjoyed few games where you have to save the "girl" from harm... In real life... I would probably not touch woman acting like damsel in distress even by 10' pole... And this is just one another example how different I see virtual worlds from the real one, in which I spent most of my daily life I concur about the general posts around these forums, people are generally polite, interesting and reasonable. There is no reason we can't be civil to each other even if we are on opposite ends of debate Now just some comments about social justice and how I view issues around it. The main Western countries are typically ahead of other countries and developing countries when it comes to equality and they how address it. So for example in Africa at there moment there are several countries that have recently passed laws that actually criminalize same sex consensual relationships...seriously you'll go to jail for being gay. I can understand that in Slovakia and other places the objectification of women is not a big deal, you have other things that are probably more important to discuss and deal with. But I still believe that issues around social justice, like dealing with homophobia, sexism and racism, are universal themes that should concern us all. But I can understand why for some people its not a big deal. But it doesn't really diminish the importance of the principle around it. Its interesting that story about those guys joking about the fact you live is Slovakia, it was probably not malicious so you joked about it with them. But for me if the jokes were actually annoying I would have said something and or left those groups. But I can see it wasn't big deal for you and you handled it in your own way. Finally as I mentioned in another post, I don't believe in social justice because women ( and other groups) either need me to help them or because my "outrage " makes people think I'm cool. In fact I would argue its more work to debate these points as most people are indifferent or don't like to think that something they like and are participating in is offensive or hurtful to others. I do it because I believe its the right thing to do. Remember I live in a country that legalised and institutionalized racism for decades so I may be more sensitive to these types of things than others and I have first hand experience of what can happen when these issues are just left to fester

I don't know Malc if I can get you to agree with my perspective and embrace various social issues that would be a huge victory. As I mentioned before sometimes its just about giving someone a different perspective, so now next time you buy a game maybe you buy a game a game that doesn't objectify women...small steps Malc ...small steps...."Rome wasn't built in a day" Bruce, the biggest problem is, that we are multicultural bunch. What is considered as objectification in one country is considered as completely normal and in some cases even endorsed by women/minorities... Sorry to say that, but I really do not consider and never will consider bigger boobs in a game/movie/comic as an objectification... believe it or not, I have some female friends with bigger boobs than Lara Croft in Tomb Raider 2... natural boobs, just so you know :D Looking for me on big or small cups in an entertainment media does not affect my thinking about women at all, because for a girlfriend I always pick a girl with smaller cups. I just find smallcupped girls more attractive and not even 200 hours long hungarian porn session can change my preferences on boob/ass/intelectual properties of women or how I respect and treat women... And a game can not change that as well... I play games because they are not real, and I do not have problem nor am I troubled if someone uses sometimes politically incorrect jokes... Because I am from Slovakia, a country which joined EU only few years ago, lot of people in online guilds which I was part of, made jokes about me being from third world country... I was having fun with that, and most of the time, I joined the fun to add some more funny stories from my country to spice up the fun... It really looks to me last few years, that people nowadays are doing everything to make comedy/parody/jokes as something outrageous, and should be avoided in modern society at all costs... Thanks for explaining your position on this topic, you make some good points as usual I would like to respond but I can only do this tomorrow

I don't mean to be overly positive but I'm heading off clubbing with a really attractive girl after one of my best friends wives b-days, I'm a little drunk so it should be a memorable evening. Later guys

What kind of logic is that? Realism does not preclude fiction. I didn't say no harm could be done through fiction either, so well done reading comprehension. I'm pretty sure I said you can't objectify objects, for obvious reasons. I'm skeptical of the moral panic around sex and violence in video games. Yes, and it's a nonsense for people to say they're against discrimination without giving details. No, you've conflated two points. There's nothing wrong with a small development company targeting a niche market, they can't please everyone. You can't expect them to change because it's not up to you what they do, liberalism. Bull****. You couldn't possibly read this from my comments. This is not an honest dialogue. This is also minimizing your claims when you're defending them, by a lot, and grossly exagerating my claims when attacking them. Okay thanks for the comments, to be honest I've made my point several times so I think my position on the objectification of women in games is clear. You and I don't agree and that's okay, we don't have to agree

The sex options were a small part of the gameplay, that shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the whole game?

Flashpoint, Mount&Blade, Arma, Witcher? Really? Flashpoint - never heard of it. Mount&Blade - quake2 graphics and an idea that keeps you excited for half an hour. Arma - engine so bad, it could barely produce 30fps on a high end machine. Witcher - it's for 13 year old boys who sublimate their inability to have real intercourse with a real woman by playing this game, hence its popularity. No rpg value in it whatsoever. And the book is just as bad. The Witcher is considered an excellent RPG, and the Witcher 2 is even better. I l enjoyed the Romance arcs in the Witcher games, but the card system obviously needed to be improved on. So you won't be playing the Witcher 3 when its released?

