Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


DFA Backers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Permafry_42

  • Rank
    Lord of Action Posts


  • Steam Community Tag/URL
  • PSN Tag
  • Wii Friend Code
  • Display Backer Tags

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVgpf2Ttz48 aka Why I love/hate puzzle-based adventure games...
  2. Anyone else really want to show off their backer status to the other lovelies in the forums already with a nice "Certified Psychonaut" badge or simply a "Psychonauts 2" badge just like Broken Age and Massive Chalice?
  3. Any chance for the ability to play characters besides Raz? You have no idea how much I always wanted to play as Lili. Since Lili and Raz are around the same size could you get away with doing what was done in Costume Quest and have the 2 of them be playable and let you choose to play one of them at the beginning of the game, assuming the story would work for that. I could understand why it wouldn't be feasible if the story would be exclusively about Raz, rather than about both of them. Also since they're related ideas any chance we could have unlockable character costumes? If we can't play as multiple characters, it would at least be nice to play as Raz dressed as other characters and with other looks (perhaps even in reference to other double fine games... Eddie, anyone?) in order to spice up the gameplay; especially when we'll be looking as Raz's back for most of the game (this was something I learned from the first game pretty quickly lol). Perhaps base some of them on the ones shown in the first game here: or have a reference to the XBLA bug described here by making it a costume: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/561517-psychonauts/41510035Of course all of these are just little things I'd be interested in, only if they wouldn't take too much development time/ money.
  4. Another level that's punishing but a little bit more straight forwards than my other 2 levels: Falling Through Madness: BFD4-0000-00CA-1BBE Enjoy =D
  5. My new level for people who like to punish themselves =D: Trial By Fire And Ice: C8EE-0000-009B-27C6 Enjoy =D
  6. at the start, don't move, pick up trampolines and put 3 on the left side, punch away bricks on the right side, and work your way up. make sure you leave space to drop back down. once you hit the uppermost blocks and the way is clear, hit the spike, jump up, and then hope you land in the right spot on the koopa, else you die there. Finished it after 20 tries Nice, but did you get the good ending or just the normal ending?
  7. Miner Mario: BE68-0000-0049-25C8 It's very beatable, but does require knowing the main tricks of the game to be possible. Enjoy =D I'll be playing everyone else's after I've finished unlocking everything so I can make more complicated levels in the future.
  8. Every once in a while I'm in the mood to gamble on a surprise. This was not one of those times. I'm terrified of Bad Rats. I can assure you, my mystery keys are NOT Bad Rats.They're RPGs, if that helps any. Got them; thanks Darth Marsden! For those who are curious they're Lilly and Sasha 1: Curse of the Immortals and Lilly and Sasha 2: Nexus of Souls. And since they come with trading cards, should be profitable even if I don't like them thanks to idlemaster =D Only problem is they're game 1 and 2 of a trilogy, and my mild ocd says I HAVE to own the full series... decisions decisions...
  9. Funny you should bring up Star Trek. I'm rewatching TNG currently and I just recently watched The Outcast. This is when it was at its best: Of course, the episode was definitely extremely flawed, as was every other time on TNG that they tried to handle LGBTAIQ issues. Once they referred to the agender species as "transgendered" species. Then they showed a transgender woman whom Riker fell in love with, and throughout the episode reemphasized the idea that if you identify as a man or woman, your sexuality is also heterosexual for that gender. Then to make matters worse, the horrible ending leaves the woman in a gender conversion camp to force her to be agender. Apparently the fictional species can change someone's gender despite it proven even when it was made to be impossible to do for humans. For some reason the conversion also apparently made her asexual in addition to being agender, further driving home the connection between sexuality and gender as though they are caused by the same thing. And instead of her getting any sort of resolution, her result of breaking the rules of her species' gender roles is imprisonment and conversion, showing no sign of happiness in her life. They made an episode that, rather than trying to help people understand LGBTAIQ issues, only further confused people by giving a lot of false and mixed messages. I can appreciate that they made they attempted to send a supportive message at a time few people even knew trans people existed outside of pornography, but it ultimately felt like it was LGBTAIQ issues as seen from writers who have never met anyone trans or gay. One of their other ways of presenting gender equality inside the fictional universe was introducing "skant" uniforms, worn by all genders. http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Starfleet_uniform_(2350s-2370s)#Skant But of course this as undercut by the main male characters still wearing more conservative jumpsuit uniforms. Ultimately it was used mostly as an easter egg rather than something of significance one way or another imo. Anyway still a Trekkie at heart but it definitely had its flaws at times...
  10. Thank you for answering my question. While I disagree with your opinion I'm glad that I at least better understand it. I certainly don't like that sexualized characters is the norm for female character models and believe that is a very important issue, especially when the sexualization serves no purpose besides marketing like the case is in many free 2 play games and certain niche genres. However I also feel that shaming games that feature sexualization isn't the solution on its own. I believe that the way sexualization is used is a large part of the way to improve the issue. For me, I think that variety and diversity, as usually is a solution to the issue. I agree with Carl that there are other types of sexy, and i wish that games featured these too the same way the particular brand of sexy is presently predominate. But I also strongly disagree with the idea that policing and shaming creators with sexualization and sexualized outfits in their work is the solution. To be clear I also don't believe in policing or shaming creators for choosing to remove of change characters based on the sexualization of the character (as was the case with LOL and many other games). Ultimately it should be the creator's decision how they want their character to be designed (excluding procedural creation or player character creation), and while i fully hope for people to have their own opinions on this matter, I really don't like it when people are shamed and attacked for not sharing opinions regardless of people's reasoning.
  11. Okay so first off I don't think it's as simple as something being empowering or not, there's an inbetween and varying degrees of empowerment, and the assertion that sexualized female characters can be empowering is just 'nah' to me. I don't find a sexualized character empowering, but it's not disempowering either. It's a drag and kinda predictable and overdone, maybe alienating, but it's not disempowering. Seeing a sexualized character doesn't like, make me feel less confident if we're using that sense of the word, but it doesn't make me feel any better either. Re: after the second comment. These are video game pixels designed to look a very specific way, and that very specific way almost always manifests itself as the Impossibly High Beauty Standards of a perfect body with perfect proportions, perfect hair, perfect face, perfect skin, perfect makeup. And then whatever outfit the devs decide will give em the most tits n' ass exposure lol. That's what I mean when I say they don't have the agency, they were literally made that way, out of a very conscious choice someone else made for them. It's way more empowering if that choice of dress came out of someone's own personal conviction, but video game characters don't have that sort of personal conviction cuz they do whatever they're written/coded/designed to do. That's a really interesting perspective. By that same logic you'd be saying that nothing writen characters do can ever be empowering since it is always the result of the writer. That only the writer themself can be empowering and that characters are merely tools to achieve that goal due to them being created rather than creating themself. To take the view further, is Jade from Beyond Good and Evil (or any other written character) capable of being empowering? Is any character capable if they aren't completely the creation of the player? Their actions, excluding the actions of the player, are always the result of the creators of the game (or at least randomly created by the game should the character be procedural generation). That all being said, i still don't see how that precludes the ability for sexualization of character to be empowering. It just would mean that all forms of empowerment would be impossible for written characters due to the lack of agency involved in the actions and motivations of the character due to the character being written. It wouldn't prevent real people who create their own characters and write their own stories using sexualization to satisfy their own desires. Here's a hypothetical: If the person, for this idea lets say a woman, finds empowerment in a vast MMORPG world by creating a character version of herself, sexualized exclusively in ways that make the cis straight woman feel attached to the character due to the womans own personal desires of her ideal alternative self. That woman chooses to self sexual herself because she enjoys it with no regard as to the opinions of others. In this world she feels the agency to explore a different, more sexually active side of her personality that she felt afraid of presenting due to a variety of real world issues she is facing. Is this not a form of empowerment for that woman, in your view?
  12. Not that I disagree with any of the discussion you’ve been contributing up to this point, but thaaaat little line is coming off as a dis on Carl and, additionally throwing fire on a thing that was supposed to die with the previous thread by essentially admitting that you entered this thread with some kind of agenda against her. You can disagree with Carl or think whatever you want about her, but there is no need for secret plans or making secret bets about her character. To me, this looks more bad on you than it does on Carl. To be clear the bet had to do with if someone, anyone, assumed a gender identity based on my position without my explicitly stating my gender identity. It wasn't personally directed at Carl and I hope it wasn't taken as such. Also i find it troubling just how many people took it that way. You assume a conspiracy due to an inside joke, and then run with it as though it were fact, regardless of evidence to the contrary. edit: The reason why i made that bet was partly as an experiment with F to see how people associate gender within forums, and that way being a man on a forum is the default. The character assassination due to who i made the bet with was also uncalled for, who i am friends with and who I argue against outside of this thread shouldn't be grounds for harassing me, especially when you aren't aware of the context of our conversation. Considering the way this thread had already been turning long before i had joined it, its also an unfair accusation that i am at fault for this thread being full of personal insults when other people, including people who agree and disagree with me, already were throwing shade around at other regardless if you noticed them doing so or not.
  13. Help me to understand your belief on this then, because you lost me when you were talking about how you don't believe it is disempowerment but you believe it "never will" be empowerment. From my view those are contradictory statements, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts; particular after your second comment. I should also be clear that being a sex positive feminist doesn't mean i believe sexualization isn't an issue in gaming. To the contrary it can be extremely damaging when it is done thoughtlessly. I still believe Bayonetta is a better example of a sex positive feminist character design though since she is portrayed as being sexual for her own enjoyment through her character development, which is very different from character models thoughtlessly sexualized as a primarily commodity-based decision ie mobas and other games when there isn't enough character development for there to be proper context to explain why the character is sexualized and how the positively benefits the player. Race and nationality is certainly complicated issues in their own right (perhaps we should create a new thread to discuss these issues there as was previously suggested by Spaff?), but I think a relevant part of the discussion is this: if Carl is right and talking about a race or nationality in art always requires lived contact and personal experience with the source of the subject matter (beyond just association through research of the subject), would that mean historic stories about long past eras of history without living witnesses will always be inherently problematic? Since if so that would mean some of the most culturally significant works ever made are inherently racist/promote misinformed ideas. I think that in theory speaking to live witnesses is an important part of appropriation when it is possible, but i don't believe that it is impossible to positively speak about a race or nationality or gender experience that one does not have themself. Also you seem to have described me using the phrase "son" even though you have no idea who I am or what my background is. Thanks for helping me win a bet *knowingly winks at Fhqwhgads*
  14. Welp I notice a lot of very strong opinions here already, not that it is too surprising. I've especially seen a lot of insults and demands for people to leave if they don't subscribe to a particular version of feminism (such as the radical second wave-era sex negative equity-centric feminism). I figure I might as well leave this here in the hope that perhaps people will recognize there is plenty of grey area of a wide range of feminist beliefs that support the idea that a woman can be empowered AND sexualized, and still be seen as feminist media. http://www.wgac.colostate.edu/sex-positivity As a third wave sex positive equality-centric feminist myself, I think that sexualization of any gender is not inherently a problem (besides sexualization of minors, of any gender, for any reason). I also think desexualization is not inherently empowering, since sexualization is a real part of the world we live in, and authors should be able to show adversity faced by characters using tools such as sexualization. Context and effect is everything. I also think that disparity of sexualization between men women and non-binary identities does not automatically prove the idea that a decrease in sexualization is a valid response, let alone the only effective response if we are intending to address the issue. Especially when policing of sexualization leads to issues of its own, such as fear of being seen as sexualized and a push to be more conservative in clothing as a result. Also for those who seem to be throwing gender performance ideas around, confusing gender expression with gender identity as though they are interchangeable, I figure it's also helpful to realize that there is still a very valid discussion to be had on its own about whether the theory, at least applied to identity as opposed to expression, is supported by neurological evidence connecting gender identity with brain development. This evidence includes: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jcem.85.5.6564 http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A293407678&v=2.1&u=s8460017&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=07fc9f2c13e03863cf3103e63b286134 http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A200507120&v=2.1&u=s8460017&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=5403b0fc07567505fbe27fe47f72021d http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A117524890&v=2.1&u=s8460017&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=5868ae83ce42ed0e660cfaba06eca178 http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A245751475&v=2.1&u=s8460017&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w&asid=5823d0141c9f6454a2c171840339ca40 That said as a feminist student myself currently taking university courses on the subject, I certainly find the debate of the influence of nature and nurture on gender identity to be fascinating, and look forward to responses to this recent evidence, if anyone is interested in presenting evidence to the contrary. Also please don't discriminate against people based on their gender identity or sex. We are all affected by gender representation, and all deserve to have a voice in discussing it without having our identity used as a way to validate or invalidate positions. Its essentially creating elitism that leads to people being silenced as a result of their identity being used to attack them or their argument. If we want to stop the shit throwing, that has to include all the sex and gender based discrimination (or as some feminists prefer, "reverse discrimination") being thrown at people in this comment section. To quote the Guide To Decency:
  • Create New...