Yes, sir, I understand it isn't something new. I have played the original game. Which was rad, when I was 12. In the old game they PLEADED FOR DEATH, also were pixelated messes and not quite the same thing as the far more realistic crying and pleading, "PLEASE CONTINUE TO LOVE US DUKE!" followed by Duke killing them and the not human anymore quip. It isn't quite the same thing.
Duke Nukem Forever Demo is Live... for First Access Club Members!
- Thread starter AshburnerX
- Start date
- Status
Okay, I am not doing this to stir the pot or anything, more just curious what peoples opinions would be.
Now imagine the game exactly as it is right now. You enter the room and see men hanging upside down, stuffed with alien eggs, and you shoot them saying "Sorry, you are not human anymore." How would a person feel to that image compared to it being a women? Would it be the same? or par for the medium?
Now imagine the game exactly as it is right now. You enter the room and see men hanging upside down, stuffed with alien eggs, and you shoot them saying "Sorry, you are not human anymore." How would a person feel to that image compared to it being a women? Would it be the same? or par for the medium?
Honestly, I think it only seems so bad because it's Duke (who has a history of misogyny) and he's just so cold about it. He treats them as a disposable commodity because in his world, they are. Duke will always be able to find more "babes" because he's Duke Nukem and EVERYONE falls to worship at his feet. Why should he get hung up over these two if there are 200 more waiting just outside his door?
If you want to complain about anything, don't complain about his actions but rather the environment that completely justifies it for him. That's the far more disturbing aspect.
If you want to complain about anything, don't complain about his actions but rather the environment that completely justifies it for him. That's the far more disturbing aspect.
For the sake of the argument, sure. Let's just say they are all major Duke fanboys like that one that has a heart attack when he sees you.
I am just curious, because I have seen many horrible things happen in games (including many shooters, like Prey). The difference seems to be when that horrible thing happens to a women, it's sexist, but when I watch men get infested by something and I have to kill him, it seems par for the medium.
Be aware, I know Duke in general is a very sexist game. I am not trying to argue it is not, because it straight up tells you that with the sex jokes, twin lesbians, strippers, etc... I would have even preferred they added a way to save the women. I just wanted to know what people would think if the gender role, hypothetically, was reversed.
So we'd have dude strippers? Knowing Duke Nukem, I'd figure the dudes would all be talking with a lisp and waving at Duke all limp-wristed. Lots of jokes asking about hot beef injections and whatnot. Yeah, still not good.
Now, if we're talking complete gender reversal with a woman Duke and dudes being strippers and everything? Well, I suppose you could still call it sexist, but it would never garner the same amount of outrage much the same way many people don't consider male rape seriously.
Now, if we're talking complete gender reversal with a woman Duke and dudes being strippers and everything? Well, I suppose you could still call it sexist, but it would never garner the same amount of outrage much the same way many people don't consider male rape seriously.
You are right, that would probably be a better hypothetical, at least closer to what I was going for.
As for outrage, my opinion is that under that situation no one would actually be outraged, or even call it sexist. Maybe that's just the cynical part of me, but I grew up in a world where a scantily clad woman was considered sexist and a big chested hunk on a romance novel was not, it has come to the point that anytime someone calls something sexist I try to break it down and see if the same people would call it sexist if the gender roles were reversed. I have found that most wouldn't.
Now once again to be clear, I am not attacking people that feel one is sexist over the other, our society and history have made it clear that these type of reversed situations can never hold the same gravitas. All I did by bringing this up was to see people's opinions, as I felt it was an interesting topic to break down.
I don't think you can say that just because someone isn't outraged that it wouldn't be sexist. I think the disconnect comes from the stereotypes related to sexism being considered negative or positive, similar to stereotypes related to racism being regarded as positive or negative. For example, people will raise hell if you say all black people criminals. No one's gonna say shit if you say all Asians are doctors.
Similarly, how many stereotypes related to women would be considered strengths versus how many are considered weaknesses? Seriously, put a man completely in a stereotypically sexist situation for a woman; stays at home, brainless, basically there to cook, clean, and fuck; someone clearly subordinate, and treated accordingly. Are you gonna respect that guy? You think if roles were really reversed it wouldn't be a big deal? To me it seems like your mental exercise largely overlooks the history of sexism and the fact that men clearly have had the upper hand through it, and still do.
Also, who thinks women being scantily clad is sexist? It's thinking that women offer nothing beyond being scantily clad that is sexist.
Similarly, how many stereotypes related to women would be considered strengths versus how many are considered weaknesses? Seriously, put a man completely in a stereotypically sexist situation for a woman; stays at home, brainless, basically there to cook, clean, and fuck; someone clearly subordinate, and treated accordingly. Are you gonna respect that guy? You think if roles were really reversed it wouldn't be a big deal? To me it seems like your mental exercise largely overlooks the history of sexism and the fact that men clearly have had the upper hand through it, and still do.
Also, who thinks women being scantily clad is sexist? It's thinking that women offer nothing beyond being scantily clad that is sexist.
