687 réponses à ce sujet

[von uber]

Why would you spoiler the ending of a game for yourself which isn't even out?

[The Hierophant]

Why would you spoiler the ending of a game for yourself which isn't even out?

Because it prepares me ahead of time to cope with the disappoint without the need to hit a bottle or two, and or wh0re myself out to the cougars on the upper eastside out of a self destructive drive to forget it all.

[78stonewobble]

Anyone consider that maybe, just maybe we see an abundance of straight white male characters starring in games because devs have complete creative freedom over such a character? That they can do whatever they want with a straight white guy and everyone won't flip their lid?

 

When creating a female protagonist, they have to adhere to an arbitrary checklist of things they can't do with her, otherwise it's "problematic."

 

She has to be "strong"

She can't be too attractive, and definitely not sexualised

She can't be too ugly either

She can't be vulnerable 

She can't be placed in compromising positions, especially with men

She can't be inept

She can't be upstaged by a man at any point

She can't be mentally deficient in any way

 

The list goes on and on.

 

White male protagonists can be all of this and so much more, they can be cowardly, comically inept, lecherous, insane, insecure, a drunk etc. Why? Because male characters aren't expected to represent their entire gender, they are individuals, and are treated as such. They can be the butt of jokes, or ridiculed morons and it isn't taken as "they're taking a shot at all white guys." As long as devs are afraid to make women/LGBT characters because of the reaction they usually receive from the people who WANT their inclusion, they are going to stay with what's safe. They can make a Trevor Phillips or a Guybrush Threepwood and not be demonised for it. Imagine the reaction to a female counterpart to either of those two.

 

I actually think this was an interesting point. Those very "sought" conclusions on some character in a game suddenly representing all xyz... Which allways is ... very sought... 

[78stonewobble]

Bollocks. I grew up unbelievably poor. It comes down to what you make of yourself.

 

You could say the same about equal representation in games. 

 

 

 

And actually you are wrong. The population is a bellcurve. If you put a line of adversity on it, above which people will succeed. Lower adversity means more will succeed. Higher adversity means fewer people will succeed. If you compaired the bell curves of 2 different demographics and they have different adversity lines they will succeed at different percentages. So it is quite obviously not just down to what you make of yourself.

 

Either you were an outlier and thus not representative of the abilities of the population as a whole, or just the "unbelievable poor" demographic or you thankfully had other mitigating factors. 

 

Eg. running a marathon vs. running a marathon with a broken leg vs. running a marathon on a broken leg, but in a wheelchair. 

[78stonewobble]

Umm, women play the Fallout games.

 

Heck, men play women in the Fallout games.

 

There has, in fact, always been a female option, going back to the 90s with the original games.

 

So what's wrong with including that aspect in advertising?

 

I haven't ever said it was wrong, to include women in the advertising, if women were a substantial part of the customers or the intended customers. 

 

However, if a company feels itself pressured to include a woman in the advertising, even if women aren't a substantial part of the customers or the intended customers, due to a loud minority or public peer pressure...

 

Then I think it is wrong, because it gives an undemocraticly big representation to the minority.... Their oppinion is worth more... They're worth more as people... 1 persons oppinion is worth 10 other people's oppinions. 

 

And that kind of thinking, was best left in the 30's... And saddens me that humanity really still can't see what is right from wrong, even in the socalled civilized countries. 

[78stonewobble]

Nice comparison.

 

Except it's not. Women's lingerie is obviously marketed towards women because men can't or won't wear them (in the vast, vast majority of cases, and leaving transgenders aside as their own topic).

 

However, women can play Fallout 4. Men can play Fallout 4 as women. Women can play Fallout 4 as men. Such as the series has allowed since the very first game.

 

With that in mind, how in the blazes is featuring the female PC in a trailer not targeting a demographic of the series? Or should we look at the % of players who play females, and give that exact % as screentime in trailers and not one second more?

 

It is valid...

 

Now, if you had read my posts before replying, I wouldn't have to correct you interpretation of my position. 

 

I don't have a problem with a developer targeting a product for men and women to include women in the trailer. Non at all...

 

I'm arguing that like mens and womens underwear, it should be possible to target your game to one or the either, if one wishes to do so. 

 

Possibly getting better games for either. 

 

Not every game has to be to my taste... It's ok other people have games just for them...

 

THAT is my point. 

 

But if every single game has to appeal to both women and equally irregardless of customer and intended customer demographics, because that's apparently where the real justice is, lets include the elderly too, the kids, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the physically ill, republicans, democrats, all the religions and the non religion...

 

And also in underwear advertisements!

 

But again... that would also require people to be able to empathize with others, different from themselves. 

[straykat]

It is valid...

 

Now, if you had read my posts before replying, I wouldn't have to correct you interpretation of my position. 

 

I don't have a problem with a developer targeting a product for men and women to include women in the trailer. Non at all...

 

I'm arguing that like mens and womens underwear, it should be possible to target your game to one or the either, if one wishes to do so. 

 

Possibly getting better games for either. 

 

Not every game has to be to my taste... It's ok other people have games just for them...

 

THAT is my point. 

 

But if every single game has to appeal to both women and equally irregardless of customer and intended customer demographics, because that's apparently where the real justice is, lets include the elderly too, the kids, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the physically ill, republicans, democrats, all the religions and the non religion...

 

And also in underwear advertisements!

 

But again... that would also require people to be able to empathize with others, different from themselves. 

 

Imagine if movies or music were made this way. ugh..

[Hrulj]

I am against including women into something just because they are women. And women in gaming today are minefield that is best steered clear.

[78stonewobble]

1. Not any one  tv show, book, game or movie, certainly. An aggregate though? The vast majority that only send out the same monolithic message? It does influence thinking and the attitudes you hold. The entire ad industry is based off of the premise that the media can influence your attitudes and behavior. The colossal cultural attitude shifts we have undergone within less than a lifetime is in large part because of the ability the media has to disseminate the same message across a lot of people very quickly [also our ability to then get in touch with a lot of similar minded people] and sometimes very effectively.

 

 

2. This is true, interactions with people around you have substantially more influence on your attitudes and opinions than the media does. And if you consistently interact with the people who 1) shared similar attitudes and predispositions to begin with (as you would imagine you'd get with a family or people who grew up in the same town/city/country/timeframe] and 2) are exposed to the same kind of media on a daily basis it becomes a self-reinforcing loop. Everyone sees the same things and everyone just agrees that this is how things are/have always been because that's what you keep hearing.

 

2. Dissenting voices used to be able to be shushed quickly cuz they just had no one to be dissenting with and so nothing changed. Now, a nice side effect of technological advancement is that you can hook up with a bunch of other dissenting views and yell till someone listens. Now in this instance we're yelling about gender representation in games and its effects on what is considered 'acceptable' for females to do, like playing games or being a hero. Or at least that's what I'm yelling about. If you never see any female heroes pop up in the media you consume on a daily basis from the day you're born and the people around you don't either it reinforces the idea that 'you aren't supposed to do that.'

 

3. You keep hammering on the idea that women should be entitled to more representation if they made up a bigger market share. But the two things don't exist in completely separate spheres. A reason for why they don't make up a bigger market share is because they are not made to feel welcome, there are not enough cultural greenlights to say 'this is something you can do and enjoy.' Trailer representation would be a part of that. And so easy for the studios to implement.

 

1. Well let me answer it this way. 

 

There is a huge difference between remembering a brand name more likely because you've heard 117 times more than the another brand and fundamentally changing your personality and morals.

 

There is a huge difference between a thing appearing desirable and wanting to have that thing, possibly because other people in ones life, speak positively of it or want it and fundamentally changing your personality and morals.

 

Alot of games feature violence in some form or another, as per your argument this should make normal people more violent.  

 

No reputable study has ever shown this. 

 

But let me ask this... Have you played a few, some, to many games, that include violence?

 

Would you now rate yourself as dangerous to others or more violent?

 

...

 

If the answer is no on that last question and we presume you are, for all intents and purposes, an average person, since, most people are... Is it not reasonable to extrapolate no effect to most people? Which would fit the studies... 

 

2. Oh, I think equal representation have reached that positive self reinforcement loop point long ago considering the half assed arguments in this thread, with absolutely no nuance, no perspective and complete lack of focus on demographics outside mainstream political correctness. 

 

3. Yes and apparently much needed hammering. Since apparently people think it's ok to badger the entire industry to conform to ones subjective ideal versus, what I'm advocating, to demand and vote via wallets, more games for women. There is an important difference. 

 

In one... I hound the entire food industry for selling fish, because I don't like it, making it the entire food industry's responsibility that some jerk is doing something I don't like, rather than making it my personal responsibility to just not choose products from that guy. 

 

In the second I suggest and support things other than fish restaurants, but I allow for people liking fish to be able to. 

 

The first is disgustingly selfish and the other is empathetic to people different from yourself. 

[Fredward]

1. Well let me answer it this way. 

 

There is a huge difference between remembering a brand name more likely because you've heard 117 times more than the another brand and fundamentally changing your personality and morals.

 

There is a huge difference between a thing appearing desirable and wanting to have that thing, possibly because other people in ones life, speak positively of it or want it and fundamentally changing your personality and morals.

 

Alot of games feature violence in some form or another, as per your argument this should make normal people more violent.  

 

No reputable study has ever shown this. 

 

But let me ask this... Have you played a few, some, to many games, that include violence?

 

Would you now rate yourself as dangerous to others or more violent?

 

...

 

If the answer is no on that last question and we presume you are, for all intents and purposes, an average person, since, most people are... Is it not reasonable to extrapolate no effect to most people? Which would fit the studies... 

 

Actually plenty of reputable studies exist wherinwhich the affect media has on behavior is measured. Your mistake (and a lot of others') is in assuming that it's an immediate effect of X = Y, it's not. It's gradual and incremental. Consuming violent media is unlikely to make you violent. Consuming a lot violent media + a bunch of other things like an abusive household, access to weapons, behavioral problems, bullying and etc might.

 

BTWs: Just from googling media and psychology you get oodles of hits, I could furbish you with some if you'd like. It's not really in question whether or not the media has an influence on behavior/attitude/thinking, it's just a question of how.

 

3. Yes and apparently much needed hammering. Since apparently people think it's ok to badger the entire industry to conform to ones subjective ideal versus, what I'm advocating, to demand and vote via wallets, more games for women. There is an important difference. 

 

In one... I hound the entire food industry for selling fish, because I don't like it, making it the entire food industry's responsibility that some jerk is doing something I don't like, rather than making it my personal responsibility to just not choose products from that guy. 

 

In the second I suggest and support things other than fish restaurants, but I allow for people liking fish to be able to. 

 

The first is disgustingly selfish and the other is empathetic to people different from yourself. 

 

Tell me. With this whole vote with the wallet mentality you've got going on. Why do you suppose these people adapt their work? Assuming they do.

And it's not asking someone to not sell fish as much as it is also asking to maybe sell beef too. And only if no one else is selling beef. Or beef sales are too niche and I really wanna steak and not go down that weird narrow alley with the leering faces.

[WildOrchid]

Both genders where present, along with talking, and hardly anyone was confused. So what will your next excuse be Bioware?

 

And that's why it always make me LOL when people say that putting both genders in a game with customization will confuse people, especially if you say you can play both genders.

 

 

To be fair though, they already confirmed the next ME trailers will also have a female protagonist so i'm content.

[Panda]

It is valid...

 

Now, if you had read my posts before replying, I wouldn't have to correct you interpretation of my position. 

 

I don't have a problem with a developer targeting a product for men and women to include women in the trailer. Non at all...

 

I'm arguing that like mens and womens underwear, it should be possible to target your game to one or the either, if one wishes to do so. 

 

Possibly getting better games for either. 

 

Not every game has to be to my taste... It's ok other people have games just for them...

 

THAT is my point. 

 

But if every single game has to appeal to both women and equally irregardless of customer and intended customer demographics, because that's apparently where the real justice is, lets include the elderly too, the kids, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the physically ill, republicans, democrats, all the religions and the non religion...

 

And also in underwear advertisements!

 

But again... that would also require people to be able to empathize with others, different from themselves. 

 

Underwear example doesn't quite work, cause different underwears are needed for simple biological reasons. Dicks don't just fit into women's underwear, there is no space for that there. Boxers don't work that well when you don't have dick either.

 

Video games don't have similar limitations. Biology doesn't make the game harder or easier to play cause your gender. Only thing you can argue here is that genres should be something limited to genders like action for boys and romance for girls, but I do disagree with that also.

 

I have no problem if there is games that are aimed for certain genders, but when it's majority aimed for one gender cause they are claimed to be majority then it's irritating. If I return to your underwear example it would mean that instead of both sexes having their own underwears, there would be mostly underwear for one sex and when other complained people would shut them down cause that's what sells and girls won't even like underwears, they are just casual underwear wearers and thus should be happy with boxers even if boxers make them uncomfortable.

[Mathias]

Yet most British tv stations blurred out the cartoons everytime they'd pop up, so cleary the damage was allready done.

 

As well as they should, considering they have a responsibility to keep their employees safe. But the fact remains that the jokes continued. 

[9TailsFox]

And that's why it always make me LOL when people say that putting both genders in a game with customization will confuse people, especially if you say you can play both genders.

 

 

To be fair though, they already confirmed the next ME trailers will also have a female protagonist so i'm content.

Because some people are so stupid you can't believe it's possible. Like Mass effect some people didn't know they can play as female just because than you start new game it show male Shepard by default. I work at plastic moulding company as quality control and I have to teach workers and some need to explain simple logical thinks over and over. We had one literary unteachable person she was so stupid can't count how many parts done in her shift, and trust me and all my collogues try hard to explain. I am not surprised some people can be confused. Imagine average intelligent person, now imagine half people on planet are less intelligent.

[Fixers0]

As well as they should, considering they have a responsibility to keep their employees safe. But the fact remains that the jokes continued. 

 

By that reasoning we could censor everything if there are people that coud potentionally get violent over it, By that you're saying that it's de facto the publishers fault that people get murdered beceause of their freedom of speech, and in thay way you're effectively agreeing with terrorists.

[78stonewobble]

1. Underwear example doesn't quite work, cause different underwears are needed for simple biological reasons. 2. Dicks don't just fit into women's underwear, there is no space for that there. 3. Boxers don't work that well when you don't have dick either.

 

4. Video games don't have similar limitations. 5. Biology doesn't make the game harder or easier to play cause your gender. 6. Only thing you can argue here is that genres should be something limited to genders like action for boys and romance for girls, but I do disagree with that also.

 

7. I have no problem if there is games that are aimed for certain genders, but when it's majority aimed for one gender cause they are claimed to be majority then it's irritating. 8. If I return to your underwear example it would mean that instead of both sexes having their own underwears, there would be mostly underwear for one sex and when other complained people would shut them down cause that's what sells and girls won't even like underwears, they are just casual underwear wearers and thus should be happy with boxers even if boxers make them uncomfortable.

 

1. No, they are not. 

 

2. Tell that to the guys who don't care and like it. 

 

3. Tell that to the girls who don't care and like it. 

 

But I presume these people don't count in your view? They don't deserve any representation?

 

4. They have limitations on any number physical biological variables (reactionspeed, hand eye coordination and so forth) and subjective variables of taste (which are also biological in origin). 

 

5. Certainly biological gender differences do not make any difference in a vast majority of cases, but it might in a minority of cases. Certainly biological differences in individuals make a game harder/easier (quality of eyesight, hearing, reactionspeed, visual thinking vs. auditory thinking and so forth) and biological differences, be they between genders, age, sex or just between individual affect subject taste in games: eg. biology -> sexuality -> subjective preference for game xyz. So, you are mistaken... biological differences affect our approach to games, be it difficulty or taste. 

 

6. Uhm, no.... Again I'm arguing that if you make a game for blind people, it is not because you're treating deaf people like crap. It's ok for blind people to have a computer game, it does not also have to include deaf people. Nor does making a game for blind people mean, that deaf people can't have a game for them. 

 

Which incidentally are 2 groups of people, the inclusion crowd of political correctness are totally neglecting/ignoring, in the context of how represented by triple aaa games are demographic xyz really? But I guess those don't matter either. 

 

And I've never ever said anything akin to action for boys and romance for girls... I am saying, that it is ok to make, even video games, for any market demographic people want to. Like with underwear... 

 

7. They are the majority for a reason. It keeps getting implied that this reason is sexism, tho people are too polite to say it, rather than the free market place tweaking supply to current demand. 

 

We do not get to force supply to artificially increase demand. That would be enforcing our subjective tastes on other people. Like me limiting the amount of fishrestaurants, because I don't like fish. 

 

If there is a great untapped market out there of millions of women wanting to spend billions of dollars on games. Go tap it... Become a billionaire! Go for it! I'm all for it... 

 

Tho in my, admittedly, subjective statistically insignificant personal experience, few women spend as much money on games as I do. Eg. while my girlfriend do play games, they are a few favorites here and there, tho she does spend much more than me on merchandise on certain franchises (which includes movie merchandise). 

 

8. And if only underwear sold for one gender then that is what the market wants. This is what you're not getting... The market IS a representation of the amalgam of all people's tastes, wants and needs, not just biased individuals... Like myself... 

 

PS: I'm probably sure there there actually is also quire a bit of a difference in market size in gender specific underwear. I'll wager that the womens market represent quite a bit more money. 

 

And I can tell you right now, that if you're a guy and loves ladies underwear, or vice versa, it probably IS helluva annoying, that you can't see that underwear on the "right" gender for you and most certainly for equal representation it should be possible to see both genders everywhere in everything, but we just ignore this because... well there aren't enough people it affects for us to care about it. So small a demographic, we judge it irrelevant. 

[Hazegurl]

Not the point I was making, it's visibility. For instance I wouldn't play a new CoD (do they still make those?) game if they included a playable woman in their trailers, I might however if I was a woman interested in shooters heretofore unaware of the fact that you could play as a female in CoD.

 

It's not an on-off switch, it's a contributor.
 

A statement saying that more women would buy if they see a female lead just makes it seem like that alone is the deciding factor that could rake in female customers.  If it's the deciding factor, then it can't really be called a contributor. 

 

If a woman is into cod type shooters then I really don't see why she would keep away from one because a female character isn't waved in front of her face.  And if she is the type that would not buy based on that, then I would say that her decision is based more on politics.  And I see no reason why a company should adhere to anyone's personal politics. 

 

Overall I just think that running around in a game world wearing a black, white, male, female, alien, elf, dwarf, qunari skin suit is the least important factor in buying a game.  However, if a company wishes to showcase that then I have no problem with it, more power to them, but they shouldn't be bullied into doing it just to satisfy political whims either.  ie Tokenism

 

And sadly the cod franchise just released a new one not too long ago.  I even saw a streamer I like promoting it in a sponsored stream even though he claimed many times to hate the franchise. smh.  I'm not mad at him, everyone needs the money, but I know not to trust any game reviews coming from him.

[pdusen]

The writers shouldn't be defining the traits of the protagonist at all.  If what you describe is ever a problem, the issue is that the players aren't permitted to define their characters.

 

We need more blank slates.

 

Sylvius, I disagree with practically everything you say, but I like that I can look at a post and instantly know what your opinion on it will be.

[Fredward]

If it's the deciding factor, then it can't really be called a contributor.

 

Sure it can, if you continuously stack a camel's back with straws and the last one you put on breaks it can be either the contributor or the deciding factor depending on how you look at it. Though I suppose choosing to heap your camels back with straws in the first place was probably the deciding factor.

 

If a woman is into cod type shooters then I really don't see why she would keep away from one because a female character isn't waved in front of her face.  And if she is the type that would not buy based on that, then I would say that her decision is based more on politics.  And I see no reason why a company should adhere to anyone's personal politics.

 

Companies adhere to people's politics all the time, it just gets no mention the majority of the time because its the majority's politics.

 

As to why it was that one trailer that made her decide to take it up maybe that was her last straw, but like a  good  last straw not a bad one. No back breaking was involved in the making of this decision. The human need to be represented, to see someone or something 'like us' is strong so maybe that was the one thing she needed to get into CoD and gaming in general.

 

I might want to go to Brazil to try some ayahuasca, contributors to this might be my natural interest in getting high, wanting to see more of the world and some stories I've heard on the internet but maybe I've also read some horror stories about organ stealing and so I'm kinda puttering around on the border of actually doing it. But then my grandmother dies and gives my like a fuckton of cash and I decide that potential organ stealing isn't going to stop me any more, no sir, and then I leave and I experience ayahuasca and life changes forever. Or my organs get stolen. But we'll focus on the former, I might never have gone if there wasn't that one last contributor. My life might never have changed, I might never have been introduced to a different perspective or way of being.

 

Overall I just think that running around in a game world wearing a black, white, male, female, alien, elf, dwarf, qunari skin suit is the least important factor in buying a game.  However, if a company wishes to showcase that then I have no problem with it, more power to them, but they shouldn't be bullied into doing it just to satisfy political whims either.  ie Tokenism

 

Is there a meaningful distinction between being 'bullied' into making a decision and servicing a market you're afraid will reject you if you add some new stuff?

[rashie]

Spoiler

I heard your son is a robot, betrays you, and is the final boss.

 

Y: What Nuke?
A: Kill Son
B: Nuke Boston.
X: Sarcastic

Best dialogue system of all time.

Bethesda tier writing right there, things would have been so much better if they had writers like the folks over at Obsidian.

[Panda]

1. No, they are not. 

 

2. Tell that to the guys who don't care and like it. 

 

3. Tell that to the girls who don't care and like it. 

 

But I presume these people don't count in your view? They don't deserve any representation?

 

4. They have limitations on any number physical biological variables (reactionspeed, hand eye coordination and so forth) and subjective variables of taste (which are also biological in origin). 

 

5. Certainly biological gender differences do not make any difference in a vast majority of cases, but it might in a minority of cases. Certainly biological differences in individuals make a game harder/easier (quality of eyesight, hearing, reactionspeed, visual thinking vs. auditory thinking and so forth) and biological differences, be they between genders, age, sex or just between individual affect subject taste in games: eg. biology -> sexuality -> subjective preference for game xyz. So, you are mistaken... biological differences affect our approach to games, be it difficulty or taste. 

 

6. Uhm, no.... Again I'm arguing that if you make a game for blind people, it is not because you're treating deaf people like crap. It's ok for blind people to have a computer game, it does not also have to include deaf people. Nor does making a game for blind people mean, that deaf people can't have a game for them. 

 

Which incidentally are 2 groups of people, the inclusion crowd of political correctness are totally neglecting/ignoring, in the context of how represented by triple aaa games are demographic xyz really? But I guess those don't matter either. 

 

And I've never ever said anything akin to action for boys and romance for girls... I am saying, that it is ok to make, even video games, for any market demographic people want to. Like with underwear... 

 

7. They are the majority for a reason. It keeps getting implied that this reason is sexism, tho people are too polite to say it, rather than the free market place tweaking supply to current demand. 

 

We do not get to force supply to artificially increase demand. That would be enforcing our subjective tastes on other people. Like me limiting the amount of fishrestaurants, because I don't like fish. 

 

If there is a great untapped market out there of millions of women wanting to spend billions of dollars on games. Go tap it... Become a billionaire! Go for it! I'm all for it... 

 

Tho in my, admittedly, subjective statistically insignificant personal experience, few women spend as much money on games as I do. Eg. while my girlfriend do play games, they are a few favorites here and there, tho she does spend much more than me on merchandise on certain franchises (which includes movie merchandise). 

 

8. And if only underwear sold for one gender then that is what the market wants. This is what you're not getting... The market IS a representation of the amalgam of all people's tastes, wants and needs, not just biased individuals... Like myself... 

 

PS: I'm probably sure there there actually is also quire a bit of a difference in market size in gender specific underwear. I'll wager that the womens market represent quite a bit more money. 

 

And I can tell you right now, that if you're a guy and loves ladies underwear, or vice versa, it probably IS helluva annoying, that you can't see that underwear on the "right" gender for you and most certainly for equal representation it should be possible to see both genders everywhere in everything, but we just ignore this because... well there aren't enough people it affects for us to care about it. So small a demographic, we judge it irrelevant. 

 

There is simply obvious biological differences what contribute in why there is need for different underwear. Of course you can wear whatever you want, but your body might fight against it. I might have love for shoes that are sizes smaller than my feet, but my physiology will not allow me to wear them either. Do you really think there is big enough biological differences to divide video games to sexes? I certainly don't. Your example doesn't work cause you are talking about video games in general, form of entertainment and comparing it to something that our physiology divides quite clearly.

 

Also gender doesn't affect difference of likes that much. People are different. Not all boys like action and not all girls like romance. Same with those biological things, there is girls around with better reaction times than some boys have. And what I have read about that is that the difference is very small and shouldn't really been noticeable when playing video games. If I play Skyrim on my PC it doesn't affect me at all that my gender has averagely slower reaction time.

 

I have already said that no all games don't need to be done two genders in mind. There would be no issue if there was some games like that, there is issue when majority are like that. There is need of inclusion, not only women you are right. Races, LGBT+, disabled people. Not every game has to be for everyone, but there is no reason cut large amount of people off.

[JamieCOTC]

Both genders where present, along with talking, and hardly anyone was confused. So what will your next excuse be Bioware?

 

I would think ME:A would have no problem following suit.

[Kierro Ren]

Hey, this thread's still open. I was worried the mods would of shut it down. Glad, we're able to talk about stupid, non-important, bulls*** in the Andromeda forum. Ptt Off topic forum? What a joke.

 

Spoiler

If by now you didn't know, that was sarcasm. Plus, Fallout 4 protagonists vs ME protagonists. Fallout 4 has two separate characters a husband and a wife. Play husband wife likely dies, play wife, husband likely dies. Mass Effect? Same fking character and name, different gender. No separate Shepherd or relation to each other. Now mods, please close this thread,

[78stonewobble]

1. There is simply obvious biological differences what contribute in why there is need for different underwear. 2. Of course you can wear whatever you want, but your body might fight against it. 3. I might have love for shoes that are sizes smaller than my feet, but my physiology will not allow me to wear them either. 4. Do you really think there is big enough biological differences to divide video games to sexes? I certainly don't. 5. Your example doesn't work cause you are talking about video games in general, form of entertainment and comparing it to something that our physiology divides quite clearly.

 

6. Also gender doesn't affect difference of likes that much. 7. People are different. Not all boys like action and not all girls like romance. Same with those biological things, there is girls around with better reaction times than some boys have. 8. And what I have read about that is that the difference is very small and shouldn't really been noticeable when playing video games. 9. If I play Skyrim on my PC it doesn't affect me at all that my gender has averagely slower reaction time.

 

10. I have already said that no all games don't need to be done two genders in mind. There would be no issue if there was some games like that, there is issue when majority are like that. 11. There is need of inclusion, not only women you are right. Races, LGBT+, disabled people. 12. Not every game has to be for everyone, but there is no reason cut large amount of people off.

 

1. No... There is no biological limit on the underwear you can wear. You can stick your junk in a thong... no problem...

 

2. Yes, because there is no biological limit on the underwear you can wear... There is however a biological difference for what you might like to wear. 

 

3. You can let the rear of your foot hang out tho... I'll admit that here there are physical limitations, however those are not present in the underwear analogy. 

 

4. If there were no difference, there were no problem. Women/men would play the same games equally... 

 

5. It works completely. 

 

6. Not alot, I agree... but enough.

 

7. I agree, not everyone is the same. And I have never said that an average or an overall tendency for Y people to do/be X = all Y people are/is X, because that would be a stupid position to take. 

 

8. If there were no tendencies all games regardless of content would naturally have around a 50/50 divide between genders. Obviously there are tendencies. 

 

9. No, not directly... but it is plausibe, that if x has slower response times, then x has a slightly less tendency to pick fastpaced games, because in slightly more cases the experience will be worse. Combine that with any number of other tiny difference and overall it will lead to X or Y people liking A or B more and thus a difference in sales and interest. 

 

10. I'm glad you put it like that, because this is where my beef lies. When people say "the industry must change" (implicitly everyone in it), it can very easily be construed as meaning change everything to conform to xyz. Maybe I'm misunderstanding people... but a better way to say it, imho, is to say the industry must expand... to include more xyz. Meaning room for new franchises and new products for x, y, z or any combination of them. 

 

11. Personally, I don't believe in inclusion for the sake of inclusion. I believe in inclusion for those who want's to be included. 

 

12. No, reason you can think of. If there's someone out there... wanting to build the stripper mancave simulator 2016, he/she/it should do so and it's not their responsibility to include xyz in their customerbase (unless they wanna sell to xyz). Stating that "theres no reason to cut large amount of people off", it to enforce your subjective tastes on others. 

 

...

 

I really can't see humanity moving forward by repeating the same tired old mistakes, just with different people in the different roles. It's not justice and it does not make up for previous injustices, tho I'm pretty sure that giving 3/4ths of the continental united states back to the native americans would make them happier...  

[prosthetic soul]

No it isn't. It's just whining.

Let's flip this and and say Male Shepard was the sole narrator.  You'd be on the other side of that fence shouting to the heavens "SEXIST, WHERE IS JENNIFER HALE?!?, CIS SCUM!!!!"