178 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taura-Tierno wrote...
Yet the vast majority of fantasy or fantasy-like media, whether literature, films or tv-series, seems to have decided that it's perfectly acceptable to change that fact. I mean, how many tv action series and movies aren't there with strong female "warriors"? Alias, Xena, Kill Bill ... off the top of my head. Tons of fantasy books feature female warriors who are on par with male warriors. And that would be fact in those books.

Making humans use magic is "changing" them. Allowing humans to have access to psychic abilities means "changing" them. So, what you're saying is that the humans in most fantasy (and a lot of science fiction) aren't really human anymore. So what does one more change matter?

Indeed, fantasy can chage facts. Does it have to? Should it?

As for magic.Well, using magic is kinda the core to having mages. You cannot have mages wihout humans using magic. That is a necessary change. And in some setting, ti's not even that - depending on how magic works. In some settings it's a learned ability...meanign humans don't change.
In TheDas mages are born with it. And they are treated differently because of that.

And well. What does one more change matter? Indeed..you could add one mroe change and ask that question. Tehn add anotehr and ask it again. Where do you stop it?

Now personally, this isn't an issue that bugs me. I wouldn't even call it an issue. Altough settings with gender differences that mimic the real worls seem more real to me. Hence why I prefer them.

[CRISIS1717]

Perles75 wrote...

I think this discussion on merits and flaws of women went a bit far from the subject of the topic, which was more focused on the differentiation of the dialogues than on giving attribute bonuses to this or that...

There is no point in creating different dialogue trees based on gender, because some palyers would feel limited in their options regarding gender. 

Different dialogue from Npcs based on the gender of your character could be interesting, so with a handsome playboy npc he could be less interested in talking to the malechar over the femalechar. 

This won't happen though it means extra time, effort and money.

[Perles75]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Perles75 wrote...

I think this discussion on merits and flaws of women went a bit far from the subject of the topic, which was more focused on the differentiation of the dialogues than on giving attribute bonuses to this or that...

There is no point in creating different dialogue trees based on gender, because some palyers would feel limited in their options regarding gender.

In which sense? I don't understand...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Dasha Dreyson wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It doesn't have to be a "magic" bonus. In fact, it doesn't even haev to be an attribute bonus. It can be a skill bonus or a perk or something similar.

It would need to be the same kind of bonus the male characters got though. If males got an attribute bonus, females should have an attribute bonus. If males had a skill bonus, then females should have a skill bonus.

Though I've never been a fan of imposing stat and skill rules based on race/gender/sex/whatever. I'd rather not have to decide whether to play something I'd see as more fun vs. statistically optimal. Though admittedly, it's not as big of a deal in a single player game as it is in something like WoW or tabletop DnD.

Why? If youre aiming at direct balance, which is not the only kind posssible. you cna balance out an attribute bonus with a perk..or a skill..or well..anything for that matter.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

I think you're giving me far too much credit in trying to push a debate than I deserve.

Those 're free boards and anyone could read anything and comment, so I enjoy learning something or sharing my opinion, you should't be embarassed. I just enjoy learning about what women think on roleplaying, particularly.

[The Baconer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Indeed, fantasy can chage facts. Does it have to? Should it?

As for magic.Well, using magic is kinda the core to having mages. You cannot have mages wihout humans using magic. That is a necessary change. And in some setting, ti's not even that - depending on how magic works. In some settings it's a learned ability...meanign humans don't change.
In TheDas mages are born with it. And they are treated differently because of that.

And well. What does one more change matter? Indeed..you could add one mroe change and ask that question. Tehn add anotehr and ask it again. Where do you stop it?

Now personally, this isn't an issue that bugs me. I wouldn't even call it an issue. Altough settings with gender differences that mimic the real worls seem more real to me. Hence why I prefer them.

I think the arguement goes both ways. How many realistic elements do we need? Why are injuries immediately healed by drinking some sort of cure-all potion? How does our equipment continue to perform optimally without regular upkeep? How does Hawke luck out on not catching the blight whenever he fights hoards of Darkspawn? How can our characters carry around so much gear without being weighed down?

