android654 wrote...
That's the thing. In this genre of fiction it does not matter. The roles of gender and race are practically nonexistant in Cyberpunk. Even in GitS, the "racial" problems that exist aren't racial, but the differences in economic class. That's what gave birth to the genre in the 80's. If the game were just to be a random game taking place in the modern world, you would have a point. But in Cyberpunk those meaningless issues are done away with, since there are much bigger issues at hand. So in this type of setting both Deckard and Molly have the same amount of struggle against forces much larger than they are, and their gender never impacts the character.
One could argue that class and race are in fact inseparable even now, but not here.
Now I agree that cyberpunk tries to approach characters with the aspect of gender and race removed. However, my basic tenet is that in doing so, they ignore a fundamental aspect of what it means to have a gender. Anyone who has met a transgender should have an inkling of what I'm talking about, how gender goes deeper than society or technology - which is what Cyberpunk uses as the basis to 'solve' the problems of current-day societies.
Now, in said context, Cyberpunk authors have removed all societal pressures one way or another, but not the biological imperative. Now, as no genre can address *everything*, I accept it in Cyberpunk because I enjoy their societal and technological explorations and the basic 'what-if' premises they explore. But, it is something missing in general in most of the writings in the genre. In other words, just because the gender never impacts the character *as written*, shouldn't discount the fact that gender stil has an impact, even in such a theoretical society. However, it is an aspect not addressed in Cyberpunk because, basically, the author has other fish to fry, or other... hoppers to... hack? Hmm, have to think of that analogy in more detail later...
And of course, we can agree to disagree. Your views are informed by an immediate investment in a fun genre, mine are obviously more theoretical in nature and are the result of *sigh* far too much overthinking. Still, thank you for indulging me in the wall-o-text discussion!
*side-note: can't remember the story, but I remember a short story that has a guy go waaay into the future, and every single problem of the society he came from was solved. When he remarks on this, his guide in the future chuckles and says, "Oh, you wouldnt' believe the problems we have now." Just always gives me a chuckle.*
Geralt is a very neutral character. That's not informed by his manhood. If anything every other man is a more protoypical example of manliness than he is. Geralt is very alien to the concept and portrayal of men in that universe. He doesn't fight for ideals. He doesn't seek to conquer. He simply wants to be, but is found in situations where he's manipulated by men. So I'm not sure where you're interpreting that from.
Part of this impression comes from the fact that I read the Witcher script in detail one night (ummm, don't ask
) and was struck by the fact that, without the VA or the visuals, it was still pretty obvious if it were Geralt or Triss speaking, and, as I analyzed it further, I found that many of the 'markers' for male vs female speech were in the script (and, if you're bored, go
here and scroll to page 24 for a very quick idea of what I'm talking about). Now, as this is based on pre-existing novels that I *cough* haven't read (bad tklivory!), I'm not sure what was CDPR and what was the book. It just struck me at the time, and when I played Witcher 2, I noticed similar markers in the dialogue of the game.
Now, this is obviously blurring the line wherein the nature of the authors (who were, obviously, raised in a society with gender roles and expectations) must impact how characters are written (like men in romance novels are often stereotyped to heroes or villains, because that sells, and are clearly worse for writing gender roles than not assigning *any* markers at all). Anyway, that's probably where that came from, and it is likely more subtle than most people notice or care about.
Outside of your choice of sex partner, there's no difference between manshep and femshep. Now Da: O has a little more room since they have a silent hero, the written dialogue is more plentiful. Still gender doesn't affect the path that any of those heroes have to take in order to bring the story to a conclusion. At the end of the day, man or woman, the path is pretty identical to achieve the same feats in both series.
Heh, guess which one I like more?
(At least on the front of handling gender issues.) I view DA:O as a better effort in terms of gender expression, and ME as more a WIP for such a thing (and with a more pre-defined protagonist - even if that definition is limited in nature - like Shepherd, of course, you do lose a bit of the flexibility to explore the character's past in terms of head canon.) But then, I also prefer a silent protagonist, probably because I grew up playing games that starred AFGNCAAPs (ageless, faceless, gender-neutral, culturally-ambiguous adventure person) of varying need.
And again, I'm not trying to argue that gender totally affect all decisions in the game (or at least, I hope I haven't been trying to argue that), but it should inform the creation of the character by the writers and, if it is an option, for the RolePlayer and their own head canon of that character, and some options given that character. For example, I wonder how many women vs men (the ones who RP'd and didn't just 'play', anyway), kill Connor vs killing Isolde/going to the tower in DA:O? (Haven't seen a poll, but I would be curious to know). Also, I would venture that several US came about because Alistair dumped the girl, or that Loghain was shortened because of a choice to side with the romantic figure rather than clear, rational decision. And while the path is identical, the head canon in those who choose to play that way is most certainly not. I could wish for more subtlety in that gender expression, but then I could also wish for a Landsmeet that makes some d***ed sense in the political arena. C'est la vie.
What it does is it removes gender roles, since every man and woman has to become a conquerer in order to survive. In order to survive in that setting, people have to mold themselves into another being entirely. The way Molly had to turn herself into a human weapon, and Motoko had to go so far to become completely nonhuman adresses the question of humanity. What makes a person a person, and what has to happen for a thing to be a persons equal? Those are the thigns this genre focuses on. There's no room to worry about genders. In the face of situations like that, and knowing solely that type of society causes people to revert back to little more than animals. It strips away the fluff, like gender roles, and cuases humanity to look itself in the mirror. Both Molly and Motoko capsulize that perfectly and they're both more interesting women because of it.
Hmmm, and this aspect is part of the 'bigger fish to fry' I referred to above. Through this assiduous exploration of humanity, they leave behind exploration of the effect that these advances have made on gender in a *specific* sense - usually using the gloss 'all are equal now' to concentrate on more overarching themes. I don't have a problem with it, but I am aware of it. Again, I'm still not fully conviced that it removes the need for an awareness of the biological imperative entirely - even in Cyberpunk - but I *do* believe that is often left out - deliberately or unconsciously - in favor of other driving narrative forces. I think I covered that above, though... And it is true that gender roles are not a part of Cyberpunk (yay!), but the nature of gender itself still shouldn't be quite so excised. Of course, that is my opinion. It is also true that typically 'female' story tropes (pregnancy, motherhood, those kinds of things) are not often explored in Cyberpunk, and when present are used as structures rather than foundations. (nttawwt)
I know there's a difference, but if they're going to have it affect a game, we both know that's the only place it's going to have any relevance. That's one of the main points of Cyberpunk. Your gender doesn't matter, because you're pressed with discerning whether or not you're even human.
*sigh* You're right in that it won't show up in-game. Too difficult to express, and generally too subtle to write without a lot of extra 'talky-talky'. (Though it still boggles my mind that people think Bioshock had too much talky-talky, much less ME and DA:O. Weep!)
And in Cyberpunk, it is true gender roles don't matter, and that gender doesn't matter within the genre as written doesn't, though my argument is more that it isn't because gender *doesn't* matter so much as they are exploring other aspects of humanity (with some exceptions, like Williams and Brin). That is part of Cyberpunk - just as in romance-land, men are invariably stereotypes of good and evil, and in Grisham-land, terrorists are always thwarted by Joe American so that he gets the girl. Still love it, though.
Thanks for the back and forth! I've enjoyed it!
Retour en haut
because Geralt is a *man*, and they didn't try to cheapen the effect by offering a choice to play a woman that would have basically been Geralt with a different skin. You feel the depth and trueness of the character, and his actions and viewpoint are informed, to a degree, by the fact he grew up a man and was treated as a man all his life. Not genderless, not "oh, gender doesn't matter" - but as a true, honest, deep character (flawed as a good character always is)
) I like cyberpunk *but* most of the writers share the weakness of treating gender as an *attribute* rather than a formation of a character's identity. (I also have this trouble with writing outside of cyberpunk, tbh. It is certainly not an issue with cyberpunk alone.) This doesn't make me not like the genre, but it is a weakness I'm aware of and accept. 