Good points. Though I never said that the fact people wouldn't be outraged implied it wouldn't be sexist. It is obviously still sexist, though I argue less overly sexist then most of the earlier game. My question, like I said, was more an idea of what people here would deem it. You would consider it sexist, but would others here? Would others on the street?
Also, I apologize I was not clear. I was not overlooking the history of sexism, but my question was supposed to be from a neutral standpoint and the history often brings in "exceptions through guilt". The history will obviously make us more sensitive to female sexism, but I am curious how "desensitized" we may be to male sexism.
Nice to have a civil discussion about it.
Also, I apologize I was not clear. I was not overlooking the history of sexism, but my question was supposed to be from a neutral standpoint and the history often brings in "exceptions through guilt". The history will obviously make us more sensitive to female sexism, but I am curious how "desensitized" we may be to male sexism.
Nice to have a civil discussion about it.
Your doing it wrong if it were a female duke she would have to kill the guys because the aliens shrunk their "little guy" to where you cant even see it then she kills them because "they aren't even human anymore.". As a guy I would play the game and probably laugh at how horrible it is (as I do with DNF)
hahaha I would play that game too. Wait didn't someone in the game say he named his little girl Dukette and gave her a toy rocket launcher for her birthday so she could grow to be like him? I smell spinoff.
Fuck you too, pal.Civil? Fuck you.
"picked a better smiley to convey what I was meaning"
Not a problem. There is already a weapon for that little problem: The Microwave Expander.
GasBandit
Staff member
The main difference to me in regards to this content was that in most cases in D3D, you had the option to just circumvent the podded women, and if you left them alone no ill came of it. Now, there are places where you cannot progress without killing them, and if you don't kill them, they die excruciatingly and explodingly, giving birth to annoying micromobs that try to swarm you. Thus, through bad level design practices (funneling and plot boulders) and negative reinforcement/feedback, the game not-so-subtly forces you into that channel.
But I was only moderately discomfited by all that... what I'm still the most grumbly about is the adoption of contemporary FPS-du-jour BS paradigms in my Duke Nukem game. I'm not all the way through the game yet (I just killed the octobrain boss in the hoover dam), but so far I'm still liking the gimmicks and hating the crap I griped about earlier. It also occurred to me - so far all the levels are the same COD-esque "single hallway pretending to be a large environment/building" stuff. Remember in D3D, how it was possible to go in circles through most of the levels, and there were multiple paths to the goal? I miss that too.
But I was only moderately discomfited by all that... what I'm still the most grumbly about is the adoption of contemporary FPS-du-jour BS paradigms in my Duke Nukem game. I'm not all the way through the game yet (I just killed the octobrain boss in the hoover dam), but so far I'm still liking the gimmicks and hating the crap I griped about earlier. It also occurred to me - so far all the levels are the same COD-esque "single hallway pretending to be a large environment/building" stuff. Remember in D3D, how it was possible to go in circles through most of the levels, and there were multiple paths to the goal? I miss that too.
GasBandit
Staff member
I see it as a tradeoff that I wouldn't have made. In Duke3d, a hallway was 4 polygons and a low res bitmap texture. Now the same length hallway is 100,000 polygons, sparking particle effects, a steam geyser, hi-poly rendered pipes and breakers and fire extinguishers and conduits and switches and knobs and consoles and shove-able carts and litter on the ground and phys-x shattered glass and chest high destructible barriers. It probably took someone as long to make that hallway and its assets as it previously did to make an entire Duke3d level.
GasBandit's comment is interesting.
I cut my FPS teeth on Marathon. It had winding, twisted maps that made no sense for a space station to actually be built around. A lot of times you'd be running through a maze with limited ammo facing off against bad guys that could turn invisible. Or trapped in a flooding labyrinth with a gradually rising water-level. After the water rose above your head, you wouldn't be able to fire your gun, and you'd slowly run out of oxygen supply and you'd have to run from monsters that you couldn't shoot and you'd have absolutely no idea where you were going.
It was creepy as hell, and awesome in its own way. But it was also really frustrating and confusing and more than once I quit in frustration. It was years before I finished the game.
I'd always assumed modern games with their often-linear corridors were an overreaction to that. I remember liking Portal 1's level design, but in Portal 2, stretched over 3 times the game time, eventually it became really frustrating that these huge vistas were really just linear corridors. I found myself WANTING the solution to a puzzle to be "backtrack for a while and flip a switch you didn't notice before," but they kept ramming the solution right in front of me.
It makes sense, but is a little sad, that a possibility is that it's not JUST an overly-carebear gameplay philosophy, but genuinely cost-prohibitive, to have games with the huge open worlds we remember as kids.
(Then again, we've watched WoW make that transition within the past 6 years - exploring Black Rock Depths felt like you were literally in a city that you had to navigate, whereas the newer dungeons.... same ol' linear corridors. WoW graphics are probably faster to put together though.
