Sign me the f00k up. This game needs more female main antagonists.
Mass Effect already had as many strong female antagonist as it has male antagonists. the Eclipse leader during Samara's loyalty mission, then later Morinth, Tela Vasir, Brooks and finally femShep's clone (if you play femShep).
But, I do approve of more angry babes as antagonists. Especially Tela Vasir was awesome. I want more antagonists like her.
Mass Effect already had as many strong female antagonist as it has male antagonists. the Eclipse leader during Samara's loyalty mission, then later Morinth, Tela Vasir, Brooks and finally femShep's clone (if you play femShep).
But, I do approve of more angry babes as antagonists. Especially Tela Vasir was awesome. I want more antagonists like her.
Still should've lived and be a companion 
Mass Effect already had as many strong female antagonist as it has male antagonists. the Eclipse leader during Samara's loyalty mission, then later Morinth, Tela Vasir, Brooks and finally femShep's clone (if you play femShep).
But, I do approve of more angry babes as antagonists. Especially Tela Vasir was awesome. I want more antagonists like her.
Yeah, I mean more like the likes of TIM, Saren etc.
Yeah, I mean more like the likes of TIM, Saren etc.
But done better 
Sign me the f00k up. This game needs more female main antagonists.
But I was hoping Kevin Spacey would be the villain. Unless... Helen Mirren maybe?
But I was hoping Kevin Spacey would be the villain. Unless... Helen Mirren maybe?
No Kevin Spacey must be the mentor/father-figure
Language evolves terms are frequently co-opted by the general populace whether scientific, academic or hobbies.Of course it's political, just like the term "capitalism" is political. I'm not going to stop using that one either, because it's sheer permeating influence on the culture I live inside of qualifies it as subject to discussion even beyond a political stage. If the people who dismiss patriarchy had actually bothered to acquaint themselves with the actual definition of the term, outside of their sole association of it as a feminist buzzword, they would realize that we don't even need to look to outdated historical forms of the system. The very fact that we, both eastern and western societies, traditionally pass down paternal surnames as opposed to maternal ones is enough to make us--by definition--a patriarchal society.
https://www.google.c...sl#q=patriarchy
That's all we need, just that tradition alone, and voila...patriarchy according to it's genuine definition. So if someone wants to either deny the existence of that tradition, or simply function on a incorrect definition of the word patriarchy in order to continue to falsely perceive it as an outcry against the male sex, that's their prerogative. I just reserve the right to call it dumb, and maybe laugh at them a little. In the meanwhile, I will continue to call a rose a rose and let more fanciful people than I take on the task of adjusting meanings to suit their particular understanding of words.
Consult a trainer who knows what s/he is talking about. Dieting incorrectly, and particularly working-out on an empty stomach, will cause your body to burn muscle and make you weaker. This is a big problem among runners. Doing it wrong, for no matter how long, will always yield negative results.
Taking something you can't do, or something another can't do, and pinning it on their gender is, to borrow a phrase from TotalBiscuit, intellectually bankrupt. I can't do push-ups on one arm, it certainly isn't because I'm a man, and many women can, and that isn't because they're women.
Male and female overall strength differential notwithstanding.
I ate before and sometimes during climbing. I ate proteins afterwards. I don't think I got weaker. I simply didn't get much stronger. I'm an especially weak person, though (very slim and little muscle mass). I am certainly not representative of average fitness.
My friend however got quite strong when she was hitting the gym like crazy. I'm simply contributing personal experience on the subject.
However, if you mean to say that men and women are equally strong when they work out exactly the same, I don't believe that for a second. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be different criteria for men and women in championships. Or different recommendations for how much weight men and women should carry at the most to protect their backs from injury.
I don't even understand where all this insistence comes from. What is so bad about women being physically weaker?
And this is were you are wrong, throughout the series much of the military encounterd are primarily male. For example during priority Earth almost all marines at the fob are male. On the presidium in me1 private fredericks' group is entirely male. Most of the human c-sec corpses during the coup are male, etc. In reality there were clearly much more male military background characters that female ones. When it codes to named characters howeveref there are disproportionally more female characters.
That's because unnamed characters are generally cannon fodder, and cannon fodder are overwhelmingly, if not entirely male. Changing the society of characters in game doesn't change the society of the people making them, and in our society men are considered expendable, women aren't. Any women who die are going to be somewhat prominent, named characters because you're supposed to care when it happens, it's supposed to be a tragedy. Men dying in war is just accepted as a given, but the death of women is something to, if at all possible, be avoided. So even if humans in the ME universe are far more egalitarian in the military, the people making and playing the games aren't, and the games are still going to reflect that to elicit the emotions that the devs want from the player base.
I ate before and sometimes during climbing. I ate proteins afterwards. I don't think I got weaker. I simply didn't get much stronger. I'm an especially weak person, though (very slim and little muscle mass). I am certainly not representative of average fitness.
My friend however got quite strong when she was hitting the gym like crazy. I'm simply contributing personal experience on the subject.
However, if you mean to say that men and women are equally strong when they work out exactly the same, I don't believe that for a second. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be different criteria for men and women in championships. Or different recommendations for how much weight men and women should carry at the most to protect their backs from injury.
I don't even understand where all this insistence comes from. What is so bad about women being physically weaker?
Because honestly some people are mental. They just can't process that men in general are stronger, and will always be stronger than a woman. They cite exceptional women to prove their words, while ignoring that these women are exception and when faced against a male in the same field they lose.
Like Rijker, the Williams sisters and so on. And when they lose they lose to nobodies. Meaning even a low ranked male in whatever field/sport beats the top female. It's the reason why men and women don't compete against each other in the Olympics, cause males smashes them.
But, God knows why, for some reason, this is a fact they can't accept and will cite any excuse or anecdotal evidence, despite facts showing the opposite. There's a reason why women have far lower physical standard requirements in the army than men.
Femshep is already disqualified ingame with how ridiculous she and her twiggy physique look when sparring against Vega.
Doesn't count when you're a crazy cyborg zombie.
Or did someone not take the skin, muscle and bone enhancements? Because at the end of ME2, my Shepard was pretty jacked up.
Yeah, a man and woman with similar exercise patterns, diet and build (not quite sure how to phrase that), the guy's always going to be stronger. But I can squat lift a lot more than most people in my town... Except for the more physical guys. And here's the other thing -- I can perform just fine at fairly physical jobs (spent a few years as a lineman) without needing accommodations. I can keep up with the department just fine, including the professional firefighters. So, whatever. Unless someone's life depends on my ability to do twelve pushups in ten seconds, I'll figure out ways around my weaknesses and play to my strengths, just like every other human does.
Or did someone not take the skin, muscle and bone enhancements?
I wonder, how does Vega survive? Did she (or he) try really hard not to hurt Jimmy?
I ate before and sometimes during climbing. I ate proteins afterwards. I don't think I got weaker. I simply didn't get much stronger. I'm an especially weak person, though (very slim and little muscle mass). I am certainly not representative of average fitness.
My friend however got quite strong when she was hitting the gym like crazy. I'm simply contributing personal experience on the subject.
However, if you mean to say that men and women are equally strong when they work out exactly the same, I don't believe that for a second. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be different criteria for men and women in championships. Or different recommendations for how much weight men and women should carry at the most to protect their backs from injury.
I don't even understand where all this insistence comes from. What is so bad about women being physically weaker?
Yeah, and when I started working out, I found that I wanted to slim down because people seem to find slimmer body types more attractive so it gives me an edge when talking to people I don't know (every little advantage counts right?), and it's not possible for me. All that happened is that I got bulkier. I tried eating less, and all I accomplished was making myself tired during working out and having random bouts of fatigue in the day.
Indeed. Men have much better aptitude. That doesn't mean that the upper echelon of women might not be equal or even stronger than the lower echelon of men, but if you were to just grab random people? No dice. You're going to run into larger and stronger men more often than women.
It's just a power struggle people have. If that can force people to yield to their words and accept a false reality. They've won. But you seem strong and are able to discern fact from fiction. Their feeble attempts confuse you because you cannot fathom being that stupid.
I wonder, how does Vega survive? Did she (or he) try really hard not to hurt Jimmy?
My vanguard Shepard was punching brutes to death.
...I think she was being nice.
My vanguard Shepard was punching brutes to death.
...I think she was being nice.
But what would happen if she was full renegade?
But what would happen if she was full renegade?
PULL ALL THE TRIGGERS. BEAT VEGA UP. GO UNTOUCHED.
Go upstairs and go to the lounge.
...Wait, I did that anyway. Huh. I loved when the CAT6 dudes were freaking out about Shepard having a gun. SHE DOESN'T NEED A PISTOL SHE HAS FISTS OF JUSTICE.
No, I didn't. And I won't. It's a ridiculous thing to say. The only insistence I've seen is the notion being brought to light by those that think others are talking about it. It isn't a debate worth having because it isn't a debate. Not sure I can make that clearer.However, if you mean to say that men and women are equally strong when they work out exactly the same, I don't believe that for a second. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be different criteria for men and women in championships. Or different recommendations for how much weight men and women should carry at the most to protect their backs from injury.
I suppose it was too much to hope for that this thread would have died by the time I got back home.
Language evolves terms are frequently co-opted by the general populace whether scientific, academic or hobbies.
BBQ is a specific term for a type of indirect cooking method usually using smoke. But it basically got co-opted to mean grilling when the event a BBQ became a common outdoor grilling get together. True BBQers get upset by the miss use of the term. But honestly they need to shut up. Language moved on. If they want to specify what they are talking about great, but accept unless they do confusion will result. And it's their fault not the readers.
I need to stop typing in my phone. Errors everywhere.
I acknowledge that as words develop new cultural implications, the wiser move is to adapt to the change, for the sake of clarity and reasonable discussion at the very least. What I am rather less convinced of is that there's any sensible comparison between culturally mutable, culinary terms and ancient, ubiquitous, academic ones. Patriarchy is, as I stressed, a word that is so easily applied to a system that's woven into the fabric of our worldwide social traditions (to reiterate, the tracking of genetic descent through the male line) that to avoid it would all but render the style of our society un-discussable. And, as far as I know, we don't have any alternatives. Every synonym for patriarchy (patriarchism, patriarchship) still involves that scary "patriarch" word. People use the inaccurate term for culinary/cultural things all the time for the sake of convenience, like Champagne, Port, Al pastor. Sometimes those incorrect terms become widespread and consistent enough that they develop their own place in the discussion, or some words develop such difficult or nonexistent historical significance that they completely fall out of common use. This could happen to more political words as well, but there's no way to force it to happen and it has not happened with this particular word, outside--of course--of the estimation of some internet denizens too arrogant to bother learning the correct definition of a word before they deem themselves qualified to declare it irrelevant.
A person who chooses to exclusively regard those words, those academic ones, only with their narrow perceptions and assumptions about them rather than to investigate and utilize their proper form, is not necessarily disqualified from participating in scholarly discourse, but they are very certainly disqualified from being taken seriously in scholarly discourse.
The significant admirals, the ambassadors, the possible councillors, pretty much any human who Shepard might be expected to treat as a superior or an equal have almost all been men. This bugs me, can we have it be different in ME:A please? Or if the intent is for this to be a reflection that human society is still sexist in the 22nd century, which would be depressing but plausible, then it would be nice if this was acknowledged in universe.
Exceptions I can think of are Spacer Shepard's mother and one of the 3 admirals who get blown up at the start of ME3. And I gather there was a woman Ambassador in the books? But that's still pretty minor compared to people such as Udina, Hackett, Anderson and TIM, as well as the more minor but still high ranking figures like President Huerta, Admiral Mikhailovich and Ambassador Osoba
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
All I want is a good game that's fun to play with an engaging story. I don't really care how Bio does it.
You should be more interested in that fact, than promoting an egalitarian society in a Mass Effect game. Egalitarianism does not exist in a colonial environment, especially when the colony(ies) are located in hotly disputed territories. Humanity in said environment has one priority... survive and expand. Everything else is an unaffordable luxury.
Snip
I'm not even going to touch the arguments about genetically engineered and augmented women vs men in the fictional 2100s because they are obviously absurd.
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
Hm...
Why obvious and why absurd?
I would not be surprised at all, if human DNA is tweaked here and there. We already have said capability (cloning for one), allbeit still in its infant stage. So, tweaking humnan DNA to survive in more inhospitable worlds is a natural next step... I would also surmise that DNA Laws limiting said 'improvements' would come into existence.
"Beneficial" DNA changes such as preventing abnormalities or diseases is an advantage from a family's perspective and from (future) Medical costs perspective.
Perhaps you can expand your reasoning regarding the obvious?
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
All I want is a good game that's fun to play with an engaging story. I don't really care how Bio does it.
You should be more interested in that fact, than promoting an egalitarian society in a Mass Effect game. Egalitarianism does not exist in a colonial environment, especially when the colony(ies) are located in hotly disputed territories. Humanity in said environment has one priority... survive and expand. Everything else is an unaffordable luxury.
You don't care so much you want to keep telling us about it, apparently.
It seems to me the unaffordable luxury is under-utilising talents of half your population, anyway. Not that we know much about the actual setting of ME:A
While the military requires lots of strenuous physical activity that not every one would be able to hack, male and female, it isn't something so intense that only a small number of elite athletes could hang. It requires a good degree of physical fitness but it is no Ironman competition. Remember that these are standards that in major wars potentially millions of people have to meet. Any comparison to MMA fighters or Olympic athletes is way off base.
Physical fitness standards vary by service or country, but as a general rule they all are crafted to make sure that people are capable of doing both intense bursts and sustained periods of strenuous physical activity without getting winded (the running portion of physical fitness requirements), and some ability to lift yourself and whatever gear you might have to haul over obstacles and such (situps / pullups/ pushups, ect).
There are plenty of women capable of both meeting the physical requirements of those physical fitness tests and the tasks those PFTs are measuring strength and endurance for. Could every woman do it? No, but then neither could every man. I'm all for women having a shot at qualifying for combat arms specialties (infantry / armor / artillery). If they meet the standards and pass the same training courses as the men, why shouldn't they? The important thing however is to have the same standards.
Just wanted to add my .02 on the topic of women in the military, since some of the posts in this thread seemed to be of the 'they don't belong' variety.
Getting back to the topic of Mass Effect, I don't find it unrealistic that women are serving in the infantry in the Alliance. While I don't think there will ever be gender parity in combat arms specialties, I'd bet on most real world Western military organizations having women serving in combat arms specialties long before 2183.
You don't care so much you want to keep telling us about it, apparently.
It seems to me the unaffordable luxury is under-utilising talents of half your population, anyway. Not that we know much about the actual setting of ME:A
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
I'm emphasizing a fun game is a fun game regardless of how it's implemented. A 50-50 gender split in Power Positions, by itself, does not a fun game make. I think this is our disagreement.
Cheers
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
I'm emphasizing a fun game is a fun game regardless of how it's implemented. A 50-50 gender split in Power Positions, by itself, does not a fun game make. I think this is our disagreement.
Cheers
I've never said it makes a fun game by itself. I've said it makes a slightly better game. And I haven't asked for 50-50.
Do you think that having more high ranking women (military or civilian) would make for a worse game? How?
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut