What things do you NOT want in Project Eternity?

[Necx]

No RMAH or many of the mistakes of D3..

[Ieo]

I'll agree with the less random... More decision-making, more skill mechanics, so forth.

 

Most of the things I really don't want are already off the table: co-op/MP, full VO, tablet OS support (iOS/Android), console support, ridiculous metal-bikini/ultra-boob armor on female avatars (hopefully that's still off)

 

The only other thing on my list is--no excessive and exclusive romance content that locks out a companion's development (e.g. your PC is female and a female companion has 80% romance content, ergo you have nothing to say to each other).

 

 

By the way, for all the NEW people coming in and whining about co-op/MP yet again, see the links in my sig that lead to developer interviews and forum posts. When the developers themselves say MP hurts SP content, MP adds complex debugging and no content gain, a small minority asks for MP and then an even smaller minority actually uses it... That's the truth. (Preemptively, anyone who counters "no it didn't for me i enjoyed it lots," your perspective is from a lowly basement player and not a game developer who actually codes stuff for thousands/millions of people.)

 

Co-op/MP is off the table for the first PE game and should stay off the table for the rest of the franchise besides independent standalones (i.e. not expansions but a whole new game in the same setting) that might be Kickstarted. There are half a dozen other threads about this already just like the romance threads, really. Do a search.

[Greensleeve]

No overpowered casters, as in the IE games.

No active combat options for mundane/non-full casters.

 

It would suck bad if PE had overpowered casters. It's a far too common thing to see.

[BruceVC]

Mmmm, what don't I want? Good question. For it will be things I didn't enjoy in other RPG, like DA2. So that would mean

• enemies appearing out of the air
  
• the same dungeons being reused
  

[Lephys]

Most of the things I really don't want are already off the table: co-op/MP, full VO, tablet OS support (iOS/Android), console support, ridiculous metal-bikini/ultra-boob armor on female avatars (hopefully that's still off)

 

Awwww... you are totally discriminating against sexist male chauvanists. Also, there's a joke somewhere in there about armor on female avatars hopefully being off... haha. Ohhh terrible out-of-context meanings. 8P

 

In all seriousness, I love seeing female avatar/equipment designs supporting more believable badassery. Doesn't mean prettiness/feminine-grace is off the table or anything. Look at the new Tomb Raider. New Lara doesn't need a bikini or a ****tail dress to get the job done.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Lephys

[Alexjh]

By the way, for all the NEW people coming in and whining about co-op/MP yet again, see the links in my sig that lead to developer interviews and forum posts. When the developers themselves say MP hurts SP content, MP adds complex debugging and no content gain, a small minority asks for MP and then an even smaller minority actually uses it... That's the truth. (Preemptively, anyone who counters "no it didn't for me i enjoyed it lots," your perspective is from a lowly basement player and not a game developer who actually codes stuff for thousands/millions of people.)

 

Co-op/MP is off the table for the first PE game and should stay off the table for the rest of the franchise besides independent standalones (i.e. not expansions but a whole new game in the same setting) that might be Kickstarted. There are half a dozen other threads about this already just like the romance threads, really. Do a search.

 

For a start, there was no need whatsoever for rudeness, regardless of the content of what you are actually saying it makes you come off as patronising and immature. Secondly, the discussion being had wasn't "should PE have multiplayer" it was "is multiplayer inherantly detrimental to a games development / is multiplayer a worthwhile inclusion" which isn't the same thing at all. I've known since Adam's Icewind Dale 2 playthrough where I've got direct from him that there would be no co-op, which is a slight disappointment for me, but fine and I see and understand the reasons behind it. However, that does not negate a discussion of multiplayer from being valid or interesting for those who choose to get themselves involved. If you don't find it valid or interesting don't get involved. Also don't make assumptions about what people do or do not know, I may not be a programmer myself, but I have worked with them on various bits and bobs and know full well that things aren't produced by magic.

 

Additionally, the strong implication is that you haven't actually played the IE multiplayer to which I was refering, which basically renders your oppinions on whether it represents a fun playstyle or not redundant. Go grab some friends and actually play through Icewind Dale of Baldurs Gate and then come back and have this discussion. I'm also seriously doubting you have accurate statistics about who does and doesn't play them in co-op, what with them being IP address based rather than managed by a specific host. Just checked on Gameranger though and theres at least 16 co-op campaigns of IE games going on right this second, which isn't bad for a batch of games which are at the youngest, over a decade old. Which isn't to say that you aren't necessarily right, but more that as far as I can tell you are just making up numbers to match your vision of things.

 

But as I said I accept that focusing on single player is more important to Obsidian right now which is entirely understandable, my point is purely that as something to potentially add back into the franchise later, either as a patch to PE or an inclusion in an expansion or later game it is far from without merit. I'd honestly be happy if they left in an undebugged version of it in the code for modders to tidy up later.

 

But in summary, if you aren't interested in a subject don't reply and if you do reply, do so politely.

[Gavinfoxx]

Personally, I would like a toggle between 'fantastic armor and weaponry' and 'realistic armor and weaponry'. One has implausibly designed and sized weapons and armor that leaves lots of skin uncovered on BOTH genders, and has the boob armor, etc. one has more historic looking everything. Let it be a player choice for which they want to use, and can change it at any time.

[Lephys]

^ Ideally, yes. Heh. They probably don't have the time and resources for all that, though, as it would require twice the (aesthetic) design work. But, if resources were no object... Then definitely.

[Alexjh]

In regards to including that stuff - if you did want to, the simple solution is to have a part of two of the game where somebody has decked out all their guards in utterly impractical ceremonial stuff because the guards are there to look impressive rather than be actual legitimate defenses. It'd of course be statted out to an appropriate level of uselessness, but that way you let people use and wear stupid things and let natural selection run its course...

[Lephys]

Not a bad idea,

[Alec20]

Too much crafting. I kinda like BG2's take on it, where there isn't much of it, and the items require specific one of a kind "ingredients". I hate the Skyrim or Amalur or whatever take on it though, where you craft the best items instead of finding them and you carry around so much trash materials. I know crafting is going to be in this, but I just hope it's pretty minor.

[TRX850]

Dead levels.

 

I'd like to be able to add or refine something, no matter how minor, on each level up.

[Dream]

6. An overabundance of bugs

 

Sorry bro but you're ****ed on that one.

 

It's an Obsidian game.

[bonarbill]

I'll agree with the less random... More decision-making, more skill mechanics, so forth.

 

Most of the things I really don't want are already off the table: co-op/MP, full VO, tablet OS support (iOS/Android), console support, ridiculous metal-bikini/ultra-boob armor on female avatars (hopefully that's still off)

 

The only other thing on my list is--no excessive and exclusive romance content that locks out a companion's development (e.g. your PC is female and a female companion has 80% romance content, ergo you have nothing to say to each other).

 

 

By the way, for all the NEW people coming in and whining about co-op/MP yet again, see the links in my sig that lead to developer interviews and forum posts. When the developers themselves say MP hurts SP content, MP adds complex debugging and no content gain, a small minority asks for MP and then an even smaller minority actually uses it... That's the truth. (Preemptively, anyone who counters "no it didn't for me i enjoyed it lots," your perspective is from a lowly basement player and not a game developer who actually codes stuff for thousands/millions of people.)

 

Co-op/MP is off the table for the first PE game and should stay off the table for the rest of the franchise besides independent standalones (i.e. not expansions but a whole new game in the same setting) that might be Kickstarted. There are half a dozen other threads about this already just like the romance threads, really. Do a search.

 

I usually like your posts, but you always act like a unrational **** when someone mentions the word "multiplayer." So multplayer isn't going to be in the game? So freaking what? People have the right to discuss it in the topics, and I saw no one demanding it being in the game. They were merely talking about the pros and cons of multiplayer in these games, and I hope the discussion doesn't stop.

Edited January 13, 2013 by bonarbill

[BruceVC]

Most of the things I really don't want are already off the table: co-op/MP, full VO, tablet OS support (iOS/Android), console support, ridiculous metal-bikini/ultra-boob armor on female avatars (hopefully that's still off)

 

Awwww... you are totally discriminating against sexist male chauvanists. Also, there's a joke somewhere in there about armor on female avatars hopefully being off... haha. Ohhh terrible out-of-context meanings. 8P

 

 

I have to be honest, I don't understand why its sexist or chauvinist to admire or be a supporter of the female body. I am a huge supporter of Bikini Chainmail armor in PE and Viconia similar characters

[Gavinfoxx]

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.

[BruceVC]

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.

 

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men?

 

This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.

Edited January 13, 2013 by BruceVC

[Alexjh]

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.

 

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men?

 

This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.

 

OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting.

 

The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else.

 

Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character.

 

I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/

[BruceVC]

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.

 

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men?

 

This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.

 

OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting.

 

The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else.

 

Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character.

 

I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/

 

Thanks for the informative response , I appreciate the time you spent explaining your view. I did mean Robert Howard, I couldn't edit the post for some reason after I realized my mistake.

 

The reality is in RL we are surrounded by aesthetics and the appeal of beauty. Magazines, adverts, TV and News Channels presenters all have beautiful women that often wear clothes that compliment there figures. I don't think this is wrong. I don't think women should in anyway be inhibited by what they want to wear. I also don't think that guys that like this are weird, as this is a natural part of what makes up our modern world and our human psyche.

 

Therefore in a fantasy setting I also have no issue with men or women wearing bikini armor. I know you are not objecting to this but there are several people who are vociferously opposed to this type of sexuality and when people talk about similar topics they are accused of being "perverts" or "sexist".

[TMTVL]

Forced fights without a way to escape or avoid it where if I die I just have to reload and try again (and again and again) until I win.

[Alexjh]

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.

 

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men?

 

This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.

 

OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting.

 

The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else.

 

Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character.

 

I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/

 

Thanks for the informative response , I appreciate the time you spent explaining your view. I did mean Robert Howard, I couldn't edit the post for some reason after I realized my mistake.

 

The reality is in RL we are surrounded by aesthetics and the appeal of beauty. Magazines, adverts, TV and News Channels presenters all have beautiful women that often wear clothes that compliment there figures. I don't think this is wrong. I don't think women should in anyway be inhibited by what they want to wear. I also don't think that guys that like this are weird, as this is a natural part of what makes up our modern world and our human psyche.

 

Therefore in a fantasy setting I also have no issue with men or women wearing bikini armor. I know you are not objecting to this but there are several people who are vociferously opposed to this type of sexuality and when people talk about similar topics they are accused of being "perverts" or "sexist".

 

I think the main thing is that we need more female characters who have a primary attribute other than sexiness. Realistically, proportionally in sci-fi and fantasy (particularly, the problem is more widespread than that by far) the big problem is not that there are sexualised women, its that there are not enough women who aren't sexualised. I'd say that on average, youare less likely to find a female physically over the age of 35 or a female character who isn't specifically attractive, than say, a black character, which is just silly. It's well established that non-white ethnic groups are underrepresented to begin with, but to say that over the age of 35 and/or not conventionally attractive members of 50% of the population is frankly bizarre. I'd like to see characters with different body types to just skinny with big breasts, and importantly, sometimes give them a lead role in things, not just be a randomer in the street or whatever. Make female characters who are asexual, conservative, pragmatists, intellectuals, middle aged, disinterested in sex, married, thinks the protagonist isn't their type etc.

 

On that note, by FAR my favourite female character in a game ever is Aveline from DA2. She wasn't conventionally pretty, she wasn't conventionally feminine, she was tough and willfull and had depths and would argue with you when she thought you were wrong. She wasn't even interested in you! When was the last time you have a game where a character falls in love with someone who isn't you the protagonist? None I've played! In other words, she was written as a character, not just as a strange male concept of a woman. DA2 was pretty good for this in general, although some feministic people disliked Isabella for instance, I think they are missing the point that people like her do exist and we shouldn't pretend they don't. Equally I have met people like Merrill, and the fact that all three of them came off as real characters with their own motives and itnerests was far better than the generic action-girl flirtacious love interest or shy flower to be swept off her feet that 90% of games do.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Alexjh

[Lephys]

I have to be honest, I don't understand why its sexist or chauvinist to admire or be a supporter of the female body. I am a huge supporter of Bikini Chainmail armor in PE and Viconia similar characters

 

I know exactly what you mean, and I can see this got things a little off-topic, so I'll keep this brief.

 

There's not actually anything inherently sexist, or even wrong, about programming female types that only some groups admire and not others. However, I do realize the point behind "then why aren't the dudes all scantily-clad, too?", even if it's often inaccurately stated (as automatically making things sexist), as well as the "the designs of those females completely detracts from the practicality and believability of the rest of the game world" point.

 

In short, there are many reasons why it is silly, from a standpoint of reason, for so many female video game characters to be sexualized while pretty much nothing else in the game matches up with that, but it is not inherently wrong or sexist, as it is perfectly possible to admire the human female form without thinking women are worth nothing more than the aesthetics of their form, or that they are lesser than men, etc.

 

I mean, if some company made 17 different beverages that all tasted the same, no one would say "You're being FLAVORIST!". People would just say "Wow, you've got a pretty narrow design scope for your product. I'll look elsewhere, thanks."

 

Annnnnnywho, what I wouldn't like to see in P:E is ONLY-sexualized-female-armor. Just because it's nonsensical to not also have practical armor. If some hot Barbarian girl wants to wear a chainmail bikini because she choose to adhere to the hassle-free, hardly-any-armor, berzerker-movement friendly Barbarian equipment policy, and she just loves chainmail as well as showing off her body, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To say otherwise would literally be contrary to the entire sexism argument in the first place (by saying that admiring the sexuality of your own form, if you're female, is inherently wrong). BUT, if all females are scantily-clad and flirty, I shall be disappointed in the extreme imbalance in the range of female character models. u_u

[BruceVC]

I have to be honest, I don't understand why its sexist or chauvinist to admire or be a supporter of the female body. I am a huge supporter of Bikini Chainmail armor in PE and Viconia similar characters

 

I know exactly what you mean, and I can see this got things a little off-topic, so I'll keep this brief.

 

There's not actually anything inherently sexist, or even wrong, about programming female types that only some groups admire and not others. However, I do realize the point behind "then why aren't the dudes all scantily-clad, too?", even if it's often inaccurately stated (as automatically making things sexist), as well as the "the designs of those females completely detracts from the practicality and believability of the rest of the game world" point.

 

In short, there are many reasons why it is silly, from a standpoint of reason, for so many female video game characters to be sexualized while pretty much nothing else in the game matches up with that, but it is not inherently wrong or sexist, as it is perfectly possible to admire the human female form without thinking women are worth nothing more than the aesthetics of their form, or that they are lesser than men, etc.

 

I mean, if some company made 17 different beverages that all tasted the same, no one would say "You're being FLAVORIST!". People would just say "Wow, you've got a pretty narrow design scope for your product. I'll look elsewhere, thanks."

 

Annnnnnywho, what I wouldn't like to see in P:E is ONLY-sexualized-female-armor. Just because it's nonsensical to not also have practical armor. If some hot Barbarian girl wants to wear a chainmail bikini because she choose to adhere to the hassle-free, hardly-any-armor, berzerker-movement friendly Barbarian equipment policy, and she just loves chainmail as well as showing off her body, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To say otherwise would literally be contrary to the entire sexism argument in the first place (by saying that admiring the sexuality of your own form, if you're female, is inherently wrong). BUT, if all females are scantily-clad and flirty, I shall be disappointed in the extreme imbalance in the range of female character models. u_u

 

You make some relevant points and I agree with almost everything you have said

 

Another point from me, many people say that women are objectified in games as there purpose in the game is as some kind of sex symbol only. All my female characters are chosen because they add value to the overall mission. Viconia was an important War Cleric and Isabella was an invaluable aid in combat. I know this may seem simplistic but its disputes the argument where people say " women in certain games have no purpose except for aesthetics"

[Lephys]

Another point from me, many people say that women are objectified in games as there purpose in the game is as some kind of sex symbol only. All my female characters are chosen because they add value to the overall mission. Viconia was an important War Cleric and Isabella was an invaluable aid in combat. I know this may seem simplistic but its disputes the argument where people say " women in certain games have no purpose except for aesthetics"

 

Hells yeah! Tali was my favorite in the Mass Effect trilogy, despite the fact that Miranda was practically wearing body paint. Of course, she was genetically bread to be perfect, and was a biotic (so she cared more about mobility than armor). But, yeah, Tali was fully covered all the time. She wore a helmet 24/7, for heaven's sake. But she used shotguns, AND tech abilities, and her culture was interesting, etc.

 

Alas, poorly-designed games with sexualized females might offer nothing more than the aesthetics of sexualized females, and maybe a bunch of immature kiddies (for whom the ratings system was specifically created, yet you still see parents buying their 10-year-olds Grand Theft Auto 4 and DOA Extreme Beach Volleyball) can't tell the difference between the usefulness of characters and their character models' clothing, but the argument that sexism can be blamed on the existence of female sexualized portrayals in video games is like saying serial killing can be blamed on the existence and availability of people.

 

It's... it's kind of like the arbitrary racism card. Some person who happens to be of a certain race rams their car into someone else's car, and you say "Man... what an idiot... should've been paying attention..." And then someone chimes in with "YOU JUST THINK THAT PERSON'S AN IDIOT BECAUSE THEY'RE (insert ethnicity here)!". I'm thinking, "Erm... I think they're an idiot because they were texting AND spreading jam on a bagel while trying to make a u-turn and rammed into that other car... you're the one who just connected their ethnicity to their competency." You think "This female character happens to have an awesome backstory and very tactically-useful combat abilities. You're the one who suggested she was just eye-candy when you called me sexist for liking her."

 

Annnnnywho. Off-topic again. Sorry.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Lephys

[Luridis]

I don't want to see super-massive-over-the-top success of PE and subsequent porting to every platform under the sun. "What?" "Huh?" "Why?"

 

Success, I do want to see, but...

 

I don't want to see this place turn into Blizzard/Bioware forums over night, that's why. It's remarkably civil here at the moment and the last thing I want is an infusion of several million cheeto-eating-console-playing teens that have as little control over their commentary as they do their own hormones. The incoming nerd-rage-o-rama from such a success, over future IP development, would contain complaints about everything from the size of a female NPCs boobs to "dur why are there <insert-deragatory-name-for-same-sex-romances> in the game?". This place would become absolutely untenable in a matter of weeks. Basic principals of story evolution and creative license would be destroyed in their infancy by the sheer power of the weapon of mass destruction that is raging testosterone powered commentary.

 

"Aww, come on... Why are you bashing on the kiddies." - I'm not bashing the kids, I'm bashing the behavior. The title of the topic is, after all, "What don't you want..."

 

Games are rarely a black-and-white experience these days, just like any other creative medium. How many musicians do you know of where you liked every song on every album? Writers that you know where you liked every chapter of every book? Producer and every movie? Probably few, if any, I'd wager...

 

So, here's a realistic projection for Project Eternity:

• You will not like every character.
  
• You will not like every quest.
  
• You will not like every zone.
  
• You will not like every mechanic.
  
• You will not like every feature.
  
• You will not like every model.
  
• You will not like every musical score.
  
• But...
  
• You still may very much like the game.
  

It would be really nice if we could avoid millions of rabid internet rage posters on this one...

Edited January 14, 2013 by Luridis