Now I want an option to play Princess Zelda in Dishonored 2.altnameJag said:
Why do you make me want what I cannot have.
Why Dishonored 2 doesnot have corvo as sole protagonist?
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why do you make me want what I cannot have.
I've asked you this once before, and I'm fully aware that I'm very likely wasting my time asking this again, but; could you explain why you believe a game loses its "badass" status the INSTANT it features a playable female character?B-Cell said:
Or to explain it another way:
forced male protagonist = "badass"
selectable gender for the protagonist = not badass
This is the argument you're making, and I'm struggling to understand this line of logic you're following.
There was a time when games let you chose between a male & female characters (and there were and are plenty) and no one cared. Now people feel like devs only do it to appease a vocal minority of feminists. It's actually quite funny how all of this feminist crap in video games has actually made some people even more sexist.
Back then they just did it, if a dev mentions equality or some such when pointing out that they have added a female character then it was done to appease SJW.Gekidami said:
You shouldn't complain about anti-feminism and then call having a problem with a female character sexist. It hasn't made gamers more sexist, they don't go out and treat women any differently but it has made them more wary of the addition of female characters as is to be expected in something they pay for. If they say they made the addition because that's what fans may like it's a lot better than we made this addition because you should be obligated to see more women in games.
I think many of you have forgotten that games aren't a charity, they are product made for people who pay for them. You could complain that there aren't enough Harambe's in your game if your willing to pay for it.
I'm actually complaining more about feminists who, after their failed venture into video games, achieved nothing more than getting people to hate them and making some gamers paranoid about the motivations of devs who put female characters into games. You're right that "sexist" might be the wrong word (though not always) but in the end my point is that if Dishonored 2 was coming out in 2005 no one would bat an eyelid about a female character being added. The fact that is no longer the case if a result of feminists meddling in video games making things worst.Gengisgame said:
That logic doesn't follow. Because it's equally valid to say that the reason the reaction is so different between 2005 and now is because the anti-SJWs are a lot more outraged and a lot more paranoid than they were 10 years ago.Gekidami said:
To give another example, video games that release today with a black protagonist usually and often get accused of "appeasing the SJWs". And yet, if we think back to 2004 and the release of GTA San Andreas (which featured a black protagonist), no one batted an eye. The reason for this is because the anti-SJWs weren't out in force back then, so game devs had more freedom to make design decisions like this without various political accusations being thrown in their direction.
Make no mistake, it's the anti-SJWs and the anti-feminists who are being the idiots here, in these examples.
I think both "sides" have their fair share of idiots.IceForce said:
It's weird. On the one hand, I'd like to go back to the attitude that gamers had about ten or fifteen years ago, where no-one really cared if your protagonist was black or a lady or whatever. To me, that's ideal. Just flush away all the drama about what is or isn't appropriate in our media and focus on making good games with good plots. But on the other hand, looking back on that period, there were also trends that seem super suspicious in retrospect. Like that game SiN. I remember looking at an ad for that when I was a kid and going "why is that lady dressed like that?" Maybe there was a way to avoid those trends without becoming offensively self-righteous, and we all just missed it because we were too busy giving our heads an intimate tour of our own colons.
I think the reason why the current discussion on the subject is so toxic is because both "sides" get super defensive about relatively innocuous design choices. Like this one. Having Emily as the protagonist of the sequel isn't pandering. It makes sense; the sequel is set a generation later, she's one of the few major characters who almost certainly survived (in the ending where she doesn't, there'd be nothing to make a sequel about), she has a close relationship to the previous protagonist, and there's a lot of room for character development.
I mean, I get iffy when they announce a black Hispanic Spiderman or a totally-for-reals-this-time Lady Thor. That's pandering, as I see it; the changes are forced and clearly calibrated to appeal to target demographics. But this isn't. It feels like a natural progression of the story from Dishonored 1. It makes so much sense that I'd be more worried if they didn't take the story in that direction.
And if your beef is "she can't be a badass assassin because she's a princess," then frankly...grow the fuck up?
Whatever. Dumb thread, dumb topic, dumb discussion. Let's move on.
Every time hear that "It's fiction, they can do whatever they want" bit I just facepalm so hard it leaves a mark on my head.undeadsuitor said:
No, she can't. Fictional universes have to have their own set of rules they have to follow. Otherwise what you get is random nonsense. Granted, Axe Cop shows that sort of thing CAN work but Axe Cop is an entirely different kind of story than Dishonored.
Also, 4 pages of discussion from what was a pretty blatant attempt to stir crap up, using a topic that I've only seen in this thread (Seriously,B-Cell is pretty much the first person I saw griping about Emily and his arguments reads like someone mocking the mindset with a bad parody.) with the usual suspects clamoring out to defend women in gaming from those evil mysogonerds.
(clap) (clap) (clap) You guys never cease to meet my expectations. Seriously, I'm like 70% certain B-Cell is either a troll or else he's trying to make the people who are not on board the Politically Correct mindset look bad by association.
But the reason at the root of that are SJW's shitting things up to begin with. I get that anti SJW's are the ones reacting but it remains a response, be it an exaggerated one or not. But I agree that both are being idiots.IceForce said:
And yet here you are. Engaging in exactly the process you came here to tell everyone how silly they are for engaging in while explaining a suspicion that has already been suspicised by a few already. One would almost think one was unable to resist the temptation of a personal, cheap point scoring attempt to feed one's own political bias and achieve inner superiority over fellow human things. Keep up the resistance!!Metalix Knightmare said:
Deus Ex was supposed to have the option of a male or female protagonist. That's why Invisible War has the option. Harvey Smith worked on Deus Ex and Invisible War. He's the lead developer of Dishonored.
It's pretty logical, really.
It's pretty logical, really.
That's not actually logical at all.Ambient_Malice said:
Edit: I mean, I agree with you. I'm just being a stickler about the word "logical." If what you're saying is "Dishonored 2 has the option of a male and female protagonist because Harvey Smith is the lead developer," that's not right, because out of the four games quoted (Deus Ex, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Dishonored, and Dishonored 2), only two give you the option of a male or female protagonist. (And in Invisible War, it's a purely cosmetic decision.)
I mean, you can't say "X shows Y because A worked on X" when A has worked on a bunch of other things that didn't show Y.
Edit Edit: Sorry for being a pedant. I kinda jumped feet-first into that hole, and now I'm overcompensating. I'll...I'll just let myself out.
Wow talk about can of worms, from what I;ve seen of the game it looks more like the developers had a huge bag of character abilities either on the table post Dishonoured or came up with a whole load of new skills and at some point along the way it became clear that having one single character have all these abilities would have either been seriously OP or would have left the player with a character that had just as many skills locked out as unlocked due to the limitations of the unlock systems in place.
Introducing a second character also allows them to introduce character traits and abilities that would maybe not have sat as well with the existing character.
How for can you a WOMAN! I donot! When I go peepee with my boyween I always think about videogames that also go peepee with their boyween and when I think there is one that insnt I do a cry. Remove please.
The fact that so many people treated this as a real post is legitimately weird.
Also what's with all the Corvo hate? Is there a reason it doesn't make sense for him to be in Dishonored 2? (I didn't actually beat the first one)
The fact that so many people treated this as a real post is legitimately weird.
Also what's with all the Corvo hate? Is there a reason it doesn't make sense for him to be in Dishonored 2? (I didn't actually beat the first one)
Thank you for making me chuckle. People are treating it as a real post because of who is making the post. B-Cell has a way of sounding utterly sincere when he makes these kinds of topics.Guitarmasterx7 said:
I don't hate that Corvo is in the game, but I understand where people are coming from when they say that his story was finished in the first game. The epilogue sequence talks about how Corvo is at Emily's side as she leads the nation and how even after his death, she'll remember him as more than just the Royal Protector.
I suppose you could just take the first game's ending as the Outsider making assumptions about what will happen, but even if that's not the case, I don't think the narration is so specific that it rules out Corvo going on another big mission in the future.