582 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

From a business standpoint it makes sense.  15-25 year old males like that kind of thing; it's very little expended effort on a game developer's part to rev their engines.  Sad, but that's the way it is.  The women need to play more games and be more vocal if we want to see some more, um, enlightened content.

COULD YOU JUST

STOP

OKAY LISTEN

Sexing up all the female characters is a turn-off for potential female gamers.  The more objectification there is, the less likely a girl is to show interest in the game.  So it remains a boys' club.

Now, what if girls buy games anyway?  Then sales go up, and the publishers assume they can just keep doing what they're doing.

Being vocal is great--and I am vocal as hell--but ultimately it's something the publishers have to fix themselves.

And it doesn't just turn off female gamers, but also many male gamers of same mentioned demographic.

Even straight male gamers roll their eyes on this objectification.

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Hahaha true.  I just didn't want to seem redundant because I thought I'd covered my line of thinking.  I liked the reveal for the Reaper's "motivation."  I like that it was because of a misguided super-intelligence (now confirmed to be an AI by Leviathan; I had always guessed AI but the original cut could have "god-like entity" as just as valid of conclusion) having false assumptions about singularity.  I liked that the choices were nuanced in that each of them has an underlying implication about what you as the player think about this Intelligence's assumptions and viewpoint.  I liked the bittersweet heroic sacrifice that Shepard makes, I think it fits his hero's journey.  To that end, I don't like the breath scene, because it undermines that, but I didn't get the breath scene on my first playthrough.

Yeah, still wasn't clear to me.  Anyway, allow me to dissect your sentiments...

The AI: I really liked the idea of Reapers having individual wills and personalities.  Making them slaves to a higher power cheapened the memory of Harby and Sov in my mind.  That said, a master controller undermines one of Sov's iconic lines: "We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness."

Motivation: I expected the Reapers to have some sort of core ideology that was subtly misguided, but what we got?  Synthetics that periodically wipe out organics so organics don't create synthetics to wipe out organics?  Leviathan made this a little better in some ways and a little worse in others.  But seriously, of all the motives they could've picked, they went with the one involving circular reasoning.

Choices: Underlying implications aside, all options force you to agree with the Catalyst on some level (even Refuse just lets the Cycle continue).  In addition, each one also tacks on a horrific war crime on top of it.  I'm pretty sure you've read at least one of the bajillion threads about this, so I'll move right along.

Shepard's Death: Expected, and I'm okay with it.  However, in a game about player choice, I think we should've gotten more than just a breath from the "Shepard lives" ending.  Also, how Shepard dies in all three/four endings is just... stupid.  Voluntary suicide, going on the word of a self-titled Lord of All Reapers.

Anyway, I respect your opinion and you're totally allowed to like the ending if you want to.  Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and use ME3 as a learning experience on how not to conclude a trilogy.

I've already dissected these responses to your dissecting of my points haha.

The AI: Just because they have a collective imperative, doesn't mean they aren't also separate "nations."  The analogy still works.

Motivation: The viewpoint is misguided, and the solution isn't circular reasoning in terms of cold logic.  It is quantifying life instead of qualifying it.  Good science fiction villain in my opinion.

Choices: I never agreed with the Catalyst when I chose destroy.  I used a resource that was available to me to stop the Reaper threat.

Shepard's Death: I don't like the breath scene because it makes Destroy the "win" ending.  I think regardless of paragon or renegade or your Shepard's choices, it makes sense for the character to make a heroic sacrifice.

[Wayning_Star]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

on the gender thing again



quod erat demonstrandum

You could do the same thing with Male Shep and see his guns get increasingly more Schwartzenageresque.  At least we can justify this with working out and a fair amount of steroids...not sure what the boob lift justification is haha.

medi-gel

[Biotic Sage]

Mesina2 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

From a business standpoint it makes sense.  15-25 year old males like that kind of thing; it's very little expended effort on a game developer's part to rev their engines.  Sad, but that's the way it is.  The women need to play more games and be more vocal if we want to see some more, um, enlightened content.

COULD YOU JUST

STOP

OKAY LISTEN

Sexing up all the female characters is a turn-off for potential female gamers.  The more objectification there is, the less likely a girl is to show interest in the game.  So it remains a boys' club.

Now, what if girls buy games anyway?  Then sales go up, and the publishers assume they can just keep doing what they're doing.

Being vocal is great--and I am vocal as hell--but ultimately it's something the publishers have to fix themselves.

And it doesn't just turn off female gamers, but also many male gamers of same mentioned demographic.

Even straight male gamers roll their eyes on this objectification.

Yeah I'm agreeing with you Cheez.  As a straight male I roll my eyes at these kinds of things.  I was just saying I understand the base, unintellectual business side pragmatism as to why this happens especially in games.  It definitely is a vicious cycle of: appeal to male gamers, only males buy games, so further appeal to the demographic that buys games.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 11:06 .

[Wayning_Star]

I hate diversity..everyone argues about it..

[Dr_Extrem]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

From a business standpoint it makes sense.  15-25 year old males like that kind of thing; it's very little expended effort on a game developer's part to rev their engines.  Sad, but that's the way it is.  The women need to play more games and be more vocal if we want to see some more, um, enlightened content.

COULD YOU JUST

STOP

OKAY LISTEN

Sexing up all the female characters is a turn-off for potential female gamers.  The more objectification there is, the less likely a girl is to show interest in the game.  So it remains a boys' club.

Now, what if girls buy games anyway?  Then sales go up, and the publishers assume they can just keep doing what they're doing.

Being vocal is great--and I am vocal as hell--but ultimately it's something the publishers have to fix themselves.

last time i checked, i was male .. and i dont like this change a bit. femshep in me1s lovescene was nearly perfect and in me2 it was still very ok.

i only hope that the meshplorer will soon be compatible with me2.

[Biotic Sage]

Indy_S wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Unfortunately the peace on Rannoch doesn't prove anything.  It proves that organics and synthetics can cooperate.  It doesn't disprove the Catalyst's maintained view that eventual genocide is inevitable.  The Catalyst's response would be: "Just because they are cooperating today, doesn't mean that they'll cooperate tomorrow."

And you'd have to get the Crucible to the Citadel before they blow it up.  That's hard to do, so it's hard to threaten them with that.

Eventual. I hate that word because of it's misuse. Alongside 'inevitable', it creates absolutes. Logic dislikes absolutes because it requires leaps to reach them. The Catalyst's logic takes a leap from 'it happened a lot' to 'it happens every time'. There is no proof that they will always come into conflict. Furthermore, there has never been an instance of the utter destruction of all organics. Its logic is broken. It would be nice to be able to show it this.

I agree with you.  I was just outlining the Catalyst's unsound logic, flawed because it's built on an unsound premise.  A lot of people mistake this for me agreeing with it.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 11:07 .

[Indy_S]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I agree with you.  I was just outlining the Catalyst's unsound logic, flawed because it's built on an unsound premise.  A lot of people mistake this for me agreeing with it.

I understand you weren't advocating it as bulletproof, don't worry. 

[Wayning_Star]

the catalyst logic isn't flawed, the interpretation of it is. The logic is based on the consistency of recurring evolution. What the catalyst seen is all we get. It is the only authority on the chaos,brought forth through evolution and nature, the catalyst reality. We,as Shep have limited view of statistics,as we only live under or around a 100 years. Thats why Shep was resurrected. Time.

Shep is constantly having to play catch up.

[Biotic Sage]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the catalyst logic isn't flawed, the interpretation of it is. The logic is based on the consistency of recurring evolution. What the catalyst seen is all we get. It is the only authority on the chaos,brought forth through evolution and nature, the catalyst reality. We,as Shep have limited view of statistics,as we only live under or around a 100 years. Thats why Shep was resurrected. Time.

Shep is constantly having to play catch up.

No matter how much more time the Catalyst has had, it's still unsound to make an assumption based on an absolute.  Maybe it's unlikely that organics and synthetics can coexist, but no matter how many genocides there have been, it's never a proven inevitability.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 11:16 .

[Indy_S]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the catalyst logic isn't flawed, the interpretation of it is. The logic is based on the consistency of recurring evolution. What the catalyst seen is all we get. It is the only authority on the chaos,brought forth through evolution and nature, the catalyst reality. We,as Shep have limited view of statistics,as we only live under or around a 100 years. Thats why Shep was resurrected. Time.

Shep is constantly having to play catch up.

Every leap of logic is a flaw. Going from 'it has happened every time' to 'it will happen every time' is a flaw.

[Wayning_Star]

the crucible wasn't built in a day, maybe a month or so..easy peasy? Thank's to all the technoids.

now, lets destroy them for the cycle..to...continue.

[Dr_Extrem]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the catalyst logic isn't flawed, the interpretation of it is. The logic is based on the consistency of recurring evolution. What the catalyst seen is all we get. It is the only authority on the chaos,brought forth through evolution and nature, the catalyst reality. We,as Shep have limited view of statistics,as we only live under or around a 100 years. Thats why Shep was resurrected. Time.

Shep is constantly having to play catch up.

the logic is not flawed ... thats the problem.


the premies that lead to its logical conclion are:

- organics will build synthetics 
- the created synthetics will rebel against their creators
- the organics will loose the conflict
- the synthetics will then kill all life in the galaxy.

4 absolute statements.


and those premises were only implemented, as a basement for the catalysts thinking, because fallible creatures were not able to control their pawns. how can something be infallible, if it was created by fallible creatures?

circular logic .. the ai should deinstall itself.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 11:21 .

[Wayning_Star]

Indy_S wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

the catalyst logic isn't flawed, the interpretation of it is. The logic is based on the consistency of recurring evolution. What the catalyst seen is all we get. It is the only authority on the chaos,brought forth through evolution and nature, the catalyst reality. We,as Shep have limited view of statistics,as we only live under or around a 100 years. Thats why Shep was resurrected. Time.

Shep is constantly having to play catch up.

Every leap of logic is a flaw. Going from 'it has happened every time' to 'it will happen every time' is a flaw.

Just because it happens isn't the catalsyt flaw,it's nature flaw to require the catalsyt to watch the fire works, via organic solutions to problems. We make tools, they out smart us. That's the flaw..if any.

Why do you hate diversity?

[ZLurps]

Mesina2 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

From a business standpoint it makes sense.  15-25 year old males like that kind of thing; it's very little expended effort on a game developer's part to rev their engines.  Sad, but that's the way it is.  The women need to play more games and be more vocal if we want to see some more, um, enlightened content.

COULD YOU JUST

STOP

OKAY LISTEN

Sexing up all the female characters is a turn-off for potential female gamers.  The more objectification there is, the less likely a girl is to show interest in the game.  So it remains a boys' club.

Now, what if girls buy games anyway?  Then sales go up, and the publishers assume they can just keep doing what they're doing.

Being vocal is great--and I am vocal as hell--but ultimately it's something the publishers have to fix themselves.

And it doesn't just turn off female gamers, but also many male gamers of same mentioned demographic.

Even straight male gamers roll their eyes on this objectification.

I have made posts regarding this earlier, but you really aren't alone. 20-25 is way behind me, but in general sex sells thing doesn't work like it used to on every media. It may still work for customer groups that doesn't have access to real erotic content, perhaps Miranda's butt sold some copies of ME2, but it also alienated other customers who felt that thing weren't even sexy, just embarrasingly juvenile.

Unless target group have fetish for pixel porno, it's IMO losing, because why in the world I would bother with pixel eroticism, which also appears silly, when I can watch real porn when I want to? Why would anyone else?

[Wayning_Star]

change is the foundation of diversity.

[Wayning_Star]

ZLurps wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

From a business standpoint it makes sense.  15-25 year old males like that kind of thing; it's very little expended effort on a game developer's part to rev their engines.  Sad, but that's the way it is.  The women need to play more games and be more vocal if we want to see some more, um, enlightened content.

COULD YOU JUST

STOP

OKAY LISTEN

Sexing up all the female characters is a turn-off for potential female gamers.  The more objectification there is, the less likely a girl is to show interest in the game.  So it remains a boys' club.

Now, what if girls buy games anyway?  Then sales go up, and the publishers assume they can just keep doing what they're doing.

Being vocal is great--and I am vocal as hell--but ultimately it's something the publishers have to fix themselves.

And it doesn't just turn off female gamers, but also many male gamers of same mentioned demographic.

Even straight male gamers roll their eyes on this objectification.

I have made posts regarding this earlier, but you really aren't alone. 20-25 is way behind me, but in general sex sells thing doesn't work like it used to on every media. It may still work for customer groups that doesn't have access to real erotic content, perhaps Miranda's butt sold some copies of ME2, but it also alienated other customers who felt that thing weren't even sexy, just embarrasingly juvenile.

Unless target group have fetish for pixel porno, it's IMO losing, because why in the world I would bother with pixel eroticism, which also appears silly, when I can watch real porn when I want to? Why would anyone else?

I've read that women dress up for other women, not for men, though we don't mind the competition..

[Dr_Extrem]

Wayning_Star wrote...

change is the foundation of diversity.

no .. from an evolutionary pov, it is quite the opposite. change leads to extinction.

[Indy_S]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Every leap of logic is a flaw. Going from 'it has happened every time' to 'it will happen every time' is a flaw.

Just because it happens isn't the catalsyt flaw,it's nature flaw to require the catalsyt to watch the fire works, via organic solutions to problems. We make tools, they out smart us. That's the flaw..if any.

Why do you hate diversity?

Logic doesn't work that way.

And wait, what? I hate diversity? Since when?

[ZLurps]

Wayning_Star wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

From a business standpoint it makes sense.  15-25 year old males like that kind of thing; it's very little expended effort on a game developer's part to rev their engines.  Sad, but that's the way it is.  The women need to play more games and be more vocal if we want to see some more, um, enlightened content.

COULD YOU JUST

STOP

OKAY LISTEN

Sexing up all the female characters is a turn-off for potential female gamers.  The more objectification there is, the less likely a girl is to show interest in the game.  So it remains a boys' club.

Now, what if girls buy games anyway?  Then sales go up, and the publishers assume they can just keep doing what they're doing.

Being vocal is great--and I am vocal as hell--but ultimately it's something the publishers have to fix themselves.

And it doesn't just turn off female gamers, but also many male gamers of same mentioned demographic.

Even straight male gamers roll their eyes on this objectification.

I have made posts regarding this earlier, but you really aren't alone. 20-25 is way behind me, but in general sex sells thing doesn't work like it used to on every media. It may still work for customer groups that doesn't have access to real erotic content, perhaps Miranda's butt sold some copies of ME2, but it also alienated other customers who felt that thing weren't even sexy, just embarrasingly juvenile.

Unless target group have fetish for pixel porno, it's IMO losing, because why in the world I would bother with pixel eroticism, which also appears silly, when I can watch real porn when I want to? Why would anyone else?

I've read that women dress up for other women, not for men, though we don't mind the competition..

Well, I read that not everything that gets written is true.

But seriously, I think it's situational.

[Dr_Extrem]

Wayning_Star wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

From a business standpoint it makes sense.  15-25 year old males like that kind of thing; it's very little expended effort on a game developer's part to rev their engines.  Sad, but that's the way it is.  The women need to play more games and be more vocal if we want to see some more, um, enlightened content.

COULD YOU JUST

STOP

OKAY LISTEN

Sexing up all the female characters is a turn-off for potential female gamers.  The more objectification there is, the less likely a girl is to show interest in the game.  So it remains a boys' club.

Now, what if girls buy games anyway?  Then sales go up, and the publishers assume they can just keep doing what they're doing.

Being vocal is great--and I am vocal as hell--but ultimately it's something the publishers have to fix themselves.

And it doesn't just turn off female gamers, but also many male gamers of same mentioned demographic.

Even straight male gamers roll their eyes on this objectification.

I have made posts regarding this earlier, but you really aren't alone. 20-25 is way behind me, but in general sex sells thing doesn't work like it used to on every media. It may still work for customer groups that doesn't have access to real erotic content, perhaps Miranda's butt sold some copies of ME2, but it also alienated other customers who felt that thing weren't even sexy, just embarrasingly juvenile.

Unless target group have fetish for pixel porno, it's IMO losing, because why in the world I would bother with pixel eroticism, which also appears silly, when I can watch real porn when I want to? Why would anyone else?

I've read that women dress up for other women, not for men, though we don't mind the competition..

courtship behaviour.


the female wants to outshine the other ones - to get the strongest male. its simple biology.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 11:39 .

[Wayning_Star]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

change is the foundation of diversity.

no .. from an evolutionary pov, it is quite the opposite. change leads to extinction.

I hate opposable thumbs?

[Wayning_Star]

?[/quote]

Logic doesn't work that way.

And wait, what? I hate diversity? Since when?
[/quote]

by stating that the catlyst for change has faulty logic.

after stating that we cannot understand the catalyst.

[Dr_Extrem]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

change is the foundation of diversity.

no .. from an evolutionary pov, it is quite the opposite. change leads to extinction.

I hate opposable thumbs?

why did our thumbs change?

because of a genetic defect, that prevents certain hand-muscles to grow properly. our thumbs are a useful mutation - thats all. it has nothing to do with a changed environment or premise.

[Indy_S]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Logic doesn't work that way.

And wait, what? I hate diversity? Since when?

by stating that the catlyst for change has faulty logic.

after stating that we cannot understand the catalyst.

When did I say either of those? Now I'm really confused about what you're after.

The Catalyst speaks in absolutes regarding a topic where absolutes are not involved. Anecdotes cannot provide absolute evidence no matter how many iterations there are. There is a leap in its logic when it says that 'synthetics will always rebel against their creators'. And there is no logical basis for 'synthetics will eventually wipe out all organic life'.