882 réponses à ce sujet

[android654]

Stokie Stallion wrote...

i just prefer see a man holding liara than a woman...

used to play a femshep, named her after an ex she died during the suicide mission me2

That's disturbingly cathartic.

[Haargel]

Always 2 I have, no more, no less, a ManShep and a FemShep.

(Though I reload them in NG+ for different class and par/ren differences, so it's actually 10 in total, 2 faces though)

[s17tabris]

ungodlike wrote...

Ok really this not a debate which is the stronger or fairer sex ok? Its why guys roleplay as the femshep. In regards to the above.

Threads such as this always end up getting into debates over whether or not femshep is realistic.  This usually starts when someone says that he (it's usually a he) can't take femshep seriously because it's realistically impossible for a female to be in Shepard's role.  I consider this really strange.  No problems with things such as biotics, space magic and whatnot... but bring up the idea of a female elite soldier and suddenly it has to be realistic?

[NightKay]

Well, I don't like to play as a female, but after 3 playthroughs with male characters, I finally decided to make a female one, named her and made her after my girlfriend and set to see how different the game is.

And for the record, there can be a female elite soldier.

Modifié par NightKay, 29 mars 2012 - 10:43 .

[Hathur]

arr0whead wrote...

ungodlike wrote...

Ok really this not a debate which is the stronger or fairer sex ok? Its why guys roleplay as the femshep. In regards to the above.

Threads such as this always end up getting into debates over whether or not femshep is realistic.  This usually starts when someone says that he (it's usually a he) can't take femshep seriously because it's realistically impossible for a female to be in Shepard's role.  I consider this really strange.  No problems with things such as biotics, space magic and whatnot... but bring up the idea of a female elite soldier and suddenly it has to be realistic?

Funnily enough this same thing came up in the DA2 forums back when that game came out... some people couldn't buy into a femhawke warrior or whatever.... they can suspend their disbelief for elves, dwarves, magic, dragons, pixies... but not a female warrior with a big sword.

Same with Mass Effect... and arguably femshep is a lot less "fantastical" than femhawke even since femshep does most of her killing with guns that any human being can hold... or her omni tool... or biotic amp... none of which require meaningful physical strength to employ.

People are just stupid is all. <_<

[Locutus_of_BORG]

My Femsheps are all pretty and different, especially now in ME3. Jennifer Hale is also a very good VA.

Femshep in general is also one of the better designed female protagonists in gaming.

[Jynthor]

Because I don't limit myself to just male characters. I always make characters of both genders.
Mass Effect is an exception though, I have only one FemShep because I don't like Hale's voice, yeah I said it.

Modifié par Jynthor, 29 mars 2012 - 10:52 .

[Tirigon]

Carfax wrote...


You are a tremendously ignorant person, and this is certainly the last time I will address you on this matter. 
 

Possibly. Or maybe you are an arrogant misogynist and I am a lot more intelligent than you.

Because that is the more likely explanation, I will just ignore you from now on.

[Tirigon]

Dest1ny wrote...

However, ME female Shepards are downright ugly in a multitude of ways and don't look decent at all. Surprised BW didn't try to really improve them since ME1. Even Ashley got a decent makeover, yet female Shep loses out.

Male Shep just looks badass and wins.

That is obviously a matter of taste.

Personally, I dont think FemShep looks good without mods, but a part of my dislike for maleshep is that he's f*cking ugly, and I would be more likely to play a male one if I could make him look good, which I find impossible.

[zambingo]

re: Ugly Shepards + needing mods to get purdy

I made a BroShep that looked like Duke from G.I.Joe (the cartoon). It was neat. However in ME3 I changed it because the look didn't transfer well.

In ME3 my BroShep looks like a slightly younger Faran Tahir aka Captain Robau in Star Trek (2009). He's all sorts of visual coolbeans, the voice fits great too. In the ME3 movie I wouldn't be opposed to Faran getting the title role (my other casting wish is for Jim Caviezel). Anyway, my Faran recreation is now my permanent look for my BroShep playthrus.

My FemShep looks like Robin Tunney from the film Supernova. Loves the look so much. Tunney would be a good FemShep in a movie too. She could do that Sigourney/Ripley believable heroine well.

[Carfax]

Tirigon wrote...

Possibly. Or maybe you are an arrogant misogynist and I am a lot more intelligent than you.

Yeah, I'm a misogynist because I corrected your ignorant and incorrect views on sexual dimorphism in humans, as well as on Knighthood 

It doesn't matter to me though.  You can cling to your ignorance if you like.  Just don't go expecting anyone with any brain matter between their ears to fall for that garbage however..

[Arkitekt]

To all of those saying that women are fragile, and other mysogenistic shenanigans, Femshep would smash you to pieces in one point six seconds flat.

[Lynata]

zambingo wrote...
My FemShep looks like Robin Tunney from the film Supernova. Loves the look so much. Tunney would be a good FemShep in a movie too. She could do that Sigourney/Ripley believable heroine well.

Hmm, looks a little too "innocent" to me, but I suppose it could be a matter of perception regarding both an actor's looks as well as how we picture Shepard's personality as reflected in the choices we take in the game.

When I think of actors for the "badass female heroine" role, Rhona Mitra springs to mind. I think she'd be my personal fav for Femshep. Just colour her hair and eyes and she's ready to kick some reaper butt.

http://www.thefancar...1556_Medium.jpg 
http://images.allmov...oomsday_027.jpg 
http://www.moviespad...msday-654f9.jpg 

[Palathas]

I generally just get a concept for a character and how they will interact with other characters around them. I generally create male/female characters at 50/50 but for the ME series I've created 8 male and 4 female.

For me there's no real reason as such but I guess if there's any real reason it's probably that I prefer to look at a female's rear end than a male's.

[Dreadstruck]

Arkitekt wrote...

To all of those saying that women are fragile, and other mysogenistic shenanigans, Femshep would smash you to pieces in one point six seconds flat.

But... you know. Femshep doesn't exist.
A female IDF troop would make more sense:P

Modifié par Avalla'ch, 30 mars 2012 - 05:50 .

[daecath]

Avalla'ch wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

To all of those saying that women are fragile, and other mysogenistic shenanigans, Femshep would smash you to pieces in one point six seconds flat.

But... you know. Femshep doesn't exist.
A female IDF troop would make more sense:P

Actually, from what I've heard in interviews with Jennifer Hale, I think she would be able to kick more than a few butts on here.

[DJBare]

Because it's an "option"?
Just saying.

[Carfax]

[quote]Lynata wrote...

On the long run - sure, why not? Just because contemporary society teaches we need to be ashamed of our bodies? This is not in our genes. When men and women have no problem going to the toilet with each other, neither should they have a problem with the other gender.
http://en.wikipedia....-neutral_toilet[/quote]

OK.  I was just curious as to how far your tolerance would extend.  Personally I have no problem with showering with people of the opposite sex (strangers I mean), but a helluva lot of people do.


[quote]I do understand that different countries preach different things regarding naked bodies, though. I'm from Europe, and I think many people here are a little more relaxed concerning this stuff, as seen here. But I guess this topic has also come up in threads concerning nudity in Mass Effect. [/quote]

Yeah I know all about Germany believe me

[quote]Carfax wrote...
So, if there's a way to put people in categories based on how they perform and not what gender they are, sure, why not?[/quote]

Because female athletes would get screwed over.  I don't think you understand how wide the gulf between men and women is when it comes to physical performance.

The fastest Olympic grade female athlete in the World, would get beaten routinely in the 100m dash by a teenage male state champion high school athlete.  The best female tennis player, is at best, on par with the very worst male tennis players..

Why would any female athlete with a modicum of intelligence want to compete against men, when her chances of winning is drastically diminished?


[quote]Ah, but it's funny how you seem to turn around now, given that it looked as if you wanted to criticize laws whose reason was to establish equality.[/quote]

Well that was mostly a philosophical question.  I don't believe equality will ever be achieved, because equality itself is an illusion.

And I'm not just talking about men and women, but between men and also on the individual level..  The World is fundamentally unequal.  Some people are rich, some are poor, some healthy, some sick, some intelligent, some stupid.......and it goes on, and on....

Life itself isn't an equal opportunity employer.

[quote]Carfax wrote...
And because of the average you wish to bar the whole? There are many strong women who surpass weaker men. Barring them from service due to gender alone and not, in fact, their actual efficiency is something that can be motivated only by fear of a female actually succeeding at this profession.[/quote]

If these strong women are as numerous as you claim, then I wouldn't have any problem with them becoming combatants, provided they complete the training at the same standards as the men, and form their own companies.


