next »

[DavidCaruso]

The whole idea of women being effective close-quarters combatants is so ludicrous they might as well go all the way and wear bronze pasties and a chain mail loincloth.

Don't be so hysterical

Obviously it was never an hystorical fact ... Oh wait!

(lots of pics of women)

In this topic, Gilbert does not understand the concept of a rule (aka: a generalization) or the concept of an exception, or the concept that since a rule is a generalization it obviously cannot cover all cases and there will always be exceptions, or the concept that when someone makes a statement such as "women are not very physically strong" they are not saying that all women are not physically strong compared to all men but rather that the average woman is not physically strong or less physically strong compared to the average man, and since this is a rule (generalization) that can only be observed by analyzing large numbers of people and statistical sample data pulling out a relatively very small batch of counterexamples to the rule scattered throughout history does not disprove or cast doubt on the generalization (rule), especially when that generalization has been repeatedly reinforced both through scientific study/statistical analysis and the complex act of looking outside the window at the world, just like citing the exception of Mike Begum doesn't disprove the rule (generalization) that "handicapped people are worse at playing videogames" (in this case the handicap is many-sided e.g. maximum potential muscle mass) because Mike Begum is a single unique individual not every single handicapped person in the world. Meanwhile, many starving children die all over the world, and the Earth keeps turning, someday fated to crash into the Sun and vanish without a trace.

[AshfordPride]

GILBERT

THUMBNAILS

[SplinterOfChaos]

[...] or the concept that when someone makes a statement such as "women are not very physically strong" they are not saying that all women are not physically strong compared to all men but rather that the average woman is not physically strong or less physically strong compared to the average man [...]

"Women are not very physically strong" is not backed by science as strong is a relative term and your not comparing anything. "Women are not vary physically strong in comparison to men" is what you're talking about. The first has the implication that women are weak, the second implies that women are weaker than men.

Since all humans are relatively strong compared to small mammals, weak compared to large animals, some perspective is required. I was curious if i could find how much the average man/woman could lift and i found an interesting article.

The results revealed that the male subjects were about 50 percent stronger than the female subjects. That is, the average 10-repetition leg extension for males was 119 pounds, whereas the average 10-repetition leg extension for females was 79 pounds.

This is not a fair comparison of muscle strength, however, because the males weighed almost 50 pounds more than the females on average. To better understand the strength abilities of men and women, we divided the weight they lifted by their body weight. When adjusted for weight differences, the average male completed 10 leg extensions with 62 percent of his body weight and the average female completed 10 leg extensions with 55 percent of her body weight.

While this body weight comparison certainly narrows the strength gap between the sexes, it is still not a completely accurate assessment. This is due to the fact that women have a higher percentage of fat than men.

To better examine pound-for-pound muscle strength between men and women, it is necessary to divide the weight lifted by the subjects’ lean (muscle) weight. When we made this calculation we found that the average male and the average female could both perform 10 leg extensions with about 75 percent of their lean weight.

So at the end of the day, "women are weaker than men" is true, but it's only based on average ability, not a true measure of strength. The most fair statement is "women have less muscle mass than men."

Bit off topic, but the example you chose doesn't work.

[Zaphos]

who cares about averages?  video game characters like these are generally way above average on purpose.

[gimymblert]

@David caruso
And you miss that the assessment made was a generalization (the idea that women ... is ludicrous) and do not prime any evidence of exception as credible. I provide a small sample of fact to show there is nothing ludicrous about close quarter combat with women as significant historical repeated occurrence can assess.

[JWK5]

Don't forget to get your degree in video game design!



Grab her boobs and sign up now!

[s0]

who cares about averages?  video game characters like these are generally way above average on purpose.

Also BROTIP: Most videogames don't try to depict the real world.

[Mikademus]

Computer games is where geekiness and nerdiness comes together. I made a game with a guy who's a doctor of theoretical physics with math skills out of this world. He was very interested in using metablobs with spring-tensors for a viscous liquid system to simulate breast bouncing and touch deformation.

[s0]

Computer games is where geekiness and nerdiness comes together.

What's the difference? I've always used the terms interchangeably.

[Hangedman]

Computer games is where geekiness and nerdiness comes together. I made a game with a guy who's a doctor of theoretical physics with math skills out of this world. He was very interested in using metablobs with spring-tensors for a viscous liquid system to simulate breast bouncing and touch deformation.

Someone's gonna do it, may as well be someone who can

Computer games is where geekiness and nerdiness comes together.

What's the difference? I've always used the terms interchangeably.

Geek implies skills/knowledge with actual use/application.
Nerd is esoteria and specific interest knowledge with little outside use.

Geek = knowing a lot about the SQL that supports Wikipedia
Nerd = being a Wikipedia editor

But now they're used mostly interchangeably anyway

[s0]

Guess that makes me a nerd. Thanks for the clarification.

[Zaphos]

He was very interested in using metablobs with spring-tensors for a viscous liquid system to simulate breast bouncing and touch deformation.

afaik breasts are not liquids

[Inane]

Computer games is where geekiness and nerdiness comes together.

What's the difference? I've always used the terms interchangeably.

Geek implies skills/knowledge with actual use/application.
Nerd is esoteria and specific interest knowledge with little outside use.

Geek = knowing a lot about the SQL that supports Wikipedia
Nerd = being a Wikipedia editor

But now they're used mostly interchangeably anyway

I thought it was the other way around... Y'know since the word geek comes from a circus act where someone pretended to be retarded and ate live chickens heads off, not exactly skilled labor.

[:^)]

Hi guys, Sorry I'm late.

What did I miss?

[Schoq]

I thought it was the other way around... Y'know since the word geek comes from a circus act where someone pretended to be retarded and ate live chickens heads off, not exactly skilled labor.

nerd
1951, U.S. student slang, probably an alteration of 1940s slang nert "stupid or crazy person," itself an alteration of nut.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nerd

Doesn't really imply intelligence either.

[DavidCaruso]

"Women are not very physically strong" is not backed by science as strong is a relative term and your not comparing anything. "Women are not vary physically strong in comparison to men" is what you're talking about. The first has the implication that women are weak, the second implies that women are weaker than men.

The "men" was kind of implied there, I thought. But accept it as a lapse in writing on my part.

The results revealed that the male subjects were about 50 percent stronger than the female subjects. That is, the average 10-repetition leg extension for males was 119 pounds, whereas the average 10-repetition leg extension for females was 79 pounds.

This is not a fair comparison of muscle strength, however, because the males weighed almost 50 pounds more than the females on average. To better understand the strength abilities of men and women, we divided the weight they lifted by their body weight. When adjusted for weight differences, the average male completed 10 leg extensions with 62 percent of his body weight and the average female completed 10 leg extensions with 55 percent of her body weight.

While this body weight comparison certainly narrows the strength gap between the sexes, it is still not a completely accurate assessment. This is due to the fact that women have a higher percentage of fat than men.

To better examine pound-for-pound muscle strength between men and women, it is necessary to divide the weight lifted by the subjects’ lean (muscle) weight. When we made this calculation we found that the average male and the average female could both perform 10 leg extensions with about 75 percent of their lean weight.

What I was thinking of was overall strength, not pound-for-pound individual muscle strength; it's already been known that individual muscle fibers between both genders have similar strengths, but male hormones e.g. testosterone are what produce much of the difference in total muscle mass that show up on a larger scale (and there are also differences in muscle mass distribution throughout the body between both genders, which is why strong men look bulkier than strong women and whatnot (not taking things like steroids into account)).

So at the end of the day, "women are weaker than men" is true, but it's only based on average ability, not a true measure of strength. The most fair statement is "women have less muscle mass than men."

What do you mean by "average ability, not a true measure of strength?" Average ability is all we're really talking about here, since generalizations are based on averages. Also muscle mass = strength (or at the least it's strongly correlated to strength and the two increase with one another, though there are also other factors e.g. neurological strength).

@David caruso
And you miss that the assessment made was a generalization (the idea that women ... is ludicrous) and do not prime any evidence of exception as credible. I provide a small sample of fact to show there is nothing ludicrous about close quarter combat with women as significant historical repeated occurrence can assess.

Huh? That was what I was responding to. "Ludicrous" was a bit too strong but the general rule isn't false, the probability is still comparatively low and citing a few exceptions doesn't really disprove that.

[gimymblert]

@david caruso
The general rules don't disprove that women can't be good fighter even if it is statistically low when women fight. It's more like a function of non fighter vs fighter than a function of efficiency which the original statement is about. Also strength is not skills.

[DavidCaruso]

@david caruso
The general rules don't disprove that women can't be good fighter even if it is statistically low when women fight. It's more like a function of non fighter vs fighter than a function of efficiency which the original statement is about. Also strength is not skills.

I don't think he was trying to say that women can't be good fighters, just that it's comparatively unlikely. But if he was trying to say that women can't be good fighters at all then he's obviously wrong, yeah. I think it's fair to say that there's less total potential for things like this in one gender than the other just due to variations in testosterone amounts, quantity of muscle fiber, etc., but if a woman has the right genetics for a higher upper limit and has the training resolve to reach the top on a list including both genders then more power to them (though obviously this doesn't imply that all women would now have that potential, just like all men don't have the potential to be strong bodybuilders and athletes either). Strength is not skills but strength is obviously a crucial part of fighting. Either way I guess this is all irrelevant to the larger topic of T&A in videogames.

[Mikademus]

He was very interested in using metablobs with spring-tensors for a viscous liquid system to simulate breast bouncing and touch deformation.

afaik breasts are not liquids

Lipotissue, that is fat, which is what female breasts are mostly comprised of, is a high-viscose liquid. And we can use all kinds of simulators to recreate all kinds of other things: smoke isn't alphablended rectangles, flags and cloth aren't elastic springs with numeric constraints, yet the techniques create pretty believable results. Dixi.

[s0]

I don't think he was trying to say that women can't be good fighters, just that it's comparatively unlikely.

Fat Italian plumbers are not usually good jumpers and blue hedgehogs suck at running fast it's a fact folks look it up!