Jimquisition: Gamer Entitlement

[Bara_no_Hime]

However the problem is Anita is delivering these messages in such a ham fisted way that she isn't helping any push for equality.

However this is the difference between a social science research piece and an interpretation.
One persons subjective interpretation can't really be attacked unless they are trying to use that to make a highly objective point.

It is considered bad technique to no consider that your own argument could be entirely wrong especially if it's based on a subjective interpretation.

I've found this to be a fairly common issue in Women's Studies articles - particularly those that are more than 10 years old at this point.

Part of my issue here is that Third Wave feminism is associated with Gender Studies rather than Women's Studies (which is more connected to Second Wave). Generally, Gender Studies is more scientific and better argued - which is part of why I associate with Gender Studies over Women's Studies.

So, I can't really disagree with your comment here - since I agree with it - my only "argument" is that this error is common to her specific field and thus isn't specific to her work as an individual.

However what you've just put forward is an example of well supported lit analysis. My example with Mercutio has a far more objective base.
Objectively Mercutio is considered an innocent in the text (it's stated multiple times about him having connection to both houses and him not being involved in the feud.
He does die
His death is what does spark Romeo to kill Tybalt and sets the main events in motion.

It's not really a subjective interpretation to say his death is what pushes the plot forward.

The difference is presenting a subjective opinion as an objective fact.

For example to argue over the purpose of the sword fights in Romeo and Juliet is one thing. To argue they should be removed is a different thing.

Arguing over the purpose of something is very different to arguing for the changing of it.

Very true. However, I think there can be some debate about which of these (subjective analysis or objective analysis) Anita's videos are.

For instance, I firmly believe my lit analysis is correct and will argue for it. If I did a video series on Youtube analyzing Hamlet, I'd probably present my subjective analysis in the strongest terms possible - which would likely make me appear to be presenting it as "fact". To some degree, that is just the stuff of a good argument - presenting your side with as much support and personal belief in the topic as possible to convince others.

However, no matter how strongly I presented my case, it wouldn't change the fact that it was a subjective analysis.

Now, it is entirely possible that some of this is my own bias as a lit analysis person. When I watch Anita's videos, I see someone who is trying very hard to convince people of her side, and presents things too strongly in her attempt to change minds. I simply see that as part of her presentation - and knowing how Women's Studies and feminist theory work, I understand that everything she is saying is subjective (and that she knows it's subjective even if she isn't saying so).

That's also why I find it strange that people react so strongly to her. It seems clear to me (again, perhaps due to personal bias) that everything she says is subjective and open to interpretation. I'd love to see more people respond to her interpretations and question them directly (as Blog by Elsa does - thanks yet again for that link) rather than dismissing her as a bad researcher (or worse a liar).

Twitter isn't the location that's true. However to ignore critics entirely is the problem. Tumblr isn't exactly a great place for academic discussion either really. research wise and in terms of presentation it's mostly memes and equally snappy posts rather than in depth discussion. Heck one of the recent posts implies that having Male and female bathrooms is an oppressive act of the patriarchy.......... yeh I'm not joking I just looked up the tumblr.

Ha! Yeah, no. I never meant to imply that tumblr was better - just that that's the social media outlet I use. I prefer tumblr to twitter because tumblr is full of pretty pictures. ^^ But yeah, both tumblr and twitter make awful locations for critical discussions.

Blog articles or Youtube videos seem the best forums for response as they can present some form of critical discussion. However, aside by Blog by Elsa, I've mostly seen the over-the-top attack type responses. And, of course, forums like this one. I'd love to be able to post a thread about some of these topics here on the Escapist, but I fear to do so because I know it will end up devolving into an argumentative mess. I mean... well, look at where we are right now (a thread on a Jimquisition episode that had almost nothing to do with Anita).

Also, dare I suggest - college classes on the topics of Women's Studies or Gender Studies - or literary classes focused on feminist theory in literature would be excellent locations to have discussions on these ideas. Of course, that doesn't help much on an internet forum.

All good topics however not being discussed for the most part by Anita.
If you were to do a deep historical background of the trope and then say "this is where this trope comes from" it would be entirely different to trying to show negative ramifications of its use. It is better to talk about how the trope can and is being evolved rather than to shun these things because of where the trope comes from.

E.g. it would be like condemning Jazz music because of the idea it was derived from music and techniques used by slaves to play music. The implication being liking Jazz would be supporting slavery when in fact the music was derived from there but can exist outside of it now it's been discovered.

... except that's pretty much what Women's Studies/Second Wave Feminism suggest. Not quite that extreme (that's moving close to the Straw realm) but the idea that the origins of a thing can taint it is fairly core to Second Wave.

Over in the "should a guy pay for the first date" thread, there was some discussion how some people believe that it is insulting for a man to offer because it comes from a time when women didn't work (and therefor didn't have money). That's Second Wave thinking.

Meanwhile, as a Third Wave feminist, I argued that making the guy pay now is actually sexist towards the guy - why should he have to pay for my half? - even though the origins made now false assumptions about the woman's lack of income.

That's something of a core difference between Second Wave (and therefore Women's Studies) and Third Wave - Second Wave looks for the origins of sexism in the past to a greater extent whereas Third Wave is more focused on fairness and equality now regardless of gender.

My point is that, once again, that isn't Anita's issue, that's an issue with Women's Studies itself (and not one that is likely to be changed by better survey standards).

except she's ended up being seen as leading the discussion when in reality it should be those actually discussing it that are leading the discussion. Not the person unwilling to discuss it.

I still think that's mostly the fault of the people who attacked her with death threats in the first place. When you've been attacked like that, you tend to turtle up and go on the defensive.

Except everyone is talking about her at present and not seeming willing to point out the flaws (for the most part) the fact you are willing to point out the flaws is actually encouraging. to actually talk about these issues Anita needs to be out of the spotlight pretty much now she's said her piece.

As flawed as Anita is, she's drawn a lot of attention to some serious issues. Her interpretation of those issues is flawed, but I can't help but admire her intent.

I find the "she's a liar" (or bad researcher) arguments very dismissive. The people using these arguments seem to be trying to get around the issue by dismissing everything she says rather than just the flawed parts.

... I can't believe I'm going to use a fruit metaphor, but here goes. It's like Anita's argument is a Banana. The banana is bruised in several locations and has gone kinda brown.

A lot of people are just saying "the banana is bad" and throwing it out.

But there's some good banana in there. The better thing to do is cut it up, throw out the bad bits, and keep the good bits to put on icecream or cereal.

... and now I'm hungry.

The point is, it is far far easier to critique someone if one can actually have a civil discussion about it. Anita threads heat up to fierce argument so fast, it's hard to actually talk without someone getting angry.

Back before she was quite so famous, I did actually speak about her work in more critical terms. However, the more angry her denounces have gotten, the more defensive of her I've gotten in response.

And, finally, some of this might also have to do with the fact that "Damsel in Distress" is generally a negative trope according to both Second and Third wave feminism. While I disagree with her opinions concerning deconstruction, parody, satire, and so called "tokenism", I do agree with her basic idea that "DiD" is a generally negative trope towards women and needs a good examining by writers who plan to use it.

Of course, her next (planned) video is on the "Fighting Fucktoy" trope... and that means she's about to take on a trope that Second Wave and Third Wave have opposing views on. After all, a "fighting fucktoy" to Second Wave is often a "strong female character" to a Third Wave feminist.

