Oops, didn't catch the typo. I meant P&PSir John the Net Knight said:
Pen and Paper Roleplay Games
Dungeons & Dragons and the like, though I'm getting into this Dresden Files one that seems much more roleplay intensive than D&D is won't to be.
UPDATE: Video of Females on Female Characters Panel
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Pen and Paper Roleplay Games
Dungeons & Dragons and the like, though I'm getting into this Dresden Files one that seems much more roleplay intensive than D&D is won't to be.
I too don't get the hate on Lightning. I think people who hate her tragically misunderstand the character (maybe because of the length of game in which it develops 
) People think she's meant to be a strong female character because she's always lashing out at people and we're meant to like that.
But it couldn't be clearer that that's just her personal flaw. Not a flaw of women, but a woman who can't trust people. Over the course of the game she softens up, loses her war wounds, becomes quite maternal (and in a lovely softly softly manner) with hope and in the end realises that her violence is hurting other people, instead of other people hurting her and comes to terms with it.
So yeah.
) People think she's meant to be a strong female character because she's always lashing out at people and we're meant to like that.But it couldn't be clearer that that's just her personal flaw. Not a flaw of women, but a woman who can't trust people. Over the course of the game she softens up, loses her war wounds, becomes quite maternal (and in a lovely softly softly manner) with hope and in the end realises that her violence is hurting other people, instead of other people hurting her and comes to terms with it.
So yeah.
How come people hardly if ever bring up characters from Final Fantasy like Celes, Terra, Beatrix and Freya to name but a few in these arguments. The are arguably some of the best examples of good female characters out there in the industry.
I think it's the politics attached and panels like this that make female characters hard to write, rather than anything being intristically difficult about it. The thing is that a female character has to meet with approval from so many differant groups and points of view that your just not going to come to any consensus.
For example using Lara Croft as a bad example of a female character, for those that have done so, is enough to discredit anyone making the claim. Like it or not she's pretty much one of the defining female video game characters, and the one who opened the door for them to the extent we currently see. Complaining about it, is like trying to complain about "Bond Girls" simply because the notties decided that style of empowerment wasn't fair to them since they weren't hotties (so to speak).
I'm being a fairly simplistic about things in general, but hand picked panels (which this seems to be) are by their nature fairly loaded, as even the people representing "the other side" or playing "Devil's Advocate" are selected by those setting the purpose of the panel. There are ways of dealing with this, but I doubt this panel was selected and balanced by anyone that could be considered a balanced third party, looking to see all sides of the issue expressed.
Now, a lot of people will probably get upset by this point, but one thing you will notice is most of the women on that panel are pretty much in the average catagory apperance wise. That's one of the big problems with feminism (especially if you've learned much about it in school), there are differant opinions based on how good looking a girl happens to be. That's the focus of so called "catfight feminism" where the differance between exploitation and empowerment depends entirely on whether the person making an arguement has the power and oppertunities availible to a good looking women. Typically it's the "notties" who are the ones who are all upset about the ultra-hot female characters and such, even ones created by, or modeled for by, actual women.
If your going to build a balanced panel on feminism, or addressing anything from a female perspective, a third party has to do it, and believe it or not you need to put some real babes on that panel. Of course if you put a few models or porn stars on that panel (and as we know from this site, a number of them game) I'm not sure most of them would agree with some of these points. Of course given the fact that on such panels (dedicated to any subject) you usually see the women start ripping into each other, and that's why the unofficial term "catfight feminism" comes from.
Of course I say this from the text, I haven't listened to the video as a whole, but I'm guessing the summary is probably pretty accurate.
I know many people will disagree with me, especially seeing as I'm not being very politically correct, but that's my opinion. Whether it's a good or bad thing, physical apperance has a huge influance on feminism. Anyone who has listened to people talking about banning porn, modeling, and similar things for the exploitation of women, and then listened to people in those industries defend them and their work, and claim it's empowering and trying to counter the whole stereotype about how everyone involved is abused and exploited... your probably familiar with the basics. Put those people togethr and the claws come out, and blood is usually shed.
For example using Lara Croft as a bad example of a female character, for those that have done so, is enough to discredit anyone making the claim. Like it or not she's pretty much one of the defining female video game characters, and the one who opened the door for them to the extent we currently see. Complaining about it, is like trying to complain about "Bond Girls" simply because the notties decided that style of empowerment wasn't fair to them since they weren't hotties (so to speak).
I'm being a fairly simplistic about things in general, but hand picked panels (which this seems to be) are by their nature fairly loaded, as even the people representing "the other side" or playing "Devil's Advocate" are selected by those setting the purpose of the panel. There are ways of dealing with this, but I doubt this panel was selected and balanced by anyone that could be considered a balanced third party, looking to see all sides of the issue expressed.
Now, a lot of people will probably get upset by this point, but one thing you will notice is most of the women on that panel are pretty much in the average catagory apperance wise. That's one of the big problems with feminism (especially if you've learned much about it in school), there are differant opinions based on how good looking a girl happens to be. That's the focus of so called "catfight feminism" where the differance between exploitation and empowerment depends entirely on whether the person making an arguement has the power and oppertunities availible to a good looking women. Typically it's the "notties" who are the ones who are all upset about the ultra-hot female characters and such, even ones created by, or modeled for by, actual women.
If your going to build a balanced panel on feminism, or addressing anything from a female perspective, a third party has to do it, and believe it or not you need to put some real babes on that panel. Of course if you put a few models or porn stars on that panel (and as we know from this site, a number of them game) I'm not sure most of them would agree with some of these points. Of course given the fact that on such panels (dedicated to any subject) you usually see the women start ripping into each other, and that's why the unofficial term "catfight feminism" comes from.
Of course I say this from the text, I haven't listened to the video as a whole, but I'm guessing the summary is probably pretty accurate.
I know many people will disagree with me, especially seeing as I'm not being very politically correct, but that's my opinion. Whether it's a good or bad thing, physical apperance has a huge influance on feminism. Anyone who has listened to people talking about banning porn, modeling, and similar things for the exploitation of women, and then listened to people in those industries defend them and their work, and claim it's empowering and trying to counter the whole stereotype about how everyone involved is abused and exploited... your probably familiar with the basics. Put those people togethr and the claws come out, and blood is usually shed.
Speaking as someone who actually attended the panel, I can without a doubt say you're incorrect in your assumption that this was about a panel of "average" looking women being put out about being "notties". Outright generalizations of feminism aside (also why should the entitlement of a female's opinion on a gender issue be based on their own attractiveness?), the discussion actually touched on how ALL characters are underdeveloped (male, female, gay, bisexual, trans-gender, etc.)and how the industry could tackle that problem. I would highly suggest actually watching the videos.Therumancer said:
All of the talk on female characters of the present is well and good, but how about some focus on good female characters from the past?Susan Arendt said:
Say.....Terra, Celes and Relm from Final Fantasy 3? They may not have the graphic edge as some of the other characters you mentioned, but I can almost guarantee they have more depth and heart. Terra's journey of self, the mini story with Celes and Locke and Relm's history. OI!
You don't need to have good graphics to have awesome female characters!
You have a decent point about the video, as I said I read the summary.Myan said:
As far as my comments on feminism goes, that isn't a gross generalization. It's one of the major problems with the entire movement, and one that's not easy to address. I'm not saying someone of only average apperance doesn't have the right to have an opinion on the subject, just that on a lot of issues it winds up leading to arguements being made based on personal bias.
The basic point is this. A lot of feminists will go off about how things like video games, fantasy artwork, modeling, porn stars, and whatever else, talking about how they encourage the exploitation of women, and set an unreasonable standard for girls to try and live up to.
On the other hand if you take someone like a model, who gets paid ten thousand dollars an hour to stand around in a bikini while someone takes pictures, they are hardly going to tell you they are being exploited. Their success due to winning "the genetic lottery" being no differant than a professional athlete who exploits their natural gifts. Sure, not every model remains pretty forever, and a lot don't prepare for the future, but that happens with pro-atheletes to as they spend all their money thinking they are immortal, get old, can't compete, and then wind up trying to make ends meet by selling autographed memorbilia out
of the back of their car to nostolgic fans. Someone like Leon Spinhx (who wasn't that good in my opinion) had one moment in his career, he beat Ali. He could have lived his entire life over that, but he wasted all the money, and is now a "where are they now" story. The same kind of thing that feminists argue about when they go on about the exploitation of women, except with a differant kind of industry.
In the end the women argueing such things are ultimatly doing it from the perspective of jealousy, because they don't have those gifts, nobody should be able to exploit them. It's unfair that someone should have that kind of an advantage just due to a twist of genetic fate.
It's not an unfair criticism of the movement, and it's been made by a lot of people over the years.