[Zkyire]

The Baconer wrote...

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
That has absolutely nothing to do with what he said.

He said absolutely nothing about wanting to leer at and/or bash women. Don't put words in his mouth.

It kind of comes off that way, because if gender differences meant that much to him it could be as simple as not putting as many points in strength as a female character or opting out of making female warriors altogether. But no, apparently everyone should be subject to his list of cherry-picked elements of reality.

I get why people can see it coming off that way, but it does work both ways. Male characters would react differenetly to female characters. And female characters would react differently to male characters.

Doesn't mean that all the male characters are going to be like "Hurr omg you're one o' dem wimmins lol show us yer boobs".

My understanding of his post is that he simply wants more variety in game based on more things. They did it in ME2, where the Batarian Blue Suns merc recruiter thought FemShep was a stripper, so she pulls out her gun on him and insults him right back.

*edit* I cut out the middle line of my original post in your quote to reflect that I edited the post itself

Modifié par IEatWhatIPoo, 07 avril 2011 - 01:59 .

[v_ware]

This thread is full of fail and semi-science.

[Zkyire]

randName wrote...


& would I prefer it if women warriors were portraid more as


opposed to what they currently are? yes.

& Then probably an even more muscular version post 30-35 in strength as she isn't a body builder, but a cross country skier (Marit Bjørgen)

And I want developers to start doing more than one body for the protagonist, one size does not fit all.

I would also like this added variety. The problem is that in the DA series, we have a one size fits all body type for each race.

Which is the problem.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Baconer wrote...
I think the arguement goes both ways. How many realistic elements do we need? Why are injuries immediately healed by drinking some sort of cure-all potion? How does our equipment continue to perform optimally without regular upkeep? How does Hawke luck out on not catching the blight whenever he fights hoards of Darkspawn? How can our characters carry around so much gear without being weighed down?

That depends on how realistic/immersive you want to make the game.

Altough the right question is not "how many realistic elements to add", but "how many to remove".

When creatign a fantasy setting like TheDas, yo ustart with a real world, and then remove realsitic element and add fantastic ones. Not the other way around.

[Dasha Dreyson]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Why? If youre aiming at direct balance, which is not the only kind posssible. you cna balance out an attribute bonus with a perk..or a skill..or well..anything for that matter.

I personally prefer direct balance as opposed to indirect. Again, it's not that big of a deal with a single player game so I doubt it would really be that much of an issue. I've just seen way too many problems with imbalance (like in WoW or higher levels of tabletop DnD) because indirect balance doesn't always stay that way when you factor in as many variables in leveling as RPGs tend to have.

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

Those
're free boards and anyone could read anything and comment, so I enjoy
learning something or sharing my opinion, you should't be embarassed. I
just enjoy learning about what women think on roleplaying,
particularly.

Haha, now you remind me of a good friend of mine.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

randName wrote...


& would I prefer it if women warriors were portraid more as


opposed to what they currently are? yes.

& Then probably an even more muscular version post 30-35 in strength as she isn't a body builder, but a cross country skier (Marit Bjørgen)

And I want developers to start doing more than one body for the protagonist, one size does not fit all.

I would also like this added variety. The problem is that in the DA series, we have a one size fits all body type for each race.

Which is the problem.

Hey if Drakesan can have sevel body builds and a bajilion armors, then I don't see why Bioware can't pull it off.
It even has some gigantic nordic women archetype.

Now THIS is a warrior woman:

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 07 avril 2011 - 02:06 .

[Zkyire]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Baconer wrote...
I think the arguement goes both ways. How many realistic elements do we need? Why are injuries immediately healed by drinking some sort of cure-all potion? How does our equipment continue to perform optimally without regular upkeep? How does Hawke luck out on not catching the blight whenever he fights hoards of Darkspawn? How can our characters carry around so much gear without being weighed down?