So I guess we'll see how that goes once she posts it.

I thought that was kind of the joke with Nostalgia Chik the idea of slightly absurd interpretations, some right and some well used kind of for comedic purpose.

She sometimes makes self-conscious jokes about it, but Nostalgia Chik is very much in the Second Wave camp. Also, she isn't particularly good at picking up on satire either (which seems to be a common issue with Second Wave feminists).

I normally love Nostalgia Chik's videos, but sometimes I want to have a proper catfight with her. Preferably in a pool full of jello as some sort of Third Wave charity event, just for the irony.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Yeah, an actual conversation would be much prefered. I think I'll let the conversation stand as is. I'm having trouble figuring out exactly how your post is supposed to be read due to the way it has been spoilered but I'll figure it out while reading. A cursory glance before I continue reading is that you don't so much think there is a moral obligation for D.I.D. to be avoided so much as a claim against the quality of works that rely on it. This is contrary to Anita's stance that it is morally wrong in some way and behind the times. A statement that I believe is unwarranted and even oversteps itself to the point of being sexist in its own way (like claiming that it would be unethical to portray a black guy wearing baggy pants despite it being a valid style. Such a claim would imply that just the depiction of that race in certain scenarios is wrong which would itself be racist).

I'll put together a brief summary of my responses (as brief as I can be) but don't feel obligated to respond:

Spoiler: Drastically cut down on the scope of discussion

I see what you're talking about. I doubt any dev ever said, "Hey, lets be lazy so the game isn't as good as it could be."
That said, I don't believe that such action that could lead to one "doing a bad job" to be positive. Immoral or not, it's still a bad thing, that can lower quality.

Lower quality isn't the question here though. I think anyone can correctly complain against poor quality. But use of D.I.D. is not mutually exclusive regarding good work. There are some damn fine works of art surrounding D.I.D. that entirely sidestep any claim of D.I.D. including huge games in which D.I.D. is but one type of quest in the greater work.

Once it is admitted that D.I.D. can be done correctly and ethically then the entire Sarkesian argument against it falls apart. We have examples of very good games whose core plot is regarding the saving of other individuals in some way and so the issue stops being D.I.D. and starts being the quality of the writing. By that logic, D.I.D. isn't an issue at all. It merely becomes a plot mechanic that can be done well or poorly and anything in between.

I am discussing the viability of D.I.D. with you and your response is criticising laziness in writing. In effect, we are discussing two different topics despite having associated them through discourse. Regarding quality of writing, I will add that there is a subjective element to it. It is not unreasonable that some people simply don't like the D.I.D. mechanic in the same way I find using children/old people in the horror genre to be silly while other people crap their pants at it as intended. But you seem to acknowledge good D.I.D. works so that sidesteps this being a simple agree to disagree on subjective tastes. I would also posit that poor work can be the product of bad budgeting (not having enough time to do more work doesn't equate to laziness), lack of creativity, and a lack of skill to pull off more advanced concepts (incompetency), failure to notice the reduction in quality (it's hard to look at your own work objectively and say it's bad). So I wouldn't shoehorn all bad games that use this mechanic into the laziness category.

Shadow of the Colossus is absolutely D.I.D. The distress is the condition of being dead. Apparently, something CAN be done after that which is the entire point of the game. The damsel can be in distress even without her knowledge of the situation. Would you disagree that the point of the game is for the hero to save the girl? How is it different from a damsel that has been poisoned, sleeping beauty, person with X condition that needs remedied?

Side Note: While archetypes can be useful in certain games, I don't agree that they are used so often because they are "more attractive". They are used because they are simpler, and familiar since they've been done before so often.

I didn't say that archetypes are more attractive simply as is. I said that vagueness can be more attractive because it allows the audience to project their own emotions and qualities on the entity. An archetype fills in basic parameters but leaves specifics more or less vague to leave room. For example, a goth girl archetype would express a handful of basic qualities but it's still up to the audience to fill that in based on personal experience. As to vagueness in general, for example, as a married man I can potentially project the qualities and characteristics of my wife on a damsel in distress whose actual qualities/characterstics are left undefined. This ends up being more meaningful to me than character types and qualities I find decidedly undesireable and let's face it, you should desire to save the damsel or the whole thing is shit. This has happened to me, where the damsel is whiney and useless and just comes off as a terrible person. And then, through the course of the game I watch with disdain as the hero foolishly falls in love with this terrible terrible character. These aren't lazily writen games. These are titles where the writers should have stopped before characterizing the individual so strongly but steamrolled through.

This leads me to my next point of contention. Why do you believe it to be so hard to appeal to both men and women.

Women and men have different tastes. Several that are in direct competition with one another. Catering to one set of tastes can directly detract from suiting the other's set of tastes. For example, throwing in traditional romance themes into an action game can have an adverse effect of alienating the male audience. When you're talking about catering to 9% of your target audience at an adverse effect (even a small one) to 91% of your market then that's bad. You could potentially lose far more of the 91% while gaining very little of the 9%.

Tell me, how would you alter a standard action game to cater more to women without alienating men? I'm not just talking about not offending women but how to actually cater to them in a way that doesn't detract from the other side. I'm saying they're on a sliding scale and that pulling to one side pulls away from the other. Filling a romantic comedy with garish dirty humor usually detracts from the female marketbase while going heavily on the romance part plants the film firmly into chick flick territory which men typically avoid. So please give me an example of a game and specific ways it could have catered to another sex without losing its current target market.

Eh, as I said, D.I.D. isn't bad on it's own, but over reliance and saturation of it can lead to lazy writing.
Though, as you and I said, just because something wasn't put into a game, or something wasn't done in it, doesn't mean it was due to sloth.
Sometimes things just get left out because of time, money, or because it wasn't the focus of the game.

Like I said before, in the Mario platformers they don't focus on the character interactions or development because the main focus is the level design, and the platforming/combat mechanics. Not that both can't be done, but not without other changes.

Spoiler: As for Shadow of the Colossus being D.I.D.

Yeah, I will concede that this is technically true.
But what I mean is it didn't really "feel" like a D.I.D.
By that I mean there's not really a sense of urgency that you normally see. I felt more inclined to explore the forbidden land, getting lizards and fruit, than rushing to finish off all the colossi.
I guess you could say that maybe you want to bring the girl back to life before she's not but bones, but I don't think it was implied that such was necessary. I mean, if the spirit can bring someone back to life, I'd imagine also healing their body would be simple to do as well.

I would disagree that "the point" is to bring the girl back to live. It's the only motivation of the main character that is mentioned directly to us, true. However, besides that it's barely in the game. "The point" from a mechanical view, would be to explore and figure out how to beat each colossus, and from a story view it seemed more like a nature vs human influence. Not just by reverencing death, but by trying to contain the spirit.

Spoiler: This talks about it better than I can. (in text at least)

It's at 21:30 if ya want to skip, but the whole thing is a good show if ya got the time.

Plus, I don't think I would call bringing someone back to life, "saving/rescuing them".
I mean, what are we saving them from? Death? Not really. They're still going to die eventually, but maybe this is more about my own thoughts on death.

I do see your points on it though, I can't say that it for sure isn't a D.I.D. But it doesn't fell like one, to me at least. Though, personal perspective and what not. ;p

As for what kind of a game that can appeal to both men and women without alienating one or the other?
Recent examples that come to mind would be Tomb Raider, Bioshock infinite, and The Last of Us.

