http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-...ameron-hurley/
I like having options. I definitely do get really bored of playing the same archetype over and over again.
But honestly I don't always want to play as a woman, but I'm excited by games that let me because it means that more of my friends will want to play.
Originally Posted by I THULSA DOOM I Go to original post
Most guys are like to stare at girl's asses all day.
I'm a guy and prefer to play as guys for the immersion. When I play a game especially with a customizable character I like to imagine that I am that character and it's not just his story, but MY story that I'm experiencing.
Why the heck is that "lazy"?Originally Posted by naphack Go to original post
Near as I can tell, the ONLY thing that defines a class is the weapon / fighting style. THAT'S IT. The helmet, the armor pattern, the heraldry, even the gender (which, if everyone is wearing armor with face-obscuring helmets, only means "body shape and grunt pitch")... these all seem to be mere cosmetic features. And you know what? I'm happy if that's the case! I know some people like to go on and on about how stats and blah-di-blah "add depth" to the experience or whatever, but more often than not, I find that these systems ultimately boil down to "I can't look the way I want because of statistical inferiority."
This isn't a loot-nabbing dungeon crawler, it's a dueling game entirely dependant on player skill. So why NOT have visual elements simply be cosmetic? Look, I have no issue if some options are locked out unless certain feats are performed (like "to get this golden helmet, reach the '1000 Enemies Slain' milestone" stuff), but please... don't have customization affect gameplay...
How dont you get it would you rather hang up a poster of a guy or girl in your room, if you have the option to look at something all day why not pick the more visuallly appealing one, now I feel ya tho some guys want to feel the immersion as if they were playing as themselves but i dont care about that so id rather pick the more visually appealing optionOriginally Posted by I THULSA DOOM I Go to original post
Originally Posted by Kimarous Go to original post
YEA!! TOTALLY AGREE!
Look at M&B Warband !
If it's about player skill it's also fun! You don't need great like skill-trees or stuff. that's for singleplayer!
That's historically inaccurate. Shield maidens were mentioned in the vikings saga's aka their mythos or mythology, no factual evidence of shield maidens has been discovered. Onna were real but they were not warriors, they defended the homestead much like viking women would have when their men were on leave or like Mongolian women who had to know the horse and bow. I've never heard of one instance of female knights, which is utterly fantastical let alone a female knightly order, their was joan of the arc but she never wielded a blade she was more of a morality icon and tactician.
I thought someone said there would be female heroes too.Originally Posted by naphack Go to original post
The vikings didn't write stuff down, their myths and sagas are one of the only things we have to go on about their culture. The other is grave burials, where we have found women buried with weapons. Whether this was ceremonial or not is up for debate.Originally Posted by TrueSkiil 7 Go to original post
Not gonna lie, my knowledge of the Onna is not up to par with the others.
As to the knightly orders, they did in fact exist. There was The Order of the Hatchet in the 12th century (didn't last very long though), then there was the Order of the Glorious Saint Mary which was made in the 13th century and seems to have lasted until it was formally suppressed in the 16th century, it also has records of giving women military honors.
So yes, women knights were a thing. Not popular, by any stretch of the imagination, but they did exist.