Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
[POLL] WOULD IT BE SEXIST TO HAVE DIFFERENT STARTING STATS BASED ON YOUR CHARACTER'S SELECTED GENDER?
Poll
Do you think this would be sexist? - Results
|
Yes
|
|
12
|
30%
|
|
No
|
|
17
|
43%
|
|
Maybe
|
|
10
|
25%
|
Posts
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
Corfaisus
View playlists
CloseOn the flipside of the male/female reality thing, imagine if you were playing Morrowind and Redguards came with a racial boost to athletics but you gain bounty twice as fast as any other race. Wouldn't that be messed up? Still, one could argue that's "realistic" (especially the bounty part given the way the cops/court system/job market works, but that's racist).
RyaReisender
200
Well I'd say by definition it's sexist. I wouldn't say it's a bad thing. Men and women are fundamentally different and it doesn't really make sense to make both equal except for the sake of equality.
emmych
817
author=Feldschlacht IV
I'd like to see some facts on this. Source?
I'm not even going to respond to the majority of your post because I literally linked to a book that discusses why everything you're saying is bunk. Either buy it or take it out from the library if you want to learn more about this subject. I'm not going to explain it to you when you can easily do the research yourself.
Drakov
0
Ok guys,I guess Im dropping the gender thing. My intention was not to limit a character based on gender as I said you could bring your stats to 100 regardless of gender as long as your class or race allowed it. I do still howver intend to restrict stats based on class and race as I for one dislike games like skyrim where you can make an orc tank mage. It makes the game cheap and removes all limitations and challenge from the game. I prefer a system like D&D or other old school games where you had to craft an interesting and effective character based on rules and limitations. Also Ive always thought things like an orc mage or a wood elf becoming a hulking brute were kinda silly as well. As with D&Dds rules about half-elves being paladins and Dragon age with dwarf mages, there will be certain rules and restrictions that apply.
Also, because i read a comment about it, I wanted to be clear that there will be no real world religions in the game either. This is something I never intended on having, as this is my fantasy world and I myself am an agnostic in reality and follow no religion in the real world as I do not believe in any of them. However in a fantasy world where anything is possible I like to imagine that there are real religions and gods, as I personally wish there really was someone looking down on us from the sky in reality.
This game will not be for everyone, people who like skyrim will most likely hate it, but I dont believe in pleasing everyone. I pick an audience and thats who I strive to impress. I for one like limitations as they stop you from being over powered. Also in my world certain races, cultures and religions hate magic or other things that based on your choice in these fields you will be restricted from using.
My only thought for having gender based starting bonuses was to give literally EVERY choice you made in character creation some sort of effect. You could literally boost your female warrior's strength past that of a male warriors starting strength within one level up. Especially since intelligence has an effect on how many stat points you get to distribute each level.
But my fears were confirmed when the controversey started. Thats the exact thing I wanted to avoid. In reality I believe in gender equality and i know that a woman can do anything a man can do and do it just as good and vice versa.
My decision is to drop the gender based bonuses.
Thank you everyone for your opinions.
Also, because i read a comment about it, I wanted to be clear that there will be no real world religions in the game either. This is something I never intended on having, as this is my fantasy world and I myself am an agnostic in reality and follow no religion in the real world as I do not believe in any of them. However in a fantasy world where anything is possible I like to imagine that there are real religions and gods, as I personally wish there really was someone looking down on us from the sky in reality.
This game will not be for everyone, people who like skyrim will most likely hate it, but I dont believe in pleasing everyone. I pick an audience and thats who I strive to impress. I for one like limitations as they stop you from being over powered. Also in my world certain races, cultures and religions hate magic or other things that based on your choice in these fields you will be restricted from using.
My only thought for having gender based starting bonuses was to give literally EVERY choice you made in character creation some sort of effect. You could literally boost your female warrior's strength past that of a male warriors starting strength within one level up. Especially since intelligence has an effect on how many stat points you get to distribute each level.
But my fears were confirmed when the controversey started. Thats the exact thing I wanted to avoid. In reality I believe in gender equality and i know that a woman can do anything a man can do and do it just as good and vice versa.
My decision is to drop the gender based bonuses.
Thank you everyone for your opinions.
Shinan
4314
When talking about physical differences it's also important to remember that in games the player characters are (nearly) always extraordinary. In the example of the orc mage where orcs are not really suited to be mages. But occasionally there will be an orc mage. Well that exception is really suited to the player character.
The same with gender-based "extremes". It is always more likely that a player character is extraordinary in some way, otherwise he/she wouldn't be the main character.
Of course then in the world people's attitudes might be dismissive. Some games come with a warning. I seem to recall that in Mount & Blade Warband there was a warning when you chose a female character. ("People will be less likely to take you seriously in this world and you might find it more difficult to come to power" or something)
The same with gender-based "extremes". It is always more likely that a player character is extraordinary in some way, otherwise he/she wouldn't be the main character.
Of course then in the world people's attitudes might be dismissive. Some games come with a warning. I seem to recall that in Mount & Blade Warband there was a warning when you chose a female character. ("People will be less likely to take you seriously in this world and you might find it more difficult to come to power" or something)
author=emmychauthor=Feldschlacht IVI'm not even going to respond to the majority of your post because I literally linked to a book that discusses why everything you're saying is bunk. Either buy it or take it out from the library if you want to learn more about this subject. I'm not going to explain it to you when you can easily do the research yourself.
I'd like to see some facts on this. Source?
I actually did, and the book not only only doesn't disprove that males are (all things equal) stronger than women, but it's not even a very scientifically sound venture, with dubious sources and research. The book ends up saying that women are weaker than they give themseleves credit for, which is true.
Can you link me to some actual research sources? I would hope that the crux of your argument is more than just one scientifically unsound book. I read your book, but the burden of proof is still on you.
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=emmychI actually did, and the book not only only doesn't disprove that males are (all things equal) stronger than women, but it's not even a very scientifically sound venture, with dubious sources and research. The book ends up saying that women are weaker than they give themseleves credit for, which is true.author=Feldschlacht IVI'm not even going to respond to the majority of your post because I literally linked to a book that discusses why everything you're saying is bunk. Either buy it or take it out from the library if you want to learn more about this subject. I'm not going to explain it to you when you can easily do the research yourself.
I'd like to see some facts on this. Source?
Can you link me to some actual research sources? I would hope that the crux of your argument is more than just one scientifically unsound book. I read your book, but the burden of proof is still on you.
You found, read, and fact-checked the entire book in six hours? Wow. Impressive.
Absurd or not, I don't even find the "in real life men can build muscle mass easier so should be stronger build in games" argument compelling, as a game is a vehicle for escapism anyway, especially if you're making your main character. Like it was pointed out earlier, if people are choosing gender based on the build they want and on how they can min/max, then something's gone wrong, IMO.
Also, I don't necessarily find the whole "Different genders open up different choices" thing to be a justification for steering character stats one way or the other.
Even if we go down that route, I still don't find the argument compelling. In fact, I don't even like the idea that you can only romance certain characters if your genders match up. For example, obviously, in real life, being bisexual is rare. But being unable to hook up with someone because they aren't attracted to your gender in real life is already sucky and heartbreaking; is it really too much to ask to be able to romance anyone in a story, regardless of gender? Some would say yes, that it breaks immersion to make everyone bi. I disagree, because the choice is important to me.
...Wow, sorry, I just went way off topic XD
tldr: I'm all for letting any gender do anything. That may sound extreme, but that's how I think.
author=unity
You found, read, and fact-checked the entire book in six hours? Wow. Impressive.
I've read the book before, is what I'm saying. I'll walk you through it if you'd like.
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=unityI've read the book before, is what I'm saying. I'll walk you through it if you'd like.
You found, read, and fact-checked the entire book in six hours? Wow. Impressive.
I'm not doubting the validity of your claims. I'm doubting your way of speaking all together. What seems really odd is that she said "here's a book" and instead of saying "I read the book and it's not compelling" you asked for sources, and when she said "the book" again (which, is kind of the obvious source she was providing), only then did you go "Oh yeah, the book? Read it. It's no good at all. I know all about it."
author=Drakov
Please everyone, stop arguing. Thats never what I meant to cause by asking this.
You don't need to feel responsible for this. Forums naturally promote discussion (and sometimes argument XD) This has evolved, as threads often do.
Drakov
0
There will be no difference in stats or anything else in the game other than an occasional comment from an NPC here and there.
And I dont intend on doing romances either because I dont want to hear all of the comments from every sexuality out there about how their romances are poorly represented or comments from pervs saying its not dirty enough. Im not a porn writer and thats what it seems like relationships have come to these days. In the real world and in video games.
Look at all the complaints about the Aerie romance in baldurs gate. Thats the only romance I like but everyone else hates it, so I guess i have a bad prefrence in women and a wrong outlook on romantic relationships. So Id rather avoid that subject altogether.
I cant wait to read all the hate mail about the morality system...
And I dont intend on doing romances either because I dont want to hear all of the comments from every sexuality out there about how their romances are poorly represented or comments from pervs saying its not dirty enough. Im not a porn writer and thats what it seems like relationships have come to these days. In the real world and in video games.
Look at all the complaints about the Aerie romance in baldurs gate. Thats the only romance I like but everyone else hates it, so I guess i have a bad prefrence in women and a wrong outlook on romantic relationships. So Id rather avoid that subject altogether.
I cant wait to read all the hate mail about the morality system...
author=unity
I'm not doubting the validity of your claims. I'm doubting your way of speaking all together. What seems really odd is that she said "here's a book" and instead of saying "I read the book and it's not compelling" you asked for sources, and when she said "the book" again (which, is kind of the obvious source she was providing), only then did you go "Oh yeah, the book? Read it. It's no good at all. I know all about it."
That's because 'the book' doesn't say much to her point, and it only claims, in most words, that the only real appreciable difference in strength and performance in women is because of gender standards, which isn't true. Yes, women aren't as strong as they give themselves credit for because they've been conditioned not too, but the book ignores too many factors.
For example, it's dubious to claim that if it weren't for size, men and women would be equal in strength. But it's because of gender that size and hormone are factors in the first place! Even if you were to make the argument that a 6'1 woman and a 6'1 man would be equal in strength, the fact is that due to testosterone, men are far more like to be 6'1 than a woman to begin with!
I'm arguing in this manner because the book is a bunch of rhetoric and very little verified science. It's not really a source.
I think having gender-based quests (Fallout, for example) is fine as long as BOTH genders have the same amount of gender-based quests. It makes playing either gender unique whilst still being fair to each player.
@unity: I both agree and disagree. The Dragon Age franchise was able to put 8 romance-able characters into their most recent game BECAUSE they limited the player characters that could romance them in the first place. Which means if some of them weren't race- and/or gender-gated the game would have had featured 4 options only (2 genders, 4 races means 8 types of player characters and equals a lot of work). Every player CAN build a male or female protagonist. It only boils down to how far you are willing to go for a fictional love story and/or if you are comfortable with playing a character that does not fit your gender or sexuality.
Some call Solas, the last romance that was added, who is open to female elves only, racist and sexist. But keep in mind that his writer wanted him as a romance option to define his personality and he had to work with EXTREMELY limited resources. Solas is my favourite romance option because his romance adds a TON of depth to the overall plot. Saying anything more would be complete spoiler territory, though.
@unity: I both agree and disagree. The Dragon Age franchise was able to put 8 romance-able characters into their most recent game BECAUSE they limited the player characters that could romance them in the first place. Which means if some of them weren't race- and/or gender-gated the game would have had featured 4 options only (2 genders, 4 races means 8 types of player characters and equals a lot of work). Every player CAN build a male or female protagonist. It only boils down to how far you are willing to go for a fictional love story and/or if you are comfortable with playing a character that does not fit your gender or sexuality.
Some call Solas, the last romance that was added, who is open to female elves only, racist and sexist. But keep in mind that his writer wanted him as a romance option to define his personality and he had to work with EXTREMELY limited resources. Solas is my favourite romance option because his romance adds a TON of depth to the overall plot. Saying anything more would be complete spoiler territory, though.
Drakov, don't worry too much about having caused an "argument". In fact, some very interesting insight can emerge from topics like these. As long as we can trust each other not to get aggresssive or personal, discussion in itself is often a very good thing, actually.
I agree that having stat differences based on gender is not a very good idea, and think you made the right decision by cutting that feature.
In my opinion, Shinan made the most interesting point in this discussion: In order to be a story worth telling, something about it must usually be out of the ordinary. So having a character who does not at all fit the role stereotypes of their respective world makes it more interesting, as long as the contrast is visible. I, for one, would actually really like to play a super-intelligent orc-barbarian mage who has taught himself a completely different profession than typically expected, with all consequences that come with it.
This is also why I somewhat disagree with the idea that a game is always a piece of escapism and absolute equality in the game world should be a given. Of course, some amount of escapism is inevitable since we're talking about a game here. But that doesn't mean you can't tackle serious or difficult subjects.
In my opinion, it's not necessarily bad to use "fantastical realism" and have a setting in which discrimination, racism, sexism and other horrible things actually exist. And if you do so, showing those who break these crazy artificial "rules" (e.g. the female knight, the orcish pacifist etc.) will be all the more impactful. Just make sure it becomes clear that the prejudices that exist in your story's setting are "just" worldbuilding and do not correspond to your own views.
I agree that having stat differences based on gender is not a very good idea, and think you made the right decision by cutting that feature.
In my opinion, Shinan made the most interesting point in this discussion: In order to be a story worth telling, something about it must usually be out of the ordinary. So having a character who does not at all fit the role stereotypes of their respective world makes it more interesting, as long as the contrast is visible. I, for one, would actually really like to play a super-intelligent orc-barbarian mage who has taught himself a completely different profession than typically expected, with all consequences that come with it.
This is also why I somewhat disagree with the idea that a game is always a piece of escapism and absolute equality in the game world should be a given. Of course, some amount of escapism is inevitable since we're talking about a game here. But that doesn't mean you can't tackle serious or difficult subjects.
In my opinion, it's not necessarily bad to use "fantastical realism" and have a setting in which discrimination, racism, sexism and other horrible things actually exist. And if you do so, showing those who break these crazy artificial "rules" (e.g. the female knight, the orcish pacifist etc.) will be all the more impactful. Just make sure it becomes clear that the prejudices that exist in your story's setting are "just" worldbuilding and do not correspond to your own views.
Drakov
0
I do intend on giving the orcs some magic abilities, mainly fire spells, just not the ability to be full on mages.
...Once you've added an NPC and all of the related code, art and dialogue, you've done the majority of the work. Restricting that NPC from dating certain players wouldn't take nearly as long, unless you needed custom dialogue for each, somehow (usually not the case, designers plan around that - that's why you have a neutral name like "Gray Warden" or "The Avatar").
Hmm, I'm torn with what Unity said - on one side, you have a diverse range of sexual orientations, but on the other side you give the freedom of choice to the player. It certainly sucks to have your favorite character be made undateable because you wanted to play a guy or a girl specifically - that already happens in real life, why should it happen in games? Especially games like Skyrim, where the entire thing is basically about you running around doin' cool stuff, wild and free. And if the only purpose of that is to give the dateable NPCs "canon" or "realistic" orientations... it doesn't seem worth it. I suppose it makes more sense (and is probably more fun) to make the all of the NPCs dateable by anybody, and leave other various orientations to be represented by non-dateable NPCs. I don't know if that would possibly be offensive to anyone else, but it would definitely be the easiest and least limiting option.
"Realism" at the cost of player choice, diversity and the rule-of-cool is a pretty big tradeoff, and far more often than not not worth it, especially for games that are heavily based in fantasy anyway. The only reasons I could see for it is to specifically address a real-life issue (ex. gender dynamics in the real world) and that typically lends itself to a different type of game - one that's less about escapism & power fantasy and more about contemporary society. To include limitations in order to make a point within an otherwise "fun"-centric game is... strange.
Hmm, I'm torn with what Unity said - on one side, you have a diverse range of sexual orientations, but on the other side you give the freedom of choice to the player. It certainly sucks to have your favorite character be made undateable because you wanted to play a guy or a girl specifically - that already happens in real life, why should it happen in games? Especially games like Skyrim, where the entire thing is basically about you running around doin' cool stuff, wild and free. And if the only purpose of that is to give the dateable NPCs "canon" or "realistic" orientations... it doesn't seem worth it. I suppose it makes more sense (and is probably more fun) to make the all of the NPCs dateable by anybody, and leave other various orientations to be represented by non-dateable NPCs. I don't know if that would possibly be offensive to anyone else, but it would definitely be the easiest and least limiting option.
"Realism" at the cost of player choice, diversity and the rule-of-cool is a pretty big tradeoff, and far more often than not not worth it, especially for games that are heavily based in fantasy anyway. The only reasons I could see for it is to specifically address a real-life issue (ex. gender dynamics in the real world) and that typically lends itself to a different type of game - one that's less about escapism & power fantasy and more about contemporary society. To include limitations in order to make a point within an otherwise "fun"-centric game is... strange.
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=unityThat's because 'the book' doesn't say much to her point, and it only claims, in most words, that the only real appreciable difference in strength and performance in women is because of gender standards, which isn't true. Yes, women aren't as strong as they give themselves credit for because they've been conditioned not too, but the book ignores too many factors.
I'm not doubting the validity of your claims. I'm doubting your way of speaking all together. What seems really odd is that she said "here's a book" and instead of saying "I read the book and it's not compelling" you asked for sources, and when she said "the book" again (which, is kind of the obvious source she was providing), only then did you go "Oh yeah, the book? Read it. It's no good at all. I know all about it."
For example, it's dubious to claim that if it weren't for size, men and women would be equal in strength. But it's because of gender that size and hormone are factors in the first place! Even if you were to make the argument that a 6'1 woman and a 6'1 man would be equal in strength, the fact is that due to testosterone, men are far more like to be 6'1 than a woman to begin with!
I'm arguing in this manner because the book is a bunch of rhetoric and very little verified science. It's not really a source.
Fair enough. Again, however, in games, especially ones where you're making your own avatar, I don't think that matters. I'd prefer a setting where the male avatar and the female avatar have the same options for stat growth. It's a fantasy, after all.
author=Schwer-von-Begriff
I think having gender-based quests (Fallout, for example) is fine as long as BOTH genders have the same amount of gender-based quests. It makes playing either gender unique whilst still being fair to each player.
@unity: I both agree and disagree. The Dragon Age franchise was able to put 8 romance-able characters into their most recent game BECAUSE they limited the player characters that could romance them in the first place. Which means if some of them weren't race- and/or gender-gated the game would have had featured 4 options only (2 genders, 4 races means 8 types of player characters and equals a lot of work). Every player CAN build a male or female protagonist. It only boils down to how far you are willing to go for a fictional love story and/or if you are comfortable with playing a character that does not fit your gender or sexuality.
Some call Solas, the last romance that was added, who is open to female elves only, racist and sexist. But keep in mind that his writer wanted him as a romance option to define his personality and he had to work with EXTREMELY limited resources. Solas is my favourite romance option because his romance adds a TON of depth to the overall plot. Saying anything more would be complete spoiler territory, though.
I don't disagree. I'm speaking purely from an "in a perfect world, where developer time was infinite and anything is possible, this is my preference."
To be very clear, I'm not going to be mad at anyone for giving women a +2 to some stats and a -2 to others. (If you make me have to be a cleric due to gender, I might be a little miffed tho XD) I'm not going to be mad at anyone for making some genders unable to romance some characters. I'm speaking on preference. I'm speaking on what I personally enjoy.
I personally really don't like the idea, for example, if you make a game where being both female and a knight makes you much less useful than a male knight, because "clearly you should be using your female magic stat growth to take a mage class." That doesn't mean I'm going to hate your game and think that you're a bad developer. Heck, one of my favorite games of all time, Final Fantasy Tactics, does this to an extent.
What it does mean, is that I'm going to be looking very favorable on games that DO let me be whatever kind of character that's available, be the best that class can be, AND be my gender on top of all of that.
author=NeverSilent
This is also why I somewhat disagree with the idea that a game is always a piece of escapism and absolute equality in the game world should be a given. Of course, some amount of escapism is inevitable since we're talking about a game here. But that doesn't mean you can't tackle serious or difficult subjects.
In my opinion, it's not necessarily bad to use "fantastical realism" and have a setting in which discrimination, racism, sexism and other horrible things actually exist. And if you do so, showing those who break these crazy artificial "rules" (e.g. the female knight, the orcish pacifist etc.) will be all the more impactful. Just make sure it becomes clear that the prejudices that exist in your story's setting are "just" worldbuilding and do not correspond to your own views.
If the point of the game is to show these inequalities, then yes, I very much agree with you. But I see this come off more often as a justification to shuffle off female characters into non-physical classes and builds rather than some well-written statement about sexism. If a game pulls that off and explores sexism in a meaningful way, then yes, I say, good job and thumbs up ^_^
author=slashphoenix
...Once you've added an NPC and all of the related code, art and dialogue, you've done the majority of the work. Restricting that NPC from dating certain players wouldn't take nearly as long, unless you needed custom dialogue for each, somehow (usually not the case, designers plan around that - that's why you have a neutral name like "Gray Warden" or "The Avatar").
Hmm, I'm torn with what Unity said - on one side, you have a diverse range of sexual orientations, but on the other side you give the freedom of choice to the player. It certainly sucks to have your favorite character be made undateable because you wanted to play a guy or a girl specifically - that already happens in real life, why should it happen in games? Especially games like Skyrim, where the entire thing is basically about you running around doin' cool stuff, wild and free. And if the only purpose of that is to give the dateable NPCs "canon" or "realistic" orientations... it doesn't seem worth it. I suppose it makes more sense (and is probably more fun) to make the all of the NPCs dateable by anybody, and leave other various orientations to be represented by non-dateable NPCs. I don't know if that would possibly be offensive to anyone else, but it would definitely be the easiest and least limiting option.
But it would also be the option with the least amount of variety. I take a gay, but date-able favourite character over him not being romance-able at all because other possible love interests have a higher priority any day. Because, sadly, it all boils down to resources. And I would definitely want my own sexuality represented in a game, if I were gay. How often do gay people get a slice of their own in a video game? Not often. They are terribly under-represented in games. Giving them their very own love interest surely means that hey, we are on the right way towards representation of other types of people in games!
But I think you can't go the perfect route with love interests EVER.
author=slashphoenix
Hmm, I'm torn with what Unity said - on one side, you have a diverse range of sexual orientations, but on the other side you give the freedom of choice to the player. It certainly sucks to have your favorite character be made undateable because you wanted to play a guy or a girl specifically - that already happens in real life, why should it happen in games? Especially games like Skyrim, where the entire thing is basically about you running around doin' cool stuff, wild and free. And if the only purpose of that is to give the dateable NPCs "canon" or "realistic" orientations... it doesn't seem worth it. I suppose it makes more sense (and is probably more fun) to make the all of the NPCs dateable by anybody, and leave other various orientations to be represented by non-dateable NPCs. I don't know if that would possibly be offensive to anyone else, but it would definitely be the easiest and least limiting option.
"Realism" at the cost of player choice, diversity and the rule-of-cool is a pretty big tradeoff, and far more often than not not worth it, especially for games that are heavily based in fantasy anyway. The only reasons I could see for it is to specifically address a real-life issue (ex. gender dynamics in the real world) and that typically lends itself to a different type of game - one that's less about escapism & power fantasy and more about contemporary society.
You have a good point here. My own opinion on this is very much a personal one. As a bisexual, I feel like if there's romance, I want to be able to romance anyone, so there's obviously bias in my choice here. Given that sexual orientation does play a big factor into character identity, I will admit that my own preferences might be too inflexible in that regard and may not be what's best for gaming as a whole. (That's not gonna stop me from possibly making games where you can romance anyone, tho XD)
author=Schwer-von-Begriffauthor=slashphoenixBut it would also be the option with the least amount of variety. I take a gay, but date-able favourite character over him not being romance-able st all because other possible love interests have a higher priority any day. Because, sadly, it all boils down to resources. And I would definitely want my own sexuality represented in a game, if I were gay. How often do gay people get a slice of their own in a video game? Not often. They are terribly under-represented in games. Giving them their very own love interest surely means that hey, we are on the right way towards representation of other types of people in games!
...Once you've added an NPC and all of the related code, art and dialogue, you've done the majority of the work. Restricting that NPC from dating certain players wouldn't take nearly as long, unless you needed custom dialogue for each, somehow (usually not the case, designers plan around that - that's why you have a neutral name like "Gray Warden" or "The Avatar").
Hmm, I'm torn with what Unity said - on one side, you have a diverse range of sexual orientations, but on the other side you give the freedom of choice to the player. It certainly sucks to have your favorite character be made undateable because you wanted to play a guy or a girl specifically - that already happens in real life, why should it happen in games? Especially games like Skyrim, where the entire thing is basically about you running around doin' cool stuff, wild and free. And if the only purpose of that is to give the dateable NPCs "canon" or "realistic" orientations... it doesn't seem worth it. I suppose it makes more sense (and is probably more fun) to make the all of the NPCs dateable by anybody, and leave other various orientations to be represented by non-dateable NPCs. I don't know if that would possibly be offensive to anyone else, but it would definitely be the easiest and least limiting option.
Another good point. It's not a simple issue, and I admit that I'm learning a lot about it just by talking more about it. There aren't easy answers.
author=unityOnce again, I find myself unable to disagree with anything you just said, unity.
If the point of the game is to show these inequalities, then yes, I very much agree with you. But I see this come off more often than a justification to shuffle off female characters into non-physical classes and builds rather than some well-written statement about sexism.
Yes, if the game's world shows that being part of certain species/genders/religions/whatevers results in your character being expected to take a certain route in their life, that's fine - as long as the game itself does not do that. Don't discourage going the other, unconventional way. You don't have to allow the player to break the rules of the game, but do allow your player to break the rules of the game's setting.
Also, my solution to the "dating problem"? Make none of the characters dateable. Really, no story with player-created characters can do the subject of love any justice. And the less romance there is in your game, the more likely I am to play it anyway.
You can proceed to kill me now, unity.
