Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization.

[EPR89]

That was more of my stance on the issue: I don't care about female models and you shouldn't either. The main reason I say that is because this isn't an RPG and we aren't meant to be immersed

This bullshit again!

Stop telling me what I should or shouldn't do! The game does not prevent me from playing the way I play games like these. That's part of why I play them in the first place. Just because it isn't an RPG does not mean that I won't be able to find ways to immerse myself in the game world and identify myself with characters. There is no genre-specific on-off switch to that approach, at least not the way you seem to think there is.

When will you accept that not everyone is like you?
If I get to play a character that is not defined as a fixed character in the story I will try to identify with him, no matter if the game requires it or not. Momentum is a great example for that. The characters don't seem to have any role, specifically no gender specific one. They don't have to be male or female to do what the do in the game. Because of that it helps players who want to immerse themselves into the game by identifying with the character (players like me) if the character models reflect the identity they want to represent in the game. For females this seems to often be a female role. The current models may have been planned to be genderless, but they very obviously represent a male type. This can potentially make identification for people who don't want to play that role more difficult.
So what's the harm in giving them that option? I really don't see your problem here.

And don't even bother writing yet another of your imperatives that don't actually exist in reality. I do care, and based on your reaction you obviously do too. Just that in your case I really have no idea why or for what ultimate reason. If you don't care what sort of character you play in such a game why do you want to limit choices for people who do? You gain nothing from it. Those other people lose something. Is it just out of pure spite? I find it hard to believe that.

[Ragdollmaster]

I think a large part of the reason is Phoenix's age. The younger you are, the harder it is to relate to other people and see things from their perspective. Kids are pretty quick to accept certain things, but once they do, they are dogmatic as all hell about them.

[Retarded Username]

Heh, Phoenix wrote 'Beyonetta'

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Heh, Phoenix wrote 'Beyonetta'

I don't like hack and slash games, okay?

This bullshit again!

Stop telling me what I should or shouldn't do! The game does not prevent me from playing the way I play games like these. That's part of why I play them in the first place. Just because it isn't an RPG does not mean that I won't be able to find ways to immerse myself in the game world and identify myself with characters. There is no genre-specific on-off switch to that approach, at least not the way you seem to think there is.

I didn't say you can't be immersed. I said it isn't the first priority of the devs because they aren't making an immersive game, and instead a shooter.

Sure, you can try, go ahead. But the devs didn't make the game around that style of playing. It isn't meant to immerse you. You can try though.

When will you accept that not everyone is like you?

When did I accept other people's point of view on Spec Ops again?

When did I accept other people's view of favorite genre, especially since I like a lot of niche games to start with?

If I get to play a character that is not defined as a fixed character in the story I will try to identify with him, no matter if the game requires it or not. Momentum is a great example for that. The characters don't seem to have any role, specifically no gender specific one. They don't have to be male or female to do what the do in the game. Because of that it helps players who want to immerse themselves into the game by identifying with the character (players like me) if the character models reflect the identity they want to represent in the game. For females this seems to often be a female role. The current models may have been planned to be genderless, but they very obviously represent a male type. This can potentially make identification for people who don't want to play that role more difficult.
So what's the harm in giving them that option? I really don't see your problem here.

Because it's unnecessary, excessive and all around stupid with no justification to add it since in the end the roleplayer was not the type of gamer they intended to attract with this style of game.

And don't even bother writing yet another of your imperatives that don't actually exist in reality. I do care, and based on your reaction you obviously do too.

You're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying I don't care either way and that I'm just watching from the sidelines. I'm saying I don't care about females and since this isn't a RPG you probably shouldn't either.

Just that in your case I really have no idea why or for what ultimate reason. If you don't care what sort of character you play in such a game why do you want to limit choices for people who do? You gain nothing from it. Those other people lose something. Is it just out of pure spite? I find it hard to believe that.

The same reason they didn't add a female Terminator option in Space Hulk.

It's unnecessary, excessive and all around worthless for even the minimal amount of time it would take to change it. Even if it might make 2% of players a little happier.

[Endoperez]

I'm saying I don't care about females and since this isn't a RPG you probably shouldn't either.

This is very biased.

It's unnecessary, excessive and all around worthless for even the minimal amount of time it would take to change it. Even if it might make 2% of players a little happier.

Making customers happier is usually a good idea. This is only a bad idea if there's something better, or it has both good and bad sides.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

This is very biased.

That came out somewhat wrong: I don't care about gender or appearance in general since it isn't an RPG

That's better.

Making customers happier is usually a good idea. This is only a bad idea if there's something better, or it has both good and bad sides.

But it's a minority, the vast majority like how it is (Having genderless models), and a lot of people are fine without female models. It isn't exactly needed.

[EPR89]

This is very biased.

That came out somewhat wrong: I don't care about gender or appearance in general since it isn't an RPG

That's better.

But it's not what you said. You do care. You just told me that I should not care and that female characters are not needed, to the point where you said they should not be in the game. If you really didn't care, it wouldn't make a difference to you.

And I'll say it again, self-immersion and taking on an identity in the game is not limited to RPGs. Ever game where you play a character can give players what they need to do that and many players do. I honestly can't remember a game where I played a character and did not identify with it in some way.

Making customers happier is usually a good idea. This is only a bad idea if there's something better, or it has both good and bad sides.

But it's a minority, the vast majority like how it is (Having genderless models), and a lot of people are fine without female models. It isn't exactly needed.

You can't back that up. The people who engaged in the discussion on the Steam board either had no problem with female characters or were for including them.
And the characters are not genderless. The "genderless" characters were obviously based on male proportions.


This is seriously getting frustrating. All these points have been brought up multiple times by at least three guys now. I don't think having a debate with you on this topic can be constructive in any way at this point. You just can't see the other side. That last sentence shows it clear as day. Gendered characters are not needed for you. For many others, they are a very attractive option and those people have voiced their opinion. But you just brush it away as if it was nothing, usually implying that those people are not the true target audience.
It's really strange with you. You say you don't care, yet you try discredit differing views for no good reason and dismiss their arguments again and again with nothing but your own opinion and approach to gaming, as if it somehow was the only way...

[Phoenixwarrior141]

But it's not what you said. You do care. You just told me that I should not care and that female characters are not needed, to the point where you said they should not be in the game. If you really didn't care, it wouldn't make a difference to you.

And I'll say it again, self-immersion and taking on an identity in the game is not limited to RPGs. Ever game where you play a character can give players what they need to do that and many players do. I honestly can't remember a game where I played a character and did not identify with it in some way.

But that's what I meant.

And you're still misinterpreting what I say. I'm saying "I don't care about female characters and you should either" NOT "I don't care about this discussion and you shouldn't either". You're misreading this.

And I'll also say it again, this game was not intended to immerse you, not at all. RPGs are, this isn't. You're misinterpreting this again.

You can't back that up. The people who engaged in the discussion on the Steam board either had no problem with female characters or were for including them.
And the characters are not genderless. The "genderless" characters were obviously based on male proportions.

And a lot of people play Minimum, the vast minority actually commented.

And since you never saw male characters, how do you know male characters would look like the genderless characters?

This is seriously getting frustrating. All these points have been brought up multiple times by at least three guys now. I don't think having a debate with you on this topic can be constructive in any way at this point. You just can't see the other side. That last sentence shows it clear as day. Gendered characters are not needed for you.

Or anyone, since roleplayers would look to a different game to immerse themselves in.

For many others, they are a very attractive option...

Literally.

...and those people have voiced their opinion. But you just brush it away as if it was nothing, usually implying that those people are not the true target audience.

The target audience is the shooter/MOBA community, who aren't the people who want to immerse themselves in a game. Just like RPGs do benefit from having those options because people play them to immerse themselves in the experience.

Accept that not everyone wants to immerse themselves in a multiplayer shooter. Especially an arena based one.

It's really strange with you. You say you don't care,

I DO CARE, I CARE ENOUGH TO GET INTO THE FUCKING DISCUSSION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I DON'T CARE IF THERE ARE FEMALE CHARACTERS, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY.

yet you try discredit differing views for no good reason and dismiss their arguments again and again with nothing but your own opinion and approach to gaming, as if it somehow was the only way...

No. RPGs exist and should exist. I definitely see the appeal of immersion and why people want it. It's certainly not industry wide and shouldn't be.

[Ragdollmaster]

Nobody even bother replying further. Waste of effort.

Now to be productive.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Are there words? I don't think there are words.

[Glabbit]

Hey guys what was that about circles.

Ciiiiiiircleeeeeeeees

[Korban3]

[EPR89]

If I get to play a character that is not defined as a fixed character in the story I will try to identify with him, no matter if the game requires it or not. Momentum is a great example for that. The characters don't seem to have any role, specifically no gender specific one. They don't have to be male or female to do what the do in the game. Because of that it helps players who want to immerse themselves into the game by identifying with the character (players like me) if the character models reflect the identity they want to represent in the game. For females this seems to often be a female role. The current models may have been planned to be genderless, but they very obviously represent a male type. This can potentially make identification for people who don't want to play that role more difficult.
So what's the harm in giving them that option? I really don't see your problem here.

Because it's unnecessary, excessive and all around stupid with no justification to add it since in the end the roleplayer was not the type of gamer they intended to attract with this style of game.

So my way of playing a game is stupid and I should not do it...

We're talking past each other again, so I'll try to make this very clear and ask you one question in the end. Maybe then I can see your point and you can see mine, although I still think that your position is based on a generalisation about the community that is simply not true.
So, here I go:

I'll say this one last time, there are people who simply immerse themselves in games they play. That's how they play. This is not limited to RPGs. It's the case with every game that has characters that allow for it. In a way, "blank" characters are perfect for that. This is not a question of what the game is about or how the general gameplay works. It's a question of personal play style. A shooter can be played just like that without any problem.


I am a member of the shooter/MOBA community. I like to immerse myself in those games. I actually thought you had understood it when I read this:

Accept that not everyone wants to immerse themselves in a multiplayer shooter. Especially an arena based one.

This is just it. Not everyone. But this goes in both directions and that's what you don't seem to be able to grasp. Not everyone wants to immerse themselves in those games BUT some do. Their approach is just as valid as the other one. It's simply how they play games. There is nothing stupid or unnecessary to it. It's just different from how you play.
Your blanket statements simply do not apply, no matter how often you repeat them. That's the point I think you are not seeing. I mean, you just now called it stupid. It doesn't get much clearer than that. You just don't get the other side and instead of trying to understand it you treat it as if it was inferior or didn't apply to the game, when it obviously does. Even the developers have acknowledged that.


Alright, so now here's the question.
I want you to explain one thing:

How does the inclusion of characters that help people who benefit from them harm those other people who don't want to immerse themselves in the game world?
That's really what I don't understand about your point and I think that's the point where we sort of lose each other. You say that it is necessary, but it is only unnecessary for players with your own approach. For the others those additions would be awesome. And both groups are part of the shooter/MOBA community.
I don't see any benefit for you from not having those characters. You don't care if you play a male, female or genderless character (something I still don't really think is possible when with a humanoid character design). I do. And many others do too. So include the characters and everyone is happy, right? You don't care and people who want to play a female character can do that. Those people win and you don't lose? Perfect solution in my book?
And then you come in and start shouting again how including them is stupid.
So, please, for the last time: what's the reason for you to say this? And don't even begin to claim that the shooter/MOBA community is a uniform group that never wants to take on roles in these games. That statement is obviously not true.

I want a real reason. Something substantial. Something different from the inaccurate generalisations you have said so far. Not your opinion, but a justification why these characters should not be in the game. Your own opinion only affects you, and that's fine. But the point you are making does not only affect you. You want no one to get to play as a female character in the game, even people who approach the game differently than you do. I want to know how you justify that.


Sorry to everyone who has started reading this when I first posted it. I had to edit a few things to make it more clear and keep my emotions in check. And I will never ever write anything of that size on one of my uni's computers. Jesus, their keyboards suck so much. So many miss-hits...

[Endoperez]

That's really waht I don't understand about your point and I think taht's the point where we sort of lose each other. You say that it is unecessary, but it is only uneccessary for players with your own approach. For the others those additions would be awesome. And both groups are part of the shooter/MOBA community.

This was a fantastic post, and I agree with the point you're making. there's lots of typos, but don't worry, they don't detract from the message.

I can understand why people complain about changes where something is changed to cater one group of people while at the expense of others (even though I might still agree with the changes), but complaining about things where things are added to cater to more groups... I have a harder time understanding that.

I guess one possible reason for this could be that the observed value of the game has changed. A game without blood and a game with unlockable secret mode with lots and lots of blood have different values associated with them, even though in both games most of the gameplay is bloodless. And what about the early Tomb Raider games where, allegedly, the player could remove the shirt? Does the existence of that, and knowledge it exists, change how you think about the game even if you never use that cheat, or even know how to true it? It might, for some people...

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Motherfucker.

So my way of playing a game is stupid and I should not do it...

Not what I said at all.

We're talking past each other again, so I'll try to make this very clear and ask you one question in the end. Maybe then I can see your point and you can see mine, although I still think that your position is based on a generalisation about the community that is simply not true.
So, here I go:

I'll say this one last time, there are people who simply immerse themselves in games they play.

Never denied that.

That's how they play. This is not limited to RPGs.

Never said or thought it was.

It's the case with every game that has characers that allow for it. In a way, "blank" characters are perfect for that. This is not a question of what the game is about or how the general gameplay works. It's a question of personal play style. A shooter can be played just like that without any problem.

I know, but that doesn't mean the developers should build around that. Immersive games don't need to be universal.

I am a member of the shooter/MOBA community. I like to immerse myself in those games. I actually thought you had understood it when I read this:

Accept that not everyone wants to immerse themselves in a multiplayer shooter. Especially an arena based one.

This is just it. Not everyone. But this goes in both directions and that's what you don't seem to be able to grasp. Not everyone wants to immerse themselves in those games BUT some do. Their approach is just as valid as the other one. It's simply how they play games. There is nothing stupid or uneccessary to it. It's just different from how you play

But the people who roleplay are within the minority, or a silent majority. Either way, the developers have the assume that people are OKAY without female models.

Your blanket statements simply do not apply, no matter how often you repeat them. That's the point I think you are not seeing. I mean, you just now called it stupid. It doesn't get much clearer than that. You just don't get the other side and instead of trying to undertsand it you treat it as if it was inferior or didn't apply to the game, when it obviously does. Even the developers have acknowledged that.

It does, but again it's in the vast minority, or a silent majority, it's not practical to appease a minority or silent majority when a lot of people don't care.

Hell, I doubt even the roleplayers care THAT much.

Alright, so now herer's the question.
I want you to explain one thing:

How does the inclusion of characters that help people who benefit from them harm those other people who don't want to immerse themselves in the game world?
That's really waht I don't understand about your point and I think taht's the point where we sort of lose each other. You say that it is unecessary, but it is only uneccessary for players with your own approach. For the others those additions would be awesome. And both groups are part of the shooter/MOBA community.
I don't see any benefit for you from not having those characters. You don't care if you play a male, female or genderless character (something I still don't really think is possible when witha humanoid character design). I do. And many others do too. So include the characters and everyone is happy, right? You don't care and people who want to play a female character can do that. Those people win and you don't lose? Perfect solution in my book?
And then you come in and start shouting again how including them is stupid.
So, please, for the last time: what's the reason for you to say this? And don't even begin to claim that the shooter/MOBA community is a uniform group that never wants to take on roles in these games. That statement is obviously not true.

Let's look at it then:

Immersion is a minuscule aspect in Minimum, which is intended to have a vague art-style and nothing substantial in terms of lore and art. With that, the models are unisex and intended to be representative of whatever the individual player wants them to be. A good majority of people who play shooters don't play them to be immersed. I can't think of a single person who plays COD multiplayer and tries to be immersed in the world, or Battlefield really. Hell a lot of people don't roleplay on Arma but it may SEEM like they are.

Because immersion plays little into the game itself (The developers did not intend to immerse the player, rather give them a game to focus on that requires such focus), and people who wanted immersive experiences looked elsewhere, the small amount of RPers there don't care either since they probably bought it for the gameplay, not to roleplay it with.

Following that logic, it can be assumed that there aren't a specifically large amount of roleplayers who care, and the only people who want it are pseudo-feminists or roleplayers who want every game to conform to them.

And with the game having major stability issues, it shouldn't be high on the "To Do" list if the developers want it anyways.