You have given me a lot to consider. I'll incorporate these points into future contemplations about this matter. I thank you for offering them in the manner that you have.bagodix said:
Girls and the games aimed at men
- Thread starter mstickle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Is this yours?funguy2121 said:
Same here and you found a nice spot in that mob
Again you:
So,you're a hypocrite,a liar,you like beating around the bush,not making an honest point,trolling people,judging them without even knowing them and you wanna act all "hollier than thou" too....i don't think so champ...
People seem to be getting way off track and not many people have gotten my point. I didn't say anything about MW2 story mode (or any other game's story for that matter), I like it just fine the way it is.
I'm not really even talking about protagonists in general being female, I don't want to have a female character if the story does not support it. In fact most of my favourite games have male protagonists, possibly because many female protagonists are just plain unlikable, even in games more geared to women (that is of course just my feeling on the matter). I just question why some games are so heavily aimed at men when a few cosmetic adjustmets to the multiplayer could make a difference to females that enjoy playing predomanantly male oriented games.
I'm not really even talking about protagonists in general being female, I don't want to have a female character if the story does not support it. In fact most of my favourite games have male protagonists, possibly because many female protagonists are just plain unlikable, even in games more geared to women (that is of course just my feeling on the matter). I just question why some games are so heavily aimed at men when a few cosmetic adjustmets to the multiplayer could make a difference to females that enjoy playing predomanantly male oriented games.
I've noticed that trolls always accuse others of trolling.CerealKiller said:
You can splice small fragments of my statements and recontextualize any way you want. I never called you friggin' dumb. I called your deterministic statement about men being inherently destructive, which you later denied saying, friggin' dumb. My point was that we're not all cavemen. I don't think I'm holier than thou. I'm not really even a champ
But a liar, a hypocrite, a beater-around-the-bush, and a troll, I am not.
How about we dial the emotions down a bit?
I'm not going to make the usual, hackneyed, arguments about how men are the target audience, women don't usually play games, and of course that there are no women on the interwebs.mstickle said:
Instead, I'm going to focus solely on military games and say this: the treatment of women as being (essentially) men is completely accurate. Female soldiers, sailors, and airmen "man" battleships, are one of the boys, and are occasionally exhorted to drop their cocks and grab their socks. They live the same lives as the men, and expect to be given the same treatment (for better or worse). They're told to man up, called ladies as a pejorative, and exist in a system where masculinity is of primary importance.
And, of course, they can all kill me with one hand tied behind their backs. They're more of a man than I am, truth be told. But, my point is this:
In terms of military games, it makes sense to treat even female players as though they're "male", or (rather) to make the games unisexual in the same way the modern military is: manliness is considered an ideal, rather than a gender. You're playing a simulation of being in the military, I buy that if you were a girl in the military, you would still be treated as a man. You wouldn't get girly outfits or modifications, ect.
Yeah they are--I was watching a special about Iraq and there were women in combat. Granted, they're the minority--because more men than women join the military--but they are allowed to be in combat.slabomeat said:
And once again,you beat around the bush and play with words.funguy2121 said:I've noticed that trolls always accuse others of trolling.CerealKiller said:
You can splice small fragments of my statements and recontextualize any way you want. I never called you friggin' dumb. I called your deterministic statement about men being inherently destructive, which you later denied saying, friggin' dumb. My point was that we're not all cavemen. I don't think I'm holier than thou. I'm not really even a champ
But a liar, a hypocrite, a beater-around-the-bush, and a troll, I am not.
How about we dial the emotions down a bit?
I didn't "recontextualize" anything,you know that but you say that i do just to find something to "hold on".
When did i say "destructive"?So,you're lying once again.
And about not all of us being caveman,you definatelly meant "we're not all actual males",didn't ya? =) Yeah,i can play this game too.
You're talking about "dialing the emotions down a bit" when you were the one being all "i'm offended".Hypocrite much?
And about "I've noticed that trolls always accuse others of trolling.".Nice "NO U" comeback.
Really mature...
@ ZippyDSMLee : "LOL you're ignorant" is possibly one of the worst arguments I've seen on the web in a while. Were you even responding to me, I have no idea what glorifying beauty had to do with my post content.
Prove it.ZippyDSMlee said:
I suppose I need to remember that the people I'm speaking to here don't actually know me, and to be more sensitive. God, I hate censoring myself!CerealKiller said:
I'm not going to argue about what I said or what you didn't say - that would be the epitome of childishness. You and I can both read what was said. That's a means of circumventing all of this nonsense. And I'm certainly not going to repeat myself, or repeat again what you still deny saying in your original post, the one that started the argument.
I skip all the bush-beating (you really love doing that) and say (AGAIN) that,in case you forgot,you were the one who started this argument and dragged me back in this thread allthough i had allready abandoned it.funguy2121 said:
You don't wanna repeat yourself because then you wont be able to twist and turn things as you wish.
Poor victim...will someone report me allready?!I'm harassing a person here...!funguy2121 said:
"Coocoo's nest"...
I don't know why everyone thinks this. Women are involved in combat in the US military.Destal said:
Let me do some google-ing.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/policy-on-women.html
Oh, that's why. Official policy IS to keep most women away from direct combat, but they still end up facing it. As the article says, policy is divorced from reality. I knew I'd heard of women in combat!
I only really have 3 main complaints(well....4..LOL) about modern game design, one is control mapping, full button mapping must be a default option on all games, this is simply a must and is to simple to do to not do it.grimdeath999 said:
The next thing is game play/mechanic depth FO3 has enough equipment to last about 10 hours or so then with no new stuff to find the game gets stagnate also the skills are poorly implemented but they were more concerned with the add ons than the core game, but even so Fable has issues with equipment it has maybe 6 or 7 levels and a under utilized enhancement system if they added another 4 levels of equipment and made the enhancement deeper and it maxed out at 6 or 9 gems for the rarest of master weapons there would be no slowdown in its paceing at all. Basically most standard action focused games(IE shallower than a RPG with alot more depth) use a 3 point equipment system you have light,medium and heavy equipment with 1 or 2 special classes beyond that, it really dose not give people enough equipment to play with you need at least twice as much.
Now my last big issue with modern game design is level design or more specifically level layout, its quite stark how different level design is today than it was 10+ years ago look at Turok 1-3 or Quake 1-2 then compare them to the newer Turok and Quake and even DOOM or Bioshock(in comparasion to system shock 2) you have in modern design level layouts that focus to much on running a player through a gun and run placidly built level there is nothing to explore or find its generally a small cramped space that can be navigated in the dark, now some action games also have to simplistic level layouts but FPSs got the brunt of the "dumb it down for players and developers" stick.
One more huge annoyance with modern games specifically shooters and FPSs weapons tend to be heavily based in realism, no alt fire, no cool and extra fire modes that add to the gameplay thus prolong the fun a game can give you. Its all well and good you guys can model a neat looking weapon and have it perform visually like a real weapon even bullet projectory and stuff that's great and all but the more one shot a weapon is the more weapons you need in a game, for instance Damnation a neat lil game very under performing in the things it was trying to accomplish while I got bored playing it the main trouble I had with it was not enough variety in weapons.
What I am getting at in my rambling here is today's game designers pay to much attention to form and function and seem to forget about fun and intricacy, one dose not have to waste time on making something intricate if you follow a few basic rules it seems to me more time is wasted rushing than honing a project and making it better...but that is just my opinion...
Sorry for the off topic people, carry on!
I read an article in awhile ago saying that their trying to change the policy...I wonder if they will.funguy2121 said:
Customization is good for everyone, especially in a multiplayer or sandbox environment. Look at how Yatzee wet his knickers over Saint's Row's thorough customization. So yeah, being able to have an avatar that's female, or a clown, or a chimpanzee, can only heighten multiplayer experience. Even when the multi goes for squad-based gameplay or involves calling in an airstrike, it's never going to be as realistic as the campaign, so I don't see any problem shooting my M16 at my Jehovah's Witness enemy.
Someone said on here that blacks, occidentals and homosexuals are also underrepresented in games, and posed the rhetorical question, do we need to compensate for this as well? While he has a valid point, I would answer that blacks, orientals and gays (separately, anyway) do not account for more than half the population of the world.
I think that when the next big push in video games comes (remember the wellspring of mainstream acceptance during the PSOne era?), it will involve quite a few new female hardcore gamers, and publishers and developers will respond accordingly. This may be just around the corner, if Nintendo can turn a significant chunk of its new casual crowd into hardcores.
Someone said on here that blacks, occidentals and homosexuals are also underrepresented in games, and posed the rhetorical question, do we need to compensate for this as well? While he has a valid point, I would answer that blacks, orientals and gays (separately, anyway) do not account for more than half the population of the world.
I think that when the next big push in video games comes (remember the wellspring of mainstream acceptance during the PSOne era?), it will involve quite a few new female hardcore gamers, and publishers and developers will respond accordingly. This may be just around the corner, if Nintendo can turn a significant chunk of its new casual crowd into hardcores.
Doubtful - feminism may not be as strong as it was in the 90's, but it still has quite an impact on American society. If the president is actually thinking about repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and letting the uncloseted fight, I doubt women are going to be pulled from duty.Mysticgamer said: