Monkcrab

A race that, although once alive like any regular joe, has accidentally undead'd themselves through an accidental magic experiment/explosion/THING on a genocidal scale? As a result, they're all centuries-old and decaying with a sentient mind screaming inside their heads, unable to die but unable to live, there are no children, no hope, and not even antidepressants work because no functional biological systems? Everyone thinks they're gigantic downers and oh god they smell, but they're invaluable as advisors due to having The Long View? tl;dr, a whole race of undescribed sentients that accidentally turned themselves into liches?

Oh I don't doubt the teams ability to write a setting and story I'll adore for one second, I was just arguing against what I percieve as sexist attitudes here on the forum, as I think others are as well. So you admit it has nothing to do with the game at all as to why you are here arguing with others, it is not to improve the game, it is to berate other people who happen to frequent this forum or support this game. In which case it has nothing to do with Project Eternity and would be better served on a politically or social mainstream site that is dedicated to enforcing changes in perception. In other words your using this site for your own political or social agenda... Need I remind you of where you are "Project Eternity Speculation & Discussion". So in this new found conclusion shouldn't this thread be locked since what it is being used for is not what this forum is about? Haven't you taken it off topic by your own admission? It has to do with the game because some people with sexist attitudes were insisting that the sexist attitudes affected the game. That's where the argument started. Not going to lie, though, it did get derailed in a big way. Whether it gets locked or not depends on the mods, however, so it's neither your call nor anyone else's. Heck, J.E. Sawyer himself came and derailed the topic, even if just in a different way!

Modron-likes! But they're probably hard to do, unless there's a God of Pedantry somewhere making them as his race or something. Insects that go through different stages in their lives, and their personalities change as they do? We've seen a lot of ants and bees, but how about dragonflies? Solitary predators that fly. Intelligent and sentient. Shrewd and cunning. Builds no home. They'll eat anything outside walls, but once in a while they come down to cities to discuss philosophy because flying and eating all the time is boring. They're existentialists, even. The guy discussing the beauty of the world in the bar with you might just apologize nicely and try to eat your entrails when you meet him again outside because hey, it's food, it's not personal? I'd love to see what Obsidian means by races that are truly alien, though. I don't think they lack imagination in this regard.

Witch hunts remind me too much of Dragon Age 2, to be honest, but if they do it I'm sure they can avoid the annoyances of that game's plot. Skills which are forbidden are interesting, though, if it's actually implemented like regular crime systems in the game, but in given regions. An interesting point might be *why* exactly these skills are forbidden. Perhaps it's because the Powers That Be want to control it as a resource, and unauthorized use is fatal. Perhaps it's because of fear of what it might do. Perhaps it might be of some feuds between the gods. And actually a more interesting part might be participating in an actual witch hunt, with all the irrationalities it contains. It's very easy to do wrong, though. Are mage hunters only mage hunters because it's profitable to do so, e.g. mages are rich, and therefore it's nice to have a tool you can rob mages with, or is it because mages are things that should be hunted?

A world without children is weird, but often doable thanks to suspension of disbelief. A world with inexplicably immortal children, on the other hand....

Actually, with the plot of the game being what it is, I think that third option should've been 'just in the wrong place at the wrong time'....

Basically this. Not sure if Grimlorn is being sarcastic. I mean, he should be, since it's Obsidian's magic system and only they have the final say of who's being better at whom or as equal as whom. But with the way the thread is going, I think my sarcasm radar is a little bit fried.

Yay, if it doesn't take away too much from resources, fit the theme, and the Obsidian writers think it's a good idea. Gigantic NAY if not any of the above.

Men and women can never be equal. Our differences have come from thousands of years of evolution and are biological. The woman in the OP is complaining about something that exists not only in video games but society itself. So singling out the video game industry is incredibly stupid. But hey she got 7,000 people to give her $150k. Really women only have the not getting equal pay for equal work thing to complain about. All the rest is BS. And there is nothing productive that can come out of talking about this because everyone already knows that we can never really be equal. The truth isn't going to change. Nope, men and women will never be the same. But we can definitely do more to take the other side's pros and cons into consideration, both for male and female sides, so I wouldn't say it's entirely BS. There's a way/time/place to discuss it, though, and Sarkesian is doing it so, so wrong. p.s. I think women wearing skimpy clothing for the purpose of sexuality is rather fine, tbh. It's when everyone's wearing skimpy armor just because they're 'nicer to look at' and leaving gaping holes over their cleavages that it becomes a problem.