[quote]A fat man is still a man. An athletic woman is still a woman. Who would make a better soldier?[/quote]

Well, being a good soldier is more than mere athletic performance to be sure, but I see your point.

In answer, I'd say It's more complicated than how you present it..  Even a fat man still has a genetic edge on an athletic woman, simply by virtue of being male.  What made the man fat was probably his eating habits and life style.  Get rid of those bad habits and give him some training, and the fat man will turn into a lean, mean fighting machine thats more capable on the battlefield than the athletic woman. 


[quote]You may argue that the fat man wouldn't make it through the tests, but he is allowed to take them.[/quote]
 
The fat man has a higher chance of making it through the tests than the athletic woman, because he won't stay fat during the training I guarantee you.  A few weeks in boot camp will melt the fat off a man.


[quote]So why not grant the women the same right? Fear she might pass?[/quote]

Like I said, if a woman were to complete the training at the SAME standards as the men, and be in her own company with other females, then I'd be all for it.

In practice however, it never works out this way. 


[quote]In the more elite formations, yes, but in many countries women are still barred from joining them in the first place, so it'd still be an improvement.[/quote]

No, not just in elite formations, but Military wide.  Women have different standards starting day one at boot camp when they don't have to cut off their hair whilst guys do.

If the Military were to adjust their standards to mirror that of mens, then as much as 95% of the women in the Military would be ineligible.

Here's an interesting article written by a female veteran about women in combat which pertains to what we're talking about btw.


[quote]Looking at the regular forces, the standards don't seem to be that high. You'd still have less women there, but I don't see why this is a bad thing. They are doing the same job, after all. A gun does not distinguish between male or female, regardless of whether it's used by one or aimed at one.[/quote]

If the standards weren't "that high," then there wouldn't need to be different standards to begin with.

If you'd want the percentage of female recruits to drastically be reduced however, then by all means, go ahead.


[quote]If, on the other hand, the administration recognizes the women as doing an adequate job, they may as well lower the requirements for male applicants to the same level. Either way would work; the path itself would depend on how many troops the nation in question needs.[/quote]

Cross standardization only results in allowing weaker men into the service. 


[quote]They are doing the same job, so I fail to see why this is "needed". If somebody cannot fulfill the requirements, he or she shouldn't be allowed to sign up. This should be independent from gender, as should the service be in general.[/quote]

You make it sound simple, but it's really more complicated than this.  Men are not simply bigger versions of women, and women smaller versions of men.  The two can be interchangeable to a degree, but it depends on the task.  The more physical the task, the less interchangeable they become.

If things were as easy as you state, then why do so many of the World's Militaries have a different set of standards for both men and women?


[quote]But yes, it's the same in Germany, and I dislike it. It preserves a bias the military can do without, as even the stronger women might be subjected to the "she had it easy" prejudice created by allowing those to sign up who would not qualify otherwise. It'd be the same with men.[/quote]

So even Germany has this system, and Germany doesn't even have an active Military anymore.  Again, why?


[quote]The Order of the Hatchet was made up entirely of those women who defended their city of Tortosa against a Moor siege when the men wanted to surrender. They were said to have carried themselves after the military knights of that time.[/quote]

Yes, but were they TRAINED as Knights?  I don't think so..


[quote]Yes, these things were rare - the titular honour alone without actually fighting in a battle was far more common. Still, it is an interesting fact often omitted from history in what might be a subconscious continuation of the same bias that led to the suppression of women wishing to become warriors back then. Which was not uncommon for the nordic tribes before they were conquered and forcibly converted; there are a number of old accounts regarding viking women or frenzied female "barbarians".[/quote]

Yes, female warriors were more common in other more primitive cultures, but even they had restrictions undoubtedly.

I find it striking that not a single civilization or culture ever relied on women for it's defense though..


[quote]Are women truly issued less equipment in your nation? If so, I apologize for the misconception. In my unit, we all carried the same amount of gear - though it is true that the entry requirements are still different.[/quote]

I think the amount of gear you carry is dependent on your MOS or profession.  But my point was, that only active Militaries like the U.S send their combat troops into the field for extended periods of time to root out the enemy and destroy them..

