That's the reason why several times people in this topic have asked what "modern feminism" is. That an answer has still not be given, makes me lean towards the opinion that the OP is indeed trolling instead of looking for genuine game suggestions. Because how can you expect genuine game suggestions if the people who ask for a clarification of what kind of theme it is you're seeking, are confronted with silence instead of an answer?

When making the game more realistic makes it less fun, fun should win over realism. There's a reason, for example, that most dungeons and dragons campaigns don't strictly follow encumbrance rules. Similarly, there's a reason that, except in games designed to simulate daily life (I'm thinking games like The Sims), characters in video games never have to go to the bathroom.

I'll (finally) address this point. I am deliberately not defining what exactly it means, so that people can give answers based on what they think it means, hence allowing for a variety of answers.

(Plus, I note that this thread has been quite successful, with over 200 replies (though some have been deleted).)

Also, I mentioned Chapter 2 of Dragon Quest 4 earlier in this thread, which has a brilliant reversal of gender roles, and how that game is much better from a feminist perspective than its sequel.

You seem to be jumping between extremes here. Carrying of weight was brought up as an example here, and people (yourself included) said "That's good, because it is more realistic!"
But the way the game treats carrying of weight is NOT realistic. That is what I pointed out. But you felt like taking my meaning to "No developer should ever try to mimic reality in any way".

And yes, a game IS inherently bad for seeking realism, to the detriment of other mechanics. Simply making a game more realistic doesn't make it better (unless you're making a simulation, in which case it wouldn't really be a "game"). And if making it more realistic ruins the experience, it makes the game worse.

For example, if a player likes playing games as a sneaking thief, and that option is available in the game, but the sneaking thief is an objectively bad build to play because of realistic "noise mechanics" or whatever, then yes, the game is inherently bad for seeking more realism.

And sure, the developer has every right to make a badly designed game. And people absolutely can call it out for being bad, and rate it for being bad, and have discussions about how such designs should be changed.

If it's "in the eye of beholder" what people's own interpretation of feminism is (I myself am totally unaware of any difference between the first, second and modern wave of feminism, for me it's all about equal rights basically), in my view a game I'd be happy with playing should be feminist in the sense it doesn't matter if you pick a male or female protagonist, you're not hindered in how you want to play the game, what role you pick, what choices you make whatever your sex is.

In this regard, storywise Baldur's Gate is a good game. I've played the game a lot, it's my most favourite game and it plays equally funny and the story can take the same turns whether I play it with a female or a male charname. I've played both in about equal proportions (maybe slightly more females) and I've had equal fun with both. An exception is romances. Baldur's Gate II in it's original forum is notorious for just having hetero romances, with 3 possibilities for males (but all are at least half elves and thus it's quite racist) and only the self-obsessed Anomen for female protagonists. But I'm not that interested in romances anyway.

deleted

If the princess needs to be rescued, but the rescuer is herself a female as well, rescuer and princess fall in love and live happily ever after, that will be quite novel and balanced however. Not many strong lesbians as protagonists in movies. More points for balance if the evil overlady is a lesbian as well.

Might seem a bit of a caricature, the game I propose here. But the really sad thing is the really really long time that most stories/games/movies had male hetero protagonists almost to the exclusion of everything else. So tipping the scales does lead to some exaggerations and ruffles some feathers. Though I don't really know of any films/games/etc. that do those exaggerations, despite all the people crying out their feathers are ruffled like they're in pain of their balls being cut off. But maybe it feels to them that way? A threat to their high-and-easy dominance?

I doubt many people have formed a negative opinion of Arcanum as a game just because of it's carrying mechanics. Quite frankly, I think you are arguing over a single design decision and trying to portray it as inherently sexist in a vain attempt to promote a certain cause.

First, I don't see those mechanics as so inherently "bad" and they don't seem all that unrealistic either. That some people might be able to carry around 8x as much as far more feeble people sounds about correct, yet you seem to be dismissing it as "completely unrealistic".

Second, all players are different. Some do not like micro-management of inventories or food. Some are neutral, and some enjoy a particular game more because of that increased realism and the additional challenge. The fact you seem to want to call a game "bad" for everyone because you didn't like one aspect of it, speaks volumes.

But what really bothers me about this is the "mob mentality" where anything that can be argued as "sexist" in any possible way is somehow "clearly" sexist. It's this disconnect from reality that is quite disturbing...

A game can be well-loved and lauded for being great, while still having problematic design decisions. It's about nuance. Should we never criticise the things we love?

No, what I'm dismissing as "unrealistic" is the idea that someone could strap a motorcycle or two to their back, and go about their day as if nothing is happening. And you're STILL going on about "realism" :D. Why?

People having different tastes has nothing to do with game balance. I like playing such games as a mage, and if the mage is overpowered in a certain game, that doesn't suddenly make it a good game.

SaGa Frontier has one possible main character who is a lesbian, and late in her quest, you have the option of rescuing a lesbian. It doesn't make the villain one, however.

Then again, SaGa Frontier has 7 separate stories, one for each possible main character, so the developers could afford to experiment more with different plotlines than in games with single stories.

(It also has a superhero with a secret identity, a mage who's on a mission to learn all the spells and kill his twin, a monster whose quest is to gather the rings to restore their homeland, and even a robot from a junkyard who is on a pre-programmed mission. Oh, and don't forget the supermodel who is getting revenge on whoever killed her boyfriend (IIRC).)


I would rather have mages be overpowered than have them be useless, as long as you don't end up in a situation where enemy spells are powerful enough to ruin the game.

Whoa, whoa. Realism (or to be more accurate plausibility) of RPG power fantasy is exactly in that both men and women are 10000% overpowered. And because in RL on average women are weaker than men physically, they also weaker if both are being overpowered. What "modern feminists" demand IS that men would be 10000% OP and women 11000% OP. So that strength of both being the same. Which is of course also possible in some fantasy world, but that is exactly why it is female power fantasy, not "realism in any shape or form" as you put it.

In my opinion,

It doesn't matter what is realistic or not. If the dev wants to design something that way, he can do it that way. No developer is beholden to realism, whether it makes the game worse or better. The point is to create what you want, and finding any excuses as to why someone can't create something the way they want is pointless.

What everyone finds reasonable or unreasonable in fantasy is entirely subjective, and to listen to any one camp of people's version of what is reasonable is to forfeit one's creative freedom to that extent.

TL;DR have individual preferences but don't demand anyone cater to them. In development, its the vision of the creators that should have highest priority and all others should have equal priority, ie 0.

Do you actually believe the things you post? Like, genuinely. Do you think what you have posted here is true? Because I find that difficult to believe.

Why? Do you not believe that women on average weaker then men by 10%-40% (depending on type of strength excercise)? Because if that is true, than a world where women and men have the same strenght on average means women are more OP then men.

UPD. Just to be clear - we are talking about humans, not any other fictional race.

Really depends how it's handled. A well trained woman using particular techniques could kick an average guy's ass, or even a moderately trained guy (like Catwoman beating up thugs for example). A woman with the right equipment and tactics can realistically take out a bunch of less prepared guys (like an assassin game). Also in fantasy settings you have magic and whatnot, and in super futuristic settings there's probably gene therapy and higher technology like a super suit that evens out strength or whatever.

At the end of the day I guess my point is that in a lot of game genres and settings I don't think it matters too much if women characters are presented as equal warriors. Only time I kind of roll my eyes at it are in stuff like the new Battlefield, but even there apparently women served on the front line in Russia, which I did not know about before. Learn something new everyday. Still, front line British women in the multiplayer will be a bit immersion-breaking.

EDIT: Never mind, don't know enough about the game.