All have lots of action, and violence, yet also have a fair bit of character interaction and development. The best thing is that they have female characters that have their own distinct personalities, but also are written as women, in that while their sex doesn't define them, it is acknowledged that their women/girls.

Spoiler: Continued.

Also, you mentioned Mass Effect and Dragon Age before for having lot of choices on what the player character can be like. However, take that all away and they still have a lot to appeal to most people[sub][sub]and aliens <.<....[/sub][/sub].
There's action, mystery, romance, exploration, and loads of character.
Plus, most of those things are avoidable if you don't want them. Heck, they even put in a mode for people who just wanted to play it as a shooter in the third ME.

To appeal to anyone, all you need to do is find a middle ground in-between gameplay, and story. Best if you can have the gameplay itself work into the story. Like how you talk to people in the Bioware, or telltale games.

Not that in-depth or complex story is always needed for wide appeal. For example: Zelda games have had a fairly large[sub]Comparatively[/sub] women audience, because of the other things it offers. (adventure, exploration, a colorful world, simply fun gameplay)

Or a different example: Brothers: a tale of two sons.
No dialog at all in the game[sub](that can be understood)[/sub], but it still tells a very compelling story using just it's game mechanics.

That said, it's not as though men and women are that split on liking either story, or gameplay/interaction. A game with one, but not the other would be less to most.

I suppose, in the end if you want to appeal to both men and women, you shouldn't try "to appeal to men and women", and just make repeatable characters with fun gameplay.
However, if you do want to appeal to a specific demographic, good representation can go a long way too.
Having a few fine characters that also happen to be *insert descriptor here*, and have that part of them addressed, but not be the only thing they are.

After that, giving people the options to be male, female, or whatever is just icing on a tasty cake.

Obviously though, ya can't do that for every game. Not just for money or time reasons. Though, a fair share could.

Anyway, Ya didn't answer my question about warriors.

Do you think they sometimes get the short end of the stick when it comes to classes in some games?

 

[Lightknight]

Ah, good, you're still following the thread. After such a long break from the site I was worried I was wasting my... fingers/breath? I'd just tweaked my back but it thoroughly prevented me from sitting in any position where computer use would have been comfortable.


Response to the things you want to, feel free to leave the things you don't. I've enjoyed this interaction and I appreciate your perspective.

Spoiler: As for Shadow of the Colossus being D.I.D.

Yeah, I will concede that this is technically true.
But what I mean is it didn't really "feel" like a D.I.D.
By that I mean there's not really a sense of urgency that you normally see. I felt more inclined to explore the forbidden land, getting lizards and fruit, than rushing to finish off all the colossi.
I guess you could say that maybe you want to bring the girl back to life before she's not but bones, but I don't think it was implied that such was necessary. I mean, if the spirit can bring someone back to life, I'd imagine also healing their body would be simple to do as well.

I would disagree that "the point" is to bring the girl back to live. It's the only motivation of the main character that is mentioned directly to us, true. However, besides that it's barely in the game. "The point" from a mechanical view, would be to explore and figure out how to beat each colossus, and from a story view it seemed more like a nature vs human influence. Not just by reverencing death, but by trying to contain the spirit.

Spoiler: This talks about it better than I can. (in text at least)

It's at 21:30 if ya want to skip, but the whole thing is a good show if ya got the time.

Spoiler: As for Shadow of the Colossus being D.I.D.

Spoiler: Spoiler D.I.D. response portion

You saying that it's the hero's only motivation means that this is why the game is taking place, a.k.a. the point. The mechanics of achieving the goal is what makes the game fun (or not fun) but the goal itself is the point. It is nonsensical for the goal not to be the point. I enjoy playing chess, but the point of the game is to win. Means =/= goal/point. The hero had absolutely no reason to be there other than bringing the girl back. Honestly, it's even a little sad to kill these majestic creatures. These are beings who aren't harming anyone in a mythical land and here comes an invader who is charged with slaying them to bring a girl back.

By that I mean there's not really a sense of urgency that you normally see.

True, and the distress being faced by the damsel usually isn't being currently dead. Now that she's dead, the whole urgency of getting to her before the bad guy kills her isn't there. Presumably, you could take years to perform this task and Dormin should still grant the wish (you are, after all, resurrecting Dormin, a.k.a. Nimrod, in accomplishing the task. The Biblical figure associated with the Tower of Babel whose body was split into 13 pieces and scattered across the land).

It's actually nice not to have a timer.

Plus, I don't think I would call bringing someone back to life, "saving/rescuing them".

I think most people would call saving one's life through any means saving the person. I mean, save some kind of evil resurrection that somehow damns the individual in some strange way. Let's say your heart had just stopped beating and you were medically dead. Then I walked up and performed CPR and then you were revived. Did I save your life or not? Is it functionally different than had I walked up a few seconds before you died and performed the heimlich manuever before you chocked out? The only difference here is that the game universe is a place where the dead may be revived after substantially more time has passed.

I mean, what are we saving them from? Death? Not really. They're still going to die eventually, but maybe this is more about my own thoughts on death.

Bringing someone back to life isn't saving them from death? First off, it absolutely is saving them from death "this time". Thinking otherwise would be your own thoughts of death. Otherwise, by your logic no one ever actually gets saved because everything will eventually have an end. Saving a life is almost always considered heroic and bringing someone back to life is little different functionally than preventing said action. Though I typically prefer the preventing thereof rather than the removal of said status. Would you say that Mario doesn't actually succeed in rescuing the Princess because Bowser will inevitably capture her again? I don't think permanence is necessary and maybe this paragraph has persuaded you of the point.

The term "saved" isn't a term of permanence. It typically means to save something for later use. In this case, you're saving the person to die another day.

I do see your points on it though, I can't say that it for sure isn't a D.I.D. But it doesn't fell like one, to me at least. Though, personal perspective and what not. ;p

Well, sure, the damsel basically has no active role in the game, no lines or conversation. Her being inert is her skill set. She is the epitome of a vague character. Do we even know that she's a princess in the game? This game really stands out by being vague and because of that it genuinely feels different. I can't think of another game that I would honestly say is like it (I'm actually a little disappointed that there hasn't been a flood of giant slayer games). So I'm not surprised that it doesn't feel like a D.I.D. to you but that doesn't make it any less so. The only elements required for it to be D.I.D. are there. Girl is in trouble (aka dead), hero tries to get the girl out of trouble.

Either way, Anita's argument falls flat when it assumes that a girl merely being in trouble somehow makes the game bad or the mechanic bad. That's no more true than any other plot mechanic. All that really matters is if it is done well and creatively or not.

Spoiler: Spoiler Games for Girls response portion

As for what kind of a game that can appeal to both men and women without alienating one or the other?
Recent examples that come to mind would be Tomb Raider, Bioshock infinite, and The Last of Us.

You mean games with a strong female character? Do you have any evidence to indicate that women purchased these three games in larger than normal numbers or are the women who purchased them still comprised of the core 9% of female AAA console owners? Why do you think women showed such a drastic difference in console of choice? 80% owning a Wii if they owned any console at all. Do you disagree that women and men have significant statistical differences in preferences? I mean, there are differences between the sexes all over, from crime rates to so many other things.

All have lots of action, and violence, yet also have a fair bit of character interaction and development. The best thing is that they have female characters that have their own distinct personalities, but also are written as women, in that while their sex doesn't define them, it is acknowledged that their women/girls.

