Jump to content
Zombra

Your PoE Pros and Cons: 5 and 5

Recommended Posts

 

we has been lobbying for years, with virtual every new ip from bioware and others, to have a health and fatigue mechanic. hardly any new ip from obsidian, so has rare been an issue.

Aah, but that's the thing. In PoE's system Stamina does not = Fatigue. You do not incur stamina loss from casting a fireball or activating your Barbarian charge, for example.

 

Instead, you lose stamina when you get whacked in combat. When someone hits you with something. And when your stamina bar drops to zero, you fall to the ground.... maimed.

 

That means that the stamina bar is literally just a second health bar. Thus I'm still trying to figure out why it's needed. Or why it's even called a stamina bar, when it could more accurately be called: "The-Flesh-Wound-Bar" or "The-Blood-Loss-Bar" or "Immediate-Combat-Trauma-Incurred-Bar".

 

 

It's just a rose by another name. Whereas slain companions would arise on in NWN2 and most other modern games so long as just one PC survived, thus is the Stamina/Health mechanic. It hints of attempting to bake the cheese into the bread, instead of just spreading it over top. Obsidian isn't immune to changing with the times. Once, there were a generation or two of gamers honed on coin-operated games which had incentive to be difficult. Those design habits carried over into PC and console gaming well throughout the 1990s. This is no longer the case, and expectations of what games are have changed. Mastering mechanics to triumph over rules or systems has given way to guaranteeing delivery an emotional experience.

 

I'll just leave it at that. That turned out to be more curmudgeonly and "grognar" that I had intended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I begin my responses I feel it worth mentioning that I can’t help but feel in people’s rush to argue completely against my point (or more accurately what they think to be my point) they’re doing a disservice to the effort Obsidian has put into crafting a coherent setting. Based on everything we’ve been shown Eora isn’t simply an “anything goes” setting with a fantasy backdrop (like some are crudely portraying it as), rather Obsidian are trying to ground the setting as much as possible and genuinely pay attention to the implications of various existing structures.

 

Again, going off what we’ve been told, the mindset of “it’s fantasy so it doesn’t matter” seems to be at odds with their world-building philosophy.

 

You keep saying that sexism is "inherent" to feudalism, but I don't see why. I'm guessing that you're confusing inherence with historical coincidence.

I’d have thought that seeing that every single existing feudal society has been deeply misogynist and patriarchal this would indicate that at the very least it is far more likely that there is an underlying structure that maintains and propagates this patriarchy rather then it simply all being one convenient coincidence.

 

Nonetheless, sure, I’ll try and do my best and give a very brief/general explanation.

 

Prior to the establishment of societies rooted in agriculture there’s your standard hunter/gatherer model. Now although there still exists a sexual division of labour these are relatively egalitarian as labour and resources are communally shared. However, although relatively egalitarian there are still the seeds for a hierarchal relationship as the males are the ones who are focused on hunting i.e. controlling the means of subsistence thereby owning the means of production in these affairs. As societies develop and are forced to settle down in the one area to feed a larger population via agriculture these sexual divisions grow (to varying degrees) with men’s prior privileges resulting in a monopoly on power wherein males are typically in possession of surpluses far above what is necessary for them to survive whereas women are forced into secondary positions primarily associated with reproductive labour. As societies develop and grow these unequal relationships will mold themselves to remain sustainable so long such “inequalities” are necessary. I.e. the very modern institutions of “bread-winner” and “nuclear family” wherein the male has a monopoly on paid work and the female is encouraged to work unpaid labour.

 

Ehhh, I probably did a dodgy job there so rather than having my post being the “make or break” for the theory I’d advise actually reading up the various schools of patriarchy theory and family-economics yourself. I’m hardly some governing authority.

 

that being said, we surely has no idea what women has 'unanimously' decided, but we do believe that it is the women players o' poe who deserve the choice regarding whether they should be subjected to realistic european feudal misogyny in a game.

You are not offering a “choice” at all.

 

I am advocating we explore the patriarchy inherent to feudalism, many games have chosen to ignore it and since this one is exploring similar themes I feel its inclusion would be appropriate. You are advocating we have a feudal-esque setting minus the parts you find undesirable like every other videogame fantasy setting.

 

Unless you’re advocating a “what type of setting and tone do you want” toggle (which is obviously absurd) there’s no choice here.

 

What is with this weird fixation on feudal societies. Seriously.