........................and treating women's issues with respect means 'no sexual conflict or bigotry' HOW? If anything, a realistic take on it is just the opposite! Who are these hypothetical feminists demanding that we have games where 'we all get along'? I see perhaps one, maybe two people in here asking for that. What's this supposedly impossible-to-satisfy feminist crowd? I NEVER said every game should cater to everybody. I SAID that every game has an interest in taking the CONCERNS of women into consideration. Women are an incredibly diverse group, just like men, and if you think women are a nebulous 'everybody', you're doing it wrong. All I said in my original argument is that it's wrong to 'blithely ignore women's concerns, just because it's for men and will forever be for men because we're never opening it up to women, shuddup, even though women play this too.' Yes, it's wrong. I never demanded that women be equal in the games, and many others here didn't. And yet, they're all demanding feminists, because how dare they complain that RPGs should not all be about male players! ...........all right. I should REALLY be done, now. Arguing with this is not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, and what we are really trying to do NOW is to make the other look like the unreasonable idiot in this argument. I think you've said your defense, I've said mine, let the other readers be the judge and the jury of what we said. I will not reply to this argument again.

And you know this how? I believe it, based on the costs of game development. Take a look at: http://www.notenough...fall-of-gaming/ P:E isn't Max Payne 3, but neither is it a little Indie game being coded by one guy ... it's very serious money. The Kickstarter money is really what they thought they could get to kick-start development; by the time you factor in marketing, this is going to be an expensive game to develop, so don't think that the guys are Obsidian are thinking that it's game over and they've already won. Those costs are going to be affected by the scope and technology you're doing it with, though. IIRC Obsidian has stated on Kickstarter that 1.1 million is enough to do what they want to do, that oldschool RPG development with modern tools cost less, that they know how to budget. I'd like to take them at their word, since they're the one with experience in this and not me.

How is putting in controversial topics INTELLIGENTLY being a soapbox? If any way, that's one of the few ways to avoid turning it into a soapbox. That's all anyone's asking. That if there is female inequity, it be treated with respect and thoughtfulness, and not 'just because it's the way things are, shuddup, this is a medium for a male audience'. Not dismissing viewpoints in a debate =/= do whatever we say or you're a rabid propagandist. Nobody ever said anyone's a rape supporter, nazi, or baby eaters. Well, maybe lord of flies, but he/she seems to be trolling. There's women here asking for other things. You're just not listening to them because you're only listening to what you wish to hear, i.e. what confirms your beliefs that you're right.

It's a massive ball of 'oh god stop making my side look like raging idiots facepalm cringe headwall how did people donate to her again'. Yes. There's searching for examples of inequity in media, and there's flying off the handle for everything that does not make women super-empowered and super-capable. Both of which are just as bad.

"Women don't play RPGs, so there's no need to make RPGs that (contain features which) cater to women." Go back in time a little bit, and this becomes : "Women don't read books, so there's no need to write books that (contains elements which) cater to women." "Women don't do activity X, so there's no need for activity X to cater listen to the concerns of women." I don't want to prolong the point, but really, THIS is one of the reasons why yes, you should try to cater to women. They're 50% of the population, after all, and perhaps once more women has figured out that they don't have to like barbies because all games for girls are about barbies and Babysittingz, RPGs might find a new market, sell more, and we might be in less of a predicament where 90% of games are made solely---not just cater---to the whims of teenaged males. Older, wiser males benefit, too! Opening genres up to women has led to diversification of said genre through the ages, while closing off a genre tends to simplify it to a greater degree. It's got to start SOMEWHERE. See this is the other examples I hate. Oh, we are supressing women by not making them anything but equel in EVERY piece of work. Regardless if its real or fictional. Then we have the argument that opening up games will have more women interested in it...um, games are already open to women. There are whole gaming sections that are dedicated to it, in fact there are gaming groups that only make games for women. Now, the argument that if rpgs were more open to women they will magically come is just silly. I see this argument used in every debate like this and its nothing more than wishful thinking. There are more women playing hardcore games, but not by much, until we get some real numbers its debatable. However, I love that to get these *potential* women players, we have to take stuff away that a lot of *real* old school players like. Let me ask this back to you : did you read what I wrote? I never said we need to make women equal in every piece of work. You're only reading what you wish to hear. What I said, specifically, is that it is important that women's concerns are listened to when creating a piece of work, and not just shot down because 'it's not for them'. Because it will NEVER be for them, in that case. This does not necessarily imply that 'all women in games must be treated with equity'. That's idiotic. Not all women in books are empowered, and it's important that they are not empowered where they're not supposed to be, setting-wise. What it DOES imply is that, one CANNOT just dismiss their concerns just because it's 'not their place.' What do stuff that 'real (male) oldschool players like' do you have to take away to listen to women's concerns, exactly? Is 'historical inequity for women' that important for oldschool RPG players? Skimpy armor? Sex-object women? Is that what you look for in RPGs? Is this important to being oldschool? Are you suggesting that by making RPGs appeal to women, they all have to contain features like Facebook games, barbie games? Can we have no discussion of gender at all, and women JUST have to be unequal because RPGs are all based on Medieval Europe and that's just the way it was? What are oldschool players losing that is so important that they cannot afford to lose, that they can dismiss the other 50% of the human population? I don't think that's what you want to say, but once again, listen to what you're actually saying. It's very easy to say that 'they don't want what I want, and what I want are not what they want' when you never ask or try to offer what they want in the first place. And yes, if games of any type appeal more to women, they WILL 'magically' come, because they're not as predisposed towards the whole 'women don't play games' trope as you'd like to believe. It's been that way for EVERY SINGLE KIND OF MEDIA in the past. I don't see why it will not be for games. What is so special about RPGs that it defies every prior historical example? Also, if you say 'games are already open to women, there are groups that already make games dedicated to women', HAHAHA. Oh my god, that is RICH. What games would those be, pray tell? Babyz? Dress up? Cooking Mama? Facebook games? Don't say the Sims, btw, that's made for both genders, women just decide to play them more.The otome games made by Japan doesn't count, btw. But I suppose you are set in your views, because that's how opinions are. I will sound like the feminist bastard trying to convince you that P:E need to have politcally correct female empowerment, when I am only trying to say that 'dismissing female viewpoints on traditionally male subjects because they're female is a fallacy'. And you will continue to insist that the old way is the ONLY way to be, because they offer what you like, so why should they change? This is a subject with strong opinions. It's because it's a subject with strong opinions not liable to change, that it has became a cultural issue. I've said all that I wish to say on the subject, and may others who did not press the skip button at the sight of the post make their own judgements.

I've never had a villain I hate effectively. Usually they're sympathetic, or just generic idiots. Most well-done villains seem to be in the sympathetic range, e.g. Ravel. If they need to create a villain I'd love to hate, though, Obsidian could just make a faction and model it after EA. Now THAT, I would hate with the fire of a thousand suns, and would gleefully and happily murder them and/or level up enough to murder them. Could be writing something they know, too! Ultima's done it before...

Read the poll. There are people who have voted for romances no matter what significant resources were taken from other parts of the game. That's incredibly entitled. All that says is that they value romance over other story elements. Now, this is a position I disagree with, but that's like their opinion man. They just sound entitled because you, generic 'you' used to refer to non-romance fans, value other story elements more than romance. To them, generic you will sound entitled, too, for demanding that the feature you want should have more priority than the feature they want. Ugly, right? (Incidentally, I voted yes on all of these.)

"Women don't play RPGs, so there's no need to make RPGs that (contain features which) cater to women." Go back in time a little bit, and this becomes : "Women don't read books, so there's no need to write books that (contains elements which) cater to women." "Women don't do activity X, so there's no need for activity X to cater listen to the concerns of women." I don't want to prolong the point, but really, THIS is one of the reasons why yes, you should try to cater to women. They're 50% of the population, after all, and perhaps once more women has figured out that they don't have to like barbies because all games for girls are about barbies and Babysittingz, RPGs might find a new market, sell more, and we might be in less of a predicament where 90% of games are made solely---not just cater---to the whims of teenaged males. Older, wiser males benefit, too! Opening genres up to women has led to diversification of said genre through the ages, while closing off a genre tends to simplify it to a greater degree. It's got to start SOMEWHERE.

Not on either side of the fence re : romance, but entitlement is an ugly word that is almost ad hominem. Anyone could say anyone's entitled about anything. Insisting that the game has BG styled combat? Entitlement. Insisting that guns not be in the game? Entitlement. Insisting that Linux support be added? Entitlement. Really, it's such a vague, ugly catchall.

I was not commenting on what you want for women in the game. Personally, I don't really want politically correct, whitewashed, tropified women in games, either. They're unrealistic as all hell, which makes me hate them worse than damsels in distress. At least damsels in distress don't go around waving the 'look at me! I'm totally not a gratification object or anything!' flag at it. I was commenting on how you said that RPGs are basically targeted towards men with few women playing them, which makes it fine to completely cater to men without addressing the concerns of women. i.e. women's concerns should not affect RPGs, which is men's entertainment. You suplemented your argument with the fact that romance novels are for women, and men are sexualized there as well, so 'to each their own'. Which is a fallacy. Romance novels are closer to porn for women, while the RPG argument is better served by comparisons to comic books and sport magazines. Traditionally geared for men, with no reason to do so beyond 'just because'. I have no wish to call you women-hating or anything of the sort. I did, however, wish to point out that by supporting the perpetuation of privileged viewpoints does nothing to serve your argument. Also, calling other statistics lies when your own statistics is conjecture also does not make your argument stronger. If this happens every time you make such an argument, perhaps you should REALLY rethink what your argument looks like to other people. Others in the thread not wanting 'empowered women in the game because setting' did just fine. In fact, your first post before this was not bad. Wording is your friend.

Voted yes. Suikoden 2, I'm still looking at you. Fondly. IDK how much it'll cost, though.

This. By doing that, the only one who truly loses is Obsidian. Do we really want Obsidian to lose?

I think the OP is more asking for female characters who actually have their own character and personality, not just another female trope, even one arguably seen as positive sexism. I do want a politically correct game, not in the sense that everyone gets along all happy and smiley - I agree, that would be boring - but in the sense that racism is highlighted as vile, and that female characters get equal screentime and agency within the world. I don't like the argument "it's a fantasy setting", it's rings too similar to "it's just a game." The problem is that games don't exist in a vacuum. Selling a fantasy setting where most of the female characters players meet work as prostitutes to an audience that is - let's face it - mostly male may seem like good marketing, but would only end up reinforcing the notion of women as sex objects. (I'd like to make it clear I'm not suggesting that this is what Obsidian plan on doing, I'm just using it as an example.) That said, I don't think Obsidian need Sarkeesian's help on this, they've shown themselves pretty good in this regard already. I donated to her kickstarter and look forward to seeing the results. I may not agree with everything she says, but oh man did it piss me off that people were saying she shouldn't be doing this. The reaction to the video - provoked or not, I choose to believe not - shows that someone really does need to highlight the gender politics of gaming. I don't want the argument that it is offending women. Its virtual people in a fantasy setting. We are on oposite spectrums then. The way I look at it is, do they cater to straight men? Yes, that is the majority of RPG gamers. I am sure you are about to pull the numberse that women gamers like to pull up showing that (esa? statistics) 47% of gamers are female. That is a flat lie, or more precisely, that covers ALL games, mobile, facebook, etc. Women who play hardcore old school RPGs or project eternity like games? I would be surprised if its even near 5%. I am also sure someone is about to use the argument that it needs to cater to women to bring them into games like this. Wrong, these games are already a nitch market, most women are not interested in this genre. It has been shown that there are PLENTY of games that cater to women, do I want them change and cater to men because I feel I am not targeted? Nope, to each their own. I like to use the bookstore example, there is books for everybody, there are genres that lean toware men and women readers. Take the romance section, that is designed for women obviously. The men are sexualized beyond belief, do I go to the authors and demand they change the writing to stop writing men as sex objects? DO I tell them that they should open up romance to men even though the vast majority of men are not interested in the genre? No, there are other books that cater to my taste. Romance caters to women because that is their biggest market, and there is nothing wrong with that. Most hardcore games like RPG's cater to mens power fantasy because that is there biggest market. I do apologize if my example isn't great. I explained this much better in another forum a while back, but I cannot find it. Still, I just want to play a believable game setting that isn't shoving political correctness down my throat. Its escapism, not a political advertisement. tl;dr, you're saying 'get out of the boys' entertainment, women'. Not to be rude, but perhaps you might want to rethink what you're really saying and apologizing for. Most women in my life hate romance books with a passion, btw. Perception goes a long way towards self-perpetuation.

Obsidian has repeatedly shown that they can write female characters as interesting, respectable characters in their own right. In fact, they write every character interestingly and respectably regardless of gender, period. That's part of why I like them : by not trying to have a message, they're actually sending out the most gender-positive message of empowerment of them all. Didn't someone say somewhere that Commander Shepard was hailed as an iconic female character only because Bioware was too cheap to treat her differently from Male Shepard, which makes her just as interesting as a 'character' as he is, without all the rest of the 'politically correct' baggage? (If not more, because Jennifer Hale.)

Spells having utilitarian use would be great. I remember how in QFG3, you never had to bother with a tinderbox as a mage because you can just fireball it. That's a game where having magic is truly versatile, because it's not just 'what kind of damage can I inflict with bat guano today'. It's obviously going to be really hard to make magic spells interact with the surroundings, though. Everything's got to be separately scripted and animated.

Yes, with some reservations : don't kick forward more than you can afford for the next game, please! But yes, I do want a Kick It Forward thing. It will generate goodwill, and goodwill is ultimately the best thing on Obsidian's side. After all, that's what many of us are here for---the quality of the work is part of it, yes, but I'm sure many of us are here because we like Obsidian. Kicking It Forward will help more people to like Obsidian. And that can be no bad thing.