gender issue

"

Rory wrote:

and that's exactly what we'd like to do if the game is successful.

Heard it here first folks!

I'm not upset about this announcement, as it's a good one, but I do find it kind of petty that there's a sense of entitlement that this kind of thing should just exist. Then there's the generalizations that people just don't understand how women or men think and that is just being ridiculous. When does the entitlement stop? Eventually there will be nothing but people complaining on the forums that they deserve to have the female mara for free, and that this is against their very being.

Choice is great, options are great, paying for them is fine, entitlement has it's boundaries and generalizing isn't going to make you friends.

"

scarletsakura wrote:

But the fact I'm forced to settle is what bothers me. I've lost interest already. I suppose us women are still misunderstood as gamers.

Oh, come on. You're saying that it's about you being a woman and not what preferences you have as a person? Claiming that female gamers are being alienated because you can't be a female warrior class? Most female gamers I know do not have an issue with this at all.

It's fine that you want both gender options, but it's interesting that the concern is that the male classes can't be played as female, while it's of no concern that the female classes can't be played as male. And please, don't make it out to be an issue of women being persecuted as gamers. Even if they are, it does not mean this is one of those cases.

When I play a FPS or RTS, I don't get upset that the protagonist is a male or female. Granted, they're not tagged as "role-playing games," but we're playing the characters' roles in the story regardless. The same is true for this game. The classes are what they are for reasons.

This is why I refuse to play Mario Brothers.

1. I am not Italian
2. I am not a plumber
3. I am already married

I just can't get "immersed" in the game! I mean, what the hell? Why can't I choose an avatar that, as a protagonist, also represents some of my real life traits?

^ lmao

Witt, you crack me up.

Since I brought it up I have another thought on this subject.

With todays technology and after seeing what others have done like Titans quest base female and male characters that looked their role by what they used vs a set character graphic, and given that even Diablo 3 will have male and female versions of each character, it seem that GGG was pretty short sighted.

Given that since each GGG character can basicly use every skill gem and therefore every character needed the same basic animations. It seems that players couild have frist decided there starting position on the passive skill tree, then had a choice of say 3 female or 3 male avatars, same number of avatars, coiuld have 3 cool looks. And then each avatar would take on the character role based on how they were equiped.

This is hindsight, but it seems they could have made everyone happy with that system. And it wouldnt have required anymore time or money than the current system.

I heard the statement about the back story about each character, and I agree that it is important, but the character class can have the back story, the avatar isnt the back story. And the reality, lets face it, after the first play through does anyone really care about the back story.

It is what it is, but I think this could have been avoided with more thought. And with todays technologies why should men have to play female avatars or women, play male avatars. Its easy to say people shouldnt care which they play, that is it is easy if you dont care, but there are alot of people that dont want to, so the developers should have taken that into account.

"

GhostPain wrote:

With todays technology and after seeing what others have done like Titans quest base female and male characters that looked their role by what they used vs a set character graphic, and given that even Diablo 3 will have male and female versions of each character, it seem that GGG was pretty short sighted.

Maybe they considered such a system and decided against it. This definitely isn't the first time the suggestion has come up.

Also, there are huge budget gaps between games like D3/TQ and PoE. Paying for the artists and animators to make twice as many models and animations takes twice as much money. Blizzard and THQ can afford that sort of thing. GGG has to make compromises to prioritize their budget.

Maybe you can spend money on a gender change later, as a part of the shop system - but dont estimate it to be cheap... ^^

As I said it is hindsight, doing 3 male models and 3 female models for players to choose from equals 6. Currently there are going to be 6 characters in the game, ranger, witch, etc.. So as I said if this would have been more thought out from the start the cost would have been the same. I agree that to do it now would add additional cost. But call me a skeptic, Im not so sure it would cost the dollar figure that has been thrown around.

If budget was the primary deciding factor I would think that the Titans quest system with two basic models is by far the least expensive. After all all the games then apply armor etc. as skins to whatever the base model is. The different models are somewhat nice, but I have to say that more than once in the game I have seen a Marader standing next to a Templar with very simlar armor and it wasnt readily discernable if the were the same or different characters.