178 réponses à ce sujet

[randName]

Carfax wrote...

BTW, doesn't the Elderscrolls series provide different bonuses for each race depending on your gender?

Not sure, Arcanum did anyway - it was fine, but it got some flack on the forums for doing it, and for doing it badly (less strength, and more constitution for women).

I liked it that they did, and have little problem with games as the Witcher where women are powerful due to influence, knowlage or magic, not brawn.

& I have no problem with the way BioWare have done it since old (and I assume DnD as well).

Modifié par randName, 07 avril 2011 - 10:11 .

[randName]

smooshmonster wrote...

I can't think of a precedent. I can't think of a single RPG that gives women and men different starting stats. Many people have argued pretty good points here, but I think it's mostly because it's unnecessary. I tend to think if players think that women should not be as strong as men, they can just build their characters that way.

I'll give you one, Arcanum.

You could pick a tomboy perk to equalize it as a women, and I think you could pick a femenin perk as a man, but unsure about the later.


As mentioned in the post above it got flak for doing it, and how they did it (too much, not enough and so on).

Modifié par randName, 07 avril 2011 - 10:13 .

[The Corporate]

Can I just note here that, despite women having the same attributes as men, making just as good soldiers as men, etc, BioWare still modelled them as being physically more slight than men.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either women are more frail than men, as their slender structures and complete lack of substantial muscle mass indicate, or you otherwise make every woman thick and sturdily built. Panning across a front line of troops and seeing girls with the waists of broom handles standing next to men built like tree trunks and then suggesting that they're both equally as good in a scrap just seems absurd.

Modifié par The Corporate, 07 avril 2011 - 10:19 .

[randName]

The Corporate wrote...

Can I just note here that, despite women having the same attributes as men, making just as good soldiers as men, etc, BioWare still modelled them as being physically more slight than men.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either women are more frail than men, as their slender structures and complete lack of substantial muscle mass indicate, or you otherwise make every woman thick and sturdily built. Panning across a front line of troops and seeing girls with the waists of broom handles standing next to men built like tree trunks and then suggesting that they're both equally as good in a scrap just seems absurd.

Yes, and that's one reason I brought up Egyptian gods, its easy to change the story, its hard to change the visuals.

& Then they would have to make the muscles change based on strength, for Carver is a muscular beast at strength 13, and won't actually change visually even if you would push him to 70.

Just limitations of the medium/production and visual expectations.


"You can't have your cake and eat it." ~ I'm sorry, but we have done so for a very long time when it comes to games.

Modifié par randName, 07 avril 2011 - 10:32 .

[Zkyire]

Galad22 wrote...

F-C wrote...

i think the gender differences is very narrow minded.

some men are born skinny and weak, while some women are born thick and strong.

this idea that 'men are just naturally stronger' is some old, and incorrect, sexist crap.


....and yes i am a man.

I agree.

Is this sexist crap really needed on these forums.

This thread is not going anywhere good.

Saying "men are physically stronger than women" is not sexist.

Saying "men are superior to women" is.

[Galad22]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
Saying "men are physically stronger than women" is not sexist.

Saying "men are superior to women" is.

And that is where this thread will go sooner or later, read Irxy post in page 2 for example.

[randName]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

F-C wrote...

i think the gender differences is very narrow minded.

some men are born skinny and weak, while some women are born thick and strong.

this idea that 'men are just naturally stronger' is some old, and incorrect, sexist crap.


....and yes i am a man.

I agree.

Is this sexist crap really needed on these forums.

This thread is not going anywhere good.

Saying "men are physically stronger than women" is not sexist.

Saying "men are superior to women" is.

In Thedas they are obviously equal in strength, but yes I find it funny when noting a general difference is seen as devaluing one party.


Well if life was only about athleticism and what gender is strongest in general it would, so that is true.

Modifié par randName, 07 avril 2011 - 10:37 .

[MrStorm2K]

The Corporate wrote...

Not gonna happen. David Gaider is a hard-lefty feminist type, and would sooner ****** on his hammer & sickle than recognise in-game that a believable society will have elements of gender roles.

Not to mention that he seems to have sourced all his writers from the largely female Harry Potter-Twilight yaoi crossover fanfic community.