Well, yes, better character definition does make games better. Heck, the Last of Us would have completely failed had they not defined her character so strongly. But because of that I'm not sure those choices are specifically catering to women so much as the entire audience. The only thing Tomb Raider had going for it is that the main character is female and the other two are intended to have the hero interact regularly with the female character and grow to care about them. To have made them a dumb blonde who just has to have you would have drastically changed the motivations of the story and would have placed these quite firmly into well-tread territory. Instead, these stories pull on another motivation that men naturally have, to protect. So with the exception of Tomb Raider these don't specifically cater to women and Tomb Raider actually lost the company money (though I think that's more of a problem in their revenue forecasting that they based their budget on).

Saying that better characterizing/writing is catering to women is insulting to men, frankly. Even action films do better with well developed characters that the audience can relate to and care for. My assumption is that action films and action games will have a similar distribution of audience preference. That being said, the relative lack of non-action games may soften that difference somewhat.

Also, you mentioned Mass Effect and Dragon Age before for having lot of choices on what the player character can be like. However, take that all away and they still have a lot to appeal to most people[sub][sub]and aliens <.<....[/sub][/sub].
There's action, mystery, romance, exploration, and loads of character.
Plus, most of those things are avoidable if you don't want them. Heck, they even put in a mode for people who just wanted to play it as a shooter in the third ME.

I do agree that customizeability broadens the appeal across demographics. This is a completely valid point (and is why I mentioned it) but the criticism levied against games generally isn't levied against the heavily customiseable action RPGs. The thing about RPGs is that this actually is a genre that women seem to enjoy. Story driven and character development. I'd actually say that the action side of things is to encourage male participation in the genre.

That being said, your example here is a way to side step the issue altogether by allowing both sides to have what they want at the cost of a stable main character or plot. What I'm asking about is a change to a stable games of a traditionally male genre that would encourage female participation without costing male participation. If the feminist gaming movement is going to accept games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age as games with a playable female main character then that will be a decent step towards reconciliation. However, they have traditionally rejected such games unles the female character is stable (like Tomb Raider).

That said, it's not as though men and women are that split on liking either story, or gameplay/interaction. A game with one, but not the other would be less to most.

Do you have any backing to conclude that there is no significant difference in preferences of story over gameplay?

Anyway, Ya didn't answer my question about warriors.

Do you think they sometimes get the short end of the stick when it comes to classes in some games?

Oh, let me reread that. For some reason I thought that portion was intended for another poster but looking back at your post I now see that there was no other quoted poster. Weird. Let me know if I ever miss points you made that you'd like me to specifically address.

Spoiler: Spoiler On knights and such

But I was a bit more into the magic users, and the monsters. Just seemed like more fun to me. I mean, a knight/knights can take down a monster if they're good enough, but they're still not "stronger" than the creatures most of the time, and while the armors could look real cool, it's hard to out cool this.

"Stronger" no, if the warrior were stronger then it would make the battle meaningless. The point is that the warrior is better overall and able to overcome a beast's advantages in strength or agility with his own skills and abilities.

That said, I don't think games let warriors be as cool as they could be. They just seem to get the short end of the stick in a lot of RPGs.
Rouges get to do a lot of what they do, plus all that rouge stuff, and mages get magic as well as sometimes the same weapons and armor.

In games that stick with the traditional classes, this isn't true. Mages get light or cloth armor and shitty hand to hand weapons but are powerful magically. Rogues usually have a medium armor type with shorter more stabby weapons and they make up for this with stealth, poisons, trap laying, things like that. Warriors have the heavy armor and the large weapons and are intended to be at the front of the fight.

In the games that you're talking about the Warriors are generally also able to have hybrid skills. For example, in Skyrim my sword and planker was no less capable of healing or casting a fireball. I still went through all the mages and thieves guild quests. Usually, the hybrid games allow a combination of two classes. Like a paladin who is part warrior and part healer and such.

So I'm not sure what you think they miss out on besides the core mechanics relied on. Are you somehow displeased that you don't get to run into the middle of battle and wail on beasts while others support you? See, I prefer single player games. Even in MMOs I'll run around as much as possible on my own to explore far and wide. Warriors are generally more capable when surprised by foes while rogues and mages can be quickly out of luck if they lose the advantage of surprise or distance (respectively) too quickly.

For example; You're a warrior, and you come across a locked door. Why do you have to get a rouge to pick the lock, or a mage to magic it open all the time? Why can't ya get to kick the door down, or smash it with a big weapon?! Warriors are often described as man/woman shaped battering rams, so why not use that?

In most modern games, lockpicking is a skill that every class has. I'm playing a board game with friends called Descent where bashing the door down is literally an option. I'd say that there are some games where lockpicking is certainly weighted towards rogues but mages are no less at a disadvantage there either. In games where they have a lockpicking skill or whatever, the warrior usually has his own abilities.

Or getting to intimidate/appeal to someone's honor as a special speech option?

Intimidate is often tied to the strength stat, so I'll disaggree with this one. For everything else there's always armor or potions to accomodate the need to charm. I'm not sure I've ever played a game where the warrior didn't have their own dialogue skills too.

Honestly, a LOT of effort goes into making each class have a rounded experience in those areas. Any game where one class is short changed is a failure on the part of the developers. But I've nearly always found my gaming experiences no less rewarding as the warrior. Usually I find it more rewarding because of the gaming mechanics. See, I've always had a thing for swords, as do most people, I'm sure. But I also worked through college as a professional blacksmith trained in French, German, American and a bit of Japanese smithing. We made the most return on time/material investment on blades so that's what I primarily specialized in at the shop. Everything from damascus and gane blades to basic high carbon blades. That work experience gave me a real appreciation for well made blades.

However, there isn't good money in it. Sales are irregular and I make more money at a computer than I ever did at a forge. This is also a resurgent hobby so the market is becoming more proliferated all the time. Now I primarily spend any smithing time on tools and ornaments that I want to have rather than to sell.

Great pictures by the way. I really like them.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Ah, good, you're still following the thread. After such a long break from the site I was worried I was wasting my... fingers/breath? I'd just tweaked my back but it thoroughly prevented me from sitting in any position where computer use would have been comfortable.


Response to the things you want to, feel free to leave the things you don't. I've enjoyed this interaction and I appreciate your perspective.

Anyway, Ya didn't answer my question about warriors.

Do you think they sometimes get the short end of the stick when it comes to classes in some games?

Oh, let me reread that. For some reason I thought that portion was intended for another poster but looking back at your post I now see that there was no other quoted poster. Weird. Let me know if I ever miss points you made that you'd like me to specifically address.

Spoiler: On Knights and such.

I was a bit more into the magic users, and the monsters. Just seemed like more fun to me. I mean, a knight/knights can take down a monster if they're good enough, but they're still not "stronger" than the creatures most of the time, and while the armors could look real cool, it's hard to out cool this. *pictures*

"Stronger" no, if the warrior were stronger then it would make the battle meaningless. The point is that the warrior is better overall and able to overcome a beast's advantages in strength or agility with his own skills and abilities.

That said, I don't think games let warriors be as cool as they could be. They just seem to get the short end of the stick in a lot of RPGs.
Rouges get to do a lot of what they do, plus all that rouge stuff, and mages get magic as well as sometimes the same weapons and armor.