I cut my FPS teeth on Marathon. It had winding, twisted maps that made no sense for a space station to actually be built around. A lot of times you'd be running through a maze with limited ammo facing off against bad guys that could turn invisible. Or trapped in a flooding labyrinth with a gradually rising water-level. After the water rose above your head, you wouldn't be able to fire your gun, and you'd slowly run out of oxygen supply and you'd have to run from monsters that you couldn't shoot and you'd have absolutely no idea where you were going.
It was creepy as hell, and awesome in its own way. But it was also really frustrating and confusing and more than once I quit in frustration. It was years before I finished the game.
I'd always assumed modern games with their often-linear corridors were an overreaction to that. I remember liking Portal 1's level design, but in Portal 2, stretched over 3 times the game time, eventually it became really frustrating that these huge vistas were really just linear corridors. I found myself WANTING the solution to a puzzle to be "backtrack for a while and flip a switch you didn't notice before," but they kept ramming the solution right in front of me.
It makes sense, but is a little sad, that a possibility is that it's not JUST an overly-carebear gameplay philosophy, but genuinely cost-prohibitive, to have games with the huge open worlds we remember as kids.
(Then again, we've watched WoW make that transition within the past 6 years - exploring Black Rock Depths felt like you were literally in a city that you had to navigate, whereas the newer dungeons.... same ol' linear corridors. WoW graphics are probably faster to put together though.
So it was ok because they weren't drawn well enough and they where using a quote from a film series about face rape?
Actual sandbox open worlds tell a different story.
The reason FPS's have such small maps is because the consoles can't do both the graphics ppl are used to and a big open world at the same time... and once it's become industry standard everyone does it without even thinking about it.
Actual sandbox, open world games are 90% empty. You can't go inside most of the buildings in Liberty City, only the ones with things to do in them. It's easy to make a city when most of the buildings are just empty shells. Just ask North Korea!
Well of course they are, putting that much content in the game would take way too much time... and wouldn't be worth it even if it didn't cost anything. And Russia did it first.
But in a FPS making the map bigger and then just spawning random monsters that walk around shouldn't be too hard. But of course random spawning points aren't cinematic enough.
C
Chibibar
This is where mods come into play
Make the game modable and bam! a whole community will gladly put stuff in it.Look at Fallout 3! people put in new lands, missions, items (mod from original or even brand new one) and dialog!
GasBandit
Staff member
By that logic, Commander Shephard is a loose cannon even if you never take a single renegade action.
And really, Duke seemed a whole lot more grudging about the pod girls in 3D, whereas in this one it's more "Oh well!"
This is all irrelevant though.. it's not about Duke being sexist, Duke IS sexist. It's one of his defining characteristics, and frankly, there's nothing wrong with it because he's parody. A caricature of the gung-ho he-man action hero. What made me uneasy was that the choice to be not just sexist, but violently misogynist is not given, but decided and thrust on the player - which is a change from Duke3D. Duke 3D had avoidable pod women who the player COULD kill (and indeed, asked to be put out of their misery), and caused you damage and spawned extra enemies if you did kill them, while Duke angrily growled "Damn it!" Now, they beg NOT to be killed, are blocking the only exit path, and if you don't kill them you suffer the spawning of extra enemies. And when you do, Duke makes a flippant, uncaring remark.
Well he did destroy an entire inhabited solar system...
Yeah, but the whole discussion started when i said this:
Wow, an 80: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/10/duke-nukem-forever-review/
Anyone else thinks they padded the score because of the way too low scores it's been getting elsewhere (if they where actually gonna buy reviews they'd have done it in those other places too), or is that just a side effect of the fact that nowadays any score under 90 is considered low?
Anyone else thinks they padded the score because of the way too low scores it's been getting elsewhere (if they where actually gonna buy reviews they'd have done it in those other places too), or is that just a side effect of the fact that nowadays any score under 90 is considered low?
It's more likely the reviewer likes retro games.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ok, I finished it. The final boss fight, in my mind, was damn good. It reminded me a lot of original duke.
Now, really, if we were to judge DNF alone on its own merits (and ignore the 15 year development period), I can think of a lot of games that are worse than DNF - for instance, Homefront. I do have to say there were a couple levels in DNF that I found irritating to the point of nearly quitting, but overall I enjoyed the game. Was it an A game? No. Was it as good as Duke Nukem 3D was back in the late 90s? Not even close. But is it a bad game? Not really... and most of its shortcomings I ascribe to trying to adopt bad ideas from other contemporary FPS games.
Now, really, if we were to judge DNF alone on its own merits (and ignore the 15 year development period), I can think of a lot of games that are worse than DNF - for instance, Homefront. I do have to say there were a couple levels in DNF that I found irritating to the point of nearly quitting, but overall I enjoyed the game. Was it an A game? No. Was it as good as Duke Nukem 3D was back in the late 90s? Not even close. But is it a bad game? Not really... and most of its shortcomings I ascribe to trying to adopt bad ideas from other contemporary FPS games.
- Status