|
I will hit those games up some time over the weekend, then. I actually happened across the Polly Pocket site while running a Google Search for "Best Girl Games Ever". Yep.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Devious Vacuum posted:I don't think Twitch will upload it for me - maybe it's too long? Maybe it's better that way, though. Maybe Twitch knows that no more My Little Pony needs to be uploaded to YouTube. I imagine you could use something like http://www.twitchtools.com/video-download.php to get the videos and upload them yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
So I was bored and I looked up Girl Games Chess because of the Mod Challenge going on, and I saw Easy Chess on one of the girl games sites. I was so hoping for something over the top like lipstick pawns and whatnot so I could show y'all, but it's just a dude who wrote a bad AI for the opponent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Senerio posted:So I was bored and I looked up Girl Games Chess because of the Mod Challenge going on, and I saw Easy Chess on one of the girl games sites. I was so hoping for something over the top like lipstick pawns and whatnot so I could show y'all, but it's just a dude who wrote a bad AI for the opponent. ...Considering the people who play flash games to begin with, I'm not sure putting easy chess as a girl game is very fair. You know ignoring the obvious part about why that is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Devious Vacuum posted:I don't think Twitch will upload it for me - maybe it's too long? Maybe it's better that way, though. Maybe Twitch knows that no more My Little Pony needs to be uploaded to YouTube. I think there's like a half hour limit on Twitch to Youtube uploads, isn't there? Twitch is fine anyway for the reason you stated, though. Edit: Also, thanks Senerio (again) for the old cartoon stuff! Kim Possible and Sailor Moon (also again) in particular will always have a special place in my heart. And that What's the Switch game reminds me a bit of Scarygirl, but a little more stripped down than even that. I'd probably still enjoy it a bit though. chocolatekake fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
It's actually pretty good for a licensed game. I've been playing a little more. Besides, I did all my uploads straight from Twitch. I'm a lazy butthole like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Senerio posted:So I was bored and I looked up Girl Games Chess because of the Mod Challenge going on, and I saw Easy Chess on one of the girl games sites. I was so hoping for something over the top like lipstick pawns and whatnot so I could show y'all, but it's just a dude who wrote a bad AI for the opponent. And then there's the inevitable chess-themed dressup game: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
That was my favorite boss fight in Kingdom Hearts II.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Be sure you keep your pawn on a leash at all times and keep a bag handy to clean up when they capture all over the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
Bacchante posted:Ah. Yes. I recall the culture appropriation dress-up games we encountered earlier. That's a fair point. But here's a question for you, then. If someone picks something out that happens to be from another culture simply because they think it looks pretty and then wears it, how bad do you think that is? I generally feel if people pick imagery or aesthetics they don't understand the meaning of, simply because they like the imagery and aesthetics, that's pretty much fine. I might think that covering yourself in tattoos in Chinese or Maori designs while wearing a kilt and a turban is a little tacky, but I find it hard to object ethically to it. People do it a lot within my own culture anyway, western-style Christianity-inspired weddings have some popularity in Japan for example, even though the actual religious significance is probably not very well understood a lot of the time, but that's true of a lot of people getting married in the UK too. A lot of people just care far more about the aesthetics of the event than the cultural meaning of it. I find it hard to object to that though because I feel that's up to the individual whether they want to care about that or not. It'd be nice if people were very interested in the meaning of their dress, but, especially if you're adopting something from another culture, in your social environment, it probably doesn't have very much meaning to the people you're around beyond its aesthetic value. It may be argued that it is unethical to wear things which would be considered offensive to others, though you have that problem even without cultural appropriation because of course you have people who might object to you being over/underdressed, or your dress style being reminiscent of a particular subculture, or people who simply take objection to your fashion sense. I attend the local Goth Weekend event every year and the amount of cattyness you get with some people about what is and isn't the right way to dress if you're a goth is painful. The event itself is nice though because the vast majority of people who go are completely cool with anybody dressing up however they want, and I think that's a good thing. Last time I was there there were lots of