In games that stick with the traditional classes, this isn't true. Mages get light or cloth armor and shitty hand to hand weapons but are powerful magically. Rogues usually have a medium armor type with shorter more stabby weapons and they make up for this with stealth, poisons, trap laying, things like that. Warriors have the heavy armor and the large weapons and are intended to be at the front of the fight.

In the games that you're talking about the Warriors are generally also able to have hybrid skills. For example, in Skyrim my sword and planker was no less capable of healing or casting a fireball. I still went through all the mages and thieves guild quests. Usually, the hybrid games allow a combination of two classes. Like a paladin who is part warrior and part healer and such.

So I'm not sure what you think they miss out on besides the core mechanics relied on. Are you somehow displeased that you don't get to run into the middle of battle and wail on beasts while others support you? See, I prefer single player games. Even in MMOs I'll run around as much as possible on my own to explore far and wide. Warriors are generally more capable when surprised by foes while rogues and mages can be quickly out of luck if they lose the advantage of surprise or distance (respectively) too quickly.

For example; You're a warrior, and you come across a locked door. Why do you have to get a rouge to pick the lock, or a mage to magic it open all the time? Why can't ya get to kick the door down, or smash it with a big weapon?! Warriors are often described as man/woman shaped battering rams, so why not use that?

In most modern games, lockpicking is a skill that every class has. I'm playing a board game with friends called Descent where bashing the door down is literally an option. I'd say that there are some games where lockpicking is certainly weighted towards rogues but mages are no less at a disadvantage there either. In games where they have a lockpicking skill or whatever, the warrior usually has his own abilities.

Or getting to intimidate/appeal to someone's honor as a special speech option?

Intimidate is often tied to the strength stat, so I'll disaggree with this one. For everything else there's always armor or potions to accomodate the need to charm. I'm not sure I've ever played a game where the warrior didn't have their own dialogue skills too.

Honestly, a LOT of effort goes into making each class have a rounded experience in those areas. Any game where one class is short changed is a failure on the part of the developers. But I've nearly always found my gaming experiences no less rewarding as the warrior. Usually I find it more rewarding because of the gaming mechanics. See, I've always had a thing for swords, as do most people, I'm sure. But I also worked through college as a professional blacksmith trained in French, German, American and a bit of Japanese smithing. We made the most return on time/material investment on blades so that's what I primarily specialized in at the shop. Everything from damascus and gane blades to basic high carbon blades. That work experience gave me a real appreciation for well made blades.

However, there isn't good money in it. Sales are irregular and I make more money at a computer than I ever did at a forge. This is also a resurgent hobby so the market is becoming more proliferated all the time. Now I primarily spend any smithing time on tools and ornaments that I want to have rather than to sell.

Eh, I'm not really keeping up on the thread, I just got your response in my inbox.
Glad for the break myself. Gives time to refresh.
I have enjoyed your perspective as well.

Spoiler: SotC

I see what ya mean with it, though I didn't say it was his only motivation, it's just the one we are explicitly told.
There could be an angle of defiance to the masked people there as well. Though, like you said, it's all made to be vague.

Though, for the point what I wanted to say was that from a story point of view, while the bringing the lady back to life is present, the "focus" seems to be more on nature vs. human control of nature.
Like the people talked about in the video, in many Japanese stories there's often not so much a "evil" vs. "good", but more of an "nature vs. meddling with the natures order".

Nature being Dormin not wanting to be imprisoned anymore, and the meddling being the masked people wanting to keep it him there, and killing the girl for being "cursed".

In the end, most things are set back as they were suppose to be. The lady is alive again, the main character didn't die, though he did pay a price for that, and Dormin goes away.

Though, with the aforementioned vagueness, I suppose you could say that it all depends on how you intemperate that.

As for the saving life by bring someone back to life, I see what your going for with your explanations. Very sound.
For me though, bringing someone back to life just seems too different from saving them to me.
I'd say it at least deserves it's own subcategory

Not that it isn't a grand feat, don't get me wrong. I'd say it's even greater than stopping someone from dying. [sub]<.< if done "correctly"...[/sub]

Spoiler: Appealing games!

Dx Ugh. Sorry, but no. I looked and couldn't find ANY data. None proving, or disproving.

x( The closest I could get was just reports that they sold very well.
Also, that Tomb Raider did eventually break even in 2013, and started to make them SOME money.
*put under spoiler, link didn't work inside*
Still a big bummer for them though, but like ya said, they kind of brought it on themselves a bit.

If you do have any data, I'd like to see it. I'd rather see data on those games that prove me wrong than see none at all.
It would paint a somewhat depressing picture for me if no one was checking. Worse if they just COULDN'T check.

Other than that, like you said with some RPGs, games that focus on story/characters seem to attract women more normally.
Plus, a lot of what women(and men) seem to be asking of Devs, besides just more women in games, is more focus on stories.

However, that is hardly "hard evidence", rather than experience. If you know of a place I can see the divides of men and women buying specific games, please let me know. I think it would be very interesting.

At the very least though, they haven't had much trouble selling those games.

As for the protection being more a male motivation than a female motivation, I'd have to really disagree with you on that.
Even if the perspective is protection by using violence, I'd hardly say women are less motivated to protect someone/something they care about, than a man would be.

Regarding the Bioware games as "a way to side step the issue altogether by allowing both sides to have what they want", at the cost of a "stable main character or plot", I see what you're trying to say and why some would not accept that as an example.
However, I don't really agree with that on these games.

True, sometime in RPGs where you can pick your gender or race, they make it work in the game by having it not matter at all, or even be mentioned to a significant degree, but in the Mass Effect and dragon age games your sex has had SOME significance, and gets mentioned mentioned in the stories. Not to the point that it's a completely different game, but enough to warrant the inclusion of the options.

Granted, there are also still things that can't be changed by your choices in the games[sub][sub](no, not just the endings ;p, but yeah, that's one thing)[/sub][/sub] You have a lot of choices along the way in the games that can changes some goings on later, but you still have to go down the "main path" that has been set by the Devs.

Plus, at the end of the day, I think you could say that games like them are a way to have our cake and eat it too.
<.< Portal...........You thought it didn't you.

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/tomb-raider-sales-broke-even-by-the-end-of-2013/

Now the best part.

Spoiler: Warriors!

I see what ya mean. It may be just the game's I've played that colored my view of it that way.

Also, about the intimidate, I didn't mean that the warrior would use a speech/charm check in dialogue, but rather like you said, use their strength stat.
I have seen games use that, though one was one where anyone can have high strength.

Anyway, I completely understand how one can love swords. They just have something spacial about them.

Reminds me about these really ancient swords I heard about that can still be cleaned and sharpened to working condition, even as old as they are.
Sadly, we apparently don't know how to make them that well anymore. Or so I've heard.

Hope your back stays healthy!

 

[Lightknight]

Response below

Spoiler: SotC

Though, for the point what I wanted to say was that from a story point of view, while the bringing the lady back to life is present, the "focus" seems to be more on nature vs. human control of nature.
Like the people talked about in the video, in many Japanese stories there's often not so much a "evil" vs. "good", but more of an "nature vs. meddling with the natures order".

Nature being Dormin not wanting to be imprisoned anymore, and the meddling being the masked people wanting to keep it him there, and killing the girl for being "cursed".

Sounds like a weird use of the term Nature. These are merely plot elements and motivations. They're the setup but not the reason that the hero is fighting.

In the end, most things are set back as they were suppose to be. The lady is alive again, the main character didn't die, though he did pay a price for that, and Dormin goes away.

I'm not really clear on what happened to the main character. Was that him with horns or was that Dormin or both or neither?

As for the saving life by bring someone back to life, I see what your going for with your explanations. Very sound.
For me though, bringing someone back to life just seems too different from saving them to me.
I'd say it at least deserves it's own subcategory

Well, in that saving someone is typically for preventing the damage, it is different. But SotC is different in a lot of ways.

Spoiler: Appealing games!

If you do have any data, I'd like to see it. I'd rather see data on those games that prove me wrong than see none at all.
It would paint a somewhat depressing picture for me if no one was checking. Worse if they just COULDN'T check.

People aren't openly running numbers by gaming genre from what I've seen. The only kind of data I have to go with are those numbers that put 80% of women who own consoles owned the Wii as their primary. This puts them out of the target market for those games in general. Here is a basic summary of the data from 2010. [http://kotaku.com/5448703/video-game-statistics-at-a-glance?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kotaku%2Ffull+%28Kotaku%29&utm_content=Google+Reader] It is just before the ESA included iOS and Android gamers and loosened the qualifications to be considered a gamer. So, unless we have a reason to believe that girls have drastically changed since 2010 then the numbers should still be somewhat similar.

What we'd really need is to show that these games expressed a significant increase in the female demographic that is present on machines that it was sold on. I do not think we could find such information.

Other than that, like you said with some RPGs, games that focus on story/characters seem to attract women more normally.
Plus, a lot of what women(and men) seem to be asking of Devs, besides just more women in games, is more focus on stories.

Well, better writing in general is desired. There's been a lot of focus on flashiness but gaming technology has already reached a point where worlds can be beautifully depicted. So flashiness isn't cutting it as well anymore. The thing is, an FPS isn't going to be an RPG. And action RPG could be an FPS. The actual argument is then to attract women to FPS titles by making them less like FPS titles.

However, that is hardly "hard evidence", rather than experience. If you know of a place I can see the divides of men and women buying specific games, please let me know. I think it would be very interesting.

There is no such data on games that I've seen. We do have data on movies and literature. Do you believe that women do not have distinct tastes in games while expressing differences in other forms of media? I can provide research impacting film and literature.

For example, here is an interesting study that considers age, race, and sex. [http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/media3.html] 560 people were surveyed.

Facts about the study:
Drama is popular across all groups. This would be the equivalent of "good writing" in a lot of stories with well designed characters and interactions.

As for gender, here is the relevant paragraph (though the next paragraph says that the gap widens with age as females prefer action less and less):

Gender Differences
As expected and predicted, males and females live in rather different worlds when it comes to movie preferences. These differences play according to gender stereotypes, with men more likely to prefer movies that are action oriented while women prefer relationship, especially romantic relationship, movies. This gender polarization was most dramatic in younger filmgoers with males exhibiting somewhat more gender-stereotypicality than females.

Basically, women are dismissive of action-adventure movies and become more so with age while men are dismissive of Romance movies but become less so with age.

Here's another interesting statement. This could greatly impact the success of a game without a male lead:

It is not immediately clear why women show less of a dismissive attitude toward Action-Adventure movies than men show toward Romance movies. But a portion of the data collected in the larger study from which the present data were drawn may shed some light. On a 6-point Likert scale (with 6 being Very Important) women were equally likely to favor a movie because of the lead actor or actress (M = 4.73 and M = 4.71, for male and female leads respectively, t = .25, ns). Men, on the other hand, showed a distinct gender preference and were significantly more likely to favor a movie because of a male lead than they were to favor a movie because of a female lead (5.07 and 3.77 for male and female leads respectively, t = 9.0, p < .001.)

So the question at the moment requires you to explain why women and men would prefer game genres in significantly different ways than movies? That the differences are so distinct with movies makes me seriously doubt that there would be no such distinction in games which are essentially movies in which you interact/control some elements of.

At the very least though, they haven't had much trouble selling those games.

Well, sure, but those games were still action games. None of them were Romance games which men strongly dislike. The only one that would have been dinged was the Tomb Raider game having a female character. That being said, Tomb Raider had been traditionally set up as eye candy moreso than a "playable female character". So she may be an exception to the rule built up over time and fevered searches for the nude code (something you notice hasn't cropped up for male characters).

As for the protection being more a male motivation than a female motivation, I'd have to really disagree with you on that.
Even if the perspective is protection by using violence, I'd hardly say women are less motivated to protect someone/something they care about, than a man would be.

The type of protection is really important. Women have "evolved" to use social forms of protection whereas men are more physically competitive and dominant. Testosterone is a hell of a thing and there are significant differences because of it.

Regarding the Bioware games as "a way to side step the issue altogether by allowing both sides to have what they want", at the cost of a "stable main character or plot", I see what you're trying to say and why some would not accept that as an example.
However, I don't really agree with that on these games.

True, sometime in RPGs where you can pick your gender or race, they make it work in the game by having it not matter at all, or even be mentioned to a significant degree, but in the Mass Effect and dragon age games your sex has had SOME significance, and gets mentioned mentioned in the stories. Not to the point that it's a completely different game, but enough to warrant the inclusion of the options.

Granted, there are also still things that can't be changed by your choices in the games[sub][sub](no, not just the endings ;p, but yeah, that's one thing)[/sub][/sub] You have a lot of choices along the way in the games that can changes some goings on later, but you still have to go down the "main path" that has been set by the Devs.

Plus, at the end of the day, I think you could say that games like them are a way to have our cake and eat it too.
<.< Portal...........You thought it didn't you.

Sure, and I often argue that this is the best way to make all inclusive games without alienating the average user. I agree that this is the best thing to have and by no means am I saying "side stepping the issue" in a bad way. Sometimes issues are best resolved by avoiding them altogether by changing the equation.. However, this can go too far as well. I would hate to lose some stable characters like Mario or Nathan Drake or Joel or any number of characters I've grown attached to over the years. Really, the problem has been moreso that women and minorities haven't had options until recently (relatively). Character customization had been on the fringe until it became a huge selling point in some games (even white males who get similar characters made for them all the time can benefit from getting the character to look more like them). This is a viable option for them so I am hopeful that these games won't be dismissed so readily by people generally taking your side (if we can be said to be on different sides as I actually prefer these games). But it does not seem to me that Anita has considered these games at all.

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/tomb-raider-sales-broke-even-by-the-end-of-2013/

That's great news. I'd been really worried for them. I know it was their fault for how they budgetted but they made some great games that year. I really hope they learned from their mistakes. If your game sells over 4 million copies and you lose money then whoever drafted that budget and forecasted larger returns made a mistake.

Spoiler: Warriors!

Reminds me about these really ancient swords I heard about that can still be cleaned and sharpened to working condition, even as old as they are.
Sadly, we apparently don't know how to make them that well anymore. Or so I've heard.

Well, carbon is what generally results in rust so whatever it was wouldn't be a solid steel sword (Iron becomes steel by adding carbon. Blades that hold a good edge are usually high carbon steel because it adds hardness whereas heat treating the steel after the fact returns the iron's strength). However, I used to make a mokume gane style blade that had a high carbon steel as the core in a wrought iron jacket (high silica content/low or no carbon). That kind of blade would potentially last a thousand years if kept in reasonably good conditions (oiled) and would have an excellent blade with a highly resistant surface and hard. Indefinitely if kept in great conditions (oiled and little use). The truth is, it's only the material that determines the surviveability and not the work itself. Of course, flaws are a breeding ground for accumulation of things like rust.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

Sorry to go off topic, but why is it when Anita is mentioned, the conversation devolves into an argument over whether or not she scammed people out of their money?

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Sorry to go off topic, but why is it when Anita is mentioned, the conversation devolves into an argument over whether or not she scammed people out of their money?

Well, that's kind of a self explaining question isn't it?
It's because there are people who think she's pulling a scam, and those that do not think that.

If you mean, why is it something that keeps being brought up? Well, I don't know.
Some people feel that's a better "argument" than talking about the things she says, I guess.

Eh, maybe it's like Jim said in the video. People don't like everything she says, so they want her gone, and some come up with excuses to justify it.
Heck, if people can say they're okay with the Youtube copyright problems, because it will get rid of Totalbiscuit or pewdiepie (which it wouldn't by the way), then I don't think it's crazy to think some people would say someone they don't like is a scam artist.

Anyway, welcome to the Escapist. Stay out of the basement, and only hit the red button badge once.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Response below

Spoiler: SotC

Though, for the point what I wanted to say was that from a story point of view, while the bringing the lady back to life is present, the "focus" seems to be more on nature vs. human control of nature.
Like the people talked about in the video, in many Japanese stories there's often not so much a "evil" vs. "good", but more of an "nature vs. meddling with the natures order".

Nature being Dormin not wanting to be imprisoned anymore, and the meddling being the masked people wanting to keep it him there, and killing the girl for being "cursed".

Sounds like a weird use of the term Nature. These are merely plot elements and motivations. They're the setup but not the reason that the hero is fighting.

In the end, most things are set back as they were suppose to be. The lady is alive again, the main character didn't die, though he did pay a price for that, and Dormin goes away.

I'm not really clear on what happened to the main character. Was that him with horns or was that Dormin or both or neither?

As for the saving life by bring someone back to life, I see what your going for with your explanations. Very sound.
For me though, bringing someone back to life just seems too different from saving them to me.
I'd say it at least deserves it's own subcategory

Well, in that saving someone is typically for preventing the damage, it is different. But SotC is different in a lot of ways.

Spoiler: Appealing games!

If you do have any data, I'd like to see it. I'd rather see data on those games that prove me wrong than see none at all.
It would paint a somewhat depressing picture for me if no one was checking. Worse if they just COULDN'T check.

People aren't openly running numbers by gaming genre from what I've seen. The only kind of data I have to go with are those numbers that put 80% of women who own consoles owned the Wii as their primary. This puts them out of the target market for those games in general. Here is a basic summary of the data from 2010. [http://kotaku.com/5448703/video-game-statistics-at-a-glance?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kotaku%2Ffull+%28Kotaku%29&utm_content=Google+Reader] It is just before the ESA included iOS and Android gamers and loosened the qualifications to be considered a gamer. So, unless we have a reason to believe that girls have drastically changed since 2010 then the numbers should still be somewhat similar.

What we'd really need is to show that these games expressed a significant increase in the female demographic that is present on machines that it was sold on. I do not think we could find such information.

Other than that, like you said with some RPGs, games that focus on story/characters seem to attract women more normally.
Plus, a lot of what women(and men) seem to be asking of Devs, besides just more women in games, is more focus on stories.

Well, better writing in general is desired. There's been a lot of focus on flashiness but gaming technology has already reached a point where worlds can be beautifully depicted. So flashiness isn't cutting it as well anymore. The thing is, an FPS isn't going to be an RPG. And action RPG could be an FPS. The actual argument is then to attract women to FPS titles by making them less like FPS titles.

However, that is hardly "hard evidence", rather than experience. If you know of a place I can see the divides of men and women buying specific games, please let me know. I think it would be very interesting.

There is no such data on games that I've seen. We do have data on movies and literature. Do you believe that women do not have distinct tastes in games while expressing differences in other forms of media? I can provide research impacting film and literature.

For example, here is an interesting study that considers age, race, and sex. [http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/media3.html] 560 people were surveyed.

Facts about the study:
Drama is popular across all groups. This would be the equivalent of "good writing" in a lot of stories with well designed characters and interactions.

As for gender, here is the relevant paragraph (though the next paragraph says that the gap widens with age as females prefer action less and less):

Gender Differences
As expected and predicted, males and females live in rather different worlds when it comes to movie preferences. These differences play according to gender stereotypes, with men more likely to prefer movies that are action oriented while women prefer relationship, especially romantic relationship, movies. This gender polarization was most dramatic in younger filmgoers with males exhibiting somewhat more gender-stereotypicality than females.

Basically, women are dismissive of action-adventure movies and become more so with age while men are dismissive of Romance movies but become less so with age.

Here's another interesting statement. This could greatly impact the success of a game without a male lead:

It is not immediately clear why women show less of a dismissive attitude toward Action-Adventure movies than men show toward Romance movies. But a portion of the data collected in the larger study from which the present data were drawn may shed some light. On a 6-point Likert scale (with 6 being Very Important) women were equally likely to favor a movie because of the lead actor or actress (M = 4.73 and M = 4.71, for male and female leads respectively, t = .25, ns). Men, on the other hand, showed a distinct gender preference and were significantly more likely to favor a movie because of a male lead than they were to favor a movie because of a female lead (5.07 and 3.77 for male and female leads respectively, t = 9.0, p < .001.)

So the question at the moment requires you to explain why women and men would prefer game genres in significantly different ways than movies? That the differences are so distinct with movies makes me seriously doubt that there would be no such distinction in games which are essentially movies in which you interact/control some elements of.

At the very least though, they haven't had much trouble selling those games.

Well, sure, but those games were still action games. None of them were Romance games which men strongly dislike. The only one that would have been dinged was the Tomb Raider game having a female character. That being said, Tomb Raider had been traditionally set up as eye candy moreso than a "playable female character". So she may be an exception to the rule built up over time and fevered searches for the nude code (something you notice hasn't cropped up for male characters).

As for the protection being more a male motivation than a female motivation, I'd have to really disagree with you on that.
Even if the perspective is protection by using violence, I'd hardly say women are less motivated to protect someone/something they care about, than a man would be.

The type of protection is really important. Women have "evolved" to use social forms of protection whereas men are more physically competitive and dominant. Testosterone is a hell of a thing and there are significant differences because of it.

Regarding the Bioware games as "a way to side step the issue altogether by allowing both sides to have what they want", at the cost of a "stable main character or plot", I see what you're trying to say and why some would not accept that as an example.
However, I don't really agree with that on these games.

True, sometime in RPGs where you can pick your gender or race, they make it work in the game by having it not matter at all, or even be mentioned to a significant degree, but in the Mass Effect and dragon age games your sex has had SOME significance, and gets mentioned mentioned in the stories. Not to the point that it's a completely different game, but enough to warrant the inclusion of the options.

Granted, there are also still things that can't be changed by your choices in the games[sub][sub](no, not just the endings ;p, but yeah, that's one thing)[/sub][/sub] You have a lot of choices along the way in the games that can changes some goings on later, but you still have to go down the "main path" that has been set by the Devs.

