Development Info Scars Of War Will Be Politically Correct

[Silellak]

Don't care dude, maybe you missed this.

Pretty much how you act everytime...

HEY GUISE IM TOTALLY OPEN TO IDEAS FOR MY GAEM.

Then when someone tells you something you don't agree with.

HAH LOSER I KNOW BETTAR!

"Open to ideas" != "Incorporating every idea anyone gives you", especially if you fundamentally disagree with the point someone's making. If you actually read the blog post, you will see that this point wasn't exactly up for discussion:

It’s not realistic, I know. But then, I don’t really give a shit about realism. Only about whether SoW is an enjoyable game. I don’t really think adding slight gender bonuses to the game makes it much better for most players, and hopefully it’ll help (some) female gamers to feel less like playing their own gender is ‘second best’, even in a game.

I don't really read that as someone open to discussing the issue. He's made his decision and just wanted to blog about it.

 

[denizsi]

Questioning the coexistence of realism and fantasy elements when facing opposition to ridiculous exaggerations in design: nextgen consoltard mentality without standards. Thank you, Blackadder, for being a part of the decline.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Isn't this all a bit moot when talking about fantasy? Once we're talking about a world where people shoot fireballs out of their hands and individuals take on legions (yes, I'm not the biggest fan of fantasy genres either...) we're basically saying 'this is an alternate universe where biology doesn't work in quite the same way'.

There's nothing odd about then going on to say 'in this universe, the champions of the world are on average of equal strength across the genders. They also seem to rarely be afflicted by illness, and somehow they don't light their own hands on fire when flinging fireballs.'

There's also something to be said for the idea that the practical benefits of extra strength might level off after a while, and in a more modern genre they might start to disappear in modern armies (I've known a few folk who have done military service, plus many from countries where national service is mandatory, and I've never known any of them to say that women can't hold their own in modern-style warfare).

I also agree that the main emphasis in character customisation should be customisability (in stats, not face generators) and fun. It's more fun if people can give their character the build that they want without being limited by gender (unless they want to be). Gender-based handicaps should be implemented through traits rather than hardcoded into the character. If people think that not imposing gender-handicaps is part of 'consolisation' then they've lost sight of the big picture; if anything gender-handicaps in the name of realism is a step away from tactical gaming and towards the date-sim-larping that is starting to plague the genre.

 

[Zomg]

There's nothing odd about then going on to say 'in this universe, the champions of the world are on average of equal strength across the genders. They also seem to rarely be afflicted by illness, and somehow they don't light their own hands on fire when flinging fireballs.'

I agree with this as long as the world knows it is idiotic somehow, the way superheros don't try to explain their names and costumes anymore because there is no explaining just shut up. If you're trying to mix it with political intrigue or something I you

 

[poocolator]

I never did like having two genders in my fantasy games. A world of hermaphrodites is just fine with me. hurr durr

 

[zeitgeist]

we're basically saying 'this is an alternate universe where biology doesn't work in quite the same way'.

For that to make any sense in the gameworld, you'd also have to completely disregard the structure of the generic fantasy society and rebuild it from scratch, because changing basic biology would also drastically change the society - its hierarchy, conventions, and so on.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Isn't this all a bit moot when talking about fantasy? Once we're talking about a world where people shoot fireballs out of their hands and individuals take on legions (yes, I'm not the biggest fan of fantasy genres either...) we're basically saying 'this is an alternate universe where biology doesn't work in quite the same way'.

It appears that in my incapacitated mental state i am simply unable to correct this simplest of fallacies.

we're basically saying 'this is an alternate universe where biology doesn't work in quite the same way'.

We're saying nothing of the like. What are saying here is that this is an alternate universe where biology is exactly the same as in reality, except people are able to shoot fireballs from their finger tips. That is the escapist element of the setting in the first fucking place.

 

[hiver]

Very good.

Ill definitely play as a female character at least a few times so i salute this kind of thought process.


btw, there is no such thing as "strength penalty in real life" for women. - to the moron above.
Its all individual.

Yeah there is no strength penalty that's why there is such discrepancy between the strongest men and strongest women at, say, weightlifting. Also it is so well known that men tend to be victim of domestic abuse by the hands of their women.. in your alternative dimension.

As of the Athens 2004 Summer Olympics, the official world record for the Men's Clean and Jerk is 263.0 kilograms (580 lb). This record was set by Hossein Reza Zadeh of Iran.
The world record for the Women's Clean and Jerk is 187.0 kilograms (412 lb) as of 2009 World Weightlifting Championships. This record was set by Jang Miran of South Korea.[4]

If it was all about the individual we wouldn't need to segregate the sexes in sports events.

Moron.

Both the average (the group) and the best elements, record holders show there is no such a thing as being equal. There is a reason why most rape involve men abusing women. You aren't likely to see men coming out of the household with a blackeye and bloody face.

Youre an idiot.

For every guy i know i could find a woman who could kick his ass.

Rape is the result of men having penises and specific instincts for procreation. (ie do it with as many females as possible) + stupidity.
Higher "strength" isnt so much of a factor as is mans propensity for almost daily physical violence and "fighting" - which most females sorely lack in.

The biggest differences are sociological, then psychological and emotional.

In this day and age where deadly weapons are easily available females (if your idiocy were true) could easily equalize the "strength discrepancy" and kill or otherwise harm males.
Still, males do it more often then females.

You know why? Because youre a blathering idiot thats why.

but, anyway, since youre a simpleminded dumbfuck who can only think in general terms im sure you wont be able to understand any of this.

for example, only a retard could think i was actually saying males and females are equal.

So, ... fuck off.

 

[Naked Ninja]

The realism argument is a bit arbitrary. The game isn't going to force you to find a squire to help you get into or out of plate mail either, nor will it take 15 minutes to do so, both of which are also realistic. For things which make the game more fun for players, we're generally willing to suspend disbelief a bit.

The people arguing that letting female characters have equal stats to men is simply over that line and unacceptable, in terms of suspension of disbelief, when all the other little inaccurate things we ignore aren't, are generally all young males for whom this is some sort of gender pride thing.

I don't care about that stance, at all.


Right, continue then.

I don't think this is about simply ignoring things that make the game more fun (might be wrong, though). I think it has to do with missing opportunities for characterization. Like, instead of making both genders equal, you might have made women weaker by default (let's suppose, a bonus to one attribute and a penalty to str). Then you could have created female only traits that ignored these restrictions, like, say, amazon. Finally you could weave these traits into the story of the world, so if one chooses amazon as her trait, she will be treated differently in a lot of places. Thus, instead of simply ignoring something "boring", you make it into a hard choice that makes your game seem more alive.

However, I don't think this is really a good thing for your game unless you want to make the differences between genders a major point of your game's theme. What I am trying to say is that I think Lyric Suite is simply arguing on the principle of the idea that it is ok to ignore things without thought when writing a work of fiction.

As you say, I don't think it's a good fit for my game unless I were going to focus on gender differences, which I'm not. It certainly could work, and I understand your point, but I think there is a sort of trade-off. Some players might see gender difference as interesting opportunities for characterization, others might see them as simply limiting their choices based on gender. You can argue that there is nothing preventing females from playing weaker fighters, but no one likes to feel 'second best'.

Also, I don't think it's as fun, conceptually, for women. Women get to live lives in society where their gender is generally seen as somewhat inferior. If they're looking for a bit of escapism and run into the fact that if they want to make a female Knight, they have to accept that it probably won't be as good as a male warrior, that design could be aggravating for them, rather than an opportunity for interesting characterization. I think my ex-gf's response shows that it's so ingrained in society that even women themselves, when seeking escapist retreats, bring that baggage with them. Which is why I was so horrified that my ex said, without thinking, "I don't want to play the girl", when there was no reason to assume the female char in L4D was in any way deficient. I'm happy for women to have different experiences in SoW, but I don't them to be considered 'second best' for certain character builds.

In some cases it can be interesting to explore gender differences, but I don't think it's appropriate for zombie-shooter escapism. And I've decided it isn't what SoW is about, so it's purposefully excluded from my design.

 

[Lyric Suite]

For every guy i know i could find a woman who could kick his ass.

No you wouldn't. Stop the lying plz.

 

[nihil]

Very good.
btw, there is no such thing as "strength penalty in real life" for women. - to the moron above.
Its all individual.

Well, the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman, and the average man is stronger than the average woman. So I'd have to agree there's a real life "strength penalty" for women.

 

[Naked Ninja]

What are saying here is that this is an alternate universe where biology is exactly the same as in reality

You're both incorrect, sorry. What we're saying is this is a fantasy universe where we're going to ignore some of the realities of real world biology, 'cause it's funner that way for players.

Things like needing to pee, or needing help to put on heavy armor, or not being able to wear heavy armor all day. These things are all biological restrictions based on human physiology, and none of them will be in SoW, for the same reason that females won't get strength penalty : Because I think it makes the game less fun for players, not more.

I only care about realism where it makes for better gameplay. It's the same reason that I don't complain that the knight moving in an L-shape in chess hurts the strategy because it's nonsensical. Some unrealistic things make a game funner for players.

 

[Silellak]

Very good.
btw, there is no such thing as "strength penalty in real life" for women. - to the moron above.
Its all individual.

Well, the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman, and the average man is stronger than the average woman. So I'd have to agree there's a real life "strength penalty" for women.

If you want to be really specific, you should bitch about the fact that attributes can't change over time - ie, you're stuck with whatever strength you "rolled" on birth. Obviously this isn't true - some people might start higher than others (and have greater potential for improvement), but the general conceit a lot of RPG systems make that you roll strength once and you're stuck with it is pretty ridiculous - at least if you start talking about "realism" and how women being weaker is more "realistic".

 

[Zomg]

Why does no one ever engage with my point that it would be equally "unrealistic" for a man to pack a uterus in these games, that it would be pretty weird if you were reading a fantasy story and a dude was pregnant and they never explained it. You'd flip back and see if these people were hermaphroditic frogs or something and you skipped that page. It's a matter of identity, not realism. You wouldn't say "that's unrealistic :frown:" you'd be fucking confused.

Some people get that feeling from the casual assumption in fiction with pretensions to, I dunno, vaguely realistic allegory that there is parity in strength between the sexes, like ME

 

[Naked Ninja]

Probably because people have met strong/big/sturdy women and it's less of a mental jump to accept an individual woman who is abnormally physically powerful than it is to accept a man with female sex organs?

Just a guess.

 

[Lyric Suite]

You're both incorrect, sorry. What we're saying is this is a fantasy universe where we're going to ignore some of the realities of real world biology, 'cause it's funner that way for players.

Things like needing to pee, or needing help to put on heavy armor, or not being able to wear heavy armor all day. These things are all biological restrictions based on human physiology, and none of them will be in SoW, for the same reason that females won't get strength penalty : Because I think it makes the game less fun for players, not more.

I only care about realism where it makes for better gameplay. It's the same reason that I don't complain that the knight moving in an L-shape in chess hurts the strategy because it's nonsensical. Some unrealistic things make a game funner for players.

Except this has nothing to do with realism as a gameplay element but consistency within the setting. The fact that the player is not required to have his character take a shit does not mean that it is not implied his character has a need to defecate on a regular basis, unless eitherwise noted.

 

[Zomg]

When fiction makes a thick-limbed, large woman equal in strength to the average man as is sensical, a woman whose entire bearing is multi-sigma exceptional, that is a nod to my sensibility that I appreciate

 

[Silellak]

You're both incorrect, sorry. What we're saying is this is a fantasy universe where we're going to ignore some of the realities of real world biology, 'cause it's funner that way for players.

Things like needing to pee, or needing help to put on heavy armor, or not being able to wear heavy armor all day. These things are all biological restrictions based on human physiology, and none of them will be in SoW, for the same reason that females won't get strength penalty : Because I think it makes the game less fun for players, not more.

I only care about realism where it makes for better gameplay. It's the same reason that I don't complain that the knight moving in an L-shape in chess hurts the strategy because it's nonsensical. Some unrealistic things make a game funner for players.

Except this has nothing to do with realism as a gameplay element but consistency within the setting. The fact that the player is not required to have his character take a shit does not mean that it is not implied his character has a need to defecate on a regular basis, unless eitherwise noted.

I would only be considered about "consistency within the setting" if the game world were full of "abnormally strong" women - all Gareth is saying is that the game won't penalize you stat-wise for picking a female character. Why does that suddenly mean strong women are less rare in the setting? The character creation system simply gives you the ability to create a strong woman PC without worrying about an inherent "gender penalty".

Super-genius, 10 INT characters in the Fallout world should be considered rare, correct? So why does no one bitch about "consistency within the setting" because the character system allows you to create your PC as a genius?

 

[hiver]

Theyre all just sad fucks who just lost their last remaining excuse to feel superior over someone or something. In a game..

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Yeah, there's no need to want it in a game, since it's already true in real life.

but seriously you fucking autists, let's talk about the game

 

[Zomg]

I just wanna nurture new life inside me is all

 

[Zeus]

I just wanna nurture new life inside me is all

Come on, someone's got to code a game where this guy can get pregnant.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I just wanna nurture new life inside me is all

Eat poorly cooked pork, then

 

[Lyric Suite]

Super-genius, 10 INT characters in the Fallout world should be considered rare, correct?

Rare, yes, but not improbable. The problem is that you would have to adjust the setting to respond to said improbability in an internally consistent manner, which is not easy to do.

BTW, do you think your argument would apply to racial differences as well? Do you think character creation should reflect the fact the strongest human cannot be as strong as the strongest half-orc, according to the setting?

 

[zeitgeist]

I just wanna nurture new life inside me is all

Come on, someone's got to code a game where this guy can get pregnant.

I'm almost certain I've seen some discussions along those lines on gamedev.net a long time ago, maybe even a design doc.

BTW, do you think your argument would apply to racial differences as well? Do you think character creation should reflect the fact the strongest human cannot be as strong as the strongest half-orc, according to the setting?

Depends. Does the hypothetical game designer in question have a half-orc girlfriend who really, really wants to play a pretty half-orc princess?