number4096 said:
a few things bug me with the way humans are shown in rpgs:
-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised of all animals.
-Humans are shown as more diversified than everyone else,when in reality,animals are just as diversified as humans are from an individual to the other.Any species that reproduce sexually will have this sort of diversity.And as can be seen outside,people tend to copy each other and do the same things,with those behaving differently from the mass being called exceptions,for a reason.
-Humans are oftenly shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.
-Humans are too oftenly shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.
-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).
-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.
Sorry,that was long,what do you think?
I'll do this in numbers.
1)We are the middle man in comparison to elves and dwarves if you look at lots of fantasy games this is the case.
2)Most medieval fantasy novels are set in a European like setting where not much exploring has been done hence why there isn't many black or Asian people roaming about, also the people who play these kind of games tend to be white.
3)Others have comment on this one enough
4)Spears are only good for large scale battles in tight formations otherwise they are quite useless (in real life don't use destiny warriors as a reference please). The sword in a small confrontation can parry, block, rappel, slash, stab and bash whilst all a spear can do is parry (with great difficulty) block and stab. A sword is also more flexible to use.
Now with the bloody katana...
Its a good weapon for slashing meat/wood but against chainmail or plate its next to useless as both armor types are built against slashing weapons (But are weak against piercing hence why the longbow did so well )
Its times like these I really wish I didn't have that degree in history... I weep softly inside.
Edit: And about Tolkien...
He did not create the sterotype of elves and dwarfs he merely pulled them out of the mythologies they came from.
In norse mythology dwarves lived under the mountains and were very good at metal crafts. They were also depicted to have very big beards (but the same height as humans) all Tolkien did was change them slightly to his liking.
Elves used to be small little fairies creatures that played tricks on humans. All Tolkien did was make them tall and good with bows.
So please give the Celts and the Vikings some credit when it comes to who made the elves and dwarves...
