230 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I would romance FemGarrus so hard.

I'd officially declare myself a lesbian.

Seriously, though, the vigilante, veteran mercenary, and mad scientist types are almost always male.

[Icinix]

AlphaDormante wrote...

Actually, here's a fun experiment for us kiddies.

Pick a ME character and reverse their gender. What do you think of the quality of their writing now? Are they stronger or weaker? Did your opinion change at all?

I chose Garrus.

Thought that was awesome.

Then saw her/him in ME3 wearing spandex and with a huge pair of breasts and realised its best to leave the characters as is - even in a hypothetical scenario.

In all seriousness, I think if Miranda had been a bloke - they would have become the most interesting and most loathed character of all time.
Jacob was a videogamers dream girl (great body, no complex story and easy to romance) that they twisted on their head and made into a bloke. He was the least popular character in ME2.
Grunt as a female Krogran would have been - Gruntina - and nothing would have changed.
Thane as a woman would have been very interesting to see the reaction - I think about equally as interesting.
Tali as a male would have been too fragile for the majority of the gaming demographic - most gamers Alpha Male Gamer syndrome would have kicked in and Tali would probably not be seen in an ME game since.

The rest though - wouldn't have a clue.

[CptData]

AlexXIV wrote...

Kill Bill? Are you kidding me?

I know strong women in ME. Liara, Tali, Miranda, Kasumi, Samara. I could agree that Jack isn't as strong a personality as others since she is unstable, but when ever did Bioware say that she is or isn't? You have an issue with Jack obviously. Well too bad, not all characters are written to suit you alone. Some people liked Jack despite her weaknesses which only made her human. Nothing wrong with that.

Ignoring Ash, ey :innocent:

I can concur with the rest: they're strong the one or the other way. Think if I had to sort them in an order (from strongest to weakest) it'll look like this:

- Samara (her code gives her strenght. There's not much that can shatter her character)
- Ashley / Liara (they're pretty much on the same level. Strong and determined)
- Miranda (Think without her "my daddy made me perfect" stuff she could easily top Samara)
- Kasumi / Tali (Pretty much same level. Determined, but with a really soft side someone could exploit)
- Jack (Appears to be strong, made it through a violent past, but is virtually broken and needs someone to overcome her past)
- Kelly (Uhh ... she's just in the list so no one can say I ignored her)

Sure, Jack went through a lot of sh*t others would have destroyed - but she didn't came out stronger. She pretends to be strong by displaying a lot of aggression towards others, however, she isn't. She's broken and it doesn't need much more to destroy the last bits of her character. It took a while to like her for me, mostly because of her past and her violent attitude. However, I think she deserves a chance to recover.


Just my five cents.

[kojac.ghosper]

Granted, the right to vote and own property were legitimate issues. Then again, so was the rule of the British empire over unrepresented colonists.

Like I said: generally a waste of time, unless an authoritative institution is implementing inequality. (the US government has made a full swing in the opposite direction, if you haven't noticed). If mere individuals are involved, you will be better served proving your personal worth as opposed to the worth of everyone in your problematic stereotype.

[AlexXIV]

CptData wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Kill Bill? Are you kidding me?

I know strong women in ME. Liara, Tali, Miranda, Kasumi, Samara. I could agree that Jack isn't as strong a personality as others since she is unstable, but when ever did Bioware say that she is or isn't? You have an issue with Jack obviously. Well too bad, not all characters are written to suit you alone. Some people liked Jack despite her weaknesses which only made her human. Nothing wrong with that.

Ignoring Ash, ey :innocent:

I can concur with the rest: they're strong the one or the other way. Think if I had to sort them in an order (from strongest to weakest) it'll look like this:

- Samara (her code gives her strenght. There's not much that can shatter her character)
- Ashley / Liara (they're pretty much on the same level. Strong and determined)
- Miranda (Think without her "my daddy made me perfect" stuff she could easily top Samara)
- Kasumi / Tali (Pretty much same level. Determined, but with a really soft side someone could exploit)
- Jack (Appears to be strong, made it through a violent past, but is virtually broken and needs someone to overcome her past)
- Kelly (Uhh ... she's just in the list so no one can say I ignored her)

Sure, Jack went through a lot of sh*t others would have destroyed - but she didn't came out stronger. She pretends to be strong by displaying a lot of aggression towards others, however, she isn't. She's broken and it doesn't need much more to destroy the last bits of her character. It took a while to like her for me, mostly because of her past and her violent attitude. However, I think she deserves a chance to recover.


Just my five cents.

Ah well I thought I'd forgotten someone. Ashley of course too

[AdmiralCheez]

kojac.ghosper wrote...