Holy crap, this gave me a hearty laugh. Thank you for this.

[Dokarqt]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I doubt that.  Games in the past have given male and female characters different passive bonuses.  Typically the male gets +X strength, while the female gets one of:

+X dexterity
+X intelligence
+X charisma/social skill

Any of which are not wildly unreasonable.

Well to be fair, that males receiving a bonus to strength (maybe constitution stats but thats a bit of a stretch) is atleast logical. Even though I do not agree with it in a fantasy game personally, think its a bit too "nitpicky" to limit female characters that way (its only a game after all). Not to mention women who eat/work out well can be pretty god damn strong, even without substance abuse (women on steroids doesn't count).

However giving female characters bonuses to these other stats is illogical and makes no sense. How are females more dexterous/agile than males? How are they more intelligent? How are they more charismatic? I would like to hear someone argue for that.

[CaimDark]

I don't want Thedas to be sexist the way our world is, and I don't think we'd gain any narrative benefits if it were. But as I mentioned before, I do think that it would be more interesting if your gender had a greater impact on the way the world reacts to you and in the way you interact with other characters. As for stat penalties and bonuses for each gender, it looks like pretty much all of us agree that it would pointless.

[Satyricon331]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Irxy wrote...
Anyway, stat bonuses/penalties are kind of useless, since we're supposed to play heroes, not the ordinary joes, and heroes are far beyond natural physical gender peculiarities.

Not really.

It is a fallacy to compare an exceptional woman against a below-average man. Because in general, on the battlefield you will be competing against your equals, or better.

An AVERAGE male athlete will outperform an exceptional woman athlete.
Take for example...Serena Willimas (or was it the oter one). Considered one of the best female tenis players in the world. And she is built like a man.
Palyed a match against some mid-ranked male player and lost utterly.

Yes, it's nice ot belive there are no differences and we are all equal (in terms of abilities) and everythnig is butterfleis and sunshine..but that is basicly sticking your hand in the sand and ignoring reality.

Your post does not rationally respond to the point.  Irxy (implicitly) points out that the hero is not a random selection, so stat effects to represent the gender's statistical central tendency are nonsense.  You note that the enemies we encounter on the battlefield are scaled to the player level - that's not a random selection either, and simply strengthen's Irxy's point - but then try to compare an atypical female against... a male who's statistically representative for an unrepresentative subset of men?  The most I can say for your point is that male athletic prowess (strength/dex stats) range higher than womens', which is true in RL.  But the game has no upper cap on stats (unlike BG barring tomes etc.) so it's off-point.

[mdugger12]

Dokarqt wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I doubt that.  Games in the past have given male and female characters different passive bonuses.  Typically the male gets +X strength, while the female gets one of:

+X dexterity
+X intelligence
+X charisma/social skill

Any of which are not wildly unreasonable.

Well to be fair, that males receiving a bonus to strength (maybe constitution stats but thats a bit of a stretch) is atleast logical. Even though I do not agree with it in a fantasy game personally, think its a bit too "nitpicky" to limit female characters that way (its only a game after all). Not to mention women who eat/work out well can be pretty god damn strong, even without substance abuse (women on steroids doesn't count).

However giving female characters bonuses to these other stats is illogical and makes no sense. How are females more dexterous/agile than males? How are they more intelligent? How are they more charismatic? I would like to hear someone argue for that.

Dexterity
http://books.google....vidence&f=false

As far as smarter? I don't know. But there may be a few reasons they're more "charismatic"

[Zkyire]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Irxy wrote...
Anyway, stat bonuses/penalties are kind of useless, since we're supposed to play heroes, not the ordinary joes, and heroes are far beyond natural physical gender peculiarities.

Not really.

It is a fallacy to compare an exceptional woman against a below-average man. Because in general, on the battlefield you will be competing against your equals, or better.

An AVERAGE male athlete will outperform an exceptional woman athlete.
Take for example...Serena Willimas (or was it the oter one). Considered one of the best female tenis players in the world. And she is built like a man.
Palyed a match against some mid-ranked male player and lost utterly.

