Funcom has stressed the point that their goal in 'Age of Conan' was to make female playable characters in Hyboria just as strong and able as any man, because, let's face it, it wouldn't be fun to play a female character that is completely Conan lore-accurate. In a game like that, a female character would be endlessly "lfg" ("looking for group"), be "perma-feared" (a constant state of fear, i.e. "status effect"), and constantly telling the male members of their group, "You go first!" Thus it's great that women are going to be just as able and strong as men in 'Age of Conan', but as eluded to in the opening paragraph, we know that men and women are distinct in their own strengths and abilities. So in a game that's aiming for "magical realism", how real can Funcom make this game?
It has been argued especially over the last week on the official 'Age of Conan' community forums that these differences between men and women should be iterated in the game. For example (and please keep in mind I'm being very general here and so I apologise in advance if this comes across as being sexist or chauvinistic - that's not my intention), men are generally physically stronger, so their base statistics (Strength rating) should be inherently higher than a female's. On the flip side, females are generally more flexible and agile, so this also should be reflected in their base statistics with an inherently higher Agility and or Dexterity rating. But why stop there? It has been scientifically proven that, on average, a man's brain size is larger than that of a woman's, so that could be a suggestion that men are more intelligent and perhaps are deserving of an inherently higher Intelligence rating than that of a female character, but at the same time, women are practical thinkers and in general are more creative, so perhaps that's a suggestion that female characters are deserving of a higher Wisdom rating than that of a male character. But why stop there? Men, in general, are favoured more towards lines of work that involve the craft, that is, hammer, wood, nails, etc., so male characters should receive an inherent bonus to crafting abilities, but then again, women, in general, are favoured more towards lines of work that involve numbers and macro-management, so female characters should receive an inherent bonus to trade and mercantile skills. Can you see how ridiculous this is getting?
The point I'm trying to get across here is that "realism", or as precise as you can make it, does not translate particularly well in the MMO setting. What you would get as a result of "realism" are players who would favour a particular gender over the other because it is more suited for a specific role in-game. Let's look at the Rogue archetype, for example. Traditionally, rogues are known for their agility, dexterity, and ability to get out of a tight situation without relying [too much] on brute force; they would rather rely on their skill, nimbleness, and cunning to overcome an opponent, overcome an obstacle, or make a getaway if necessary. Using the "rules" set in the previous paragraph, you would find more players playing as female rogues simply because the gender is better suited to the role, but that's not to say male rogues would be useless, no, but not as effective, and what gamer today would settle for something that's only second best or under the benchmark? We, of course, want to experience things are their fullest potential, and so the "cookie-cutter" or "FOTM" ("flavour of the month") build concepts comes into play and what we're left with, eventually, is something predictable, recycled, and unimaginative. But of course, and thankfully, not everyone goes down this path, but why create the potential for it to happen in the first place?
