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.
I think it depends on the monster in question. Do I think golems need boobs or a penis? No, not really. Succubus, or more human-like demons? Yeah, it adds to authenticity, I think.
But I am right, and combat is definitely no exception, other than ungainly breasts being in the way of a sword/bow arm -- something a true warrior wouldn't stand for in the first place. And, when you take the scope of video games, they are definitely equals, and I defy you to show me any mentionable exceptions in modern (or even classic) gaming that prove otherwise.
Firstly, your example posed the question of why shouldn't the genders be equal in-game if they are equal in real life.
You are not using other games as an example. YOU used real life as your prime example as to why the in-game genders should be equal.
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. 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.
You are warping your original argument. Go back and read your post.
I have no problem with the genders being equal in game, your argument was just ludicrous.
Okay, look, you are splitting hairs, here. In regards to everyday activities, my wife and I can accomplish the same things that the other does. What activities are you referring to that one of us would be better suited to perform than the other? Seriously? Neither of us bench press cinder blocks or lift cars for a living, so what are you talking about?
In a fantasy setting, epic adventuring men and women of the same class will be able to perform the same duties with the same precision. Explain to me how a man can do a whirlwind better than a woman, or vice versa? Can she summon bigger, badder pets than him? Do her locusts leave more meat on the bones than his? The exact same effects will result from the exact same abilities from two different people, trained in the same tactics as the other, whether male or female. If you really want to split hairs, some men can outperform other men and some women can outperform other women, should we take the time to add THAT level of realism to a video game?
Seriously, the difference you are referring to is all but negligible except in the most extreme of circumstances.
The first post I quoted was "And rightfully, they shouldn't be; men and women are equally capable in the real world of physical and mental labors with very, very few exceptions."
Your reasoning was that because women and men are equal in real life, "with very, very few exceptions", they should not have different in-game stats. I was merely pointing out that your assertion was very, very incorrect especially when you put that quote into the scope of the game (combat especially). Women are not equals in this sense.
Maybe the absolute upper echelon of bodybuilders, but in the every day world, no, women are very much capable of the same physical labours that men are. The women who do not do those things simply choose not to because -- and let's face it, who can blame them -- they don't have to.
Capable, sure, I suppose if you want to pose the question that finely. The point is they do not excel at much of it. This is fact. Even men and women who do not exercise exhibit the same tendency. A male who does not exercise is generally going to be stronger and better suited to physical exertion than his counterpart female. Men have a far easier time keeping off fat and holding on to muscle mass than women do.
This is really pretty basic physiology. Even feminists don't argue that females are par with males in this sense.
Isn't in any games I've ever played. Even tabletop doesn't do that (at least, hasn't in decades). And rightfully, they shouldn't be; men and women are equally capable in the real world of physical and mental labors with very, very few exceptions.
Am I the only one who thought this was funny? No, they aren't. Men are, as a generality, more capable physically.
There is a difference between equal rights and physical capability--only in fantasy land (IE Diablo 3) do women have the same capability for brute force that men do.
They have noted that they see no reason for HC to be left out of the game. Furthermore we don't know the circumstances for those "fatalities" and whether or not they were truly one hit or not.
Twilight Princess, Yes.
Wind Waker, No. No one was interested in the childish graphics. Doesn't mean it didn't have good gameplay; just it didn't appeal to people enough to encourage them to buy it.
Um. No.
Please learn what you are talking about before you open your mouth and attempt to speak authoritatively about something.
According to VG Charts Twilight Princess has ~4.9 million to Wind Waker's ~4.5 million. That is not a huge difference and it does not mean Wind Waker was anything but a complete success. You can even go as far as attributing Twilight Princesses success to its TWO releases (one on a new bloody console).
If you have a better source that contradicts mine, feel free to link it.
I don't understand why they bother with deleting--people just make more threads to ask why
Seriously mod squad, something very helpful to all mods: Deleting threads is only bad news....lock and an explanation avoids this kind of thing and any conspiracy theories from the userbase. just IMO
Well, firstly, you are doing a Red Herring. Herione has nothing to do with the banning of kids from an internet game. I don't feel like taking the time to look through my papers from my English Composition class I took in the Spring.
I just registered real fast to post on here, and I guess I remember now why I don't typically post on forums. It is really a lot cause to try and argue anything on an internet forum. So I guess this is me signing out.
False. My argument is not a red herring.
*My conclusions are not irrelevant. A red herring, for example: I'm a nice guy and I like jello--Slipknot should make me their guitarist!
It's a red herring because being nice and liking jello has nothing to do with my chops at guitar. *
At first I thought you were talking about false analogy--which my argument is not either.
My argument pointed out that some sects are willing to ban an entire group from doing something simply because a portion of that group tends to act irresponsibly. In this sense the banning of heroine is directly related to the banning of kids from D3.
Perhaps you should take that logic class over again, mate.
Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together. I just copy and pasted that off of dictionary.com for you.
What I am saying is that if you are graphing the age of someone and the maturity level they won't necessarily have a positive reaction. As in, as age goes up, maturity level goes up. They can have a negative correlation, as in a 34 year old could have the maturity level of a 14 year old.
I'm saying age often times has very little to do with how mature someone is.
Also, damn I forgot your name, Mantiea(?) the comparing the banning of all people from heroin can not be compared to banning kids from video games. That is comparing apples to oranges.
Correlation implies a broader range than a single person. If Joe Dirt gets more immature as he ages, it does not mean age and maturity are correlated. Generally speaking, when the term is used you use it in a broad sense. If you are using the term in this sense, you don't make much sense.
For instance, having a healthy lifelong sex life is correlated to living a longer life.
We do not arrive at the conclusion that there is a correlation by analyzing Jane and Tom--we do so by analyzing a broader range of subjects.
Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong--there is no fallacy called Apples and Oranges....Don't go throwing the term around if you're not familiar with the fallacy you are accusing me of committing.
Retribution;277683'']A negative correlation? I don't see that very often, it's probably more resultant from mental problems...
he is using the term incorrectly. He is probably trying to say, as the old proverb does: "Age often comes with Wisdom, but Wisdom does not always come with age"
There is no correlation, unless he is somehow equating being oldishly feeble to being immature.
0
Wrong.
Hint: Part of it comes from the 40 to 60 times more testosterone the average male body produces.
0
Though with the D3 I understand how you were confused.
0
0
Firstly, your example posed the question of why shouldn't the genders be equal in-game if they are equal in real life.
You are not using other games as an example. YOU used real life as your prime example as to why the in-game genders should be equal.
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. 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.
You are warping your original argument. Go back and read your post.
I have no problem with the genders being equal in game, your argument was just ludicrous.
0
The first post I quoted was "And rightfully, they shouldn't be; men and women are equally capable in the real world of physical and mental labors with very, very few exceptions."
Your reasoning was that because women and men are equal in real life, "with very, very few exceptions", they should not have different in-game stats. I was merely pointing out that your assertion was very, very incorrect especially when you put that quote into the scope of the game (combat especially). Women are not equals in this sense.
0
Capable, sure, I suppose if you want to pose the question that finely. The point is they do not excel at much of it. This is fact. Even men and women who do not exercise exhibit the same tendency. A male who does not exercise is generally going to be stronger and better suited to physical exertion than his counterpart female. Men have a far easier time keeping off fat and holding on to muscle mass than women do.
This is really pretty basic physiology. Even feminists don't argue that females are par with males in this sense.
0
Am I the only one who thought this was funny? No, they aren't. Men are, as a generality, more capable physically.
There is a difference between equal rights and physical capability--only in fantasy land (IE Diablo 3) do women have the same capability for brute force that men do.
0
0
Yes because we all know there is no such thing as a hobby.
Idiot.
0
Um. No.
Please learn what you are talking about before you open your mouth and attempt to speak authoritatively about something.
http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php
According to VG Charts Twilight Princess has ~4.9 million to Wind Waker's ~4.5 million. That is not a huge difference and it does not mean Wind Waker was anything but a complete success. You can even go as far as attributing Twilight Princesses success to its TWO releases (one on a new bloody console).
If you have a better source that contradicts mine, feel free to link it.
0
Seriously mod squad, something very helpful to all mods: Deleting threads is only bad news....lock and an explanation avoids this kind of thing and any conspiracy theories from the userbase. just IMO
0
Early Development:
Final Artstyle:
0
False. My argument is not a red herring.
*My conclusions are not irrelevant. A red herring, for example: I'm a nice guy and I like jello--Slipknot should make me their guitarist!
It's a red herring because being nice and liking jello has nothing to do with my chops at guitar. *
At first I thought you were talking about false analogy--which my argument is not either.
My argument pointed out that some sects are willing to ban an entire group from doing something simply because a portion of that group tends to act irresponsibly. In this sense the banning of heroine is directly related to the banning of kids from D3.
Perhaps you should take that logic class over again, mate.
0
Correlation implies a broader range than a single person. If Joe Dirt gets more immature as he ages, it does not mean age and maturity are correlated. Generally speaking, when the term is used you use it in a broad sense. If you are using the term in this sense, you don't make much sense.
For instance, having a healthy lifelong sex life is correlated to living a longer life.
We do not arrive at the conclusion that there is a correlation by analyzing Jane and Tom--we do so by analyzing a broader range of subjects.
Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong--there is no fallacy called Apples and Oranges....Don't go throwing the term around if you're not familiar with the fallacy you are accusing me of committing.
0
he is using the term incorrectly. He is probably trying to say, as the old proverb does: "Age often comes with Wisdom, but Wisdom does not always come with age"
There is no correlation, unless he is somehow equating being oldishly feeble to being immature.