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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsBUTTHANDLE_PRODUCTIONS'S PROFILE
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Do you prefer "strong" or "sissy" protagonists?
if you have played even a single video game, it is quite obvious that the current fad for main characters and cohorts is that of the skinny/homosexual/sissy looking stereotype. From final fantasy games to that terrible kingdom hearts stuff, it seems that developers are focusing on these looks. Now, this troubles me for a number of reasons...
1) I understand that these are video games, and so realism just doesn't apply, but seriously... a 50 pound kid cannot lift a 100 pound weapon. and use it to kill things with? maybe every game could include one of the kid's powers as "can lift objects that are obviously too heavy for him!" but that's a cop out. nothing about being a protagonist means that you automatically get the ability to lift sometime 2 or 3 times your bodyweight. especially when the item in question is lifted by a kid that you doubt has even gone through puberty yet.
2) strong men are weak. yeah yeah, games have big guys too. great hulking behemoths that use their massive size and strength to lift... well, weapons smaller than the skinny kids use. freaking barrett in ff7 (a game i do not like) uses a GUN. he's the biggest playable character on your team, and he uses a gun... this means that there is zero reason to get strong in these pretend worlds. mothers must give their kids all kinds of amazing advice. "now don't bother eating eggs or vegetables and drinking your milk. strength doesn't do shit, and you'll be able to lift a train when you hit the age of 9 anyways."
3) skinny does not look tough. i admit that this one has a few things to do with my real life experiences. when i see a skinny kid that might be 100 lbs soaking wet, i am not intimidated by him. the most he could do to me would be to spray me in the eye with his asthma inhaler. not intimidating. and these kids are the ones that lift swords bigger than trees to fight people? or that defeat DRAGONS? once again, i understand that these things are all pretend, but it's just too far fetched. scrawny kids that can't even climb the rope in gym class do not slay dragons.
now, this might seem like a rant, but it isn't. it's just providing some background for my question. i am currently making video games, and i need to understand the type of reaction i will be getting if my protagonists are actually strong people. these are video games, so of course we're talking guys that can all squat 800 lbs in full plate mail, but i'm concerned that the idea of a strong person doing the mighty feats that are usually reserved for the obvious and stereotyped video game powerhouses (scrawny kids) will not be appreciated or believable.
any thoughts?
1) I understand that these are video games, and so realism just doesn't apply, but seriously... a 50 pound kid cannot lift a 100 pound weapon. and use it to kill things with? maybe every game could include one of the kid's powers as "can lift objects that are obviously too heavy for him!" but that's a cop out. nothing about being a protagonist means that you automatically get the ability to lift sometime 2 or 3 times your bodyweight. especially when the item in question is lifted by a kid that you doubt has even gone through puberty yet.
2) strong men are weak. yeah yeah, games have big guys too. great hulking behemoths that use their massive size and strength to lift... well, weapons smaller than the skinny kids use. freaking barrett in ff7 (a game i do not like) uses a GUN. he's the biggest playable character on your team, and he uses a gun... this means that there is zero reason to get strong in these pretend worlds. mothers must give their kids all kinds of amazing advice. "now don't bother eating eggs or vegetables and drinking your milk. strength doesn't do shit, and you'll be able to lift a train when you hit the age of 9 anyways."
3) skinny does not look tough. i admit that this one has a few things to do with my real life experiences. when i see a skinny kid that might be 100 lbs soaking wet, i am not intimidated by him. the most he could do to me would be to spray me in the eye with his asthma inhaler. not intimidating. and these kids are the ones that lift swords bigger than trees to fight people? or that defeat DRAGONS? once again, i understand that these things are all pretend, but it's just too far fetched. scrawny kids that can't even climb the rope in gym class do not slay dragons.
now, this might seem like a rant, but it isn't. it's just providing some background for my question. i am currently making video games, and i need to understand the type of reaction i will be getting if my protagonists are actually strong people. these are video games, so of course we're talking guys that can all squat 800 lbs in full plate mail, but i'm concerned that the idea of a strong person doing the mighty feats that are usually reserved for the obvious and stereotyped video game powerhouses (scrawny kids) will not be appreciated or believable.
any thoughts?
EVIL
evil is highly dependent upon your own personal beliefs. ask religious folks and it has a spiritual bias. ask athiests or agnostics and you're more likely to get some form of psychological or community based answer. just as man has never totally been able to define what good is, evil is also beyond definition but it also complicated by the fact that it is something that most of us do not have any direct experience with.
i especially liked solitayre's answer above about man deciding that stealing and killing is bad, especially because of how confusing an issue it is. as was talked about earlier, not all killing is murder. but what makes that killing right in the first place?
self defense is a tried and true stereotype. protecting yourself or another person by killing the other person is not wrong, but how far does that go? what if you kill a person that was going to kill you at a later date? that's possibly murder. everyone likes to talk about how killing while you're in the military and fighting for your country is acceptable, but that is also super tricky especially with the rules of engagement in place now a days. throw in the fact that a lot of the people killing other people in the military enjoy killing people, especially a good number of special ops folks, and it gets even more tricky. is killing to fight communism or facism or extremism wrong? there are so many complications to the issue that it is understandable that no one but lawyers and agenda driven people (who obviously are pushing for their own agenda :O ) bother to make the subtle distinctions, and normal folks just go by gut reactions when an issue pops up and claim it is either justified or "evil" and wrong.
the idea of intent is also a complicating factor, as there are just as many reasons to do something as there are things to do. say a guy works at an orphanage or other type of child charity organization. by itself that is a good thing to do. it helps the less fortunate. say the guy is molesting the kids, that is a decidedly bad thing to do. but what about all of the possibilities inbetween? what if the guy never touches the kids, and is honestly out for their best interests and welfare and does more for them than any other person in their lives ever will, but at night he goes home and masturbates for hours at a time over the things he watched the kids do at school? nobody is being hurt, nobody ever knows, and everyone is benefiting from the situation. but the gut reaction to a dude jerking off to the memory of kids is inherently wrong. no laws are being broken, no harm is being done, no innocent people are being hurt in any fashion. if anything society is being improved by this man finding a way to keep helping these kids. but does society really matter when something like this is going on?
there is a reason that evil has a religious connotation to it, even for the non-religious. it is easier and not as troubling. to give an action a thumbs up or down on the creep-o-meter with an honest rating, it takes a lot more thinking and consideration than we really want to deal with. every little thing that is done that may or may not be evil would have to be individually classified and debated to decide where it fit. because if you didn't, that person's actions would not be fairly deliberated on and judged in the manner that the individual deserves and is owed due to living in society. and casting a blind verdict to decide another person's fate is evil.
i especially liked solitayre's answer above about man deciding that stealing and killing is bad, especially because of how confusing an issue it is. as was talked about earlier, not all killing is murder. but what makes that killing right in the first place?
self defense is a tried and true stereotype. protecting yourself or another person by killing the other person is not wrong, but how far does that go? what if you kill a person that was going to kill you at a later date? that's possibly murder. everyone likes to talk about how killing while you're in the military and fighting for your country is acceptable, but that is also super tricky especially with the rules of engagement in place now a days. throw in the fact that a lot of the people killing other people in the military enjoy killing people, especially a good number of special ops folks, and it gets even more tricky. is killing to fight communism or facism or extremism wrong? there are so many complications to the issue that it is understandable that no one but lawyers and agenda driven people (who obviously are pushing for their own agenda :O ) bother to make the subtle distinctions, and normal folks just go by gut reactions when an issue pops up and claim it is either justified or "evil" and wrong.
the idea of intent is also a complicating factor, as there are just as many reasons to do something as there are things to do. say a guy works at an orphanage or other type of child charity organization. by itself that is a good thing to do. it helps the less fortunate. say the guy is molesting the kids, that is a decidedly bad thing to do. but what about all of the possibilities inbetween? what if the guy never touches the kids, and is honestly out for their best interests and welfare and does more for them than any other person in their lives ever will, but at night he goes home and masturbates for hours at a time over the things he watched the kids do at school? nobody is being hurt, nobody ever knows, and everyone is benefiting from the situation. but the gut reaction to a dude jerking off to the memory of kids is inherently wrong. no laws are being broken, no harm is being done, no innocent people are being hurt in any fashion. if anything society is being improved by this man finding a way to keep helping these kids. but does society really matter when something like this is going on?
there is a reason that evil has a religious connotation to it, even for the non-religious. it is easier and not as troubling. to give an action a thumbs up or down on the creep-o-meter with an honest rating, it takes a lot more thinking and consideration than we really want to deal with. every little thing that is done that may or may not be evil would have to be individually classified and debated to decide where it fit. because if you didn't, that person's actions would not be fairly deliberated on and judged in the manner that the individual deserves and is owed due to living in society. and casting a blind verdict to decide another person's fate is evil.
well hello there.
post=141170
Welcome to RMN new old schooler! Post lots!
thanks! and i'm trying hard to post a lot, but i'll try even harder now!
5 Reasons It's Still Not Cool to Admit You're a Gamer
post=141188post=141187correlation causes correlation?post=141181but what if it's causing the correlings?
Correlation does not imply causation!
causelation?
5 Reasons It's Still Not Cool to Admit You're a Gamer
5 Reasons It's Still Not Cool to Admit You're a Gamer
post=141171post=141158The reason the majority of gamers act like immature douchebags is because the majority of people are immature douchebags.
i think the point that he is making is that people treat gamers like they're immature douchebags because the majority of gamers act like immature douchebags.
the reason that the majority of people are immature douchebags is because the majority of them have played video games....?
5 Reasons It's Still Not Cool to Admit You're a Gamer
i think the point that he is making is that people treat gamers like they're immature douchebags because the majority of gamers act like immature douchebags.
well hello there.
Pages:
1
Games - Tester
Games - Other
