Life is Strange isn't a AAA title, last I checked. The space marine, judging by the broad shoulders, the way he walked, and the way he moved is quite clearly a he.
Tomb Raider is just more in line with the rape-revenge story. Half the interactions you see of her in the prequels place her in the position of a victim overcoming adversity, her strength coming from victimhood. That's... yeah, problematic.
The last batman game gave you a full view of Batgirl bat butt, but made batman's cloak defy physics to keep his covered.
Regardless, the argument I was going against was that ALL games now cater to some sort of SJW conspiracy. They do not, clearly.
ok...Life is strange is not AAA still one of the Toptitles of last year. Concerning the Space Marine, even you probably heard the Name Samus Aran
I would never even dare to reduce Lara Croft to a Victim...from what i know of her Character she would probably never see herself in that Role...a pitty that people like you do. But even if...i dont see how that is catering to male power-fantasy. And also, why is her overcoming the victimisation "problematic"?
The Bat-Butt can be seen if one knows how...for the most part i would argue you are just not trying ;D
But you are right. Not all Games cater to the SJW. I just wanted to point out how you reduce the diversety of Game-Titles. And as with all titles you should be aware that the target audiences of a title like Call of Duty, or Life is Strange are hugely different. That doesnt exclude the fact that people outside the target audience arent capable of enjoying those games.
I said it was a sexist male stereotype, and that defining a female character as being strong by ascribing to her sexist male stereotypes enforces that stereotypical masculine behaviour is strong, and stereotypical feminine behaviour is weak, which is toxic. If we define strength as behaviour that fits what is stereotypically masculine, we are saying that to be a strong man you must ascribe to that behaviour (don't cry, solve problems with violence and anger, be physically tough, etc). Doing such is damaging for both men and women: it signals to women that being feminine or a woman is weak, and to men that they cannot express emotional s or pursue hobbies and careers that do not fit into the narrow mold given to them by society.
As a man, I would like to be able to wear the colour pink without people assuming I'm gay, or weak. I'd like my son's to feel comfortable pursuing a career in nursing, dance, or interior design without having to worry about being chastised for their choices. I'd like my daughters to be able to pursue a career in the games industry without having to worry about cyberstalking, sexual harassment, and death threats.
Writing was at least on par, but the pacing is like 18 times better than BG2, which just drags, especially if you try to do the druid stronghold. You have to walk through a forest every time you go back to your strong hold.
@Envygames I'm glad Life is Strange was a top title, because that might push the AAAs into actually making an effort to diversify games.
Samus Aran was originally a woman as a gmmick. She's evolved beyond that, but her history is important.
I think "victim" was a poor word choice. "Survivor" would be better. Overcoming adversity is not a problem, and again also probably not the best way for me to put it. It's more a pervasive idea that for a woman to be strong, she must overcome something, often sexual violence or abuse but not always. Lara is subjected to that in her prequel games. That said, I'm still happy to see a woman in a leading role in an action game made by a AAA, I just think there's still room for improvement.
I don't think you and I are actually on different sides of this issue, I just think I may be more polemical than you.
@Envygames I'm glad Life is Strange was a top title, because that might push the AAAs into actually making an effort to diversify games.
Samus Aran was originally a woman as a gmmick. She's evolved beyond that, but her history is important.
I think "victim" was a poor word choice. "Survivor" would be better. Overcoming adversity is not a problem, and again also probably not the best way for me to put it. It's more a pervasive idea that for a woman to be strong, she must overcome something, often sexual violence or abuse but not always. Lara is subjected to that in her prequel games. That said, I'm still happy to see a woman in a leading role in an action game made by a AAA, I just think there's still room for improvement.
I don't think you and I are actually on different sides of this issue, I just think I may be more polemical than you.
@TheWhitefire : So i start here with the last sentiment: I think that is probably the case. Although i get from what i read you are leaning strongly towards a femenist ideology. At least this is my feeling feel free to correct me on this. Have me just say at this Point that Ideology is almost always a distortion of reality. And i dont subscribe to that particular ideology. But again that feeling might come from the use of polemic in that case. And i am sorry if i did you unjustice here.
To your second paragraph: Its not for a women to be strong that she must overcome something. Its realy more of a protagonist thing. EVERY Protagonist be it female or male or anything inbetween must overcome some form of advercity.
finaly to your first sentences: No i dont think that is true. It will just show them that there is a market for different sort of Games. This wont mean that you will get a female in the lead of the next CoD Game. This will probably only give you Life is Strange 2 (Wich may or may not be a good thing)
And yes Samus was a Gimmick that is true...but ever since her one should be carefull to judge a Hero by the look of his/her Armour
@Envygames Its not for a women to be strong that she must overcome something. Its realy more of a protagonist thing. EVERY Protagonist be it female or male or anything inbetween must overcome some form of advercity.
The difference is in passive vs. Active response to adversity.
Compare the story, for instance, of Mazzy Fentan and Aerie. Aerie's background is that she was kept as a slave, and even after being freed never really took an active role in overcoming her adversity. She needs a Charname to overcome her adversity for her. Aerie is asurvivor: Bad things happened, and she made it through them and they changed her, and she learns how to be strong from it.
Mazzy Fentan is different. An ideal comparison, because she also survived something, but that isn't what she draws her strength from. Her strength comes from her conviction, her faith, and her heart. She isn't defined as a character by her surviving trauma, as "strong female characters" like Beatrix, Lara Croft, and many others are. Her strength comes from who she is, not what's been done to her.
@TheWhitefire : I dont see your point here. People deal with stuff in a different way. Not everyone is capable to overcome their Problems alone...quite often that is not the case, even in fiction. Aerie getting help from CHARNAME and taking it is only a weakness if you think taking help is a weakness. I would argue that Aerie seeking someone to talk to about the Trauma of the mutalation that was done to her Body, is certainly a form of Strength. Different from Mazzys no doubt.
EDIT: From a Storywriting point an active Response to adversity is what makes the most sense. At least in a Game. In This Scenario Mazzy would be the better Protagonist in a Game, while i think Aerie would shine more in some sort of Drama Novel.
Taking help is not a weakness. However, that being the only thing that defines a character is an issue. Mazzy Fentan gets Charname to help her poisoned family member, after all. But again Mazzy is not defined as a character solely by how much of a survivor she is, or by all the terrible things done to her the way Aerie is.
Aerie is defined as a character by her trauma. A character can have trauma, but that shouldn't be their sole defining character trait.
I said it was a sexist male stereotype, and that defining a female character as being strong by ascribing to her sexist male stereotypes enforces that stereotypical masculine behaviour is strong, and stereotypical feminine behaviour is weak, which is toxic. If we define strength as behaviour that fits what is stereotypically masculine, we are saying that to be a strong man you must ascribe to that behaviour (don't cry, solve problems with violence and anger, be physically tough, etc). Doing such is damaging for both men and women: it signals to women that being feminine or a woman is weak, and to men that they cannot express emotional s or pursue hobbies and careers that do not fit into the narrow mold given to them by society.
As a man, I would like to be able to wear the colour pink without people assuming I'm gay, or weak. I'd like my son's to feel comfortable pursuing a career in nursing, dance, or interior design without having to worry about being chastised for their choices. I'd like my daughters to be able to pursue a career in the games industry without having to worry about cyberstalking, sexual harassment, and death threats.
I'd actually say that a woman taking on a male gender stereotype says that women don't have to fit a traditional womanly stereotype and vice versa which is what you say you want in your final paragraph. Behaviours need to stop being assigned to genders and people should be looked on as individuals. There's no reason that women can't be hot-headed, and violent. It's societies fault that we've decided there are male behaviours and female behaviours. Also with Khalid we have a character every bit as successful a party member as his dominant wife yet is a nervous stutterer. That says a speech impediment and being a bit of a scaredy cat as a male don't stop you being a kick-ass warrior and front line tank, this is a good message.
I really don't understand why you shy away from a lot of arguments and, to top it all off, you have this adamant vision that everything should be done and portrayed in a single form.
That is very exclusive view of the game that aims only at alienating people - and deleting any form of their representation.
I am sorry, but I find your belief that the portrayal of people seeking help from others, women or men being interact in the game world through strength, charisma or wit being "oppressive" in some way very alienating of how a lot of people in our own society deal with the world (and that is for people of all walks of life).
You talk here about how you want to support a "gaming represented minority", but why can that only be brought by excluding others?
How is that any different from wanting to make a game like Dead or Alive Extreme XXX?
To me, the only difference is that it fits your vision of how the world should be - but is equality bland and exclusive of people.
How can you possibly only want one extreme end of the spectrum in a role playing game, particularly in a series that is praised for its interesting NPCs and interactions of their various personalities?
There are many here that point out that they do not want to exclude A or B from the game in favor of C, they want A, B, C and all other letters in it so that we can have all the colors of the spectrum in the game and interact with it with all other colors of the spectrum.
What you want is a single color game - and if you want that, you should probably find role playing games similar to Final Fantasy with a writing that fits your vision of the world.
In those games, role playing with the world is done only as a single route (without branching), thus it does not seek to embrace other colors as its appeal - which is fine for a game, but not what I see as the appeal of BG, much less for a game that seeks to put emphasis in the role playing.
What I want, and I see many wanting out of Baldur's Gate, is to have the whole mesh of colors thrown in and let people interact with it in any way shape or form.
That, to me, is what bringing diversity to BG would be.
Taking help is not a weakness. However, that being the only thing that defines a character is an issue. Mazzy Fentan gets Charname to help her poisoned family member, after all. But again Mazzy is not defined as a character solely by how much of a survivor she is, or by all the terrible things done to her the way Aerie is.
Aerie is defined as a character by her trauma. A character can have trauma, but that shouldn't be their sole defining character trait.
Aerie had some incredibly messed up stuff done to her. As a character it's completely understandable to be hung up on a life that was denied to you and what amounts to being crippled and enslaved before release. Characters don't all need to be role models, how boring if every character had to be some form of role-model as opposed to a relateable person. That's not diverse at all.
@TheWhitefire : I dont see your point here. People deal with stuff in a different way. Not everyone is capable to overcome their Problems alone...quite often that is not the case, even in fiction. Aerie getting help from CHARNAME and taking it is only a weakness if you think taking help is a weakness. I would argue that Aerie seeking someone to talk to about the Trauma of the mutalation that was done to her Body, is certainly a form of Strength. Different from Mazzys no doubt.
EDIT: From a Storywriting point an active Response to adversity is what makes the most sense. At least in a Game. In This Scenario Mazzy would be the better Protagonist in a Game, while i think Aerie would shine more in some sort of Drama Novel.
I disagree that RPGs can't support a character like that. Aerie wouldn't make a good protagonist, but as a character really enriches the story.
I really don't understand why you shy away from a lot of arguments and, to top it all off, you have this adamant vision that everything should be done and portrayed in a single form.
That is very exclusive view of the game that aims only at alienating people - and deleting any form of their representation.
I am sorry, but I find your belief that the portrayal of people seeking help from others, women or men being interact in the game world through strength, charisma or wit being "oppressive" in some way very alienating of how a lot of people in our own society deal with the world (and that is for people of all walks of life).
You talk here about how you want to support a "gaming represented minority", but why can that only be brought by excluding others?
How is that any different from wanting to make a game like Dead or Alive Extreme XXX?
To me, the only difference is that it fits your vision of how the world should be - but is equality bland and exclusive of people.
How can you possibly only want one extreme end of the spectrum in a role playing game, particularly in a series that is praised for its interesting NPCs and interactions of their various personalities?
There are many here that point out that they do not want to exclude A or B from the game in favor of C, they want A, B, C and all other letters in it so that we can have all the colors of the spectrum in the game and interact with it with all other colors of the spectrum.
What you want is a single color game - and if you want that, you should probably find role playing games similar to Final Fantasy with a writing that fits your vision of the world.
In those games, role playing with the world is done only as a single route (without branching), thus it does not seek to embrace other colors as its appeal - which is fine for a game, but not what I see as the appeal of BG, much less for a game that seeks to put emphasis in the role playing.
What I want, and I see many wanting out of Baldur's Gate, is to have the whole mesh of colors thrown in and let people interact with it in any way shape or form.
That, to me, is what bringing diversity to BG would be.
I agree should be a melting pot of interesting personalities that fit into the setting. LGBT characters should be included in a manner in accordance with the setting. Nothing should be sacred and treated differently though and players should have similar freedom with all characters regardless of them being a minority.
Taking help is not a weakness. However, that being the only thing that defines a character is an issue. Mazzy Fentan gets Charname to help her poisoned family member, after all. But again Mazzy is not defined as a character solely by how much of a survivor she is, or by all the terrible things done to her the way Aerie is.
Aerie is defined as a character by her trauma. A character can have trauma, but that shouldn't be their sole defining character trait.
@TheWhitefire: That realy depends in my opinion. Mainly if it stays the sole defning character trait. But yeah most onedimensional characters are boring. I consede that point
When it comes to Aerie though...Aeries life up to the point CHARNAME meets her is basicly only Trauma (Slave from Childhood, having her body mutulated and to top it off turned into an ogre.) So that being a major Point of her character this is understandable. But through all this she definatly has kept a lot of her innocence. That innocence is for me the most defining charectertraid she has. And i dont think thats the only thing she brings to the table as a character either. She wants to prove herself to other members of the group even fearing for their respect if you romance her. She is also very caring and curious as seen in basicly all her "banter"....so i would denie the charge that you can reduce Aerie to her Trauma....well ok you can but i doubt you do Aerie justice with that
Is that enough to make a compelling character? i would say in Aeries case yes
EDIT:
@Mikey205 : I think you havent read what i said. I said that Aerie would be better in a novel than in a Game. From a Roleplaying Standpoint, i think she also could be a Protagonist, but than the RPG might get realy boring if you dont like the person trying to help you
"What you want is a single color game - and if you want that, you should probably find role playing games similar to Final Fantasy with a writing that fits your vision of the world. "
That's a misrepresentation of my point. I never said having traumatized characters is bad. I said that making something like victimhood the sole defining trait of a character is bad. I don't want one note games. I want just the opposite, I want characters that are varied and compelling, with likes, hopes, desires and emotional depth. I want characters who are strong characters first-not strong as in RRRRRRRNPOWAAAAAH but strong as in deep, well developed, and with powerful narrative impact on the story. Like Cassandra, or Leliana, or Sera, or Mazzy Fentan, Ashley Williams, Ellie from Last of Us, Clementine from the walking dead, Eiger from Shadowrun Dragonfall, Gobbet and is0bel from Shadowrun Hong Kong. Not all of these are role models, not all of them are warriors or mages, not all of them live lives free of trauma, but none of them are defined solely by that trauma, they cover a wide variety of games and companies, few of the games are dull one note adventures.
The key is depth. Treating female (and male!) characters like fully developed people. Not just eye candy, not just someone for the protagonist to save, not just bland companion characters for a male protagonist to romance. I don't want less variety, I want more depth.
"That's a misrepresentation of my point. I never said having traumatized characters is bad. I said that making something like victimhood the sole defining trait of a character is bad. I don't want one note games. I want just the opposite, I want characters that are varied and compelling, with likes, hopes, desires and emotional depth. "
I disagree with you.
Let's take Aerie for example.
Aerie has all that you say. She has likes, hopes, desires and emotional depth.
She is presented as an innocent girl, that paid a high price for her innocence. She was capture by slavers trying to be a hero - whilst even defying her parents. She was tortured, caged, presented like a wild beast to the world (thus being treated like an animal and not as a person) and ultimately mutilated losing a key part of what represented her identity and her freedom.
She is then turned into an Ogre - and this is constant and strong psychological torture (remember, depending on dialogue options you take she can no longer maintain her will and she goes crazy and tries to kill you - ultimately ending in her death).
She is then rescued, after enduring years of physical and mental torture, including with mutilation and loss of identity as a person (remember, being treated as an animal and then having her mind decaying into a raging monster).
All of this is extremely recent to her - in fact, it was happening up to the point you meet and save her.
What happens after that?
She is afraid of the world, but she has the courage to travel with CHARNAME. She still has her innocence and sense of wonder, she has her curiosity and she continuously grows stronger as a person.
She has hopes (finding her family again and hoping they will accept her), she has desires and develops more (to experience life, travel, learn to be a better mage and a priest), she has likes (she often talks about her like of nature, poetry), she has fears (of losing her freedom, losing the acceptance of her people) and ultimately becomes a strong character with a good sense of independence.
That is an interesting character with depth to me. And she fills all your criteria too.
Now let's look at Ellie from Last of Us.
Ellie starts out being protected for being a child - she is constantly shoved to the side - but she wants to prove she is an adult. She is tough due to the harshness of her up-bringing (military school) and her traumatic experience (loss of her friend and being infected).
She is constantly afraid and plagued by the loss of her friend and of what life she can expect by being infected. She also suffers a lot by not knowing what life is like (see how she often wonders how Joel's daughter life was like). A lot of her development is associated with dealing with these issues.
She still has her innocence of a child, she has hopes (to help cure the world, to perhaps have a life), she has desires (to be able to live and experience life, find love, etc) and she has fears (of dying, of what life she can have, etc).
The personalities of Aerie and Ellie are different (Aerie is more fearful, Ellie is tougher). But do I see similarities in both her's and Aerie's development - yes I do.
The difference to me, besides the fearful/tougher part, is that Ellie has a lot more screen time focused on her to be able to show her development, whilst Aerie has substantially less - you get to know Ellie more because of that, thus you are able to relate more to her.
But if you see the elements, you see why I think that BG2 does a fine good job in portraying its characters, in just the few lines that Aerie gets, they were able to give her a lot of traits and to pain a colorful personality.
The problem though, is that you appear to not like Aerie as a character - to you she is someone you do not want to have around. To others (myself included) she is.
You can hate the character, but you should not say she is shallow and without depth because of that - try to look at her without the bias of her fearful personality and you will see she has depth.
And it is perfectly fine to have a character like Aerie, just as much it is fine to have a character like Minsc (which is a token of dumb good guy, but that has depth too), it is fine to have a character like Edwin, Korgan, Mazzy, Yoshimo (love this guy, so sad he doesn't stick around..... sigh).
And what I say we should do is add more characters, more banters. Add characters that make sense to the setting and feel free to add characters of all personalities and walks of life.
Not everyone will like all characters, but we should have a good enough pool so that a lot of people can like a few. If the CHARNAME should find someone they don't like, then too should CHARNAME have the option to tell these NPCs off in various ways (and to hell with any "safe spaces").
And to sum it all up, take a look at the diversity just now, I like Aerie as a character, but I don't like Mazzy.
You, on the other hand, like Mazzy but don't like Aerie.
We both agree BG2 is a great game.
Is that not proof that BG2 achieved a good diversity?
Why can't we have more of that (Aeries, Mazzys, Minscs, etc)? Why must all characters only be Mazzys?
EDIT:
And one last thing, you often times commented here how its sad that the only strength is through force of muscle and that would be a "masculine trait", and that there should be characters that are not only strong due to brute force.
Now I don't particularly agree with this "masculine / feminine" trait thing - much less that the diversity of strengths is not presented in BG2 -, but assuming that "masculine / feminine trait" point of view as right for a minute, don't you think that the fact that after all cruelty and torture - both psychological and physical - that Aerie goes through, she still being able to retain her good, kindness, loving and peaceful nature is not a testament to her strength?
If you do not consider that as a strength of character - and, in the view of "masculine / feminine traits" a display of said "feminine" strength, I really don't know what it would take to show that "feminine strength" you mention.
Is it just me, or doeshaving David Gaiderrespondinghere adds a whole new level of credibility to Beamdog.?
Fixed.
Umm, okay. That's a rather odd way to respond. I asked a question, and you turned my question into a statement, claiming it was a fix. As if the question was somehow... "wrong"? My apologies... how presumptive of me...?
At any rate, I guess that's just your quirky way of answering my question.
I had no issues with Minsc or that transgender character (sorry, forgot the name).
But how the male and female characters are represented in the game? Very sad that we have come to witness this in a beloved game. No, I do not want to debate in my (fantasy medieval RPG) game about modern issues (if they can be called as such), and to demand some social justice. Sadly, this made me question the future of this franchise. Baldur's Gate 3? Sorry, I won't jump and buy another game instantly. At least not until I previously check about the amount of nonsense via other means.
Taking help is not a weakness. However, that being the only thing that defines a character is an issue. Mazzy Fentan gets Charname to help her poisoned family member, after all. But again Mazzy is not defined as a character solely by how much of a survivor she is, or by all the terrible things done to her the way Aerie is.
Aerie is defined as a character by her trauma. A character can have trauma, but that shouldn't be their sole defining character trait.
@TheWhitefire Charname in BG is defined by what has been done to them. Charname in BG is the biggest victim going.
Seems absurd to pick Aerie as an example when Charname themselves wouldn't exist were it not for them being a victim, finding strong people to help them and growing stronger by overcoming adversity.
And when you look at all the NPC's, why single out Aerie as "the victim"?
All these NPC's are defined by their trauma
Minsc Xan Kivan (the ultimate example of being defined by their trauma, and no recovery) Yeslick Virconia Branwyn Valygar Anomen Nalia
Nah, "SJWs" are simply an effigy of what you hate. You take anyone who espouses politics you don't like and cast them as the "SJW bogeymen" because it's easier to simply dismiss what they have to say in one fell sweep than it is to actually address any arguments, critique, etc.
I am also amused that you think I care about credibility among anti-social justice types. That y'all can't stop complaining that you're not the undisputed center of the universe is a pretty big hit to your own credibility, and somehow it's supposed to bother me that you don't like what I have to say? I never expected you to.
Its ironic because you can't see that you are also doing the same by deliberately ignoring the fact that SJWs not only exist but also exhibit the behaviours they are being called out for. Don't worry keep being obtuse its working really well for you so far....
Nah, "SJWs" are simply an effigy of what you hate. You take anyone who espouses politics you don't like and cast them as the "SJW bogeymen" because it's easier to simply dismiss what they have to say in one fell sweep than it is to actually address any arguments, critique, etc.
I am also amused that you think I care about credibility among anti-social justice types. That y'all can't stop complaining that you're not the undisputed center of the universe is a pretty big hit to your own credibility, and somehow it's supposed to bother me that you don't like what I have to say? I never expected you to.
Its ironic because you can't see that you are also doing the same by deliberately ignoring the fact that SJWs not only exist but also exhibit the behaviours they are being called out for. Don't worry keep being obtuse its working really well for you so far....
Funny how swjs never invaded the site and relentlessly bombarded us or tried to destroy the game. Hell, not a single one is here fighting you. You are the one shoving your agenda down our throats.
You seem a little upset, has the discussion upset you ? We are only discussing the topic which is outlined on the thread title.
"Funny how swjs never invaded the site and relentlessly bombarded us..."
Why would they ? SJWs are the ones that have caused the game's reputation to plummet. Why would they need to bombard you ?
"or tried to destroy the game"
No one has destroyed or attempted to destroy the game, that would be virtually impossible to do.
"Hell, not a single one is here fighting you."
Thats not technically accurate, BelleSorciere has stated that she believes in the SJW narrative and the discussion I am having is with her. Try and keep up.
"You are the one shoving your agenda down our throats."
If you class having a discussion with someone on a thread which has been setup to talk about said issues "shoving my agenda down your throat" then you have a very warped view of what an agenda is.
Unless you mean you think we should all only say what you think is true ? Is that what you want ? An entire thread dedicated to echo'ing what Grum believes ?
@mf2112 I find your contributions valuable and I find @Diogenes42 to be terribly entertaining but I disagree with the sentiment. I get it -- you are saying the more you respond, the longer this conversation goes on the worst it looks for the developers.
But I think there is some value in letting the anti-Mizhena activists speak. The more they do so the more they reveal the inconsistencies in their argument the more it becomes clear that they are channeling talking points.
And this will be important *when* the controversy comes back. The negative reviews of the expanded Mizhena NPC are already being written -- I think there will be some value in showing that the opinions of the character were formed before she actually appeared.
@Envygames Its not for a women to be strong that she must overcome something. Its realy more of a protagonist thing. EVERY Protagonist be it female or male or anything inbetween must overcome some form of advercity.
The difference is in passive vs. Active response to adversity.
Compare the story, for instance, of Mazzy Fentan and Aerie. Aerie's background is that she was kept as a slave, and even after being freed never really took an active role in overcoming her adversity. She needs a Charname to overcome her adversity for her. Aerie is asurvivor: Bad things happened, and she made it through them and they changed her, and she learns how to be strong from it.
Mazzy Fentan is different. An ideal comparison, because she also survived something, but that isn't what she draws her strength from. Her strength comes from her conviction, her faith, and her heart. She isn't defined as a character by her surviving trauma, as "strong female characters" like Beatrix, Lara Croft, and many others are. Her strength comes from who she is, not what's been done to her.
Mazzy was already an experienced adventurer before meeting Charname. And in fact led her own group. Aerie was a neophyte adventurer who had been sheltered for years by Quayle after her trauma. Comparing the two is not really fair.
Aerie's travels are not about Charname "overcoming adversity for her" (well, the Kalah things aside) but her learning she had power of her own. She was a gifted cleric/mage who needed to see that she is strong in her own way. And to do that, she needed to see the world beyond her circus, as Quayle knew when he asks Charname to take her adventuring.
Simply put, Aerie is just starting down the path Mazzy was already much farther long.
@mf2112 I find your contributions valuable and I find @Diogenes42 to be terribly entertaining but I disagree with the sentiment. I get it -- you are saying the more you respond, the longer this conversation goes on the worst it looks for the developers.
But I think there is some value in letting the anti-Mizhena activists speak. The more they do so the more they reveal the inconsistencies in their argument the more it becomes clear that they are channeling talking points.
And this will be important *when* the controversy comes back. The negative reviews of the expanded Mizhena NPC are already being written -- I think there will be some value in showing that the opinions of the character were formed before she actually appeared.
Exactly. Get them talking long enough and the trolls always tell on themselves. One of them started out with "SJWs" and "agendas", and ended up getting banned for spouting straight-up Klan talk. In the end, the truth always comes out.
Comments
I would never even dare to reduce Lara Croft to a Victim...from what i know of her Character she would probably never see herself in that Role...a pitty that people like you do. But even if...i dont see how that is catering to male power-fantasy. And also, why is her overcoming the victimisation "problematic"?
The Bat-Butt can be seen if one knows how...for the most part i would argue you are just not trying ;D
But you are right. Not all Games cater to the SJW. I just wanted to point out how you reduce the diversety of Game-Titles. And as with all titles you should be aware that the target audiences of a title like Call of Duty, or Life is Strange are hugely different. That doesnt exclude the fact that people outside the target audience arent capable of enjoying those games.
As a man, I would like to be able to wear the colour pink without people assuming I'm gay, or weak. I'd like my son's to feel comfortable pursuing a career in nursing, dance, or interior design without having to worry about being chastised for their choices. I'd like my daughters to be able to pursue a career in the games industry without having to worry about cyberstalking, sexual harassment, and death threats.
Expansion was great, but better writing than BG2? Just... no.
"Yes oh omnipresent authority figure."
That's just her personality. She's annoying, but she grows on you. Nothing wrong with her, made the character unique and is not sexist.
Samus Aran was originally a woman as a gmmick. She's evolved beyond that, but her history is important.
I think "victim" was a poor word choice. "Survivor" would be better. Overcoming adversity is not a problem, and again also probably not the best way for me to put it. It's more a pervasive idea that for a woman to be strong, she must overcome something, often sexual violence or abuse but not always. Lara is subjected to that in her prequel games. That said, I'm still happy to see a woman in a leading role in an action game made by a AAA, I just think there's still room for improvement.
I don't think you and I are actually on different sides of this issue, I just think I may be more polemical than you.
So i start here with the last sentiment: I think that is probably the case. Although i get from what i read you are leaning strongly towards a femenist ideology. At least this is my feeling feel free to correct me on this. Have me just say at this Point that Ideology is almost always a distortion of reality. And i dont subscribe to that particular ideology. But again that feeling might come from the use of polemic in that case. And i am sorry if i did you unjustice here.
To your second paragraph:
Its not for a women to be strong that she must overcome something. Its realy more of a protagonist thing. EVERY Protagonist be it female or male or anything inbetween must overcome some form of advercity.
finaly to your first sentences:
No i dont think that is true. It will just show them that there is a market for different sort of Games. This wont mean that you will get a female in the lead of the next CoD Game. This will probably only give you Life is Strange 2 (Wich may or may not be a good thing)
And yes Samus was a Gimmick that is true...but ever since her one should be carefull to judge a Hero by the look of his/her Armour
The difference is in passive vs. Active response to adversity.
Compare the story, for instance, of Mazzy Fentan and Aerie. Aerie's background is that she was kept as a slave, and even after being freed never really took an active role in overcoming her adversity. She needs a Charname to overcome her adversity for her. Aerie is asurvivor: Bad things happened, and she made it through them and they changed her, and she learns how to be strong from it.
Mazzy Fentan is different. An ideal comparison, because she also survived something, but that isn't what she draws her strength from. Her strength comes from her conviction, her faith, and her heart. She isn't defined as a character by her surviving trauma, as "strong female characters" like Beatrix, Lara Croft, and many others are. Her strength comes from who she is, not what's been done to her.
EDIT: From a Storywriting point an active Response to adversity is what makes the most sense. At least in a Game. In This Scenario Mazzy would be the better Protagonist in a Game, while i think Aerie would shine more in some sort of Drama Novel.
Aerie is defined as a character by her trauma. A character can have trauma, but that shouldn't be their sole defining character trait.
I am going to be a bit blunt here.
I really don't understand why you shy away from a lot of arguments and, to top it all off, you have this adamant vision that everything should be done and portrayed in a single form.
That is very exclusive view of the game that aims only at alienating people - and deleting any form of their representation.
I am sorry, but I find your belief that the portrayal of people seeking help from others, women or men being interact in the game world through strength, charisma or wit being "oppressive" in some way very alienating of how a lot of people in our own society deal with the world (and that is for people of all walks of life).
You talk here about how you want to support a "gaming represented minority", but why can that only be brought by excluding others?
How is that any different from wanting to make a game like Dead or Alive Extreme XXX?
To me, the only difference is that it fits your vision of how the world should be - but is equality bland and exclusive of people.
How can you possibly only want one extreme end of the spectrum in a role playing game, particularly in a series that is praised for its interesting NPCs and interactions of their various personalities?
There are many here that point out that they do not want to exclude A or B from the game in favor of C, they want A, B, C and all other letters in it so that we can have all the colors of the spectrum in the game and interact with it with all other colors of the spectrum.
What you want is a single color game - and if you want that, you should probably find role playing games similar to Final Fantasy with a writing that fits your vision of the world.
In those games, role playing with the world is done only as a single route (without branching), thus it does not seek to embrace other colors as its appeal - which is fine for a game, but not what I see as the appeal of BG, much less for a game that seeks to put emphasis in the role playing.
What I want, and I see many wanting out of Baldur's Gate, is to have the whole mesh of colors thrown in and let people interact with it in any way shape or form.
That, to me, is what bringing diversity to BG would be.
That realy depends in my opinion. Mainly if it stays the sole defning character trait. But yeah most onedimensional characters are boring. I consede that point
When it comes to Aerie though...Aeries life up to the point CHARNAME meets her is basicly only Trauma (Slave from Childhood, having her body mutulated and to top it off turned into an ogre.) So that being a major Point of her character this is understandable. But through all this she definatly has kept a lot of her innocence. That innocence is for me the most defining charectertraid she has. And i dont think thats the only thing she brings to the table as a character either. She wants to prove herself to other members of the group even fearing for their respect if you romance her. She is also very caring and curious as seen in basicly all her "banter"....so i would denie the charge that you can reduce Aerie to her Trauma....well ok you can but i doubt you do Aerie justice with that
Is that enough to make a compelling character? i would say in Aeries case yes
EDIT:
@Mikey205 : I think you havent read what i said. I said that Aerie would be better in a novel than in a Game. From a Roleplaying Standpoint, i think she also could be a Protagonist, but than the RPG might get realy boring if you dont like the person trying to help you
That's a misrepresentation of my point. I never said having traumatized characters is bad. I said that making something like victimhood the sole defining trait of a character is bad. I don't want one note games. I want just the opposite, I want characters that are varied and compelling, with likes, hopes, desires and emotional depth. I want characters who are strong characters first-not strong as in RRRRRRRNPOWAAAAAH but strong as in deep, well developed, and with powerful narrative impact on the story. Like Cassandra, or Leliana, or Sera, or Mazzy Fentan, Ashley Williams, Ellie from Last of Us, Clementine from the walking dead, Eiger from Shadowrun Dragonfall, Gobbet and is0bel from Shadowrun Hong Kong. Not all of these are role models, not all of them are warriors or mages, not all of them live lives free of trauma, but none of them are defined solely by that trauma, they cover a wide variety of games and companies, few of the games are dull one note adventures.
The key is depth. Treating female (and male!) characters like fully developed people. Not just eye candy, not just someone for the protagonist to save, not just bland companion characters for a male protagonist to romance. I don't want less variety, I want more depth.
"That's a misrepresentation of my point. I never said having traumatized characters is bad. I said that making something like victimhood the sole defining trait of a character is bad. I don't want one note games. I want just the opposite, I want characters that are varied and compelling, with likes, hopes, desires and emotional depth. "
I disagree with you.
Let's take Aerie for example.
Aerie has all that you say. She has likes, hopes, desires and emotional depth.
She is presented as an innocent girl, that paid a high price for her innocence. She was capture by slavers trying to be a hero - whilst even defying her parents. She was tortured, caged, presented like a wild beast to the world (thus being treated like an animal and not as a person) and ultimately mutilated losing a key part of what represented her identity and her freedom.
She is then turned into an Ogre - and this is constant and strong psychological torture (remember, depending on dialogue options you take she can no longer maintain her will and she goes crazy and tries to kill you - ultimately ending in her death).
She is then rescued, after enduring years of physical and mental torture, including with mutilation and loss of identity as a person (remember, being treated as an animal and then having her mind decaying into a raging monster).
All of this is extremely recent to her - in fact, it was happening up to the point you meet and save her.
What happens after that?
She is afraid of the world, but she has the courage to travel with CHARNAME. She still has her innocence and sense of wonder, she has her curiosity and she continuously grows stronger as a person.
She has hopes (finding her family again and hoping they will accept her), she has desires and develops more (to experience life, travel, learn to be a better mage and a priest), she has likes (she often talks about her like of nature, poetry), she has fears (of losing her freedom, losing the acceptance of her people) and ultimately becomes a strong character with a good sense of independence.
That is an interesting character with depth to me. And she fills all your criteria too.
Now let's look at Ellie from Last of Us.
Ellie starts out being protected for being a child - she is constantly shoved to the side - but she wants to prove she is an adult. She is tough due to the harshness of her up-bringing (military school) and her traumatic experience (loss of her friend and being infected).
She is constantly afraid and plagued by the loss of her friend and of what life she can expect by being infected. She also suffers a lot by not knowing what life is like (see how she often wonders how Joel's daughter life was like). A lot of her development is associated with dealing with these issues.
She still has her innocence of a child, she has hopes (to help cure the world, to perhaps have a life), she has desires (to be able to live and experience life, find love, etc) and she has fears (of dying, of what life she can have, etc).
The personalities of Aerie and Ellie are different (Aerie is more fearful, Ellie is tougher). But do I see similarities in both her's and Aerie's development - yes I do.
The difference to me, besides the fearful/tougher part, is that Ellie has a lot more screen time focused on her to be able to show her development, whilst Aerie has substantially less - you get to know Ellie more because of that, thus you are able to relate more to her.
But if you see the elements, you see why I think that BG2 does a fine good job in portraying its characters, in just the few lines that Aerie gets, they were able to give her a lot of traits and to pain a colorful personality.
The problem though, is that you appear to not like Aerie as a character - to you she is someone you do not want to have around. To others (myself included) she is.
You can hate the character, but you should not say she is shallow and without depth because of that - try to look at her without the bias of her fearful personality and you will see she has depth.
And it is perfectly fine to have a character like Aerie, just as much it is fine to have a character like Minsc (which is a token of dumb good guy, but that has depth too), it is fine to have a character like Edwin, Korgan, Mazzy, Yoshimo (love this guy, so sad he doesn't stick around..... sigh).
And what I say we should do is add more characters, more banters. Add characters that make sense to the setting and feel free to add characters of all personalities and walks of life.
Not everyone will like all characters, but we should have a good enough pool so that a lot of people can like a few. If the CHARNAME should find someone they don't like, then too should CHARNAME have the option to tell these NPCs off in various ways (and to hell with any "safe spaces").
And to sum it all up, take a look at the diversity just now, I like Aerie as a character, but I don't like Mazzy.
You, on the other hand, like Mazzy but don't like Aerie.
We both agree BG2 is a great game.
Is that not proof that BG2 achieved a good diversity?
Why can't we have more of that (Aeries, Mazzys, Minscs, etc)? Why must all characters only be Mazzys?
EDIT:
And one last thing, you often times commented here how its sad that the only strength is through force of muscle and that would be a "masculine trait", and that there should be characters that are not only strong due to brute force.
Now I don't particularly agree with this "masculine / feminine" trait thing - much less that the diversity of strengths is not presented in BG2 -, but assuming that "masculine / feminine trait" point of view as right for a minute, don't you think that the fact that after all cruelty and torture - both psychological and physical - that Aerie goes through, she still being able to retain her good, kindness, loving and peaceful nature is not a testament to her strength?
If you do not consider that as a strength of character - and, in the view of "masculine / feminine traits" a display of said "feminine" strength, I really don't know what it would take to show that "feminine strength" you mention.
At any rate, I guess that's just your quirky way of answering my question.
But how the male and female characters are represented in the game? Very sad that we have come to witness this in a beloved game.
No, I do not want to debate in my (fantasy medieval RPG) game about modern issues (if they can be called as such), and to demand some social justice.
Sadly, this made me question the future of this franchise. Baldur's Gate 3?
Sorry, I won't jump and buy another game instantly. At least not until I previously check about the amount of nonsense via other means.
Charname in BG is defined by what has been done to them. Charname in BG is the biggest victim going.
Seems absurd to pick Aerie as an example when Charname themselves wouldn't exist were it not for them being a victim, finding strong people to help them and growing stronger by overcoming adversity.
And when you look at all the NPC's, why single out Aerie as "the victim"?
All these NPC's are defined by their trauma
Minsc
Xan
Kivan (the ultimate example of being defined by their trauma, and no recovery)
Yeslick
Virconia
Branwyn
Valygar
Anomen
Nalia
"Funny how swjs never invaded the site and relentlessly bombarded us..."
Why would they ? SJWs are the ones that have caused the game's reputation to plummet. Why would they need to bombard you ?
"or tried to destroy the game"
No one has destroyed or attempted to destroy the game, that would be virtually impossible to do.
"Hell, not a single one is here fighting you."
Thats not technically accurate, BelleSorciere has stated that she believes in the SJW narrative and the discussion I am having is with her. Try and keep up.
"You are the one shoving your agenda down our throats."
If you class having a discussion with someone on a thread which has been setup to talk about said issues "shoving my agenda down your throat" then you have a very warped view of what an agenda is.
Unless you mean you think we should all only say what you think is true ? Is that what you want ? An entire thread dedicated to echo'ing what Grum believes ?
But I think there is some value in letting the anti-Mizhena activists speak. The more they do so the more they reveal the inconsistencies in their argument the more it becomes clear that they are channeling talking points.
And this will be important *when* the controversy comes back. The negative reviews of the expanded Mizhena NPC are already being written -- I think there will be some value in showing that the opinions of the character were formed before she actually appeared.
Aerie's travels are not about Charname "overcoming adversity for her" (well, the Kalah things aside) but her learning she had power of her own. She was a gifted cleric/mage who needed to see that she is strong in her own way. And to do that, she needed to see the world beyond her circus, as Quayle knew when he asks Charname to take her adventuring.
Simply put, Aerie is just starting down the path Mazzy was already much farther long.