There is a very good reason women did not participate in combat (often) in the middle ages and earlier--they were not nearly as capable.
Generally not as capable would me more accurate; not "nearly" as capable is just flat out wrong. While the physical potency of females is lower than that of males, the difference is slim at best.
Close combat, depite what you may be misinformed about is a very physically challenging activity and the average women would be rather handily bested by the average male.
.
Yes, it's "very" physically challenging. However, women can do it. Yes, the "average woman" is less than the "average male". However, as aforementioned, the difference is slim at best.
Generally not as capable would me more accurate; not "nearly" as capable is just flat out wrong. While the physical potency of females is lower than that of males, the difference is slim at best.
Yes, it's "very" physically challenging. However, women can do it. Yes, the "average woman" is less than the "average male". However, as aforementioned, the difference is slim at best.
Wrong.
Hint: Part of it comes from the 40 to 60 times more testosterone the average male body produces.
It's not sexist to acknowledge that there is a difference between men and women, and there is. This is not a gray area people. Men have a greater muscle mass, bone and skull density, broader shoulders and chest and greater lung capacity, all characteristics developed over thousands of years of evolution in aid of fighting eachother over women Simply put, men have a clear advantage over women in physical activities - I'm not even going to argue with you if deny this since you're clearly out of touch with reality (you deranged militant feminist).
So we have two choices:
1. This is a fantasy game - who cares about how realistic it is, let the people have their female character models, the only difference will be visual.
2. Give male characters more health and strength but -
- while on average men have a larger endocranien volume (bigger brain) the average man is less intelligent than the average women, in the same way that Neanderthals had larger brains than us but were too dim to survive. Interestingly male intelligence is also spread further along the spectrum than female intelligence, meaning that you get really stupid men (George Bush) and really ingenious men (Nietzsche) while women are less heterogeneous, and, once again, smarter on average.
- give female caracters greater intelligence and more powerful magic!
It's funny, you're probably assuming that I'm a guy because I'm admitting that guys are stronger, but am I?
How about this: women of Sanctuary 'look' slenderer than men of Sanctuary. Logic dictate that their body have less mass, meaning less strength. But...since they aren't bulk down with huge muscle mass, they should be able to hit faster!
Stats between males and female characters MUST be different in D3, because in WoW they're the same.
Sorry if this has been discussed, i used the search function but didn't find anything.
Should what gender you choose for your character have any other effects other than the way the character looks?
Today i was thinking about the gender selection that D3 will have, and i thought that it might be cool if your choice of male or female could be influenced by more than just the way it looks.
What i was thinking is that males could do slightly more physical damage, and perhaps females could have faster mana regeneration rates, or healing rates? or something in that area.
This could open up room for some interesting builds...or on the other hand make the game confusing and make all players biased to one gender (e.g everyone picking male barbs because they do more phys damage)
Anyway, what do you guys think about this?
(also id like to put in a poll, but i dont know how to do it yet, so it will be up later)
The only thing that worries me is that the lore might be changed to accomodate other genders, the amazons for example are women, since they live in a society were women fight. Why would we suddenly be able to be a male amazon. Same goes for the sorceressess they are women, not men. They would have to make the male and female version of the sorceress (provided we get one obviously) come from different clans, which isn't very hard. But they might just do what happened in Warcraft when they made WoW, (sorry for the example I know most people here don't approve of the game...) but the druid class was male only and the female nightelves did all the fighting and defending of the realm. However they changed the lore and suddenly everyone is a female nightelf and starts running around as a druid... Completly ruining the story and lore of Warcraft. Something they shouldn't do with Diablo... (or am I the only one who thinks that this is important...?)
Actually the lore is that in Night Elf society, males are generally druids, while females are warriors. Although female druids, and male warriors were rare, they're not impossible.
They might have to pull something like this for the amazon.
But I'm not a big fan of it. Amazon's should be female only.
The only thing that worries me is that the lore might be changed to accomodate other genders, the amazons for example are women, since they live in a society were women fight. Why would we suddenly be able to be a male amazon. Same goes for the sorceressess they are women, not men. They would have to make the male and female version of the sorceress (provided we get one obviously) come from different clans, which isn't very hard. But they might just do what happened in Warcraft when they made WoW, (sorry for the example I know most people here don't approve of the game...) but the druid class was male only and the female nightelves did all the fighting and defending of the realm. However they changed the lore and suddenly everyone is a female nightelf and starts running around as a druid... Completly ruining the story and lore of Warcraft. Something they shouldn't do with Diablo... (or am I the only one who thinks that this is important...?)
