[Merged] Women, Feminism, etc. in PE

[Malcador]

Not much meat behind telling them to continue a trend though, they're not fools, after all.

 

I just wanted to give you a reason that has not been named already. There are plenty more hidden in this thread already, but since i have to repeat them over and over I try to vary it a bit. Short version: You can either participate in the brainstorming for making the game better by thinking about cultural diversity (in regards to beauty) and a realistic, interesting, non-standard depiction of women in games or you can do, what a few posters like NerdBoner and Jasede have done for pages now: Try to bring this down to a discussion about political correctness, accusing others of whiteknighting and, in short, spam this thread.

 

I'd like to see you included in the discussion, though. Your choice

 

Oh great, more moderator wannabes. That reason has been brought up already, I'm not exactly a fanboy of the company, but I do at least trust them to not mess up basic things as "making decent characters".

Edited October 19, 2012 by Malcador

[Chabneruk]

From what I remember from women is they do not mind crazy sexy clothes on the females so long as the men get the same treatment and that's fair.

 

I can see your point of view, though mine differs: I do not ask "What do the players like" but "What would be an interesting, realistic world". Yes, in Planescape Torment it made sense to have a Succubus wear revealing clothing. No discussion there. But why should people (i.e. men and women) wear oversexed, revealing clothing on a battlefield or during their normal lifes - if not for fanservice?

 

The focus of the developers should be to make the world convincing, not to cater some peoples strange tastes in strangely oversexed characters. And YES, Obsidian has had some well-designed female characters in the past. Still, the change in Cadegunds Artwork (for example) shows that it is still a topic which is worth discussing.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Chabneruk

[Furiku]

Why do people have a thread like this when Obsidian gave us characters like Kreia, Ravel, Fall-From-Grace, Visas, etc., etc.?

They probably weren't gender-neutral enough.

 

There were still basic female characteristics recognizable

 

You should choose your words more carefully you cis-gendered bigot. I bet you don't even raise your children gender neutrally.

They need to follow the Swedish example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2092412/Why-I-let-son-dress-like-girl-years--sake-I-stop-it.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_sweden_s_new_gender_neutral_pronoun_causes_controversy_.html

http://www.vice.com/read/swedish-feminists-are-so-bored-theyre-telling-men-how-to-sit-on-the-bus

[Brannart]

But why should people (i.e. men and women) wear oversexed, revealing clothing on a battlefield or during their normal lifes - if not for fanservice?

 

Well there is no reason at all except for fanservice (Well...and creatorservice). But people like that stuff. The fanservicy races are always the most beloved and played in MMORPGs. This is entertainment after all.

 

As for real people...I don't know that they didn't. People wear/wore all kinds of weird crap into battle and out in their normal lives. I have no idea why the Ancient Gauls charged into battle naked and why at one point in the Middle Ages men wore shoes so long and pointed I have no idea how they walked in them (and that was considered sexual, the church condemned it which only made said ridiculously impractical shoes more popular).

[Chabneruk]

As for real people...I don't know that they didn't. People wear/wore all kinds of weird crap into battle and out in their normal lives. I have no idea why the Ancient Gauls charged into battle naked and why at one point in the Middle Ages men wore shoes so long and pointed I have no idea how they walked in them (and that was considered sexual, the church condemned it which only made said ridiculously impractical shoes more popular).

 

Which is quite funny and might even be somewhat reflected in the game, but there are still differences between someone who fights naked to show his bravery (which was the reason as far as i know) and someone who wears uncomfortable mini-chainmail that does not serve a purpose in his world - if he can have full chainmail instead, which will protect him.

 

About entertainment: Well, I can surely accept that there are people out there who don't share my opinion and who want half-naked ladies and men, just for the sake of it. I do not agree to it though and would prefer the aforementioned realistic and immersive world - which would be my kind of fanservice

[Furiku]

But why should people (i.e. men and women) wear oversexed, revealing clothing on a battlefield or during their normal lifes - if not for fanservice?

Why DO people (i.e. men and women) wear oversexed, revealing clothing in every day life would be a better question, since this isn't a "hypothetical" but you know... actually happening, in our society right now and in societies in the past.

 

The focus of the developers should be to make the world convincing, not to cater some peoples strange tastes in strangely oversexed characters. And YES, Obsidian has had some well-designed female characters in the past. Still, the change in Cadegunds Artwork (for example) shows that it is still a topic which is worth discussing.

Your viewpoint of "convincing" seems to be rather skewed, pretending that sexuality, bordellos and the likes don't exist and both women/men don't want to attract an attractive specimen of the differing gender. I'm not sure if you realize, but you are actually the one trying to make the characters "cater to some peoples strange tastes". I haven't seen a SINGLE thread demanding that female or even male characters wear skimpy clothing and Obsidian go out of their way to cater to that, yet there seems to be one every day demanding they stick to the dress code of puritan England instead and people who obviously won't agree with that.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Furiku

[Coincidence]

Because I have nothing to do for the next five minutes I'll give my thoughts on this that I've hinted at in my past two posts. I'm going to talk about women in the post but everything I say is applicable to the men and masculine traits too.

