3626 réponses à ce sujet

[Panda]

While I agree that having faceless mooks of either gender is a win/win situation for both men and women, when a game does this, it still gets criticized, like GTA5, which had both male and female "mooks" (well.. civilians... people you could kill if you wanted to, basically) gets criticzed for "violence against women".

 

I believe it got pulled from the australian shelves (and new zealand??) only because you had the OPTIONAL ABILITY to kill female prostitutes. It was considered "wrong" because players were "encouraged" to kill prostitutes to get their money back. Well, it's equally as encouraging as shooting a random men walking around, because both actions result in a similar response: the ingame police department will (attempt to) arrest you.

 

Hmmh, that happens mostly in games where violence happens in sexual situations. I think killing female prostitutes after them giving you sexual show is part of this. I doubt GTAV would have been criticized for violence against women if you killed random women walking around like you do men. Usually games get only criticized over that if they involve sexual violence, though there might be some cases where this wasn't case, but game still got criticized over violence against women. I don't support it personally.

 

However I don't think ME games have been criticized with it and they have female enemy's so Bioware is good in that field.

[themikefest]

It also raises the question of whether barriers would be vulnerable to slow moving projectiles, like shrapnel. Gameplay suggests it might, since barriers do nothing against physical damage from melee attacks. 

They are. Remember Thessia? Just before Shepard uses the turret a missile is seen hitting that spot killing however many asari. After dealing with the uglies and a new barrier is put up, 3 projectiles were stopped by the barrier. The difference is the missile was explosive while the others were whatever. 

 

Also while Shepard is using the turret, the husks and brutes are hitting the barrier whereas during the suicide mission, husks were able to walk through the barrier and attack Shepard and squad

[o Ventus]

They are. Remember Thessia? Just before Shepard uses the turret a missile is seen hitting that spot killing however many asari. After dealing with the uglies and a new barrier is put up, 3 projectiles were stopped by the barrier. The difference is the missile was explosive while the others were whatever. 

 

Also while Shepard is using the turret, the husks and brutes are hitting the barrier whereas during the suicide mission, husks were able to walk through the barrier and attack Shepard and squad

I haven't really looked at the rest of this exchange (so I'm not sure if anyone else has said this yet), but those were biotic barriers IIRC, and the asari holding them up were commandos. Why wouldn't they be able to shift around their barriers to deflect or withstand melee attacks? The explosives I'll chalk up to stylization of the cinematics since those wouldn't do anything according to the lore, but blocking melee hits doesn't seem so far fetched as long as it's a biotic barrier.

[Panda]

Wow, you're really not even trying to defend this, are you?

 

"Strong and capable as enemies". Yeah, the level 1 bandits roaming outside town who couldn't even kill themselves if they tried sure are strong and capable. This is such a poor and weak excuse, I'm actually astounded. Then I remember who it is I'm talking to.

 

Of cource, since I value having female enemies. I killed lot of Asari Vanguards today. They are annoying with their shields, but still canon fodder. Doesn't make me thinking: oh these poor mercenary women! More like, wow they are quite badass. I'd hope for Asari Vanguard squadmate next game.

 

Since I want more women as canon fodder, as strong and capable enemies in the games. Well strong and capable in terms of being acknowledges as enemies, gameplay-wise they are still canon fodder since we are talking non-boss enemies I think.

 

So since I see being canon fodder in games as sth positive, it doesn't work for arguement on how poor men have it to me.

[o Ventus]

 

So since I see being canon fodder in games as sth positive

 

There is something wrong with you if you think that existing for the sole purpose of being violently killed (repeatedly) and having your corpse desecrated is a good thing.

[Steelcan]

Of cource, since I value having female enemies. I killed lot of Asari Vanguards today. They are annoying with their shields, but still canon fodder. Doesn't make me thinking: oh these poor mercenary women! More like, wow they are quite badass. I'd hope for Asari Vanguard squadmate next game.

meh they are vastly overrated

 

"I expected better"

[themikefest]

The explosives I'll chalk up to stylization of the cinematics since those wouldn't do anything according to the lore,

The lore says that? That's funny since I throw a grenade at banshees that have a barrier and its barrier is destroyed from the grenade
 

but blocking melee hits doesn't seem so far fetched as long as it's a biotic barrier.

So its not far-fetched to stop a melee attack, but it can't stop a husk from walking through the barrier?

[Panda]

There is something wrong with you if you think that existing for the sole purpose of being violently killed (repeatedly) and having your corpse desecrated is a good thing.

 

It's video game? You kill people in video games.. even in those for kids. Or what you thought happened to "canon fodder" that got jumped over by Mario?

[KaiserShep]

There is something wrong with you if you think that existing for the sole purpose of being violently killed (repeatedly) and having your corpse desecrated is a good thing.

Yeah, what are we, minks?

[Toasted Llama]

Hmmh, that happens mostly in games where violence happens in sexual situations. I think killing female prostitutes after them giving you sexual show is part of this. I doubt GTAV would have been criticized for violence against women if you killed random women walking around like you do men. Usually games get only criticized over that if they involve sexual violence, though there might be some cases where this wasn't case, but game still got criticized over violence against women. I don't support it personally.

 

However I don't think ME games have been criticized with it and they have female enemy's so Bioware is good in that field

 

While yes, the violence happens in sexual situations, I don't think that should be a "valid" reason to pull a game from the shelves as the ability to use violence is indiscriminate and non-mandatory. It's a bit like saying "VIOLENCE AGAINST X IS BAD!" while I think it should be "VIOLENCE IS BAD!". (although violence being bad shouldn't be a reason to censor it from adults in mediums like movies, novels and games where no real person gets harmed)

 

 

 

It's video game? You kill people in video games.. even in those for kids. Or what you thought happened to "canon fodder" that got jumped over by Mario?

 

Oooh ooh! I know! They get turned into pancakes! And then thrown into a giant bowling pot, where they are cooked alive, screaming.... and sliced into seperate pieces to be fed to their family...

 

Ahem. As I said. Violence is bad mmmm'kay.

[Panda]

While yes, the violence happens in sexual situations, I don't think that should be a "valid" reason to pull a game from the shelves as the ability to use violence is indiscriminate and non-mandatory. It's a bit like saying "VIOLENCE AGAINST X IS BAD!" while I think it should be "VIOLENCE IS BAD!". (although violence being bad shouldn't be a reason to censor it from adults in mediums like movies, novels and games where no real person gets harmed)

 

Oooh ooh! I know! They get turned into pancakes! And then thrown into a giant bowling pot, where they are cooked alive, screaming.... and sliced into seperate pieces to be fed to their family...

 

Ahem. As I said. Violence is bad mmmm'kay.

 

I don't personally see sexual violence as sth good in games. It's quite used in entertainment media, mostly against female characters of cource. I don't see purpose for it myself nor I would play character who takes part of sexual violence. Though in other view, I'm not very fond of killing random guys in the games either, like in many games you can kill people similarly than in GTAV, just randomly on street, but too immersion-breaking and random to me. Except Saint Row 4 maybe, but what is immersion there..

 

Yea I guess ^^; It's just that if people are againt canon fodder in games, it would change games quite a lot. There would need to be names and some kind of story for every character you encounter and kill. Or then no violence. Which would cut video games down like 80%, but at least we could play Sims? Though you can get pretty murderous there as well...

[SnakeCode]

While I agree that having faceless mooks of either gender is a win/win situation for both men and women, when a game does this, it still gets criticized, like GTA5, which had both male and female "mooks" (well.. civilians... people you could kill if you wanted to, basically) gets criticzed for "violence against women".

 

I believe it got pulled from the australian shelves (and new zealand??) only because you had the OPTIONAL ABILITY to kill female prostitutes. It was considered "wrong" because players were "encouraged" to kill prostitutes to get their money back. Well, it's equally as encouraging as shooting a random men walking around, because both actions result in a similar response: the ingame police department will (attempt to) arrest you.

 

Hatred as well, the last God of War title was heavily criticised by both players, press AND the devs themselves for depicting brutal violence against women. Despite the violence against men in the same game being just as brutal and far more frequent.

 

The funny thing about GTA V is that whilst the gameplay leaves everything up to player agency (allowing for both male and female cannon fodder) the story is incredibly skewed in this regard. To my knowledge, you aren't forced to kill a single woman throughout the duration of the plot. A few women do die, true, but not by the player's hand. Yet in almost every mission we are forced to kill multiple guys.

 

I've said plenty of times that i'm a big advocate of female cannon fodder in games, but devs are in an incredibly difficult position. If they don't do it, people complain that they're saying women are too weak to fight and thus they are sexist. If they do include women as cannon fodder then people complain that they're advocating and glorifying violence against women, and thus they are sexist. It's a lose-lose situation.

[animedreamer]

 Nobody's suggesting Bioware "educate" us on anything. Some people would just prefer that their comrades charge into battle in some sick armor as opposed to their underwear, a skintight onesie and/or heels.

 

then the simple answer is to hope or ask, that you get to change their outfits, you know play "dress up" most games do that.

[o Ventus]

The lore says that? That's funny since I throw a grenade at banshees that have a barrier and its barrier is destroyed from the grenade
 

So its not far-fetched to stop a melee attack, but it can't stop a husk from walking through the barrier?

An explosive wouldn't have any effect on a biotic barrier if the lore were taken into account, since a biotic barrier is just a mass effect field.

 

Well, no, an explosive would have an effect in the sense that an explosive would kill the person holding the barrier, so the barrier would drop.

[o Ventus]

It's video game?

 

That's exactly my point, and "it's video games" is why your point about gender roles is garbage.

[Toasted Llama]

I don't personally see sexual violence as sth good in games. It's quite used in entertainment media, mostly against female characters of cource. I don't see purpose for it myself nor I would play character who takes part of sexual violence. Though in other view, I'm not very fond of killing random guys in the games either, like in many games you can kill people similarly than in GTAV, just randomly on street, but too immersion-breaking and random to me. Except Saint Row 4 maybe, but what is immersion there..

 

Yea I guess ^^; It's just that if people are againt canon fodder in games, it would change games quite a lot. There would need to be names and some kind of story for every character you encounter and kill. Or then no violence. Which would cut video games down like 80%, but at least we could play Sims? Though you can get pretty murderous there as well...

It's perfectly understandable that people dislike sexual violence or violence in general, I'm not a fan of pointless violence or sexual violence either. I'm just strongly against censorship. It's fine if someone doesn't want to play game x or game y because of a certain aspect of the game, but I think it's wrong to derive other people who might want to play a game like that (as sick as whatever aspect in the game might seem; if fantasy and reality is safely kept from blending together, I see no risks as no real person comes to harm and I am not forced to play that aspect).

 

Of course people will label me as a monster as there's some really fucked up stuff been made into games out there, but censorship can also ruin games if, as you've said, things like cannon fodder get censored because it's "bad". Then all you get to play is the sims. Without the pool. And without the fire. And without the children. And without the whoo-hoo because the bible says sex before marriage is bad.

 

In a perfect world the only censorship I would want to see is strict and regulated age-ratings.

 

TL;DR: I like choice. c:

 

 

Hatred as well, the last God of War title was heavily criticised by both players, press AND the devs themselves for depicting brutal violence against women. Despite the violence against men in the same game being just as brutal and far more frequent.

 

The funny thing about GTA V is that whilst the gameplay leaves everything up to player agency (allowing for both male and female cannon fodder) the story is incredibly skewed in this regard. To my knowledge, you aren't forced to kill a single woman throughout the duration of the plot. A few women do die, true, but not by the player's hand. Yet in almost every mission we are forced to kill multiple guys.

 

I've said plenty of times that i'm a big advocate of female cannon fodder in games, but devs are in an incredibly difficult position. If they don't do it, people complain that they're saying women are too weak to fight and thus they are sexist. If they do include women as cannon fodder then people complain that they're advocating and glorifying violence against women, and thus they are sexist. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

Speaking of Hatred; you should watch Nerdcubed's FW video on that. He basically explains how Hatred actually perfectly used the whole drama surrounding "THIS IS BAD! THAT IS OFFENSIVE!" and used it for it's own profit. I personally don't like the game, but I salute the developers for using genius strategies to get free marketing.

 

And yeah, I heard about the story being skewered with no required kill of female characters. I'll shrug it off and write it off to the "we're not there yet" argument or possibly because the criminal world is lead by men, with very few exceptions. (since GTA5 tries to simulate that criminal, gritty reality)

 

And to the lose/lose situation; that's definitely true and not even isolated to the cannon-fodder issue alone. Even the "strong female protagonist" criticism suffers from it. Very annoying for developers, no matter what you do you get angry gamers or feminists on your ass.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Sometimes I wonder if we're not making a mistake in trying to analyse these things in detail, in trying to show the differences and in trying to find a balance. Perhaps it would be better to simply stop, leave the past in the past and start over.

This applies to all kinds of discrimination, be they gender, race or religion.

 

There is simply no way to come to terms, to find a lasting balance with centuries of baggage on each side.

 

We shouldn't concentrate on the differences (although of course, those exist) and care more about the things we have in common, which usually turn out to be far more numerous and important.

[RINNZ]

Sometimes I wonder how a thread can get so offtopic.

But then I remember that this is the BSN.

[themikefest]

An explosive wouldn't have any effect on a biotic barrier if the lore were taken into account, since a biotic barrier is just a mass effect field.

So basically the lore is crap
 

Well, no, an explosive would have an effect in the sense that an explosive would kill the person holding the barrier, so the barrier would drop.

Isn't that what I posted? I said the missile hit that spot killing however many asari a long with the asari maintaining that barrier

 

Got an answer for the other question I asked?

[von uber]

There is something wrong with you if you think that existing for the sole purpose of being violently killed (repeatedly) and having your corpse desecrated is a good thing.

 

How do you get violently killed repeatedly?

[o Ventus]

How do you get violently killed repeatedly?

 

By respawning and then dying again? We are talking about a video game.

 

So basically the lore is crap
 

Isn't that what I posted? I said the missile hit that spot killing however many asari a long with the asari maintaining that barrier

 

Got an answer for the other question I asked?

 

I would say the segment that breaks the lore is crap. There's no logical reason why an explosion would be stopped by a biotic barrier. I didn't see that whole exchange like I said, and I only skimmed through the parts I did see, so I must have missed whatever else you said. I'm guessing by "other question" you meant this:

 

So its not far-fetched to stop a melee attack, but it can't stop a husk from walking through the barrier?

 

That would be far-fetched, yes. Physical contact is physical contact. If someone can put up a barrier to stop hits, they can stop entry, since a melee hit IS entry. That is, assuming the segment in question isn't being written by a hack job who foregoes the lore for the sake of cheap drama because muh feelz.

[von uber]

By respawning and then dying again? We are talking about a video game.

 

Well, then how can you use this as an argument?

 

 

That's exactly my point, and "it's video games" is why your point about gender roles is garbage.

 

[animedreamer]

By respawning and then dying again? We are talking about a video game.

 

 

I would say the segment that breaks the lore is crap. There's no logical reason why an explosion would be stopped by a biotic barrier. I didn't see that whole exchange like I said, and I only skimmed through the parts I did see, so I must have missed whatever else you said. I'm guessing by "other question" you meant this:

 

 

 

 

That would be far-fetched, yes. Physical contact is physical contact. If someone can put up a barrier to stop hits, they can stop entry, since a melee hit IS entry. That is, assuming the segment in question isn't being written by a hack job who foregoes the lore for the sake of cheap drama because muh feelz.

 

I don't even know now, maybe it was like some (lol I have to laugh at this next part), anime trope 

Spoiler

 

You know because they caught them off guard. heh heh.

[Feybrad]

At this Point, could someone catch me up on what this Thread is about?

[SnakeCode]

At this Point, could someone catch me up on what this Thread is about?

 

Started out as a thread about sexualisation, then people started getting mixed up with sexualisation and objectification. So examples of actual objectification were brought up, and there have been a few tangents on the side, the latest of which seems to be about exactly what biotic barriers can/can't protect against.