The Amazon doesn't need to return as a class in D3, you could easily have a new Ninja ranged/assassin class or that mysterious race where the Rogues come from (but not the Rogues themselves since they're just like the Amazon).
As for the Sorceress they're just a specific clan, you could easily make another clan playable like the Visjerei (again) or something new and fresh.
Yeah, they totally killed the lore of WC in WoW. The story seems to be a lot less immersive and they cut on cool special effects probably to allow it to have 10 M people playing at the same time. That's why even after all this time that I still think D2 > WoW.
Sorceresses are female only? There's a sorceror in diablo 1.
Barbarians, who are sort of nordic type vikings can also be female in my opinion. There were female vikings as well, called 'sköldmö', or Shield Maiden translated to english.
Sorceress in D2 comes from the Zann Esu clan which were solely made of females while the Sorceror in D1 was a Visjerei. Most likely the one in D3 will come from another clan.
Quote from "insats" »
Why shouldn't paladin be able to be female? Remember jean d'arc?
Sorry if this has been discussed, i used the search function but didn't find anything.
Should what gender you choose for your character have any other effects other than the way the character looks?
Today i was thinking about the gender selection that D3 will have, and i thought that it might be cool if your choice of male or female could be influenced by more than just the way it looks.
What i was thinking is that males could do slightly more physical damage, and perhaps females could have faster mana regeneration rates, or healing rates? or something in that area.
This could open up room for some interesting builds...or on the other hand make the game confusing and make all players biased to one gender (e.g everyone picking male barbs because they do more phys damage)
Anyway, what do you guys think about this?
(also id like to put in a poll, but i dont know how to do it yet, so it will be up later)
Short answer -- no.
And why has this thread been completely derailed with all this garbage? The topic was supposed to be about the art depiction, not about a ridiculous notion of attribute allocation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, it's "very" physically challenging. However, women can do it. Yes, the "average woman" is less than the "average male". However, as aforementioned, the difference is slim at best.
Wrong.
Hint: Part of it comes from the 40 to 60 times more testosterone the average male body produces.
Simply put, men have a clear advantage over women in physical activities - I'm not even going to argue with you if deny this since you're clearly out of touch with reality (you deranged militant feminist).
So we have two choices:
1. This is a fantasy game - who cares about how realistic it is, let the people have their female character models, the only difference will be visual.
2. Give male characters more health and strength but -
- while on average men have a larger endocranien volume (bigger brain) the average man is less intelligent than the average women, in the same way that Neanderthals had larger brains than us but were too dim to survive. Interestingly male intelligence is also spread further along the spectrum than female intelligence, meaning that you get really stupid men (George Bush) and really ingenious men (Nietzsche) while women are less heterogeneous, and, once again, smarter on average.
- give female caracters greater intelligence and more powerful magic!
It's funny, you're probably assuming that I'm a guy because I'm admitting that guys are stronger, but am I?
But if you want a female barbarian with no muscles with nice proportions, you are wrong.
----------------------------------------------------
/sarcasm.
Should what gender you choose for your character have any other effects other than the way the character looks?
Today i was thinking about the gender selection that D3 will have, and i thought that it might be cool if your choice of male or female could be influenced by more than just the way it looks.
What i was thinking is that males could do slightly more physical damage, and perhaps females could have faster mana regeneration rates, or healing rates? or something in that area.
This could open up room for some interesting builds...or on the other hand make the game confusing and make all players biased to one gender (e.g everyone picking male barbs because they do more phys damage)
Anyway, what do you guys think about this?
(also id like to put in a poll, but i dont know how to do it yet, so it will be up later)
CAN'T !!!!
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11483
in some post.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
They might have to pull something like this for the amazon.
But I'm not a big fan of it. Amazon's should be female only.
The Amazon doesn't need to return as a class in D3, you could easily have a new Ninja ranged/assassin class or that mysterious race where the Rogues come from (but not the Rogues themselves since they're just like the Amazon).
As for the Sorceress they're just a specific clan, you could easily make another clan playable like the Visjerei (again) or something new and fresh.
Yeah, they totally killed the lore of WC in WoW. The story seems to be a lot less immersive and they cut on cool special effects probably to allow it to have 10 M people playing at the same time. That's why even after all this time that I still think D2 > WoW.
Diablo isn't exactly meant to be a MMORPG.
Sorceress in D2 comes from the Zann Esu clan which were solely made of females while the Sorceror in D1 was a Visjerei. Most likely the one in D3 will come from another clan.
She's a witch! Burn her!!!
Short answer -- no.
And why has this thread been completely derailed with all this garbage? The topic was supposed to be about the art depiction, not about a ridiculous notion of attribute allocation.