Should Revan Have An "Offical" Gender?

[tmp]

Would many have read or watched Lord of the Rings if Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf and Gimli were female characters? Probably not.

 

Would any of Stephen King's story's have sold as it has if The Dark Tower Series' Roland the Gunslinger had been a female?  Probably not.

 

How many people would have read Harry Potter if it was Harriet Potter?

Thank goodness they had the common sense to make Mara Jade a man. Imagine terrible sales and lack of popularity if anything with a woman in focus was introduced in the Star Wars universe.

 

... oh, wait.

 

("probably" as argument works both ways. For every "probably not" there's equally valid "probably yes" when it's all 100% based on what-if's and wishful thinking)

[Lord Tarondor]

And how many people actually know who Mara Jade is? I don't outside of being Luke's wife and a female who was a Dark Sider turned Light Side in the end. Sounds like another Bastila Shan/pretty girl added to give flavor and draw men in like Tomb Raider draws men.

[The Great Phantom]

Wow, even the females are starting to sound sexist...

 

I think that Revan shouldnt' have any gender (unless the player gets to choose one). And, even though I'm a male, I do wish that the game developers would give female PC's something special like Brianna's precognition thing.

 

In cRPG's, I play a male as my 'true' characters. But, in my stories, the main protagonist is usually a free-spirited female (that breaks traditions). This is the case in many of my short little stories (except for the one where there was her and an ancient Elven Vampire, but that's a special thing to show the tragedy). In my stories, a lot of the time I put female protagonists that I think are someone I might like to be around (but not in that way, 'lesser' males/females!).

[Aurora]

Which is your prerogative.  And while I believe you're just saying this to make some kind of point, I'd say that's a bit childish if you guys actually did do that since you'd be doing it out of spite because some people, heaven forbid, actually had the audacity to make comments that go against what you believe.  But hey, much like the gaming industry can make games that suit them, so can you.  But then again you'd be doing exactly what you and a bunch of other people are accusing the gaming industry of.  But why stop the hypocracy now, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, because unlike a fair amount of the posters here, I am *not* that childish. In addition, I do not believe that by making your games appeal to, apparently, 60% of the market, you automatically make the game repulsive to 40% of the market.

[tmp]

And how many people actually know who Mara Jade is? I don't outside of being Luke's wife and a female who was a Dark Sider turned Light Side in the end. Sounds like another Bastila Shan/pretty girl added to give flavor and draw men in like Tomb Raider draws men.

I don't know how many people exactly know who Mara Jade is. I just know apparently her being significant part of series of Star Wars books didn't prevent these books from selling well.

 

And please, just re-read what you wrote here. You openly admit you have very little clue on who the character is, then base your conclusion on character's nature on this very lack of the clue (and on her gender), and wind up at the 'anything female in the story is there strictly as window dressing for the men' ... with this sort of attitude that you flaunt, didn't it ever occur to you the fact you don't know many girl gamers in your school --and consequently claim there is few of them-- might be, just might be, those gamers would rather keep to themselves that stay around someone spewing this sort of narrowminded drivel? Honest to god i would. While it's cool if someone shares one of my interests and i'd possibly want to talk about it with them ... it's just not the case when the personality of that someone driving me up the wall. Conversation at the price of too much frustration just isn't worth it.

[metadigital]

Which is your prerogative.  And while I believe you're just saying this to make some kind of point, I'd say that's a bit childish if you guys actually did do that since you'd be doing it out of spite because some people, heaven forbid, actually had the audacity to make comments that go against what you believe.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the point of the comment, as far as I understood it, was to try to invoke emapthy in male readers by demonstrating the flawed logic masquerading as business acumen.

...

And that's where my definition of "catering" comes from, where they make it sound like game developers should go to extremes, even at the cost of upsetting the male market, just to cater to what they want to see in a video game. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The arguments propounded in this thread so far are:

- There are no signiifcant women in history, so a game would be incredulous to include a powerful female protagonist.

- There are no female gamers -- and male gamers do not play female PCs -- so any allowance for female characters is just unnecessary eye candy, and finally

- As the largest single market share is male, it is only right and good that publishers and developers concentrate on this market (subtext: because I'm in it).

 

At no point has anyone said that one market should be catered to at the expense of another -- oh, wait a minute; except the ignorant males posting in this thread.

 

Why are so many people feeling so threatened? No-one is suggesting mass castration! There is no need to feel so emasculated. Embrace the diversity! Experience new things! Even if you like Corn Flakes, don't just eat them to the exclusion of all other breakfast cereals, eat all sorts -- even have hotcakes!

No, because unlike a fair amount of the posters here, I am *not* that childish. In addition, I do not believe that by making your games appeal to, apparently, 60% of the market, you automatically make the game repulsive to 40% of the market.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I concur with this as well. It really is disapointing and a quite worrying that the discussion of potential diversity of the games we play is being reduced to a childish playground argument.

 

The point I would like to make here is this:

You may not be setting out to be sexist, but the result is still sexist. And poor business sense, too. If I read the statistics supplied correctly -- and IF I were a publisher/developer right now -- I would be trying to capture that growing market. How much did the Dow Jones increase by in the last twelve months? Most companies are looking to make year-on-year gains of 5%! To ignore such a large and growing markeet may work as a short-term tactic, but as a strategy it will surely lead to long term insolvency.

 

I don't want to play derivative remakes of the same corny stories. What's the point, just make it once, really well, and then play that again and again. Now move on. I want to be stimulated and moved by gaming experiences.

 

For example, when was the last time you cried at the cinema? For those of you who didn't say "Never", I would then ask When was the last time you cried playing a game? (Ok, for all those macho hard men out there , instead of crying, think of another strong emotion -- like being frightened or elated.) Right, so it is possible to invoke emotion, it's just we're only getting generic lowest-common-denominator gaming experiences.

 

Perhaps I'm just too hip for the room. "

[The Great Phantom]

I suppose that was well said, tmp. I agree pretty much (reverse that).

[Lord Tarondor]

I don't spout that sort of drivel -- I want games made for every person, but I realise it won't happen for awhile because there isn't that type of market that is just right for it.

 

I didn't say Mara Jade's addition prevents the selling of those books -- it in fact increases the sales for it, but she's not a really good character from what I've read of her and have heard people say of her outside of being the typical stereotyped woman who wears tightfitting clothes and basically gets owned by the main male character in the long run. I think Jaina would be a better example but there are instances, I will admit.

 

I just said that to please a larger variety of people, artists realise you can do what you want with the male character and generally find a strong base so long as its good... even if its good, not all female main characters are held in high-esteem by those outside the women camp.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

I don't spout that sort of drivel -- I want games made for every person, but I realise it won't happen for awhile because there isn't that type of market that is just right for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So much, so little time (I'm at work and will be leaving soon), so I will address this... 40% of PC gamers are female. That's been established, like it or not. That's not an insignificant drop in the bucket and it's been explained to you again and again why it's good business to address that market, but you don't seem to understand this. That's over one third. Almost one half. In other words, THE MARKET IS THERE WAITING TO BE ADDRESSED! How is this not getting through?

 

Let's look at it this way. Take just the 60% of males who constitute gamers. There is no game that is played by 100% of them. Many men can't stand RPG's, just as many of them get bored playing an FPS or fighting games. Not to mention RTS or any of the sim games. Each of these is a smaller segment of the total players, but developers don't look at the numbers and thing, "Hmmm, only 25% of male gamers play RTS games, so we won't make them." No, even 25% of the market is a LARGE number of players. The same goes for female gamers. Between PC and console games, we make up about a third of all players. You're stuck thinking of percentages and not of total numbers. That still signifies a very large number of players and hundreds of millions of dollars.

In other words, it makes financial sense to go after female gamers. And never, ever in this conversation, and this has been pointed out a few times already, has anyone suggested this means at the expense of male gamers. It's like saying making chick flicks there will be no action movies being made. That's crap. Studios know they have to go after as much of the potential audience that they can.

 

One more quick thing that's been bugging me. You've emphasized a few times how MEN want STORY-DRIVEN games. Have you ever even met a woman that you think story-driven games mean nothing to us?

[Solar Xero]

I always imagined Revan as a male Lightsider, but kindof rogue, following the Light, but not bowing and scraping for the Jedi Council, doing his own thing.

 

But this is just what I imagined him as.  This is a roleplaying game.  Everyone's Revan is different (though I also imagined him as a military genius - its in his backstory).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

soooooooooooo ds

[DeathScepter]

As for me, Revan/exile is a Reflection of the player. So It would be stupid (moneywise) and sexist(either way you look at it) to have Revan/exile as either gender.

 

 

Can A player make a Strong Female Revan/exile lead ? Yes

 

 

Can A player make a Strong Make Revan/exile Lead ? Yes

 

 

Kotor 1 and 2 should be enjoyed for WHAT they really are. Video games they really are.

 

Exile and Revan are uber Jedis for OUR pleasure and their respected Developers are develop those games so gamers can enjoy them and they can get some money.

 

Star Wars is a Fantasy world and Exile/Revan is our avatars in that world.

 

So Childern settle down and enjoy both KOTOR 1 and 2 games.

 

 

 

I do admit that I would Love Revan to be a male but Realisticly that would upset other gamers.

[The Great Phantom]

I thought that was a good way to put things, Scepter.

[Eddo36]

Can we make Darth Vader into a female?

[Ohma]

Can we make Darth Vader into a female?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Where the hell did that come from?

[Reveilled]

Can we make Darth Vader into a female?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vader: Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father.

Luke: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!

Vader: No, Luke...he ran off and left me!

Luke: That's not true! That's impossible!

Vader: He never payed child support either.

Luke: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Bounce]

hehe

[metadigital]

Can we make Darth Vader into a female?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, it is entirely possible that he might not be comfortable as a male, and in fact have always felt he was a woman trapped in a man's body. (It is not very probable considering his actions, however.) For those of your statistically minded, approximately 1 in 1000 people are born feeling similarly.

 

Of course, she would have to change her name to Darth Moeder, but that sounds like Murder, which would fly ...

 

Vader/Moeder: Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father.

Luke: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!

Vader/Moeder: No, Luke ... I was your father!

Luke: That's not true! That's impossible!

Vader/Moeder: I had the surgery a few years ago, thanks to my Sugar Daddy, Palpatine.

Luke: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[FaramirK]

Vader/Moeder: Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father.

Luke: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!

Vader/Moeder: No, Luke ... I was your father!

Luke: That's not true! That's impossible!

Vader/Moeder: I had the surgery a few years ago, thanks to my Sugar Daddy, Palpatine.

Luke: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ROTFL

[Azarkon]

There are two general trends one can follow with regards to equality. One moves towards the equality of strength. The other towards equality regardless of strength. Common sense dictates the triumph of the former, but social progress is dependent on the latter.

 

Thousands of years ago, in the heydays of human barbarism, common sense dictated that males should rule, simply because they were possessed of greater upper body strength. That practice lasted as long as human beings valued physical power above all else, and while exceptions have existed in the course of history - as they always do in the biological world - these exceptions must be taken with a grain of salt. For compared to the norm of countless generations of rulers, they are the proverbial pins in a haystack. In the search for encompassing trends, such deviations are usually thrown aside, and for rational reasons.

 

In the gaming industry, it is no different. Rationality dictates the triumph of male-centrism in many genres of gaming, because males tend to buy more such games. Whether the chicken or the egg came first is a interesting question, but like the proverb, its answer is only philosophically relevant. The problem of stimulating female interest has been tackled several times, and almost every time the results fit the stereotype: the Sims (and RPGs/adventure games, some might argue) were the kinds of games a vast majority of women/girl gamers liked, not shooters and war games.

 

If rationality had its way, the most efficient method of representation should then be adopted: that is, in genres where females make up less than a certain percentage of projected players, that much less time should be given to craft their content. The standard rules of statistical error and market exploration of course apply, as one must first probe such percentages before assuming them. And that has been done, as most genres have at some point taken to introduce "female" elements, even shooters. Yet the results have been decidedly mixed: some genres garnered more of the female audience; other genres less.

 

The decision remains in the hands of Reason: equality should be based on strength. If women, in today's world, were as strong as men on the scales we use to measure strength (which in modern times is far more based on brain/appearance than brawn), then they should be alotted the relevant benefits. If not, then they shouldn't be. The same idea holds for race: since skin color was overthrown as an accurate gauge of biological superiority, the situation has leaned towards equality. But it is a equality built upon the foundations of rationality: if non-whites had in fact been found biologically inferior, the issue might have turned out very different.

 

In the gaming industry, this translates to a similar mindset: so long as women do not make up half the player base under a certain genre and there are no immediate prospects for them to become so, they shouldn't be catered to as much as males.

 

That is the theory behind equality of strength, anyways.

 

But there is a different theory for equality, a counter-theory, that has always existed as an alternative - for some more acceptable, for others less. This is equality irregardless of strength. This is the driving force behind principles such as disabled employment, subsidized coverage, affirmative action, Communism, and even animal rights. It is the counter-force to natural selection and a thorn on the side of rationality: for who would consider it rational that systems should be led by people who are not best "bit" for the job? Who would rationally place a mundane, average, and disabled individual above a 4.0 genius in admission to a position of power? Yet this form of equality allots for all these things, and in its most extreme forms, would consider humanity better off if we erased all forms of government and lived in a platonic Utopia where every man was equally poor.

 

I had before mentioned social progress: here are its beginnings. For a society that is based only on equality of strength can never be considered socially progressive: merely responsive, and in particular to changing factors of nature and technology. That the cave man now must value his woman because his physical strength has ceased to become a point of superiority is not a step up the social ladder: it is merely an adaptation to changing circumstances. Social progress is more fundamentally based on the principles governing society, and in this case the state of mind behind the idea of social equality. For equality irregardless of strength, the point of departure is always the same: it doesn't matter if you're strong or weak, dumb or intelligent. You deserve the same.

 

Naturally, with regards to the gaming industry, this would mean that developers should spend equal time catering to male and female interests - and a wide variety of other interests, at that - regardless of the audience of their games. After all, the few, the minority, that actually do play should not be compromised simply because their numbers are less. Under this philosophy, democracy cannot become a dictatorship of the masses - and the "white man's country" argument often used in pre-civil rights times to justify American white-centrism is a load of crap. Minorities of all types must be treated equally, regardless of their numbers and regardless of their biological - or, in this case, buying - power.

 

Under this philosophy of equality, society would progress simply by virtue of moving away from the cold rationality of nature's determinism. But progress is not always a good thing - or at least, not by the measures of those who are left behind, longing for the good old days. Therefore there is tension, therefore there is conflict, and our modern would is shaped not, as a result, by the extremes of either forms of equality. Instead, we have bowed to equality of strength as the realistic goal, but looks to equality regardless of strength as a possible ideal - unachievable for humans, perhaps, but desirable nonetheless. And we have made efforts to integrate some of that ideal into our system, despite its conflict with rationality. Through that, we have made social progress.

 

And through it, the gaming industry will similarly make social progress. For it is true that, despite all the talks of equality, there are biological differences between man and woman - that is undeniable. These differences in turn lead to differences in experience, which in turn lead to differences in perception and taste - or otherwise we would not be having this discussion, for all would be universal. This schism then makes it seem common sense to concentrate on one or the other gender, depending on the kind of game you want to make, as it seems naive to believe that women will ever enjoy shoot'em bloodbaths as much as men.

 

Yet inherent in that is a conceptualization of human development that is missing a primary ingredient: the dominance of culture. That cultural "thing", which has been alive since the dawn of human history, has been behind almost every major leap in human civilization, and is indeed as important to human evolution as biology. For what is a human being without culture? Experiments have shown that children growing up in isolation become mentally retarded: sinking back, perhaps, into the native instincts of those primordial ages when mankind was no more than what is now considered animal. Yet culture, unlike our genetic make-up (at least as of yet), is wholly malleable by human powers, as history has shown in its numerous movements of the arts. And in this respect it is relevant to this discussion, because what is the gaming industry if not a sub-culture? And what is the male-female gender divide but a figment of that sub-culture that maybe, perhaps, reshaped?