My comments on the panel are however based on the summary of the things they discussed, and I really think knocking a character like Lara Croft says a lot about the motivations of anyone looking to make an overall statement, no matter what else they might say. Lara has been criticized as a sex object from the very beginning of the character, and been under a lot of pressure for that reason. HOWEVER at the same time she's responsible for the increased presence of female characters since her creation. There is really nothing bad you can say about the character or it's influance on the industry, unless you want to make complaints about the way the character looks and the intended sex appeal.
A major part of why writing females seems to be difficult for males is that they have such rigid expectations of what "female" is. I've had a man tell me I didn't act enough like a woman (in a chatroom) to be one! And here I thought the only requirement was having a vagina . . .
I disagree completely with the idea of the option to pursue romance with all characters in an RPG (comes up during the question half hour). In fact, I think it's important that there are some characters you can't do this with.
In the real world, sexuality is rarely all-embracing. People have different tastes, orientations, or occasionally no orientation at all and these attributes hugely affect a person's life. While you as the player should be able to shape that aspect of your character, when it comes to NPCs, which themselves all have pre-written backstories, giving the player the ability to command such an important aspect of their character, in my eyes, devalues them as a whole.
For example, ME2 is mentioned as a specific example for where free romance should be used. Mordin however, is a Salarian. Salarians are an asexually orientated species, it actually says this in the codex entry. It would have made no sense at all for him to be a romance option.
In the end, my favourite characters from ME2 were Mordin, Samara and Legion. All 3 of which are non-romance (Slight question mark over Samara, but ultimatly all attempts are rebuffed by her, thank god). Somehow I doubt this is a coincidence (I am asexual myself, by the way). I think that, as a character, it makes little sense for Samara to find Shepard attractive. She's amongst the oldest Asari in the galaxy, long past her Maiden stage quite literally a matriarch, a mother.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that romance options are fine, but not if they don't make sense as part of that character. The game should be able to turn around and say, "Ok, you want to pursue the romance option with this same-gender NPC, but this NPC is heterosexual. So you can't. Tough luck." Forcing the NPC into a position that makes little sense based on their character backstory is even worse than them not having one at all.
In the real world, sexuality is rarely all-embracing. People have different tastes, orientations, or occasionally no orientation at all and these attributes hugely affect a person's life. While you as the player should be able to shape that aspect of your character, when it comes to NPCs, which themselves all have pre-written backstories, giving the player the ability to command such an important aspect of their character, in my eyes, devalues them as a whole.
For example, ME2 is mentioned as a specific example for where free romance should be used. Mordin however, is a Salarian. Salarians are an asexually orientated species, it actually says this in the codex entry. It would have made no sense at all for him to be a romance option.
In the end, my favourite characters from ME2 were Mordin, Samara and Legion. All 3 of which are non-romance (Slight question mark over Samara, but ultimatly all attempts are rebuffed by her, thank god). Somehow I doubt this is a coincidence (I am asexual myself, by the way). I think that, as a character, it makes little sense for Samara to find Shepard attractive. She's amongst the oldest Asari in the galaxy, long past her Maiden stage quite literally a matriarch, a mother.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that romance options are fine, but not if they don't make sense as part of that character. The game should be able to turn around and say, "Ok, you want to pursue the romance option with this same-gender NPC, but this NPC is heterosexual. So you can't. Tough luck." Forcing the NPC into a position that makes little sense based on their character backstory is even worse than them not having one at all.
Aren't there a lot of male characters out there that are just bland, underdeveloped objects of female desire, too? Not saying that sexism against women in video games isn't present, just that I feel it might be a double edged sword.
That's what bothered me about her too. I don't care that she's sexy. I do care that I feel like I'm being treated like a horny barely teen.Truly-A-Lie said:
Not to mention real world romance can be a very long and rocky process. I'm honestly tired of romance in games that seem to have short time spans. Even if you do form a relationship from being together for work or travel those relationships don't tend to last long. Having true relationships just spring up so easily seems to cheapen the real thing. Maybe short term love blooms are common for a some but they're way too overrepresented. For most it's not that easy. It never was.InevitableFate said:
Just like my comment on writing different types of women the real problem with real vs fake is that there is barely variety between types of anything. From character traits, natural attraction, and relationships it's way too samey.
Given that we spent about half the panel saying that sexy is a good thing (and that I personally defended Lara Croft for being a fantastic female character with many admirable traits, attractiveness simply being one), I'd say your assumption about our discussion is pretty off. I may not be a supermodel, but I'm not a narrow-minded dumbass, either, and neither were the ladies on the panel.Therumancer said:
You're not wrong that many women who self-identify as feminists seem to think that "feminism" means "rejecting any female attribute that men find favorable," which includes physical beauty. That's not my particular definition, however.