Brink : No Girls Allowed

[distended]

Only if one ignores the fact that character models are usually a high-priority item, and argues that cutting half of one's character models is not an inherently bad move.

Well, arguably, cutting anything that's optional from a game is inherently a bad move. No one's saying that less character models is a good thing. And just being high priority (I freely admitted it's one of the "more important customization features") doesn't mean it's a given that it won't be cut. And it's only a high priority relative to other customization options. I would imagine customization as a whole is given a very low priority in an FPS, where things like gameplay, balance, guns, etc. are much more likely to make or break a game.

Is your beef here that there are half as many character models as there could be or that the half that are missing are the female ones? I'm sorry if you've already stated this but I haven't seen you make the distinction in recent posts and I'm not going to read through 21 pages.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

And it's only a high priority relative to other customization options. I would imagine customization as a whole is given a very low priority in an FPS, where things like gameplay, balance, guns, etc. are much more likely to make or break a game.

Is your beef here that there are half as many character models as there could be or that the half that are missing are the female ones? I'm sorry if you've already stated this but I haven't seen you make the distinction in recent posts and I'm not going to read through 21 pages.

Okay, let's see: You're claiming that character models (which are a basic feature of a game like this) are a high priority, but only compared to other customization options. The trouble with that logic is that in this case, other customization options were considered a higher priority than character models. They cut female models and added in...well, my hypothetical "more hats."

And generally, character modeling is handled by its own specific team. (Sure, you can argue that Splash Damage is a small company. But no company that can make a game as sophisticated as Brink at all is exactly struggling.)

One could certainly argue that they'd have had to cut their customization (read: clothing/hairstyle/tattoo choices) in half to allow for female characters. In fact, people have been arguing just that. Hell, that was the first excuse Splash Damage came up with (before they started complaining that female models are difficult). The trouble is that by excluding female characters, they've already cut their customization in half--and in a much more blatant way.

And while we're at it, the fact that they made excuses doesn't justify it. Excuses are like...I'm gonna be polite and say "armpits." If anything, it's insult to injury.

 

[distended]

Right, but say adding female models would have taken 100 hours, and that adding a bunch of hats and tattoos would take 10 hours. If we're going with their excuse of limited resources, maybe they only had 20 or so hours to spend on customization. The point being, it's possible that adding hats and frills is much cheaper than creating new character models, which would obviously factor into the decision of what to leave out of the game.

And while we're at it, the fact that they made excuses doesn't justify it. Excuses are like...I'm gonna be polite and say "armpits." If anything, it's insult to injury.

Well, it was your idea a few posts ago to entertain their excuse that resources were limited. That's all I'm doing.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Right, but say adding female models would have taken 100 hours, and that adding a bunch of hats and tattoos would take 10 hours. If we're going with their excuse of limited resources, maybe they only had 20 or so hours to spend on customization. The point being, it's possible that adding hats and frills is much cheaper than creating new character models, which would obviously factor into the decision of what to leave out of the game.

But if "customization" is the name of the game, female models should be just as much of a priority as male models. Full-stop. No excuses.

Well, it was your idea a few posts ago to entertain their excuse that resources were limited. That's all I'm doing.

But I wasn't really "entertaining their excuse." Their excuse is ridiculous [http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=2027]. I was simply acknowledging that they were making excuses.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

But if "customization" is the name of the game, female models should be just as much of a priority as male models. Full-stop. No excuses.

Well, it was your idea a few posts ago to entertain their excuse that resources were limited. That's all I'm doing.

But I wasn't really "entertaining their excuse." Their excuse is ridiculous [http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=2027]. I was simply acknowledging that they were making excuses.

Except thats a damn good excuse.
Asking the Brink devs to make female models with their own sets of options for pretty much everything would be like asking say Bungie to have 1000 player matches in their next game, for instance.

I see what you mean, but put it this way;
Would anyone really like the look of female avatars in the games style? Furthermore, you can be a 'heavy' bodytype.
Who's gonna wanna see a female heavy?

Just, seriously.
How much of a game is affected by the absence of female characters? Why should it even matter?
It just isn't an issue, but feel free to try and give me a good reason why it is.

 

[distended]

But if "customization" is the name of the game, female models should be just as much of a priority as male models. Full-stop. No excuses.

Well that's your opinion, which are a lot like excuses... which are a lot like armpits as you put it.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Except thats a damn good excuse.
Asking the Brink devs to make female models with their own sets of options for pretty much everything would be like asking say Bungie to have 1000 player matches in their next game, for instance.

Heaven forbid video game developers have to do any more work on character models in their oh-so-customizable game, right?

Seriously, read that article: That excuse fails, always has fail, and always will fail. It comes down to "female models are a lower priority than male models, and that's how it should be."

I see what you mean, but put it this way;
Would anyone really like the look of female avatars in the games style? Furthermore, you can be a 'heavy' bodytype.
Who's gonna wanna see a female heavy?

...oh, you did not just go there. Female characters aren't worth it unless they conform to your standards for eye candy, right? (In before Godwin.)

Just, seriously.
How much of a game is affected by the absence of female characters? Why should it even matter?
It just isn't an issue, but feel free to try and give me a good reason why it is.

Because even if one doesn't argue that it's sexist (and I've been trying very, very hard to not play that card)? Not only are they half-assing one of the major selling points of their game, but they're trotting out the oldest, weakest excuse in the book to try to justify the unjustifiable.

Well that's your opinion, which are a lot like excuses... which are a lot like armpits as you put it.

"Well, that's your opinion" is about the weakest come-back in the book. Just saying.

 

[Super Happy Cow]

Are there any other next gen character artists here besides myself that find it laughable at how easy and inexpensive people seem to believe it is to create severely customizable characters?

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Are there any other next gen character artists here besides myself that find it laughable at how easy and inexpensive people seem to believe it is to create severely customizable characters?

So who said it was "easy?"

The argument has never been that it's "easy." The argument is that, considering how important character models are to begin with and how much Splash has bragged about its customization, female models should have been just as high of a priority as male models.

But apparently, half of an omfghuge character customization system is "deeper" than a complete one that's possibly somewhat less omfghuge. Because that's what it's got right now: half of a character customization system.

 

[Lukeydoodly]

Who gives a shit about something like that?

Pathetic.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Who gives a shit about something like that?

Well, a game company trying to sell its game on "customization" certainly should.

Pathetic.

Yes, releasing a game when one of its main selling points is only half-done is pretty pathetic. We know.

 

[Super Happy Cow]

Are there any other next gen character artists here besides myself that find it laughable at how easy and inexpensive people seem to believe it is to create severely customizable characters?

So who said it was "easy?"

The argument has never been that it's "easy." The argument is that, considering how important character models are to begin with and how much Splash has bragged about its customization, female models should have been just as high of a priority as male models. Because apparently, half of an omfghuge character customization is "deeper" than a complete, if possibly somewhat less, omfghuge one.

Being a next gen character artist, I can tell you that having a pipeline where you have to create assets that fit 3 different bodytypes, and two different sexes, while maintaining clothing customization, decent rigs, and animations would be incredibly expensive compared to picking one of the two sexes. It's definitely reasonable that you would pick one of the two sexes.

I don't think there's any need to start a civil rights movement about it. Granted, the logic that a customization game that touts customization should have as much as possible. On the other hand, flipping your shit over it is way overkill. If you've been to any 3D art forums you'll know that there are at least as many female characters as there are male characters showcased for review, so it's definitely not a sexism thing.

It's just the only bottom line there ever was.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Being a next gen character artist, I can tell you that having a pipeline where you have to create assets that fit 3 different bodytypes, and two different sexes, while maintaining clothing customization, decent rigs, and animations would be incredibly expensive compared to picking one of the two sexes. It's definitely reasonable that you would pick one of the two sexes.

You know...everyone's an expert on the Interwebs. I could claim to be a next-gen character artist myself, tell you that you're talking out the back of your neck, and announce that you must be operating on the notion that female characters in video games have to be horrible pin-up caricatures with plenty of jiggle physics.

But I'm honest. I'm just someone who did some amateur 3D modeling back in the day. So I won't.

I'll just say this: No, if you're selling your game on customization, there is nothing "reasonable" about as basic a component of that as half of your character models being the first thing in line for the axe. (As an artist yourself, you should know that game companies have separate teams for character design. And again: no company making games as sophisticated as Brink is that strapped for cash.)

I don't think there's any need to start a civil rights movement about it. Granted, the logic that a customization game that touts customization should have as much as possible. On the other hand, flipping your shit over it is way overkill. If you've been to any 3D art forums you'll know that there are at least as many female characters as there are male characters showcased for review, so it's definitely not a sexism thing.

That's nice. But "there are female characters on 3D art forums" does not add up to "Splash did not, in fact, chop out half of one of Brink's big selling point, then make lame excuses for it."

It's just the only bottom line there ever was.

...what is that even supposed to mean?

 

[distended]

"Well, that's your opinion" is about the weakest come-back in the book. Just saying.