Granted, the right to vote and own property were legitimate issues. Then again, so was the rule of the British empire over unrepresented colonists.

The prevalence of sexism, racism, etc. is a legitimate issue.

Like I said: generally a waste of time, unless an authoritative institution is implementing inequality. (the US government has made a full swing in the opposite direction, if you haven't noticed). If mere individuals are involved, you will be better served proving your personal worth as opposed to the worth of everyone in your problematic stereotype.

Our culture can create just as many barriers as the goverment.

The "stereotype" is only problematic because charming folks like you insist on its legitimacy.  I am not the exception to the rule because the rule itself is false.  Get it?

[kojac.ghosper]

What stereotype have I defended? I've advocated the individual, which flies in the face of the very idea of stereotypes. I say focus on your own personal identity and stop worrying about an entire group. If someone stands in your way, handle them individually, don't defend a mass of people whose legitimacy you cannot vouch for.

[AdmiralCheez]

kojac.ghosper wrote...

What stereotype have I defended? I've advocated the individual, which flies in the face of the very idea of stereotypes. I say focus on your own personal identity and stop worrying about an entire group. If someone stands in your way, handle them individually, don't defend a mass of people whose legitimacy you cannot vouch for.

I can vouch for all the people I know personally.  That's good enough for me.

[AlexXIV]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

kojac.ghosper wrote...

Granted, the right to vote and own property were legitimate issues. Then again, so was the rule of the British empire over unrepresented colonists.

The prevalence of sexism, racism, etc. is a legitimate issue.

Like I said: generally a waste of time, unless an authoritative institution is implementing inequality. (the US government has made a full swing in the opposite direction, if you haven't noticed). If mere individuals are involved, you will be better served proving your personal worth as opposed to the worth of everyone in your problematic stereotype.

Our culture can create just as many barriers as the goverment.

The "stereotype" is only problematic because charming folks like you insist on its legitimacy.  I am not the exception to the rule because the rule itself is false.  Get it?

Ok don't get me wrong. But what exactly is the rule and what the exception? Because to my personal experience I have to say that I have met less 'strong' women than those who are looking for a strong man to submit to. I realize that in the media we get a more ... balanced picture, but that has not become reality yet as far as I can tell. Exceptions exist of course. Though I still hope it will become reality some day.

[AdmiralCheez]

AlexXIV wrote...

Ok don't get me wrong. But what exactly is the rule and what the exception? Because to my personal experience I have to say that I have met less 'strong' women than those who are looking for a strong man to submit to. I realize that in the media we get a more ... balanced picture, but that has not become reality yet as far as I can tell. Exceptions exist of course. Though I still hope it will become reality some day.

Our little argument is based around stereotypes in general, not any specific example.

The female submission thing is starting to go away, but it'll take time.  The submission/dominance dynamic isn't evil in and of itself (equality is better, IMO, but who am I to dictate other people's relationships?), but it becomes a problem when one gender is expected to occupy a certain position nearly all the time.  A naturally dominant woman (like myself) is kind of a turn-off for a lot of dudes.

No, I am not referring to BDSM.

[Stardusk78]

Guys, we are forgetting someone, EDI. She enjoys the sight of humans on their knees!

[CptData]

AlexXIV wrote...
Ah well I thought I'd forgotten someone. Ashley of course too

Hehe okay.

Think overall, Ash & Liara are pretty much on the same level. Ash is far more straight forward, Liara is more diplomatic, but both are strong women. To bad BW missed the opportunity to explain Liara's changes between ME1 and ME2 better


By the way: most (male) writers have a tendency to make Mary Sues when trying to create a strong female character. In most SciFi universes story relevant female characters are quite similar to Tali (impressive knowledge of technology, a bit social awkward, outstanding fighters and fallen for the hero). Or that writer writes a woman like a man, with "manly" traits, behavior etc. That's something that happened to Ashley and Miranda, at least on first sight. Thank god someone took time to gave them a feminine side and background (Ashley's care for family, her loving side, Miranda's wounded part) or they could have been worked as male characters too.

[shinobi602]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Actually Jack was an extremely well-done character, because she's realistic.

Take it from someone who's dealt with some sh*t: Jack is real.

lol

[chatters1994]

CptData wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Ah well I thought I'd forgotten someone. Ashley of course too

Hehe okay.

