Here's my thing with Anita Sarkeesian: she's pretty lame. But she's not lame because she's trying to promote feminist ideals - I, for one, believe in some feminist ideals to an extent, it's just that she breaks down instead of building up.
For instance, I like the idea of female representation in video games. I usually get countered immediately with Maddox's video about Spiderwoman's sexualization and how females should get into developing video games if they want change, but I have plenty of female friends that play video games and I'm not sure why they're not thought of when it gets time to choose a character. Sure, it's not the most incredibly offensive thing on the planet, but isn't a little bit irksome that 9 out of 48 playable characters on Smash 4 are female? And if it's not a big deal, why aren't we a little more inclusive, and why is inclusiveness quickly seen as aggression?
Well, part of the problem is that the people who usually say these things, like Anita Sarkeesian, are vehemently negative when it comes to this. They're interested in shaming people, and huffing and puffing when it comes to the entirety of gaming. Any positive response in succeeding is looked at as "something that should have happened years ago" instead of "something I'm glad to see". Positive changes are seen as "another blow to the male patriarchy" instead of something that brings gamers closer together. It's exclusion as opposed to inclusion - segregation instead of integration. It's demonizing, and I'm not interested in demonizing.
I've got a lot of female friends that play the shit out of Smash, Team Fortress 2, the Elder Scrolls series, and other multiplayer games, but only in some are they able to represent themselves with their gender and in most games doing something like using their microphone on the internet is met with ridiculous harassment. (I've seen it happen, and it's surreal.) I'm looking at it as, "Man, I wanna play with my friends, not bum them out. How can we make it better and more inviting for these people?" A lot of gamers look at it as, "Well, there's nothing wrong with this because these games are made for men", which sidesteps the fact that it's only a problem when women aren't thought of. At the same time, though, Anita Sarkeesian is sitting there festering with anger pointing the finger when she could actively be involved in making the community more welcoming and perhaps funding games that could change the scene, but instead she points the finger and wants others to do the change with her as the social curator. That's not fair either. I think the answer is down the middle, and the answer is where people can vibe well with each other and enjoy games. Anita doesn't represent that, and unfortunately I don't feel like people represent my opinion either.
Inclusiveness isn't necessary for a game to be good. In fact if you force parity upon any form of media you're likely to hurt that medium more than anything because the writer is going to have to work against their vision just to include these few extra characters, let alone make them interesting.
People "harass" women online when voice chat is involved because most people who use voice chat and play multiplayer games are teenagers who have just hit puberty and are unable to contain themselves. Most of the perceived sexism in online games are actually closer to the usual insecurity felt by a large portion of the young player base. It rarely ever goes further than that.
There's plenty of women in the video game industry. You don't hear about them because they're usually more busy doing their job than being vocal and acting like celebrities. The project lead of Bioshock was a woman but nobody knows about her because she actually spends her time making games and being an executive producer and not spouting dumb shit on twitter about how unfair her life is. Jade Raymond is busy producing games and helping out a dev team, and you don't see her in the news every day because she's actually working hard, and when asked about the issue of gender representation in video games during interviews she usually just says that generalizing it over most games is a mistake and that assuming the issue is somehow exclusive to video games is just plain wrong.
Basically, don't listen to people like Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn because one is a con artist and the other one is a failed game developer who's tried fixing her shitty career by overlapping it with internet drama. Game developers have a set of skill oriented towards making games, not being popular spokespersons, so the ones who are good won't bother appearing every ten minutes on tweeter to make a scene about how the collective minds of the internet don't cater enough to their emotional and financial needs. It counts for both men and women.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49026280]Here's my thing with Anita Sarkeesian: she's pretty lame. But she's not lame because she's trying to promote feminist ideals - I, for one, believe in some feminist ideals to an extent, it's just that she breaks down instead of building up.
For instance, I like the idea of female representation in video games. I usually get countered immediately with Maddox's video about Spiderwoman's sexualization and how females should get into developing video games if they want change, but I have plenty of female friends that play video games and I'm not sure why they're not thought of when it gets time to choose a character. Sure, it's not the most incredibly offensive thing on the planet, but isn't a little bit irksome that 9 out of 48 playable characters on Smash 4 are female? And if it's not a big deal, why aren't we a little more inclusive, and why is inclusiveness quickly seen as aggression?[/QUOTE]
To be fair quite a few characters in Smash Bros aren't really gendered either way. Like the Pokémons, Duck Hunt, R.O.B., Kirby...
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49026347]Inclusiveness isn't necessary for a game to be good. In fact if you force parity upon any form of media you're likely to hurt that medium more than anything because the writer is going to have to work against their vision just to include these few extra characters, let alone make them interesting.
People "harass" women online when voice chat is involved because most people who use voice chat and play multiplayer games are teenagers who have just hit puberty and are unable to contain themselves. Most of the perceived sexism in online games are actually closer to the usual insecurity felt by a large portion of the young player base. It rarely ever goes further than that.
There's plenty of women in the video game industry. You don't hear about them because they're usually more busy doing their job than being vocal and acting like celebrities. The project lead of Bioshock was a woman but nobody knows about her because she actually spends her time making games and being an executive producer and not spouting dumb shit on twitter about how unfair her life is. Jade Raymond is busy producing games and helping out a dev team, and you don't see her in the news every day because she's actually working hard, and when asked about the issue of gender representation in video games during interviews she usually just says that generalizing it over most games is a mistake and that assuming the issue is somehow exclusive to video games is just plain wrong.
Basically, don't listen to people like Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn because one is a con artist and the other one is a failed game developer who's tried fixing her shitty career by overlapping it with internet drama. Game developers have a set of skill oriented towards making games, not being popular spokespersons, so the ones who are good won't bother appearing every ten minutes on tweeter to make a scene about how the collective minds of the internet don't cater enough to their emotional and financial needs. It counts for both men and women.[/QUOTE]
I'm totally into having people achieve their vision, and believe me, shoehorning is [I]not[/I] the solution I'd want. The problem I have is when the entire output seems to focus far more on men, and women are generally portrayed in one way. It's basically taking a step back and asking if people ever think of women, and if so how?
The output of movies and video games have their own, specific values, but as a whole they play a big part in defining society. I feel like I'm thought of in most of the video games that I play, but if I were a woman I'd feel disconnected with the general lot of characters each game provide.
With that said, I still don't know where to stand, but the thing is I want to go up, not down. I'm up for debating where that "up" is, but people like Anita Sarkeesian, her fans, and a lot of her opposers can make things extremely toxic with no room for reasonably deciding where we should stand in society. It's breaking down, not building up. I think looking for a goal post to reach is more important than focusing completely on where we are now.
Personally, the problem I have with criticism along the lines of "why aren't the creators thinking of the female audience" is that it's diametrically opposed to what I think creators should strive to be. I think artists should first and foremost make content for themselves. I think that art is at it's absolute finest when it's made according to the taste of the creator, and the more they try to pander to a perceived audience, the more it strays away from that.
That line of thinking implies to me that what art ought to be is a product. A thing created first and foremost to satisfy the needs of consumers. And while that often is what it is, I think it's far from the ideal.
To me things like Dragon's Crown, Ico, Wonderful 101, those are the ideal. The creators' style and taste shine through in every aspect of their design. I think they would be lesser if the creators had tried to pander to an audience rather than make exactly what it is that they personally liked.
I don't think I'm conservative. I think if anything the people who think artists have an obligation to cater to the "female audience" or to "think about their works' role in society" are the conservative ones. They see art as a utility, something that exists to fulfill a purpose, rather than as something that exists for it's own sake. I'd say that's a very conservative view of art.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, because I'm not suggesting disingenuous thinking. I'm moving far behind the act of art into thinking in itself - do we or do we not think of women? And if we do, how? Why is it that what we want to say always comes from the male perspective or concern only men?
For example, in something that is completely unrelated to video games, here's something I've been thinking about: I have the ability to take my shirt off when it's hot outside. I know people that do this. Women don't have that luxury, and in fact if they take their shirt off outside there's a huge can of judgement that will be opened. I've asked a couple guys about it and they thought nothing of it, and didn't think it was a big deal, and I've got mixed answers from women, but the point is that there's a distinct lack of thought for women in a lot of respects that are seemingly small annoyances that can stack up to be shitty and contribute to a negative society.
The way I look at it - it's fine for everyone to think up awesome male characters, or even exaggerated male characters, but the problem is when that's most of what is ever thought about - the idea is that there is a social choice to not think of women when it comes to these things, and that surpasses the entire realm of art into a description of society.
That's another problem though, I've been really hesitant to share these thoughts of feminism because I can't do so without being viewed as pedantic, or a "Tumblrette", or a SJW, or all of these things because I'll end up aligned with aggressive people or hate or whatever, but I don't really have a means to discuss this with anyone in this context - it's something that is absent from GamerGate and a lot of other discussions.
People make things that reflect themselves. Everything about themselves feeds into what they make, from their life experiences and philosophical views, to their appearance and gender.
I feel like boiling art down to things that are made from a "male" perspective and things that are made from a "female" perspective misses out on the other 99% of stuff that influences what people make.
As for the whole society thing, I feel like you're trying to ascribe a singular cause to a bunch of unrelated grievances. But then it probably isn't the sort of thing I'm knowledgeable enough about to comment on anyway.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49006856]the worst up thing about sexism in video games is that I've honestly never... actually seen any real hardcore feminism in, well, almost ANY of the hundreds of games I've played
I mean, yeah, some games have sexism, some games are nothing BUT sexist, but it's very minimal in the western market. Its there but I see tons of examples of strong powerful women in games, like Yennefer, or Ciri, Jade Aldemir, Alyx Vance, Chell, and, tons more. And like I said, sexism does exist, but it just isn't nearly as common at Anita constantly tries to parade.
Eastern/Japanese games however seem to be the only market actually teeming with feminism. there are a huge number of games with senseless amounts of tits and cleavage, and women in unnervingly skimpy outfits.[/QUOTE]
I want you to describe to me what the sun looks like.
[QUOTE=yodafart9;49027310]I want you to describe to me what the sun looks like.[/QUOTE]
I guess 8 pages didn't happen apparently
[editline]1st November 2015[/editline]
I wanted to keep up the post even though I wrote it like an incoherent butthole because I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist but if people can't handle themselves...
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;49025582]Yes like the majority of people in here circlejerking over how awful feminazis are ruining their video games[/QUOTE]
I love how when you post this shit to prod an argument you always peace the fuck out and conveniently miss the pages of people who artfully and effortlessly deconstruct your argument.
Every.
Fucking.
Time.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;49025582]Yes like the majority of people in here circlejerking over how awful feminazis are ruining their video games[/QUOTE]
"Last activity, 44 minutes ago" 12 hours later.
Hooray for driveby inflammatory comments I guess.
Eh yeah I'll admit that last comment of mine was pretty dumb
[QUOTE=GrammarCommie;49025860]What context is missing?[/QUOTE]
I find your screen-name lollerskates considering there is a yawning and vast gap between a game with politics in it and a political bash piece placed in "game" form.
Bioshock, Wing Commander, Spec Ops: The Line and Metal Gear are all very political games, and only MGS takes the onus to beat you liberally about the head and face with a message(s), and even in that context it's usually delivered as a person's impassioned opinion (though in a rather shallow fashion).
What they are [I]not[/I] is op eds with interactive buttons wherein users are expected to agree and promulgate an external dialog outside of the game's sphere.
There are several reasons why #AGG is full of shit, but the biggest is there exists three animals of that particular variety on Steam, and contrary to Polygon and Rock Paper Shitjourno's insistence, these games have rather soundly failed to crack the top 100, much less the top ten. (The most celebrated of these has yet to mount up over 300K in sales, despite being on sale four times)
[quote] typical waterboi wall of dubious logic [/quote]
For a guy not wanting to talk about GG ever, that is once again a lot of words about GG.
Personal anecdotes do not an over arching statistic make, and they don't supercede facts.
You'll find drive-by harassment is universal, and you'll also find that there are many many AAA and under level games with female protagonists or options thereof, and more coming down the pipe.
Incidentally, when playing Bayo or Moaning Fall Simulator 2013 (tomb raider), I'm not thinking OH THIS WOULD SO SO MUCH BETTER IF I WAS STARING AT MY OWN ASS OR A VESTED SIMULACRUM THEREOF, I'm seeing what kind of journey these characters are going to take [I]of their own accord[/I].
The [B]fact[/B] is more and more AAA devs are and steadily have been putting females front and center, and that happened without a single whine-blog disguised as "news", it happened because it ->now<- makes more financial sense to do so, and will make even more in the future.
[QUOTE=27X;49029079]I find your screen-name lollerskates considering there is a yawning and vast gap between a game with politics in it and a political bash piece placed in "game" form.
Bioshock, Wing Commander, Spec Ops: The Line and Metal Gear are all very political games, and only MGS takes the onus to beat you liberally about the head and face with a message(s), and even in that context it's usually delivered as a person's impassioned opinion (though in a rather shallow fashion).
What they are [I]not[/I] is op eds with interactive buttons wherein users are expected to agree and promulgate an external dialog outside of the game's sphere.
There are several reasons why #AGG is full of shit, but the biggest is there exists three animals of pthat articular variety on Steam, and contrary to Polygon and Rock Paper Shitjourno's insistence, these games have rather soundly failed to crack the top 100, much less the top ten. (The most celebrated of these has yet mount up over 300K in sales, despite being on sale four times)
For a guy not wanting to talk about GG ever, that is once again a lot of words about GG.
Personal anecdotes do not a an over arching statistic make, and they don't supercede facts.
[B]You'll find drive-by harassment is universal[/B], [I]and you'll also find that there are many many AAA and under level games with female protagonists or options thereof, and more coming down the pipe[/I].
Incidentally, when playing Bayo or Moaning Fall Simulator 2013 (tomb raider), I'm not thinking OH THIS WOULD SO SO MUCH BETTER IF I WAS STARING AT MY OWN ASS OR A VESTED SIMULACRUM THEREOF, I'm seeing what kind of journey these characters are going to take [I]of their own accord[/I].
The [B]fact[/B] is more and more AAA devs are and steadily have been putting females front and center, and that happened without a single whine-blog disguised as "news", it happened because it ->now<- makes more financial sense to do so, and will make even more in the future.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't try to center my opinion on GamerGate, and in fact I think my opinion is stand-alone regardless of GamerGate's existence. I specifically mentioned GamerGate just because I want an avenue to talk about what I think and compare with what other people think from a more general sense without focusing on the crazies of AGG.
In regards to the bolded text, sure, I can agree with that, but in all of my years of gaming I've yet to receive some of the severity I've seen my female friends receive flak in terms of frequency. Again, that's anecdotal evidence so you'll want to do your due diligence in completely and absolutely 100% ignoring that, but I don't think it's an offensive or incorrect thing to state.
In regards to the italicized text, I think that's cool. It doesn't harm anyone and it shouldn't harm anyone - changing the gender doesn't ultimately matter up until people get defensive about making everyone dudes. My line of thinking is this:
"You know, we've got a lot of guy characters in video games. I don't think it'd be too crazy if we switched them to girls, no?"
"It doesn't matter!"
"If it doesn't matter, why not do it anyway?"
"Because it doesn't matter! Stop asking me."
It's this thing that's made a big deal specifically because people protest the concept at a basic level. No, it's not a big deal to incorporate a different gender, but people make it a big deal because it infringes on the artistic freedoms of artists to create things? Is it a big deal to make a female character or is it not? If we made a character female, would it sincerely upset people or not? Is it that big of a change that causes the character to shatter and the artist to crumble? From the sounds of this discussion, that's too much to ask for, and that makes it seem like gender [I]is[/I] a big deal.
"Hey, if females want more representation, they better do it themselves because [I]I'm[/I] not going to do it."
"Hey, if females wanted more representation, they would just do it because there's already females making video games."
Would this carry the same weight if I changed the subject?
"Hey, if black people want more representation, they better do it themselves because [I]I'm[/I] not going to do it."
"Hey, if black people wanted more representation, they would just do it because there's already black people making video games."
Dunno, it might be subjective for some but as it stands I see it as a very strange avoidance that evokes the opposite of intention. And I'm not looking to demonize people, but when I suggest stuff like this people get really defensive and I've got no real idea why outside of association. I'm honestly asking, why don't we think more about women in the context of the character - [I]especially[/I] if people claim it doesn't matter so much?
Am I the only one who cares about [b]who[/b] characters are rather than [b]what[/b] the characters are? A game doesn't have to have a character for every letter of the LGBTWTFBBQ+ spectrum to be a compelling experience. Diversity of personalities opinions and actions are vastly more important than diversity of race gender or sexuality. A good writer doesn't only go skin deep to create a diverse character lineup.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49032067]Am I the only one who cares about [b]who[/b] characters are rather than [b]what[/b] the characters are? A game doesn't have to have a character for every letter of the LGBTWTFBBQ+ spectrum to be a compelling experience. Diversity of personalities opinions and actions are vastly more important than diversity of race gender or sexuality. A good writer doesn't only go skin deep to create a diverse character lineup.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, let's talk about a character I've been impressed with recently:
[t]http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/da/6f/8a9ef2d346098dd7dd8ef55a1cbc/charlize-theron-in-mad-max-fury-road.jpeg[/t]
Cool fucking character. She's a strong woman and a role model for everyone. She's not a trophy, she's got a whole lot of depth, she's badass, and I'd say she's even cooler than Mad Max himself. That's not a pandering character - if you're pandering you're doing it wrong. She's just likable and easy to relate to even with the gender barrier.
Let's talk about another cool character:
[img]http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/443401/file-2728195058-gif/blog-files/atticus_and_tom_robinson_in_court.gif[/img]
Strong acting, heart-breaking character, emphasized message. He's not a token black guy - he's completely essential to the story.
How about this one?
[t]http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/interstellar-2.jpg[/t]
She goes from being a heart-broken favorite daughter to a strong, independent woman that plays her equal part in saving the earth.
Sure, we should let people have their artistic intentions, but why are we going to limit ourselves to generic tropes? Why shouldn't we have more awesome women characters to look up to and to embrace? Why should we not try to analyze society when a majority of what is being output focuses the story on men? I'm saying that because while I love silliness and exaggeration, I love strong women characters that I can respect and evaluate past their attractiveness or their purpose as a goal post. Attractiveness is great and all, but I want something more. I'm wondering why other people don't seem to share the same feelings.
And in general, I don't understand why multiplayer games aren't split half-and-half. Left 4 Dead 1 and 2? 3 guys, 1 girl. Street Fighter V? 10 guys, 5 girls. Super Smash Bros (which epitomizes Nintendo franchises)? 32 guys, 10 girls (not including non-applicable characters). Mario Party 10? 6 guys, 4 girls (not including non-applicable characters). Team Fortress 2? 9 guys, or 8 and one unknown if you want to be pedantic. Call of Duty and Battlefield? For the most part, all dudes up until recently (which is an awesome change). The ones that I feel are becoming more equal from a quick glance are MOBA's, which is cool because it's an ever-growing genre.
I guess my question is, then, why [I]wouldn't[/I] you want to think of great female leads and side characters? Why aren't we doing it more often, and why is that when it's brought up people huff and puff about it? It's not inherently negative, and it's not saying, "You must think completely of women", but I love it so much and I don't see why people jump the gun right into saying I'm suggesting quotas and stuff like that.
it seems like every time theres a thread about a video againt anita it pisses a bunch of people off but they don't really know how to disprove or debate against the video so they just come in and threadshit.
i mean look at this thread, the randomness of the things that have been argued about and brought up is actually amazing
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49032186] Stuff [/QUOTE]
Most military forces only allow men to serve in combat, so it makes sense that it isn't a 50/50 split. In addition, women typically choose different occupations than men do. Of course, it's up to the artist or developer what they do with their game. I am completely for artistic freedom in all aspects.
[QUOTE=Camdude90;49032709]i mean look at this thread, the randomness of the things that have been argued about and brought up is actually amazing[/QUOTE]
One day, this topic will diverge into a cure for cancer.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49032724]Most military forces only allow men to serve in combat, so it makes sense that it isn't a 50/50 split. In addition, women typically choose different occupations than men do. Of course, it's up to the artist or developer what they do with their game. I am completely for artistic freedom in all aspects.[/QUOTE]
You're explaining what, not why.
Parity for parities sake is dumb. Allow equal opportunities and decide on merit
[QUOTE=Camdude90;49032709]it seems like every time theres a thread about a video againt anita it pisses a bunch of people off but they don't really know how to disprove or debate against the video so they just come in and threadshit.
i mean look at this thread, the randomness of the things that have been argued about and brought up is actually amazing[/QUOTE]
It's always the the pro Anita feminists that get banned for ad hominum shitposting or having no facts to back up their statements.
I don't think most stories start from a place of "now what minorities aren't represented in media". And if they do they're probably bad.
I think inspiration comes from somewhere a bit more ethereal than that. You make what you feel, not what you think you should make. You're bringing social responsibility and self consciousness into a place where they don't belong.
Of course it would seem harmless to you, you aren't the one making things.
With the present state of video games I don't really buy this "creativity is sacred and should never be tampered with" idea. If anything, creativity is being tied to creating games that can sell. Ideally, it shouldn't be like that, but money is the driving force for a lot of creative decisions. I think there are some genuine artists out there for sure, but in stuff like the film and game industry the creativity is being focused on target markets and stuff like that. Personally, I think this creates samey games with samey premises - its safe to do so. And I think that contributes to the fact that women can only be portrayed within the confines of what is permitted. Do you think EA is going to be down for letting a female developer write an entire franchise based on a woman character with assets and everything? And if it does break through the filter, will it be focused on appeal to attractiveness or character instead? Bear in mind that a lot of game developers have a hard time keeping true to their own genuine standards and are being forced to do things because the game needs to sell.
Most of the instances of females I've seen in story-driven single player games have some sort of focus on sexualization, which isn't bad in itself but is bad when that's what makes a female passable in the game industry.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49033581]Do you think EA is going to be down for letting a female developer write an entire franchise based on a woman character with assets and everything? And if it does break through the filter, will it be focused on appeal to attractiveness or character instead? Bear in mind that a lot of game developers have a hard time keeping true to their own genuine standards and are being forced to do things because the game needs to sell.[/QUOTE]
I hope they will because Jade Raymond, producer of AC1, AC2, and Bloodlines works for them now.
Right, but at what point does ratio of workers who are successful versus those who fail come into play? I know a lot of people who are into affirmative action who don't say, "Well, one black guy made it. Time to move on." Not to mention Assassin's Creed doesn't feature a woman lead. Putting a woman in the place of the main character might not produce the same results.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49033668]Putting a woman in the place of the main character might not produce the same results.[/QUOTE]
Why not?
What's financially viable does decide who gets funded, but that doesn't mean the people who get funding don't care about what they're making.
The most successful games are free roaming action shooterguy games, so companies greenlight titles that are like that. That's just the state of the market. I can't really bring myself to get mad at people for trying to put bread on the table, even if I think their methodology is dumb. It isn't as though I can prove it wrong.
i mean i think watchdogs was awful but it made a kabillion dollars so clearly i know nothing about what does and doesn't sell
Plenty of games with female leads. Feminists just ignore them.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49033708]What's financially viable does decide who gets funded, but that doesn't mean the people who get funding don't care about what they're making.
The most successful games are free roaming action shooterguy games, so companies greenlight titles that are like that. That's just the state of the market. I can't really bring myself to get mad at people for trying to put bread on the table, even if I think their methodology is dumb. It isn't as though I can prove it wrong.[/QUOTE]
I don't demonize them as apathetic, and in fact I feel bad for them. I don't like the reality of the situation.
[editline]2nd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Loli hat;49033710]Plenty of games with female leads. Feminists just ignore them.[/QUOTE]
Care to name a few? I'm open to looking at a counter-argument.
Well, to start, Portal/2, Remember Me, Ittle Dew, 1... 2... 3... KICK IT! (Drop That Beat Like An Ugly Baby) by Dejobaan Games (makers of quirky indie titles), Recettear (lol), the Sanctum franchise... On consoles, Perfect Dark and Mischief Makers, off the top of my head...
Those are just titles I came up with out of my Steam library's favourites list and a couple others I remembered off the top of my head. I'm also leaving out any game where you can choose to be a female or a male character and the differences are merely cosmetic (such as Dungeons of Dredmor).
Drop That Beat (LAUB) in particular is interesting because the fiction around the gameplay is that it's the future now and Boston is built on giant floating platforms miles up into the sky. Your character, Azumi Pentak, is a blind gamer/nerd girl who composes original techno and plays her own music (or your arbitrary mp3 files) while livestreaming her illegal extreme-sport basejumps off of the platforms. She sees through as an augmented reality display that kicks synesthetic effects onto the world overlay during her jump performances (translation, the game field reacts to the music). She's smart, creative, brave (she's freefalling past floating skyscrapers and she does this more than once!), and she's also an inventor.
[video=youtube;9zT4Im-MKy0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zT4Im-MKy0[/video]
(skip the first minute of clicking around and loading the stage)
But this game's got niche popularity, so Azumi isn't known very widely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
