Gender and Mass Effect. Part One: Why? And Why Should You Care?

I just got back from a whirlwind weekend of gaming at the PAX East convention.  The gaming there isn't just video gaming, which is nice.  In fact, 90% of the gaming I did this weekend was tabletop.  I discovered a lot of cool new games (co-op and competitive) and made new friends.  It was a shiny happy weekend of gaming!

During the weekend, there were also a bunch of panels on a bunch of things.  Two of them, as I wrote in my last entry, were focused on gender.  The third was a talk about diversity in general but that, of course, includes gender diversity.  

Two of these panels were awesome in very different ways.  One, sadly, set itself up to fall by making the focus on female characters and choosing to then focus on their physical aspects.  Failure or success of the panel, though, the Mass Effect series did not get enough mentions.  

It's really hard to find Mass Effect marketing image that doesn't involve m!Shep.  Shame.

Yeah, that's right.  Anyone that follows me on Twitter will not be surprised in the slightest that I brought ME up.  Still!  I have a valid point!  Lesley told me so!  In fact, at one point during the second (better) panel on gender issues in gaming, I leaned over to her and said something along the lines of "dude, this could be a whole panel.  better yet, I'm going to write something about gender in Mass Effect," and she said something to the effect of "you are awesome, and I support your idea" and then we high-fived (this is the gist).

Okay, so why do I think the Mass Effect series should get a series of blog posts (I know it's been discussed elsewhere, but I don't recall seeing something beyond the asari angle)?  And why should you care if you have never even heard of Mass Effect?

Answer the first: 'cause BioWare kinda did a damn find job of portraying female characters in their universe.  Not only that, they did a decent (which is less than damn fine, but better than a lot of the games I've played) job of portraying female sexuality in their universe.  

They also, and I'll talk about this, did a good job of portraying a relationship/relationships that are either gender blind or same-gendered, depending on your view (more on that when I talk about Liara and the asari), and of setting up a feeling of queerness that's there if you've got your receptors tuned.  There's also a big, unfortunate hole there, but more on that later, too.

Basically, in a nutshell (what kind of shell would have me for a nut?), I think MassEffect has done it as right as any mainstream game out there.

But the reason you should care if you're not a gamer is 'cause MassEffect has done it more right than pretty much any form of mainstream media out there (besides comics).  And if you're reading this at all, it's because you care about media.  Or because you're my friend and are supportive.  Either way, I appreciate you.

Speaking of friends, this discussion is going to be focused on two games (and some comics maybe), with brief comparisons if I feel like it.  If you want to read what will be an awesome discussion of gender in gaming as a whole, go read my friend's blog at www.your-critic.com.

In the next few weeks, I'm going to spend some time delving into the universe of Mass Effect with an eye towards a critical discussion of gender and sexuality.  Hopefully it'll be fun, entertaining, informing, and vaguely interesting.  At the very least, it gives me an excuse to play through the games again...

It's PAX [East] Time!

Tomorrow is the second PaxEast convention here in Boston.  I'm more excited than I was last year because I'm way more involved in the gaming world than I was before.  And a lot of that is because of last year's PaxEast.  If not for the "girls in gaming" panel last year, I probably wouldn't have turned my critical eye towards games.  I'd always had a kind casual awareness of gender/sexuality issues in gaming, but that panel lit a fire of rage in the belly of my... uh.  Never mind.

Anyway, I'll be live-tweeting a lot of the panels I go to (it helped dispel my ire last year), but specifically the gender/sexualty based panels.  There are a few on-topic ones this year:

• Females on Female Characters (Saturday at 3pm)
• The "Other" Us: If We're All Gamers, Does Our Gender Matter?  (Saturday at 6:30pm)
• One of Us (Sunday at 12pm)

I'm also going to a female gamer brunch meet-up on Sunday, which I'm suuuuper excited about, and not just 'cause it's brunch.

I'm also hoping to attend - and this is completely at the whim of my ability to schedule things - the Legal Issues in Gaming and the Video Game Comics panels (though I think the latter is scheduled against the keynote, so...).

For those out there with any interest in my opinion, the raw version will be on twitter @retconning and I'll try to condense and filter my thoughts into an eventual blog post here.

Also, my friend who writes way more often (and better) than I do is starting up a series called "Beyond the Girl Gamer", which you should go read at her blog, Your Critic is in Another Castle (www.your-critic.com).

So!  Have a good weekend, hope to see people at Pax, follow me on twitter, etc. etc. etc.!

I Am Definitely Not Spartacus

Over the last month or so, I've been watching Starz' (Starz's?) version of Spartacus, which is streaming on Netflix.  I was resistant at first.  I'm not sure why there was resistance.  It's set in ancient Rome, an era I like, it's about fighting, an activity I like, it stars Xena (er, Lucy Lawless) and half the supporting cast of various episodes of Xena and Hercules, and I was told "it's a lot like 300".

Eventually, when I saw it streaming on Netflix and I was in between video game moods (I had beaten Mass Effect 2 for the fifth time and was getting stuck in a lot of subway tunnels in Fallout 3) I gave it a shot.  (Also I found out Erin Cummings was in it.)

Woo boy.

Spartacus is sort of like 300 if they add in sex and Rome and the word "cock".  A lot of the word cock.  Mostly referring to Jupiter's.  I can understand the comparison; stylistically it's very similar.  There's a lot of CGI backgrounds (some better than others), muscley dudes wearing very little clothing, and lots of fighting.

Also Peter Mensah.

Doctore.  Also the Persian dude that gets kicked into a well by Leonidas.

But there are a lot of differences also, and (blasphemy!) I sort of ended up liking Spartacus, overall, more than I liked 300.  I think it benefits from the serialized nature of television in that it can tell a whole bunch of stories beyond just "buff dudes fight, blood, die!" (though the 300 movie fleshed out Gorgo's story from the comic, it was still pretty basic).  

And that's where I stop comparing them, because Spartacus stands on its own.  Despite the subtitle, it's about more than just Killing And Stuff.  There's a lot of intrigue and weaving and interweaving of storylines, which is something I like.  So props to the writers on that.

The acting's not half-bad, either.  

I went into the show knowing that the lead, Andy Whitfield, wouldn't be continuing after s1 due to illness.  So I tried not to get too attached.  But the dude was so damn good.  I'm giving Liam McIntyre a chance (he's a very charming, if not active, twitterer @Liam_J_McIntyre), but he's got a really large set of sandals to fill.  Or boots, depending on the scene. 

Andy Whitfield: Spartacus I

By now you can probably tell how they dress in this show. 

Anyway, Whitfield brought a lot of depth to Spartacus that I wasn't expecting.  He wasn't just sad, frustrated, smart, or arrogant. He was all of those things.  And he evolved.  I've written before of my love of character development, and Spartacus did well with it.

I think the most interesting character was the one I hated the most at first: Crixus.  Crixus is the Alpha of the Gladiator pack, and is a big arrogant ass of assiness.  For a little while.  But by the end of the first season, I was actually sort of rooting for him to make the right decision (granted, history sort of spoiled me by being, well, historical... but still!).

And then there were the villains, Batiatus and Lucretia, played soooo well by John Hannah and Lucy Lawless.  Lucretia especially.  Being a woman in Roman times wasn't exactly the best situation, and Lucretia is basically one rung above a slave in the social construct, being the wife of a Plebian (not that they ever use the word).  She is a master manipulator who, even when you think she's out-maneuvered, will somehow have gotten her enemy into a corner.

Well, until the end.  (But that's history, so no one yell at me for spoiling.)

And after the spectacular end, we got a prequel.  The six-part miniseries Gods of the Arena, which just finished up last week and managed to be nearly as awesome as the first season, with less episodes and no Spartacus.  (It did have Jaime Murray, though.  So there's that.)  It rested heavily on the shoulders of John Hannah and Lucy Lawless, but they totally delivered.  Someone give Lucy Lawless an Emmy or something, because Lucretia has become one of those most interesting, nuanced female roles on television.  So give the writers an Emmy or something, too.  And the relationship between Batiatus and Lucretia is really... strangely wonderful.  They really love each other, they just happen to be twisted by their circumstances.

As you can tell, somewhere between the "this show is gonna suck" mentality I went into, and my annoyance that Netflix didn't have the finale of Gods of the Arena  until daaaaaaaaaays after it aired, I got hooked on the show.  I think it's because beneath all that blood, sand, sex (props again to them for having full-frontal male nudity to go along with the female nudity, because most "daring" shows don't give it the equal treatment) and cock-talk, there's actually a pretty deep show about class divides, social mobility, freedom, and the way human beings relate to each other.

The sex and violence are just sort of... red herrings.  Pretty red herrings (yes, even the violence, because martial arts are neat), but not the point of the show. 

By the way, the violence is violent.  I'm not going to suggest this show to the faint of heart, even though sometimes it can be comic-style over-the-top violence.  'Cause sometimes it's not.  And even the over-the-top stuff can be fairly graphic.  So if you can't handle violence, don't watch the show.

And if you can't handle the sex, grow up.  (Ahem.)

Shamim Sharif's Bookends: The World Unseen & I Can't Think Straight

Shamim Sharif is - actually, I have no idea how she identifies herself, but she has a female partner and is of Indian decent - an author who a few years ago made a couple of films starring the same women, with similar underlying stories, but in vastly different settings.

The first to be filmed was I Can't Think Straight set in, mainly, modern London. The second was The World Unseen, set in South Africa right as apartheid was getting started. Both of these films are about two women who find each other and fall in love.

I can't really speak to the experience of women of color, Arab Christians, or Muslim women, let alone people living in apartheid-era South Africa. But I pride myself on seeing as many movies about women-who-are-into-women as possible (with the exception of movies that make me want to shoot the filmmaker, such as Kate's Addiction, which I refuse to even link to), as I am a woman-who's-into-women, and there aren't enough movies about us. Certainly not enough happy movies.

I think of I Can't Think Straight and The World Unseen as a pair not only because they share the same leads - Lisa Ray and Sheetal Sheth - but also because they seem like bookends, albeit in an oppositey sort of way. That's to say that in I Can't Think Straight, the two women you want to get together are finally able to overcome society and familiar pressures and have The Sex and to work through their issue and move on from The Sex to The Relationship (it's actually a lot like Imagine Me & You, but with way more issues of race and ethnicity thrown into the mix).

In The World Unseen, it's implied (in a very Fried Green Tomatoes way - there's even a cafe!) that they get to live happily ever after... giving each other longing looks and exchanging kisses in secret.

I don't mean to simplify these movies at all. They're very deep in cultural narrative, and I enjoyed both of them a lot, for different reasons.

The World Unseen was a more polished film. It was leaps and bounds ahead of I Can't Think Straight in production values (there were a lot of weird sound issues with ICTS) and editing. It carried the weight of its Very Important Issues well, touching not only on the forbidden love between two women, but the forbidden love between a black man and a white woman, rape, extra-marital affairs, and, of course, apartheid The title is very telling of what's going on: everything, and it's behind everyone's back.

I imagine that there are more realistic stories about apartheid-era South Africa (the violence seemed relatively minimal, but maybe this is my American bias expecting more), but it was still eye-opening in a lot of ways. And the scenery was beautiful. They actually shot it down in South Africa, and the scenery added a richness and a depth to the story that I'm not sure would have been there otherwise. Long-sweeping scenes of the plain, the wind blowing Lisa ray's hair and dress out behind her as she stared into the sunset... well, it was pretty to look at, and it absolutely drove home the issues of her isolation (and Shteth's characters old truck driving up the dirt road, leaving a trail of dust behind it, shattered that isolation really well).

This isn't to say the actors weren't great. They were. Shteth and Ray have amazing chemistry together, and everyone else was pretty good too, warring between self-repression and the desire to express what they really wanted. My only problem was that I went into the story expecting more of something like ICTS and didn't get it. I got a more subtle, nuanced story that wasn't just about two women meeting and falling in love, but about so much more.

And that's not to take away from ICTS, which was a good movie in its own way. Like I said above, there were some issues with sound, editing, and production value that took me a bit out of it, but it's a movie that I've rewatched a couple of times because it's happy. I want to watch a movie where women meet, fall in love, try to fight it, have The Sex, go through the inevitable Time Apart, but then Get There in the End.

Basically, I dig it when the girl gets the girl.

ICTS isn't completely removed from political and cultural issues, however, despite essentially being a romantic comedy. In this one we've got the wealthy Christian Arab (Ray) from Jordan and the middle-class Muslim raised in London. (Sheth) The latter expresses much more conservative opinions (there's a lot of anti-semitism thrown around, but in a smart way that is countered by characters who are saying what the average Western viewer is probably thinking), but turns out to be the free spirit.

There's a lot going on on the periphery of these two women's lives, but Ray and Sheth make that not really matter. Yeah, there's the coming out process, and it's important. Yeah, there's the cultural view of same-sex relationships both by a secular Arab world and western-raised Muslims. But the chemistry between the two leads is so encompassing that you don't really notice.

And that's why I think these movies are good book ends to each other. The chronologically (set) first ends with a vague sense of unease: these women, their friends, and their world, have fifty years of apartheid to deal with. Even now, same-sex couples aren't exactly looked upon kindly in most places (interracial couples too, depending on where you are). They're together, but the veil of secrecy remains there, blowing in the warm South African winds, over everything they do.

But the end of ICTS is all about embracing love through openness. And that's pretty awesome. It's doubly awesome when you watch it with The Unseen World in mind. These women have taken quite the journey, and where they end up feels like a nice place to be.

Leslie Knope: My Favorite Feminist

NBC's Parks and Recreation returned recently to not nearly enough fanfare. It's one of the smartest shows on TV, and has been consistently good, after a rocky start, since the beginning of the second season. The entire cast is brilliant in their specific roles (Rashida Jones doesn't get enough love because she's playing the straight man to the wackiness of everyone else) and I honestly feel like the one loose end is now gone, with um... that dude... leaving. Brandanowitz. Or however that's spelled.

But the main reason I love this show is Leslie Knope. Leslie isn't like any of the other comedic leading ladies I've come to know in my life, except for one who I have vague memories of (more on that in a bit). Leslie is a feminist, and she wouldn't deny it if you said it.

Back in the nineties (remember those?) when "girl power" started floating around as a new term, and people were talking about new wave/fourth wave versions of feminism, they'd start talking about characters like Ally McBeal and Xena. More modern example are Liz Lemon or Starbuck.

Now, I remember Murphy Brown. Vaguely. I remember her journey through the male-heavy world of the news, and I remember the single mom kerfluffle when she became, well. A single mom. But I was ten. And a lot has changed in twenty years.

Right?

Well, supposedly.

See, if you call Liz Lemon a feminist, she'll probably crack a joke, freak out, then by the end of the show go on a rant about how feminism is great, it doesn't mean she's a lesbian, and she has a boyfriend, thank you very much. It's a mixed message, with a bit of what we need (a strong woman standing up for herself) and a bit of what we don't (the association of feminism with lesbianism, and the implication that both things are bad or abnormal).

If you call Leslie Knope a feminist, she'll say thank you and show you her signed copy of This Bridge Called my Back.

The thing is that there's a difference between a feminist icon and a feminist character. The former is a symbol for those of us at home, some sort of deviation (in a positive way) from the norm of the sterotypical strong male/weak female dichotomy. The latter is actually a feminist.

There aren't many of those on TV.

I love Leslie Knope because she's not an idiot (like Michael Scott, whom she is often compared to), and she cares about her community. And while it annoys her that she's single and makes her sad that she's lonely, it doesn't rule her life. I love Leslie because she's got a picture of Madeline Albright in her office (who, herself, looked up to Xena). I love Leslie because she's got civic pride and liberal pride and because she's completely and one hundred percent aware that sexism still exists (right along with racism, homophobia, classism, etc.) and she wants to do something about it.

My all-time favorite moment of Parks and Rec comes in the "Hunting Trip" episode. Leslie has managed to finally get herself invited to the "boys only" hunting trip, and brings the rest of the female cast with her. It's a premise that starts with the ridiculousness of someone who doesn't even like to hunt getting invited only because he's a dude, and builds from there to brilliantly and bitingly showcase the very real sexism that women still face every single day.

And then someone gets shot. Please enjoy one of the (arguably, and I'll argue it) single most feminist moments on television in the last thirty years.

I love you, Leslie Knope.

Greetings, programs. TRON: Legacy Review.

I have been waiting for TRON: Legacy since I was old enough to know that movies had sequels. I've been nervously eying news about it since it was called TRON 2.0 or, worse, TR2N. I've had a google alert running for well over a year, slowly bringing me more and more news about the casting, development, filming, soundtrack, etc. etc. as each day passes.

To say I went in with expectations would be an understatement.

Still, as a fan of comics, I've gotten very very good at separating one iteration of something from another (a useful skill for things like I, Robot, I am Legend, and various other movies with Will Smith that start with both I and other letters).

So let's begin with my Twitter reviews posted last night:

Okay. Initial verdict: it was a pretty movie, not satisfying as a TRON sequel but totally satisfying on its own. #tronlegacy

I'm not just saying this because I follow her on twitter: @oliviawilde's character was definitely the most interesting (big picture-wise).

And a bit of a test on your SAT skills:

JJ Abrams Trek : Star Trek :: TRON Legacy : TRON

Yes, my iPhone has learned to correct Tron and tron as TRON.

I know that they keep saying TL is not a re-imagining, but a sequel. Honestly, as a fan of the original, it's much easier to think of it as a re-imagining akin to Star Trek XI. The things happening in this movie exist in a parallel world to those of the original, and yay everyone's happy.

'Cause, really, as a movie it's a lot of fun. It's beautiful to watch (I saw it non-IMAX 3D), the plot has holes but is saved by certain characters and actors, and the ending until the last sixty seconds is both satisfying and open-ended enough for a potential sequel. It remains open-ended during those last sixty seconds, but... well. I can't even tell you what it is a direct rip from, or it'll be some heavy spoilers (actually, I guessed it anyway about two days ago, but I'm trying to refrain from spoilers here).

So Sam Flynn is the cranky son of genius Kevin Flynn, whose ability to program video games and get digitized by an evil computer program have also imbued him with the ability to be a really good executive at Encom. Flynn the Elder disappears and Flynn the Younger grows up with various father figures and a big, archetypal chip on his shoulder that includes parkour skills, outrunning the police while his dad's old Ducati, having tons of money but drinking Coors Light, living in a swank bachelor pad, and pulling genius pranks on the company he now owns.

And then it gets interesting, because he gets digitized too.

There are a lot of questions that pop up for a fan of the original. Flynn yuppied out? Who's Sam's mom? Why won't Alan get contact lenses? WTF is Cillian Murphy doing at Encom? [Sshh, he's playing a completely inexplicable character that apparently exists as a shout-out to the original, which isn't really needed in the sea of other shout outs... but I hope they use him in the sequel.]

Who decided programs should have hair?

Luckily most of these questions can be answered by remembering that we're in an alternate universe where Nero has come through and changed history and not in the universe of the first TRON.

Flynn the Elder has basically become a cross between Gandalf the White and The Dude, which is absolutely fine because Jeff Bridges can pull that off in a heartbeat. He's not as adept at pulling off the bad guy, until the bad guy's real motivations are revealed. His origins are revealed in cut-scene flashbacks, some with animation lifted directly from Tron: Evolution, the video game that is supposed to bridge the gap between films (but is mostly just a digital version of Assassin's Creed 1).

The motion capture animation that made Jeff Bridges a younger Flynn the Elder was pretty neat. It wasn't perfect, but it was good enough that I bought Clu as a character. It helped that he was supposed to be a computer generated character, quite literally. And, overall, I have to say that this was a gorgeous film to watch. The world was exactly as beautiful as all of the released footage made me think it would be, but on a larger scale. I have absolutely no complaints whatsoever about the visuals of this movie, aside from the film's insistence on relying on physics that it doesn't need: evident in the first disc game, when gravity shifts and the camera inexplicably doesn't, something that looks particularly sloppy in the world after Inception.

The enemy's gate is down, guys.

The plot had its share of archetypes, tropes and holes. I won't go into too many here, because I really don't want to spoil the parts of the plot that were interesting and good, but Sam Flynn was pretty much the worst protagonist since - actually, I can't think of a protagonist I have disliked as much in the past. This isn't a comment on Garrett Hedlund; he was just fine in the role he was given. It's that Sam as written was unlikeable, stereotypical, and grating.

Until I stopped thinking of him as the protagonist.

Joseph Kosinski said in one of the many many interviews I read that TL was the story of two sons, and the TRON world let him tell that story in a new way. It wasn't and it was, but if you think of it as offspring and they are Clu and Quorra, and Sam is just the plot device that is being used to move you to the real characters - Clu, Quorra, and Flynn the Elder - then Sam is fine. He serves his purpose and does it just fine, with a bit of yelping and inexplicable martial arts skills.

And that's where Tron: Legacy gets good. The story isn't about Sam at all, so the fact that he's unlikable is something that can easily be ignored. As easily as James Frain's (love that guy) weird sycophant.

Olivia Wilde inhabits Quorra well, which is nice to write. I'm a fan of hers and Quorra is something different than her usual world-weary characters. She's naive, full of life and hope, and even though her shoulder-cut outfit makes even less sense when you watch the movie, she holds her own against the majority male cast.

The only other female character of note turns out to be exactly what you think she's going to be, and it's not a positive portrayal. But it was nice to see Beau Garrett have a larger role than I expected, and every movie needs its femme fatale. Well, no it doesn't, but screenwriters seem to think so.

All in all, the actors are fine. But what do you expect from the likes of Michael Sheen and Jeff Bridges? There's a reason they're big name actors that win awards: they're good at what they do. Garrett Hedlund does exactly what he needs to, and Michael Sheen is a lot of fun.

The main issue I had was that we're supposed to believe that Flynn created all of these programs. No one but a user can create programs, they can only repurpose or derezz them. So where does the free will come from? This was a question in the first movie, but because of the plot of this one it becomes even more of an issue.

But the plot isn't really the point of TRON: Legacy. The point is that it's a pretty movie with pretty people and a perfect soundtrack (many kudos to Daft Punk, who won me over with their gorgeous, ambient soundtrack and score, despite my love for Wendy Carlos) and it tells a familiar story well enough to be satisfying on its own. It's exactly what I want from typical Hollywood big-budget movies and even though it has the TRON name on it, it's better on its own as its own movie.

Go see it. If you're reading this blog, you're the the type that will enjoy it. Or hate it and comment here and tell me why. Either way...

End of line.

Queer in Albion: Fable 3 Playthrough One [and a half] Review

Author's Admission of Idiocy: Uh, I figured out how to adopt without giving the orphanage money as the monarch. So that basically makes 2/3 of the following entry pointless. Leaving it up anyway, because I always enjoy revisiting my ignorant indignation. [11/10/10]



As I get a bit less immersed in comics (mostly because I let myself go crazy and started collecting too many titles and am now nearly-broke), I'm going to start writing about other things that take my time up. So here's the first one about video games. Enjoy, and I'd love to hear what you think.

Warning: This review/commentary/rambling will most definitely contain spoilers to the main storyline (and probably several of the sidequests) of the recently-released Fable 3. So don't read it if you don't want to be spoiled. The end!


Alright, I got Fable 3 the day it released. I'm a huge fan of the Fable series and see them as sort of a spiritual descendant of the Zelda games. They're ridiculously easy to play, but very immersive and with a good fantasy-era storyline. Instead of adding stupid 3D control styles (I haven't really enjoyed a Zelda game since "Ocarina of Time"), they introduce choice and customization and keep the fighting simple.

As with the Mass Effect games (which I intend to discuss later), most of the marketing showcases the male player-character. But as of Fable 2, there's also been a female choice. And along with that female choice comes all sorts of neat ways to customize your character. She can wear men's clothes (there's even an achievement for this), she can wear facial hair, she can marry another lady... but in Fable 2, a same-sex marriage (whether with males or females) meant no kids.

Fable 3 changed that with the introduction of adoption.

Except... not really.

Before I get into that, I would like to say that I'd give this game a 7/10 for a lot of reasons. The world is large and interesting, the continuation of the world of Albion into a steampunk type place on the brink of violent revolution is interesting, and the Road to Rule is a way better way of customizing than having to earn specific orbs for skills. But I found the main storyline abrupt in its ending (at least on the first play through) and the moral of the story was that the good leader is still the bad leader. I'm not sure how I feel about that at this point.

Still, for any fan of the Fable series, it's a great game and definitely worth more (with money-to-play ratio) than the other game I got the same day, which was Force Unleashed 2.

General Thoughts on the Game
And now, just to make this a quasi-legit review, here's my breakdown of improvements versus, um. Unimprovments (TM) between Fable 2 and Fable 3:

Improvements:

• The Road to Rule. It's nice not to have to kill enemies in a certain way to be guaranteed an upgrade in that particular class, and I'm glad to have all the dyes and expressions in one area. Makes it easier to customize my character without hunting all over the place.
  
• Weapon customization based on actions, instead of total body customization. No more disgusting evil characters. I've often said that evil would look fairly pretty.
  
• The Sanctuary. Way better GUI for all your options than just the plain old start menu.
• The gnomes. Way easier to find than those damn stupid gargoyles.
• Job upgrades via the Road to Rule instead of through gold earned.
• Multiplayer. Seems easier than before, though I'll admit that I haven't really gotten into it yet.
• Using the map to manage properties, families, etc.
  

Things I miss:

• The expression wheel. I've got all these expressions, let me choose different ones!
• The ability to hold multiple types of food. If I want to get drunk I have to get rid of my carrots? Hell no!
• Black dye. I hear it's in an upcoming DLC. Bring it on, yo.
• The economy. I don't find shopping or trading to be as useful as I did before, particularly because you can only give gifts when they're specifically requested and because there are now only a few places where you can sell your items.
  

New things I could live without/things I'd like to see:

• The Big Bad. I hope there's a Fable 4 to resolve all that. It seems sort of, like I said, abrupt. Maybe I'll catch more as I complete my second playthrough.
  
• No integration of Fable 2 game saves. I know it's possible, since ME2 does it. My hero of the Spire was a woman, why is the previous hero a king and not a queen?
• Relationship quests. Snore.
• Why can't I set my spouse as a target? She's a pain to find in Bowerstone Industrial.
  

Having Kids in Albion: Where does the pollen go?

So. Kids. Let me tell you a bit about my first playthrough of the game. I chose the princess, who was forced to wear pink, bow-covered pajamas and flirt with some dude during the prologue. I usually make my first playthrough a good character, so the dude ended up dying and as soon as I was out in the world, I got my princess into some better clothes. Men's clothes.

I got married to the first lesbian character I could find, which was a pain in the ass (interestingly, now that I'm playing through as a male I'm having trouble finding straight women). I did it just to see what would happen. I was exploring the social aspects of the game as I ran through the main storyline (and some sidequests, which also forced opposite sex relations on me, such as seducing the bad husband in "A Marriage of Inconvenience").

So we got married in a nice ceremony on a bridge somewhere, and then I tried to figure out how to adopt kids. No luck. I made it to Bowerstone Industrial, where the orphanage apparently was, completed the quest to save the people who ran it, and... nothing.

Not until I became queen. By then I'd divorced my first wife and married someone hotter, because, hey. It's good to the the princess (that's a Mel Brooks reference, btw). I had to wait until half a year into my rule to decide to open the orphanage.

What?

So a heterosexual couple can have babies whenever, but a same-sex couple has to wait until the game is almost over. This honestly isn't much of an improvement. Not to mention that you can't adopt babies, only toddlers.

But the worst part of this, besides the delay, is that you make money from having kids. There's some sort of kid benefit (which later on you can abolish or increase) that a heterosexual couple can start collecting basically right after you open up Brightwall. A same-sex couple doesn't have access to that until, well. It might already be gone. It's at least 10 hours more into the game, though.

This sort of detracts from the the whole "you can choose whatever you want" idea behind the series. It penalizes you, literally, for choosing to marry someone of the same-sex. I'm not disappointed, really, because Lionhead has been so good about this kind of thing since day one. It's hard to say something this minor (relatively) could ruin the whole game for me. And it didn't, I still enjoyed the game.

But now I'm playing through as the prince, and it's a whole different world. I've got kids in every port, and I'm raking in the cash.

I also find, incidentally, that I prefer to play as males. I could get into my theories on my gender identity as expressed through games, but I think it comes down to the fact that males just look cooler (in a totally subjective way) in most of the games I choose to play. The only exception, really, is Mass Effect. In that one, I only chose a male!Shep so I could sleep with Miranda in ME2.

I'm shallow like that.