Plus, at the end of the day, I think you could say that games like them are a way to have our cake and eat it too.
<.< Portal...........You thought it didn't you.

Sure, and I often argue that this is the best way to make all inclusive games without alienating the average user. I agree that this is the best thing to have and by no means am I saying "side stepping the issue" in a bad way. Sometimes issues are best resolved by avoiding them altogether by changing the equation.. However, this can go too far as well. I would hate to lose some stable characters like Mario or Nathan Drake or Joel or any number of characters I've grown attached to over the years. Really, the problem has been moreso that women and minorities haven't had options until recently (relatively). Character customization had been on the fringe until it became a huge selling point in some games (even white males who get similar characters made for them all the time can benefit from getting the character to look more like them). This is a viable option for them so I am hopeful that these games won't be dismissed so readily by people generally taking your side (if we can be said to be on different sides as I actually prefer these games). But it does not seem to me that Anita has considered these games at all.

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/tomb-raider-sales-broke-even-by-the-end-of-2013/

That's great news. I'd been really worried for them. I know it was their fault for how they budgetted but they made some great games that year. I really hope they learned from their mistakes. If your game sells over 4 million copies and you lose money then whoever drafted that budget and forecasted larger returns made a mistake.

Spoiler: Warriors!

Reminds me about these really ancient swords I heard about that can still be cleaned and sharpened to working condition, even as old as they are.
Sadly, we apparently don't know how to make them that well anymore. Or so I've heard.

Well, carbon is what generally results in rust so whatever it was wouldn't be a solid steel sword (Iron becomes steel by adding carbon. Blades that hold a good edge are usually high carbon steel because it adds hardness whereas heat treating the steel after the fact returns the iron's strength). However, I used to make a mokume gane style blade that had a high carbon steel as the core in a wrought iron jacket (high silica content/low or no carbon). That kind of blade would potentially last a thousand years if kept in reasonably good conditions (oiled) and would have an excellent blade with a highly resistant surface and hard. Indefinitely if kept in great conditions (oiled and little use). The truth is, it's only the material that determines the surviveability and not the work itself. Of course, flaws are a breeding ground for accumulation of things like rust.

Spoiler: Shadow of the Colossus Spoilers.

Eh, I always figured it went like this;
Dormin took over Wander(apparently that's his name), chases off the people in the masks, before they leave they banish(I guess) Dormin away, and so Wander doesn't die or get sent with him he turns him into a baby.
Then it's just baby Wander, Mono(the lady) and ArgoD Horsey) alone int the forbidden land. Eating fruit and lizards until they die, or leave if they can.

Side note, Argo the horse apparently was suppose to be female, but is referred to as male in the English version.
That seems to happen a lot with Japanese to English stuff. Men become women, women become men, and transgender/transsexuals turn into "Eh, I don't know".
Not that this is a bad thing. Just neat.

Spoiler: Appealing!

Also, neat info. Thanks for the links.
As for liking a game based on the main character vs liking a movie based on a main character.
I'm curious to see if they are the same for people.

These days, games are a lot more like movies in some ways (some good ways and bad ways), and some more than others.
However, there are key differences.

Even when the main character isn't just the player's avatar, you are kind of playing as the character rather then just watching or reading about them like in other media. "You are the character", in a way.
I wonder if people would answer differently if the question was "Do you want to "be" this person for a bit?", instead of just watching them, or reading about them.
Though, I assume people would have to have played a game where you were a specific character to really understand the difference.
Then again, it is kind of just a technologically advanced way of playing pretend, so it probably wouldn't be that had to imagine it.

As for games with lots of character creation, I'd say, like in many things, it's a case by case basis.
I'd include some in for as examples of good male&female main characters, and some I wouldn't.

For example, while it's still nice to have, the sex and race options in Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, are pretty much pointless to the plot, and don't matter at all.
An in-between example I think would be the recent Saints Row 4. No matter how "The Boss" looks, the game plays out the same(especially at the start xD).
However, while the sex&race don't matter, the voices do add a fair amount of personality, and can be changed too.

I too would like to see it more often, but I don't think it means we can't have a defined main character. Not a Joel or an Ellie, but some Shepards, Hawkes, and Saints would be still nice.

Neat stuff about the swords too. Hope ya get some spare time[sub](and money)[/sub] later to make more.

 

[Lightknight]

Spoiler: Shadow of the Colossus Spoilers.

Eh, I always figured it went like this;
Dormin took over Wander(apparently that's his name), chases off the people in the masks, before they leave they banish(I guess) Dormin away, and so Wander doesn't die or get sent with him he turns him into a baby.
Then it's just baby Wander, Mono(the lady) and ArgoD Horsey) alone int the forbidden land. Eating fruit and lizards until they die, or leave if they can.

Side note, Argo the horse apparently was suppose to be female, but is referred to as male in the English version.
That seems to happen a lot with Japanese to English stuff. Men become women, women become men, and transgender/transsexuals turn into "Eh, I don't know".
Not that this is a bad thing. Just neat.

Interesting and even more confusing. Thanks!

Spoiler: Appealing!

Also, neat info. Thanks for the links.
As for liking a game based on the main character vs liking a movie based on a main character.
I'm curious to see if they are the same for people.

These days, games are a lot more like movies in some ways (some good ways and bad ways), and some more than others.
However, there are key differences.

Even when the main character isn't just the player's avatar, you are kind of playing as the character rather then just watching or reading about them like in other media. "You are the character", in a way.
I wonder if people would answer differently if the question was "Do you want to "be" this person for a bit?", instead of just watching them, or reading about them.
Though, I assume people would have to have played a game where you were a specific character to really understand the difference.
Then again, it is kind of just a technologically advanced way of playing pretend, so it probably wouldn't be that had to imagine it.

As for games with lots of character creation, I'd say, like in many things, it's a case by case basis.
I'd include some in for as examples of good male&female main characters, and some I wouldn't.

For example, while it's still nice to have, the sex and race options in Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, are pretty much pointless to the plot, and don't matter at all.
An in-between example I think would be the recent Saints Row 4. No matter how "The Boss" looks, the game plays out the same(especially at the start xD).
However, while the sex&race don't matter, the voices do add a fair amount of personality, and can be changed too.

Their failure to make meaningful differences like that may be why the company is now defunct and why Kingdoms of Amalur has seemed to evade the general gaming consciousness.

As for the other stuff, we have no idea if the difference of control over the character's actions change how they are percieved. If they are a stable character then they typically have lines, personal motivations/desires, and other things that may easily distinguish them from the player. For example, the criminals (protagonist?) of GTA V had nothing in common with me. At least previous games had guys that were sometimes about as good as you can be in a corrupt world that is the GTA universe.

But, get me funding and I'll gather a group of helper monkeys (interns) and get some real data on the subject. These kinds of studies have always been the sort of things I wanted to run. I'm tired of the lack of information on the one hand and poorly performed studies on the other (usually due to bias or incompetence).

Neat stuff about the swords too. Hope ya get some spare time[sub](and money)[/sub] later to make more.

Well, I'm ok on the money front. It's just that I can't make swords for a living when my technical expertise earns so much more. So this is more of a time issue. It's really weird but sitting on my butt all day answering technical question earns me more in a day than I could make in a week as a blacksmith producing high quality and high detailed work. I've always found it fascinating that the easier my jobs have gotten, the more I've been paid. But I do understand that the ease of my job generally means less physical labor which is the easiest kind of labor to replace.