Poll: If female characters were given an advantage....

[Luke Brickner]

A new game has come out - its the bees knees, reveiwers and players are loving it, both singleplayer and multiplayer. its the hot new game, thats selling in droves...

And the basis of the game is that women are inherently better at whatever form of combat its based around. Whether its a mystical force, or a unique and powerful control system that women inherently adapt to faster and better, women are the primary force in the singleplayer, and to map this across to multiplayer by saying that female characters gain skills/ranks/abilities at a notably faster rate. A character of either gender starts even, and the nominal 'caps' are even, but a female character will gain those ranks and reach that cap faster than a male character. What would you make of this?

That it's an unbalanced game. What else is there to make of it?

You need balance Its not making one inharently better than the other, Its making them play differntly, say speed verse power. you should never unbalance a game strictly for to promote a the use of a gender, that does a dis-service to the female population by basicly saying with out it no one would play them. once again balance is key without it your just insulting those you mean to impower.

 

[zombieeater6000]

sounds sexist to me

 

[BGH122]

I do, she's saying that the rigid male gender role is harmful to both men and women. As I've expressed above, this is bigotry: she is saying that only her/feminist interpretations of gender roles are valid and that all others are wrong. We certainly need to loosen the enforcement of gender roles in society by gently reminding people that difference is a good thing, but flat-out declaring certain gender roles 'wrong' is just bigotry.

Okay. You claim that she's a "bigot" because she's arguing that these roles are "wrong."

However, you admit that she argues that they're "wrong" (not a word I can recall her using, to tell the truth, but even so) because they're genuinely harmful. Do you agree that they're harmful? (It sounds to me like you actually do.) And if so, how do you justify calling someone a "bigot" for being against them?

And you do know that men get raped, too...right?

Of course, I know men get raped too. We've discussed that and I discussed it in the very post you've quoted. I honestly don't know how many men get raped for the reasons previously mentioned, but I personally know of at least one. Sadly, he said he'd never go to the police because he didn't think anyone would take him seriously. Even sadder, I think he's right.

I'm oversimplifying by saying 'wrong', but you get the gist. Do I think that such gender roles are harmful? I think they can be, but aren't necessarily. I know I'd prefer a society that tolerated things that can be harmful as long as they aren't actively harming anyone than a society which deemed certain behaviours necessarily destructive merely because they can be.

I think great care needs to be taken to show that all interpretations of gender are equally valid as it's essentially a social construct with no fixed objective truth. I think great care needs to be taken to ensure that in doing so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: that we don't deem older gender roles 'wrong' just because they hark of fixed gender roles. It's the latter we need to address, not the former; if someone wishes to act like a 50's man or a 50's woman then that's their business and as long as they don't demand others act in such a way then we have no right to judge.

what is it with this site and people calling bigotry on everything lately?

Because it perfectly fits the definition?

 

[Gamer_152]

I'd say it's a terrible piece of game design making a very questionable message.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Well that's just sexist. It can work both ways, just like everything else.

 

[Zaik]

I'd laugh, then play a male character anyway.

I'm not so reactionary that I'd let a bunch of feminine supremacists work me into a frenzy.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

what is it with this site and people calling bigotry on everything lately?

PS agree wholeheartedly with your post

Thanks! But as for your question: I really have no idea.

Of course, I know men get raped too. We've discussed that and I discussed it in the very post you've quoted. I honestly don't know how many men get raped for the reasons previously mentioned, but I personally know of at least one. Sadly, he said he'd never go to the police because he didn't think anyone would take him seriously. Even sadder, I think he's right.

I wasn't strictly talking about men getting raped by women. (And there's also the stigma against men who get raped: While people are less likely to try to blame the victim, he's going to get attacked on other counts.)

I'm oversimplifying by saying 'wrong', but you get the gist. Do I think that such gender roles are harmful? I think they can be, but aren't necessarily. I know I'd prefer a society that tolerated things that can be harmful as long as they aren't actively harming anyone than a society which deemed certain behaviours necessarily destructive merely because they can be.

I think great care needs to be taken to show that all interpretations of gender are equally valid as it's essentially a social construct with no fixed objective truth. I think great care needs to be taken to ensure that in doing so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: that we don't deem older gender roles 'wrong' just because they hark of fixed gender roles. It's the latter we need to address, not the former; if someone wishes to act like a 50's man or a 50's woman then that's their business and as long as they don't demand others act in such a way then we have no right to judge.

Yes, I'm sure that if everyone was willing to leave well enough alone, just acting "traditional" would be all well and good.

However, our culture stigmatizes passive, deferential behavior from men. In fact, such behavior is certain to get pretty much anyone classed as weak and ineffectual; one must be assertive or even aggressive to be taken seriously. And yet, aggressive or assertive women are stigmatized to...well, at least about the same degree as passive, deferential men.

So while the gender roles themselves may not be inherently harmful, the fact that they are fixed (that is, socially enforced) is. As is the fact that "feminine" behavior is considered inherently inferior. Until neither is the case, we really won't know how many people actually prefer to conform to them.

Because it perfectly fits the definition?

An outdated definition that pretty much turns it into a synonym for "fanatic." (And I doubt she's even one of those.)

Well that's just sexist. It can work both ways, just like everything else.

Indeed, and I doubt anyone is really arguing otherwise.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

And the basis of the game is that women are inherently better at whatever form of combat its based around.

I'd be impressed with the game's realism. ^^ [sub]teasing... sort of[/sub]

Women are actually better shots, you know. Technically, a shooter where the women are more accurate than the men WOULD be more realistic. A good balance would be to make men better with heavy weapons, since men are (on average) stronger than women in lifting and carrying, and would therefore be less over-burdened by large assault rifles or rocket launchers.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Women are actually better shots, you know. Technically, a shooter where the women are more accurate than the men WOULD be more realistic. A good balance would be to make men better with heavy weapons, since men are (on average) stronger than women in lifting and carrying, and would therefore be less over-burdened by large assault rifles or rocket launchers.

Yes, but that would be an attempt at balance. I think the OP was trying to imply "this is an overall great game, but female characters are just better in it, full stop." There was no implication that there was any attempt to balance it.

 

[Kevon Huggins]

females characters that would level faster will make it unbalanced but give the males something else such as faster movement and strength and have it son the females get an xp 1.55 multiplier while men get a 1.35 strength and speed buff so they attack better

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Women are actually better shots, you know. Technically, a shooter where the women are more accurate than the men WOULD be more realistic. A good balance would be to make men better with heavy weapons, since men are (on average) stronger than women in lifting and carrying, and would therefore be less over-burdened by large assault rifles or rocket launchers.

Yes, but that would be an attempt at balance. I think the OP was trying to imply "this is an overall great game, but female characters are just better in it, full stop." There was no implication that there was any attempt to balance it.

Yes, I know. You did see the part where I teasingly claimed that the game would be more realistic because women were better than men, didn't you?

I was really tempted to let that stand, just to see people's reactions, but I was compelled to add the other bit for full disclosure. I'm just too honest sometimes....

 

[Frozengale]

I probably wouldn't play it, I don't like unbalanced games. Also doesn't this mean that Women would be "Easy Mode" and be a diss to women everywhere.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Yes, I know. You did see the part where I teasingly claimed that the game would be more realistic because women were better than men, didn't you?

I was really tempted to let that stand, just to see people's reactions, but I was compelled to add the other bit for full disclosure. I'm just too honest sometimes....

Oh, no. I agree. If anything, it was "Note here that Bara_no_Hime is tossing out a somewhat different idea than the OP did." Call it over-clarification, if you must.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

That it's an unbalanced game and also that it sounds like the plot of a Japanese "light novel" designed to pander to 13 year old idiots who want to stare at illustrations of half naked girls. With that structure, it would make much more sense for it to just not have male characters. It would be easier to design, eliminate the balance issue and require no alteration in the theoretical story or intended messages/niche.

Well, in such a game you probably just can't play a male.

Then you have Bayonetta.

So, basically this. Bayonetta was an amazing game, too, so I guess people should probably try making more like that (preferably minus the first couple cutscenes).

 

[bushwhacker2k]

A new game has come out - its the bees knees, reveiwers and players are loving it, both singleplayer and multiplayer. its the hot new game, thats selling in droves...

And the basis of the game is that women are inherently better at whatever form of combat its based around. Whether its a mystical force, or a unique and powerful control system that women inherently adapt to faster and better, women are the primary force in the singleplayer, and to map this across to multiplayer by saying that female characters gain skills/ranks/abilities at a notably faster rate. A character of either gender starts even, and the nominal 'caps' are even, but a female character will gain those ranks and reach that cap faster than a male character. What would you make of this?

That it's an unbalanced game. What else is there to make of it?

I know, right? Wouldn't be the first game that female characters are oddly superior to male characters I've played, but what is the purpose of this?

Is this a reaction to women being lame stereotypes in most games these days? Making men worthless(comparatively) isn't exactly a selling point that'll bring the people in droves.

 

[SilentCom]

First thing that came into my head: "Why?"

Seriously though, why would someone make a game like that? It's unbalanced and sexist. Even if it was fun to play, you'll only have female characters in it.