109 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Yes under the right circumstances which was never proven historically. Name me any female leader who started the war from 1 BC to 2012. Cleopatra doesn't count. 

War isn't necessarily about violence, or kill and destroy. War is, more often than not, about politics and land acquisition. I don't see the initiation or order to send troops as being indicative of the "nature" argument you are trying to support.

It's indicates that female doesn't have the intinct to acquire land or position in politic through force. They don't concern things that men lust for like land and political position. They only kill and destroy if they are insane or under great pressure. They never kill for land and power which is what always being potrayed by most games..

Maybe it's just English women then... Remember Queen Victoria? You don't get an Empire without spilling some blood even it's for some vision of the greater good.

There are 3 great wars happen during the reign of Queen Victoria.

Opium War in 1839 - Started by the Chinese Qing
The Crimean War in 1854-1856 - Started by Napoloean III through coup d'état of 1851 in France. 
Boer War in 1880 - Started by the Boer who rebel against the British Empire.

None of this wars were initiated by Queen Victoria.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 avril 2012 - 02:53 .

[mousestalker]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Yes under the right circumstances which was never proven historically. Name me any female leader who started the war from 1 BC to 2012. Cleopatra doesn't count. 

Indira Gandhi
Isabella I of Castile
Theresa of Portugal
Christina of Sweden
Maria Theresa of Austria
Theodora of Trebizond
Irene, Zoe and Theodora of the Eastern Roman Empire
Anne, Elizabeth and Catherine of Russia
Jadwiga of Poland

There's more where they came from.  :happy:

[Tirigon]

liesandpropaganda wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
I just resent the notion that we men are favored by marketing when we are clearly not.

wat

If you had bothered to read and think about the rest of my post (not very hard even) instead of just cutting it you would understand.

[Tirigon]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

There are 3 great wars happen during the reign of Queen Victoria.

Opium War in 1839 - Started by the Chinese Qing
The Crimean War in 1854-1856 - Started by Napoloean III through coup d'état of 1851 in France. 
Boer War in 1880 - Started by the Boer who rebel against the British Empire.

None of this wars were initiated by Queen Victoria.

The Opium war and Boer war could have been avoided if the British Empire had accepted people's wish for independence. They didnt, preferring to slaughter them instead.
Therefore, it was started by the British.

[jlb524]

David Gaider wrote...
2) I'm not sure that having a female protaganist in the marketing actually alienates the male player base... any more than having a male one alienates the female player base currently. Though it seems an odd argument to make when some claim a male protaganist alienates female players but that the reverse wouldn't also be true. Seems to be pretty selective reasoning, if you ask me. But there's a lot of selective reasoning to go around, so why not?

I don't think so....there's a difference between marketing a female protagonist in one game vs. marketing a female protagonist in every game.

From what I gather from the OP, marketing a male protagonist in every game is what's doing the alienating but this is not necessarily an issue for a single game with a  male in marketing.

Modifié par jlb524, 24 avril 2012 - 03:01 .

[Dakota Strider]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You're in a thread started by a female gamer, with many posts in it by female gamers, and you've got the gall to say something like that? 

Hmmm  If a guy were to start a thread, starting out by making the declaration this is a guy posting, and later on, someone made a statement like you did above?  It would look like guys were trying to create a boys' club, and did not want any "icky" girls allowed.   And I think the outrage for that would be enough to get the thread locked.

I do not want this thread locked.  Just saying, take a breath and try to put this into perspective.

And while, in any large population group, it is possible you may find a few guys that feel that way, I assure you, it would be a very small minority.  I hate to admit this, but I have been around gamers of all sorts for over 30 years.  Even though it is clearly a male majority, there is no conspiracy, trying to keep women down.  On the contrary, it is just the opposite, I cannot think of a single male gamer that did not wish there were more women that shared their interest.  I am always talking to guys that wish their girlfriend or wife would like to play games as much as they do.  Or, that they wish they could find one that did.   I think most guys would welcome efforts to make games appeal to both genders. 

We do not want the games we love, changed to make them more female friendly.  But if girls like the same type of games we like, that is great.  Just as we do not wish to change games that are more attractive to many women, to become more guy-friendly.   I find it hard to understand why there is a discussion where some people are starting to sound like its guys vs gals.

I have bought 9 main Bioware titles in the last 14 years.  Each one allowed you to play a female protagonist if you chose.  Cannot think of a situation where it was more advantageous for you to play a male or female character.   I have my issues with Bioware on some of their recent decisions.  But in the area of allowing equal experiences for both male and female gamers, I believe Bioware is doing it right.

[Sylvanpyxie]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Marketing in DA has been heavily skewed towards men, and many posters in this thread would like to see that change.

Let's face it, the only issue women have is the protagonist is always a man. If Bioware were to stick as many strong-willed, well armoured, heavy-duty hero women in their advertising as they possibly could women would still be angered because the "default protagonist" would be a guy.


My advice would be to drop the whole "default protagonist" advertising scheme, the whole thing is just going to annoy people, whether it's women, men, hard-core RPG fans or the owls who sit in the tree in my garden. Someone's going to get annoyed.

Revert back to the old method of "Antagonist Advertising".

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 24 avril 2012 - 03:03 .

[mousestalker]

Having Lara Croft as the iconic image of Tomb Raider ensured that game would never be a hit, spawn sequels, books and toys tie-ins as well as movies... oh wait.

Likewise having Chell as a protagonist doomed Portal...oh, nevermind.

[whykikyouwhy]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

It's indicates that female doesn't have the intinct to acquire land or position in politic through force. They don't concern things that men lust for like land and political position. They only kill and destroy if they are insane or under great pressure. They never kill for land and power which is what always being potrayed by most games..

Is it that women do not have the instinct, or that women were not often in such roles of power to acquire land or position through force? (Considering that in some countries, women were not granted the right to own property or vote until the last 100 years.)

Also, women do not only kill and destroy if they are insane or under great pressure. Women have been assassins, bounty hunters, soldiers, hunters, etc. Sometimes women kill as part of their job or role.

I don't think you can safely say that women do not or cannot have a violent side or do not care for a certain genre and type of game because of nature. That's an unfair generalization. It also does not take into consideration social conditioning - which, as others have stated - is part of the crux of this thread. Social norms have a lot to do with marketing campaigns, be they conscious or not. 

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 24 avril 2012 - 03:04 .

[Dutchess]

It would be nice to see a badass female protagonist more on the frontlines in marketing. And that it's not just done because of the sex appeal.

[AkiKishi]

mousestalker wrote...

Having Lara Croft as the iconic image of Tomb Raider ensured that game would never be a hit, spawn sequels, books and toys tie-ins as well as movies... oh wait.

Likewise having Chell as a protagonist doomed Portal...oh, nevermind.

Remember what feminists had to say about Lara Croft and her pointy boobs?

Playing a girl does not bother me , it used to but In the end I played so many JRPGs that it just became a non issue. I still won't play romance from the girls side though, unless it's with another girl.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

mousestalker wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Yes under the right circumstances which was never proven historically. Name me any female leader who started the war from 1 BC to 2012. Cleopatra doesn't count. 

Indira Gandhi - 
Isabella I of Castile - 
Christina of Sweden
Maria Theresa of Austria
Theodora of Trebizond
Irene, Zoe and Theodora of the Eastern Roman Empire
Anne, Elizabeth and Catherine of Russia
Jadwiga of Poland

There's more where they came from.  :happy:

None of them started a war. 
Indira Gandhi didn't started the Pakitan War. It was the Bangladesh Liberation
Isbella I of Castile didn't started a war. She was attacked by Marquis of Vilena who retained the infanta Joanna as the rightful queen
Maria Theressa of Austria didn't started a war. .It was Frederick of Prussia who invaded Silesia and force Maria to cede. 

[Tirigon]

mousestalker wrote...

Having Lara Croft as the iconic image of Tomb Raider ensured that game would never be a hit, spawn sequels, books and toys tie-ins as well as movies... oh wait.

Likewise having Chell as a protagonist doomed Portal...oh, nevermind.

Portal was a success because of the gameplay not the advertisement. TBH I never even saw any Portal advertisement in all my life, except for friends cuddling with their companion cube and drooling over "the best game ever".

And Lara Croft is the kind of woman that gets feminists raked up over "objectifying women" and "treating them as sextoys for the nerdy male gamer".

[Tirigon]

liesandpropaganda wrote...

if you had bothered to get rid of your priveleged worldview you wouldn't make ridiculous statements tho

Ok. I linked you the female models Leliana and Morrigan were modeled after and who were used in advertisement.

Now either give me the same for the male characters or stop trolling me.

[mousestalker]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

mousestalker wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Yes under the right circumstances which was never proven historically. Name me any female leader who started the war from 1 BC to 2012. Cleopatra doesn't count. 

Indira Gandhi - 
Isabella I of Castile - 
Christina of Sweden
Maria Theresa of Austria
Theodora of Trebizond
Irene, Zoe and Theodora of the Eastern Roman Empire
Anne, Elizabeth and Catherine of Russia
Jadwiga of Poland

There's more where they came from.  :happy:

None of them started a war. 
Indira Gandhi didn't started the Pakitan War. It was the Bangladesh Liberation
Isbella I of Castile didn't started a war. She was attacked by Marquis of Vilena who retained the infanta Joanna as the rightful queen
Maria Theressa of Austria didn't started a war. .It was Frederick of Prussia who invaded Silesia and force Maria to cede. 

Maria Theresa most emphatically did start wars. Several wars.

You are equally incorrect about your other nitpicking examples.

More to the point, Catherine the Great was one of the most autocratic and aggressive rulers in Russian history.

[AkiKishi]

Tirigon wrote...

mousestalker wrote...

Having Lara Croft as the iconic image of Tomb Raider ensured that game would never be a hit, spawn sequels, books and toys tie-ins as well as movies... oh wait.

Likewise having Chell as a protagonist doomed Portal...oh, nevermind.

Portal was a success because of the gameplay not the advertisement. TBH I never even saw any Portal advertisement in all my life, except for friends cuddling with their companion cube and drooling over "the best game ever".

And Lara Croft is the kind of woman that gets feminists raked up over "objectifying women" and "treating them as sextoys for the nerdy male gamer".

New Lara is a total babe.

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...


New Lara is a total babe.

Yup, pretty, much unlike the old one. but not really related to my post

[Sacred_Fantasy]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

It's indicates that female doesn't have the intinct to acquire land or position in politic through force. They don't concern things that men lust for like land and political position. They only kill and destroy if they are insane or under great pressure. They never kill for land and power which is what always being potrayed by most games..

Is it that women do not have the instinct, or that women were not often in such roles of power to acquire land or position through force? (Considering that in some countries, women were not granted the right to own property or vote until the last 100 years.)

That's not true. mousestalker had already listed a series of female leaders.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Also, women do not only kill and destroy if they are insane or under great pressure. Women have been assassins, bounty hunters, soldiers, hunters, etc. Sometimes women kill as part of their job or role.

Trainable or specialist female. Not by nature.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't think you can safely say that women do not or cannot have a violent side or do not care for a certain genre and type of game because of nature. That's an unfair generalization. It also does not take into consideration social conditioning - which, as others have stated - is part of the crux of this thread. Social norms have a lot to do with marketing campaigns, be they conscious or not. 

Current Social norms is general female play more social games compare to games heavily influenced by violence.  

[Sacred_Fantasy]

mousestalker wrote...

Maria Theresa most emphatically did start wars. Several wars.

There are only 2 wars. The  War of Austrian Sucession and the 7 years wars. Both wars were started by Frederick of Prussia.

mousestalker wrote...

You are equally incorrect about your other nitpicking examples.

Like what?

mousestalker wrote...

More to the point, Catherine the Great was one of the most autocratic and aggressive rulers in Russian history.

She had the crazy Rasputin on her back who meddle everything. They were both insane anyway. So they don't count.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

It's indicates that female doesn't have the intinct to acquire land or position in politic through force. They don't concern things that men lust for like land and political position. They only kill and destroy if they are insane or under great pressure. They never kill for land and power which is what always being potrayed by most games..

Is it that women do not have the instinct, or that women were not often in such roles of power to acquire land or position through force? (Considering that in some countries, women were not granted the right to own property or vote until the last 100 years.)

That's not true. mousestalker had already listed a series of female leaders.

 
You were making the argument that it's a matter of nature and instinct that prevents women from waging wars or acquiring land. I was pointing out that were not often in such roles. "Not often" does not mean never. And as mousestalker has indeed pointed out, women in position of power have and do declare war. 

Again, it's not a matter of nature. It's a matter of political need.

 

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Also, women do not only kill and destroy if they are insane or under great pressure. Women have been assassins, bounty hunters, soldiers, hunters, etc. Sometimes women kill as part of their job or role.

Trainable or specialist female. Not by nature.

 
So men who are assassins, bounty hunters, soldiers, hunters etc. are skilled by default? Because they are male, they don't train or learn specializations?

 

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't think you can safely say that women do not or cannot have a violent side or do not care for a certain genre and type of game because of nature. That's an unfair generalization. It also does not take into consideration social conditioning - which, as others have stated - is part of the crux of this thread. Social norms have a lot to do with marketing campaigns, be they conscious or not. 

Current Social norms is general female play more social games compare to games heavily influenced by violence.  

Not quite where I was going. Social conditioning is the tendency to raise girls and boys to like different things - to guide/mold them in a certain manner. Social conditioning is perpetuated and enforced by marketing. It's not that women may prefer one genre over the other - it's that advertisement is conveying these messages. 

[Curlain]

Hmm, this isn't a debate I really want to get into much as to  be fair, advertising has never been BioWare's strong-suit - I'm looking at you bikini-wearing NWN female elf. However it is a bit strange and somehow disturbing to see the debate beginning to slant in a direction which seems to have people arguing that women as killers is somehow a positive thing or that men or somehow genetically pre-deposed to violence. Maybe it just my impression, but it seems to me to be both odd turn of the discussion, and a bit depressing somehow.

Modifié par Curlain, 24 avril 2012 - 03:29 .

[the_one_54321]

It's not a contest.

Being hyper-focused on the role of gender is just as much a problem as gender roles themselves.

On the day that no one actually cares about gender roles, gender roles will cease to exist.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 24 avril 2012 - 03:38 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

It's indicates that female doesn't have the intinct to acquire land or position in politic through force. They don't concern things that men lust for like land and political position. They only kill and destroy if they are insane or under great pressure. They never kill for land and power which is what always being potrayed by most games..

Is it that women do not have the instinct, or that women were not often in such roles of power to acquire land or position through force? (Considering that in some countries, women were not granted the right to own property or vote until the last 100 years.)

That's not true. mousestalker had already listed a series of female leaders.

 
You were making the argument that it's a matter of nature and instinct that prevents women from waging wars or acquiring land. I was pointing out that were not often in such roles. "Not often" does not mean never. And as mousestalker has indeed pointed out, women in position of power have and do declare war. 

Again, it's not a matter of nature. It's a matter of political need.

mousestalker points a number of female leaders. They involved in wars that's true but they are not the ones who were aggresive beside Catherine of Russia. But that because Catherine was insane like Rasputin. Queen Victoria of British Empire did declared the war but it was Napoleon III of France who planned the Crimean Wars. She never started it..

whykikyouwhy wrote...
 
So men who are assassins, bounty hunters, soldiers, hunters etc. are skilled by default? Because they are male, they don't train or learn specializations?

No. men started to muscle with each other as young as 5 years old.  Girls on the other hand, play with their barbie dolls and cried when you just pinch their arm.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Not quite where I was going. Social conditioning is the tendency to raise girls and boys to like different things - to guide/mold them in a certain manner. Social conditioning is perpetuated and enforced by marketing. It's not that women may prefer one genre over the other - it's that advertisement is conveying these messages. 

I disagree.  It's female nature of why they play MMO and Facebook games more than male do. It's sosial networking. Female just love being socialize being. It's their nature. Advertisement has nothing to do with it.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 avril 2012 - 03:47 .