Nonek

Pretty sure you're just seeing what you want to see, here. Seems borne out by evidence in the game to my mind, but then again everyone is different and those differences are to be respected so i'll simply say fair enough and bow out, as i'm getting sick of my own words. TTFN.

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.

Well the insult would be implicit in the fact that she hasn't the brain power to dress reasonably for the climate or the constant combat, that she is enslaved to the protagonists commands for years at a time for no good reason (she's the captain, he's the penniless immigrant,) that she does nothing over those years to resolve her own problems and when she finally acts has to have the protagonist hold her hand and if romanced it is revealed that all she needed to open up would be sex with the protagonist. Thus as I pointed out she's portrayed as stupid, unmotivated, idle, powerless and incompetent, but as i've said it's just entertainment and shouldn't be judged or have issues clumsily attached to it. Personally I don't see what tropes she's exploring, there's the sub par Joss Whedon dialogues (I like big boats - how current) and her being sexually promiscuous, but it's only a child who believes that sexuality has to be portrayed through skimpy clothing and constant crude references. Edit: As i've said before I put sixty hours into DA2 and enjoyed it however, as that's what games are there to do, trying to hamfistedly force issues into a virtual construct is pointless. The demeaning treatment of women is fairly blatant to me, but that's because of how my mind works and I don't campaign for it to be changed by Bioware, because it's just a game.

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.

Mr. Hanky?

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. Edit: Well family commitments call, thank you for the discussion, the chance to stretch my mental muscles and the frank exchange of views ladies and gentlemen, and for now adieu.

And yet that doesn't diminish the insulting aspects of her character Nepenthe, but as games are played purely for enjoyment as Bruce states there's no use trying to force issues into them, but play them just for enjoyment alone. Or is there something that marks out Dragon's Crown as a target but doesn't the more demeaning aspects of DA2? Seems a little unfair and biased if so. @True Netutral: Totally agree.

Ah that's why it doesn't work on me, i'm an emotionless shell of a man. Or English.

Well as I said that's your perogative Bruce, the fact that Aveline is incompetent at her job as is demonstrated by the bandits every ten feet in Kirkwall, that both her and all the companions slavishly obey the protagonist (putting their lives on the line) for no good reason, that none of them can pursue their own objectives without the protagonist holding their hand, that they hang around for ten years doing nothing at all and not even gaining levels, that they cannot even clothe themselves properly for the environment that seems to bear out my claims. But at the end of the day however it's all a matter of taste, and I won't criticise you for liking these characters, just as I won't criticise Dragon's Crown players for liking their overly stylised graphics, if somebody doesn't like it then simply don't buy it. The market allows freedom of choice. @True Neutral: I agree that both genders are handled insultingly, but the conversation is revolving around women.

If you don't find lazy, stupid, umotivated and incompetent slaves to be offensive that is your perogative Bruce, but if so it hardly seems you've got a leg to stand on when campaigning for social justice.

Sorry but to me i'm afraid that Isabella is worse Bruce, i've pointed this out before and don't really wish to say it again but she wears a shirt into the the combats which occur every ten feet in Kirkwall, a shirt which doesn't provide enough enviromental protection to ensure she doesn't catch hypothermia, she's an utterly ridiculous character stylised in much the same manner as the Elf Drudanae shows from Dragon's Crown. This along with her passivity, idleness, stupidity and willingness to enslave herself for no good reason to the protagonist is an insulting depiction of a woman. Personally if I were crusading for better female role models i'd use her as what not to do, along with the supposedly "strong" guardswoman who is incompetent and needs help courting. Edit: I also feel that there's nothing wrong with Dragon's Crowns art style, it's massively over stylised for both men and women but that is not in any way a bad thing. It's internally consistent and colourful, everything in the world is similarly designed, and if one objects to that then simply don't purchase it.

It seems that way to me too, but then again Dragon Age 2 features Isabella whose character is equally as sexualised and ludicrous as any in Dragon's Crown but is also personality wise an insulting depiction of women in general. But yes i'd generally agree it's up to the developers to produce a variety of body and character types in their games, from the over stylised to the uncanny valley, and then let market forces decide what they want. If the characters and games are good enough then they will be bought, whether by men or women. So it's all up to the developers and publishers, there are supposed to be more and more women in gaming, time for somebody to step up to the plate and cater to them with characters like Kreia, Cass, Philippa Eilhart etcetera, whom are smart, self motivated and powerful.

I wonder if one can draw away stragglers from a group through rubbing your circle (ooh err) against theirs, is that tactic possible or is the whole group automatically alerted I wonder?

I'd rather not use the Forgotten Realms and the Drow, both are painfully overused and shallow in my experience, but based on determined limited contact here goes...Considering Lolth's priestesses are the dominant ruling force in Drow society then one suspects that Lolth is in that position of worship exactly because of the gifts she gives, they're an edge in the self advancement that Drow society espouses, though the notion of a strong Elf is laughable. Assuming that the little chaps are using her for their own advancement, in their own eyes, and she is gaining strength from their worship then this is a symbiotic relationship that would work...in theory. She's been around for a long time, she's survived, thrived and so has her religion becoming in the process a very real power in and of itself. Personally I think the Drow are an insultingly simplified race, that no nation will ever consider itself evil and that Gods are not needed at all, but I think the culture that we are shown of them generally works. However we're not really shown enough of a cultural side to the Drow beyond them serving as overpowered cliche PC's and stereotypical high level enemies. I suppose the theatrics are needed because they're Elves, and they're a theatrical race. Edit: The chaotic evil gods are sometimes simplified down to being the biggest bullies on top of the pile, this makes sense for Lolth.