The game is set in a feudal setting or at the very least a setting that’s gradually phasing out of feudalism. I’m advocating exploring themes integral to the feudal time period. Obsidian have already said they will be exploring the issues of colonialism, institutionalized racism and feudal class conflict; and the game will also already have different gendered cultural expectations, so naturally it feels appropriate to explore issues of sex as well.

 

I’m really not understanding the confusion.

 

I'm sure glad you find gender inequality "interesting." That's so "feminist" of you.

You have no intellectual interest in gender inequality and the structures that propagate it? Can’t have action without theory and what have you.

 

Nevertheless you’re free to have no interest yourself but I’d discourage patronizing those who’d prefer that those themes be explored rather than ignored.

I wish I could find it as interesting as you do but unfortunately experiencing it first hand makes it lose its appeal.

I can certainly understand why some may prefer avoid exploring and discussing the various kinds of oppression but don’t think your feelings are uniform for all women or any other oppressed group.

 

I personally make little money; live in a tiny single room in a downtrodden neighbourhood rife with dilapidated buildings, drug dens, half a dozen homeless people, prostitutes and so on. This doesn’t stop me from having an invested intellectual interest in class inequality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need sexism in videogames because it would be politically incorrect to not have it.

A very crass reduction of my point.

 

What I advocate is not necessarily for all videogames, merely any videogame set in a feudal setting that wishes to properly represent the oppressive nature of feudalism.

 

I believe I’ve already summed up my position quite nicely:

 

I'm not advocating stat penalties for female PCs, class limitations, ability limitations or what have you. Rather I'm advocating that the setting itself depict the primitive reactionary values inherent to feudalism and its consequences on the population. That does not mean the female PC is silenced or necessarily 'limited' mind you, rather they'd have a different experience where they are far more likely to be discriminated by virtue of their sex but still obviously be able to fight against that.

 

The problem I have with most fantasy settings is that they will either ignore the suffering women felt under feudalism and simply sweep the inherent misogyny of such a system under the rug or they will show feudal societies as sexist but essentially silence the female sex under the guise of "well they didn't have a voice then".

 

What I advocate is showing the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system.

Worth noting is that the whole historical field of gender studies is focused on the last bit of what I said. I.e. Investigating the lives, thoughts and agency of women who lived under these various oppressive systems.

 

And you say Obsidian - let's just assume for one second that they are going to make the male and female characters equal because,

Assuming how you define it they won’t be equal at all.

 

They will have the exact same base stats (as I already supported) however they will have different gendered cultural expectations. My ‘potential issue’ was the degree in which they differ and how well rooted these enforced cultural differences are in the game’s lore. Based on what we know of the setting it is entirely possible females in PoE will be less oppressed then they were in real life, however for the entire institution of patriarchy to be done away within a system as primitive, reactionary and oppressive as feudalism is incredibly absurd.

 

oh I don't know, it doesn't matter either way what gender your main character is? Are you seriously accusing them of being "weak" for actually having morals?

Holy mother of strawman.

 

I never said anything even remotely resembling this.

 

You do realize that by advocating for sexism in a fictional world, you yourself are being sexist?

No I am not. By this logic because Obsidian is including racism, colonialism, serfdom, murder, war, genocide and so on they themselves must support all these things!

 

As I have already explained I’m not simply advocating sexism on its own. That’s another mistake fantasy settings make that I feel is lazy. I’m advocating “showing the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system.”

 

Don't even bother giving me that "feudal setting" ****. That's just you hiding behind some vague pre-conceived notion of "the rules" in order to spew your ****.

I’m quite honestly dumbfounded that you’ve read an unapologetically leftist argument that rests in a materialist understanding of institutionalized sexism and patriarchy as some kind of cheap defense of social conservatism.

 

As I said before, institutionalized forms of discrimination do not simply spring up because certain individuals are ****. Rather such reactionary institutions emerge as a product of the material conditions in which they are formed.

 

I’ll try and briefly cover this with an area I’m much more comfortable with.