 

1. Having a wider spectrum of people on the "beauty scale" helps the whole "beauty" thing actually stand out. Many times there are characters (usually women) who are described as being anywhere from beautiful to looking like a goddess, but their model/portrait/whatever looks only slightly better than other females of her race, if not completely equal to them. This applies to clothing too.

 

2. I think people don't understand that not being a beautiful goddess doesn't mean you're an ugly disgusting hag. There's something called "average." It wouldn't be hard to do. Make women who maybe live on, let's say, a farm, not look like they are wearing make-up and getting ready for a hot date when they're just sitting in a house in the middle of nowhere.

 

3. In terms of the whole sexy combat armor thing, I think there's a compromise between people looking for "realism" and people who think "I want fantasy and the world has enough ugly people in real life." Make the weaker armors barely any different for both genders, since they were probably made for practicality and not style in mind. When you get to some artifacts and rare kinds of armor then maybe you can make the women look a little "exotic" in comparison to the men, since its rarity means its probably a bit more customizable to whoever asked for it. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a duchess, queen, empress, demi-goddess, or any other woman of high importance and beauty wanted something to both protect and "show off."

Edited October 19, 2012 by Coincidence

[Chabneruk]

Your viewpoint of "convincing" seems to be rather skewed, pretending that sexuality, bordellos and the likes don't exist and both women/men don't want to attract an attractive specimen of the differing gender.

 

Yeah. No. You did not bother to read the discussion and I will not repeat it all again. Just a quote from a few pages ago, mate:

 

This is an interesting article and I agree - Dishonored treated the gender issue very well. Not only were most of the women in the game average-looking (and thus quite believable), the lore presented through dialogue and the heart showed the discrimination that was rampant amongst Dunwalls society - even if the had an empress! The brothel was quite good as well, as the women therein were not sex objects for the player to lust upon but rather tired, overworked and sick persons who clearly had their own concerns and problems. They all wore revealing clothes, but they were not "teh sexy". They were human beings. And when I used the heart on Callista and heard about her dream of becoming a whaler it was simply a great emotional moment (as they game gives out information rather scarce if you don't go looking for it)

 

I am the last one to argue against attractive clothing given the right circumstance. Which has also already been said. On a battlefield, most people tend to go with practical and protective though. Thats not puritan, its pure survival.

 

---

 

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a duchess, queen, empress, demi-goddess, or any other woman of high importance and beauty wanted something to both protect and "show off."

 

Which would be a good example - this armor would not have a high protective value, if any, though. But it would be logical to have a queen wear something stylish. Which, by the way, does not necessarily mean revealing and sexy.

 

And by the way: If people reduce a womans attractiveness to the amount of skin shown they miss a whole lot of what makes people attractive.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Chabneruk

[Furiku]

I am the last one to argue against attractive clothing given the right circumstance. Which has also already been said. On a battlefield, most people tend to go with practical and protective though. Thats not puritan, its pure survival.

Except you did just that, a mere few minutes ago, I even quoted you:

But why should people (i.e. men and women) wear oversexed, revealing clothing on a battlefield or during their normal lifes - if not for fanservice?

 

From that sentence it's rather obvious that your issue isn't just with "realistic armor" as you seem to claim now.

[Chabneruk]

I am the last one to argue against attractive clothing given the right circumstance. Which has also already been said. On a battlefield, most people tend to go with practical and protective though. Thats not puritan, its pure survival.

Except you did just that, a mere few minutes ago, I even quoted you:

But why should people (i.e. men and women) wear oversexed, revealing clothing on a battlefield or during their normal lifes - if not for fanservice?

 

From that sentence it's rather obvious that your issue isn't just with "realistic armor" as you seem to claim now.

 

When I said "normal lifes" I meant "during their work day". I do, of course, exclude feasts and celebrations, the nobility in general and special occasions. Of course people wear attractive clothing during certain occasions but not always.

 

By the way, my issue was a realistic distribution of attractiveness amongst the populace of PE, as well as body size and the like. Clothing came up later in the discussion, but still is - of course - a matter of realism as well.

[Brannart]

About entertainment: Well, I can surely accept that there are people out there who don't share my opinion and who want half-naked ladies and men, just for the sake of it. I do not agree to it though and would prefer the aforementioned realistic and immersive world - which would be my kind of fanservice

 

Well it is not about agreement really it is just the nature of the beast. I find it pretty distracting myself, especially as graphics become more realistic, being presented with sexy bodies all the time (like wait what was it I am trying to do here?) .

 

As for a realistic and immersive world, I just ask that the world obey its own rules and has a certain internal logic to it.

[Chrząszczyrzewoszyczanin]

You should choose your words more carefully you cis-gendered bigot. I bet you don't even raise your children gender neutrally.

Cis? Do I even want to know what does that mean?

[Chabneruk]

You should choose your words more carefully you cis-gendered bigot. I bet you don't even raise your children gender neutrally.

Cis? Do I even want to know what does that mean?

 

"Cis" is the opposite of "trans" in chemical processes and has since found its way into gender debate, describing a person who identifies himself strongly with his own sex and also accepts the traditional gender role unquestioningly (again, in comparison to "trans"). Its kind of a weak insult here, though.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Chabneruk

[Coincidence]

You should choose your words more carefully you cis-gendered bigot. I bet you don't even raise your children gender neutrally.

Cis? Do I even want to know what does that mean?

 

He was obviously referring to the Chinese International School.

[Furiku]

You should choose your words more carefully you cis-gendered bigot. I bet you don't even raise your children gender neutrally.

Cis? Do I even want to know what does that mean?

It's the feminist/GLBTWTFBBQ/politically correct way of reffering to what normal people would call "normal".

Edited October 19, 2012 by Furiku

[Malcador]

"Cis" is the opposite of "trans" in chemical processes and has since found its way into gender debate, describing a person who identifies himself strongly with his own sex and also accepts the traditional gender role unquestioningly (again, in comparison to "trans"). Its kind of a weak insult here, though.

 

Pretty weak insult at all. Such weird terminology these days.

[Chabneruk]

"Cis" is the opposite of "trans" in chemical processes and has since found its way into gender debate, describing a person who identifies himself strongly with his own sex and also accepts the traditional gender role unquestioningly (again, in comparison to "trans"). Its kind of a weak insult here, though.

 

Pretty weak insult at all. Such weird terminology these days.

 

Yes, it is strange... because all in all most people would identify as "cis" if they had to identify themselves as anything at all. Its the normal way of thinking, as far as I know. Cis-gendered is usually used in a negative way though, describing sexists and such.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Chabneruk

[Gibbscape_Torment]

*rabblerabblerabble* I WANT ANDROGYNOUS SPECIES *rabblerabblerabble* FEMINAZIS BE ALL UP IN MY PREFERENCES *rabblerabblerabble*

 

This place is as bad as the ****ing BSN. Only on the Witcher forums have i seen this discussion taken on with some semblance of civility.

[jarpie]

I don't even understand why there is even discussion like this in Obsidian's forum, are they known for writing poorly done female characters? No, didn't think so.

 

Also, this game is isometric so it's not like we would even see details of the characters.

[Chrząszczyrzewoszyczanin]

This place is as bad as the ****ing BSN. Only on the Witcher forums have i seen this discussion taken on with some semblance of civility.

Witcher games are well known for not giving a **** about PC.

[Chabneruk]

Witcher games are well known for not giving a **** about PC.

 

Good thing we don't discuss that here, then.

 

Could be interesting as well for the discussion

 

I don't even understand why there is even discussion like this in Obsidian's forum, are they known for writing poorly done female characters? No, didn't think so.

 

Also, this game is isometric so it's not like we would even see details of the characters.

 

Has been adressed. Both of them. Multiple times.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Chabneruk

[Mr Moonlight]

I think the best way to handle gender/sexual issues is to not really bare them in mind when writing a character so that the writing can be more "organic" without having to worry about "What if this social group doesn't like this" or "What if it seems like I'm implying this about X group of people" or "Does it seem like I'm pandering to X group by doing this" and help avoid cliché token characters. I'm confident no-one on the writing staff is a raging homophobe/transphobe/misogynist/misandronist or will write blatant token characters to appeal to certain social groups.

 

Then again I'm also sure that no matter what the characters are like SOMEONE will complain or be "offended".

[Grimlorn]

No fat chicks. It's unrealistic that they would be in an adventure party and able to slay monsters and stuff. They'd be out of breath in less than a mile of walking.

[sodaTwo]

No fat chicks. It's unrealistic that they would be in an adventure party and able to slay monsters and stuff. They'd be out of breath in less than a mile of walking.

 

agreed. Not like fat dudes that keep up due to being broos.

[Giantevilhead]

This thread yet again has gone to great lenghts to rationalize why a slightly different formation of metal, that in most cases would protect the wearer just as well is bad, while entirely ignoring the dancing monkey in the room about the entirely naked monk that will presumably fight dragons and knights by punching them (or any other kind of "unrealism" that isn't based in feminist ideals for that matter).

 

You will excuse me if I don't believe there isn't any other agenda behind all these arguments, near-essays, mental gymnastics, feminist blogs and Kotaku (lol) links you throw around in rationalizing the lack of breasts and how any other way would be "unrealistic", yet completely ignore everything else.

 

Actually that subject has been dealt with. Comparing Cadegun to Furton is like comparing Iron Man to Dare Devil. It makes sense for Iron Man to wear the best armor because he depends on his armor to protect him and fight villains. It makes no sense for Dare Devil to wear a suit of armor because he uses acrobatics and martial arts to protect himself and fight villains.

 

The goal is to create logically consistent world.

 

People are not complaining about a female monk, they're complaining about a female knight. If there was a female monk who doesn't wear armor, then no one would complain because that makes sense.

 

If you set up a certain of rules for something like a character class, everyone in that class should follow those same rules. Knights protect themselves with armor. Monks protect themselves with martial arts and mystical abilities, which require far greater freedom of movement. It makes no more sense for knights to wear the armor that direct enemy blows towards their heart than for monks to wear armor that restrict their movement and make it harder for them to dodge blows.