Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Story direction is a little...political/ideological (spoilers) - returning player


Mykhel.6532
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Mykhel.6532 said:

Truly sad to hear. We need discussion... not the fear of being silenced because of our opinions on the direction of their story. Thank you very much for your comments

This last page or so is why these topics get locked, not because of anybody being silence. It goes from an actual discussion about how characters act/what happens (how people see it, how it could've been done better maybe, etc). To screaming back and forth, often about things unrelated to GW2. Usually because somebody highjacks/derails the topic.

5 hours ago, Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

They get locked because people always get heated in these types of threads, which has already happened from a brief look into the comments.

Yep. And it's in the downward spiral phase now, from previous examples.

2 hours ago, Mykhel.6532 said:

You don't know anything about my leanings. I want ALL politics/ideology--regardless if I agree with them or not--out of my games. It ruins them. It divides player bases. Nothing good comes from doing it

This is hard to do in any sort of storyline that involves major government figures. Plus frankly so many people scream about politics even if it's minor stuff. I remember before EoD came out some people screamed about how the writing was infested with politics (before we had any information on the storyline at all) based on.. a Tengu offering Masculine, Feminine, or androgynous mesmer disguises.

1 hour ago, KeoLegend.5132 said:

I hope the next  story either has no political leaning or at least go for plurality of ideas.

As above.

 

To the OP, the two biggest "politics" arcs that we had, Charr and Cantha, were ones that would've had to happen at some point anyway.

A: The Charr have always been plagued with people screaming about how they NEED war, and how as soon as the dragons end, the Charr would tear up the treaties and go back to war with humanity and anybody else. Anet answered those cries and questions with IBS, by having Grothmar be split between those who are fine with the other races/peace, and those who want to go back to fighting or hate other races. This is no different from base game (Charr in Ascalon viewpoint vs Charr in the orders or Lion's Arch viewpoint), but brought forth those feelings to the front and had it erupt, with those wanting to conquer going over there, to those wanting to build and honor treaties over on the other side.

B: Cantha was left in the grasp of a xenophobic, isolationist, evil regime. Going back would have to deal with either this faction, or the aftermath of it's fall. Anet went for the latter. So we are dealing with elements of that power structure who don't want to give up that lifestyle, and want a return to that way of Cantha being governed.

 

Listen, I don't really have an issue with you OP, besides the very obvious misunderstanding of Jormag and the Sons of Svanir, and the whole factor of how they were formed around Jora and Svanir. Maybe I'll go back and read the rest, but the thread is going down that path of locking because of people screaming about RL political figures and getting very heated.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mykhel.6532 said:

The writing isn't intended solely for teens. The first 2 expansions and the base game were quality written and well-developed. This game is intended for adults as much, if not more (as they spend more cash as well). And no... the Charr aren't based on American military... they're based on the tactics of war.. which have been around for thousands of years... you think America is the only country to ever have an army and use movement and maneuver tactics? You might want to reform your take on this. It's pretty bad.

"The tactics of war"

What does that even mean? How do you base a characterisation on...an abstract concept?

 

They're yankie doodle soldiers bandying mainstream "milspeak" terms that don't even make sense half the time. The only other aspect of their design is Americanised ancient Rome, so every now and they they'll say "im-per-a-der" and "glay-dium". 

Whereas any other fantasy game will have generic "lend me your swords!" battle speech, GW2 just farts out the stuff teens were obsessed with in the 2000s.

"cover my 6 with suppressing fire, or you'll be on PT detail so quickly i'll make you johnny on the spot"

"roger that imperader"

 

Wow, that's quality writing!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mykhel.6532 said:

Ok. You're right. I guess I did map it to present day by saying "today." Let me clarify the statement for you then. What I mean is this "age" of politics we have today. I despise it. No one thinks clearly. Everyone is constantly yelling about stuff that they either no little to nothing about, or things that don't really matter.

 

I'd also like to point out that the saying itself is stupid. "The right side of history" makes no logical sense. History is written by the victors--especially in war. Had the Frost Legion won, they could write whatever they wanted about the Commander calling him/her evil to the core and call what they did the right side of history. This is also how I know it's a political/ideological injection. They knew it was being used often during the time frame I addressed and added it to their story knowing exactly that. I'd go as far as to wager the dialogue was heavily structured around the line itself.

 

Given that Bangar never actually won a legitimate election and the Charr never universally accepted that result, it feels like you're projecting angst here based on an incredibly generic statement.  People resisted Trump but not the fact he was president. That one quote, that one quote alone is all that you're using to do this projection. 

 

I do agree with you though, people often don't talk about things that matter, like how the economy is completely detached from reality and you practically need to be rich to have kids, and that despite their promises of saving us all if we just cut their taxes, the rich haven't saved us from this fact. Highest bracket in the 60s was 90%. Now it's the lowest it's been in decades. Estate tax is repealed. Still waiting for the dragon to share it hoard. O wait, it's blaming the immigrants it employs for all our problems. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mykhel.6532 said:

Ok. You're right. I guess I did map it to present day by saying "today." Let me clarify the statement for you then. What I mean is this "age" of politics we have today. I despise it. No one thinks clearly. Everyone is constantly yelling about stuff that they either no little to nothing about, or things that don't really matter.

 

I'd also like to point out that the saying itself is stupid. "The right side of history" makes no logical sense. History is written by the victors--especially in war. Had the Frost Legion won, they could write whatever they wanted about the Commander calling him/her evil to the core and call what they did the right side of history. This is also how I know it's a political/ideological injection. They knew it was being used often during the time frame I addressed and added it to their story knowing exactly that. I'd go as far as to wager the dialogue was heavily structured around the line itself.

There's a lot of inside baseball behind the expression, but in simplest terms "right side of history" is a proclamation of faith.  Communists believe that all of human history is trending inevitably toward communism, and that these people at the end of history are the ultimate judges of our actions.  The phrase sounds like nonsense because it is double-speak, and the true meaning is being obfuscated.  

Because of this double-speak, it is hard to discern whether the phrase is just parroting the expression, or if the writers for the game are in the know.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, LSD.4673 said:

"The tactics of war"

What does that even mean? How do you base a characterisation on...an abstract concept?

Because every military that has ever existed contained their own tactics for war. That is how you base a characterization on an abstract concept. War is Charr's specialty. They yearn for it. It's why they have Legions, separating their very society, as the crux of their civilization.

 

1 hour ago, LSD.4673 said:

They're yankie doodle soldiers bandying mainstream "milspeak" terms that don't even make sense half the time. The only other aspect of their design is Americanised ancient Rome, so every now and they they'll say "im-per-a-der" and "glay-dium". 

Whereas any other fantasy game will have generic "lend me your swords!" battle speech, GW2 just farts out the stuff teens were obsessed with in the 2000s.

"cover my 6 with suppressing fire, or you'll be on PT detail so quickly i'll make you johnny on the spot"

"roger that imperader"

 

Wow, that's quality writing!

This, I agree. It was horrendous. The Charr deserved better than the crap we were given. It was like someone was told to write a script that had only watched 5 episodes of MASH and 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect our character has a serious case of power creep.  Far too often we are speaking to heads of state and arguing with faction leaders.  The base game attempts to avoid this by making Trahearne the hero.  Of course there are people who couldn't stand that.

Including politics wouldn't be so bad if they would take the approach of "show don't tell."  Let a character's actions inform us about that character's world view.  Don't have characters perform a soliloquy: This is who I am, this is what I like, this is what I dislike. Have characters do things and say things to each other that hint at their world view.  If a player doesn't quite get it, the player community will happily give them all sorts of interpretations.

The story is lackluster because the writing team is focused on theme and not characterization.  If character were the focus there would not be any Mary Sues, or utterly ineffective main characters.  The story should be character driven, the way characters play off of one another should move the plot forward.  Theme should be like furniture, characters interact with it, but it isn't the focus.  
Stories are about individuals, what they do, and what happens to them.


Propaganda is a form of writing that doesn't really care about individuals. Propaganda is focused on a message, and relies heavily on themes to convey that message. In propaganda people are like furniture.
 

Edited by Zebulous.2934
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 1:50 PM, Mykhel.6532 said:

feels like the story writers hate male characters.

You make some interesting observations, and I guess this is the crux of your main idea.
I agree, male characters in Tyria are generally "evil" or not masculine in a traditional sense and if "good," almost always simping over a female character, Gorrik, Rytlock, Logan, etc.

Personally, I find this a disservice for many the female characters (some who are absolutely fantastic, like Almorra, imo). Sometimes it feels that female characters are only really "strong" because they are surrounded by "weak" males. It is unfortunate, but this has become a common trope in modern media..well well, it could be pulled off with greater finesse. 

Now, don't even get me started on some female characters who take on roles of "toxic masculinity" such as Eir (abandoning her son the way she did). The cast and writing does little to nothing to point out how this is pretty messed up, and if anything, it writes Braham (the abandoned son) to be a crybaby. Imagine if Eir were a norn male, would the narrative be so "forgiving," I doubt it. Even Rytlock was "soft-ridiculed" in some ways for not being a "father" even though it's 100% in-line with charr custom that a sire is not a parent. 

Of course, there are examples here and there that go against this kind of "world building," but they are rare and often lost in obscurity. It's just weak narratively since it is a formula that seems to be adhered to a bit too strictly and can make characters two dimensional or too predictable based on their gender.

As far as the political aspect, I mean, I could see some parallels. But the kind of stuff that was happening with the charr were pretty "generic" when it comes to civil war, rebellion, etc. Divide and conquer stuff. It obviously may have been inspired by the times in American politics, but for non-American's I bet they didn't even really relate it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, one more thing. With Jormag, I always imagined the dragon was referred to as "they" to obscure their gender due to the Brother's of Svanir's general hate for women. In reality, I imagined her to be female (based on voice) although I'm not really sure "gender" is actually a real concept with Elder Dragons since they all seem capable of laying eggs (?). I found it actually pretty funny that the Svanir bros worshipped a female dragon considering their hatred for females due to what they considered to be Jora's betrayal of Svanir. In a sense it made Jormag more "persuasive" one could argue. But how the "they" pronoun was introduced did seem forced, and I wish they did write in more of an interesting reason than modern social commentary. But yeah...Champions wasn't really a high point for the game...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, firedragon.8953 said:

Ah, one more thing. With Jormag, I always imagined the dragon was referred to as "they" to obscure their gender due to the Brother's of Svanir's general hate for women. In reality, I imagined her to be female (based on voice) although I'm not really sure "gender" is actually a real concept with Elder Dragons since they all seem capable of laying eggs (?). I found it actually pretty funny that the Svanir bros worshipped a female dragon considering their hatred for females due to what they considered to be Jora's betrayal of Svanir. In a sense it made Jormag more "persuasive" one could argue. But how the "they" pronoun was introduced did seem forced, and I wish they did write in more of an interesting reason than modern social commentary. But yeah...Champions wasn't really a high point for the game...

The svanir in the basegame refer to Jormag as a male. The change in gender came with IBS

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mykhel.6532 said:

I've tried to avoid that at all costs.

It's a hard boundary to maintain, I will give you that.

4 hours ago, Mykhel.6532 said:

I would disagree. PoF is proof of that. You had the governmental choice of keeping Amnoon neutral, siding with Joko, or the Sunspears. Each had their own dilemma/stance/consequences that involved the Commander. It was beautifully done and was a unique take on governmental politics that was unique to Tyria. They used their surroundings and the history of Elona to immerse the player in the politics that kept you in the world. This could've easily been done in both IBS and Cantha. Cantha has SO many elements of its history and culture; reasons they wouldn't want foreigners to get involved. I feel like they decided on the most simplistic of ideas (at least thus far, I think I'm about to hit act IV). I could get into potentials, but that's neither here nor there.

 

That's true... but imagine if they focused IBS on the return of the Flame Legion. Centered the story around Efram fighting to re-establish the Legion against a resistant Charr--now with another Legion vying for Khan-Ur. Then, you have Aurene's emergence with the Commander cause suspicion among the ranks while Jormag begins to influence some of the Charr, making them believe Aurene is no different from Kralkatorrik which branded thousands of Charr before... Aurene accidentally causes a big scare! Sabotage is among the ranks blaming Dragon's watch. A big fight ensues and sides are chosen; thousands of Charr abandon their legions and head north where they are promised to be a part of the most powerful of legions: The Frost Legion. This is just me spitballing, but this would have been a far better storyline than what we got... with silly drama between Imperators thinking each knows best...

 

Being honest though, the Amnoon choice had zero bearing on the story at all, serving only as a means to gate the back wardrobe items behind three playthroughs, much like how HoT did for the order backpacks. I'm glad EoD didn't continue that trend though.

As for the latter, there is a lot that we may have had, with a full IBS. I recall centaur lands were meant to be included with primordus invading those, it's somewhat referenced in EOTN ambient dialogue. But the Imperators have had this mild bickering attitude in the past anyway. Nobody reached for Khan Ur because nobody had strength enough to challenge the other legions.

3 hours ago, Zebulous.2934 said:

I suspect our character has a serious case of power creep.  Far too often we are speaking to heads of state and arguing with faction leaders.  The base game attempts to avoid this by making Trahearne the hero.  Of course there are people who couldn't stand that.

I wouldn't call Trahearne the hero, but instead he's the leader. He's the big guy going to meetings while we are the field agent (his champion, for elder dragon speech lol) and fighting the battles. While often we aren't directly leading the armies anymore, we are still a major player in terms of getting the factions together.

Some of this is just the evolution of our story from a member of an Order to a free agent, but I suspect aspects of it are from complaints. Remember back in the silverwastes when Zojja out of the blue started praising the commander for being "X amount of Destiny Edge+commander's total firepower"? That line always reads to me as a pander to the people whining about not enough credit.

1 hour ago, firedragon.8953 said:

You make some interesting observations, and I guess this is the crux of your main idea.
I agree, male characters in Tyria are generally "evil" or not masculine in a traditional sense and if "good," almost always simping over a female character, Gorrik, Rytlock, Logan, etc.
 

Of those three, I would only ever, in any slight way, say that Logan is a simp. When has Gorrik or Rytlock "simped" over a woman?

Gorrik went to meet Ankka partly because of old connections, but more to obtain data important to his research.

Rytlock has a mate/wife, who happened to be ascended to also be his legion boss.  He grumbles but that's because he hates paperwork and also knows that he cannot avoid his duty to his legion.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

To the OP, the two biggest "politics" arcs that we had, Charr and Cantha, were ones that would've had to happen at some point anyway.

A: The Charr have always been plagued with people screaming about how they NEED war, and how as soon as the dragons end, the Charr would tear up the treaties and go back to war with humanity and anybody else. Anet answered those cries and questions with IBS, by having Grothmar be split between those who are fine with the other races/peace, and those who want to go back to fighting or hate other races. This is no different from base game (Charr in Ascalon viewpoint vs Charr in the orders or Lion's Arch viewpoint), but brought forth those feelings to the front and had it erupt, with those wanting to conquer going over there, to those wanting to build and honor treaties over on the other side.

B: Cantha was left in the grasp of a xenophobic, isolationist, evil regime. Going back would have to deal with either this faction, or the aftermath of it's fall. Anet went for the latter. So we are dealing with elements of that power structure who don't want to give up that lifestyle, and want a return to that way of Cantha being governed.

 

Listen, I don't really have an issue with you OP, besides the very obvious misunderstanding of Jormag and the Sons of Svanir, and the whole factor of how they were formed around Jora and Svanir. Maybe I'll go back and read the rest, but the thread is going down that path of locking because of people screaming about RL political figures and getting very heated.

 

I dont have any issues with this kind of political issue in the game. I agree and liked both the Warmongering Charr and the isolationist Cantha politic arc. My grudge is that why couldn't Li be a woman? Why couldn't Bangar be female?

The main concern of OP's post is not the way the politics were handle, rather the stereotypes they used. Bad or dumb male as villains, females as queens/heros/smart villains and the "Hello im agender btw" moment that happened in EoD that was completely out of touch of all the story that was going on, like we would care if a NPC was non-binary or not.

 

Don't understand things wrong, politics are awesome as a story. The issue is when they keep using sterotypes to push an agenda.

For an example, if i was writing the Cantha politic arc i would:

1. Make Joon fool the queen into keeping all borders open

2. Another cataclysmic event would happen due to the open boarders policy

3. Queen would be endangered by some threat caused by Joon (unintentional)

4. Li and his loyalists would come to save the Queen and show her how isolationism would be better for Cantha

 

This would make things more grey, which is always better because we can get better agency. Then from that point on:

 

1. Cantha would get divided in the ideas

2. Li could still be the sterotypical bad guy, but this time, with some actual reason for isolationism, like protecting its borders and avoiding danger

3. Some event would happen inside Li's party, disagreements with him being too harsh and xenofobic

4. Kaineng Overlook happens

5. After ending, the new head would, instead of beign a total xenofobic, get the good points of Li's old ideas, make a new one, more conservative way of think, avoiding Xenophobic policies but at same time, keeping borders controled, opening with care and while making Cantha stronger by having some order

6. In the meantime we get that Joon fight part, but then she would be the target of her own opening policy, a bigger foreign threat would emerge and she would have to relenquish her thoughts, but would still be more in favor of opening than their opposition

6. We would have 2 equal grounds way of think what was best of Cantha, instead of the clear Xenophilic x Xenophobic politician partys that happened in our current story

  • Like 3
  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't have more to say on these topics since they keep being posted over and over since IBS, but I'll just say that its highly ironic to keep hearing the complaint "males are made weak, females are made strong" for a lot of you who I guarantee are mostly running around playing scantily-clad Human females in game.

https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics

 

If you want males to be portrayed better maybe you could start at character creation?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

Honestly I don't have more to say on these topics since they keep being posted over and over since IBS, but I'll just say that its highly ironic to keep hearing the complaint "males are made weak, females are made strong" for a lot of you who I guarantee are mostly running around playing scantily-clad Human females in game.

https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics

 

If you want males to be portrayed better maybe you could start at character creation?

Isn't the point null and void because the story is the same regardless of the gender of the player character? And I say that as someone whose two most played characters are male sylvari.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2022 at 1:05 AM, Zebulous.2934 said:

Including politics wouldn't be so bad if they would take the approach of "show don't tell."  Let a character's actions inform us about that character's world view.

I fully agree with this.

@Mykhel.6532, I think you noted this yourself already, but ANet has been "woke" loooooong before it was as widespread/cool/convenient as it is today. There's a conversation Lion's Arch near the fractal gate area, where there's two NPCs talking. One of them had a gender change (was male during Scarlet's attack on old LA, is now female in new LA). The Sons of Svanir, since the core game, have been quite notoriously sexist. It comes up repeatedly if you've ever played a female norn character through the personal story, and any female character through one of the Wayfarer Foothill HPs. The Flame Legion was also responsible for relegating female charr to a very undignified level of existence, and said female charr won back their dignity. The bad guys having racist/sexist views has long been a part of GW - well it's been a part of gaming narrative as a whole, really. I actually respect ANet to a degree because of this pedigree - I think the studio's position on such matters comes from a place of authentic belief, rather than mere bandwagoning.

I'd wager the recent difference you're detecting is what @Zebulous.2934 notes above. I've said it every time this conversation comes up, but I believe historically Kas & Jory's treatment should serve as the standard. They're a pair, nobody really has a problem with it, and most importantly, nobody has to come out and tell anyone to be cool with it. We are shown how capable, brave, and sometimes vulnerable both characters are, and their relationship feels natural enough. The game largely avoided having forced "teachable moments" designed to patronizingly ensure that everyone was on the same ideological boat about them.

But now, as @Konig Des Todes.2086noted, it's just that the political messaging seems to have become just as (if not more) prominent than raw entertainment when it comes to ANet's writing choices. I don't think it's feasible or wise to desire a complete scrubbing of ideology from any form of narrative; however, I wholeheartedly believe a good story has narrative elements that are much more important than pushing some ideology. If a story's primary purpose is to push some sort of ideology, it's just propaganda, and deserves to be called such.

 

Edited by voltaicbore.8012
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2022 at 10:15 AM, Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

More that Braham being praised for doing the same kitten thing we condemned Bangar for attempting is what bothers me there.

 


I felt like they weren't doing the same thing. Jormag essentially had its own mind that Bangar was seeking to subjugate it, meanwhile Primordus was a creature of instinct that Braham was just enabling and nudging in a direction that it was already inclined toward.
 

1 hour ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

But now, as @Konig Des Todes.2086noted, it's just that the political messaging seems to have become just as (if not more) prominent than raw entertainment when it comes to ANet's writing choices. I don't think it's feasible or wise to desire a complete scrubbing of ideology from any form of narrative; however, I wholeheartedly believe a good story has narrative elements that are much more important than pushing some ideology. If a story's primary purpose is to push some sort of ideology, it's just propaganda, and deserves to be called such.

 


I don't necessarily think that that's always the case. It's more that it has to provide an accurate representation. The problem with badly done ones is that they don't, because the authors don't actually understand why someone would disagree with them. Most of IBS in general and EoD's dialogue (Actual flow of events wasn't terrible, it's literally just the dialogue that felt preachy) felt written in a way that would make Terry Goodkind proud.
 

On the other hand, The Dog and the Dragon is a story told with the sole purpose of pushing a message (even if the person telling it claimed that it wasn't), but it succeeds because the message it gives is one that actually reflects reality rather than using unrealistic cariacatures to attempt to demonise others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eponet.4829 said:

On the other hand, The Dog and the Dragon is a story told with the sole purpose of pushing a message (even if the person telling it claimed that it wasn't), but it succeeds because the message it gives is one that actually reflects reality rather than using unrealistic cariacatures to attempt to demonise others.

That's kind of the point. Purely ideologically driven stories are inherently at risk for caricaturizing people (even those who might even agree with the view being pushed) and demonizing anyone who disagrees. The Dog and the Dragon, as you say, has a message that is far more universal and reflective of reality than a mere political/ideological message. I don't see this as a counterexample at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, research of Jormag on the wiki is interesting--up to mid-2011 the dragon was referred to as 'it', then from mid-2011 to 2013 referred to as 'he' and from then on 'it' again.  

Due to wiki being fan edited and in-game being subject to retconning we probably will never know.  

Story direction has always been ideological though, just more pronounced in EoD because of Cantha's obvious isolation for so many years. 

Back before it ranges from obvious things like Balthazar being an evil male god of war to a bit more tin foil hatty nature of all the zombies in Orr sounding male.  In conjunction even the side stories back then like Malchor being obsessive over a female and creating an entire map from that premise (could say it was ahed of its time on simping though...).

Edited by Gotejjeken.1267
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Scalacious.4139 said:

Isn't the point null and void because the story is the same regardless of the gender of the player character? And I say that as someone whose two most played characters are male sylvari.

You're misunderstanding my point, I think.

 

The majority of the playerbase players Human female because they can't stand looking at males all day, and like the customisation options on the Human females in parrticular, like how cute or sexy you can make them look, how they sound etc. This goes all the way back to Everquest, and possibly was influenced by earlier games like Tomb Raider which let you play exclusively as female regardless of your gender.

 

It shows not only disdain for their own gender (even if unintentionally), but fetishism of the female gender on top of it, since females are seen as more desirable for multiple reasons. Those that do play male characters tend to go for Charr or Norn because of this, for the rugged hero archetype that they find "brottractive", and those that play female characters tend to go for Human female for the opposite reason.

 

How many males in this game would say Logan, Rytlock or even Braham are attractive? How many would be okay if those characters made a pass at the player character like Rama did?

 

Its something called cognitive dissonance (where a person has two conflicitng ways of thinking), and its a very important subject in psychology. But this is a very controversial subject and i don't want to say much more about it, since to be honest none of this means anything to me since I'm a lesbian anyway, and do my fair share of putting females on pedestals, too. But at the same time I find it very confusing how in this day and age, people don't seem capable of critical thinking anymore, or challenging themselves.

 

If males need better representation making 2/3rds of all characters Human female isn't going to do it. It just says this is what we like, this is what we want to see in the game. "Devs, we want to see Human females in lingerie, wearing catgirl ears, with big angel wings and wielding magical girl weapons."

 

I mean, that's what I want to see. I just don't understand why its what everyone else wants, too. Where is the representation you desire, that you can create yourselves?

 

EDIT: Cleaned this up to make it less convoluted.

Edited by Mariyuuna.6508
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

You're misunderstanding my point, I think.

 

The majority of the playerbase players Human female because they can't stand looking at males all day, and like the customisation options on the Human females in parrticular, like how cute or sexy you can make them look, how they sound etc. This goes all the way back to Everquest, and possibly was influenced by earlier games like Tomb Raider which let you play exclusively as female regardless of your gender.

 

It shows not only disdain for their own gender (even if unintentionally), but fetishism of the female gender on top of it, since females are seen as more desirable for multiple reasons. Those that do play male characters tend to go for Charr or Norn because of this, for the rugged hero archetype that they find "brottractive", and those that play female characters tend to go for Human female for the opposite reason.

 

How many males in this game would say Logan, Rytlock or even Braham are attractive? How many would be okay if those characters made a pass at the player character like Rama did?

 

Its something called cognitive dissonance (where a person has two conflicitng ways of thinking), and its a very important subject in psychology. But this is a very controversial subject and i don't want to say much more about it, since to be honest none of this means anything to me since I'm a lesbian anyway, and do my fair share of putting females on pedestals, too. But at the same time I find it very confusing how in this day and age, people don't seem capable of critical thinking anymore, or challenging themselves.

 

If males need better representation making 2/3rds of all characters Human female isn't going to do it. It just says this is what we like, this is what we want to see in the game. "Devs, we want to see Human females in lingerie, wearing catgirl ears, with big angel wings and wielding magical girl weapons."

 

I mean, that's what I want to see. I just don't understand why its what everyone else wants, too. Where is the representation you desire, that you can create yourselves?

 

EDIT: Cleaned this up to make it less convoluted.

Okay, so there is a lot going on here. You say 67% of all characters are human female, which is just wrong if we take a look at the statistic you posted yourself just yesterday. It is more like 25% of all characters, which is quite a lot to be fair, but humans just get played way more than any other race (40%, which means that 15% of all characters are human male) and you also asume that most of the players of said characters are male and that they have "a disdain for their own gender". Where is this coming from? I would bet that quite a lot of those human female characters are actually played by human females.

You ask how many males in this game would find Logan, Rytlock or Braham attractive, which is in my opinion an odd question, since the vast majority of people in the world are heterosexuall. Why would they need to find them attractive?

And I for one don't want to see "human females in lingerie, wearing catgirl ears with big angel wings and wielding magical girl weapons". I even dislike that that is an option, but to each their own. Women in full plate armor are way more appealing to me to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 8:29 AM, voltaicbore.8012 said:

The bad guys having racist/sexist views has long been a part of GW - well it's been a part of gaming narrative as a whole, really. I actually respect ANet to a degree because of this pedigree - I think the studio's position on such matters comes from a place of authentic belief, rather than mere bandwagoning.

Yup. I've never had an issue with correlating the two before because that is the part of the art I see imitating life. They are general concepts and unfortunate things that occurs in our world today. However, the issue is the further they go, the more specific those issues seem to become... and instead of using the world of Tyria to maybe express a unique issue from our world, it appears to me they're taking an issue from our world and using it to shape Tyria's story. This ALWAYS destroys something that was intended to be otherworldly. I'm actually writing a new review now that I've finished the EoD story and I have a lot more to say regarding their character development. Stay tuned for that. However, that was why I didn't see a real problem with PoF, although many people saw issues with that story as well.

 

On 9/28/2022 at 12:52 AM, JTGuevara.9018 said:

So, OP, your point is...

My point is the story is starting to suck and is often immersion-breaking.

 

On 9/28/2022 at 8:29 AM, voltaicbore.8012 said:

They're a pair, nobody really has a problem with it, and most importantly, nobody has to come out and tell anyone to be cool with it. We are shown how capable, brave, and sometimes vulnerable both characters are, and their relationship feels natural enough. The game largely avoided having forced "teachable moments" designed to patronizingly ensure that everyone was on the same ideological boat about them.

This is something I agree with you on. However, it wasn't a seamless transition. Going back through Scarlet's war recently in LW S1, there is ZERO chemistry between the two. They are exclusively professional. In fact, Marjory comes onto Braham the first time they meet at the base of operations basically saying something to the effect of, "Well aren't you a tall glass of water..." then suddenly in LW S2 before HoT, they're together. For perspective, season 2 began on July 1, 2014 and the eighth (last) episode was released on January 13, 2015. At the same time this story was being developed, the country was mired in the judicial victories of gay marriage. Coincidence? I don't believe so. It's also important to note that there is no other declared relationship in the entire storyline; by "declared," I mean a relationship we openly watch blossom as part of the main story or even side stories. 

 

On 9/28/2022 at 8:29 AM, voltaicbore.8012 said:

If a story's primary purpose is to push some sort of ideology, it's just propaganda, and deserves to be called such

Agreed. I don't want to see GW2 become this.

 

11 hours ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

1990: They are in love and act stupid

2022: Simps

You are either much younger or you didn't  pay attention in the 90's. The term we used in the 90's was p***y whipped. Different names, similar meanings. However, I would also argue the Simp has its own meaning as a result of certain sites... where a site used by 95%+ men can just throw money at women who will never acknowledge their existence.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...