491 réponses à ce sujet

[andrew252]

Xilizhra wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Eh, the whole gender neutrality thing isn't really too much a plus IMO. A character's gender is part of their identity, and whether they stick by the stereotypical gender roles or ignore them entirely, it is still elemental to who they are. Would you view Isabella the same way if she was a dude? Doubtful.

I view Isabela and Zevran in a fairly similar way, yes.

Consider yourself the exception that proves the rule.

Why wouldn't you? They fulfill a very similar party role and romance role, both mechanically and characterwise. They're very much counterparts of each other. The biggest difference is that Isabela lacks Zevran's fascination with deathdealing.

and she replaced zeverans bloodtlust with a constant sexual hunger

[Xilizhra]

andrew252 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Eh, the whole gender neutrality thing isn't really too much a plus IMO. A character's gender is part of their identity, and whether they stick by the stereotypical gender roles or ignore them entirely, it is still elemental to who they are. Would you view Isabella the same way if she was a dude? Doubtful.

I view Isabela and Zevran in a fairly similar way, yes.

Consider yourself the exception that proves the rule.

Why wouldn't you? They fulfill a very similar party role and romance role, both mechanically and characterwise. They're very much counterparts of each other. The biggest difference is that Isabela lacks Zevran's fascination with deathdealing.

and she replaced zeverans bloodtlust with a constant sexual hunger

Oh, please. Zevran's sexual hunger was no less sharp. At least Isabela found someone in the party who reciprocated.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh, please. Zevran's sexual hunger was no less sharp. At least Isabela found someone in the party who reciprocated.

Yup, the bloodlust is replaced by a deep and meaningful love of money and other people's possessions. I reckon you'd be equally needing of an armed chaperone in the presence of either of those two.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Just to give my 2 cents with regards to an opinion stated, that the inclusion of women, people of color and sexual minorities without addressing the socio-political issues is a "political message" for the sake of it that compromises depth.

Now I agree that "artificially" trying to fill in racial or gender quotas for show is a bad thing, I think all writers and readers would agree. But including homosexuals, or PoCs, does not need to be accompanied with contemporary social issues to make it warranted or justified. That would lead into the opposite end of the spectrum, where groups of people start to be solely defined by social conditions and issues and not by who they are, which usually leads into "over-playing" it and ends up stripping these characters of actual personality.

People are people, first and foremost. Having a female lead and / or warrior doesn't need to have her life mired with sexism and misogyny at every turn for her presence in the story to be justified. Because aside from her gender and background which are of course important, she's also a person and not a microcosm for social issues. Same with sexual orientation. I personally do not find it interesting to have a character whose sexuality defines them, when peopel are much more complex and multi-faceted beings.

Long story short, the inclusion of a homosexual character doesn't need to be accompanied by a deep social analysis. If it fits in the story the writers want, then great. But if it's not, then no harm done in having a homosexual character whose sexuality is but a part of his / her character that is not really related to any story or plot.

EDIT: as for it "not helping" if the social issue is not addressed. You know sometimes the best way to fix this kind of problem is just showing people how the "other" is in fact not other at all and is a person like you. Due to the environment and culture surrounding my upbringing (in the middle east), I was homophobic. But I changed not because I saw a homosexual suffering and crying. No, I just changed because I met a few, hanged around with them and saw that, gasp, they are people like me. Not talking about it and just showing our shared humanity can be as effective a progressive tool.  

And something else I have noticed, although it doesn't come from any one person in particular. "Political correctness" is more and more being mentioned as some sort of cancer destroying art. Most of these people, to me, come off as wannabe mavericks who think it's much cooler to say something people are offended by. When the *proper* inclusion of ethnic groups, women, or sexual minorities is not an act of political correctness. It's just being decent freakin human beings and part of being good writers. Because yes, there are a lot of people that exist outside of the white male hetero-normative sphere (like the vast majority of our species....).

The problem comes down to writing, not this political correctness that some people like to blame all the time in the hopes of looking cool.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 février 2013 - 03:33 .

[jillabender]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Just to give my 2 cents with regards to an opinion stated, that the inclusion of women, people of color and sexual minorities without addressing the socio-political issues is a "political message" for the sake of it that compromises depth.

Now I agree that "artificially" trying to fill in racial or gender quotas for show is a bad thing, I think all writers and readers would agree. But including homosexuals, or PoCs, does not need to be accompanied with contemporary social issues to make it warranted or justified. That would lead into the opposite end of the spectrum, where groups of people start to be solely defined by social conditions and issues and not by who they are, which usually leads into "over-playing" it and ends up stripping these characters of actual personality.

People are people, first and foremost. Having a female lead and / or warrior doesn't need to have her life mired with sexism and misogyny at every turn for her presence in the story to be justified. Because aside from her gender and background which are of course important, she's also a person and not a microcosm for social issues. Same with sexual orientation. I personally do not find it interesting to have a character whose sexuality defines them, when peopel are much more complex and multi-faceted beings.

Long story short, the inclusion of a homosexual character doesn't need to be accompanied by a deep social analysis. If it fits in the story the writers want, then great. But if it's not, then no harm done in having a homosexual character whose sexuality is but a part of his / her character that is not really related to any story or plot.

Thank you - that's what I was trying to convey as well.

Volus Warlord wrote...

Eh, the whole gender neutrality thing isn't really too much a plus IMO. A character's gender is part of their identity, and whether they stick by the stereotypical gender roles or ignore them entirely, it is still elemental to who they are. Would you view Isabella the same way if she was a dude? Doubtful.

Certainly, things like race and gender are part of a character's identity - but I don't think that they always need to be more than simply a part of a character's identity, for the reasons that KnightofPhoenix articulated above.

Modifié par jillabender, 25 février 2013 - 03:39 .

[iOnlySignIn]

Zevran >>>> Isabela

He is taking down the Antivan Crows single-handedly while she cannot get a ship by herself in seven years.

[Orian Tabris]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Zevran >>>> Isabela

He is taking down the Antivan Crows single-handedly while she cannot get a ship by herself in seven years.

As base as it sounds, I have to agree with this.

[andrew252]

Orian Tabris wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Zevran >>>> Isabela

He is taking down the Antivan Crows single-handedly while she cannot get a ship by herself in seven years.

As base as it sounds, I have to agree with this.

hey she had her moments too,so managed to cause a siege by stealing there sacred relic

[CrystaJ]

If we were to change Isabela's model into a male version, the only thing that would make things noticeably different would be the lack of cleavage and a deeper voice.

Sure, he wouldn't exactly be Zevran 2.0, but... her role / personality is pretty damn gender-neutral lol. Aveline's the same way.

[imbs]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Zevran >>>> Isabela

He is taking down the Antivan Crows single-handedly while she cannot get a ship by herself in seven years.

yea sure was interesting hearing the masterfully written exploits of zevran.

w8 w8 w8. I'm pretty sure your average 12 year old can make that kind of garbage up. He was hunted by assassins, you say? Why not just kill them all and become their leader?! It's so obvious!

[Sutekh]

 ^ Read the codex.
He didn't kill all assassins. He subverted some guild masters, killed a couple others, and took advantage of the general discontent among the Crows. There's nothing "12-year old" about that.

((But I'm pretty sure you'll find this plot as bad as the kill them all one, right? ))

Modifié par Sutekh, 25 février 2013 - 09:50 .

[imbs]

Sutekh wrote...

 ^ Read the codex.
He didn't kill all assassins. He subverted some guild masters, killed a couple others, and took advantage of the general discontent among the Crows. There's nothing "12-year old" about that.

((But I'm pretty sure you'll find this plot as bad as the kill them all one, right? ))

I'd be pretty discontent too if a single assassin were too much trouble for an organisation of them as well to be fair.

But you are right, perhaps the hyperbole was a little too obvious. I'm sure your average fanfic writer would have to well and truly hit puberty before being able to write such a great backstory.

[Sutekh]

imbs wrote...

I'd be pretty discontent too if a single assassin were too much trouble for an organisation of them as well to be fair.

But you are right, perhaps the hyperbole was a little too obvious. I'm sure your average fanfic writer would have to well and truly hit puberty before being able to write such a great backstory.

Read again. Misreading on purpose does you no service. 

What Zevran did is seize an opportunity by taking advantage of favorable circumstances. It's not a masterpiece, but it's as decent a plot as any, especially considering it's far, far in the background.

[imbs]

I seem to recall Bioware obnoxiously hitting you in the face with that awful story line in DA2 actually. If I had known I would be in for such an awful quest I would have killed the elf off in my DAO file.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Zevran > Isabela.

That accent is just so much more awesome.

[philippe willaume]

Das Tentakel wrote...

snip

Heh, good point. You're referring to Bradamante and others, I think?




There's an old Dutch medieval ballad, 'The Song of Lord Halewijn', where the heroine tricks the villain (the eponymous Lord Halewijn, a mass murderer with supernatural musical abilities) and decapitates him. After she returns to her family they all have a party while Lord Halewijn's severed head is put on the table.
Not something you'll find in games either .




Anyway, regarding the topic.

The issues that always crop up in this context are visibility and believability (not strictly realism). Visibility as in the presence of women, children, minorities of whatever kind etc. in the game, both as player- and non-player characters. Believability as in things being 'credible' in the context of the game's story, setting etc. 

I totally get it when Carolyn Petit gets pissed about the late inclusion of any women in the Aliens Colonial Marines game, though I am not surprised given the fact that ACM apparently was (and is) a total 'cluster****'.
But like Billy the Squid I am afraid that it's going to be a hard sell to get more females (and other under-represented people) into videogames. Like him I don't think it's going to affect sales if it actually happened, but particular subgenres of games (mostly excluding adventures, RPG's and strategy games) are exceedingly risk-averse and conservative.
Shooters in particular, although there are some exceptions (Halo has some decent female characters including Spartans).
And let's not talk about Japanese beat-'em-ups...which do have quite a few female characters, but ahem...<_<

Yes in fact the Orlando series have some pretty strong female char even if unlike Bradamante they do not hack it like a knight so to speak
ie Angelica the pricess of Kithai she single handly save a fair buch of knight from a sorceress. or even in earlier works like the Tristan and Iseult. Iseult  is a full tream member.

About diversity may be it is our job to make it happen....


phil

PS and yes ACM is ................... not good at all

[Zkyire]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Man, I'm kind of embarrassed for you that I actually have to explain this - it's pretty basic reading comprehension.  'Unknown' in this context means the essentially same as when you say a role was played by an "unknown" actor.  Obviously, who that actor is is known.  They are not, however, previously known for their acting.  I don't curently have access to the research databases I'd usually use to pull up names and precise examples, but it is historical fact that, for example, before female ownership of property was accepted, many female inventors patented their inventions under the name of their father, husband, or male colleagues, because they were not allowed to own a patent.  Therefore, the male whose name is on the patent got the credit.  These things have been discovered via personal papers, etc.  These women are not known for their contributions to science, but the fact that they contributed has been uncovered.

And if you didn't actually know that usage of 'unknown' and weren't just trying to be a trollish jerk, then I really feel sorry for you.

Wow you're a dick.

[Topsider]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Zkyire wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Re the bolded: You clearly missed the point of that section.  The point was that those are the few acknowledged female scientists whose achievements are recognized by most - but that there are far more women who have made major contributions to the field than just them, and those women's achievements are unknown, or worse, credited to male colleagues.

If their achievements are unknown, then how can you claim that they even exist at all?

Man, I'm kind of embarrassed for you that I actually have to explain this - it's pretty basic reading comprehension.  'Unknown' in this context means the essentially same as when you say a role was played by an "unknown" actor.  Obviously, who that actor is is known.  They are not, however, previously known for their acting.  I don't curently have access to the research databases I'd usually use to pull up names and precise examples, but it is historical fact that, for example, before female ownership of property was accepted, many female inventors patented their inventions under the name of their father, husband, or male colleagues, because they were not allowed to own a patent.  Therefore, the male whose name is on the patent got the credit.  These things have been discovered via personal papers, etc.  These women are not known for their contributions to science, but the fact that they contributed has been uncovered.

And if you didn't actually know that usage of 'unknown' and weren't just trying to be a trollish jerk, then I really feel sorry for you.

Let me guess, you 'discovered' most of this on the internet - that bastion of reliable sources and historical accuracy? I'm sorry, but "many female inventors" using male names on patents is laughable. What era are you talking about - the stone age? 

Even today, the number of women entering science/engineering/mathematics, etc, is miniscule compared to men. There just doesn't seem to be much interest. In the end, it's simple numbers. If 95% of inventors and scientists are male then expect the vast majority of patents and recognition to go to them.

The obvious solution? Instead of writing misguided articles full of feminist diatribes - essentially "let's blame men" - their energy would be better spent contributing to the things that men currently dominate. Some women do this, others like to complain.

btw, you're not helping your case by being so condescending.

[Cobra's_back]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Zevran >>>> Isabela

He is taking down the Antivan Crows single-handedly while she cannot get a ship by herself in seven years.

Agreed 

[Emzamination]

krul2k wrote...

im guessing this topic was made for attention seeking an nothing else, play the DA games and you have your answer

Yep. He made a sexist thread that got locked & deleted asking bioware to throw female gamers a bone about a month ago. Dude has some issues with women he needs to work out.

On topic: Bioware has always included both genders in their games and written both fairly equally. I don't care what some yellow game journalist has to say about developers that aren't bioware and games that aren't under the bioware trademark.

[Potato Cat]

Really, compared to most games, Dragon Age is nigh on the pinnacle of gender equality. I can really only see Flemeth's DA2 model as being particularly over sexualised. Other characters are all suitably dressed, part from maybe Isabela, but that's arguably her character.

Take Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in video games tropes. Firstly, there's the damsel in distress. Only two examples come to mind, and even those are a bit dubious. We have Queen Anora in DAO, but while she is not the best fighter, she's politically influential and skilled. Then there's Leanda, but does she really count? If anything she's a woman in the refrigerator. The Fighting **** Toy, Isabela? Sexy sidekick, Bethany? Sexy villainess, Flemeth/Morrigan, debatable. Background decoration, certainly not. Voodoo priestess/tribal sorceress, again Flemeth and Morrigan. Maybe Merrill too? But even then they are quite deep, interesting and overall positive characters, in my opinion. Women as rewards. Again none come to mind. Mrs Male Character, only FemHawke would really count, but again debatable. Unattractive equals evil, okay, taking the only for sure female antagonist as evil, Meredith is really not ugly. And then there's man with boobs. Not really. So overall, there's just a few dubious examples of these tropes.

Now, there's the fact Thedas' answer to Jesus was a woman, and two of the most powerful people in the world are also women, the Divine and the Empress Of Orlais. and then there's women holding powerful positions, in both the world and the story: Knight Commander Meredith, Queen Anora, the Ariqun, Flemeth and Morrigan, Cassandra and Leliana, First enchanter Fiona, Sophia Dryden... The list goes on. and in comparison, male leaders are often seen as weak, the Viscount, the king of the Anderfels, Harrowmont. If you think about it, Thedas is incredibly matriarchal.

Modifié par Elfman, 25 février 2013 - 05:58 .

[w0lfam0da1s]

Elfman wrote...


Really, compared to most games, Dragon Age is nigh on the pinnacle of gender equality. I can really only see Flemeth's DA2 model as being particularly over sexualised. Other characters are all suitably dressed, part from maybe Isabela, but that's arguably her character.

Take Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in video games tropes. Firstly, there's the damsel in distress. Only two examples come to mind, and even those are a bit dubious. We have Queen Anora in DAO, but while she is not the best fighter, she's politically influential and skilled. Then there's Leanda, but does she really count? If anything she's a woman in the refrigerator. The Fighting **** Toy, Isabela? Sexy sidekick, Bethany? Sexy villainess, Flemeth/Morrigan, debatable. Background decoration, certainly not. Voodoo priestess/tribal sorceress, again Flemeth and Morrigan. Maybe Merrill too? But even then they are quite deep, interesting and overall positive characters, in my opinion. Women as rewards. Again none come to mind. Mrs Male Character, only FemHawke would really count, but again debatable. Unattractive equals evil, okay, taking the only for sure female antagonist as evil, Meredith is really not ugly. And then there's man with boobs. Not really. So overall, there's just a few dubious examples of these tropes.

Now, there's the fact Thedas' answer to Jesus was a woman, and two of the most powerful people in the world are also women, the Divine and the Empress Of Orlais. and then there's women holding powerful positions, in both the world and the story: Knight Commander Meredith, Queen Anora, the Ariqun, Flemeth and Morrigan, Cassandra and Leliana, First enchanter Fiona, Sophia Dryden... The list goes on. and in comparison, male leaders are often seen as weak, the Viscount, the king of the Anderfels, Harrowmont. If you think about it, Thedas is incredibly matriarchal.

That is overall true. The fact that Thedas is manly matriarchal. (I see a nod to Mass Effect here) Its to bad that you can't find more games like this. ones tha alow women to be in charge or do the things that many would say was the role of a man, and not get belittled for it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Topsider wrote...
Even today, the number of women entering science/engineering/mathematics, etc, is miniscule compared to men. There just doesn't seem to be much interest.

A flawed argument that is not taking into account systemic social factors as well as factors in those specific fields, unless you want to argue that women are biologically uninterested in the sciences which would be hard to corraborate. 

Fact of the matter is that social biases still exist on what either gender is "supposed" to do. The hard sciences is still mostly seen as men's providence. For example, I have a friend who is a chemistry student in McGill university, and she told me how she consistently felt left out, ignored, and even at some points abused for being a woman in what is seen as a boy club. I know others who were talked out of entering sciences from their parents or friends. 

Truth is, the field  is not yet equal for us to rely solely on numbers. We need to know *why*, and evidence as most serious studies point out seem to show social biases and pressures as a prominent factor in this phenomenon. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 février 2013 - 06:40 .

[Eleinehmm]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Topsider wrote...
Even today, the number of women entering science/engineering/mathematics, etc, is miniscule compared to men. There just doesn't seem to be much interest.

A flawed argument that is not taking into account systemic social factors as well as factors in those specific fields, unless you want to argue that women are biologically uninterested in the sciences which would be hard to corraborate. 

Fact of the matter is that social biases still exist on what either gender is "supposed" to do. The hard sciences is still mostly seen as men's providence. For example, I have a friend who is a chemistry student in McGill university, and she told me how she consistently felt left out, ignored, and even at some points abused for being a woman in what is seen as a boy club. I know others who were talked out of entering sciences from their parents or friends. 

Truth is, the field  is not yet equal for us to rely solely on numbers. We need to know *why*, and evidence as most serious studies point out seem to show social biases and pressures as a prominent factor in this phenomenon. 

Thanks, you have justed stoped me from "FU"ing Topsider, it would have been counterproductive, but still.

I am in a male dominated field, and there is a lot of microagressions flying around.  And no, I can't  just "let it slide , and it's not "just a joke". 

[Topsider]

Eleinehmm wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Topsider wrote...
Even today, the number of women entering science/engineering/mathematics, etc, is miniscule compared to men. There just doesn't seem to be much interest.

A flawed argument that is not taking into account systemic social factors as well as factors in those specific fields, unless you want to argue that women are biologically uninterested in the sciences which would be hard to corraborate. 

Fact of the matter is that social biases still exist on what either gender is "supposed" to do. The hard sciences is still mostly seen as men's providence. For example, I have a friend who is a chemistry student in McGill university, and she told me how she consistently felt left out, ignored, and even at some points abused for being a woman in what is seen as a boy club. I know others who were talked out of entering sciences from their parents or friends. 

Truth is, the field  is not yet equal for us to rely solely on numbers. We need to know *why*, and evidence as most serious studies point out seem to show social biases and pressures as a prominent factor in this phenomenon. 

Thanks, you have justed stoped me from "FU"ing Topsider, it would have been counterproductive, but still.

I am in a male dominated field, and there is a lot of microagressions flying around.  And no, I can't  just "let it slide , and it's not "just a joke". 

You would "FU" me for stating a fact? Men are more interested in science and mathematics. At least in the number entering those fields. That doesn't mean women aren't interested at all, just not enough for a career choice. There's a difference.

Wow, talk about sensitive, I didn't make this up. I read a depressing report recently on the amount of women choosing maths/science or any of the tech fields and they were shockingly low. But yes, let's blame it all on society.