Well there it is, and I don't think anyone does, because those facts and hard data supporting the opposing position don't exist basically.
...
Your right, and that's not remotely the point I was making the first place. If the group of western gamers only play Japanese games because they resemble western ones and wish they were more that way, that doesn't 'invalidate' the conclusion that Japanese gamers only play Japanese games, and western gamers play both western and Japanese games, or that we conclude Japanese gamers are inherently more universal for that reason, precisely because, as I was indicating Japanese gamers don't even play western games, let alone play a bit but wish they were more like western games. They don't even meet that threshold in the first place.
I meant that I don't have enough statistical facts at all, either way. I simply don't know how well most games sold anywhere. For all I know, gamers in Japan mostly dislike the kind of games I like. I'm not sure I see the relevance. If that's so, it's hardly a problem. There are plenty of games out there that they like, presumably, and that's cool. I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.
If indeed no Japanese gamers play these games (which I doubt, but neither you or I
know) , there is plenty of evidence that there could be other reasons that they aren't playing them. Localisations and translations usually focus on various European languages and acquiring the game is often more difficult in Japan. That seems like it would be enough all on its own to explain any discrepancy.
Also, I dispute that -- even if Japanese games are more universal -- every game needs to be universal, or succeed in any given particular country, or that this particular game needs to be.
Is it? You assume I'm somehow incapable of being a person who is brazenly offended by most game companies to the point of incomprehensibility, and thus just strongly assaulted by the likes of Bioware. At any rate, I certainly think attractive outfits (technically for either gender, but lets just say women), indicates that the developers/fans at least aren't afraid of attractiveness or that kind of thing.
Well, yes, I did assume that you weren't incomprehensibly offended by most gaming companies. It seemed like a reasonable baseline assumption, since I believe that most people in fact aren't. I'll take that into account in the future.
People really do not have to be afraid of something in order to not splash it around everywhere, even places that it doesn't make sense. It's not being afraid of attractive outfits, it's believing they have no place
on the battlefield, when they're trying to convey an at least halfway believable tone to their setting.
I find it very odd that you equate a lack of desire for something to be everywhere, even in inappropriate places, to a fear of it. Do you extend this to other things? Do you believe that people are afraid of the colour green if they don't want everything to be decorated with it? The lack of logic in the assumption that not wanting a particular feature equals fear of it or a desire to repress something that is only tangentially related to it baffles me. I do not understand where you get it.
That's the genesis of my confusion over "they're doing better than many gaming companies." Is there any proof for this at all? What percentage of Bioware's gamers are female anyway? Most girls I know prefer the likes of Diablo 3 and stuff like that. Where is the evidence precisely? You have 6 male companions and 3 female, all are heavily armored and covered (well except IB, I guess it's ok for men to show their stuff, not women), 2 of the 3 'advisors' (non-combat) are female, one is just a servile again non-combat type, again waiting on the whims of the overpowering inquisitor lord in his castle. Is this really so much better than rescuing Peach from the castle? At least Peach looks kind of attractive.
If I look at the game and see no major differences, that seems to indicate a problem to me.
I assume roughly half, although I don't know. BioWare themselves probably don't know, since unless they were to conduct a survey of every single person who plays their games, they wouldn't know. I know that I'm female, and I know that I know many other female gamers who do play BioWare's games (although, of course, they also play a wide variety of other games). Presumably the other women posting in this thread and elsewhere on the forums like BioWare games, else, why are they here? The girls you know aren't necessarily indicative of female gamers in general. Clearly, the same is true of the people I know, but there is no reason to assume that the tastes of female gamers aren't as varied as that of male gamers. It's rather insulting to assume otherwise, in fact.
I would say that all being equally armoured and covered is in fact a point in favour, rather than against (and again, I'm not fond of Iron Bull's lack of armour). I don't really care about the proportion of female to male characters in the game, so long as the female characters are treated with an equal amount of depth and respect to the male characters, which -- as they have been in previous games -- there's currently no reason to assume that they won't be. Since the Inquisitor can just as easily be female as male, I don't see what waiting on their orders has to do with it.
Are you seriously implying that the representation of female characters only matters if they are scantily clad or otherwise attractive to you? I hope not, because surely you can see the problems with that statement, but it is almost sounding like that.
If I look at a game and see major differences all over the place between male and female characters, I very much do see a problem. Minor differences are fine, but there is no call for major ones. They're all people, they all should primarily be fulfilling their roles as befits their characters, and they should all be fitting into the setting and so forth.
Yeah so, if there's no need to mod it, then that would apply same for all the other outfits? Which are modded? Into something sexy? That's the situation that I'm noticing.
Huh? Yes, in the modding community, there's almost always a large percentage of "sexy armour woo" mods, but since the people making those (and indeed using them) are a rather small percentage of the player base in general, I don't think you can draw much of a conclusion from that except that those people really wanted to make those mods. You're acting like a minority of the fanbase is the majority.
Relax, I said it almost feels that way at times. I have no way of knowing for sure what the game will be like without ever actually playing the entire thing. It just seems like every little piece of info they've taken that opportunity to stick it to conventional attractiveness or things like that. Plus, I know there are only 3 female companions and 6 male ones, there is a decent amount of actual information on the game, including advisors and such. There's also brazen bad stereotypes such as Isabella and the crusade to right her flaws from DA2. The evidence is just so bad from a variety of sources.
.. Is it even confirmed that Isabela is in DA:I? Must've missed that. Yes, Isabela's (in my opinion) not a great example of a female character, but she's not a bad one either, in isolation. Since you also have characters like Aveline, Wynne, Shale, Morrigan, Cassandra, and so forth, I don't see her existence as being a bad thing. She's one type of possibile character. If all or most of your characters are like that, it's a problem. If one of them is, and you've proven that you can have other character types, it's not. It then becomes simple variety. I don't like her, but I've nothing against her mere existence.
Sticking it to conventional attractiveness, as you put it, has not one thing to do with empowering women or not.
So far I've seen only one negative thing with regards to female characters, and that's that apparently the weird swaying walk from DA II is back.
Plus that's also based on just this very forum. If you ask for cute or fun and frilly things people just jump down your throat and criticize you. And this very thread, where displays of cleavage or just any degree of sexuality (it seems to be particularly for females) triggers a whole bunch of criticism.
Not very nice, from my point of view. I also just asked for evidence that they ever were empowering in the first place?
People can have all the cute frilly things they want, so long as they're optional. I don't think anyone's been saying otherwise, or if they have been, I missed it. Do I think the whole game should be cute and frilly by default? Heck no, but that's a different thing. Do I have a problem with some characters being like that? No, I don't. I actually like Leliana, for instance, although Merrill did get on my nerves at times. I also like Alistair well enough, and he probably fits into that category, to. Just so long as what we get isn't overwhelmingly cute and frilly, especially with regards to combat and armour (armour being the focus of this thread), I'm fine. The entire team can lounge around in fluffy pink robes in their off-time for all I care, I just don't want them wearing that into battle.
It's been explained before that the reason it has mostly focused on female characters is because there are many more examples of female characters ending up with revealing armour. The likelyhood, statistically speaking, that a game will have almost no non-revealing armour options for male characters is essentially nil. The likelyhood that it will have the same for female characters is still probably about fifty/fifty.
I'm generally not of the opinion that female characters need to be actively empowered, and certainly not that they must be actively sexually attractive to be so (that's not the same thing
at all, and has if anything often been at odds with it). Just treat them like characters, the same as all the other characters, and you're there. Equal footing, nothing more, nothing less. Not all female characters need to be badass, but some should be, as suits the character and the story you're telling -- same as male characters. If you need evidence, though, if nothing else, the PC is almost always the most kickass person around, and they can be female. Your companions may not be an entirely even mix, but there's a decent number of female characters in there, with varying personalities. There have been female villains, who have at least as reasonable of motives and such as the male villains.
Yeah, that's all pretty basic stuff, but unfortunately a lot of other games don't go even that far. It has been getting steadily better in general within the industry lately, and that's good, but there are still plenty of games where only the female characters have revealing armour, or where all the female characters are mages or rogues, no important NPCs are female, or you can't play a female character (or if you do, you get some penalty for it, or everyone under the sun remarks on it constantly).
See? I'm called delusional, because I suggested that this was about repressing women. It seems to me I'm being abused from every angle by people who refuse to accept this kind of criticism. I fail to see why this is a safe place for sex or female-friendliness and all that. Quite obviously it isn't for clothes with god forbid some skin.
For crying out loud, a decent number of people in this thread (who have been arguing
against you, mind) are female. Being friendly to women is not remotely the same thing as liking clothes that show some skin. The two are
entirely unconnected. You also are repeatedly trying to turn the discussion into being one about clothing, about women in general, and about many things that it isn't. All it's about is
armour. Just that. Protective equipment worn on the battlefield. None of the statements people are making about armour are intended to be applied equally to clothing.
Nobody here is trying to repress either women or people who like sex or people who like fancy clothes except in your head.
A lot of women like clothes, heck a lot of men like clothes (to address the above comment). A lot of people like to look good, in ways that show off their attractiveness. This is common in video games, it's definitely common in reality, heck it's basically universal across reality, across nearly all of human history. It even existed to a degree in DA:O. I take the steadfast assault on it to mean something other than the importance of realism (because there is little evidence to support that conclusion), and sense that it is kind of a hatred directed towards people that like clothes, or show off their attractiveness, or whatever (because evidence hasn't supported the alternative conclusion)
Clothes aren't armour. There is no assault on fancy, revealing, sexy, frilly, or indeed any other descriptor you can come up with,
clothes.
I can think of no case where people decided that showing off their attractiveness was worth dying in a battle for. Not one. If it ever existed, I doubt we would've heard of it, because those people died, and everyone else decided it wasn't a reasonable thing to do after that. You're taking what people are saying about one thing (armour) and applying it to everything else that you care about, apparently, which is simply not what is being said.
You are ignoring that evidence. That does not mean it is not present.
I think the insularity is what I'm noticing more than anything.... oh only other people are potentially sexist, since we annointed ourselves as the harbingers of justice, we can't ourselves be sexist. Sure you can, why not? Maybe you can just characterize it as an anthem of hatred to superficiality (and which generally speaking you find women more prone to care about in games).
Pot, meet kettle.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
"