Yes, it's nice ot belive there are no differences and we are all equal (in terms of abilities) and everythnig is butterfleis and sunshine..but that is basicly sticking your hand in the sand and ignoring reality.

Your post does not rationally respond to the point.  Irxy (implicitly) points out that the hero is not a random selection, so stat effects to represent the gender's statistical central tendency are nonsense.  You note that the enemies we encounter on the battlefield are scaled to the player level - that's not a random selection either, and simply strengthen's Irxy's point - but then try to compare an atypical female against... a male who's statistically representative for an unrepresentative subset of men?  The most I can say for your point is that male athletic prowess (strength/dex stats) range higher than womens', which is true in RL.  But the game has no upper cap on stats (unlike BG barring tomes etc.) so it's off-point.

This is entirely true.

While it's true that men are physically stronger than women, it doesn't really matter in game. Why? Because if we take the base stats of 10 that you start out with as the basis for the individual attributes for people (that 10 strength  / 10 dexterity etc. being what a normal person has). But when you look at the end of the game, where you can have what, 50+ strength? Do people really believe your character is 5 times stronger than a normal person at that point? No, it's just to reflect in-game mechanics.

So yes, while men are stronger in real life, the fact is that it doesn't matter, because it's a game.

[Galad22]

mdugger12 wrote...

Dokarqt wrote...

However giving female characters bonuses to these other stats is illogical and makes no sense. How are females more dexterous/agile than males? How are they more intelligent? How are they more charismatic? I would like to hear someone argue for that.

Dexterity
http://books.google....vidence&f=false

As far as smarter? I don't know. But there may be a few reasons they're more "charismatic"

Here is one link for smarter.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8085011.stm

[Dokarqt]

Others have touched on interesting points with say in DnD 2nd ED (think BG games) elves for instance were limited to 17 starting con while humans had 18 and dwarves 19.

Now following the logic others have argued for that one should not pay attention to generalizations (elves are less hardy than dwarves, females are physically weaker than males) then should not elves have had the same starting con cap as dwarves? Surely an exceptionally hardy elf should have a higher con than a relatively frail dwarf just like an exceptionally athletic female is physically stronger then a relatively weak male?

Yet, people did not seem to argue those racial restrictions.However if in DnD 2nd ED female humans were limited to say, 16/17 str cap instead of 18 as males then the reaction would no doubt have been different.

Anyway, just thought it was an interesting observation as a sidebar.

[Dokarqt]

Galad22 wrote...

Here is one link for smarter.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8085011.stm

Education and grades=intelligence now? Wow I had no idea.

Perhaps women spend more time studying than men in average? Over here on the entry exams for university theres been some debate lately since results have showed that males score higher on average than women on the "intelligence" test which consists of logical problems you have to solve which you cannot prepare for ahead of time.

My point is that grades/studies really do not have thaat much to do with actual intelligence. It helps alot sure but its often more about time you put in.

Anyway, i'm just playing devils advocate here. Don't mean to say that men are smarter than women or the other way around, just that I thought your example was flawed.

[FlintlockJazz]

Okay consider this: men are supposed to have stronger bones but women are supposed to have higher pain thresholds, both of which are aspects of constitution, how would you simulate that difference? We have enough trouble trying to get stats to adequately model human capabilities, do we really need to start adding in gender differences to make it even harder?

[Perles75]

CaimDark wrote...

I think it's unnecessary and not really realistic to give stat penalties/bonuses based on gender. However, it would indeed be nice if we had more unique dialogues/character interactions/npc reactions that reflected our character's gender, and the same goes for sexual preference. It just feels weird that my female Hawke is "married" to Merril and everyone, from the most conservative clerics to the most wild... Isabelas... act like that's perfectly normal.

This.

(I wouldn't put stat penalties/bonuses based on gener or on race though... I don't like stereotypes, as the "magic inclined elves" or the "more clever but weaker women")

[Souris]

Carfax wrote...

F-C wrote...

i think the gender differences is very narrow minded.

some men are born skinny and weak, while some women are born thick and strong.

this idea that 'men are just naturally stronger' is some old, and incorrect, sexist crap.


....and yes i am a man.

There will always be exceptions, but generally speaking, there is a large amount of difference between men and women in terms of physical abilities......especially when we look at the ELITES.

To deny this is to deny reality.

I don't like you.

Not really, I mostly just dislike your opinion. I'm not a feminist by any means, but growing up with a single mother in the military makes me feel as though women are a lot stronger than people give them credit for. Both physically and emotionally.

In short, my mother is about as badass as any man out there. She was the only one in her squadron who could fix the Aurora's fuel cells, and was the boss of 18 men.

Yep.

[Crocodiles]

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty females should be better at blood magic with a reduced cost than men. I only want dialogue to be influenced, not my stats and gameplay.

[Jmaru7]

I Think the equality is about right tbh, the differences between playing as male or female are there but don't over effect the game, maybe see more in respect to li and such.
"So you like elves? it takes all sorts I suppose"
appears yet,
"So... you like other men? It takes all sorts I suppose" doesn't...

all that aside when people react differently but then ultimatly the same works,... what was it "If you knew anything of the Qun you'd know there is no honour in fighting a woman" and then stuffs and you still fight, s'all good

[CaimDark]

It just occurred to me that this thread has very little to do with DA2 at this point and will probably be locked as soon as a mod shows up!

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

BTW, doesn't the Elderscrolls series provide different bonuses for each race depending on your gender?

It did, but I believe more for animalistic races. Argonian females had better stats for being mages, while males for being warriors.

In Arcanum, females had +1 CON -1 STR.

As for multitascing etc., I believe women have one, clear and distinct ability - intuition. To pick better males for themselves, women developed better ability to read body language and jestures, which in DA system, yeah, I guess can equal as a Cunning bonus.

But anyway, all those things will never happen again, especially in Bioware games. And following topic like that will just get you more **** from escapistic women. Can't really blame them. While they had their fun being irreplaceable for human survival and evolution, making men fight and die for them, picking the best males for themselves, they also had enough times being treated as second citizens, so I think women deserve to have all them Stats at 10 just as males do.
Also, I don't believe realistic problems with women being on the battlefield (anyone watched "Berserk"? Remember what happened to Casca in her "special" days when she was forced into the fight?) can be well done. Women definitely can fight in close combat. I know that cause I happen to be in historical swordfighting once. They can at least use lighter armor and weapons like sabers to outmaneuver heaver opponents, though shear might and speed of male fighter, and fear before him is a heavy thing for girls to withstand.
My opinion? Keep gender differences for social roleplaying, like DA:O did. But even then, Bioware would't go too far for realism and lore consistency - consistency is consistency, sales are sales.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 07 avril 2011 - 11:24 .

[Irx]

The Corporate wrote...

Plausability. If we're going down the 'its fantasy, anything goes' route, why not make Hawke a hundred feet tall and shoot lazer beams from his eyes, while everyone drives around Kirkwall with cars made from emmental cheese?

Point is, if they give males a strength bonus, they would have to give females some bonus for the sake of balance and appeasing females, and any bonus like +dex/int/cha etc would make even less sense. Since we're talking about exceptional people, just compare the ratio of males to females of renown scientists/politicians/olympic records etc. for the given stats.

Imho, its more realistic the way it is - female PC is a hero who slays dragons, ogres and monters by dozens, while enemy males are your average joes, maybe professionals - but not heroic. Also, we can avoid comparing male PC to female PC since only one version exists in a gameworld.

[Carfax]

Souris wrote...

I don't like you.

Excuse me while I throw myself off the nearest balcony

Not really, I mostly just dislike your opinion. I'm not a feminist by any means, but growing up with a single mother in the military makes me feel as though women are a lot stronger than people give them credit for. Both physically and emotionally.

My statement wasn't an opinion.  It was a fact, based on real observation which can be objectively measured. 

In short, my mother is about as badass as any man out there. She was the only one in her squadron who could fix the Aurora's fuel cells, and was the boss of 18 men.

Yep.

No need to get personal..  I never claimed at any time that women were weak or inferior to men, and if you have been paying attention, I've been arguing in favor of having no stat advantages/disadvantages based on gender.

I just think that denying reality because it doesn't mesh with how you WISH the World would be, is downright pathetic..

Modifié par Carfax, 07 avril 2011 - 11:29 .