That depends on how realistic/immersive you want to make the game.

Altough the right question is not "how many realistic elements to add", but "how many to remove".

When creatign a fantasy setting like TheDas, yo ustart with a real world, and then remove realsitic element and add fantastic ones. Not the other way around.

/agree.

Realistic things like "One arrow to the head equals death" should not exist in game. But less important things that we can play around with that wont break the game? Sure.

You already get stat bonuses depending on which class you pick.

And you get stat bonuses for what specialisations you pick.

So why not do stat bonuses that depend on which race and gender you pick too?

[Russalka]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
I would also like this added variety. The problem is that in the DA series, we have a one size fits all body type for each race.

Which is the problem.

It would be a much more sensible and polite thing to discuss.

[Silvernight]

Ah, no thanks. I don't care that much about realism in RPG's. Love the gender equality aspect. Most of them are high magic-based worlds too, not very realistic, ain't it? So what? If you want highly 'realistic' roleplaying, why not play the Sims? That's probably as realistic as can be. I don't mind dialog differences, just nothing in the vein of "why are you not in the kitchen woman??".

Granted, even if the starting stats for females would be, for example, 2 points less of strength, what difference would it really make in the long run? If the player wants to spec their female character as heavy combat-oriented, they will do so pumping up their strength anyway. And the slight starting penalty won't make much difference.

[The Baconer]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
I get why people can see it coming off that way, but it does work both ways. Male characters would react differenetly to female characters. And female characters would react differently to male characters.

Doesn't mean that all the male characters are going to be like "Hurr omg you're one o' dem wimmins lol show us yer boobs".

My understanding of his post is that he simply wants more variety in game based on more things. They did it in ME2, where the Batarian Blue Suns merc recruiter thought FemShep was a stripper, so she pulls out her gun on him and insults him right back.

*edit* I cut out the middle line of my original post in your quote to reflect that I edited the post itself

By all means, I would certainly be happy with more gender-based dialogue. I just don't see the point in adding gender-based penalties or bonuses.

[Arppis]

tuto1 wrote...

i think it would be really good about romance gender dialoge if im male haweke and romance with anders, then isabela should ask " are you gay ? I thoughu you liked my ******"

Why not like both?

[randName]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

randName wrote...

And I want developers to start doing more than one body for the protagonist, one size does not fit all.

I would also like this added variety. The problem is that in the DA series, we have a one size fits all body type for each race.

Which is the problem.

Thus "And I want developers to start doing more than one body for the protagonist, one size does not fit all. "

So yes.

[randName]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

randName wrote...


& would I prefer it if women warriors were portraid more as


opposed to what they currently are? yes.

& Then probably an even more muscular version post 30-35 in strength as she isn't a body builder, but a cross country skier (Marit Bjørgen)

And I want developers to start doing more than one body for the protagonist, one size does not fit all.

I would also like this added variety. The problem is that in the DA series, we have a one size fits all body type for each race.

Which is the problem.

Hey if Drakesan can have sevel body builds and a bajilion armors, then I don't see why Bioware can't pull it off.
It even has some gigantic nordic women archetype.

Now THIS is a warrior woman:

Costs, production time, they obviously don't care to make the visuals and the stats match, as mentioned in my previous post about robes having higher armour values than plate (if the robes have a higher rank).

Or simply that your strength value has nothing at all to do with the avatar.


And that bodytype from the image you posted would be good for +35 strength warrior women yes, maybe +40 or so.
Carvers arms are also +35/40, yet he starts out with trunks like that at strength 13.

Modifié par randName, 07 avril 2011 - 02:13 .

[Zkyire]

randName wrote...

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

randName wrote...

And I want developers to start doing more than one body for the protagonist, one size does not fit all.

I would also like this added variety. The problem is that in the DA series, we have a one size fits all body type for each race.

Which is the problem.

Thus "And I want developers to start doing more than one body for the protagonist, one size does not fit all. "

So yes.

