Aller au contenu

Photo

Females in Dragon Age - do we need more variety?


317 réponses à ce sujet

#276
Versus Omnibus

Versus Omnibus
  • Members
  • 2 832 messages

Brass_Buckles wrote...

I think more variety in general would be welcome.  Not just for female characters, but also males.  Male characters tend to fall in line with the idea of the "male power fantasy"--huge, burly muscles. To all the guys who think the males in DA are eye candy for the ladies:  Most women prefer a slimmer, more lithe build.  Not all--we ladies are not a hivemind who agree on everything.  But that's probably why, while some women thought Sten was hot and some even thought Garrus was sexy (not I, although I played his romance repeatedly because I liked the character), most of us would lean more toward Fenris or Alistair or Anders types.  Muscular,  but not body builders.  Guys seem to prefer the body builder look for their characters.  Again, not all guys.  Men aren't a hivemind, either.

There are a lot more of us lady gamers than some guys want to admit.  Unfortunately, if you're in a multiplayer game as a woman, you can get some serious harassment from just speaking on voice chat.  I've heard horror stories especially about console games; I've experienced some downtalking and the like on PC on ME3 multiplayer myself.  I was even mistaken for a child once (Really, dude?  You never heard a woman speak before?).  And so, most women won't speak up on multiplayer, and a lot won't admit to being female even in text.  It's an open invitation for harassment, in most gaming circles.  Don't believe me?  Go to any gaming site, and read the comments in any given section relating to women or female characters in gaming.  Anyone who admits to being a woman and agrees that women need more presence in games/need to have less skimpily dressed characters/etc. will be attacked.  Only if she likes having a lingerie-decked character (which is totally okay if it's her CHOICE and she's got other options!) with oversized breasts, will she not be attacked.

I don't think "deal with it or get out" should be the attitude. And honestly, to those guys, why don't you want more women gaming?  I'd think you'd want more women around with something in common with you!  So why don't you want the game characters to be less offputting to female players?  Sure, some of us don't mind the lingerie look.  There was a time when I didn't--because *it was all there was*.  Now that I have choices, I tend to avoid any game that puts the lady characters in lingerie and I detest developers who think it's okay to give no choice in the matter, especially in online games where women have an increasing presence--most women prefer to play female characters.  I also generally avoid games that don't include women at all.  I play male characters now and then and I don't mind characters where the only protagonist is a guy, but by and large, I'd prefer to be female.

Developers can argue until they're blue in the face that "adding women/female characters costs more."  You know what?  It does.  But this is also basically stating a position of, "Males are default.  Females are an afterthought and just cost more money to add."  Guys out there--would you like it if there were a really awesome game coming out, and it only had women?  And then the developers said it would cost too much to add men?  Before you say "Oh sure I'd love to stare at their 'assets,'" let's also add the condition that the women are so covered-up they are shapeless.  Or their body shape is not particularly feminine (they are burly with no breasts, or they are super-skinny with no real shape, or they are outright rotund/obese).  And yet, despite all of these varieties of women in the game there are no men, because "it would cost too much."  That's what we women deal with all the time, in reverse.  And when you consider the variety of aliens in Mass Effect, also remember that until the very last game we never even saw a female turian or krogan or salarian.  We still haven't seen a female drell.  For that matter, I have yet to see a female kossith qunari in a Bioware game (I expect that to change in DAI).  So Bioware isn't immune.  Male shouldn't be the default; females should be developed alongside the males and we shouldn't have been left hanging as to what they look like.

I'm not speaking out of anger here.  In the real world, a room of 100 people off the street would contain about 51 women, and they'd probably all look different.  So while I can understand if every NPC has the same default body type for their race, it'd be nice if the player and/or the party or squad members got a bit more variety, rather than just saying "guys deserve something sexy to look at."  Sexy is okay.  Sexy is fine.  Women like sexy dudes too, and we often like to play sexy characters ourselves because most people, male and female, like to put themselves in the shoes of that hot avatar they made to play on their screen.  But most of us ladies don't want to play lingerie models (seriously, people, a character doesn't have to be nearly-naked to be sexy--sexy clothing is fine, but sexy armor is not, and I don't want my character running around in her skimpiest set of underwear--edited to add:  underwear is not the same as clothing so don't say by saying "no underwear as outfit" I'm saying "no sexy clothing"--a little cleavage or midriff or tight pants/skirt is not the same thing as wandering around in a thong or bondage gear--and even then there's a limit on HOW sexy sexy clothing can be, before it basically becomes lingerie, or otherwise unreasonable to run around in public wearing, too.), and some of us wouldn't mind being more curvy, or skinny and scrawny, etc. depending what kind of playthrough we are going for.  A few body type options would not go amiss, even if they only encompassed weight.  There is not just one singular sexy body type.

I get it if it's too much cost to develop different bodies for absolutely everyone, or too much time, money, and effort to develop a system to make your player character have a morphable mesh so he/she can be fat, slim, busty, etc.  But like the OP, I'd expect a bit different standard shape for female elves, qunari, and dwarves as opposed to human, and older people as opposed to younger; the differences in practice weren't all that big compared to humans (or to males of most of those groups).  And again, male shouldn't be default.  Even with the qunari warriors, given how their society is set up, I'd have expected at least a few women in their camp to attend to "women's duties" as viewed by the qunari.  Or even a few female qunari mages.

Because media bombards us with mostly-male groups in TV, movies, and yes, games, we tend to think "enough" or even "one quarter of enough" women (Edited:  enough being about 50%) are too many.  Another edit:  It makes sense to limit female presence in some settings--i.e. modern setting warfare games, because while women do exist in the military, there are far more men.  Bioware's pretty good at putting quite a few female background NPCs (and female party NPCs) in the games, but again, they aren't immune.  Money, time, and development costs should never be used for excuses to exclude an entire gender--especially in cases like in ME1's codex, where we are told turians are an egalitarian society.  And then for most of 3 games we proceed to never see a female turian, even though in an egalitarian society with about 50% females, there should have been just as many turian ladies wandering around/being mercenaries/etc. as turian gentlemen.  If you want more women to buy your games and play them, you're going to have to treat women as people, and not as an afterthought or a prerequisite to get male players hot and bothered.  Bioware's pretty good at this most of the time, though there have been lapses.  Sexiness in any given character should be incidental to character--and in some cases, the character's personality should maybe be the biggest reason why people think he or she is sexy, even if the character also has a generically sexy body type.  Lingerie or loincloths shouldn't be a requirement to make a character attractive; we should also still be able to find a character whose body type is not the "perfect ideal" pushed at us by media, attractive--it doesn't even have to vary much from that ideal.  And we also don't need a character's behind flashed at us all the time to remind us how sexy he/she is.


This forum needs a like button.

#277
Gwydden

Gwydden
  • Members
  • 2 813 messages
At any rate, I think we can all agree that so far Inquisition seems to be doing well. We saw two female party members in the trailer and neither of them was in any way over the top. We'll have to see how it goes.

#278
General TSAR

General TSAR
  • Members
  • 4 383 messages

Versus Omnibus wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

Suddenly, I feel like playing a little violin.



Why?

You obviously never watched that episode of South Park. 

#279
Brass_Buckles

Brass_Buckles
  • Members
  • 3 366 messages

durasteel wrote...

Brass_Buckles wrote...
... Lingerie or loincloths shouldn't be a requirement to make a character attractive; we should also still be able to find a character whose body type is not the "perfect ideal" pushed at us by media, attractive--it doesn't even have to vary much from that ideal.  And we also don't need a character's behind flashed at us all the time to remind us how sexy he/she is.

I think that's already the case, actually. That's why Tali was such a highly requested romanceable character in Mass Effect. I think the media, the game designers, women, and even men ourselves are often making wildly inaccurate assumptions about what men (or other men) find attractive. The reason, put simply, is that we (men) lie about it.

Probably the best example of this is breast size. There are men who prefer large ones, but just as many who prefer small ones. Often you'll only be able to find this out in a one-on-one conversation where you say "No, really, I'm serious, what do you think an ideal cup size is?" That conversation doesn't happen very often, but what does happen is we cheer like cave men endorsing "BIGGUNS!" because we want to fit in. Also, it's pretty funny, especially after a few drinks.


Hollywood took a while to figure it out, but they finally realised that what we say we want isn't really what we want, a lot of the time. Jayne Mansfield types gave way to Kate Beckinsale and Zoe Saldana. It's not that we're trying to be deceptive, it's just that talking about boobs turns most of us into 13 year olds, even at and beyond mid-life.

Sorry.


Tali is very popular, that's true.  But she also doesn't, in the first game or two, have much personality.  Her attraction mostly seems to be her hips.  She's one of those characters I always wanted to like, but when I replayed ME1 the second time, I realized she was basically just a walking encyclopedia of quarian lore who happened to also like engines.  And then I was very disappointed because I had remembered her as this cute, naive little teenager who looked up to my character--maybe there was some of that, but mostly she just answered questions about her people.  She just didn't have that much personality.  This is from the standpoint of a straight lady, mind you; perhaps you see something I don't.  To me, though, it would have been creepy to be hot for Tali because of her youth.

You argue that "personality is the big deal," but we have Miranda, with her bubble butt and her attendant butt and bust shots in ME2.  Even if I'm playing straight Femshep who has no sexual interest in Miranda and shouldn't be eyeing her butt and boobs.  And Miranda is not a particularly friendly personality; put her personality and "perfect body" on a man, and I'd still be running the other way as fast as possible.  To my mind, she wasn't so much "confident" as she was "cocky," right up until the end of the game, and certainly not perfect personalitywise.  It may be fine to be friends with someone like that, but not so great to have them as a romantic partner.  For guys, she's wildly popular, though--but were the butt and boob shots necessary?  I don't think so, because guys who are looking for those things are going to see them even if the camera doesn't pause to lovingly show them off.

And then we have Isabela, who is a character who is, in fact, sexy and owns it, but Bioware felt it necessary to animate her specifically so she flashed her butt at the player every time she was in your party in a combat situation.  The clothing is one thing--and a fairly ridiculous thing in combat.  In casual settings it was fine, in combat... where are her scars?  But the animation was the bad thing, because not everyone wants her hind end flashed at them.  It annoyed me to the point I only had her in my party when I absolutely had to.

#280
Versus Omnibus

Versus Omnibus
  • Members
  • 2 832 messages

General TSAR wrote...

Versus Omnibus wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

Suddenly, I feel like playing a little violin.



Why?

You obviously never watched that episode of South Park. 




I don't watch TV, sorry.

#281
Heimdall

Heimdall
  • Members
  • 13 217 messages

Brass_Buckles wrote...

I think more variety in general would be welcome.  Not just for female characters, but also males.  Male characters tend to fall in line with the idea of the "male power fantasy"--huge, burly muscles. To all the guys who think the males in DA are eye candy for the ladies:  Most women prefer a slimmer, more lithe build.  Not all--we ladies are not a hivemind who agree on everything.  But that's probably why, while some women thought Sten was hot and some even thought Garrus was sexy (not I, although I played his romance repeatedly because I liked the character), most of us would lean more toward Fenris or Alistair or Anders types.  Muscular,  but not body builders.  Guys seem to prefer the body builder look for their characters.  Again, not all guys.  Men aren't a hivemind, either.

There are a lot more of us lady gamers than some guys want to admit.  Unfortunately, if you're in a multiplayer game as a woman, you can get some serious harassment from just speaking on voice chat.  I've heard horror stories especially about console games; I've experienced some downtalking and the like on PC on ME3 multiplayer myself.  I was even mistaken for a child once (Really, dude?  You never heard a woman speak before?).  And so, most women won't speak up on multiplayer, and a lot won't admit to being female even in text.  It's an open invitation for harassment, in most gaming circles.  Don't believe me?  Go to any gaming site, and read the comments in any given section relating to women or female characters in gaming.  Anyone who admits to being a woman and agrees that women need more presence in games/need to have less skimpily dressed characters/etc. will be attacked.  Only if she likes having a lingerie-decked character (which is totally okay if it's her CHOICE and she's got other options!) with oversized breasts, will she not be attacked.

I don't think "deal with it or get out" should be the attitude. And honestly, to those guys, why don't you want more women gaming?  I'd think you'd want more women around with something in common with you!  So why don't you want the game characters to be less offputting to female players?  Sure, some of us don't mind the lingerie look.  There was a time when I didn't--because *it was all there was*.  Now that I have choices, I tend to avoid any game that puts the lady characters in lingerie and I detest developers who think it's okay to give no choice in the matter, especially in online games where women have an increasing presence--most women prefer to play female characters.  I also generally avoid games that don't include women at all.  I play male characters now and then and I don't mind characters where the only protagonist is a guy, but by and large, I'd prefer to be female.

Developers can argue until they're blue in the face that "adding women/female characters costs more."  You know what?  It does.  But this is also basically stating a position of, "Males are default.  Females are an afterthought and just cost more money to add."  Guys out there--would you like it if there were a really awesome game coming out, and it only had women?  And then the developers said it would cost too much to add men?  Before you say "Oh sure I'd love to stare at their 'assets,'" let's also add the condition that the women are so covered-up they are shapeless.  Or their body shape is not particularly feminine (they are burly with no breasts, or they are super-skinny with no real shape, or they are outright rotund/obese).  And yet, despite all of these varieties of women in the game there are no men, because "it would cost too much."  That's what we women deal with all the time, in reverse.  And when you consider the variety of aliens in Mass Effect, also remember that until the very last game we never even saw a female turian or krogan or salarian.  We still haven't seen a female drell.  For that matter, I have yet to see a female kossith qunari in a Bioware game (I expect that to change in DAI).  So Bioware isn't immune.  Male shouldn't be the default; females should be developed alongside the males and we shouldn't have been left hanging as to what they look like.

I'm not speaking out of anger here.  In the real world, a room of 100 people off the street would contain about 51 women, and they'd probably all look different.  So while I can understand if every NPC has the same default body type for their race, it'd be nice if the player and/or the party or squad members got a bit more variety, rather than just saying "guys deserve something sexy to look at."  Sexy is okay.  Sexy is fine.  Women like sexy dudes too, and we often like to play sexy characters ourselves because most people, male and female, like to put themselves in the shoes of that hot avatar they made to play on their screen.  But most of us ladies don't want to play lingerie models (seriously, people, a character doesn't have to be nearly-naked to be sexy--sexy clothing is fine, but sexy armor is not, and I don't want my character running around in her skimpiest set of underwear--edited to add:  underwear is not the same as clothing so don't say by saying "no underwear as outfit" I'm saying "no sexy clothing"--a little cleavage or midriff or tight pants/skirt is not the same thing as wandering around in a thong or bondage gear--and even then there's a limit on HOW sexy sexy clothing can be, before it basically becomes lingerie, or otherwise unreasonable to run around in public wearing, too.), and some of us wouldn't mind being more curvy, or skinny and scrawny, etc. depending what kind of playthrough we are going for.  A few body type options would not go amiss, even if they only encompassed weight.  There is not just one singular sexy body type.

I get it if it's too much cost to develop different bodies for absolutely everyone, or too much time, money, and effort to develop a system to make your player character have a morphable mesh so he/she can be fat, slim, busty, etc.  But like the OP, I'd expect a bit different standard shape for female elves, qunari, and dwarves as opposed to human, and older people as opposed to younger; the differences in practice weren't all that big compared to humans (or to males of most of those groups).  And again, male shouldn't be default.  Even with the qunari warriors, given how their society is set up, I'd have expected at least a few women in their camp to attend to "women's duties" as viewed by the qunari.  Or even a few female qunari mages.

Because media bombards us with mostly-male groups in TV, movies, and yes, games, we tend to think "enough" or even "one quarter of enough" women (Edited:  enough being about 50%) are too many.  Another edit:  It makes sense to limit female presence in some settings--i.e. modern setting warfare games, because while women do exist in the military, there are far more men.  Bioware's pretty good at putting quite a few female background NPCs (and female party NPCs) in the games, but again, they aren't immune.  Money, time, and development costs should never be used for excuses to exclude an entire gender--especially in cases like in ME1's codex, where we are told turians are an egalitarian society.  And then for most of 3 games we proceed to never see a female turian, even though in an egalitarian society with about 50% females, there should have been just as many turian ladies wandering around/being mercenaries/etc. as turian gentlemen.  If you want more women to buy your games and play them, you're going to have to treat women as people, and not as an afterthought or a prerequisite to get male players hot and bothered.  Bioware's pretty good at this most of the time, though there have been lapses.  Sexiness in any given character should be incidental to character--and in some cases, the character's personality should maybe be the biggest reason why people think he or she is sexy, even if the character also has a generically sexy body type.  Lingerie or loincloths shouldn't be a requirement to make a character attractive; we should also still be able to find a character whose body type is not the "perfect ideal" pushed at us by media, attractive--it doesn't even have to vary much from that ideal.  And we also don't need a character's behind flashed at us all the time to remind us how sexy he/she is.

I certainly agree with the spirit of your post if not every point within it.  Males should not be default and character models should be designed with both genders in  mind, not just the male perspective.   Animations too for that matter (See LadyHawke's swagger).

BUT!  If I may address a few quibbles:

I'd say DA2 actually avoided having the male character be exclusively the burly body building types.  Perhaps it was a side effect of the art style change making things appear slimmer, but most of the male characters fit more into the lean and fit niche to my eyes.

I'm not sure how design works at Bioware, but I think they design the characters and scenarios before choosing which character models need to be made.  For example, they designed Saren and Garrus as male turians, so they needed a male turian model.  So making a female turian model took the back seat to making the male model, which, as you mentioned, costs money.  The same thing likely happened to Tali and the quarians with the genders reversed, they only recieved male models as of ME2.  I don't think either of these things are good examples of the "lapses" you mentioned.  I just don't think its a matter of any gender being considered default so much that they just build what they need at the time.

By the same token, you mentioned the possibility of female Qunari camp followers for the Qunari force in DA2.  Consider that, by pre-established lore, soldiery is an exclusively male discipline in Qunari culture, Bioware knew they needed male Qunari models.  So they would take priority.  Considering the time constraint DA2 had on it, its no wonder female models wouldn't have made the cut.  Granted, putting female Qunari in DAO couldn't have been too difficult considering they were just upscaled humans at the time, but considering that all other Qunari in the game looked exactly like Sten, I think we can draw our own conclusions regarding how invested Bioware was in portraying any Qunari besides Sten.

(As to Volus, Elcor, and any others that were given only one gender in
the early ME games, I imagine the decision to make the one gender male
rather than female was because of the asari.  As the "all female
species" (Which is another problem in and of itself) they might have
considered it confusing if another species showed up with solely female
characters.  Krogan and Salarian have good reasons for their females to
be scarce)

#282
Gwydden

Gwydden
  • Members
  • 2 813 messages

Brass_Buckles wrote...

Tali is very popular, that's true.  But she also doesn't, in the first game or two, have much personality.  Her attraction mostly seems to be her hips.  She's one of those characters I always wanted to like, but when I replayed ME1 the second time, I realized she was basically just a walking encyclopedia of quarian lore who happened to also like engines.  And then I was very disappointed because I had remembered her as this cute, naive little teenager who looked up to my character--maybe there was some of that, but mostly she just answered questions about her people.  She just didn't have that much personality.  This is from the standpoint of a straight lady, mind you; perhaps you see something I don't.  To me, though, it would have been creepy to be hot for Tali because of her youth.


Yeah, I got a "little sister" vibe interacting with her that along the extremely weird "if we have sex I may die" completely put me off her. Also, yes, she didn't actually get any character development until ME2, but Garrus and Liara weren't much better in the first game.


Brass_Buckles wrote...


You argue that "personality is the big deal," but we have Miranda, with her bubble butt and her attendant butt and bust shots in ME2.  Even if I'm playing straight Femshep who has no sexual interest in Miranda and shouldn't be eyeing her butt and boobs.  And Miranda is not a particularly friendly personality; put her personality and "perfect body" on a man, and I'd still be running the other way as fast as possible.  To my mind, she wasn't so much "confident" as she was "cocky," right up until the end of the game, and certainly not perfect personalitywise.  It may be fine to be friends with someone like that, but not so great to have them as a romantic partner.  For guys, she's wildly popular, though--but were the butt and boob shots necessary?  I don't think so, because guys who are looking for those things are going to see them even if the camera doesn't pause to lovingly show them off.


Well, what one considers an attractive personality may vary. At the time I played ME2 I found Miranda fairly interesting, mostly because of what she represented as a genetically modified human.

Brass_Buckles wrote...


And then we have Isabela, who is a character who is, in fact, sexy and owns it, but Bioware felt it necessary to animate her specifically so she flashed her butt at the player every time she was in your party in a combat situation.  The clothing is one thing--and a fairly ridiculous thing in combat.  In casual settings it was fine, in combat... where are her scars?  But the animation was the bad thing, because not everyone wants her hind end flashed at them.  It annoyed me to the point I only had her in my party when I absolutely had to.


Did she? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember. But then, everytime I noticed her backside any thoughts on its appeal got overriden by the everlasting question "Why isn't she wearing any pants?" With the shots on Miranda's assets it was more of the same thing. I was so baffled at how juvenile it was that I just couldn't think of anything else. How very unsublte. And tasteless, let's not forget the tasteless part.

I guess what I want to say with this is that, even if I'm a straight guy who appreciates some tasteful eye candy, I agree with you.

#283
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If I understand Basil's point, it's more of a criticism of shallow taste and token minoritism when you include a token minority for the primary purpose of being a token minority rather than a role in their own right (which would be legitimate).

There is a vague, nebulous point at which interacting with someone solely on the basis of them being a minority figure is condescending or even reflective of discriminatory mindsets. A point at which you're identifying someone entirely by their category, and not at all by their character, which is just as stuck in engaging in stereotyping (or, rather, how you will be stereotyped if you don't) and just as uninterested in the individual as people who discriminate against [insert category here]. You're still treating people according to their [category], rather than their personhood.


So in your perspective then, skin colour should only be included because different skin colour does matter?

But if race does matter, that would mean that we're de facto making a political statement by having primarily white people, would it not?

Therein lies the point that many people who kvetch about increased visibility being absolutely nothing more than a political agenda just can't seem to get even though it's rather obvious: having primarily white people IS a political statement.  It is no less an agenda to insist on an all- or nearly all-white cast of characters than it is to insist on a racially diverse one.  The same logic applies to the question of how women are portrayed.  It ALWAYS represents an agenda, whether consciously or not, because ALL media both informs, and is informed BY, cultural assumptions.  The people who so stridently object to increased diversity and less sexual objectification would do well to remember that--and to acknowledge that it's kind of difficult NOT to see their vehement objections as a reaction to them no longer being the sole recipients of fanservice.  After all, it's THESE people who rage the loudest against pandering and fanservice, and dismiss it as being politically correct.  The reality is that they don't have a problem with pandering when they're the ones being pandered to.

#284
MesTarrant

MesTarrant
  • Members
  • 39 messages

Brass_Buckles wrote...

I think more variety in general would be welcome.  Not just for female characters, but also males.  Male characters tend to fall in line with the idea of the "male power fantasy"--huge, burly muscles. To all the guys who think the males in DA are eye candy for the ladies:  Most women prefer a slimmer, more lithe build.  Not all--we ladies are not a hivemind who agree on everything.  But that's probably why, while some women thought Sten was hot and some even thought Garrus was sexy (not I, although I played his romance repeatedly because I liked the character), most of us would lean more toward Fenris or Alistair or Anders types.  Muscular,  but not body builders.  Guys seem to prefer the body builder look for their characters.  Again, not all guys.  Men aren't a hivemind, either.

There are a lot more of us lady gamers than some guys want to admit.  Unfortunately, if you're in a multiplayer game as a woman, you can get some serious harassment from just speaking on voice chat.  I've heard horror stories especially about console games; I've experienced some downtalking and the like on PC on ME3 multiplayer myself.  I was even mistaken for a child once (Really, dude?  You never heard a woman speak before?).  And so, most women won't speak up on multiplayer, and a lot won't admit to being female even in text.  It's an open invitation for harassment, in most gaming circles.  Don't believe me?  Go to any gaming site, and read the comments in any given section relating to women or female characters in gaming.  Anyone who admits to being a woman and agrees that women need more presence in games/need to have less skimpily dressed characters/etc. will be attacked.  Only if she likes having a lingerie-decked character (which is totally okay if it's her CHOICE and she's got other options!) with oversized breasts, will she not be attacked.

I don't think "deal with it or get out" should be the attitude. And honestly, to those guys, why don't you want more women gaming?  I'd think you'd want more women around with something in common with you!  So why don't you want the game characters to be less offputting to female players?  Sure, some of us don't mind the lingerie look.  There was a time when I didn't--because *it was all there was*.  Now that I have choices, I tend to avoid any game that puts the lady characters in lingerie and I detest developers who think it's okay to give no choice in the matter, especially in online games where women have an increasing presence--most women prefer to play female characters.  I also generally avoid games that don't include women at all.  I play male characters now and then and I don't mind characters where the only protagonist is a guy, but by and large, I'd prefer to be female.

Developers can argue until they're blue in the face that "adding women/female characters costs more."  You know what?  It does.  But this is also basically stating a position of, "Males are default.  Females are an afterthought and just cost more money to add."  Guys out there--would you like it if there were a really awesome game coming out, and it only had women?  And then the developers said it would cost too much to add men?  Before you say "Oh sure I'd love to stare at their 'assets,'" let's also add the condition that the women are so covered-up they are shapeless.  Or their body shape is not particularly feminine (they are burly with no breasts, or they are super-skinny with no real shape, or they are outright rotund/obese).  And yet, despite all of these varieties of women in the game there are no men, because "it would cost too much."  That's what we women deal with all the time, in reverse.  And when you consider the variety of aliens in Mass Effect, also remember that until the very last game we never even saw a female turian or krogan or salarian.  We still haven't seen a female drell.  For that matter, I have yet to see a female kossith qunari in a Bioware game (I expect that to change in DAI).  So Bioware isn't immune.  Male shouldn't be the default; females should be developed alongside the males and we shouldn't have been left hanging as to what they look like.

I'm not speaking out of anger here.  In the real world, a room of 100 people off the street would contain about 51 women, and they'd probably all look different.  So while I can understand if every NPC has the same default body type for their race, it'd be nice if the player and/or the party or squad members got a bit more variety, rather than just saying "guys deserve something sexy to look at."  Sexy is okay.  Sexy is fine.  Women like sexy dudes too, and we often like to play sexy characters ourselves because most people, male and female, like to put themselves in the shoes of that hot avatar they made to play on their screen.  But most of us ladies don't want to play lingerie models (seriously, people, a character doesn't have to be nearly-naked to be sexy--sexy clothing is fine, but sexy armor is not, and I don't want my character running around in her skimpiest set of underwear--edited to add:  underwear is not the same as clothing so don't say by saying "no underwear as outfit" I'm saying "no sexy clothing"--a little cleavage or midriff or tight pants/skirt is not the same thing as wandering around in a thong or bondage gear--and even then there's a limit on HOW sexy sexy clothing can be, before it basically becomes lingerie, or otherwise unreasonable to run around in public wearing, too.), and some of us wouldn't mind being more curvy, or skinny and scrawny, etc. depending what kind of playthrough we are going for.  A few body type options would not go amiss, even if they only encompassed weight.  There is not just one singular sexy body type.

I get it if it's too much cost to develop different bodies for absolutely everyone, or too much time, money, and effort to develop a system to make your player character have a morphable mesh so he/she can be fat, slim, busty, etc.  But like the OP, I'd expect a bit different standard shape for female elves, qunari, and dwarves as opposed to human, and older people as opposed to younger; the differences in practice weren't all that big compared to humans (or to males of most of those groups).  And again, male shouldn't be default.  Even with the qunari warriors, given how their society is set up, I'd have expected at least a few women in their camp to attend to "women's duties" as viewed by the qunari.  Or even a few female qunari mages.

Because media bombards us with mostly-male groups in TV, movies, and yes, games, we tend to think "enough" or even "one quarter of enough" women (Edited:  enough being about 50%) are too many.  Another edit:  It makes sense to limit female presence in some settings--i.e. modern setting warfare games, because while women do exist in the military, there are far more men.  Bioware's pretty good at putting quite a few female background NPCs (and female party NPCs) in the games, but again, they aren't immune.  Money, time, and development costs should never be used for excuses to exclude an entire gender--especially in cases like in ME1's codex, where we are told turians are an egalitarian society.  And then for most of 3 games we proceed to never see a female turian, even though in an egalitarian society with about 50% females, there should have been just as many turian ladies wandering around/being mercenaries/etc. as turian gentlemen.  If you want more women to buy your games and play them, you're going to have to treat women as people, and not as an afterthought or a prerequisite to get male players hot and bothered.  Bioware's pretty good at this most of the time, though there have been lapses.  Sexiness in any given character should be incidental to character--and in some cases, the character's personality should maybe be the biggest reason why people think he or she is sexy, even if the character also has a generically sexy body type.  Lingerie or loincloths shouldn't be a requirement to make a character attractive; we should also still be able to find a character whose body type is not the "perfect ideal" pushed at us by media, attractive--it doesn't even have to vary much from that ideal.  And we also don't need a character's behind flashed at us all the time to remind us how sexy he/she is.



Thank you for writing this. Very thoughtful and eloquently said!

#285
Cainhurst Crow

Cainhurst Crow
  • Members
  • 11 374 messages
I don't see how any of this translates to a need for bioware to waste money on creating variant, after variant, after variant, of different body models for characters some people will never see for more then 5 minutes just so that they can be there. I think each model takes up space, time, and resource, to create, program, successfully duplicate with the engine, and add it into whatever code they use to generate crowds and background characters in the world. Unless we are talking about an ugly body type character or extreme body type character that would exclusively be a companions, in which case I must question the purpose of doing so if all it's there to do is make the players feel bad about not wanting an ugly character around.

#286
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 670 messages

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I don't see how any of this translates to a need for bioware to waste money on creating variant, after variant, after variant, of different body models for characters some people will never see for more then 5 minutes just so that they can be there. I think each model takes up space, time, and resource, to create, program, successfully duplicate with the engine, and add it into whatever code they use to generate crowds and background characters in the world. Unless we are talking about an ugly body type character or extreme body type character that would exclusively be a companions, in which case I must question the purpose of doing so if all it's there to do is make the players feel bad about not wanting an ugly character around.

Yeah.....this is pretty much my opinion in relation to Bioware games.  If Bioware has a system where it doesn't take up much resources for multiple body types like I believe Dragon's Dogma does, then cool.  I love to see a variety of body types, but it seems like they really can only make mostly one body type model for standard npcs (which is why characters like Udina in ME would still have a 6-pack) and sometimes do more body types for companions.

#287
The dead fish

The dead fish
  • Members
  • 7 775 messages

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I don't see how any of this translates to a need for bioware to waste money on creating variant, after variant, after variant, of different body models for characters some people will never see for more then 5 minutes just so that they can be there. I think each model takes up space, time, and resource, to create, program, successfully duplicate with the engine, and add it into whatever code they use to generate crowds and background characters in the world. Unless we are talking about an ugly body type character or extreme body type character that would exclusively be a companions, in which case I must question the purpose of doing so if all it's there to do is make the players feel bad about not wanting an ugly character around.

This is exactly what I thought.  Also I find it hard to grasp what this thread is really about. I don't really understand what people mean by being MORE CREATIVE with female bodies in dragon age... I don't even understand what they are asking concretely with more  " variety " ? Ugly, fat, more than white people ? If so, this isn't only an issue for female characters. It would be cool to see simply more variety in dragon age if they have the resources. :huh:

Male bodies are also the same for the npcs most of the time.. Or if we are talking about companions, female AND male bodies are different. Merrill isn't like Isabela or Aveline. ( their bodies are totally different ) Or do people mean that female characters shouldn't have breasts or look like chicks ? 

At least with Mass effect, I could understand ( asari and quarians are just hot human chicks and it would have been cool to see different aliens ) but in dragon age..No... Why it has to be specific exactly ? 

Modifié par Sylvianus, 23 février 2014 - 10:57 .


#288
Cainhurst Crow

Cainhurst Crow
  • Members
  • 11 374 messages

HiroVoid wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I don't see how any of this translates to a need for bioware to waste money on creating variant, after variant, after variant, of different body models for characters some people will never see for more then 5 minutes just so that they can be there. I think each model takes up space, time, and resource, to create, program, successfully duplicate with the engine, and add it into whatever code they use to generate crowds and background characters in the world. Unless we are talking about an ugly body type character or extreme body type character that would exclusively be a companions, in which case I must question the purpose of doing so if all it's there to do is make the players feel bad about not wanting an ugly character around.

Yeah.....this is pretty much my opinion in relation to Bioware games.  If Bioware has a system where it doesn't take up much resources for multiple body types like I believe Dragon's Dogma does, then cool.  I love to see a variety of body types, but it seems like they really can only make mostly one body type model for standard npcs (which is why characters like Udina in ME would still have a 6-pack) and sometimes do more body types for companions.


Personally I think dragon's dogma just had different resource allocations, putting more money into the character creation process then bioware does because bioware's focus is on other aspects of the game. Both systems probably have the same type of space issues, but dragon's dogma was just willing to sacrifice other apsects of the game in favor of apperances.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 23 février 2014 - 10:54 .


#289
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 670 messages

Darth Brotarian wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I don't see how any of this translates to a need for bioware to waste money on creating variant, after variant, after variant, of different body models for characters some people will never see for more then 5 minutes just so that they can be there. I think each model takes up space, time, and resource, to create, program, successfully duplicate with the engine, and add it into whatever code they use to generate crowds and background characters in the world. Unless we are talking about an ugly body type character or extreme body type character that would exclusively be a companions, in which case I must question the purpose of doing so if all it's there to do is make the players feel bad about not wanting an ugly character around.

Yeah.....this is pretty much my opinion in relation to Bioware games.  If Bioware has a system where it doesn't take up much resources for multiple body types like I believe Dragon's Dogma does, then cool.  I love to see a variety of body types, but it seems like they really can only make mostly one body type model for standard npcs (which is why characters like Udina in ME would still have a 6-pack) and sometimes do more body types for companions.


Personally I think dragon's dogma just had different resource allocations, putting more money into the character creation process then bioware does because bioware's focus is on other aspects of the game. Both systems probably have the same type of space issues, but dragon's dogma was just willing to sacrifice other apsects of the game in favor of apperances.

Really can't say for sure how it works, but they obviously don't just do different models as much as armor and such morphs into the character's size and weight since there's so much variety while Bioware seems like they have to make completely different models for armor depending on body type (There was the 'no female dwarves in DAII issue').  I really just hope DA:I's combat could get up to Dragon's Dogma's quality. :whistle:

Modifié par HiroVoid, 23 février 2014 - 10:57 .


#290
Heimdall

Heimdall
  • Members
  • 13 217 messages

Sylvianus wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I don't see how any of this translates to a need for bioware to waste money on creating variant, after variant, after variant, of different body models for characters some people will never see for more then 5 minutes just so that they can be there. I think each model takes up space, time, and resource, to create, program, successfully duplicate with the engine, and add it into whatever code they use to generate crowds and background characters in the world. Unless we are talking about an ugly body type character or extreme body type character that would exclusively be a companions, in which case I must question the purpose of doing so if all it's there to do is make the players feel bad about not wanting an ugly character around.

This is exactly what I thought.  Also I find it hard to grasp what this thread is really about. I don't really understand what people mean by being MORE CREATIVE with female bodies in dragon age... I don't even understand what they are asking concretely with more  " variety " ? Ugly, fat, more than white people ? If so, this isn't only an issue for female characters. It would be cool to see simply more variety in dragon age. :huh:

Male bodies are also the same for the npcs most of the time.. Or if we are talking about companions, female AND male bodies are different. Merrill isn't like Isabela or Aveline. ( their bodies are totally different ) Or do people mean that female characters shouldn't have breasts ? 

At least with Mass effect, I could understand ( asari and quarians are just hot human chicks ) but in dragon age..No... Why it has to be specific exactly ? . 

It seems to be about the default female model being a female "Ideal" from a male perspective, while the default male model is a male "power fantasy ideal".  Basically that their created for a male audience.  Also, something about those ideal forms being the only models available... Is what I've been able to gather from the last page.

I don't really buy the argument that the muscular male models are purely a "power fantasy" thing, personally.

#291
Heimdall

Heimdall
  • Members
  • 13 217 messages

HiroVoid wrote...
Really can't say for sure how it works, but they obviously don't just do different models as much as armor and such morphs into the character's size and weight since there's so much variety while Bioware seems like they have to make completely different models for armor depending on body type (There was the 'no female dwarves in DAII issue').  I really just hope DA:I's combat could get up to Dragon's Dogma's quality. :whistle:

  By "quality" do you mean a completely different style?

#292
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 670 messages

Lord Aesir wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...
Really can't say for sure how it works, but they obviously don't just do different models as much as armor and such morphs into the character's size and weight since there's so much variety while Bioware seems like they have to make completely different models for armor depending on body type (There was the 'no female dwarves in DAII issue').  I really just hope DA:I's combat could get up to Dragon's Dogma's quality. :whistle:

  By "quality" do you mean a completely different style?

Pretty much.  I'm biased since Action-RPGs like Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls have much better combat for me or turn-based like the Persona series compared to the in-between that the Dragon Age series seems to have.

#293
LaiLoranys

LaiLoranys
  • Members
  • 51 messages

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Brass_Buckles wrote...

I think more variety in general would be welcome.  Not just for female characters, but also males.  Male characters tend to fall in line with the idea of the "male power fantasy"--huge, burly muscles. To all the guys who think the males in DA are eye candy for the ladies:  Most women prefer a slimmer, more lithe build.  Not all--we ladies are not a hivemind who agree on everything.  But that's probably why, while some women thought Sten was hot and some even thought Garrus was sexy (not I, although I played his romance repeatedly because I liked the character), most of us would lean more toward Fenris or Alistair or Anders types.  Muscular,  but not body builders.  Guys seem to prefer the body builder look for their characters.  Again, not all guys.  Men aren't a hivemind, either.

There are a lot more of us lady gamers than some guys want to admit.  Unfortunately, if you're in a multiplayer game as a woman, you can get some serious harassment from just speaking on voice chat.  I've heard horror stories especially about console games; I've experienced some downtalking and the like on PC on ME3 multiplayer myself.  I was even mistaken for a child once (Really, dude?  You never heard a woman speak before?).  And so, most women won't speak up on multiplayer, and a lot won't admit to being female even in text.  It's an open invitation for harassment, in most gaming circles.  Don't believe me?  Go to any gaming site, and read the comments in any given section relating to women or female characters in gaming.  Anyone who admits to being a woman and agrees that women need more presence in games/need to have less skimpily dressed characters/etc. will be attacked.  Only if she likes having a lingerie-decked character (which is totally okay if it's her CHOICE and she's got other options!) with oversized breasts, will she not be attacked.

I don't think "deal with it or get out" should be the attitude. And honestly, to those guys, why don't you want more women gaming?  I'd think you'd want more women around with something in common with you!  So why don't you want the game characters to be less offputting to female players?  Sure, some of us don't mind the lingerie look.  There was a time when I didn't--because *it was all there was*.  Now that I have choices, I tend to avoid any game that puts the lady characters in lingerie and I detest developers who think it's okay to give no choice in the matter, especially in online games where women have an increasing presence--most women prefer to play female characters.  I also generally avoid games that don't include women at all.  I play male characters now and then and I don't mind characters where the only protagonist is a guy, but by and large, I'd prefer to be female.

Developers can argue until they're blue in the face that "adding women/female characters costs more."  You know what?  It does.  But this is also basically stating a position of, "Males are default.  Females are an afterthought and just cost more money to add."  Guys out there--would you like it if there were a really awesome game coming out, and it only had women?  And then the developers said it would cost too much to add men?  Before you say "Oh sure I'd love to stare at their 'assets,'" let's also add the condition that the women are so covered-up they are shapeless.  Or their body shape is not particularly feminine (they are burly with no breasts, or they are super-skinny with no real shape, or they are outright rotund/obese).  And yet, despite all of these varieties of women in the game there are no men, because "it would cost too much."  That's what we women deal with all the time, in reverse.  And when you consider the variety of aliens in Mass Effect, also remember that until the very last game we never even saw a female turian or krogan or salarian.  We still haven't seen a female drell.  For that matter, I have yet to see a female kossith qunari in a Bioware game (I expect that to change in DAI).  So Bioware isn't immune.  Male shouldn't be the default; females should be developed alongside the males and we shouldn't have been left hanging as to what they look like.

I'm not speaking out of anger here.  In the real world, a room of 100 people off the street would contain about 51 women, and they'd probably all look different.  So while I can understand if every NPC has the same default body type for their race, it'd be nice if the player and/or the party or squad members got a bit more variety, rather than just saying "guys deserve something sexy to look at."  Sexy is okay.  Sexy is fine.  Women like sexy dudes too, and we often like to play sexy characters ourselves because most people, male and female, like to put themselves in the shoes of that hot avatar they made to play on their screen.  But most of us ladies don't want to play lingerie models (seriously, people, a character doesn't have to be nearly-naked to be sexy--sexy clothing is fine, but sexy armor is not, and I don't want my character running around in her skimpiest set of underwear--edited to add:  underwear is not the same as clothing so don't say by saying "no underwear as outfit" I'm saying "no sexy clothing"--a little cleavage or midriff or tight pants/skirt is not the same thing as wandering around in a thong or bondage gear--and even then there's a limit on HOW sexy sexy clothing can be, before it basically becomes lingerie, or otherwise unreasonable to run around in public wearing, too.), and some of us wouldn't mind being more curvy, or skinny and scrawny, etc. depending what kind of playthrough we are going for.  A few body type options would not go amiss, even if they only encompassed weight.  There is not just one singular sexy body type.

I get it if it's too much cost to develop different bodies for absolutely everyone, or too much time, money, and effort to develop a system to make your player character have a morphable mesh so he/she can be fat, slim, busty, etc.  But like the OP, I'd expect a bit different standard shape for female elves, qunari, and dwarves as opposed to human, and older people as opposed to younger; the differences in practice weren't all that big compared to humans (or to males of most of those groups).  And again, male shouldn't be default.  Even with the qunari warriors, given how their society is set up, I'd have expected at least a few women in their camp to attend to "women's duties" as viewed by the qunari.  Or even a few female qunari mages.

Because media bombards us with mostly-male groups in TV, movies, and yes, games, we tend to think "enough" or even "one quarter of enough" women (Edited:  enough being about 50%) are too many.  Another edit:  It makes sense to limit female presence in some settings--i.e. modern setting warfare games, because while women do exist in the military, there are far more men.  Bioware's pretty good at putting quite a few female background NPCs (and female party NPCs) in the games, but again, they aren't immune.  Money, time, and development costs should never be used for excuses to exclude an entire gender--especially in cases like in ME1's codex, where we are told turians are an egalitarian society.  And then for most of 3 games we proceed to never see a female turian, even though in an egalitarian society with about 50% females, there should have been just as many turian ladies wandering around/being mercenaries/etc. as turian gentlemen.  If you want more women to buy your games and play them, you're going to have to treat women as people, and not as an afterthought or a prerequisite to get male players hot and bothered.  Bioware's pretty good at this most of the time, though there have been lapses.  Sexiness in any given character should be incidental to character--and in some cases, the character's personality should maybe be the biggest reason why people think he or she is sexy, even if the character also has a generically sexy body type.  Lingerie or loincloths shouldn't be a requirement to make a character attractive; we should also still be able to find a character whose body type is not the "perfect ideal" pushed at us by media, attractive--it doesn't even have to vary much from that ideal.  And we also don't need a character's behind flashed at us all the time to remind us how sexy he/she is.


This forum needs a like button.


Agreed ^_^

#294
Heimdall

Heimdall
  • Members
  • 13 217 messages

HiroVoid wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...
Really can't say for sure how it works, but they obviously don't just do different models as much as armor and such morphs into the character's size and weight since there's so much variety while Bioware seems like they have to make completely different models for armor depending on body type (There was the 'no female dwarves in DAII issue').  I really just hope DA:I's combat could get up to Dragon's Dogma's quality. :whistle:

  By "quality" do you mean a completely different style?

Pretty much.  I'm biased since Action-RPGs like Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls have much better combat for me or turn-based like the Persona series compared to the in-between that the Dragon Age series seems to have.

Fair enough.  I never played darksouls and never finished Dragon's Dogma (Story didn't pull me in enough to justify all the backtracking I had to do thanks to the lack of fast travel mechanic), but I did enjoy the combat.  I like the in-between style though.

#295
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 670 messages

lailoranys wrote...
Agreed ^_^

And a dislike button for people who get their jimmies rustled by a '4' by the dislike button on their post. :whistle:

I also wouldn't quote Brass's post.  Takes up too much space on a page.

#296
Cainhurst Crow

Cainhurst Crow
  • Members
  • 11 374 messages
I personally found Brass_Buckles to have a massive bias in her writings, assuming she is a her, towards only a female perspective on things. I would imagine if you were complaining about having an unfair perspective distribution, that the solution would not be to simply have an unfair perspective distribution towards the female side of things.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 23 février 2014 - 11:32 .


#297
Heimdall

Heimdall
  • Members
  • 13 217 messages

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I personally found Brass_Buckles to have a massive bias in her writings, assuming she is a her, towards only a female perspective on things. I would imagine if you were complaining about having an unfair perspective distribution, that the solution would not be to simply have an unfair perspective distribution towards the female side of things.

Probably true.  Brass_Buckles seems to interpret each design decision not favoring overt female inclusivity as sign of male bias.

#298
The Hierophant

The Hierophant
  • Members
  • 6 898 messages
I thought the gist of this thread was about some body type varieties for a few recurring npcs? This is seems like a camouflaged "how the fem pc should look like" thread instead.

#299
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I personally found Brass_Buckles to have a massive bias in her writings, assuming she is a her, towards only a female perspective on things. I would imagine if you were complaining about having an unfair perspective distribution, that the solution would not be to simply have an unfair perspective distribution towards the female side of things.


SMH.  Typical: why bother adding to the discussion when you can just write up a summary dismissal of it by calling someone massively biased and claim that they just want to re-create the problem in a way that probably only bothers the complaining person because they aren't going to be the subject of the unfair distribution any more.

There's been a study done that indicates when women participate in a discussion 15% of the time, men perceive them as participating equally, and when they participate 30% of the time, men perceive them as dominating discussion.  The above statement smacks very much of the same mindset.  

Modifié par Silfren, 23 février 2014 - 11:26 .


#300
Heimdall

Heimdall
  • Members
  • 13 217 messages

Silfren wrote...

SMH.  Typical: why bother adding to the
discussion when you can just write up a summary dismissal of it by
calling someone massively biased and claim that they just want to
re-create the problem in a way that only bothers the complaining person
because they aren't going to be the subject of the unfair distribution
any more.

There's been a study done that indicates when women
participate in a discussion 15% of the time, men perceive them as
participating equally, and when they participate 30% of the time, men
perceive them as dominating discussion.  The above statement smacks very
much of the same mindset.  

Silfren wrote...

LISTEN UP, GIRLS!  SOMEONE'S GOT SOME MANSPLAININ' TO DO!  

Do you really think you're achieving anything other than validating his view of the complaints with this dismissive reaction?

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 23 février 2014 - 11:28 .