 

The transition from slave-societies to feudalism for example didn’t come about because someone dreamed up some “feudalism” idea and thought that’d somehow be a better way to run society. Rather, the slaves & spoils economy of the Romans had gradually ceased to be capable of sustaining itself and fractured with the next few centuries laying the foundations for feudalism to emerge, one particularly important one being the mounted warrior. By the 900s the decaying Carolingian Empire had created a caste of powerful soldiers with no real oversight, and thus without any major governing authority these soldiers were able to translate their military strength into land ownership, most obviously through the construction of fortifications which would gradually see the rise of early castellans and fiefdoms. Over the next few centuries these war-lord kingdoms would expand and stabilize and thus less explicitly coercive policies began to emerge such as vassalage, closed nobility and perhaps most importantly, ‘kings’ who provided a perceived link back to Rome for legitimacy (although the actual power of the king wouldn’t come until much later).

 

Err, a slight off-topic ramble but my point was to show how systems such as feudalism or patriarchy aren’t simply a consequence of individual thought but rather rooted in material conditions.

 

Of course you may disagree and argue from a philosophically idealist position that believes humans somehow have agency outside of their material conditions and thus oppressions such as “sexism” and “racism” are not structurally enforced but merely the fault of individual agency.

 

I’d obviously disagree this position but it is at the very least a position I can have a sensible debate with.

 

What I cannot sensibly debate is an erroneous position that conflates my firmly leftist critique with cheap, reactionary sexism. I would be deeply offended if I didn’t simply think you had little exposure leftist and/or feminist theory.

 

EDIT: An sorry for double post. Wasn't sure how big this forum's limit was.

Edited by Barothmuk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You keep saying that sexism is "inherent" to feudalism, but I don't see why. I'm guessing that you're confusing inherence with historical coincidence.

I’d have thought that seeing that every single existing feudal society has been deeply misogynist and patriarchal this would indicate that at the very least it is far more likely that there is an underlying structure that maintains and propagates this patriarchy rather then it simply all being one convenient coincidence.

 

Nonetheless, sure, I’ll try and do my best and give a very brief/general explanation.

 

Prior to the establishment of societies rooted in agriculture there’s your standard hunter/gatherer model. Now although there still exists a sexual division of labour these are relatively egalitarian as labour and resources are communally shared. However, although relatively egalitarian there are still the seeds for a hierarchal relationship as the males are the ones who are focused on hunting i.e. controlling the means of subsistence thereby owning the means of production in these affairs. As societies develop and are forced to settle down in the one area to feed a larger population via agriculture these sexual divisions grow (to varying degrees) with men’s prior privileges resulting in a monopoly on power wherein males are typically in possession of surpluses far above what is necessary for them to survive whereas women are forced into secondary positions primarily associated with reproductive labour. As societies develop and grow these unequal relationships will mold themselves to remain sustainable so long such “inequalities” are necessary. I.e. the very modern institutions of “bread-winner” and “nuclear family” wherein the male has a monopoly on paid work and the female is encouraged to work unpaid labour.

 

Ehhh, I probably did a dodgy job there so rather than having my post being the “make or break” for the theory I’d advise actually reading up the various schools of patriarchy theory and family-economics yourself. I’m hardly some governing authority.

That summary does indeed fit very well with a particular sort of theory, but not with the historical facts of medieval Europe, which I assume is our common ground when we're talking about feudal societies.

 

First (and prior to medieval Europe) in those hunter gatherer societies, gathering was consistently the more nutritionally valuable and consistent activity. So men did not "control the subsistence" and thus have an economic basis for hierarchy by "owning the means of production." That's a really strange bastardization of Marx.

 

Second, settled agriculture did not necessarily by itself lead to power discrepancies between the sexes. In medieval Europe, for the most part, even though this was thousands of years after the advent of sedentary agriculture, women were still crucially and centrally involved in the family economy in the vast majority of households.

 

Third, your argument rests heavily on the experience of the noble classes in medieval Europe. Surpluses were very limited, but those were the people who enjoyed them, and they did by and large develop and maintain highly imbalanced power structures biased against women. However, it's important to remember that these people were only ever a small fragment of the population, that by virtue of their idleness they didn't have to participate in the close knit family economy, and that women played a much larger role in estate management and power brokerage than your average extremist feminist is willing to concede.

 

Fourth, what you're talking about really only happened across European societies with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the attendant destruction of the family economy. And despite what Marx will try to tell you, feudalism wasn't an economic system, but a sociopolitical system that grew out of historical contingency. Moreover, that kind of economic sexism, in the Western world, didn't become broadly prevalent across all classes until at least the latter half of the nineteenth century.

 

Tl;dr read history, not social theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m afraid this one will have to be more brief since I’ve really only got so much free time to yell on forums.

