FTL_Dodo

Titanfall: Played for about 150 hours before getting bored. A lot of fun, if a bit frustrating (matchmaking!!!!), definitely GOTY for me. State of Decay: Was very intriguing from the start, but I lost interest quiclky, and I can't really define why. Watchdogs: Played for 2 hours and uninstalled. Tepid ****. Banished: Very addictive, played for about (looks at Steam profile) wow 180 hours! City builders without any military component is an old weakness of mine. Alien: Isolation: Very good so far. I got the Banner Saga, but haven't tried it yet. Damn real life.

Alien: Isolation, got it day 1, and so far it's pretty good (I haven't gotten very far though, hope to rectify this on weekend). It's not particularly scary, but very tense and athmospheric. Graphics are excellent, controls are smooth. There are a few minor annoyances (manual saving points, Ripley can't jump, the amount of backtracking is ridiculous), but all in all I'm liking it very much, it's loke a mix of Deus Ex and Dead Space. Ripley even reminds me of Isaac Clarke circ Dead Space I and II, only with a lot more sneaking and a lot less murder.

I probably gonna buy it, unless they completely crap up the multiplayer mode. I'm just not interested in the single player campaign any longer, ME3 took care of that. But the multiplayer side was surprisingly addictive, and the upcoming game is being made by the same studio which handled multiplayer, so yeah. All in all, not getting my hopes up.

It wasn't really the best move on the part of the Spec Ops developers to express their objections to violence in video game via a tedious third person shooter that nets you achievements for murder. I've had no idea that real world violence is a bad thing, thanks for opening my eyes, developers. This kind of snide pontificating is exactly what I needed. The game: Only monsters kill a lot of people with guns and other shooty things! The game: Now kill a lot of people to clear this level. *press [LMB] to kill a lot of people* The game: OMG you monster! Now see the consequences of your actions which we didn't give you any choice in committing! Do you feel terrible yet? And the gameplay is really crappy even by cover-based TPS' low standards. Shooting in Mass Effect 3 was really well done, I think - the thing is, you don't have to use cover. The biotic and technical combos really add a new dimantion to combat, it's one really worthwhile thing that ME3 has t offer. The excellent coop multiplayer is based on it. I still play it occasionally.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it won't tell me anything that Apocalypse Now and a bunch of other movies and books haven't said a hundred times before (and better). Even if does, it's no excuse for being a terrible game.

Trying to slog my way through Spec Ops: The Line, and so far i'm less then impressed. It's a mediocre, bland whack-a-mole corridor shooter, and whatever grand revelations are prepared along the storyline, they won't make up for terrible gameplay (I just got to the firs bif "plot twist" with the white phosphorus. Movement is wonky, aiming is wonky, cover system is inconsistent, the whole experience is completely linear - like Mass Effect, only without all the good stuff. How could anyone think it's a good idea to preach about the eveils of war via a cover shooter that gives you achievements for murder, I have no idea.

Mass Effect 3 really killed whatever interest I might have had in the sequels, moreover, it retroactively killed all my enjoyment of preceding games. It was the first time ever that a game was able to do something like that to me - I can't even replay the original which I adored and played more times than I care to admit. I just think about stupid, stupid Crucible and stupid, stupid Reapers, and Shepard being an utter moron, and I just can't. I still can't believe how they could take such a wonderful, fresh, beautifully constructed universe, and wreck it like that. Well done, BioWare.

1. Who draws the line on what's appropriate and what's not? You have a recourse - not to buy a game that's unacceptable for your sensibilities, if there are enough likeminded people, such a game won't make a profit and maybe in their next game the company will rethink their policy toward portrayal of women or whatever. If there are not enough like minded people however, well... then you'll just have to deal with it. It's not your place to dicatete to other people what they should or shouldn't enjoy. Tell you what - personally, I don't like huge boobs on female characters in games. Not because they make me feel inadequate with my mdest rack, I just think they look ridiculous and unnatural. But other people like them, and who exactly am I to decide what's acceptable for other people to like? As for someone else being offended: 2. That's the same line of reasoning as "GTA causes murder", i.e. nonsense. No correlation has been found so fat (afaik) between depiction of violence in games and real life violence, same with boobs. People, generally, are perfectly able to separate fiction from reality. Lastly, it seems to me what you call objectification is more just a consequence of overall poor standard of writing in games. There are a lot of characters written poorly, female and male, i.e. they're reduced to simply functions - "comic relief", or "socialite", or "boobs", or "random grunt". It's not a problem that's somehow exclusive to female characters - remember how many faceless goons you've cut down in your last games? If that's not reducing a character to function, i don't know what is.

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 1. I see you share a misconception that is quite common when game marketing is being discussed - that is, assuming that the gaming industry is some hivemind that markets "games" to all gamers at once. Gaming industry consists of companies, and every company develops and markets game to a specific subsection of consumers. Developers of i.e. The Sims market them to women because they know that the lion's share of people who buy The Sims are female. Developers of shooty-shooty AAA titles (with wich the gaming media is primarily concerned), on the other hand, market them to men because I'm sorry, men ARE their primary target. I know that the 42% figure is bandied about a lot, but I find it very hard to believe. Where are all those numerous female gamers? They're not on steam, they're not on origin, they're not on battlelog, they're not in game chats, they're not in L4D, they're not anywhere around AAA titles in the numbers that would make them noticeable. Even in Mass Effect which is widely considered one of the most female-friendly AAA games, we women are still a distinct minority. I know that because out of 80 people on my origin friend list maybe 8 are female, me included. On Ubisoft official forums for Splinter Cell:Blacklist one girl made a thread to find other women who play Splinter Cell multiplayer and coop. The thread got stickied about a month ago; to this date it has 2 replies. Wait, even this conversation of ours started with you asking for female opinion because there are no women on these forums. So where the hell are they??? 2. As some poster above me aptly said, you can't objectify women in games, because there are no women there - they're bunches of polygons that serve a certain purpose, i.e. they're objects from the start. Just as men are. If you don't agree with the purpose they serve, you're free not to buy a particular game and explain to the developers why you refused to buy it. If there are enough people like you, the developers will hopefully rethink their appropach to female characters. If you think that slapping big boobs on a female toon somehow diminishes me, a player, i strongly disagree. What does it matter to me if some guy somewhere wants to look on i.e. Miranda Lawson's t&a? I, as a person, is neither better nor worse off for that. What's the problem? When I'm playing Blacklist and Sam is hanging off a ledge, all I think is "Dem arms, damn!" What, does that make Sam Fisher somehow less of a character? Will I consider my husband less of a person because Geralt of Rivia has a nice ass? Does that seem sane to you&? As for your links, the first one is typical greviance fishing. One quote is particularly telling: The most reasonable answer is that THE GIRLS are responsible - they just don't generally want to play those games. But no, it just has to be somebody else's fault. Funny, all those marketing ploys have never stopped me - but somehow now it's become a prevalent belief that women and girls have no free will and are total slaves to media and marketing. It's demeaning, I tell you. Does the law forbid girls from buying those games? Is there a big ugly bouncer that throw them out of the isle if they attempt to pay money for them? Does a disk check if you have a correct set of getitals before installing the game? No. Girls just aren't generally interested in those types of games, AND THAT'S OKAY.

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.