Added image for comparison here. It's not that strong, but people have made the comparison. And you're not showing the rest of Tali'zorah there. Her figure was 11/10, the voice was cute, and the helmet was just enough to leave it to a person's imagination. The imagination is the strongest erogenous zone.erttheking said:
Dissing Mass Effect Andromeda because it has diversity and equality
- Thread starter Nature Guardian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a comparison that I can't view as carrying any weight at all. It's pure hyperbole.MHR said:
11/10? I mean sure. 11/10. If you like chicken feet. I mean, she's not exactly depicted as ugly, but 11/10?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2a/cd/f2/2acdf2128236d0ac4b52253e765b95cd.jpg
And are we really going to argue that all you need to do to make someone sexually attractive is give them a cute voice and not show anything else? That seems like quite the oversimplification.
I can see it. I mean, it's less a problem with the character's design and more a problem with the animations. She doesn't always look like Shrek, but every now and then her animation gets janky and wham, Shrek-face.erttheking said:
I wouldn't have noticed it unless it was pointed out, but now that it's been pointed out I can't unsee it.
I know more than a few voice actors that are chosen for specifically that reason...erttheking said:
And I also know that it was part of what kept me wanting to stay in touch with my on/off girlfriend (now fiance) for five years while we were in uni. A cute voice honestly can do wonders simply because you're imagining how someone's face would have to be constructed to get like that. How they grew up that led them to speaking like that.
I mean, c'mon, you talk about how much you're always writing, how many characters that you got attached to were because you imagined how they sounded and how much you loved your imagining of what they sounded like even if you despised their characters?
I suppose that could be a thing, but people have been calling her ugly long before we saw video of her, when we were only going off of pictures.bastardofmelbourne said:
Well by avoiding diversity you're going to be primarily focusing on characters of a certain demographic. If the story calls for it that's one thing, if it doesn't then it'll raise questions. Of course you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, some settings (like a sci-fi one) make a lack of diversity hard to justify while a medieval fantasy one might not. A lack of diversity can also be justified thematically or aesthetically, but whatever justification you use will make some sort of statement. It's up to the developer to be responsible for that.Redryhno said:
I'm making it sound really complicated but it's really not. Just avoid cynical marketing, overused tropes and stereotypes and have self-awareness and you'll be fine.
Pretty negative way of seeing it if you ask me. Avoiding it would mean you're not trying to make it about diversity, not wanting it would just mean you don't want it.Dizchu said:
Why go with the thought process that people are being dicks first when it comes to diversity or someone's lack of interest in it?
What do you mean "not trying to make it about diversity"? It doesn't matter what the intention was, the end result is that the characters are either diverse or they are not. Forget about gender, sexuality, race etc. for a moment. Imagine if all the Transformers were Volkswagen Beetles. Imagine if Jurassic Park only had velociraptors. Imagine if all the levels in your game consisted of brown corridors. Imagine if all the weapons in your game were slight variations of the same gun. Whether or not the designer intended to have diversity or not in the design doesn't matter, the end result is something that lacks diversity.Redryhno said:
Now when it comes to games with a heavy focus on characters, a lack of diversity needs to be justified. For example I can understand why the latest Final Fantasy game focuses on male protagonists, from what I can tell it has a fraternal theme and exploring the relationships between male characters is quite fertile ground for storytelling. Now imagine if a sci-fi game like Mass Effect only had straight white male characters. That would be extremely weird if you think about it and the only reason many games with similar settings in the past got away with it was because video games were just assumed to be something aimed at
It's not necessarily about being a dick, it's about trying to cover your ass. Imagine how ridiculous it's be if Rob Liefeld justified the nonsensical ways he avoids drawing feet by saying "I'm not interested in feet".
Well, that's your opinion.erttheking said:
But, in say, Palestine, for example, a game about killing Jews would probably be well received. Unless you've some evidence your morality is more righteous than theirs, it's just a matter of opinion, and you really can't be too surprised when opinions clash.
No matter how much you call people "Closed minded" and so on, unless you can actually say with any reason why one game featuring one morality is objectively better than another, it's completely weightless.
It seems very strawman to compare people accusing homosexuals of being the same as paedophiles and people who take offence to the statement "You don't need class whilst killing white people".
As to what it has to do with this conversation is, it's a quote from one of the developers of Mass Effect in context of killing people over usage of some dumb word.
Not particularly.Dizchu said:
ARMA 2 for example is a military simulation game in which, the factions are based on real life countries, feature the races of those countries. Does not feature women in combat and so on.
It completely avoids diversity, because it depicts reality.
If you were to make a realistic medieval combat game where women could fight, but due to lower muscle mass were less effective and generally people were a bit "Lol, what are you doing?" it'd just be based on reality, not making any statement.
Likewise, if you made the same game, but women were no longer sexually dimorphic to men, nobody in that time period held negative views towards women in combat and people of all races ran freely across medieval England, then, yeah, you'd be making a statement. Or a fantasy game.
Well, I don't really have an example to hand.Dizchu said:
But, imagine there's a game set in the future, and off-hand it makes some comment about refugees, and how a nation shielding themselves from it prevented bad things from happening. Maybe name-dropped Merkle in there or something and painted them as being deranged and desiring death on those who opposed them.
That'd be painting a political opinion in a negative light.
By comparison, here is what painting it in a positive light would look like.
http://horizonzerodawn.wikia.com/wiki/Refugee_museum_opens
Honestly, when I first saw that character, I legitimately thought that Bioware were making it so Asari could be male now, and it depended on the sexual preference of their partner.MHR said:
No. I am not fucking playing this game. If you want to honestly say "Well in Palestinian they'll like it,", if you're saying I need proof that my morality is superior when my morality includes depicting Jews as subhuman is a bad thing, then I think it's pretty clear you're not arguing in good faith. If you wanted to tell me to go fuck myself, I'd rather you just say that.The Lunatic said:
Why is one game morally objectively better than the other? Yeah, I would need proof. IF I HAD ACTUALLY FUCKING SAID THAT! One day, one day I'll actually get to the point where people don't need to lie about what I say in order to argue against my points.
I was not talking about that quote at all, can you stop putting words in my mouth for three fucking seconds?
Oh wow, cool, I don't fucking care because it has nothing to do with the specific topic that we were talking about. Not everything ME:A developers said is part of this conversation and I'd greatly appreciate it if you stayed on topic.
And you're now taking the obtuse route for diversity to justify your argument. Neither of us said a damn thing about diversity of gameplay or environments before this post.Dizchu said:
I have never once said that not being interested in diversity meant that there would be no attempt at diversity. Simply that the moment you start making diversity of things like skin tone and orientation a priority instead of something that you work into a set mold, you stop trying to actually be diverse and are simply trying to fill a box.
Hell, when was the last time you remember a non-straight character being anything other than a largely idealized human being? I'm not saying they can't be that, just that the number of outright villainous non-straight characters compared to even non-white women villains is in the single digits. But that's getting into another debate.
Exactly, what's not political about that? Its design philosophy is presumably to strive for authenticity, though the lack of female combatants is a small component of this it's nevertheless part of this design philosophy. Warfare is an extremely political thing, depictions of warfare seek to present war through the author's perspective to the reader. You cannot avoid politics and while I'd agree that sometimes the definition of "politics" is used too pedantically sometimes in discussions like these, I think it's hard to argue that war is anything but political.The Lunatic said:
Also I'm no military expert but I'm pretty sure there are armies that recruit women in combat roles. Actually I just looked it up and recent developments in the USA and UK actually permit female combatants so if the ARMA series is to continue it might want to brush up on that a bit.
Basing it on reality (or to be more accurate, the perceived reality of the designer) is a statement though. Actually the use of a historical setting adds another dimension of interpretation because it will rely on the historical understanding of the designer, the sources the designer used, the biases the designer and historians have, etc. The further back in time you go the more alien the setting becomes and the harder it is to understand. Even if making the setting accessible for the player was of zero concern, the designer will always be at odds with their 21st century perspective.
Yes that'd also be a statement. A different statement and yes, unless the setting is presented in a way that'll suspend the player's disbelief (fantasy/comedy/surealism/etc.) it'll probably be extremely jarring.
"Diversity" is not a political opinion though, it is a description. It is how it is or isn't used that makes a political statement.
Uhh no, I am explaining why the lack of diversity can harm an experience even if it's "intentional". The reason people want diversity in their characters is the same reason why people want diversity when it comes to level design and gameplay. It just makes things more interesting, more dynamic. People dislike samey characters and samey environments because they display a very tiny range of experiences and without anything to spice it up, it just becomes stagnant.Redryhno said:
What's interesting is that including female characters, LGBT characters, non-white characters etc. is considered "filling a box" but having a straight white dude with brown hair and a stubble is not. Keep in mind, publishers are hesitant about this kind of stuff. They didn't want Elizabeth on the box art of Bioshock Infinite because dudebro focus testers wanted Booker. Life is Strange struggled to get made because publishers didn't think a game with a female protagonist would sell... and wow, it actually sold millions and cornered a niche market.
The thing is, I never suggested that it should be a priority. It should be an important consideration in certain kinds of games (for example sci-fi games and any game that has fully-customisable characters). If you're only doing it to "fill a mold" then as far as I'm concerned that's only marginally better than relying on the "chiseled white dude" mold.
To me, Overwatch does this masterfully and should set an example for other games to follow and actually, in that game it was a priority to have a diverse cast. It took TF2's design philosophy to the next step and I think that's cool, and so do most people actually. There's good ways and bad ways of doing it but I would much rather that people even attempt it at all than go back to the zero-risk cookie-cutter approach of the past.
There's multiple ways to approach this. First of all I think the reason why you're having a hard time thinking of these "non-idealised" characters is because there simply aren't many LGBT or non-white female characters in general. Certainly not compared to white, straight and/or male characters.
Secondly given the small number of these characters, people become hyper-conscious of depicting minority/female characters if they are not often seen elsewhere. I don't doubt that idealised characters arise because of this, but to me it seems completely understandable aaaand the best way to remedy this is to have more diversity! Like, in general. You might be complaining now that there are too many idealised LGBT or non-white characters but it wasn't long ago when the reverse was true.
Personally I'd love to see more non-white female or LGBT villains, that'd be great. I guarantee that there'll be plenty in the future if trends continue the way they're going. The thing is, if you cast the only gay person in your story as the bad guy in a time where LGBT characters are quite uncommon, it kinda contributes to the stigma/stereotyping of gay people (well, unless it's handled very well). Does that suck? Sure. But as I said, the best remedy is to just let diversity happen.
Anders in Dragon Age 2 leaps to mind. Forcefully and immediately.Redryhno said:
Gay Tony, of course, not being a role model.
Past that, a lot of the stereotypical example of "gay villains" tended to get cut out of games when they crossed the pond. Like this guy:
I mean, yeah, there are a lot of straight villains. Probably as many as there are straight heros.