Countries with active Militaries do not send women out into the field, because front line combat is presently barred to women.

As such, no female soldier has ever had to pack the kind of weight that male infantrymen currently serving in Afghanistan has to, or for as long.


[quote]Which is a bit weird when you think about it. We weren't an active combat unit though (only patrol/protection), so I'm unsure whether it might be different in assault infantry. It's not for Australia, Finland and South Korea, that much is certain.[/quote]

None of those countries have active Militaries so it doesn't matter.  Actually, I think Australia has troops in Afghanistan, but what they're doing or how many there are, I don't know...  Certainly not nearly as many as the U.S, thats for sure.


[quote]Either way, this too comes down to simply letting everyone carry the same amount of weight. If there are women (and men!) who cannot cope, don't allow them in this particular unit. But at the same time, allow those that do - regardless of gender.[/quote]

Thats the thing though.  Inherent female physiology practically guarantees that women are always going to have difficulties with such tasks. 

There's no getting around mother Nature. 


[quote]You make it sound as if there is a wide gap between the spectrums in which male and female bodies fall. But there is not. We're not talking about two different species here; there is a huge potential for overlap.[/quote]

There is a tremendous gap.  U.S studies have shown that women are almost 5 times as likely to suffer stress fractures than men for instance.

And when they get these stress fractures, they take longer to heal than with men.  Women are just more prone to injury, there's no getting around this issue.

[quote]An example:
"Sgt. Michelle Stephens is a salty, hard-charging Marine who has hauled 75-pound packs with infantrymen at mountain warfare training, qualified as a rifle sharpshooter while using iron sights and worked off-duty as a bouncer in a bar.
Despite all that, the seven-year Marine will never serve in a combat unit because of something else: she’s a woman. The 5-foot-10, 170-pound administrative specialist is taller and stronger than some Marines, but the U.S. doesn’t allow women in combat arms jobs."
-- http://www.marinecor...fantry-041911w/

So tell me: does this seem just to you? Is this really fair?[/quote]

Did you read the entire article?  That Sgt has never even been deployed.  She's had limited training with infantry (though it seemed more of a tag a long event), but thats it.  Training and actual war time environment are two different things..

But in this case, I'd be all for it, just so we can finally find out.  I think she would have problems if she ever deployed as infantry.  She'd find out that a limited training excursion for a few days is nothing compared to a year or year and a half long deployment where you're going to be doing this sort of thing routinely for months on end.


[quote]As the previous poster said, these forums aren't very good for discussing gender policies, anyways, so let's just agree to disagree.[/quote]

Yep, but I had to get the last word in just so you know

Modifié par Carfax, 30 mars 2012 - 03:44 .

[Nefla]

I'm guessing a lot of men play femshep for the same reason I play mostly mansheps: eye candy. I'm not really that interested in staring at another woman's ass for 30 hours so I make a sexy manshep instead (all the better since I can romance Kaidan and Steve in ME3)

[Kidd]

Carfax wrote...

The World is fundamentally unequal.  Some people are rich, some are poor, some healthy, some sick, some intelligent, some stupid.......and it goes on, and on....

Life itself isn't an equal opportunity employer.

All hail Britannia?

[chevyguy87]

i play as a female Shepard because i like Jennifer Hale's voice a bit better then Mark Meer's in my opinion they are both tremendous voice actors they really stepped it up in ME3 but i prefer the overall smoothness of Ms. Hale's voice over Mr. Meer's

[Arkitekt]

Carfax is right, women are less tough than men, but FEMSHEP beats the hell out of every dude, and so that whole line of reasoning is invalid. Even further, in ME2 forward she has a whole set of cybernetics inside her.

[warmonger180]

dunno about anyone else, but in my case, there is a decided lack of playable strong female characters in shooter/rpg type PC games from what I can tell, so it's a femShep I play in ME. I also had a female character in Fall Out 3, tho there may be others with playable females other that Star Trek Online. ofcourse, Nefla has a point too:blink:

Modifié par warmonger180, 30 mars 2012 - 11:28 .

[Dirty2007]

I started with femshep back in first game, still can't bring myself to playing series with maleshep.
So pretty much there's only one Shepard to me.