Think overall, Ash & Liara are pretty much on the same level. Ash is far more straight forward, Liara is more diplomatic, but both are strong women. To bad BW missed the opportunity to explain Liara's changes between ME1 and ME2 better


By the way: most (male) writers have a tendency to make Mary Sues when trying to create a strong female character. In most SciFi universes story relevant female characters are quite similar to Tali (impressive knowledge of technology, a bit social awkward, outstanding fighters and fallen for the hero). Or that writer writes a woman like a man, with "manly" traits, behavior etc. That's something that happened to Ashley and Miranda, at least on first sight. Thank god someone took time to gave them a feminine side and background (Ashley's care for family, her loving side, Miranda's wounded part) or they could have been worked as male characters too.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the first thing that sprung to mind was trillian from Douglas Adam's Hitchhikers. The Polar opposite.

[AlexXIV]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ok don't get me wrong. But what exactly is the rule and what the exception? Because to my personal experience I have to say that I have met less 'strong' women than those who are looking for a strong man to submit to. I realize that in the media we get a more ... balanced picture, but that has not become reality yet as far as I can tell. Exceptions exist of course. Though I still hope it will become reality some day.

Our little argument is based around stereotypes in general, not any specific example.

The female submission thing is starting to go away, but it'll take time.  The submission/dominance dynamic isn't evil in and of itself (equality is better, IMO, but who am I to dictate other people's relationships?), but it becomes a problem when one gender is expected to occupy a certain position nearly all the time.  A naturally dominant woman (like myself) is kind of a turn-off for a lot of dudes.

No, I am not referring to BDSM.

Yes I agree. Even though I wouldn't equal dominance to strength. I for one consider myself a strong personality but I am not dominant. Live and let live so to speak. 'Dominance' always reminds of control freaks.

[kojac.ghosper]

Stereotypes exist because of the mean in a subset of data. The human brain likes to assign likely attributes to unknowns that fit the parameters of those subsets. It allows for a higher degree of accuracy in initial interactions. Once the unknown becomes a known, it is no longer effective to associate it with its subset.

It doesn't mean stereotypes must be observed, or are 100% fair. Time would probably be better spent identifying individuals' attributes at the very beginning of interactions.

[Clover Rider]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ok don't get me wrong. But what exactly is the rule and what the exception? Because to my personal experience I have to say that I have met less 'strong' women than those who are looking for a strong man to submit to. I realize that in the media we get a more ... balanced picture, but that has not become reality yet as far as I can tell. Exceptions exist of course. Though I still hope it will become reality some day.

Our little argument is based around stereotypes in general, not any specific example.

The female submission thing is starting to go away, but it'll take time.  The submission/dominance dynamic isn't evil in and of itself (equality is better, IMO, but who am I to dictate other people's relationships?), but it becomes a problem when one gender is expected to occupy a certain position nearly all the time.  A naturally dominant woman (like myself) is kind of a turn-off for a lot of dudes.

No, I am not referring to BDSM.

Back in my Taekwondo days my girlfriend(she was better at it) kicked me in the head a lot, I wonder why I stopped? and I wonder why did I post this? and now I wonder what does that say about me?

[chatters1994]

lightsnow13 wrote...

It's interesting, there is so much information it would overload our brain - thus stereotypes are born. Anthropology is a very interesting class.

I think having a single mother and a horrible father has made me into a slight sexist..towards men. I value women far more then men - yet I'm gay! Ironic..haha.

You make me sick...





You want MP in mass effect?

[Clover Rider]

chatters1994 wrote...

lightsnow13 wrote...

It's interesting, there is so much information it would overload our brain - thus stereotypes are born. Anthropology is a very interesting class.

I think having a single mother and a horrible father has made me into a slight sexist..towards men. I value women far more then men - yet I'm gay! Ironic..haha.

You make me sick...





You want MP in mass effect?

I hate them kind who want MP go back to where you come from! and give us back our jobs!

[kojac.ghosper]

They took our jerbs!

[Spoiledrotten]

I don't think Jack was ever meant to be a strong woman. What she was meant to be, IMO, was a damaged human.

Also, I don't think Jack is a sociopath. She is capable of caring for people. Just unwilling because she was hurt in the past.

She cared about her lover, she cared about her rebel colony, she even cares about the team. If you make her a fire team leader, she'll pretty much confirm she cares. "How did you talk me into helping these idiots? I wasn't supposed to care..."

It's subtle, but there.

Jack is someone you'd have to work really hard to get to know IRL, and chances are that even if you felt like you knew her well, she'd still end up surprising you. Interestingly, she was written in such a way that the same was true of her as a video game characters. It took me multiple playthroughs to feel like I understand her.

As for the whole "sadist" thing, I'd say that's possible, but debatable as well. She was conditioned to enjoy fighting and killing, but would she enjoy inflicting harm on an unarmed, defenseless person the same way she enjoys killing a bunch of armed mercs who are trying to kill her? We don't really know. But she was conditioned to fight, not torture. It is still possible that she connected inflicting pain in general with her own pleasure, rather than the actual act of fighting, but I doubt that was Cerberus's intention.

