PxlStorm on 13 March 2016
| BraLoD said: Nope, don't agree, developers should have freedom to do characters spawing from any kind of possibilities, and if they want a prostitute, a damsel in distress, a badass strong female character or anything else, they should do it without a second thought. |
This,
| melbye said: A character in a game is not a real person, it is just designed to look like one(and sometimes not). They are literally objects in terms of programming |
this,
| spemanig said: As will likely be the common sentiment here, one woman doesn't represent all women. Also, these aren't stereotypes, they are archetypes. Archetypes aren't gender exclusive. There are wussy boys who need saving, know-it-all nerds, very attractive male eye candy, there literally a male "who needs armor anyway" in the same fucking picture you cropped you knob, almost every male video game character is intentionally designed to be an extremely sexy bad ass, and there are just as many male victims in video games as females. Tails is a male Damsel in Distress. No one cries sexism. Mario in Luigi's Mansion is a male Damsel in Distress. No one cries sexism. Dante is meant to be eye candy and a badass. Ain't nobody mad. Drake is meant to be eye candy and a badass. Ain't nobody mad. Peach being a damsel in distress isn't meant to suggest or imply that all women are damsels in distress or that Peach isn't a damsel in distress because she's a woman. That's just a character trait specific to her as a character. This article is so stupid. There is no agreeable basis for it. Just people needing a reason to be pissy about shit. |
this
| JWeinCom said: This may come as a surprise, but not every woman is a confident, independent, modestly dressed, honorable person. Some women in real life do fall into those categories. I get the need for more positive representations of women, but that doesn't mean we can't every do anything that shows women as less than perfect. |
...and this.
