jezz555

So genetic engineering is out for you, but "the blood of a dragon" is a-okay? No they are both fine, what isn't is unexplained incongruities with the real world. This thread was originally about sexism/realism remember? Not firefly. I am explaining to you the difference between realistic fantasy, and unrealistic fantasy, you are changing the subject to whether firefly is better than Game of Thrones. Which is just about the definition of missing the point.

And that's different from the movie describing how River is a hyper lethal telepathic killing machine engineering by the top scientists of a galaxy spanning government how? Or Buffy being described as a Slayer? Edit: And just for fun: "Through a variety of techniques (e.g. martial training, meditation, ritualistic evocation, mortification of the flesh), some individuals are able to draw upon the energy of their soul to accomplish extraordinary feats. These abilities range from the mundanely superhuman to the explosively magical." Superhuman? You. Don't. Say. And I quote " I'm not a fire-fly expert so I can't really comment". Imo saying somebody is a "Slayer"or "rofl genetic engineering", to somehow make up for their total lack of muscle mass or martial training is a pretty crummy explanation( and why I don't like Joss Whedon's stuff) but Whedon does at least try to explain it(sort of), so it's irrelevant. I'm not debating fire-fly fluff with you, It was a general example. Are you saying fantasy doesn't require explanation or being deliberately ignorant? Because at this point I can't tell...

So realism versus, what's the word, it starts with an F. Oh yea. Fantasy. no realistic fantasy vs. unrealistic fantasy. < seriously. Realistic fantasy is a bit of an oxymoron though isn't it. For all the "realism" that song of ice and fire had, walking into funeral pyres still seemed a bit unrealistic (but maybe I've been hanging out with the wrong crowd). I guess all the raping and politics made up for that, right? Beside that, how is River an unrealistic character? There are plenty of martial arts around the world that focus on small extremely athletic fighters (River) taking down much larger and more brutish opponents (Brien). Sure they may not allow said fighter to go 1v100 against armed psychopaths, but beating insurmountable odds is kind of a staple of fantasy (unless you want the PC to get beaten and raped the first time she encounters more than 3 bandits). No, it's not. I don't know how many times this has been explained, so I will be brief. Good fantasy injects fantastical elements into the real world, not fantasy into more fantasy. For example, what would the world be like with dragons? With magic? ect. that's more or less what A Song of Ice and Fire does. Unless otherwise stated the laws of physics ect. remain roughly the same. If a person doesn't have an ounce of muscle-mass on their body(River) they are not strong. It's that simple. Any kind of training you would do, would build at least a degree of muscle, and how much training could she have done given how old she is? I'm not a fire-fly expert so I can't really comment, but it's ridiculous no matter how you slice it. I'm not sure how you've been around these forums for as long as you have without at least absorbing the concept of "verisimilitude" it's very, very simple.If there is no sexism in the world and 10 year old girls can beat up the main antagonists of your universe, why is that? How am I supposed to accept this as credible if you don't even bother to explain. I know why these things aren't the case in the real world, why are they the case in universe? Why doesn't anybody acknowledge how weird they are? If something in the world conflicts with reality, explain it, otherwise it's just lazy writing.

So realism versus, what's the word, it starts with an F. Oh yea. Fantasy. no realistic fantasy vs. unrealistic fantasy. < seriously.

The reason when I say "sexism" the implication is that it's anti-female sexism, is that, that has largely been the case in the real world. Assuming humans in PE are like humans in the real world for the most part, and other than certain fantastical additions the world works in similar ways to how ours worked at that time period its safe to assume the majority of sexual discrimination you would see would be on this level. My main point in starting this thread was an interest in realistic "strong-woman" protagonists as opposed to the kind of thing you would see stumbling around in the Whedon-verse. (skinny, beautiful, young girl who can somehow beat up a roomful of enraged cannibals armed with swords an axes). But on another note I also would like PE to not shy away from stuff that doesn't adhere strictly to political correctness, so that's why it's sexism in general. So man rape? How much would that suck? if your character get's arrested by the town guards for stealing something and instead of just having to pay a fine or w/e, you get sent to prison and raped? It would be a great way to keep people from committing crimes I guess, but I'm not sure I could look my character in the eye after that. We cannot accept a mere supposition unsupported by any document. Armor was not viewed as exclusively "male" in that era, any more than a bullet-proof vest is exclusively "male". Another, more innocent, misconception is the notion that Joan of Arc was a "feminist", a label which is not only an anachronism but is also called into question by her own comments, which seem to indicate that she preferred sewing, weaving, and other "womanly duties"; and she boasted that she could rival any woman with a needle and spindle. When asked why she wasn't doing such "womanly duties" in late 1429 and early 1430, she merely replied (with her usual matter-of-factness) that there were an abundant number of other women who were already doing such tasks. These comments would not seem to reflect a "feminist philosophy" (a feminist would presumably call for an end to such roles for women rather than embracing them with such enthusiasm). Sorry but you've misquoted me. I never said Joan of Arc was a feminist, nor would I. She was a female who fought in wars, that's all I said. "Overcoming adversity" does not mean being a feminist...is English not your first language? Furthermore armour was not viewed as exclusively male, because the idea of a woman in armour back then was so ridiculous as to not even be considered. But I never said it was exclusively "male" so... And women in Saudi Arabia having acid thrown into their faces for going to school? Would you say that's sexist, or is it just my western perception that makes me think that's horrible?

Lets toss rape in there as well because, you know, it's realistic. You clearly disagree here, so let's hear your case. Let's keep it focused then. Sexism is something I hadn't really heard discussed in the "maturity" threads, but I did see people posting "realistic female armour" with the assumption that a woman in armour would be a common sight in this game. If you think this thread is somehow boring or a re-hash, feel free to not post.

Of course this could all work the other way. We could also see matriarchal societies, where men are the ones facing discrimination. isn't that more of a sci-fi trope? no, dark-elf society is matriarchal in D&D IIRC.

I'm really not sure, I just want a good ending that fits, the specifics aren't that important to me.

Of course this could all work the other way. We could also see matriarchal societies, where men are the ones facing discrimination.

In most fantasy games it seems to be the norm that sexism doesn't exist and that women and men have the same basic rights and societal roles in the world. But I'm not sure if this is necessarily the best way to handle things (hear me out here). Part of what makes characters like Brienne in SoIF or Joan of Arc interesting, is all the adversity they have had to overcome to be considered an equal by men in a sexist time. To totally gloss over the issue and have everyone express totally modern viewpoints seems like kind of a missed opportunity for role-play as well as just unrealistic. Should being a female knight mean that you had to impersonate a man Joan of Arc style or that you had to prove yourself the equal of the other knights, or that they just all accepted you right away? Obsidian mentioned IIRC that they were going to deal with racism, but will they also deal with sexism and what are your guys' thoughts on the matter?

Seconded, it may not be realistic, but this is one of those area's where gameplay comes first.

When it comes to ME, I can fault them for taking steps backward after the first game, each further entry was even more linear and even more boxed in than the last. When it comes to DA:O, I can fault them for claiming it to be a successor to the BG series, which was absolutely insulting when you experience the result of said claims. I can fault them for DA2 not even managing to be as, heh, open as DA:O when, in itself, was quite claustrophobic. It's different in something like BG, or Planescape, where you don't have a lot of that visual 'wallpaper' feel for the backgrounds. Looking straight down, isometric, you just see what's there. It's a lot different from some modern games that paint these vast, impressive, sometimes highly populated, backgrounds in the distance . . . that you can never get near. All that artistic effort spent on nothing, literally nothing, it's essentially, "See this really really cool thing over here? See it? It's cool right? It's awesome! What? You want to what? No you can't go over to it. That'd be silly." I don't really need a large open world game, the closed in space, in itself, isn't my problem, I just need a game that spends its resources on things I can actually 'do', places I can actually go, and things I can actually interact with. Experiences like Planescape, the BG series and so on works for me, where something like ME3 or DA:O/DA2 completely fall on their face. They're obsessed with this eye candy that never really mattered. The graphical complexity means very little, especially in the long run. Again, I have to say it, I'd rather more be done with the graphics of yesterday, with the systems of today than using the systems of today to make that one meaningless pixel look better than ever (only to have it look out dated within a week). Eh, I see what you're saying, and yeah I agree less-eye candy more substance.

Okay, still explain. I am pretty familiar with Kurt Vonnegut and I can't honestly fathom how his tone, style, or otherwise could possibly have anything to do with PE. Unless he is referring to the "so it goes" stuff, but even that I find a hard fit. It's fairly simple, you deal with themes, topics, or characters that he dealt with. So...you deal with the bombing of dresden and time-travelling aliens? The guy wrote more stuff than just Slaughterhouse-5, I know (just an example), but KV seems a weird choice is all. It's one thing to like someone's work and another to think they would be a good inspiration for a fantasy crpg, I'm just wondering how he thinks the two would fit together is all, and you haven't really made that any clearer. You're thinking too particularly, instead of more broadly. Also, I'm not sure you know what a theme is. I do, you said "topics and characters" as well, but I was mostly joking when I said that anyway. I'm not sure why you're trying to make it your mission to justify his choice to me, I'm only wondering what that guys thought's were, not looking for a definition of what "inspiration" means.

Okay, still explain. I am pretty familiar with Kurt Vonnegut and I can't honestly fathom how his tone, style, or otherwise could possibly have anything to do with PE. Unless he is referring to the "so it goes" stuff, but even that I find a hard fit. It's fairly simple, you deal with themes, topics, or characters that he dealt with. So...you deal with the bombing of dresden and time-travelling aliens? The guy wrote more stuff than just Slaughterhouse-5, I know (just an example), but KV seems a weird choice is all. It's one thing to like someone's work and another to think they would be a good inspiration for a fantasy crpg, I'm just wondering how he thinks the two would fit together is all, and you haven't really made that any clearer.

That looked really good, and the kickstarter is only like 160,000. I hope PE looks that good.

Hey, I was the same way at some point. Racist and one-dimensional or not Shakespeare isn't for everyone and you may just not like the way the guy writes, no shame in that.

Probably don't have to worry about this one. I don't think any of us want another Hawke. you think wrongly then while you may be right that many people on this board will share this opinion, i for one, and i'm sure i'm not alone on this, think that few things can lift a game up as much as a well voiced main character the mentioned dragon age 2 (at least the female hawke, which i played), aquanox2 and alpha protocol are only some examples that profited massively from well voiced main characters on the contrary, i would say the missing voice acting for the main char in games like dishonored and dragon age 1 is those games greatest flaw Forgive me then, I stand corrected. Regardless I am in favour of an unvoiced main character.

Let me get this straight: people with nothing to lose are less likely to revolt, than people who are not in an immediate danger of being killed? Having nothing left to lose and not being in immediate danger of being killed are not always mutually exclusive. Slaves have nothing to lose as well, but they also have the time, space, and resources to organize a revolt. If your in immediate danger of being killed your likely too panicked to organize anything let alone do more than scream, and there are studies that support that. When I said the "indomitable nature of the human spirit" I say "spirit" because while you can enslave somebodies body your not going to convince them to enjoy servitude and not dream of freedom, not that it was impossible to enslave anyone ever. This entire conversation has been a steady stream of misunderstandings on your part, this is starting to get hilarious.

Not a great fan either. (blasphemy! I hear my high-school English teacher say)His prose maybe considered the be the greatest, but if you have to make characters who are evil because they are jewish or black, then you're not just racist, but also not very good at characterization. His Kings are noble (mostly) Shylock (the jew) is bad, because he is a usurer. (because why not use stereotypes) In Titus there is this famous line "Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did Would I perform if I might have my will. If one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul." Said by a moor (black man) why, because he was black and thus evil. And then there is people saying "oh, but racism was normal back then!" "think of the times" But as much as the racism bothers me, that's not what disqualifies his works from greatness for me. It's the fact that he uses one-dimensional characters in the first place. I mean, how one-dimensional can you get? This is a pretty huge misinterpretation, Othello was black, and furthermore the whole "does not a jew have eyes" speech is essentially shakespeare humanizing jews. Then look at Hamlet or Macbeth were the nobility are all jerks. Shakespeare was all about throwing up stereotypes, Its fine if you don't like him but to demonize one of the most forward thinking minds of his time as racist, or anti-semitic or whatever is forgive me, a little ignorant. No wonder you don't like him. EDIT: Also "one dimensional"? Hamlet is at once a scheming genius, a depressed grief stricken schizophrenic, and an existentially conscious prince driven to revenge his father. How much more multi-dimensional can you get?

I am interested to know how you think Kurt Vonnegut is an obvious choice for a fantasy game... You can be influenced by the tone and style of a writer without literally utilizing his settings... Okay, still explain. I am pretty familiar with Kurt Vonnegut and I can't honestly fathom how his tone, style, or otherwise could possibly have anything to do with PE. Unless he is referring to the "so it goes" stuff, but even that I find a hard fit.

I am interested to know how you think Kurt Vonnegut is an obvious choice for a fantasy game...

I can't agree, in fact it felt even more closed in than entries like ME1. When it comes to those 'backgrounds' meant to give a game more scale, I don't agree, because they're backgrounds and you're still boxed in, it's just like cutscenes to me, I don't want to sit there and 'watch' the cool stuff, I want to go 'do' the cool stuff. Fair enough I suppose but the series was never an "open word" type game, you can't really fault them for not being something they were never trying to be.

Well, I already made my thoughts on this pretty clear, but for what it's worth, I'm still in favour of lots of V/O

It does disprove your assertion. If people in a much more extreme situation remain pacified and docile, allowing themselves to be murdered, then people in a less severe situation (slavery, as opposed to extermination) would too. No it doesn't at all, when somebody is dead, they cannot revolt, that should be pretty obvious. When you're being oppressed for years you have a lot more time to formulate escape plans. The people you're referring to weren't "pacified and docile" and I'm starting to wonder if you even know what those words mean. When you're being systematically exterminated you're not pacified and docile you're terrified and desperate.

Probably don't have to worry about this one. I don't think any of us want another Hawke.