No, BruceVC advocated not having certain body types because some might find it offensive. It's relevant because people are saying they're offended as if that should count for anything, this is the drive behind a lot of the complaints about video games. If you cannot see how that quote applies to what's being said in this thread then that's your problem. I can't see anyone saying you shouldn't have this discussion or that you should stop because they're offended, so I don't know how you think it applies to others in this thread apart from massive delusion. It's not silly, it's just hypocrisy on your part. Saying you're against discrimination is nonsense, everyone discriminates, it's who and why that's important. It's not very liberal to expect content creators and niche audiences to kowtow to other groups just because they find something offensive. You can't objectify fictional characters, they're already objects. It's easier to market things people already want through cultural and biological biases than manipulating people,game company's marketing departments did not create sexual cultures around the world and do not dictate human biology. Why is this even up for debate? Of course portrayals of certain groups can be changed, question is who makes those decisions and should they be changed. You have strange logic, but thanks for responding I want to be clear I understand what you are saying ( please note this is just a general overview of your perspective) A video cannot represent anything realistic because its just a video game..its fictional and not real so no harm done A person can't be against discrimination because everyone discriminates in there own way You can't expect a small development company to change how they portray characters or themes because this is unreasonable as they are targeting a niche market anyway. They can't please everyone marketing departments have no real influence on what people buy, they are just targeting what certain people already believe

I have just watched Savages and I highly recommend it. Its directed by Oliver Stone and is about 2 guys living in California who sell weed for a living and whose mutual g-friend gets kidnapped by a Mexican cartel. It stars Benicio del Toro who is always a pleasure to watch

Malc I hope you realize that strip clubs are demeaning to women and against the principles of social justice I do frequent strip clubs sometimes, I actually enjoy partying with strippers. They are easy to understand and don't tend to complicate things. Its funny but when I first went to strip clubs I thought I had to save the girls from this "iniquitous" lifestyle . Everyone had a story about why they were doing what they doing but I realized later the girls were just reading my concern and attempting to connect with me so I would feel relaxed. If I now go to strip clubs I do best thing you can do, buy them a few drinks, treat them politely, chat about unimportant things and then pay them for the nights excursions. Keep it simple and don't try to over analyze things is a strip club Next week's lecture in the Bruce's Comportment series will be The House of Lords. Isn't it the same thing, buy them drinks, pay them and don't try to save them from their "iniquitous" lifestyle? clever

Malc I hope you realize that strip clubs are demeaning to women and against the principles of social justice I do frequent strip clubs sometimes, I actually enjoy partying with strippers. They are easy to understand and don't tend to complicate things. Its funny but when I first went to strip clubs I thought I had to save the girls from this "iniquitous" lifestyle . Everyone had a story about why they were doing what they doing but I realized later the girls were just reading my concern and attempting to connect with me so I would feel relaxed. If I now go to strip clubs I do best thing you can do, buy them a few drinks, treat them politely, chat about unimportant things and then pay them for the nights excursions. Keep it simple and don't try to over analyze things is a strip club

Objectified? Yes I would say there is a problem with objectification in games, but it is nothing to do with stylisation or what a character (male or female) looks like, it is more to do with how they are generally portrayed as unthinking brutes who solve every problem with their guns, fists or swords. It's a legitimate character archetype, just as over stylisation and realism in graphics is legitimate, but there needs to be more options other than slaughtering your way through every game. Our characters are objectified as chosen ones and special, despite their frankly (in game) sickening deeds, and fawned over with crude flattery and every character desperately trying to copulate with them, no matter their sexuality or personality. Characters are blatantly and hamfistedly ego stroked, and that is the objectification that I object to. Stylisation, whether of men or women I don't, it's a legitimate graphical choice and I wouldn't dream of enforcing my views upon anybody else. Just as I like the fine armours and armaments of the renaissance era that are due to appear in Poe, so I like the gaudy design of 40k's Adeptus Astarte's, neither are wrong. Edit: All this distasteful flattery does in my eyes is undermine enemies as pathetic and no challenge, make npc's nothing but fodder for the romancers and totally destroy the settings authenticity, but once again I would not campaign against it as it's just a game. A great variety will allow a choice for everyone. That's a good post, end of the day we have different definitions of how characters are objectified. I think the visual aspect is what matters more and of course how the character is portrayed, in other words a gay character that is completely licentious and doesn't show any other redeeming qualities. So I suppose I am talking about stereotyping. But I can see what you saying. Once again we have to agree to disagree. But thanks for explaining your perspective, I have found it interesting

