Sexism?

[Elerond]

It's common plot device in literature because it is easy way to motivate character and don't need any imagination from writer. And it is common in games too, for example in dragon age there is several rapes and even plot for revenge for rape (dispute between werewolfs and elves). And dragon age is not only one. Graphical rape is not so common, but some games have even that. But graphical rape is just explanation which should be avoided in all serious works (my opinion), because it really don't add anything to game/s.

 

I remember a revenge quest in the City Elf origin, where a human noble claims jus primae noctis and kidnaps you or your soon-to-be wife. But you rode in and saved the day before anything even happened. And you didn't have time to get to know the would-be-victims before the quest.

I don't remember anything about a rape in the Brecilian Forest. Did it happen before you even got there? Didn't happen to your or one of your companions, anyway, so it's not the same thing.

 

Graphical rape doesn't have to pornographic. It could just be a short cutscene that fades to black before anything really happens.

Yes, implied rape is pretty common, but it's rarely used to move the plot forward. Usually it's just there to showcase how dark and gritty the setting is, and that's exactly what I don't want. And there are plenty of good examples of rape in literature. I don't see how it's any less imaginative than murder is.

 

In city elf orgin quest your cousin gets raped, or that implication I get when I read those dialogs.

 

Brecillian forest quest if you look through all lore hints, you find out that elf leader has cursed human population which members raiped his daughter to werewolves and he don't want curse removed even hundred years later because I his opinion towns people are not punished enough.

 

In Leliana's Song add-on it is implied that Leliana is raped by castle guards and she goes to revenge mission.

 

My opinion is that there is no need for graphical rape in games or even for graphical sex scenes. I think that implied ones are much better than grapical scenes that usually only rise shared sense of shame in me than anything other. And such scenes make even less sense in PE style game were is camera is fixed far from characters and where text is used usually instead of cut scenes.

 

Revenging murder of loved one or family member is not any better character motivation than revenging rape. Revenge is in my opinion very poor character motivation device and should be used only very rare occasions and even then one should try invent some twists to that.

 

I haven't seen any good examples of rape in literature, best they are decend ones, but usually when rape is used as plot device it just causes storys level to drop (again my opinion).

Edited December 3, 2012 by Elerond

[Hormalakh]

You clearly disagree here, so let's hear your case.

Well, personally, I want P:E to be a fun video game and not the next champion of the "games are art" crowd; leave that **** to pretentious indie developer douche bags like Jonathan Blow.

 

Off topic here: I seriously dislike that American anti-intellectualism. I see no reason, why Braid was pretentious, just because it tried something different, just because Blow tried to express his views on life the way he did. But that's somehow typical for our time, when everything intellectual is automatically "hipster" or "pretentious". I'm tired of getting labelled as a "hipster" just because I like literature, or because I write poetry and read philosophy for fun or because I'm wearing hipster glasses (that I wear because of poor eye-sight and also because my literay heroes did - it's the same as people wearing their new-era-caps because of some hip hop stars). It seems that in our time, everything that contradicts pure consumerism, everything that actively tries to change conventions or to be different, an alternative tends to get labelled that way. It's the death of progression.

 

Mature games for immature gamers. And I don't know if this anti-intellectualistic vibe comes only from Americans...

Edited December 3, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Hormalakh]

This is isn't about anti-intellectualism, it's about rape/racism/homophobia/other "mature and realistic" themes not being the only way to tell a good story. Not everything has some hidden agenda; some people just like to have fun and don't want to sacrifice that fun for the sake of "art."

 

 

So in your opinion, PS:T wasn't a fun game? It was just art? It dealt with mature and realistic themes. Some (all?) of those ideas/factions are actual philosophical beliefs that people have.

[Dream]

This is isn't about anti-intellectualism, it's about rape/racism/homophobia/other "mature and realistic" themes not being the only way to tell a good story. Not everything has some hidden agenda; some people just like to have fun and don't want to sacrifice that fun for the sake of "art."

 

 

So in your opinion, PS:T wasn't a fun game? It was just art? It dealt with mature and realistic themes. Some (all?) of those ideas/factions are actual philosophical beliefs that people have.

 

It didn't have rape and sexism in it just to have it. This entire thread can be summarized as "Sexism: we should have it because the lack of it makes games unrealistic and bad." If story calls for a rape or sexism or racism or whatever, sure, go for it, but don't simply add the **** in because it's "dramatic."

[Hormalakh]

It didn't have rape and sexism in it just to have it. This entire thread can be summarized as "Sexism: we should have it because the lack of it makes games unrealistic and bad." If story calls for a rape or sexism or racism or whatever, sure, go for it, but don't simply add the **** in because it's "dramatic."

 

Oh ok. Then I completely agree We don't need every single one of society's ills hung out for everyone to experience in a single P:E title. We can deal with them when they're relevant.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Agelastos]

Why does rape = artsy pretentiousness? It could be used to tell emotionally raw and poignant stories, or just to illustrate the horrors of war.

If it was to happen to one of your companions, it could be the start of a great revenge quest.

As long as it isn't used in a gratuitous way just to make the game "dark and edgy"...

 

I guess that making an "emotionally raw and poignant story" is impossible without rape, right?

 

 

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Of course it isn't.

 

And rape is ALWAYS used in a gratuitous way to make something "dark and edgy," name one time it wasn't (and casual references like Reavers raping people to death don't count).

 

Eiji Yoshikawa used it to demonstrate the misogynistic culture of Tokugawa-era Japan, to make us feel for Akemi, and to explain the changes in her personality.

There are also plenty of novels that describe war rape without reveling in it.

It's there because it will have an effect on what happens later in the plot. Because it motivated a character to make a difference, or broke him/her down.

To explain why a woman later on killed her child and herself. Or why she was so cruel and distant to her child that he grew up to be a sadistic murderer.

To raise moral questions.

It's not gratuitous if it serves an actual purpose. If it is somehow integral to the plot.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Agelastos

[SophosTheWise]

This is isn't about anti-intellectualism, it's about rape/racism/homophobia/other "mature and realistic" themes not being the only way to tell a good story. Not everything has some hidden agenda; some people just like to have fun and don't want to sacrifice that fun for the sake of "art."

 

Also Jonathan Blow is a pretentious douche bag because he says **** like “It just drives home how fictional money is” and "I’ve never liked money, really" while driving a $150,000 "green car."

You've posted that comic strip about 10'000 times, I think we all know it by now, and I've agreed with you on that beforehand, but it seems to me that you dismiss everything serious and dark to be automatically pseudo-intellectual and angsty. It's like being anti-everything for the sake of being anti. Art is (to a big extent) the breaking of existing barriers and that's easier done with serious things that are often not reflected upon, because they are so serious and stuck in our heads.

 

Also, why is Blow's statement pretentious. I think by fictional he talks about constructs, he means how constructed and surreal the concept of money is. Also, why shouldn't he drive a green car for 150'000 pounds? Just because he doesn't like money or because he thinks it's unreal? I don't see how this is in any way hypocritcal or pretentious.

[rjshae]

To reiterate a point mentioned several times earlier: when a female wizard can cast a spell to turn you into a charcoal briquet and burn you at the annual sorcerers barbeque luncheon, it tends to change the power equation a little. There's no such society in our world because that sort of power doesn't exist prior to the industrial revolution. Things can and should be different in a setting where real magic exists.

[Dream]

I guess that making an "emotionally raw and poignant story" is impossible without rape, right?

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Of course it isn't.

And by extension rape doesn't automatically make something raw and poignant. Adding it in just to have it there doesn't give your story some sort cred; it just makes you a try hard.

 

And rape is ALWAYS used in a gratuitous way to make something "dark and edgy," name one time it wasn't (and casual references like Reavers raping people to death don't count).

Eiji Yoshikawa used it to demonstrate the misogynistic culture of Tokugawa-era Japan, to make us feel for Akemi, and to explain the changes in her personality.

There are also plenty of novels that describe war rape without reveling in it.

It's there because it will have an effect on what happens later in the plot. Because it motivated a character to make a difference, or broke him/her down.

To explain why a woman later on killed her child and herself. Or why she was so cruel and distant to her child that he grew up to be a sadistic murderer.

To raise moral questions.

It's not gratuitous if it serves an actual purpose. If it is somehow integral to the plot.

Those examples pretty much read like the definition of "dark and edgy." However, yes, if it actually serves a purpose then go for it (especially so in historical fiction since, you know, **** did happen), but don't throw the **** in just to show how hard your story is (which is pretty much what every video game ever with rape in it did, and most modern movies and books).

 

This is isn't about anti-intellectualism, it's about rape/racism/homophobia/other "mature and realistic" themes not being the only way to tell a good story. Not everything has some hidden agenda; some people just like to have fun and don't want to sacrifice that fun for the sake of "art."

 

Also Jonathan Blow is a pretentious douche bag because he says **** like “It just drives home how fictional money is” and "I’ve never liked money, really" while driving a $150,000 "green car."

You've posted that comic strip about 10'000 times, I think we all know it by now, and I've agreed with you on that beforehand, but it seems to me that you dismiss everything serious and dark to be automatically pseudo-intellectual and angsty. It's like being anti-everything for the sake of being anti. Art is (to a big extent) the breaking of existing barriers and that's easier done with serious things that are often not reflected upon, because they are so serious and stuck in our heads.

 

Also, why is Blow's statement pretentious. I think by fictional he talks about constructs, he means how constructed and surreal the concept of money is. Also, why shouldn't he drive a green car for 150'000 pounds? Just because he doesn't like money or because he thinks it's unreal? I don't see how this is in any way hypocritcal or pretentious.

 

It's so good though (and true). Also every time I've posted it has been in response to pseudo-intellectual, angsty, bull****. You're not breaking any barriers by making your work about "mature and realistic" themes because that's pretty much what every art/film/whatever school grad has been doing for the past 2 decades. All it is is a bunch of hipsters trying to show off how totally raw they are. Come up with a good story and write it; if it calls for "dark" themes then whatever, but don't add them in if it doesn't (and, by extension, don't assume that to be "real" it HAS to call for them).

 

As for why Blow's statements are pretentious; it's because if he really thought money wasn't real (or actually gave a **** about the environment) he would have gotten a beater for under 10k and given the other 140+ to charity.

[Agelastos]

And by extension rape doesn't automatically make something raw and poignant. Adding it in just to have it there doesn't give your story some sort cred; it just makes you a try hard.

 

 

I didn't say that either. I said that it COULD make for raw and poignant stories. It all depends on the skill of the writer. You really love to distort peoples words, don't you?

 

However, yes, if it actually serves a purpose then go for it (especially so in historical fiction since, you know, **** did happen), but don't throw the **** in just to show how hard your story is (which is pretty much what every video game ever with rape in it did, and most modern movies and books).

 

Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying from the very start...

Edited December 3, 2012 by Agelastos

[Dream]

However, yes, if it actually serves a purpose then go for it (especially so in historical fiction since, you know, **** did happen), but don't throw the **** in just to show how hard your story is (which is pretty much what every video game ever with rape in it did, and most modern movies and books).

 

Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying from the very start...

 

In my defense you did quote me to start this exchange ^^. I was referring to the OP implying that if a medieval fantasy setting doesn't have sexism then it's automatically unrealistic (and bad).

[jezz555]

That's because when it's mentioned, people invariably mix sexism up with a whole bunch of other things based on unspoken assumptions and neither self-awareness nor social awareness (I'm speaking academically at this point). The immediate assumption in the OP and by other posters was "sexism" in the purely anti-female sense; subsequent discussion added the other potential side, but that's a distinct afterthought. It's also just the nature of a gaming forum--it's impossible for certain topics to stay focused.

