@LtReviews but in prime, she was not military, in other M I always thought it was because she was back with a military squad that she bailed on. and military units don't go in guns blazing. I never saw sexism, just rains on a gun singer macho attitude, to work as a team instead of a rock star.
but in that exact game, if samus was a male, it would have been fine because he was a whinny reckless youth? I never saw sexism in that game, just a young military officer who never liked to listen, I got the father figure issues, but if she was a male, i don't the character in this particular game would change a bit.
@Michael83917 I was at a talk recently (couple of months ago) at the western regional collegiate cyber deffence competition (WRCCDC), and she was representing wireshark, and was talking about the lack of women in the cyber "anything" community. she said that is because they don't play games. computer programmers, network analysts, anyone in computers got into it by playing games, and women just aren't into it. (her words not mine), she said that she loves games now, but if she had given them a try earlier (and she did mention that the reason was not that they were created with men in mind), that she would have discovered IT a long time ago. she even mentioned that gearing games to the taste of women hindered their interest in the IT field. it was very interesting, I believe her guest lecture is on the cal poly CCDC site, it was very interesting, and she was a hell of a lot of fun to chat with!!!
@rpg-god I have to agree, its far more complex of an issue then their equality in media/work/ or anything else. It is a very long and difficult talk, but I never see a women saying, "please do not open your car door for me, we are equals."
I'm waiting on principle alone, so hard though, but capcom has wronged so many lately, its hard to justify the day one purchase....its killing me though, but only slightly.
This is tricky, SONY is doing terrible financially, except their games department is doing well, I hope this is not true, because if it is, they are rushing it to catch themselves from falling as an entire company. trying to capitalize on your one good department is not smart. no one wins in a situation like that.
@toddx77 if a Japanese creator says hes behind the US, then he probably thinks he behind the US. How can you make statements about people's own opinions of themselves like their wrong, about themselves? o.O?
In my experience, multiplayer breaks down to three categories, the poeple who need "winning," the people who like to play with friends (or replicate that atmosphere with random people), and people who don't like to think (just want to hit the ground running for short periods of time). likewise anti multiplayer gamers break down to, those who hate losing (can't have fun unless winning, and other people show you how bad you actually are), those who don't like fun being ruined by "A holes" being D-bags, just be D-bags, and those who just aren't competitive in any sense of the word.
if you have an opinion when buying games on whether multiplayer is required, or it's repulsive, its probably because of one two of the reasons listed above, and these being the key reason you play games all together. other wise, you are like me, and it doesn't matter! it does not make or break a game, it affects the experience that the developer want you to have. It made red dead feel open and massive, and like the west, but it would not fit in vanquish (where would it fit in the story, the enemies are robots, and its about being a solo gun man in a not so clear cut fight). multiplayer is a tool to be used for an experience, if it is not, again, see above!
and i have met, and know many people who fit into all the categories above, its how I have built this little theory of mine, but it is still just an opinion/thought.
NOscope42's comments