 

First (and prior to medieval Europe) in those hunter gatherer societies, gathering was consistently the more nutritionally valuable and consistent activity. So men did not "control the subsistence" and thus have an economic basis for hierarchy by "owning the means of production." That's a really strange bastardization of Marx.

The reduction of men = hunters, women = gatherers is obviously an incorrect simplification. In reality men would of course do both as women would also be stuck with the burden of pregnancy, thus yes, men would eventually gain a monopoly on the means of production.

 

Second, settled agriculture did not necessarily by itself lead to power discrepancies between the sexes. In medieval Europe, for the most part, even though this was thousands of years after the advent of sedentary agriculture, women were still crucially and centrally involved in the family economy in the vast majority of households.

An incorrect reading on your part. I’m not denying these oppressed females still played an important role in their spheres, rather that their roles were still inherently oppressed and exploited

 

Third, your argument rests heavily on the experience of the noble classes in medieval Europe.

Third my argument rests on summarising 3 huge, organically changing eras of human history in a bite sized paragraph.

 

Fourth, what you're talking about really only happened across European societies with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the attendant destruction of the family economy.

We are referring to the nuclear family bit, yes? That was a quick example of a modern structurally enforced gender role.

 

Your entire fourth paragraph was argument against a point I never made.

 

And despite what Marx will try to tell you, feudalism wasn't an economic system, but a sociopolitical system that grew out of historical contingency.

Cute but it’s not like you can simply just walk into an academic setting and have them all unanimously agree that feudalism = “socio-political system that grew out of historical contingency” with anything else being discredited pinko lies. What is the more accurate description is that the word feudalism itself is a reductionist label that tries to explain a system that spanned centuries and a continent. Naturally people are going to disagree on the intricacies but this doesn’t detract from its usefulness as a broad label.

 

Tl;dr read history, not social theory.

For what it’s worth I’m far more comfortable in issues of history rather than social-theory. Unfortunately its only in the latter field that you are more likely to investigate the roles and experiences of women in these societies.

 

Nonetheless, your response had some decent content for a rebuttal but was rooted in a flawed reading of my point that seemed to think because I highlighted that women were oppressed and exploited this means they played no active role in the family economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I cannot sensibly debate is an erroneous position that conflates my firmly leftist critique with cheap, reactionary sexism. I would be deeply offended if I didn’t simply think you had little exposure leftist and/or feminist theory.

No matter how many big and fancy words you use, at the end of the day you are advocating for sexism in a video game for the sake of sexism in a video game. You can't deny that. You really can't. You can't say Pillars is based on some real life feudal system. You can't say the devs are keeping it out because they are victims of social warmongering. Both of which are your positions that you have stated.

 

You're arguing for sexism for the sake of sexism. For what reason? So you can feel good about how intelligent you are and so you can perceive to win an Intellectual Victory. What a load of socks.

 

 

 

I wish I could find it as interesting as you do but unfortunately experiencing it first hand makes it lose its appeal.

I can certainly understand why some may prefer avoid exploring and discussing the various kinds of oppression but don’t think your feelings are uniform for all women or any other oppressed group.

 

I personally make little money; live in a tiny single room in a downtrodden neighbourhood rife with dilapidated buildings, drug dens, half a dozen homeless people, prostitutes and so on. This doesn’t stop me from having an invested intellectual interest in class inequality.

Did you seriously just compare being verbally and physically harassed due to your gender with.... not making much money?

 

And besides that, did you seriously just brush her off with "well, just because you feel threatened by men daily does not mean all women do. Be a better woman".

 

Next, you'll probably tell me that me having Asperger's is the same thing as you stubbing your toe.

Edited by Bryy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many big and fancy words you use, at the end of the day you are advocating for sexism in a video game for the sake of sexism in a video game. 

 

For what reason? So you can feel good about how intelligent you are. What a load of socks.

Well I can at least say I tried to sensibly respond to you.

 

Nonetheless you're more than free to view Obsidian as crypto-fascist neo-nazis for already including racism, slavery, war, murder and so on. BECAUSE WHY ELSE WOULD THEY HAVE THESE THEMES!?

 

EDIT: I can certainly appreciate a rebuttal in the vein of Tajero's but if I can only expect readings along the lines of Bryy's I'm really hoping the Mods will simply come in and crush this discussion.

 

EDIT II: And now that said mod closing is inevitable...

 

Did you seriously just compare being verbally and physically harassed due to your gender with.... not making much money?

In no way shape or form is that how I worded it nor did I say these were equivalent. Merely that they are forms of oppression.

 

And besides that, did you seriously just brush her off with "well, just because you feel threatened by men daily does not mean all women do. Be a better woman".

Now you're just trolling. Me stating the obvious that just because she has no interest in exploring themes of sexism doesn't mean all women have lack an interest in exploring this is not at all equivalent to what you're saying.

 

Seriously Bryy at the moment your posts are the poster child for strawman arguments.

Edited by Barothmuk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...well, I'm done here. I mean, I never had any hope of getting anywhere with this intellectual giant, but still. Such a great example of feminism, to speak down to and right over me. :/ 

 

Idiotically I still feel the need to defend myself. I explore the "theme of sexism" all the time. In every book I read or tv show or movie I watch, I notice the imbalance of power, the poor representation, the flimsy stereotypes. I read news articles about violence toward women, wage inequality, lack of reproductive rights, etc. I can't NOT see these things. Do I want and expect PoE to represent different gender roles across the different societies of Eora? Yes. I thought Josh Sawyer did this well in New Vegas. Do I want to constantly be told I'm crap because I'm a female? Not really. Do I want to see women being sold as chattel and subjected to abuse/rape? No. 

 

ps every democracy ever is sexist as hell, so I guess democracy must be inherently sexist. it's totally not the fault of the men in power.

Edited by ashtonw
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously I can't even begin to even.

 

EDIT: Since you expanded your point.

 

Idiotically I still feel the need to defend myself. I explore the "theme of sexism" all the time. In every book I read or tv show or movie I watch, I notice the imbalance of power, the poor representation, the flimsy stereotypes. I read news articles about violence toward women, wage inequality, lack of reproductive rights, etc. I can't NOT see these things. Do I want and expect PoE to represent different gender roles across the different societies of Eora? Yes. I thought Josh Sawyer did this well in New Vegas. Do I want to constantly be told I'm crap because I'm a female? Not really. Do I want to see women being sold as chattel and subjected to abuse/rape? No.

Like I said, I don't want it to merely depict feudal societies as sexist and that's it because that's lazy. What I want is to "show the misogyny of feudal society all the while exploring its actual impact on females by still showing their agency under the oppressive system." Obviously not everyone would like this but also obviously not everyone would not like this.

 

(God my grammar is getting worse as this discussion continues)

 

ps every democracy ever is sexist as hell, so I guess democracy must be inherently sexist. it's totally not the fault of the men in power.

Naturally the argument here would be underlying structures in which modern democracies emerge is what makes them sexist. Not the democracy itself. Edited by Barothmuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m afraid this one will have to be more brief since I’ve really only got so much free time to yell on forums.

 

 

And despite what Marx will try to tell you, feudalism wasn't an economic system, but a sociopolitical system that grew out of historical contingency.

Cute but it’s not like you can simply just walk into an academic setting and have them all unanimously agree that feudalism = “socio-political system that grew out of historical contingency” with anything else being discredited pinko lies. What is the more accurate description is that the word feudalism itself is a reductionist label that tries to explain a system that spanned centuries and a continent. Naturally people are going to disagree on the intricacies but this doesn’t detract from its usefulness as a broad label.

 

Tl;dr read history, not social theory.

For what it’s worth I’m far more comfortable in issues of history rather than social-theory. Unfortunately its only in the latter field that you are more likely to investigate the roles and experiences of women in these societies.

 

Nonetheless, your response had some decent content for a rebuttal but was rooted in a flawed reading of my point that seemed to think because I highlighted that women were oppressed and exploited this means they played no active role in the family economy.

"Feudalism" is in fact a fairly useless label, because it carries so much baggage, vastly overgeneralizes, and doesn't describe a society as much as a portion of its mechanism for defining authority and obligation. I used the term in that broad sense only because all of your posts in this thread have done so and I didn't want to spend too too long on that particular debate.

 

But if this isn't about the economic power and inclusion of women (and lack thereof), then what IS it about? You said yourself you're making a material leftist critique. But the vast majority of women weren't marginalized in the control of the factors of production any more than were the vast majority of men. And their labor was economically central and recognized as such in medieval European societies. AND women exercised control over the fruits of those labors in equality with the rest of the family, generally speaking, when the family had control of any of them.

 

But we do find in medieval, non-aristocratic Europe that non-noble women were frequently and even systematically the victims of power imbalances in devotion, in cultural expression, and in customary and legal disputes that carried no or little economic association for the participants.

 

So where's the materialist source of oppression? I don't see it, and I don't see it because materialism lets us off easy, by ascribing agency principally to the economic systems that are symptoms of defects in human nature (hoarding the means of production, for example), rather than to the defects themselves (greed, tendency to form narrow in groups based on fear of the unknown,etc.).

Edited by tajerio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Barothmuk, for answering my question in a way that I indeed was able to quickly understand ... however, what you have shown is not any kind of proof that a society has to grow that way; simply that it has grown that way for some societies in the past.  This is not any kind of proof that sexism must be "baked in" to any kind of society in particular, and certainly not specifically in a feudal system.  It has happened in the past, yes; even often, yes; that does not make it an "inherent" quality.  You are indeed confusing historical conicidence* with necessary characteristics.

 

*To clear up possible confusion with this word, I want to stress that I am not speaking of blind chance.  I mean that, historically, the appearance of feudal societies coincided with a time in history that also featured rampant sexism.  Although there are certainly many factors that allowed them to coexist, there is still no reason to believe that one is necessary for the other.

Edited by Zombra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we is suggesting that if you want realistic misogyny in the game, you should offer a choice to the historical victims.  you is the one not offering a choice. 'cause o' your desire to fulfill personal aesthetic, or 'cause o a naive desire to promote a social agenda, you wants women players, who has historically been the victims o' misogyny, to endure such in a Fantasy Game.  you, however, don't believe they deserve a choice 'cause absence o' misogyny would be lacking realism. 

 

Fantasy-- as this is a fantasy game, there is absolute no reason to assume that all aspects o' feudalism in real world europe will be the same as in poe world. we can again give examples o' why this is the case, but we see no need. should be obvious.

 

Game-- as poe is a game, having the historical victims o' real world misogyny bear the brunt o' simulated misogyny in poe strikes us a poor considered game feature. most developers has done their utmost to avoid gender bias. create a functional gender bias in gameplay of poe strikes us as a poor considered game feature-- same as making women characters weaker. 

 

am not seeing how these obvious qualities o' the media ain't getting through to you. 

 

and yeah, past games dealing with a feudal setting has not forced misogyny 'pon players as a way to educate or to enhance realism. has it occurred to you that doing so were a conscious and informed decision on the part o' the developers? advantages o' including is enhancing verisimilitude and promoting awareness o' sexism in feudal europe... ? okie dokie. as others has said, you ain't adding anything new to collective awareness by showing folks that women were treated worse than men in feudal europe. developers don't even include weighty gold anymore, and you want them to add an aspect to the Game that would result in women players having their characters (characters they is meant to identify with) be treated to realistic style european misogyny, and you wanna do this for sake o' realism and/or your paternalistic notions o' sexism? the folks who has been historic victims o' misogyny in real life gets to play a Fantasy Game wherein they is treated worse than their male counter-parts... simply 'cause they choose to play as a woman, and you is not seeing how this could be a bad idea? 

 

am much in favor o' doing games that does harsh and ugly side o' human nature. am in favor o' challenging players with content. am in favor o' developers not taking ez route. nevertheless, what you want is... stupid. if goal is realism for its own sake, we gots an enormous list o' possible features that impact all players equal so that nobody feels like they is getting singled-out 'cause o' real world "racism, slavery, war, murder.do realistic class struggle and slavery in a Fantasy Game is hardly controversial and is not gonna cheese-off any specific and identifiable group o' potential buyers. treat modern women players to feudal european misogyny doesn't strike you as different?

 

obsidian is willing to add controversial content. mormonism coulda' been a touchy subject in honest hearts. obsidian tried to do justice to mormon faith. 'course, am suspecting most folks didn't care--read through some o' those tedious mormon-centric dialogues was not making game better for Gromnir. click. click. click. is it over yet? regardless, there were no option in  game whereby you were able to play as a mormon or native american.  if such options had existed, and if such a choice led to ubiquitous mistreatment and insult, we suspect the euro misogyny feature would be more analogous. obsidian chose not to do so.

 

as we noted above, many o' the guys working on poe worked on fallout. nevertheless, there ain't no real world racism. replicate 1950s Americana and don't do civil rights movement is not an accident. were a conscious move. the fallout developers created ghouls to get racism into fallout. think on that for a moment. so, why not racism against african americans? 

 

do way-back machine and we sees that the guys who poked fun of scientology in fallout 2 is working on this game. perhaps it were insensitive o' us to laugh at hubologists, but we thought it were funny. am s'posing that scientoligists didn't see the humor, but from a practical pov, how many scientlogist gamers is there? 

 

ultimately, am simply perplexed by how dogged you is in not recognizing that what you is asking for is different than obsidian dealing with feudal european class struggle in a more realistic manner than is typical in crpgs. you keeps lumping together and yet they is clear different. is there any serfs in current real world that play video games? if "serf" is a character generation option in poe, and serfs get treated like crap... and if you can find any modern serf gamers, then we got analogous scenarios.  ridiculous. yeah, is ridiculous. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 2

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the term in that broad sense only because all of your posts in this thread have done so and I didn't want to spend too too long on that particular debate.

Me neither so fair enough.

 

But if this isn't about the economic power and inclusion of women (and lack thereof), then what IS it about?

That is what it is about.

 

Yes as you pointed out women within the peasant structure exhibited forms of power within their own social spheres however this does not mean they had total power or were somehow the dominant force in these spheres.

 

EDIT: Not gonna lie Gronir. Too tired to try and dissect/translate one of your posts.

Edited by Barothmuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only cartoon that is still as good today as it was when I watched as a kid were the first five episodes of Gargoyles. After that the show is a terrible episodic, but the first five episodes are still awesome.

 

Wow, and I thought I was the only one who misses that show. I wonder why this show never was successful enough to get a sequel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonetheless you're more than free to view Obsidian as crypto-fascist neo-nazis for already including racism, slavery, war, murder and so on. BECAUSE WHY ELSE WOULD THEY HAVE THESE THEMES!?

... what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

See what other person said about M&B.

Shogun II and Crusader Kings II are both grand strategy and RPGs.

The reason that Kickstarter I showed is on Kickstarter is that they needed to prove to an external investor that there was an interest in the market, and they did more than prove that. They raised over a million dollars, if that isn't good enough, I don't know what is.

RPG elements don't make game RPG, even if dozens of reviewers say that Bioshock is a RPG.

 

M&B don't set any historical time period and it don't have any historical faction or societies, it only has fewer fantastical elements than most fantasy RPGs. It weapons, armors, etc. things are quite accurate representations of historical weapons, armors, etc. things. But even in them there are mixed different time periods. M&B is in my opinion good game but I don't see how it is any more historically accurate than any other fantasy RPG, it only uses more simulate system than what most RPGs, but such don't in my opinion make game more accurate it only changes how game is played. M&B did sold enough to make profit, but it also was much lower budget game than what you typical top selling games are. And it got sequel only because of Paradox was it publisher, because Paradox view of gaming business is to make games they like.

 

Million pounds are nice sum (but small compared to budgets of tens of millions that your typical top seller games from AAA publishers have), but 35k backers is quite small, as it will mean with optimistic prediction that game will sell from 300k-700k copies if it gets decent reviews (this prediction is from Paradox CEO about his expectations for PoE ), which isn't much on these days standards where multi million selling games can be considered selling poorly. It is like movies from Finnish studios that get 300k watcher in whole time they are theaters, are considered to be success, but Hollywood movies that get 10 million viewers in their opening weekend are often considered as flops.

 

So there is market for smaller budget stuff (which PoE is excellent example), but that don't mean that most of those smaller budget products will be top sellers, but of course they don't need to be as they had much lower budget than those your typical top seller products.

 

What constitutes an RPG is contentious at best, I'd call Shogun and Crusader Kings II RPGs, and Steam certainly says Crusader Kings II is.

 

Though we may argue what exactly what selling 'worth a damn' means, I think I made my point. They exist, and they sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... what?

You said my advocating of depicting sexist structures as sexist makes me sexist. Thus if we use this logic Obsidian's choice to depict their setting with racism, slavery, war and so on clearly means they themselves are supportive of these things.

 

The fact that this is the second time I've explained this to you leads me to believe you are not actually reading my posts at all. Certainly would explain the frequent misinterpretations.

Edited by Barothmuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, jesus, what ... there is mormonism in New Vegas ... I'm a real-life survivor of that brand-named corporation ... seeing it referenced in a video game turns me right off. Likely with the same sour taste as this misogyny-advocating dreck. 


All Stop. On Screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

 

You are an outsider asking them to put in something "just 'cause". Whatever they put in their games is there for a reason. It's not window-dressing.They are not going to put in sexism just because some people find it offensive that it's not realistic to reality.

 

It's not a hard concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, and I thought I was the only one who misses that show. I wonder why this show never was successful enough to get a sequel.

The third season had a massive tonal shift (different writer or something) and lost most of the fanbase.

 

The story continued properly through a line of comics however.

No it doesn't.

 

You are an outsider asking them to put in something "just 'cause".

So unbelievably wrong.

 

Whatever they put in their games is there for a reason. It's not window-dressing. They are not going to put in sexism just because some people find it offensive that it's not realistic to reality.

There is already culturally enforced gender roles so the setting is already sexist. Edited by Barothmuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, jesus, what ... there is mormonism in New Vegas ... I'm a real-life survivor of that brand-named corporation ... seeing it referenced in a video game turns me right off. Likely with the same sour taste as this misogyny-advocating dreck. 

 

In a DLC for New Vegas there are members of an unnamed religion that is never specifically labeled as Mormonism and IIRC Josh Sawyer has said it wasn't exactly Mormonism. 

 

ashtonw. I didn't notice before but your avatar is a cat of Minsc from the BG series. And I see Boo peeking over the cats head. :huh:

 

Yup... I painted it for fun.. I did Keldorn and Aerie too but Minsc's is my favorite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What shocked me even more was all the damn dating sim mods that came out for BG2. Some sick bastards even made incest mods so you could freaking romance your SISTER. There is no accounting for taste. Those people will probably be able to modify the game files and make their own twisted romances to their heart's delight but, thankfully, Obsidian won't be wasting development time on that adolescent rubbish.

 

Ironically, the imoen romance mod was actually one of the best romance mods I've seen so far.

 

Except for one thing (the mary-sue style torture story that seemed out of place), it made everything "right":

1) the mod didn't develope Imoen just as a romancable blob, but it also has a well written friendship path ... and this one is highly recommended play! It's almost better than the romance path, simply because it adds something to BG that was missing all the time - an actual believable relationship to a character your PC knows his entire life that should have been there in the actual game.

2) it adds a lot of in-style party banter for a character that basicly didn't have any before TOB.

3) it feels way more interactive than the original romance plots, as there's a lot more dialogue options to choose from with more plausible reactions

4) seriously, the imoen romance mod is the only romance NPC I have seen in any RPG so far that doesn't just treat you as a walking problem solver and actually asks you how YOU feel about a situation here and there

5) it's not like she says "dude, you're my brother, we should totally have sex!", as the incest thing is actually discussed a lot throughout the plot

6) the mod was actually made for female PCs that didn't got even a single any romance option in the original game. And there's basicly a biological limit on how much incest two women can have...

The maker unfortunately just decided to unlock the content for male PCs aswell due to popular demand... female PCs still get more dialogue.

7) oh, almost forgot... there's an awesome camping scene in the mod aswell. And who doesn't love camping scenes?!

Edited by Zwiebelchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, jesus, what ... there is mormonism in New Vegas ... I'm a real-life survivor of that brand-named corporation ... seeing it referenced in a video game turns me right off. Likely with the same sour taste as this misogyny-advocating dreck. 

 

In a DLC for New Vegas there are members of an unnamed religion that is never specifically labeled as Mormonism and IIRC Josh Sawyer has said it wasn't exactly Mormonism. 

 

ashtonw. I didn't notice before but your avatar is a cat of Minsc from the BG series. And I see Boo peeking over the cats head. :huh:

 

Yup... I painted it for fun.. I did Keldorn and Aerie too but Minsc's is my favorite.

 

josh made very clear that new canaanites developed from mormonism... even the name, honest hearts, is coming from a Brigham Young quote: "Honest hearts make for honest actions."

 

HA! Good Fun!


"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they're descendants of Mormons but their religion did not remain unchanged. If I hadn't known anything about Mormonism beforehand I would have just thought they were Christians. I didn't feel like I had anything specifically Mormon shoved in my face. And I think what's his face's bible wasn't even the Mormon bible.

Edited by ashtonw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...