..I just noticed that I basically reworded what you said

[Zkyire]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Hey if Drakesan can have sevel body builds and a bajilion armors, then I don't see why Bioware can't pull it off.
It even has some gigantic nordic women archetype.

Now THIS is a warrior woman:

That muscle mass would be on the extreme end of things given women's lack of testosterone compared to men.

But something like that yes. As it stands, DA women are all slim and slender and yet can be just as strong as Qunari.

Bioware: more body types please.

[Laurelinde]

Arppis wrote...

tuto1 wrote...

i think it would be really good about romance gender dialoge if im male haweke and romance with anders, then isabela should ask " are you gay ? I thoughu you liked my ******"

Why not like both?

Because the opinion of a rather large proportion of people seems to be that bisexuality means you have no fixed personality.  Or something.

This thread has basically convinced me that the best thing DA3 could do would be to set it in a heretofore undiscussed region of Thedas populated mainly by a race in which the females are stronger, cleverer, more attractive and more accomplilshed than the men, who are all tiny weaklings used only for breeding.  I seem to think there are animal species in our world which follow this pattern to an extent, so there's the 'realism'.  You could start a male hero, but you'd have, say a 20-30 point stat penalty in everything compared to playing as a female toon.  Wouldn't that be fun?

[AkiKishi]

EA sports games have more comprehensive CC than DA2 or DA has.

[The Sum of all Evil]

Laurelinde wrote...

Arppis wrote...

tuto1 wrote...

i think it would be really good about romance gender dialoge if im male haweke and romance with anders, then isabela should ask " are you gay ? I thoughu you liked my ******"

Why not like both?

Because the opinion of a rather large proportion of people seems to be that bisexuality means you have no fixed personality.  Or something.

This thread has basically convinced me that the best thing DA3 could do would be to set it in a heretofore undiscussed region of Thedas populated mainly by a race in which the females are stronger, cleverer, more attractive and more accomplilshed than the men, who are all tiny weaklings used only for breeding.  I seem to think there are animal species in our world which follow this pattern to an extent, so there's the 'realism'.  You could start a male hero, but you'd have, say a 20-30 point stat penalty in everything compared to playing as a female toon.  Wouldn't that be fun?

Oh, I often play male drow...

[IntoTheDarkness]

The Corporate wrote...

randName wrote...

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.

As are most fantasy games/books in that case, and why would they atomatically adapt what we have on eart? esp. given that there are gods and mythical beings in the lands of Thedas.

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?

Also, the 'Hawke isn't just average' excuse for why women are exactly the same as men in this game doesn't fly either. If you take a look at the composition of armies in this game, you'll see there's an abundance of front-line female soldiers thrown into the mix. That's something even modern Western armies, which try to be inclusive (one significant exception noted), don't allow - the average female demonstrably doesn't have the physical strength to match the average man.

The fact is that when constructing a fantasy universe, you generally take the real world around you and then actively choose which bits you're going to alter. Trees remain cellulose-based structures with green leaves and roots. Pseudo-medieval buildings remain built of stone or a stone substitute. Clothes are made from fabrics and leather. Swords are made from metal, which is hard, grey and shiny. Average human beings speak with their mouths, have two eyes, walk upright and use their hands and arms to grasp things. Etc etc etc. If there's a difference between this world and a fantasy one, it's because the people who made that fantasy world wanted to change something to make room for the plot or, as in this case I suspect, assert one's political beliefs. It's clear that Gaider felt that, in Dragon Age, having a world of perfect harmonious rainbow equality was more important than plausabilty, which is a very odd choice for an environment which not only contains real-world flaws (discrimination forming the basis of the plotline) but in many cases accentuates them.

Apparently, for Gaider, certain types of discrimination are more palletable than others.

*I should probably add that I don't agree with stats-based gender differences either. Just that, for me, it's immersion breaking to see armies stacked up with women, the implication being that they have precisely the same physical attributes as men, simply because it's not very plausible.

Completely agreed. I wish I could argue as logically as you did.

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 07 avril 2011 - 02:21 .