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that. And people don't see anything wrong with Dragon's Crown, that's their choice, and they should be respected for that. They are in exactly the same position as you not seeing anything wrong with the demeaning depiction of women in Bioware games, whether they're trappings or not does not justify them. If you're going to be judgemental then you must also apply your judgements without any form of bias, no matter your personal feelings. Personally I say do not judge, it's not my place as i'm not without fault, I have no mandate from an electoral group and i'm not capable of being a final arbiter in anything. Leave it to the free market, if it sells then it will be made. Nonek did you read that article that Alan posted? In summary one of the points it makes is that there isn't really such a thing as a free market as what most people buy or think is worthwhile is driven by the marketing divisions of companies. So my view is why not make a game that doesn't objectify women or other groups. I've posted the link below so you can read it. http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed That is hardly pertinent to the discussion, that's the developers/publishers and markeitings fault, therefore it's pointless preaching to us to change their practices. The market has supposedly an even fifty percent split in its audience, so it's foolish to ignore that audience, if games are developed for that audience and of sufficient quality then they will sell...in theory. However nobody knows what makes a good game and what is offensive to a certain group, just as you are allright with all characters being portrayed in a demeaning way in DA2, somebody else has no problem with Dragon's Crowns stylisation. Where is the difference here? Simple it is your perception, you say that DA2 is not to be analysed only enjoyed, and yet Dragon's Crown is to be analysed and changed because you find it objectionable. There's a simple way to resolve this, don't buy Dragon's Crown, and let those who do enjoy it purchase it. Their enjoyment doesn't hurt you in any way surely and there is no reason to force your views on them, or them to force their views upon what you like, as we all know what is reality and what is fantasy. Indeed the mind is extremely proficient at seperating reality from simulation, thus accounting for the dreadful wrongness that occurs in our minds eye when the uncanny valley is explored. Stylisation is blatantly very far from reality and no one can argue that it is not, thus to express that the ridiculous forms of Dragon's Crown are harming the portrayal of women is to say that players are mentally unbalanced, not able to tell apart simulation from reality, and that no game can have any other style than realism. This is unreasonable and illogical. I would argue that players can tell simulation from reality, that they do not treat women like they treat pixels and they enjoy games for pure entertainments sake. As they should, that is their function. You have raised some good points and some I agree with. But I don't want this discussion to become fixated just on Dragon Crown, there are broader issues here. Let me ask you a different question, do you think there is a problem with women being objectified in some games? And do you think this should be addressed? Now I can guess what you going to say, you'll say " but the objectification of women in games is subjective, just like I don't think Dragon Crown demeans women and you think DA2 is fine " ( am I right? )

No. I don't think they're phrased as reasonable points, I'm not sure what your points are because of the ridiculous formation. 1. ****'em. As I'd say to homophobes who would have a problem with Temple of Elemental Evil or Dragon Age: Origins. People should mind their own business, the people "offended" are not the audience, most of the time they'll never experience the game because they're not the audience. Should we remove homosexuality, violence, politics, etc...? Someone is going to get offended by it. I get offended by stuff in games, but I'm not prissy and self-entitled so I just stop playing and not buy games by that developer. It's the opposite of reasonable to expect others to bend to your mores, that doesn't happen in a free society. 2. That's making huge assumptions in what will and won't dminish the actual enjoyment of the game. Also it's the decision of the developer what they want to make and it's the decision of the publisher what they want to fund. 3. A marketing company that consistantly gets it wrong won't last. You making silly comparisons to what I am trying to say, obviously I'm a liberal so I am opposed to any kind of discrimination and bigotry and that includes homophobia. In fact I often raise that same sex relationships should be an option in any implementation of Romance in a game in the interests of inclusivity. You should go back and read this discussion from the beginning because to be honest I'm going to keep repeating what I have said, sorry In summary You can make a game without objectifying women You can't say with absolute certainty that " fans want xxx" or "fans want yyy" because the marketing direction of a company influences what people think is appealing. Change the marketing and you'll change what people want. Its simple But I can say that some games and the way they portray certain groups of people are offensive to those people. There is no reason that this can't be changed

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that. And people don't see anything wrong with Dragon's Crown, that's their choice, and they should be respected for that. They are in exactly the same position as you not seeing anything wrong with the demeaning depiction of women in Bioware games, whether they're trappings or not does not justify them. If you're going to be judgemental then you must also apply your judgements without any form of bias, no matter your personal feelings. Personally I say do not judge, it's not my place as i'm not without fault, I have no mandate from an electoral group and i'm not capable of being a final arbiter in anything. Leave it to the free market, if it sells then it will be made. Nonek did you read that article that Alan posted? In summary one of the points it makes is that there isn't really such a thing as a free market as what most people buy or think is worthwhile is driven by the marketing divisions of companies. So my view is why not make a game that doesn't objectify women or other groups. I've posted the link below so you can read it. http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed