Discrimination in gaming

[Twintix]

*pops in head against better judgement*

Did somebody say "complaining"? No you didn't. And I'm not here to complain, but I'd just like to share an opinion and I don't feel like starting a thread about it.

I dislike most skimpy character designs, but not for the reason you might think first.

I think they're boring.
I think they're lazy.
I think they're, quite frankly, a little bit insulting towards men.

Why? Because, to me, it kinda suggests that the designers think that guys won't care about a girl character unless she looks like she forgot to wash her clothes this week and was left with nothing but her underwear. Come on, guys, you deserve more credit than that!

Now, that being said, I don't really have anything against sexy characters as a whole. While a bit more variation would be nice, I'm not calling for a ban on hot characters.
I just think that it's extremely easy to...do them wrong. Just all looks and no substance. Does that make sense? There are designs that I feel are done well, like Bayonetta. It's sexy without being...obnoxious? There's the open back and a bit of cleavage, but that's it. No, I don't find catsuits all that sexualizing, actually. (I know it's shapeshifting, leaving her naked, but I haven't played Bayonetta in a while, so I don't remember how often it's activated)

I kinda like Sharla's default look in Xenoblade, as well, for the same reason. I mean, it's a bit blatant, but not outrageous. And Melia is all kinds of classy. Seven's (As in, 7th party member, called Seven because spoilers) different kinds of armor are a little bit silly, but I think that Xenoblade gets a pass on this because everyone can be stripped down to their underwear. Yes, even the guys[footnote]Except for Riki, but he was pretty much naked to begin with...And he's a small furry animal...[/footnote]. It feels a bit like fair game. And all these characters have actual character. There's more to them than just "BOOBS!".
(Of course these aren't the only examples, but they're the freschest in my mind right now)

Uh, what I'd also like to say is that I think that sexy outfits that are practical at the same time can be done. Wasn't there an outrage about a year ago or so (Or was it longer?) where a female's armor was changed in concept art because she was wearing what was essentially a bikini top while the male had "proper" clothing? A lot of people cried censorship, IIRC, but I actually liked the re-design better. It was still sexy, but it also matched the male's clothing. I can't remember what game it was, though...

Ah yeah, that was a bit off-topic, maybe.
On-topic? People will always complain about something. Telling them to not complain won't really do anything, I'm afraid.
But sometimes, I'm starting to wonder who I find more irritating; These so-called SJWs or the people complaining about them. Because while the "SJWs" are more outrageous (Though I'm fairly certain a good chunk of them are trolls who just want others to look bad), they are generally easier to avoid for me. The people complaining about them, though? Not so much. For me, at least. Someone might have the opposite experience.

I think some of it comes down to what bugs you the most; People complaining, or people complaining about people complaining.
And some of us are complaining about people complaining about people complaining. [small]Ow my head...[/small]
That's probably also kinda irritating.

Well, that's just what I think. I just wanted to say that. I'm leaving before things get really nasty. If you disagree, please let us have a civil discussion about it.

*pops out*

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

How about we just retire "strong female character" permanently? I'm sick to death of SFCs. It seems that it's the only character type that isn't window dressing. What about weak female characters? What about psychotic female characters? Or intelligent, frightened, glamorous, ugly, fat, angry, happy, funny, old, young, pregnant, secretive, stupid, deceitful, jaded, sincere or any other facet of being that isn't "strong"? Why not a drug-addict woman? Why not a scientist? Why not any possible thing that could define a person?

If I want a strong female character, there's already any recent Scarlett Johansenn film, any Milla Jovovich film, or the idiot from the first Captain America movie that got her own TV show. Instead of "strong", just give us female characters.

I expect one issue in games specifically is that for every body type, a wholly different character model along with new textures is required. Skyrim f.ex had 3 different human models...male, female and child. If each gender had 5 different models for fat, thin, pregnant, whatever, it increases the game's overhead a lot, not to mention issues with animating/mocapping the different models. Except for sandboxes, games are rarely long enough or have a scope with enough breadth to justify it. For sandboxes...it is a little weird. FC4 was very disconcerting....an entire island nation where every single person was 28-35 (or at least had the body of a young adult), with only one teenager, no kids and not a single pregnant woman. Why? Because it's a video game and it's not going to be realistic.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Discrimination in gaming?

Where? I don't see it. In my 20+ years of gaming experience I have Kicked, shotgunned, curbstomped, driven into just about every combination of race, gender, sexuality , nationality and species. you can name.

I've also been the victim of similar at the hands of combination of the above. So erm.. where's the discrimination...protagonists? Uhm lets see, nope I can say I have done the curbstomping as every one of the afforementioned combinations. SO again... not seeing it.

Her'es a simple test. Street FIghter 4. 7th match. Your opponent is CHun Li... has any male gamer ever said.. 'Ah.. easy fight'. Nope the expression is usually along the lines of. Oh FUck not this ball buster.

 

[Fox12]

I'm not sure what to say. You're block of text was a little sick, like I was reading Tom Wayne Gacey's fluffy pink diary. Apparently the only reason a sad, lonely, hairy little man (your words, not mine) would want to save someone is if they get some "princess pussy." Because there's no other reason help someone, right? If you accept that point of view then games are nothing more then escapist fantasies for the socially repressed. But games can be so much more.


Are you implying that there is a problem with escapist fantasies? And that game's are either that, or something "more" (whatever the hell that means)? We can't have both? There's no middle ground? What's this ugly "truth" some archaic horror game MAKES one see?

First of all, there's nothing necessarily wrong with escapism as entertainment. Most of our popular fiction is escapism, and that's completely fine. However, escapism is much less valuable then a thematically complex piece of fiction that has something to say. Games can be fun, but they shouldn't limit themselves. They should be willing to push boundaries and reach for the stars. They should be willing to ask hard questions and deal with taboo subjects in the same way that books and movies do. They should be ambitious. That's not quite what I was complaining about, though. I was complaining about a specific type of escapism that was being discussed in the OP. The OP seems to imply that men are somehow better at dealing with danger then women, and that the sole motivator for rescuing a "damsel" is because the player wants some "princess pussy," as if the value of life is based upon physical appearance. This is rather demented, but the OP makes it worse by implying that these types of games are essentially just the power fantasies of basement dwellers. Thus games are reduced, in the OP's statement, to the pornographic imaginings of adolescent male teenagers. I don't consider this a healthy attitude, and I don't consider this a healthy form of escapism. And, yes, I think games should aspire to something more. If that makes me pretentious then give me a pair of glasses and a scarf.

There's room for healthy entertainment, and there's room for art. And sometimes the two blend together, like with Lord of the Rings. Good fiction can entertain and distract you from life's problems (which is fine!). Great fiction makes you confront the problems of the world.

As for Silent Hill 2, it's widely considered the greatest horror game of all time, and is a massively important benchmark in video game storytelling. It's also one of the most subtle pieces of fiction in gaming. Saying that it's some "obscure archaic horror game" is rather disingenuous, even if you don't know much about it. In any case, the central theme deals with the issue of male sexuality and aggression. It really drives home that the lustful portrayal of women in media is unhealthy for everyone.

 

[Danny Dowling]

Can I just make everyone aware of the fact that a blue hedgehog has been saving his home from industrialisation from a tyrant ball shaped flamboyantly evil genius for 20+ years and never actually needed a female to save and it's most famous work is WITHOUT the female?

Yeah.

 

[Redryhno]

There's room for healthy entertainment, and there's room for art. And sometimes the two blend together, like with Lord of the Rings. Good fiction can entertain and distract you from life's problems (which is fine!). Great fiction makes you confront the problems of the world.

No, good fiction creates an area where you can escape into. Great fiction lets you do that and then lets you leave and you get new perspectives on situations without beating you over the head with it, or even better, lets you take it as great and nothing else or lets you use it as an analog. Confrontation of the real world is not something you pick up fiction for(well, historical maybe), there's non-fiction for that.

LoTR is not remembered because it's a retelling of the early part of the 20th century, it's remembered because of the rich history of the world and epic fantasy of it all spawning alot of stuff from it. Red Badge of Courage isn't remembered for the politics surrounding the Civil War, it's remembered for how realistically it was written by somebody that was born thirty years after it was over purely through looking at history books and letter interviews to veterans. Kurt Vonnegut isn't remembered for Slaughterhouse Five, he's remembered for his satirical and just generally amusing writing that anyone can pick up and enjoy without being smashed in the face with the real world problems and themes present in his stories.

And the Silent Hill series is good, don't get me wrong, incredibly atmospheric, and has some of the best visuals horror games get, but their stories are not exactly subtle, that's very much the wrong word for it. More like a pendulum swing between vague and eye-stabbingly obvious.

 

[CritialGaming]

First of all, there's nothing necessarily wrong with escapism as entertainment. Most of our popular fiction is escapism, and that's completely fine. However, escapism is much less valuable then a thematically complex piece of fiction that has something to say. Games can be fun, but they shouldn't limit themselves. They should be willing to push boundaries and reach for the stars. They should be willing to ask hard questions and deal with taboo subjects in the same way that books and movies do. They should be ambitious. That's not quite what I was complaining about, though. I was complaining about a specific type of escapism that was being discussed in the OP. The OP seems to imply that men are somehow better at dealing with danger then women, and that the sole motivator for rescuing a "damsel" is because the player wants some "princess pussy," as if the value of life is based upon physical appearance. This is rather demented, but the OP makes it worse by implying that these types of games are essentially just the power fantasies of basement dwellers. Thus games are reduced, in the OP's statement, to the pornographic imaginings of adolescent male teenagers. I don't consider this a healthy attitude, and I don't consider this a healthy form of escapism. And, yes, I think games should aspire to something more. If that makes me pretentious then give me a pair of glasses and a scarf.

Actually my examples had nothing to do with those distressed princesses being the supreme gaming situation. Nor where they to imply that the only reason gamers play games was to get the metaphorical poon at the end. Those examples where mean to show context in which by swapping the male and female characters ruin the "Drama" of that said situation; in this case making it a "man in distress" and the player being the badass Eliza Dushku-type going on a bloody mission to save the day. The point was to show that sometimes the woman HAS to be the helpless one because the reverse doesn't hold the same weight. It simply doesn't.

But that is simply one type of situation. Merely an example to show that sometimes it is okay for a woman to be depicted as helpless. Frankly those stories no longer hold much weight and thankfully gaming as a medium as tried to move on from that. However the example still exists figuratively from time to time.

That doesn't mean that I meant woman can't handle danger as good as men. Hell Lara Croft was a complete badass in the reboot and I look forward to see what she becomes in the next installment. She is far from a damsel even though she is dragged through quite the amount of distress. Again it just shows all the examples of strong female characters that are both deep and not overtly sexuallized, which are clearly there even in mainstream games.

I think the problem is that when someone says they want more strong, non-sexual, female characters only fight you when you drop a metric ton of examples of those woman in their lap. They turn around an point at the one example of a woman getting beat up in the streets of GTA or a sniper dressed in skin-tight purple leotards for some reason. So it turns out that what people actually want is to ONLY have the good examples of woman and will rub all the bad examples in your face like a dog who wet the carpet.

And they wont even show you the bad examples in the context of the whole package.

 

[Fox12]

There's room for healthy entertainment, and there's room for art. And sometimes the two blend together, like with Lord of the Rings. Good fiction can entertain and distract you from life's problems (which is fine!). Great fiction makes you confront the problems of the world.

No, good fiction creates an area where you can escape into. Great fiction lets you do that and then lets you leave and you get new perspectives on situations without beating you over the head with it, or even better, lets you take it as great and nothing else or lets you use it as an analog. Confrontation of the real world is not something you pick up fiction for(well, historical maybe), there's non-fiction for that.

Why not? Fiction allows you to explore ideas that can't be explored properly in non-fiction. This is particularly true for fantasy, and even sci-fi. That was the biggest argument in defense of Tolkien's work. The story may be untrue, but thematically the work can still be relevant to our own lives. This doesn't mean that there has to be a one for one substitution between the real world and the fictional work (though there certainly can be) but it's still relevant to our daily lives.

LoTR is not remembered because it's a retelling of the early part of the 20th century...

That's because it's not : P

Tolkien got super pissy over that, funnily enough. It brought out the grumpy old man in him. There were definitely some religious ideas at play, and it definitely confronted the idea of good, evil, power, and corruption in life, but it wasn't an allegory for the 20th century.

 

[Redryhno]

snip

Whether or not it is, that is basically the first thing said about it in literary discussion circles. I consider Death of the Author one of the stupidest ideas in somewhat recent memory, but it's what's used alot of the time nowadays. Not that I said it was an allegory in the first place, simply that it contained those elements and have connections to certain events.

And you're right, fiction allows you to do it, but something that you're forgetting is people that talk about it like that don't want fictional works, they want propaganda disguised as fiction. The key difference being that one aims to be entertaining first, and the other a smack-full in the face of politics with entertainment somewhere near the bottom of the list they need. I even said that fiction can give you different perspectives on issues, but you get back what you put into it and great fiction doesn't require you to go looking for it or to exhaust yourself reading through it.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

snip

I prefer the skimpier design on characters (male and female) because it makes them look sleeker, and complements their physique. It makes them look more like characters rather than; a bulky mass of metal/leather, or some ass that somehow stumbled out of a coffee shop and into a jungle.

First of all, there's nothing necessarily wrong with escapism as entertainment. Most of our popular fiction is escapism, and that's completely fine. However, escapism is much less valuable then

a thematically complex piece of fiction that has something to say.

Oh boy, this train of thought appears before me again. First of all "complexity" in this case is going to vary on interpretation, secondly before a certain game out, you could (with a lot of time and dedication) say any game has "something to say" (again, whatever the hell that means).

Games can be fun, but they shouldn't limit themselves. They should be willing to push boundaries and reach for the stars. They should be willing to ask hard questions and deal with taboo subjects in the same way that books and movies do. They should be ambitious. That's not quite what I was complaining about, though. I was complaining about a specific type of escapism that was being discussed in the OP. The OP seems to imply that men are somehow better at dealing with danger then women, and that the sole motivator for rescuing a "damsel" is because the player wants some "princess pussy," as if the value of life is based upon physical appearance. This is rather demented, but the OP makes it worse by implying that these types of games are essentially just the power fantasies of basement dwellers. Thus games are reduced, in the OP's statement, to the pornographic imaginings of adolescent male teenagers. I don't consider this a healthy attitude, and I don't consider this a healthy form of escapism. And, yes, I think games should aspire to something more. If that makes me pretentious then give me a pair of glasses and a scarf.

What or who's boundaries? Define hard "hitting questions", because every time I see that phrase paired with a book or a movie it's usually common sense shit dressed up in wordplay or complete bullshit from the director's end. What do you mean by "deal"? As far taboo stuff goes, video games have just as much, if not more taboo subject in them as books, and especially movies. And you're still being incredibly vague about this "more", because everything you're asking for (that isn't subjective and abstract) video games already have.

There's room for healthy entertainment, and there's room for art. And sometimes the two blend together, like with Lord of the Rings. Good fiction can entertain and distract you from life's problems (which is fine!). Great fiction makes you confront the problems of the world.

Art is the vaguest concept ever. Anything can count as art, meaning, healthy entertainment is art.

As for Silent Hill 2, it's widely considered the greatest horror game of all time, and is a massively important benchmark in video game storytelling. It's also one of the most subtle pieces of fiction in gaming. Saying that it's some "obscure archaic horror game" is rather disingenuous, even if you don't know much about it. In any case, the central theme deals with the issue of male sexuality and aggression. It really drives home that the lustful portrayal of women in media is unhealthy for everyone

Some may consider it the greatest benchmark in video game storytelling, but you can easily argue that for a lot of games. Subtlety is easy to bullshit so you might want to hold off on that claim, and doesn't necessarily equate to good (not accounting for taste.) "Issues", perhaps for some men, but that the problem with subjects like this, they don't apply to all people. Also "Lustful" is subjective here, too often people confuse lust with attraction.

In summary: "more" means "appeals to me". The "ugly truth" of Silent Hill 2 is actually just one interoperation of something.

 

[beastro]

he media has always had a negative stance on gaming for some unknown fucking reason, maybe because most of right-wing news dickheads are too stupid to figure out how to handle a controller.

Funny seeing people's bias in things like this, showing how they want things to be.

The media, regardless of bent, are happily ignorant of games. See how it was the left side that raised a stink over Hot Coffee.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Can I just make everyone aware of the fact that a blue hedgehog has been saving his home from industrialisation from a tyrant ball shaped flamboyantly evil genius for 20+ years and never actually needed a female to save

Sonic's female counterpart Amy Rose was introduced as a damsel in distress in Sonic the Hedgehog CD. "The story of Sonic CD follows Sonic the Hedgehog as he utilizes time travel to save Amy Rose and Little Planet from Doctor Eggman and Metal Sonic". Sonic also has to save her in Sonic Adventure and Sonic Lost World. Sonic switches damsels in Sonic '06, where he has to save Elise - several times.

Sonic's save-the-damsel shtick hasn't been as exclusive as, say, Mario's routine of saving Peach. But it's there alright.

 

[asdfen]

go fund female run game publishing company if you want to be reprsented more. start a female only project on kicksarter.

leave my male games with violence, tits and pricess in trouble out of it.

 

[l33t.heathen]

It is? Gaming is diverse? Technically yes, but not in a "We don't need to worry about representation anymore forever!" way. Because I struggle to think of 5 canon homosexual or transexual main characters.

When transsexuals/homosexuals make up a majority or even a significant minority of the purchasing power for video games that will change. According to the Williams Institute approximately 3.5% of the population fall into the LGBT category. That isn't enough to warrant catering to. Just straight up consider how many automobile makers would make a car with pink polka dots in 3.5% of the population would be interested in it. The number of those that game is probably much lower closer to 1% is my guess. Diversity for diversity's sake is stupid. I can relate to a black man, a blue women, a giant fuzzy half bear half cow thing, if you can't relate to someone of a different gender the problem lies in you not with me.

 

[Erttheking]

It is? Gaming is diverse? Technically yes, but not in a "We don't need to worry about representation anymore forever!" way. Because I struggle to think of 5 canon homosexual or transexual main characters.

When transsexuals/homosexuals make up a majority or even a significant minority of the purchasing power for video games that will change. According to the Williams Institute approximately 3.5% of the population fall into the LGBT category. That isn't enough to warrant catering to. Just straight up consider how many automobile makers would make a car with pink polka dots in 3.5% of the population would be interested in it. The number of those that game is probably much lower closer to 1% is my guess. Diversity for diversity's sake is stupid. I can relate to a black man, a blue women, a giant fuzzy half bear half cow thing, if you can't relate to someone of a different gender the problem lies in you not with me.

Did I say that I can't relate to a person like that? No I didn't, kindly stop putting words in my mouth. For that matter, I didn't say anything about diversity for the sake of diversity either. Frankly if gaming as an industry can't explore concepts of homosexuality or transexuality at all, not even a few of the thousands of games then, well, it's pretty damn creatively sterile. Nothing good comes from staying in comfort zones unless you're honing what you're working on. Frankly homosexuals and transexuals just represent a whole new world of possibilities for writers to explore. I'd much rather see them over the same tired cliches we get over and over.

 

[Redryhno]

Did I say that I can't relate to a person like that? No I didn't, kindly stop putting words in my mouth. For that matter, I didn't say anything about diversity for the sake of diversity either. Frankly if gaming as an industry can't explore concepts of homosexuality or transexuality at all, not even a few of the thousands of games then, well, it's pretty damn creatively sterile. Nothing good comes from staying in comfort zones unless you're honing what you're working on. Frankly homosexuals and transexuals just represent a whole new world of possibilities for writers to explore. I'd much rather see them over the same tired cliches we get over and over.

The only problem is that even if you're gonna be making a game set purely around homo/trans issues with nothing else, you are going to run out of things to write really quickly. I mean, they're people but the only thing different would be what the models look like in comparison to other games. And really, AAA is the exact wrong place to be demanding this stuff, AA and A markets are basically dead in the water and have been for some time, with indies being the only other thing(and honestly for every Papers, Please, Sunrider Academy, Ironclad, and Grow Home, there's a thousand badly written CYOA's, and crap like what the LRR crew does for Watch and Play, so expect very little in the way of good writing there as a general rule. Most of the good stuff comes from the fans anyways.)

Personally, the indie explosion is both the worst and best thing that's happened to gaming in the last few years, because you've got some really good ideas and games, but then you've got alot more trash and serviceable games with people like Johnathan Blow and Phil Fish behind them that thinks the sun rises and sets for them.

Indies are gonna make what they want, or go e-begging to do it, and the stuff you're talking about wanting will get there, but it's never going to be all that popular, because it's sorta boring if you've got the same story and settings being used with limited and/or boring/repetitive/tedious gameplay except this time with a gay T-girl. So why not just make it as aesthetically generic as possible and work on the gameplay part of it to get it to a perfect sheen. And let's face it, indies aren't exactly known for alot that's not essentially gimmicky or decent rehashs of old mechanics(Gravity Ghost, Braid, Transistor, PlantsvZombies, Survival games in general, etc.). There's exceptions to the rule like the Newgrounders and those like them that shifted into fully-fledged devs themselves, but they're few and much too far between. Heck, alot of indie games are just fifteen year old flash games with a new artstyle and voice acting slapped onto it, Popcap is an entire company that's made a living off of doing that stuff.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Yet both of these are video came characters. That's sort of the crux of the problem, which you seem to see but just don't want to admit is a problem.

Lets face it, if there was a female equivalent of the Heavy, Anita and her army would cry about how people are making fat women out to be stupid and only useful as dumb muscle whereas when it comes to the heavy nobody cares. The heavy is a tanky class with a few jokes based on a stereotype used to improve the experience of the game. The character you want is six books worth of symbolism and a big 'fuck you' to the cis white scum which uses said game as a vehicle to deliver a message regardless of whether it improves the game or not. Dev's realize this. They want their game to sell, not be posted about positively on a few dozen blogs.
Now knowing the reason for the lack of obviously ugly characters, lets move on. There are plenty of examples of non-sexualized females in gaming, you just tend to ignore it.
He even mentioned some in the OP. A character doesn't have to be stereotypically ugly like the heavy to not be sexualised. Just look at Mirrors Edge. Or cortana, pre Halo 4.
People have used ugly = bad forever, regardless of gender. Look at Wario compared to Mario. Look at parents telling kids their nose will grow if they lie. Look at war propaganda if you want. Its not something people invented to oppress women, sorry about that, and few angry nobodies on the internet aren't going to change such well ingrained symbolism.
So until the day comes where when these ugly characters you so dearly wish for won't result in a million threads on here about how all women are being shown as ugly or lazy or whatever else, you won't get them.

 

[Danny Dowling]

Can I just make everyone aware of the fact that a blue hedgehog has been saving his home from industrialisation from a tyrant ball shaped flamboyantly evil genius for 20+ years and never actually needed a female to save

Sonic's female counterpart Amy Rose was introduced as a damsel in distress in Sonic the Hedgehog CD. "The story of Sonic CD follows Sonic the Hedgehog as he utilizes time travel to save Amy Rose and Little Planet from Doctor Eggman and Metal Sonic". Sonic also has to save her in Sonic Adventure and Sonic Lost World. Sonic switches damsels in Sonic '06, where he has to save Elise - several times.

Sonic's save-the-damsel shtick hasn't been as exclusive as, say, Mario's routine of saving Peach. But it's there alright.

Oh, see I've played through Sonic CD a few times and I didn't even realise that was the point.

Furthermore, can we all grow up and stop using Mario as a point? You know no one really cares that much about Peach in those games yeah?

The, and I use this term loosely, "plot point" of Mario is scarcely anything more than an excuse for the game to exist. Literally, no one plays the game with the end goal being to save Peach, no one cares about her involvement in the game. What they do care about is traversing the level fighting various different opponents and finally beating Bowser. That's the important thing in the Mario games, going through increasingly more difficult levels and beating Bowser.

Also I was aware that Sonic saves a Princess or whatever in '06, but note I used the term "need" rather than something like "have". Same applies to Mario here, there is no need for Peach in the classic Mario games past the excuse she creates to have the game. You could literally replace her with a "destroy-the-world-o-bomb" and it'd do little to the game as a whole.

I struggle to be part of these... debates(?) for too long, when you start putting a schtick to Sonic the Hedgehog about damsels in distress it all get's beyond the point of logical thinking and into the realm of shit-talk and arguing for arguments sake.

 

[L. Declis]

I'm just going to throw my usual response.

I have several game artists who I am friendly with, and are utterly ignorant of this whole diversity thing.

I asked them "Why do you always draw girls in these ways, being sexy and half naked and usualy flaunting it?"

Both men and the one woman replied "Well, basically, it's because they look better. If we are going to spend literal hours drawing and making a character, why waste it on ugly people and not attractive people? Even if we scar them up, they'll still be cool. No one likes the fat, boring character, and it's a waste of money and time to design it."

------------------------------------------------

I do say that this is why a character creator can be so helpful. I'm currently running around Dark Souls as an Asian lass; not some skinny one, no, she's 6ft tall and looks like she could ACTUALLY heft around a shield and spear like no one's business.

I think I played Saint's Row 2 and 3 as a short hair middle aged Asian woman. Was pretty damn cool to watch.

And of course, FemShep is awesome. I'd say she's less beautiful and more awesome, although I did dislike how they kept trying to beautify her up as each game came along, by 3 she was a model, but in 1, she looked like a slightly tired veteran, precisely how she should look in my mind.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Can I just make everyone aware of the fact that a blue hedgehog has been saving his home from industrialisation from a tyrant ball shaped flamboyantly evil genius for 20+ years and never actually needed a female to save

Sonic's female counterpart Amy Rose was introduced as a damsel in distress in Sonic the Hedgehog CD. "The story of Sonic CD follows Sonic the Hedgehog as he utilizes time travel to save Amy Rose and Little Planet from Doctor Eggman and Metal Sonic". Sonic also has to save her in Sonic Adventure and Sonic Lost World. Sonic switches damsels in Sonic '06, where he has to save Elise - several times.

Sonic's save-the-damsel shtick hasn't been as exclusive as, say, Mario's routine of saving Peach. But it's there alright.

Oh, see I've played through Sonic CD a few times and I didn't even realise that was the point.

Furthermore, can we all grow up and stop using Mario as a point? You know no one really cares that much about Peach in those games yeah?

Your personal motivation with Mario doesn't preclude the fact that Mario's own motivation (and Luigi's for that matter) is to save Princess Peach andrestorethestatusquooftheworld. Who really should be Queen Peach, since I don't see anybody else using the throne (there's a Mushroom King of questionable canonicity in the early comics, but I don't recall him ever cropping up in the games).

Also, if Peach (or Sonic's damsels) are so token and replaceable as you put it, doesn't that just underline their own lack of substance as characters and the fact that they only exist to enable the male heroes' quest?