people in colonial dress with pith helmets and big civil-war era dresses, lots of people in a variety of punk rock, goth, heavy metal, and other similar musical inspired outfits, quite a few people in various forms of antiquated formal attire, and at least one man walking around in a bridal dress, who very nicely complimented me on my costume. And still I was a little unnerved when I went because there were quite a few sexed-up waffen-ss uniforms wandering around, which initially kinda threw me but, I thought about it and decided that if people want to appropriate things and put their own meaning into them, that should be their right, and it'd be pretty unfair of me to assume they're all neo-nazis because they like dressing up like that. People here aren't assuming I like cutting myself and sitting in the dark all day because I'm dressed in black so maybe I shouldn't judge either Dressing to please everyone is pretty much impossible whatever you do, so I tend to just think people should wear what they want and everyone else should try not to be a dick about it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Dressing to please everyone is pretty much impossible whatever you do, so I tend to just think people should wear what they want and everyone else should try not to be a dick about it. The problem is, it's a fine line between "dressing in another culture's clothing without knowing its context because you think it looks good" and "marketing another culture's clothing as a fashion trend, thus removing the culture from the clothing", and there's really no area to see the line clearly enough that you can differentiate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
KataraniSword posted:The problem is, it's a fine line between "dressing in another culture's clothing without knowing its context because you think it looks good" and "marketing another culture's clothing as a fashion trend, thus removing the culture from the clothing", and there's really no area to see the line clearly enough that you can differentiate. Hey look! Here's a Primer on Cultural Appropriation, specifically about Native American culture, but the same can be said of other forms of cultural appropriation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Steam has come through once again with the new Powerpuff Girls video game. I'm tempted to pick it up myself, especially since you can pick the classic art style for the girls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
chocolatekake posted:Steam has come through once again with the new Powerpuff Girls video game. I saw this too! Gonna be honest, from the preview video, the controls look floaty as hell, and the gameplay doesn't look particularly fun. PERFECT GIRL GAME
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
KataraniSword posted:The problem is, it's a fine line between "dressing in another culture's clothing without knowing its context because you think it looks good" and "marketing another culture's clothing as a fashion trend, thus removing the culture from the clothing", and there's really no area to see the line clearly enough that you can differentiate. My take on that is that a thing cannot have inherent significance, because it is simply what it is. A crucifix for example doesn't have inherent significance, it is an image that a lot of people ascribe significance to, but it is not inherently significant (though some of the people who ascribe significance to it may disagree). Removing the context and cultural significance from an object is really as simple as putting it in a box, or putting it anywhere where that context and significance is not understood. If I wear my necklace in public, for example, nobody is going to know what it means, though it is extremely precious to me and I wear it as constantly as I can. That significance is only present when I look at it though. If someone saw my necklace and made a bunch of cheap copies and started selling them, well, that's not removing the significance of mine, because that significance only ever existed in my head. If I take a crucifix to somewhere that has never heard of Christianity, similarly to my necklace people might guess that I think it's important because of how I treat it, but I wouldn't expect them to share my feelings or even to treat theirs the same way if they made copies. That's their decision. I would support the right of people to protest if imagery and objects they consider important are being treated in a way that they don't like, but I don't personally agree doing that, at least as it applies to entire societies, and I'd be a bit concerned if the law were to start deciding one way or another. Our spiritual and cultural identities are our own, and other people shouldn't be forced to comply with them. They may kindly elect to if they want to, but it has to be a personal decision. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My take on that is that a thing cannot have inherent significance, because it is simply what it is. A crucifix for example doesn't have inherent significance, it is an image that a lot of people ascribe significance to, but it is not inherently significant (though some of the people who ascribe significance to it may disagree). I will respectfully disagree. Your viewpoint is certainly interesting, but I feel as if it is missing the point. And an important factor is the difference between unwitting appropriation for aesthetic reasons, versus knowing somethibg is sacred and using it anway. In terms of Maori culture, Ta Moko in its true form is something that has been handed down in your tribal group for generations. It is considered culturally sacred in the highest degree. Saying that someone else carelessly adopting it is okay because it has no inherent significance is just wrong. That's an insult to you, your culture and your family. But I can see what you're trying to say, I think. But it seems a somewhat dangerous view point to me. The kind that leads into things like Tribal Girl Dressup. Not that I mean to imply that you would ever invent that abomination. However, at some point during it's creation you can bet that some person said, "I feel this is a little offen-" and was cut off by someone telling them that it's just clothes, and to get over it. I don't expect you to adhere to my culture or beliefs. But I drat well expect you to show them respect, just like I show yours respect. And if you can't do that then we have a problem. A rhetorical 'you', that is. Not actually you specifically, OwlFancier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Word. The difference between that nun dress-up game and tribal dress up is that as Westerners we're all acutely aware of the cultural cues of Catholicism, we know (more or less) how and why the clothing and symbols are used, and we can tell what's legit and what's not. We can't, however, collectively say the same about kimonos. Or bindis. Or even apparently Native American headdresses, despite that technically being from a Western culture. We struggle a bit more to tell the difference between the real symbolism and intent, and the simplified and 'exotic' version we get in cartoons and the like (I can think of so many video game characters who have a headdress, and only one where the character explicitly earned it from their tribe). Cultural commodification is something that's always going to happen in gradual degrees - think how easy it is to get sushi these days - but until it's widely understood how and why something from a different culture is used, it's not a massive burden to do a little research and know within yourself you're treating it with respect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
I guess my problem with the idea of inherent significance is that it sort of requires you to believe in magic. Undeniably, items or images that earn the title of sacred to any religion or philosophy on earth, are things which many people have a huge amount of deep emotional attachment to. And improper treatment of those things can and will cause huge amounts of discomfort to a lot of people. Yet no matter how much investment people put into a thing, the thing itself does not change. A statue of Christ is ultimately just a rock, the ring on the chain round my neck is a lump of tungsten carbide. That it was worn by the person I love for a while and is probably one of my most precious possessions doesn't change what it is, no matter how much I wish it could. I can and may ask someone I give the ring to to look after it, and I would be quite angry if they didn't, but that's between me and them, I think, not between my bit of society and theirs. Same for religious icons, I personally try to treat religious icons with respect because I understand something of what people feel for them, but a lot of folks would disagree with that and I find it hard to justify telling them not to as a group, because it's me that thinks the items are important, not the items themselves that have inherent importance. I find it a lot when people die, they leave all this stuff behind that was so important to them in life, they spend their entire lives collecting and feeling things about them, then they die and their life becomes so much stuff. Volunteering for charity I get a lot of boxes like that. Someone's entire life packed into a box, and all we can do is sell it for some small change and put the money to good use, because it's not meaningful any more without the person to give it meaning. People buy it and then they put their own meaning into it, if the objects had inherent meaning, how would that be possible? The idea of inherent meaning created by force of belief is very strange to me and I have a lot of trouble with it, because it so manifestly does not exist in many places where it should, if it was a thing. So all I can really fall back on is individual preference. If you like a thing and it's important to you, treasure it. If you want your friends to respect that preference, they probably will. The world at large however cannot do that, and it's not really practical or fair to expect it to. I do know that selling the remains of someone else's life on a regular basis means that a lot of people are made happier for having things they think are beautiful or useful, even if they're ignorant of their meaning to someone else, and the money made goes to feed and care for people who need it. I figure that's the best I can really hope for. Maybe the things might become precious to the people who buy them, someone's favorite shirt, or a treasured present from a loved one. It'd be nice to think so. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
chocolatekake posted:Steam has come through once again with the new Powerpuff Girls video game. What what what when were the powerpuff girls butchered Seriously that new art is awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:55
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:What what what when were the powerpuff girls butchered It looks like they do have the original art style, apparently you can choose between them. Gameplay looks pretty good though, never would have thought of a shmup/metroidvania style game for PPG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
For me personally a lot of it boils down to don't be a jerk, or at least don't be a jerk unless you mean it. Most of us are aware of what things are considered important Christian iconography. Artists often intentionally misuse them to make a point, sometimes just to be shocking and claim that it's deeply meaningful, othertimes as a form of protest. I'm very much against censorship, so I don't think people should be prevented from making their offensive art, but if they just splash it around at random without realising the offense they're invoking that's pretty dumb. On the other hand I think that sort of protection has to be tightly limited to prevent restricting creative expression. I wear certain kinds of crosses solely because they are goth/punk jewelry and not to invoke my potential deep belief in Christianity. I wouldn't wear a crucifix or certain other kinds of crosses (like the really simple gold ones) that I would expect to be taken as a serious protestation of faith, because that's not the statement I want to make. But I don't want to shut out the huge range of possibilities of interesting designs that are a bit cross-like. Replicating a specific bit of regalia is a statement of challenge, or will at least be read that way by many people. As a woman, making a replica of the pope's costume and going out in public for it is not going to be taken as a sign of my deep respect for Catholicism no matter how much I say that their faith is spiritual and moving to me - it's going to come across as a protest against the lack of female priests. Making random stuff up vaguely inspired by another culture and then promoting it as if it were part of that culture is wrong on more than one level. That's simultaneously failing to treat the source with respect AND trying to benefit from the respect afforded to that culture by others. This is where some of the really horrible dress up games can come in, to me. They're playing off "Ooo, Culture J is so cool!" while not actually having anything to do with Culture J, and potentially making it less cool by association. Making random stuff up vaguely inspired by another culture is completely fine in my book, though, as long as you call it something else and don't pretend that it's authentic. Being inspired by each other and coming up with new ideas based on what we've seen is a critical part of how the world moves forward. Culture evolves, culture is shared and becomes new culture. I don't want to try and restrict ideas. So I guess for me there's a lot of factors at work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Cultural appropriation is bad and you should actively try to not do it. As with anything else, go Google the response of the people whose culture is being appropriated and do what they say, even if you disagree. No more discussion on this please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
That Powerpuff Girls game looks like one of the worse ones I played during my first stream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
DeVac has a point. Girl Games are the true enemy of this thread. But are they? Apart from when they're blatantly offensive, the dress-up games seem fine. If there's one thing that we have proven it's that all of us girls in this thread like playing dress-up. Even, sometimes especially, the male girls. My little sister, a very tomboyish young lass who enjoys Skyrim, XCOM and, most recently, South Park: The Stick of Truth, has been watching the videos from this thread. And, amusingly for myself, she has admitted to playing many of the dress-up games we have seen. Which got me thinking about those three games I mentioned, ones that could possibly be called 'boy games', although I believe they're mutli-gender. And... Wow. You can really dress up your little Dovahkiin, your little toy soldiers, your little paper cutout. South Park evn supports 'cross-dressing', a cultural phenomenon that is paradoxical for its simple existence as an ideal, by default. I guess I'm just wondering if the dress-up games are really as big a bad thing as the awful makeup games. For the most part, I don't think they are: with one caveat. If it's letting you make your doll look like whatever you Want then it's alright, save for perhaps some of the body image issues brought up by the structure of the doll itself. But if it's forcing you to adhere to the creator's concept of the correct look by, say, ranking you on how good your final choices are... That's a problem. If that's absent, however, they seem fairly harmless. Forgive any typing issues, please. Androids are hella annoying to make forum posts on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Bacchante posted:If there's one thing that we have proven it's that all of us girls in this thread like playing dress-up. Even, sometimes especially, the male girls. That is like 51% of the point of this thread!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Yeah I play DCUO because I'm the worst and every day I change how my little man dresses because it's fun. But there are other things to do and I'm not forced to dress differently make members of the opposite sex like me. Though the game has a slew of other problems, like the same armor will be bulky on a man but tight or revealing on a woman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Is it even possible to not like games where you get to play dress up with your little digital person? I don't think it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Brinty posted:Is it even possible to not like games where you get to play dress up with your little digital person? Of course, especially because pretty much most games nowadays do it. I mean, I've been playing La Mulana and half of the reward of getting an item is going to the inventory screen and seeing it on Lemeza's increasingly-tricked-out detailed character model. That's a fine Ice Cape to go along with your Gauntlets, and I love that Shuriken-carrying pouch you have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
DeVac. I just want to say that I am so, so sorry. In advance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
I was thinking of contributing to the thread with what I know well, hot water vapor. So I kind of wanted to try streaming some Girl Games from Steam, but wanted to avoid the obvious games we've already played, like horse DDR (no Petz games either). Here's a very short, tentative, list I was thinking of, based on various sources: Powerpuff Girls: Defenders of Townsville (primary focus on this one) Crayon Physics Deluxe Long Live the Queen Date Warp (on Greenlight) And some point and click games whose girly-ness is up in the air: Tiny Bang Story Lume Lilly Looking Through I'm open to suggestions, and as long as they're cheap enough I might get a few I don't have. And I'm sorry if some of these are too good for girl games, but sometimes you just have to settle for quality. chocolatekake fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
chocolatekake posted:Tiny Bang Story
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Of course, especially because pretty much most games nowadays do it. I mean, I've been playing La Mulana and half of the reward of getting an item is going to the inventory screen and seeing it on Lemeza's increasingly-tricked-out detailed character model. That's a fine Ice Cape to go along with your Gauntlets, and I love that Shuriken-carrying pouch you have. Hope you're planning on beating Hell Temple to get the full dress-up experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
chocolatekake posted:Here's a very short, tentative, list I was thinking of, based on various sources: I don't know all of these games, but I'm not entirely convinced Long Live the Queen is actually a Girl Game, because, for example, Princess Maker is regarded as a game for male pedophiles... and basically I want to draw a line between games that have girls as protagonists and "girl games." There's definitely a gray area in what is for little girls and what CLAIMS to be for little girls but is actually for adults. I think there's a misconception going on here that a game with a female protagonist that isn't interchangeable with a male protagonist (e.g. Tomb Raider, Portal 2) is a "girl game." But that's not true, and we've seen over and over that it isn't true. There are loads of games with female protagonists that are still clearly games for the conventional gaming community, which is presumed to be (straight) men. There are many things these games have in common with Girl Games, like sexualization of the female body and male gaze, but Girl Games are TEACHING girls to objectify themselves, whereas these other games, let's call them "Games WITH Girls," merely REFLECT objectification or other bad attitudes toward women. Going back to Long Live the Queen, we (the player) are meant to protect the princess, not identify with her. Please examine each game that you want to play and really be sure that the player is intended to be a girl. Not "anybody," but specifically a girl. The people who made the game, while they were making the game, they were thinking about the player as a girl. That's the key here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
The people who made LLtQ have an about us that specifically talks about this stuff.quote:For too many people, "girl games" means nothing but bright pink and dolls and dress-up and shopping. Well, those can be fun, but there are plenty of girls whose lives don't begin and end at the mall. Fiction for girls (and young adults in general) often focuses on other common girl-interests, like horses, magic, and fantasy. So why aren't there more girl games with unicorns instead of prom dresses? You could probably take it either way since they do seem to be aimed at girls first, but not in the awful way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Devious Vacuum posted:Going back to Long Live the Queen, we (the player) are meant to protect the princess, not identify with her. The same could be said of Tomb Raider, apparently. "Executive producer of recent Tomb Raider reboot Ron Rosenberg posted:"When people play Lara, they don't really project themselves into the character," At least they were upfront about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Devious Vacuum posted:I don't know all of these games, but I'm not entirely convinced Long Live the Queen is actually a Girl Game, because, for example, Princess Maker is regarded as a game for male pedophiles... and basically I want to draw a line between games that have girls as protagonists and "girl games." There's definitely a gray area in what is for little girls and what CLAIMS to be for little girls but is actually for adults. Yeah, I'm definitely trying to take that into consideration. Long Live the Queen I thought might count since it's the same developer as Date Warp, which is a vn/dating sim for girls. Some of the others on the list were repeatedly recommended for girls by an audience, not the developers. Maybe that's the key to girl games though, not just things regular people are trying to limit girls to, but games the developers themselves are trying to push onto girls. And maybe some of these are too progressive for girl games. I'll probably drop the idea. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to conflate girl games with games that have girls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
The current LP of Long Live the Queen is having a vote on whether to execute a prisoner right now, so I don't think it fits with all the other games in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Steam may be the wrong kind of platform for something such as this anyway; there's an age gap in the PC world that comes into play, and I'm still not entirely sure on the thread's view on the seperation between "games designed for preteen/teenage girls" and "games designed for soccer moms". Certainly, a lot of casual games fall into that latter category, ranging from Diner Dash and other various time management games to hidden object games, but it's hard to say if that's what is wanted here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Hm. There's a good discussion in that. This is the Girl Games Thread, but what does that mean, exactly? DeVac's delightfully appropriate 'Everyone is Girls' side, it definitely seems like all these games are aimed at either a younger audience, say seven to twelve-ish, or a judgment impaired audience, like the average Girl Games producer and the poor damned souls of this LP. So, these are games for Younger Girls... Which makes them much worse, in many respects. So where are the games marketed at Young Ladies? At Women? Do those even fall under the purview of what we're all looking at here? Maybe. They will almost certainly have many of the same problems. My little sister had, for example, Imagine Fashion Designer. Once. A game she described as possessed of far too much pink. Apparently it had a Villain, though! But, in her words and not mine, 'since girl games aren't allowed real conflicts, she wqs mean to animals. Girls like animals, right?' And you would rescue animals from this bad lady's 'secret underground makeup testjng lab'. Which confused me to no e d, because I foolishly assumed the point of the game was to be a fashion designer. Silly me, right? I guess you just need to think, when looking at a game, "was this made and marketed specifically for girls?' Imagine Fashion Designer was. The lack of games for grown women might be an issue for another time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
chocolatekake posted:Yeah, I'm definitely trying to take that into consideration. Long Live the Queen I thought might count since it's the same developer as Date Warp, which is a vn/dating sim for girls. Some of the others on the list were repeatedly recommended for girls by an audience, not the developers. Maybe that's the key to girl games though, not just things regular people are trying to limit girls to, but games the developers themselves are trying to push onto girls. And maybe some of these are too progressive for girl games. I'll probably drop the idea. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to conflate girl games with games that have girls. It's actually interesting to note that the web site for Hanako Games, who made Long Live The Queen (including Cute Knight, which is even funner than LLTQ IMHO) and a bunch of other stuff, actually mentions: quote:For too many people, "girl games" means nothing but bright pink and dolls and dress-up and shopping. Well, those can be fun, but there are plenty of girls whose lives don't begin and end at the mall. Fiction for girls (and young adults in general) often focuses on other common girl-interests, like horses, magic, and fantasy. So why aren't there more girl games with unicorns instead of prom dresses? I'm not quite sure that the aim of LLTQ is to "protect" Elodie - any more than you're protecting the protagonist of any game by not wanting them to get killed. But there is a rather bleak ending where you have Elodie sacrifice herself to save the kingdom from a monster, and the last words before the ending are.. "Calm spreads through you as you realize that it is, at last, over, and you will never have to make another decision again."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 02:53
|
|