Lol, sorry, I didn't realize we were in a "yo mama, one up the other guy" type argument. And despite being a "weak come-back," it's the truth. You can't express any part of your argument without using the word "should" or some qualifier that is entirely based on your personal values. It's possible to have extensive customization in a game without having gender as an option. The devs, the ads, the marketing team... no one ever said you'd be able to play as a female. That's a turnoff to you and some other people... so don't buy the game. Organize a boycott, start a task force, raise awareness on the internet and in your community, do what you want.

I suddenly find myself wondering what we're even debating here. You wish that the female option had been included in the game and you feel that the devs' excuses for why they didn't are lame. Am I missing anything?

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Lol, sorry, I didn't realize we were in a "yo mama, one up the other guy" type argument.

Neither did I, until you went for "well, that's your opinion."

And despite being a "weak come-back," it's the truth. You can't express any part of your argument without using the word "should" or some qualifier that is entirely based on your personal values.

Splash's professional ethics don't count. Gotcha.

It's possible to have half of what could otherwise be extensive customization in a game without having gender as an option.

Fixed that for you. If there's only one gender, it's half of a customization system.

The devs, the ads, the marketing team... no one ever said you'd be able to play as a female. That's a turnoff to you and some other people... so don't buy the game. Organize a boycott, start a task force, raise awareness on the internet and in your community, do what you want.

Oh, you mean exactly what's going on here (your exaggerations aside)?

I suddenly find myself wondering what we're even debating here. You wish that the female option had been included in the game and you feel that the devs' excuses for why they didn't are lame. Am I missing anything?

The part where people are toting Splash's sedan chair and mocking/trying to shout down everyone who calls bullshit on their excuses.

 

[distended]

If there's only one gender, it's half of a customization system.

It might be half of the customization system you've envisioned, but it's 100% of their customization system. But I guess your opin... er... what you think constitutes a customization system trumps what anyone else thinks.

Anyway, how have they been unethical? By lying about their reasons for leaving female character models out? If so, why would they lie? What are they hiding? If otherwise, please elaborate.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

It might be half of the customization system you've envisioned, but it's 100% of their customization system.

In other words: they did it; therefore, there must be nothing wrong with it.

But I guess your opin... er... what you think constitutes a customization system trumps what anyone else thinks.

Considering that "my opinion" is shared by...well, every game company that bothers with actual customization? Yeah, I'd say it trumps apologists for a company playing the "resources" card in this day and age.

Anyway, how have they been unethical? By lying about their reasons for leaving female character models out? If so, why would they lie? What are they hiding? If otherwise, please elaborate.

Just read this [http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/brink-no-girls-allowed]. Specifically, this bit, by the blogger, in the comments:

I've talked to dozens of people about this issue, and it always boils down to the same thing. Regardless of whatever technical reason is being given for why having females "couldn?t" be done, the bottom line is that it could have been done if the Brink team had thought it was important enough.

Or are you going to claim to be some sort of expert with some inside knowledge?

 

[distended]

Or are you going to claim to be some sort of expert with some inside knowledge?

No, you've indrectly done enough of that for everyone in this thread.

The entire point of that blogger's post is what I suspected your entire argument was about, but that you've been too shy to admit for some reason. Anyway have fun with your civil rights movement. I'm sure you and yours will knock Rosa Parks right out of the history books.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

No, you've indrectly done enough of that for everyone in this thread.

The hell I have.

The entire point of that blogger's post is what I suspected your entire argument was about, but that you've been too shy to admit for some reason.

You can "suspect" whatever you want. Some people might believe that game companies are actively hostile towards women; I'd rather believe that they just still actually think "girls don't play video games," and therefore think no one will give a damn if they cut female characters.

But no matter what you call it, there's no real justification for it unless you do break out the "girls don't play video games" excuse. Which, whether or not it's sexist, is clueless.

Anyway have fun with your civil rights movement. I'm sure you and yours will knock Rosa Parks right out of the history books.

I'm sure you think that was witty.

 

[DeadProxy]

For a game that "claims" to be customizable...it's pretty fucking customizable regardless that it has female characters or not. Using that as a major argument point is beyond rediculous becase without women, theres still billions and trillions (according to them) of combinations. What the hell would it take to please you people?(obvioulsy rethorical)

"Theres over 104 quadrillion combonations!"-brink
-"but no women?"-complainers
"Well, no, but,theres plenty of other choises for you."-brink
-"No tits to stare at, im sorry but im not going to give your game the time of day"-complainers

That is what youre saying, in a game that boasts and delivers the highest customizability EVER (not researching, using " in my opinion" card), thats STILL not enough for you?