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.

 

Basically, I'm interested in any social inequity that is "equal opportunity," identifiable for the inequity it is yet quite possibly subverted for a fresh perspective or a rare historical truth (blacks enslaving whites), even in a classical fantasy setting: fictional races, slavery of multiple races, cultures covering differing political systems, societies covering unique mores, religious persecution, rape of boys/men by another race, etc.

 

 

* The cases of boy-rape against church leaders and the likes of Dahmer and Sandusky are notorious to another level and their treatment by society is a topic for different book.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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...

 

To further illustrate my point, here is some real-life cultural clashes that are perceived as sexism and oppression to those who look at things from a singular point of view.

 

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?

Edited December 4, 2012 by jezz555

[Dream]

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).

 

So realism versus, what's the word, it starts with an F.

 

Oh yea.

 

Fantasy.

[jezz555]

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).

 

So realism versus, what's the word, it starts with an F.

 

Oh yea.

 

Fantasy.

 

no realistic fantasy vs. unrealistic fantasy.

 

< seriously.

Edited December 4, 2012 by jezz555

[Sylvanpyxie]

I'm not going lie, I haven't read the entirety of this thread yet but I would like to say that I really am hoping to see a certain level of sexism in the game. As long as there's a way to counter it, and there always should be, both genders should be viewed differently by different characters and cultures.

 

If there's a character in a quest line that has been rather built up to be a sexist pig, then I fully expect that character to treat me like he would any other woman. Whether he leers at me, tries some extremely terrible chat up lines(or some really smooth chat up lines) or laughs at my fully plated Fighter, claiming she's "playing at war", I would expect him to try something and I would be bitterly disappointed if he didn't. If I encounter a stalwart, gentlemanly warrior and I drop him on his arse in combat, I would fully expect him to gracefully concede, perhaps even admit that I fight better than most men he's faced.

 

Men shouldn't be exempt of this either, if a culture is dominated by feminine power I would fully expect a Male Player character to be treated with mirth or disdain, warrior women laughing at how pitiful he must be in combat and claiming his large sword is compensating for something, and he should have the option to challenge their beliefs and prove his worth, and the worth of men in general. If a Male Player engages in dialogue with a wanton housewife I would fully expect for her to respond differently to him if he's a man, whether she drops a few subtle hints at being "so lonely" or practically throws herself onto the poor man, the conversation should differ depending on your gender.

 

Each character is different and each of them have their own personalities, beliefs and opinions. A lecherous pig should respond poorly to a Female Player, an amazon woman should respond poorly to a Male Player. The characters should dictate the responses and certain characters should behave differently depending on your gender. Characterization shouldn't be forsaken for the sake of political correctness.

 

That being said, there obviously needs to be the option for the Player to retaliate in kind. I have no problem with lecherous pigs or bigoted idiots in my computer games, but I need to have the option to retaliate and put them all down a peg. Dragon Age Origins had a certain degree of sexism in it and when I was playing through the Human Noble and City Elf origins I always had the option to make sexist pigs eat their words. I could curb-stomp them into a gooey red paste and that was, quite frankly, one of the most fulfilling parts of the game. This should always be an option, a Player should never be "put down" without having the opportunity to grind someone into dust.

 

Overall, I like having a certain level of sexism, aimed at both genders equally. I think it opens up more avenues for characterization and helps writers maintain consistent characters overall. Though there obviously needs to be options available for the Player to retaliate against sexist comments, I honestly believe that political correctness should not stand in the way of story-telling.

 

Still, everyone's opinion is different and this is just mine.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Sylvanpyxie

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think that sexism, racism, jingoism, bigotry, should exist. I also think that truly horrible thing should occur like rape, massacre, and incredibly cruel torture.

 

Why?

 

Because of realism. Not realism in the sense of having things be exactly like they are in real life, but realistic behaviors and motives.

 

Take bandits for example. In quite a few games they are reduced to bad people who do bad things, even though those bad things are rarely shown or even discussed. I would love to see a band of racist and/or jingoistic bandits who go around raping and pillaging towns, because that is what bandits would do.

[Dream]

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).

 

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).

Edited December 4, 2012 by Dream

[jezz555]

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).

 

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.

Edited December 4, 2012 by jezz555

[Rostere]

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).

 

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?

You haven't understood the slightest what he's trying to say. By "realistic" they mean that if the book describes how she's invulnerable to fire (a fantasy element), then the potential consequences of that are thought out and consistent with the rest of the fictional universe.

[Dream]

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.

You haven't understood the slightest what he's trying to say. By "realistic" they mean that if the book describes how she's invulnerable to fire (a fantasy element), then the potential consequences of that are thought out and consistent with the rest of the fictional universe.

 

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.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Dream

[Agelastos]

River wasn't just a girl. She was a genius (who may have had latent psychic abilities even before she was altered) turned genetically engineered super assassin through a secret Alliance military program. Hell, they even removed most of her amygdala (which is what made her so... erratic). When focused, she was the most deadly person in the galaxy.

 

Edit: ah. too late

Edited December 4, 2012 by Agelastos

[Corvus Metus]

You clearly disagree here, so let's hear your case.

Well, personally, I want P:E to be a fun video game and not the next champion of the "games are art" crowd; leave that **** to pretentious indie developer douche bags like Jonathan Blow.

 

Off topic here: I seriously dislike that American anti-intellectualism. I see no reason, why Braid was pretentious, just because it tried something different, just because Blow tried to express his views on life the way he did. But that's somehow typical for our time, when everything intellectual is automatically "hipster" or "pretentious". I'm tired of getting labelled as a "hipster" just because I like literature, or because I write poetry and read philosophy for fun or because I'm wearing hipster glasses (that I wear because of poor eye-sight and also because my literay heroes did - it's the same as people wearing their new-era-caps because of some hip hop stars). It seems that in our time, everything that contradicts pure consumerism, everything that actively tries to change conventions or to be different, an alternative tends to get labelled that way. It's the death of progression.

 

While I have no clue who the hell Johnathan Blow is, I don't think there's anything instinctively wrong with that statement.

 

If I play a game, read a book, or watch a movie my primary intent is to be entertained. If that entertainment can come along with enlightenment, that's fantastic. However, if the product is more concerned with being "smart" than it is with telling an enjoyable story-line, it tends to be dreadfully boring. Granted, I've very rarely seen this most mediums; most "artistic" stories are still entertaining but I've heard a handful of bands who labelled themselves as "a thinking man's <genre>" and it was usually junk.

 

That being said, concerning topics such as sexism - if it's good for the story, go for it. But don't make things "dark and edgy" just to do it. Using a related genre; I felt the setting the World of Darkness table-top role-playing games were great - but I felt their "mature" Black Dog supplements were filled with sex and violence solely for the sake of sex and violence, with only a couple of exceptions.

[jezz555]

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.

You haven't understood the slightest what he's trying to say. By "realistic" they mean that if the book describes how she's invulnerable to fire (a fantasy element), then the potential consequences of that are thought out and consistent with the rest of the fictional universe.

 

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...

Edited December 4, 2012 by jezz555

[Dream]

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 an general example. Are you saying fantasy doesn't require explanation or being deliberately ignorant? Because at this point I can't tell...

 

So genetic engineering is out for you, but "the blood of a dragon" is a-okay?

 

On top of that you're claiming to hate a certain individuals work without even knowing the most basic things about it; classy.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Dream

[jezz555]

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 an general example. Are you saying fantasy doesn't require explanation or being deliberately ignorant? Because at this point I can't tell...

 

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.