There's no known methods of healing or ressurection in Poe I believe Mr Naesh, and from what one has read the deity's are quite petty and bickering. Recently a Saint Waidwen was slain by bomb near Godhammer Citadel, forged with the help of followers of an enemy god, Maeghran I think was the name. There might be something similar to what you suggest among the Glenfathan, but we haven't any information yet. By the sounds of it most Dyrwood faiths will be political institutions just like in say Medieval Europe.

Personally I can't see the point of this changing of breast size, the whole game is stylised and wholly seperated from reality, if they want to reflect reality then they'd best rebuild the graphics engine from the ground up. Presumably they want and liked the idea of a stylised game, so why the sudden change in direction to please the proportion of people who prefer smaller breasts, especially when breast size in the western world has been growing over the past few decades? Personally i'd say that characters should be the developers or players business, if a character creator exists, and that they should adhere to the graphical themes and internal consistency of their games not try to cater to any minority. Especially not the minority who focus overmuch on the size of pixelated breasts, or prefer one size to another. To me it seems strange that all this attention is paid to physical characteristics, when far more damning are the female characters who not only are designed as sexualised objects but also are portrayed character wise as slaves to the protagonist, idle, unmotivated, stupid and not even capable of dressing appropriately. I suppose it speaks to the modern obsession with looks over personality and achievements. Might be a good idea to open a thread on stylisation versus realism in graphics.

With Fighters being basically target dummies and recieving so much damage perhaps one might become addicted to some form of pain relief, and this escalates into either rejecting the addiction or embracing it, with appropriate characterisation and modifiers. And who could blame the individual for falling back on such measures when dealing with pain, though of course there should be an option for developing a stiff upper lip to deal with such things.

Great minds and all that.

Disguise a al Pope Joan if choosing the Knight class? Certainly add an intriguing aspect to the game, and would not deny any budding Brienne's from playing, but I don't wish to derail the thread with the usual arguments. Edit: Rogue and Bard shouldn't be a problem I suspect however. Also just as a matter of clarification Joan of Arc never fought in a battle or killed anyone, she served as inspiration and a living banner for the French forces. I'd personally cite the D'Homey Amazon's, though I don't know if that's spelled correctly.

No Elves, take my money good sirs. I like what I heard in the Pitch video and have pledged, though I hope we have the choice of character creation (with female options for those whom play them) as the default gentleman is the usual ho-hum protagonist archetype, middle of the road in every sense. Also let a grinder show you how to use a wheel and float a blade properly.

My dear misguided Nonek, it's a common knowledge that green tea is superior in every way to the ovestated earl grey. And please, don't even start with it's being suitable for a refined gentleman - I heard that already and the fact I'm foreigner (thus supposedly accustomed to the bland tastes of green tea) doesn't make your unreasonable opinion any more valid Diclamer for those unfortunate enough (as I bet Nonek understood the joke): GO PLAY ARCANUM :D And I love earl grey. Coincidentally I'm sipping one at the very moment. Hmmm... I doubt he gets it, he is English and you NEVER joke about tea with them My dear Sir, how could one concievably fail to peruse Tarant's finest purveyor of oddities and otherworldly's that is HT Parnell's? Why the gentleman has on display a two headed cow, along with the Mr. Thelonius Remmington Garfield the Third that we are currently discussing.

I don't mind scouring and exploring the gameworld for quests, nor new quests opening up due to my actions, if the gameworld is interesting and reactive enough then to do so should be a treat.

When I was 10 I created a dungeon with an elephant in it. It wasn't the only thing in it and in my defense I was 10. Oh yeah and the Elephant had fallen through the ceiling and had half-hit points because of it. But did the players care about my finely crafted dungeon? Noooo....but then they wouldn't let me run them through TOMB OF HORRORS either...and quit my Star Frontiers game too...a sign perhaps? The quest hook was "there's loot in a dungeon, if you like loot go there." Morale of the story: Not everyone is equipped to be a good DM. Or don't let 10 year-olds create adventures in an RPG no matter how much they pester everyone. Something like that. Anyhow, does seem a really big plot railroad there. It worked for Robert E Howard, classic. Personally I too found myself as an unproven and ambitious GM crafting great worlds, mythologies, pantheons and constellations. However my campaigns slimmed down over time, becoming smaller, far more detailed and reactive with the players being known and having a background within the settings. My last really great campaign was set in a small crumbling rural barony, with an idyllic village as the players home, slumbering under the half ruined remains of an ancient watchtower, and all about a great sea of swaying golden wheat ripening in the sun. I used a lot of Vaughan William's and Elgar to enhance the mood of the setting, and changed to more Wagnerian and Orff themes for when the players were involved in more dramatic passtimes, visiting the Watchwall Hills nearby where the ancient dead slumbered uneasily, the lonely wind whistling Ironmoor an accursed and barren battlefield of antiquity, the cool and dusty virgin forests of the Canthawud or the Ten Tall Men henge that arose in the midst of the great Goodmeadow Plains. It was an attempt to make a setting of massive detail that the players felt responsible for, that they felt was worth fighting to preserve, and by and large it succeeded. There was literally no end to the detail one could cram into that setting, and yet it only covered a few leagues of land.

Does Earl Grey count as a drug? If so I shall be a vicarious abuser.

Personally I don't find pixels attractive no matter what their design, whether stylised as hyper masculine or feminine, I know some people do fixate on their virtual attachments but one should certainly not cater to that type. As i've said previously i'd rather the characters show a strong personality, keen wits and self motivation rather than being decided by commitee or the arbitrary checklists of the time period however, which are forever mutable anyway. That said the game that sparked the debate is just an outrageously designed world anyway, and hardly the place for a serious debate.