A developer grossly underestimates and/or misunderstands their audience. OH WOW WHAT A SURPRISE.
What I'm literally asserting is that "Any gameplay that is based on gender-specific stereotypes is sexist by definition. Including additional options based on gender is good; limiting options based on gender is not." I'll leave it at that here, but I'd be happy to explain how I see it in PMs if you're interested.PhiMed said:(Sigh) okay...mojodamm said:What gives you the impression that I'm arguing? I just stated my opinion; you chose to see it as an argument.PhiMed said:You're literally arguing that a half-full glass and a half-empty glass are fundamentally different.mojodamm said:Different =/= Limited.PhiMed said:I didn't say it did. I said that if you're adding something to one and not the other, then the one which doesn't receive that addition is limited. It cannot use the options which were added to the other. You're just selectively adding rather than selectively subtracting to arrive at the same number.mojodamm said:Why do you assume that adding to one detracts from the other?PhiMed said:If you have additional options for one gender or another, aren't you limiting options for the other? I don't really understand the distinction.mojodamm said:Any gameplay that is based on gender-specific stereotypes is sexist by definition. Including additional options based on gender is good; limiting options based on gender is not.
The distinction you're making is one of semantic description. It's spin, double talk, newsspeak.
If you say "There are 5 options, but guys can't be 4 and girls can't be 5" (the situation with which you disagree), that's the exact same thing as "There are 3 options, but guys have the additional option of being 5 and girls have the additional option of being 4." (the situation of which you're in favor) It's the same thing.
In both situations, guys have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 5. Girls have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 4.
Same. Thing.
I don't understand the desire now-a-days to homogenize everything. Honestly, I'd love to see an RPG starting out with lore-defined gender roles introducing you the gameworld, with options further into gameplay to adjust it to more suit the player's desires. As the player learns about their 'place' in the world and the way in which they want to interact with it they could opt to do quests which further define them, adding increased customization and development and possibly changing their role all-together. Akin to the 'betrayal' quest from EQ2 (albeit less grindy and more story-based) before they went and caved in to the 'gotta have all the options all the time' crowd.
<quote=Phimed>You're literally arguing asserting that a half-full glass and a half-empty glass are fundamentally different
That better?
Nature is sexist by definition. Women can't do anything a male can do nor can a man do anything a woman can. Nature has assigned us very different roles and available versatility. It isn't morally wrong to try and capture that nor to cater to it.mojodamm said:What I'm literally asserting is that "Any gameplay that is based on gender-specific stereotypes is sexist by definition. Including additional options based on gender is good; limiting options based on gender is not." I'll leave it at that here, but I'd be happy to explain how I see it in PMs if you're interested.
What? Seriously?AceAngel said:The reason Brink doesn't include female characters is because many on the dev-team didn't want characters bashing girls in the face when they're down,
Nope the best priest In wow that I knew in 6 years of play was a guy.henritje said:is it weird if a guy want,s to be a medic?
Then how is it innovative if I can't actually choose to be the other gender? Echo Bazaar is linked with my Facebook and even though I am a girl It LET me choose which gender I wanted to be and I ended up choosing a genderless character. Forcing any girl who wants to play in support and shopping is absurd.PhiMed said:That's part of the actually innovative part of it (it's in the article). This game will have multiple levels of interaction, including a hard-core strategy multiplayer, a minigame buff for teammates, and a social gaming aspect that is linked to social networking accounts. Thus, signing up for the game and linking it to your facebook (or whatever) account will register you as the gender listed there.Bon_Clay said:Meh, if you want to play a certain way couldn't you always just choose the other gender?
It doesn't help anything though, if women mostly wanted to play support roles then they would just choose that themselves. I don't really like tank roles myself, but shopping is a boring terrible experience.
Well except apparently it forces you to be the gender your facebook profile lists you as or some such nonsense.Imperator_DK said:Guess that just mean you'll have pick the gender of your avatar based in how you want to play the game.
Nothing new really, Diablo II had its classes locked to particular genders as well, and nobody raised an eyebrow. I for one preferred to play as a mage, and thus had to go with a female avatar; didn't bother me in the least.