I think this may start to get carried way beyond what is possible.
Consequently I cut all replies much shorter than I'm comfortable with. If you feel it's abrupt and too short, that's the reason.
I also feel your arguments did not spend enough time to read what I said. Which means I'll eventually end up at a disadvantage, as I can't argue any more.
@Oregano
In that article it says that boys can have female behavior.
And consequently they are not “differences” but “tendencies”. The article says “generalized”.
I never contested this. I even agreed with it.
I only said that I was looking for gender characteristics that are not interchangeable (or generalized), but absolute. And that's the menstruation.
Not having the option to become a hunter, does not help with multiple gameplay possibilities, it does the opposite. And I don't need the game from preventing me from becoming a hunter I can do that myself.
And, I said that I like the idea of a unique male/female scenario a player needs to adapt to. But not on the expanse of character creation (well at least the fluff part). This scenario should come later in the game, when I can tackle or ignore it.
I said specifically that MegaMod shouldn't change at all. But stay as it is.
And of course you can create a game in which male/female are completely different. Which may be fun, but Fallout never did that, it treats male/female equal.
And I consider it important to preserve a game's original characteristics and concepts.
This does not really apply to mods, but as I said, I do not suggest MegaMod to change anyway.
But, as I also said, it shouldn't surprise anyone if some Fallout fans don't like this change to the female option. Especially, as, it doesn't make total sense.
@teskal
Sorry about the sentences, I thought I was commenting on single points. As your text was structured mostly in single sentences. I only took the first paragraph apart, into, what I believed, single points. It was not an attempt to misinterpreted you willfully.
You said: Klint & Cameron don't know better.
I said: They should.
At no point did I say that you got it wrong. I was talking about Cameron, he should know, just as you said, that the chosen one needs to be more than just a hunter.
I only wanted to point out that differences between men and women are not as strict. Like not all men are strong. There are males with ST1 and males with ST10. It's not only a male/female difference.
No that is not sexism. I never said that. Or tried to imply that. Saying that man and women are different is absolutely fine. As I said „sexism needs two triggers...one is to imply inferiority”. Calling women different, or pointing out a fact of their physiognomy is not implying inferiority.
I thought you were talking about Klint & Cameron, and that their assumption does not qualify as sexism. However it may be that that sentence refereed to the earlier part talking about the Olympics. I'm sorry, but you could have phrased it better. It was not clear what “this” in “this has nothing to do with sexism” means, but logically it refereed to Klint & Cameron. I couldn't know that you meant your own point about the Olympics.
EDIT: I think I eventually understood Teskal's point: He said that Klint & Cameron believe that men and women are different (which is not racist), and consequently the Hunters cannot fathom that a women (who is weaker) can do what their best male hunter can't (and this is, consequently, still not racist, but the consequence of a fact). (and then Teskal also said that he personally doesn't agree with it (as the chosen one needs to be more than just strong), but would not call their attitude racist.)
I would say this conclusion, if I understand it correctly, is wrong. For the simple reason that the hunters would accept a ST1 male, but reject a ST10 female, and that fact makes their attitude racist.
One should also acknowledge that it is true that men are stronger than women, but „being weaker“ does not automatically mean „too weak“. This assumption ignores, for example, individuals like Ronda Rousey (i.e. females with ST10) and preventing Rousey from becoming a hunter because she is a women can't be defined as anything else but racist, because the objection is to her birth, not her abilities.
I think it is important to realize that „generalizations“ and „simplifications of reality“ can become a problem when they classify Ronda Rousey as “too weak to become a hunter”.
EDIT II: This is no reason to change the hunters' attitude. There is nothing wrong designing them as racist, but I don't think the argument can be made that they are not racist in their attitude.
EDIT III: I think this argument annoys people who work in physically challenging jobs, and feel pressured to accept weak women to start lifting heavy machinery they possibly can't handle. There point is not wrong, but they need to adjust a little in that regard that “too weak” can also apply to men (and I've known men who got send home, because they couldn't stand the physical strain), and that there are women who, if they do weight-lifting, can develop the physical abilities to handle heavy machinery. That's what I meant by saying that “weak/strong” can not be simply read as “male/female”. Those are tendencies, but there is also individuality. You need to judge people by their actual physique, not by their gender and what their physique should be.
Yes, I said RP, but then I continued and said „that even the vanilla version does not prevent females from becoming the chosen one“. Which suggests that the original Arroyo tribe has no problem with it. Which, at least, suggests that they are not sexist. And I think this goes beyond speculation.
Not you, he (which meant Karadoc) mixed those two up. Which means his point you reacted to was probably an error on his (Karadoc's) part.
Well, it can be debated. But in my opinion the idea of changing Arroyo to a unique scenario for women, sounds cool at first, but the more you think about it sounds less and less good. And I do believe that people (at least some) who want to play a female character are turned off by it, as they are missing choice in their character creation. That's not a sign of good design.
I still consider this rewrite as a rewrite by someone who doesn't want to play as a female character, or if, only as a second choice. Which is fair, but not everyone likes it that way. And I think Karadoc had a fair point, in regard to Fallout's history and traditional mechanics. Until it got killed in a “Snowflake” discussion.
Fixt has a lesbian option for Tandi. Vanilla does for neither. FO1 simply wasn't as big in that regard as FO2 was going to be. And playing male/female in FO1 (or 2 to be honest) isn't much of a difference, but there is something to say for choice and liberty.
What I liked about the female/male characters in FO1 & FO2 is that I can play them any way I want. The easter eggs of male/female play-throughs are just bonuses. And it's cool to have them, and the more the better, but eventually they are just bonuses, that need to be more “slipped in between”, so that the player can discover them.
Also the options in FO2 (you mean sex right?) are actually fine. There's a wide range of them and you can do anything from “just doing it” to “kicking them in the balls”. Which was nice.
The problem of the Arroyo rewrite is that you have “the bad options of FO2 (if you want to put it that way), and no choice.” so to speak. Which is kind of worse, and puts people off.
Again it's not a big deal, a mod can be however it wants to be, but someone like Karadoc must be allowed to make that point, without the abuse he got.
This got way too long. We have to stop meeting like this.
I would love to see much more options for it.