Also, saying that Jack had a traumatic experience is an understatement. Jack had a traumatic life. From infancy to the suicide mission. She is unrealistically well adjusted, all things considered.

I feel that Jack's trauma was a bit over the top. But her dialogue, and Taylor's performance made her a great character.

Just my two cents. I didn't read the whole thread.

[EsterCloat]

Spoiledrotten wrote...

I don't think Jack was ever meant to be a strong woman. What she was meant to be, IMO, was a damaged human.

Also, I don't think Jack is a sociopath. She is capable of caring for people. Just unwilling because she was hurt in the past.

She cared about her lover, she cared about her rebel colony, she even cares about the team. If you make her a fire team leader, she'll pretty much confirm she cares. "How did you talk me into helping these idiots? I wasn't supposed to care..."

It's subtle, but there.

Jack is someone you'd have to work really hard to get to know IRL, and chances are that even if you felt like you knew her well, she'd still end up surprising you. Interestingly, she was written in such a way that the same was true of her as a video game characters. It took me multiple playthroughs to feel like I understand her.

As for the whole "sadist" thing, I'd say that's possible, but debatable as well. She was conditioned to enjoy fighting and killing, but would she enjoy inflicting harm on an unarmed, defenseless person the same way she enjoys killing a bunch of armed mercs who are trying to kill her? We don't really know. But she was conditioned to fight, not torture. It is still possible that she connected inflicting pain in general with her own pleasure, rather than the actual act of fighting, but I doubt that was Cerberus's intention.

Also, saying that Jack had a traumatic experience is an understatement. Jack had a traumatic life. From infancy to the suicide mission. She is unrealistically well adjusted, all things considered.

I feel that Jack's trauma was a bit over the top. But her dialogue, and Taylor's performance made her a great character.

Just my two cents. I didn't read the whole thread.

I concur with your analysis. Very well thought out post I must say.

To be honest, Jack isn't my favorite character (Not to say I dislike her; I actually like all the characters you can recruit in ME1 and ME2 except for Morinth) but I still felt she was very well made for the most part.

[Stardusk78]

Spoiledrotten wrote...

I don't think Jack was ever meant to be a strong woman. What she was meant to be, IMO, was a damaged human.

Also, I don't think Jack is a sociopath. She is capable of caring for people. Just unwilling because she was hurt in the past.

She cared about her lover, she cared about her rebel colony, she even cares about the team. If you make her a fire team leader, she'll pretty much confirm she cares. "How did you talk me into helping these idiots? I wasn't supposed to care..."

It's subtle, but there.

Jack is someone you'd have to work really hard to get to know IRL, and chances are that even if you felt like you knew her well, she'd still end up surprising you. Interestingly, she was written in such a way that the same was true of her as a video game characters. It took me multiple playthroughs to feel like I understand her.

As for the whole "sadist" thing, I'd say that's possible, but debatable as well. She was conditioned to enjoy fighting and killing, but would she enjoy inflicting harm on an unarmed, defenseless person the same way she enjoys killing a bunch of armed mercs who are trying to kill her? We don't really know. But she was conditioned to fight, not torture. It is still possible that she connected inflicting pain in general with her own pleasure, rather than the actual act of fighting, but I doubt that was Cerberus's intention.

Also, saying that Jack had a traumatic experience is an understatement. Jack had a traumatic life. From infancy to the suicide mission. She is unrealistically well adjusted, all things considered.

I feel that Jack's trauma was a bit over the top. But her dialogue, and Taylor's performance made her a great character.

Just my two cents. I didn't read the whole thread.

Very good post homes. I dig Jack myself, apart from her hair or lack thereof.

[Spoiledrotten]

EsterCloat wrote...
I concur with your analysis. Very well thought out post I must say.

To be honest, Jack isn't my favorite character (Not to say I dislike her; I actually like all the characters you can recruit in ME1 and ME2 except for Morinth) but I still felt she was very well made for the most part.

Thank you. I really appreciate that. I was worried my post was far too lengthy and hard to follow. English isn't my first language and it's been a while since I had an opportunity to write... But that's off topic... Sorry.

I feel the same way (except that I like Morinth too). I feel like every character brings something to the table. They're not all my cup of tea, but most are very well written.

Stardusk78 wrote...

Very good post homes. I dig Jack myself, apart from her hair or lack thereof.

Thanks!

I dunno, I think she pulls off the bald look quite well. Her head and face shape is certainly pretty enough.