|
Endorph posted:Dating Sims for girls come in two flavors - I've been playing through Sweet Fuse for the last couple of days now and "minimally affects the plot" doesn't really describe the protagonist at all. She's assertive, speaks her mind, and although the actual gameplay is minimal her insights on the death puzzles keep everyone from dying many times. There's a recurring choice throughout the game where you can pick to "Get mad" or "restrain yourself" when a character needs to be called on their poo poo, and the game never punishes you for picking "Get mad". Getting "good" endings often requires you to pick this choice several times (one amusing instance on one route has you pick the "Get mad" choice three times in two minutes). It's really a breath of fresh air for an otome game, I think. I'm done with five out of the seven routes, and my opinion on the game right now is that it is very unique in the genre and woefully overlooked. I've only played a few otome games and read reviews and summaries of a bunch of others, but I'm taken aback by how the game positively reinforces the idea of speaking up for yourself, expressing your emotions, and taking an active role in things around you while punishing players that try to handle everything gingerly or play as a demure maiden type. The main plot may be nothing to write home about and the "gameplay" is minimal when you compare it to other survival game scenarios like 999 or VLR, but what is there is executed so well that I never really found myself caring about that. jonjonaug fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jan 20, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
I just looked up Sweet Fuse and the protagonist is Keiji Inafune's (imaginary) niece.  I'm perplexed and intrigued.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
I would honestly enjoy seeing Anita Sarkeesians idea for a game come into reality. Her web series on women in games is awesome. thelaughingman fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Okay, let's continue on with part 2 of Really lovely iOS Games For GURRLZ Oh boy! Let's E-Z bake us some products that may or may not be actually available for the real easy bake oven!  We obviously had to choose cupcakes because that thing is a loving monstrosity. Look at that! Who would ever eat that other than a cartoon character!   There were some kinds of "normal" looking cupcakes available here but again the obvious choice is the horrifying non-food.    It's so realistic! Cooking Mama, pack up your poo poo, you've been beat.  You just kind of nastily blorp the batter on in there and it's fine, I guess. I feel like this is giving kids a really bad impression of what cooking is actually like.  Oh boy we get to pick the oven color! This changes literally nothing about how the cupcakes bake. Is that second one supposed to be the extreme version made for boys, though??  To bake you just slide the sheet in. It's barely responsive and took about a thousand swipes to inch it across the screen.   This game constantly pops weird notifications. The wait time was less than 10 seconds, how could I have possibly stopped staring directly at it in that amount of time?  Another barely functional thousand swipes to pull them out. They haven't risen or anything, they're just flat, sad batter.   I shook those lovely cupcakes out all over the drat floor. Actually I thought maybe I somehow hosed up because they still definitely look like batter, but no it's just laziness on the part of the game artist.  Let's decorate!!   There's actually quite a few decorating options, but they are all completely hideous and bizarre. Black frosting! Sure! It looks like someone spread tar on this gross thing.   Oh hey wait, there's an eat button?? I gotta eat this nasty poo poo right now.  Oh man what the hell does my mouth look like that my teeth pattern looks like that  I decided to try decorating a second one, and for some loving reason the game immediately presented me with chocolate turkeys to decorate it with.  I think we're done.  Next up is some kind of nail painting game! I'm actually REALLY into nail polish in real life, so I went into this with high hopes.  Okay, so we can decorate each finger individually or apply it to all the nails at once, that's kind of neat.   Blugh ugh what's going on with this nail though?? Why is it see-through even after I apply polish to it?  I picked a really dark color hoping it would cover the weird see-through finger thing but it didn't change anything.   I somehow progressed the game forward to where I could change skin color, background color, and put rings on her fingers, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to get back to coloring her nails.  But it turns out one of the options is to just apply a premade art set to the nails so like what was even the point of coloring them? I give up on this.  Maybe painting toenails will be better?  Oh these are all lovely nice feet of different races! Nice work!  Oh my god no what happened ughh UGHH   So instead of painting nails, our new goal is to wash this girl's horrible nasty-rear end foot.  We also have to remove the old polish on her toes, which is also gross.  Then we get the mega gross toe closeup. We have to trim her toenails and... do something else? There's that second tool in the bottom right, but I absolutely can't figure out what it does. I couldn't get it to react to any part of the toe or the nail.  Also when you drag it up far enough it has a big-tittied girl on the bottom for some reason.  You've got to trim each disgusting toenail, one at a time. This is what every little girl wants in life, I'm sure.  Next is painting the nails, but more than half of the colors are locked for some reason. I'm pretty sure it's behind a real money IAP as well, which is super gross.   You can color the nails, and then draw on it with your finger in a different color if you'd like, which is kind of neat.  I got carried away. Then I noticed that unlike the fingernail polish game, there's no "apply to other nails" button.  Ugh no way, I'm not taking the time to individually paint each drat toenail here.   There are a lot of super weird options here that aren't related to nail art. You get to pick her shoes, and then if she has any... foot... tattoos ?  Also they just give you a marker to draw with for some reason ?? ??  ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Next time: oh my god there are still more
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Am I the only one curious about CLASH OF CLANS PHENOMENAL COMBAT STRATEGY GAME?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Endorph posted:Am I the only one curious about CLASH OF CLANS PHENOMENAL COMBAT STRATEGY GAME? Excuse me that doesn't sound very appropriate for little girls!! How many rainbows and ponies are in it? Do you get to scrub someone's feet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Panzer Skank posted:
 Also, the thing that fascinates me most about these Girl Games is trying to imagine what kind of person would make them. For reference, I used to work at a greeting card company, and assisted in creating one or two cards. What surprised me was that most of the cards we had which were geared towards women with "OH MAN SHOES AND CLOTHES <3 <3 <3" were also written and designed by women. I actually got in a mild argument with one of the female writers that maybe we should have more cards for women that aren't all about completely stereotypical things, to which she insisted I just didn't understand the female audience. So basically what terrifies me most about these games is thinking about how many of them were probably designed by women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Fenrir posted:Exactly. Everyone does this regardless of gender, at least as far as I know. If I get customization options I'll play with them for hours. I even play dress-up in loving Dark Souls, because I have to LOOK COOL when I stab you in the face or set you on fire (or when said things happen to me). You would think that pretty much everyone is going to play with customisation options in any game that has them, but the Saints Row developers said when they were making Saints Row IV that they'd looked into the stats on what people spent most time on in Saints Row the Third, what features were used, what activities people liked etc. so they could cut stuff that no one was using and focus on the stuff people actually want in the game, and it turned out that the vast majority of players just use the default male character with the default clothes and voice (but they still included character customisation because they consider it a core feature). Seeing what people who are really into the game say about it on the internet, you'd get the impression that character customisation is half the reason anyone even plays the game, but the stats say that actually most people don't really care about playing dress-ups and totally ignore that. Panzer Skank posted:This blows my mind. Not only does this game have not completely awful writing, I'm allowed to hit on the girls??? I didn't play far enough to the point where I unlocked "dating", but this game definitely has dating. Can I be in a gay relationship?? I think I actually can. The real test is, if you play as a male character can you hit on boys? I thought biting a weirdly shaped hole right through a cupcake was pretty great, but this is just amazing. Decorate your toenails, put on some shoes, and then cheese! Cheese everywhere! Why not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Endorph posted:Dating Sims for girls come in two flavors - Hanako Games, the group behind Magical Diary and Long Live the Queen, put out some Otome games that are actually pretty good. Last thing they did was The Royal Trap, which is rather uncomfortably named and suffers from some wonky art but also has the single best character ever:  Dude sparkles on cue. Also, in general terms of actually fun and worth playing games for girls, the Style Savvy series for the 3DS is pretty great. They're pretty easy but they've got quite a bit of actual content and once you get the formula down it becomes a game of trying to create the most hideous outfits you can within the confines of the game rules, with fashion contests being a challenge to win with the worst outfit. Miijhal fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:You would think that pretty much everyone is going to play with customisation options in any game that has them, but the Saints Row developers said when they were making Saints Row IV that they'd looked into the stats on what people spent most time on in Saints Row the Third, what features were used, what activities people liked etc. so they could cut stuff that no one was using and focus on the stuff people actually want in the game, and it turned out that the vast majority of players just use the default male character with the default clothes and voice (but they still included character customisation because they consider it a core feature). I guess this explains why there weren't a lot of new outfits added for SR4, though. The wardrobe is basically the same as SR3 with all of SR3's DLC outfits thrown on top of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
To be fair to a couple of those iOS games, "score points to unlock options to score points to unlock options" is a tried and true method of game design, it just happens to be easily applied to mobile games for "OR you could pay real money to skip all that."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:To be fair to a couple of those iOS games, "score points to unlock options to score points to unlock options" is a tried and true method of game design, it just happens to be easily applied to mobile games for "OR you could pay real money to skip all that." But the key here is how they're balanced. There's nothing wrong with the method in itself, but the problem comes when the points you score is only a bare fraction of what you need to unlock the next improvement. Good games have a solid balance so that the player feels like they're making real progress each time they gain more points toward something. A lot of these games are specifically balanced so that it feels more and more like a hopeless grind without spending real money. That's less of a problem with "girl" games and more of a problem with free to play garbage in general, though a huge portion of the girl games on iOS seem fall into the free to play garbage category. Probably because they're easy to make, require little to no thought toward system design, and primarily exist to frustrate you into spending money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Panzer Skank posted:
That's a cuticle trimmer. You are most likely supposed to use it to gouge out that opaque white area at the bottom of the nail.  I can't believe you don't know that, Panzer. And you call yourself a girl. For shame. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
gegi posted:It's an interesting game and it certainly touches on gender elements (and I never got past the first big case myself) but it's certainly not a free flash game, not covered in pink, and not sold to a young girl market. Or even the casual market (which is stereotypically older women). It got banned from the casual market entirely because people objected to the mechanics, thinking it sounded like the 'dangerous' girls were promoting bullying. The murder one is actually really disappointing. The route I bought spent the entire time hyping up the entire 'WE HAVE TO MURDER FOR REVENGE~' only to have the guy the protagonist met like a week ago do her revenge for her and be better at it.  The company, Voltage Inc., has a bunch of other games that are problematic in similar ways. The affair one you mentioned is the least problematic of the bunch, I think. They apparently have a western-centric branch that makes their games less anime but I haven't had the desire to buy any of them yet. Miijhal posted:Hanako Games, the group behind Magical Diary and Long Live the Queen, put out some Otome games that are actually pretty good. Last thing they did was The Royal Trap, which is rather uncomfortably named  I didn't realize it until you mentioned it. That is a really unfortunate choice of name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
dijon du jour posted:That's a cuticle trimmer. You are most likely supposed to use it to gouge out that opaque white area at the bottom of the nail. Okay but like, I own cuticle trimmers, and they don't look like that! Also my first thought was maybe to do something to the cuticles or around the edges of the nail but nothing responds, so who knows. I'm not trying again. I am not scrubbing a lady's foot for this thread more than once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Panzer Skank posted:Cupcakes Seeing how the cupcakes had the disgusting tar frosting, I actually thought our pedicure-getting lady's toes were all bloodied up from battle or something. It's like those photo booths at malls where you draw all over your face and put sparkles everywhere. Except you're too lazy to actually go to the mall and hold your feet up for the camera. reignonyourparade posted:To be fair to a couple of those iOS games, "score points to unlock options to score points to unlock options" is a tried and true method of game design, it just happens to be easily applied to mobile games for "OR you could pay real money to skip all that." Except how do you score "points" in Foot Spa, or any of those other cookie cutter games? By linking with Facebook and sharing your horrid creations with people? chocolatekake fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Panzer Skank posted:Okay but like, I own cuticle trimmers, and they don't look like that! Also my first thought was maybe to do something to the cuticles or around the edges of the nail but nothing responds, so who knows. I'm not trying again. I am not scrubbing a lady's foot for this thread more than once. Fair enough. The only reason I recognized it was because my friend has a cuticle trimmer that looks exactly like that one. (Sans big tits of course)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
chocolatekake posted:Except how do you score "points" in Foot Spa, or any of those other cookie cutter games? By linking with Facebook and sharing your horrid creations with people? Not the foot spa one, but the photoshoot one Panzer Skank showed before that had you score points seemed to have you score points just through the photoshoot and she made the same complaint. Though yeah it did seem like that one was really slow too though because free to play garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
That Irish Guy posted:Intelligent feminist discussion alongside horrible video games? Wooo, hello new favourite thread! This is from a bit back but I just found this thread and I just want to say that: Yep, totally agree. It's like one of those "I'll know it when I see it" things. Looking forward to more videos and discussion (and maybe contributing to the discussion myself once I've caught up in the thread).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Panzer Skank posted:But the key here is how they're balanced. There's nothing wrong with the method in itself, but the problem comes when the points you score is only a bare fraction of what you need to unlock the next improvement. Good games have a solid balance so that the player feels like they're making real progress each time they gain more points toward something. A lot of these games are specifically balanced so that it feels more and more like a hopeless grind without spending real money. It boggles my mind that this kind of 'pay money to skip gameplay' design is so popular. I mean, you're literally paying money to not play the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Antistar01 posted:It boggles my mind that this kind of 'pay money to skip gameplay' design is so popular. Sounds like a genius modern-day Tom Sawyer ploy. What the human creature will do voluntarily is very amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Antistar01 posted:It boggles my mind that this kind of 'pay money to skip gameplay' design is so popular. Basically, it's a game specific version of our old buddy, the Skinner Box. Okay, this way is really grindy and painful and unfun... But wait, if I give up something of value for quicker progression, I can have fun! ...Oh, poo poo, wait, I just spent £30 on luxuries.  drat YOU, SKINNER BOX! To clarify a little bit, the punishment is the gameplay being boring. The action is spending money, and the reward is... poo poo you don't need (EDIT: Except for false self-esteem, yaaaay!). Marketing, folks! JamieTheD fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:You would think that pretty much everyone is going to play with customisation options in any game that has them, but the Saints Row developers said when they were making Saints Row IV that they'd looked into the stats on what people spent most time on in Saints Row the Third, what features were used, what activities people liked etc. so they could cut stuff that no one was using and focus on the stuff people actually want in the game, and it turned out that the vast majority of players just use the default male character with the default clothes and voice (but they still included character customisation because they consider it a core feature). I think this might be part to blame that the customization options in SR3 aren't quite up to par with what they were in SR2, which allowed far greater variation in what you could look like. But I can't say if that would really make more gamers use it or not, sadly. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
I think the problem is that the default options are serviceable, so people don't bother changing them. I wonder what would happen if the initial character was randomly generated instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
Kloro posted:This pretty excellent Polygon article about the rise of games and game marketing being specifically targeted at boys (and men) posits that it happened in the 90s, around the time the PS1 came along. So arguably before that girl games were just games. Interesting that it happened then, since looking at games for "girl-oriented" franchises (Barbie, The Little Mermaid) on the NES and SNES is a vastly different experience than a large number of what we got on the PSX and GBA. They were actually playable, for one. Well, for certain "licensed game on the NES" definitions of playable. Certainly better than any given Mary Kate and Ashley game. (I originally disparaged Barbie Horse Adventures, but then I realized that it's not as bad as most of what we've seen here so far, either.) KataraniSword fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Little flash girl games are such a soft spot for me. I had an internet connection, a lot of free time, and a very limited understanding of gender back in the '90s. This poo poo was my jam. I think the best ones I ever encountered were on the website gurl.com; they were called Paper Doll Psychology and they were both simpler and much more complex than the paper dolls posted in this thread. You had a theme for each doll (pajamas, prom, mascots, superheroes etc) and three components to choose-- head, body, and legs. Every component had three choices, and you could mix-and-match to your hearts content. Sometimes you dressed up boyz :bigtran: They were simpler in that you didn't drag clothes onto doll, you just made your selections and clicked "Go". They were incredibly complex in that every single combination resulted in a different psychological analysis. They were all tongue-in-cheek and pretty well written, if 9-year-old-me was any judge. Since the clothing choices were generally a mix of stuff that real girls would wear or hilariously outlandish poo poo, the analysis ("analysis") tended towards bizarrely specific claims and cheeky jokes. It looks like they have all been purged from the internet now. That's a shame, they were fun even if they definitely were more toys than games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
None of the nailchat explains why they are seethrough. At least the toe-nails became opaque once you painted them. I do not understand those nail layouts at all. My nails have THREE sections to them. A white bit at the base, then the pink alive bit. Then the dead bit that you cut at the end.
Veloxyll fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
JamieTheD posted:Basically, it's a game specific version of our old buddy, the Skinner Box. Okay, this way is really grindy and painful and unfun... But wait, if I give up something of value for quicker progression, I can have fun! The worst part is, I know that this is exactly what's going on (gently caress, I even used to run rats through actual Skinner boxes back in uni), but I can't stop myself from playing once I've gotten into them. (Swords and Potions 2, I'm looking at you.) Thankfully I still have enough self-control to stop myself from dropping monies into the thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:None of the nailchat explains why they are seethrough. At least the toe-nails became opaque once you painted them. I do not understand those nail layouts at all. My nails have THREE sections to them. A white bit at the base, then the pink alive bit. Then the dead bit that you cut at the end. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
That'd kind of make sense. But did the artist not have toes or fingertips to look at and go "Huh. That's kind of opaque. Not see through. Evidently this bothers me a lot more than it should. Perhaps I am hoping that by being able to comprehend this one little facet of the convoluted mess the rest of 'girl games' will start to make sense? Edit You can rip the entire nail out. It hurts like hell and bleeds rather a lot. Don't fall off bridges and catch your nail, kids! I would guess, thinking about it more, that the pink bit is the bit pressed against skin still, so has pink flesh behind it, while the protruding bit that you cut just has clear air behind it. Still, playing with various backgrounds around the room, my own nails don't let enough light through to change colours. Veloxyll fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Well this looks pretty interesting. My favorite dressup game is Final Fantasy X-2. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
While not video-gamey, I recently came across a quick small article about how some toy brands marketing has gone extremely "girly". Mainly comparisons. You can find it here The main one to check is this one.  Someone in 1981 at Lego's marketing had the right idea. We need more ads like this. Alas this is what the marketing has become 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
As a parent today, I can say that Lego bit illustrates a much bigger problem with toys and marketing to children that the feminist perspective is just one part of. Today, it's become rare to find toys that actively encourage real creativity. Sure, Lego's as big as it ever was, but no longer is it just "here's a bunch of building pieces, make whatever you can think of," now it's "here's a bunch of pieces for this particular set, build what we show you". Imagination is very much stifled by the way the sets are sold. And it very much is gender-biased for whichever spin-off set or what have you the set is based around. Even the theme-less variety bins of pieces you can get (of which there's like, three sizes and that's it of the hundreds of kits on the market) come in gender biasing, with blue bins for boys with whatever, and pink bins for girls that include pink blocks, and flower pieces. Unrelated, Nihilarian might be on to something bringing up Final Fantasy X-2. Sure, other games in the series with female protagonists can be classified as "games with girls in them", but X-2 has you lead a trio of girl treasure hunters (whose male assistants are ancillary at best and buffoons at worst) on a major quest to save the world, and chase after clues about the lead's thought to be gone forever lost love. They proceed to kick butt, and change their fighting powers based on the outfits they can change into, including being able to fight through singing and dancing if the player wishes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
MisterFuzzles posted:Alas this is what the marketing has become They carefully gathered a whole bunch of little girl focus groups and asked them what they wanted and experimented with ideas to try and find something that the kids would be happy with so that girls would buy LEGOs again instead of ignoring them. What did they get for it? Mockery. Offensive cartoons written about the board of directors (representing them all as old fat white men, disregarding the actual gender balance of the panel in question). Demands that the LEGO friends line be pulled from stores. Yelling that any parent who buys them is a terrible person. What message can kids take from this? "You should be horribly ashamed if you like cute girly things. Cute girly things are inferior. Never show them to anyone." Disclaimer - I love the 1981 lego ad, it's adorable! And one thing that bothers me about the lego friends line is that the lego friends minifigs, while cuter, don't really play well with the original minifigs, and that really works against the strength of LEGO in general. The real benefit to these things is that while nowadays they make most of their money from selling individual kits (blame capitalism - these kits sell an awful lot better than basic blocks do), you CAN still buy lots of different things and mix and match them to build whatever you want. Making them less interconnectable is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