 

I come to no greater revelation than anyone else has in this thread - I simply took longer to get here . But the bottomline really is simple: the gaming sub-culture is dominated by the vibes of male-centrism, which rose because of the culture at the time. But that can change. Yet the change cannot happen merely be reinforcing existing stereotypes: all that will lead to are separate industries for what men and women want, which is no different than things are now (after all, you can label shopping/talking on the cellphone as the "female game" and then wonder why this discussion ever took place). For true change to occur, change in the sub-culture of gaming must ultimately challenge attitudes in the dominating culture, or vice versa. There exists a world where women *are* be able to enjoy shooters and war games - perhaps never as much as men, due to biological differences - but nevertheless in far greater numbers. But that world must be a world where the female sex is not considered a equivalence to pacifism and an aversion to violence. Culture defines much of what we find desirable - that much has been learned by the sociologists and psychologists - and it is within that context that a true expansion outwards maybe made on the part of interactive electronic entertainment.

 

Well, that or what I said above: a female-headed gaming industry independent of the male-headed one, which would simply reinforce the existing schism, but might not be all that undesirable, if you believed my arguments about the nature of balance between the two forms of equality.

[Wynne]

Can we make Darth Vader into a female?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, that's not a video game. That's a movie. We can't make Leia into a guy either, but nobody's going to protest, because that's a set story--one person's vision, not an RPG, which is the player's vision. That you would even compare the two mediums says nothing good about your ability to apply common sense to this situation.

 

Second, did you ever actually SEE what's under those robes? And don't you think Anakin is rather androgynous anyway? Metadigital's scenario is all too credible!

 

Star Wars is a Fantasy world and Exile/Revan is our avatars in that world.

 

So Childern settle down and enjoy both KOTOR 1 and 2 games.

 

Well, I'm glad somebody sees it that way! *hug*

[metadigital]

Azarkon: you have failed to consider the additional scenario that some males (e.g. me) enjoy playing female PCs.

 

This makes the schism between "male-oriented" (FPS, etc) and "female-oriented" / gender-neutral games (RPG, sims, etc) less pronounced. (It may exacerbate the body-dysmorphism diseases of the virtual and real worlds, however.)

 

Reminds me that I read about a charity that had a MMOG where you were randomly generated a character somewhere in their Earth-simulcrum world, so that you really end up re-rolling life. Highest percentage would see you in the developing world, as a child-labourer or a statusless female whose life consists of labouring until a premature death from some disease that can be cured in the developed world. (I read about it in a recent gamer magazine, but I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment.)

 

Wynne: Obi-Wan Kenobi does reveal that Darth Vader is more machine than man. Perhaps the surgeon droids thought better of cybernetic testes ... after all he wouldn't need them for anything! "

[reiella]

No. I really don't. Making one option 'offical' implies that it's the 'correct' one. Which is too much fun. That's actually part of the necessary evil with the BG novels that annoyed me, the novel character was the 'offical' Bhaalspawn.

[TerranEarth]

Revan's gender should not be set. However, to simplify things for prospective designers Revan's alignment should be set to LS. This would, I believe, irritate far less people. I think..

[psycho_leo]

I really don't care what sex should Revan be. I played him as both male and female and got a kick out of it all the times. I really loved the Bastila romance and killing Carth was priceless.

 

However, I would like to have an especific gender set (male or female, I don't care) just because i would like to see Revan again in KoTOR 3, but since is not likely for us to be able to play him again, he would have to be given an official sex.

[Mandalore Tim]

As long as he/she returns in em Star Forge robes(dark uns regardles) i don't really care what sex Revan is. Would be nice too choose tough. Like too think i did'nt put up with Carts whining for nothing or Bassys for that matter