klee posted:I've been playing the free otome games on the android market on and off. They're not the least bit deep or really that interesting, but it's something that's easy to pick up and drop during downtime. Sometimes the awkward translations can be pretty amusing and they pretty much keep me playing, plus the "romance" can sure be a thing. There have been multiple companies steadily releasing these types of games for iOS and android, so I'm guessing they're relatively popular and people are spending money on them. As a gay guy (who somewhat guiltly) played My Candy Love and Star Project, they're both not actually that bad nor are they really sexist either. With Star Project yes there was dressing up and all that but you were also given minigames so that's...good? As for MCL I honestly don't have much to say about it it's kinda bland now that I think about it
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
gegi posted:Disclaimer - I love the 1981 lego ad, it's adorable! It really is, only it looks like it's aimed more at parents or grandparents than the kids themselves. Which I guess makes sense, kids don't have bank accounts. And Legos back then were just soo much better in general, I don't understand these tiny little boxes where you just build one specific thing. I wish I'd hung on to that huge plastic tub I used to have...  e: Also agreed that sometimes it's nice to just be a girl who likes girly things and there's nothing wrong with that...girly stuff doesn't have to always be inferior or bad (see that one cartoon we're not supposed to talk about which I watch with my nieces every weekend, and then we bake cookies) and kids shouldn't have one 'correct' way of having fun shoved down their throat from either side of the issue. Zoe fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
The problem with that 'friends' line isn't that it's cute and stereotypically girly, it's that it's clearly gendered *towards* girls. You have the normal lego blocks, which are clearly just for boys because of course they are, and then something for *girls*, who, as we all know, can't play with boy's toys. Likewise, boys can't play with princesses or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
.
Gensuki fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Feb 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
The Halo stuff is actually Mega Blocks, to clarify. Lego doesn't like licensing francises that involve war, Star Wars being the exception because it's less war and more space fantasy and also because they'd be stupid not to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Sir_Faolan_Hound posted:As a gay guy (who somewhat guiltly) played My Candy Love and Star Project, they're both not actually that bad nor are they really sexist either. With Star Project yes there was dressing up and all that but you were also given minigames so that's...good? Huh, now that you mention it, I also don't really remember Star Project being that sexist either. All the story elements were focused on training your idol rather than focusing on your character, right? And the dress up portions are dressing up your To bring up a game I know is terrible, I think the translated Tokimeki Girl's Side DS games were mentioned, but there's also a fan translation of the Love Revo DS game. It's a highschool stat builder like Tokimeki, but this time the focus is on losing weight to make a boy fall in love with you. What spurs this on is that the Totally Hottest Boys In The School all start to live in the main character's apartment complex, and when they meet her they act like total shitheads toward her and her body weight (except one guy, but he comes off as a feeder), and so she decides to lose weight because they were big meanies. Also her older brother is a romance option. If Devious Vacuum, or anyone else, doesn't already plan to show off the game, I could maybe do a quick look LP of it. I'm not claiming it though, because I'm not sure I have the time and if someone else wants to take a crack at it. Edit: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the Lego Friends line, but it would be better if the company tried to encourage girls and boys to play the same toys instead of saying "THIS is the girl line and THIS is the boy line". But they were out just to get girls playing with Lego's again, so I guess they got what they wanted? I don't know how popular the Friends line is. klee fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:30
|
|