All hail Phasmal. Down with pixel dicks. Up with pixel boobs!Phasmal said:Vigormortis said:It shall be done.Lightknight said:
Feminists next target; Battlefield 1.
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes I know. I *gasp* exaggerated.erttheking said:
Link could be female. But the creators said that he is a boy. Regardless of their crappy reasoning, that should have been the end of it. Why isn't Link a girl, because he's a boy. Period. End of story. There are better ways of putting a female playable character into a Zelda game....like maybe playing as Zelda?
And to be fair. You brought up a list of mostly indie titles, right? Dust, Bastion, Braid, etc. These are games with a very limited budget and a very narrow scope to apply that budget to. Take Bastion as an example. The narrator alone would take a big chunk of change to adapt simply to add a "she" into, or simply remove all references to "he" and keep only "kid" as reference. Plus the programing, art, and animations for a different main character. Combine all that with the fact that the Bastion people made the main character of their very next game a female! Transistor.
Some of the situations with these games are admittedly a little weird. Rust, being the prime example of that.
But Wolf Among Us? Really? I mean considering Telltale's Walking Dead had Clemintine, and the girls from Tales From the Borderlands, I don't see why it would have ever been an issue. Oh wait, my exaggeration! These games have women playable character so why can't this other completely unrelated game?
Prince of Persia would have to be Princess of Persia I suppose.
The Doom marine could have been a chick. No voice over, no nothing. Aside from the naked part at the beginning, you couldn't tell otherwise save for a few grunts I guess.
Sports games, are a little weird right. I mean NBA I get, because there is the WNBA so why not have a section in an NBA game where you can play the female side. NFL is a bit harder because I don't believe there is a professional female football league, although I do remember a lingerie football league when I was younger.
But there are some sports games that already do this. WWE games, UFC games, etc.
In games where the demand for a female character either makes contextual sense and/or is reasonable for the developer to make it happen, I am all for that.
A lot of times, to me at least, it feels like the playable female character is arbitrary. Demanded for the sake of demanding it, with little to no reasonable context. "Put it in there, because we said so." Kind of deals.
That's just from where I am sitting. I look around and I see female playable characters all over the place. So I get confused to where the problem actually is.
My experience with game developers(not just DICE) wanting to include optional, female playable characters in "historically accurate" games:
Game dev: So, we realise that women are going to play our games, so we'll be including the option to play as a woman.
Vocal gamer: [/i]NO! Muh historical accuracy! Evil sjw's ruining our games![/i]
Game dev:So, we thought we'd spice up our game a bit with some zombies/vampires/werewolves/aliens/magic/whatever.
Vocal gamer: Awesome! Take my money!
From what I hear, BF1 is already straying fair far from being "historically accurate", so I wouldn't really see anything wrong with including the option to play female soldiers.
Game dev: So, we realise that women are going to play our games, so we'll be including the option to play as a woman.
Vocal gamer: [/i]NO! Muh historical accuracy! Evil sjw's ruining our games![/i]
Game dev:So, we thought we'd spice up our game a bit with some zombies/vampires/werewolves/aliens/magic/whatever.
Vocal gamer: Awesome! Take my money!
From what I hear, BF1 is already straying fair far from being "historically accurate", so I wouldn't really see anything wrong with including the option to play female soldiers.
Can....can we have both? Can we be 'up' with both? At the same time?Lightknight said:
What? Don't look at me like that.
Pot calling the kettle black. Where did I say the world "Problematic." You put it in quotations, meaning you were attributing it to me. Also, I didn't say it was problematic in of itself, again, kind of funny that you consider me to be strawmaning when you pull that. What I said was them wearing fetishwear when they're rank and file while they're henchmen. I thought it was plainly obvious why, because then you're killing them. And if you want women in sexy outfits while you're killing them...do I really have to point out how some people take issue with that? People didn't notice them? Couple of problems with that conclusion. One. The minions in Bioshock dress very differently. Two. In Sunless Sea you don't actually see them, just read about them in flavor text. Three, there are clearly female voices in Mass Effect and they are noticeably skinnier, plus many of them are clearly Asari. Four in these games the gender ratio is very even, I'd even argue that Sunless Sea has more women dying then men. Five...well we're talking about minions. Of course they're hostile. What does that have to do with anything?Stewie Plisken said:
How about the part where it was clearly designed for function. Design trumps individual interpretation when it comes to game design. A flashlight is designed for lighting up dark areas, but you can just as easily used as a dildo. People can argue that it's a sex toy in the same way you can argue that the raider uniform is fetishware. You're still not going to see it at any sex stores, nor were they designed to use that one.
TLDR; I don't care if someone jacks off to a raider uniform, it isn't fetish wear. So I guess I say it isn't fetishwear. Me and the British Army.
Isn't there a faction in the Saint's Row games where all the gang members dress in fetish outfits, men and women alike.erttheking said:
Also.....Everything is a Dildo, if you're brave enough.
I know. I called it hyperbole. And if you can't get across your argument without exaggerating, it doesn't reflect well on what you're trying to advocate.CritialGaming said:
They said that he was a boy because the Triforce of Wisdom wouldn't accept a girl, or something to that effect. The power of the gods, the FEMALE gods, is apparently sexist. If they're going to spew out a cock and bull story like that, they nave no right to complain when there's a backlash.
You said every game. Not AAA games. Every game. And you brought up Cupheads, which is also an indie game. So indie games are fair play as far as I'm concerned. Yes it would...and why would any of this stop people from complaining? Yes, a female character did show up. Yet in the years between Bastion and Transistor, no one complained about the lack of female characters in Bastion.
You seem to be missing the point. Throughout your entire post. I was responding to you saying that ALL games get backlash for a lack of representation. You said that you were exaggerating, but honestly you're more making a mountain out of a molehill. You brought up three examples of a push for a female character, two of which being games with constantly changing protagonists, so why CAN'T there be a female lead, and I brought up dozens of counter examples. There is barely any of a push for female characters in every game.
Haven't played it, but it wouldn't put it past it. That makes it, what, one of the three AAA games that puts both genders in fetishwear and not just women while men get real uniforms?CritialGaming said:
Wait, what? How can you have a WW1 game without two thirds of the freakin Triple Entente?! That's like having a WWII game without Germany.Gekidami said:
Okay right I was exaggerating.erttheking said:
Let me not do that.
Can we agree that not every game has to have female main/playable characters in it?
Can we not also agree that there are a ton of games where there are female playable characters? Now I'm not talking about HOW the women are represented, I'm just saying that they ARE there regardless of portrayal. So we can agree on that right?
Then why is there so much trouble when a company backs out of female playable characters?
Ignore the stupidity of their reasons.
Let's just say for Zelda they simply said, "We didn't want to make Link a woman."
And for battlefield they simply said, "What's a woman?" (I kid obviously)
But ignoring the shitty excuses, why is the pullout of a female character so big of a deal when there are literally countless other games which allow female playable characters?
Yes, not every game has to, but no one was arguing that.CritialGaming said:
There are some, but not an overwhelming about. There could always be more. We've come far, we've still got a ways to go.
Because they made a promise they couldn't follow through on. That's not a gender thing, that's just something you don't do. Look at Mighty No 9
No, their reasons are too stupid to ignore.
Well...they didn't.
Again. Because when devs promise something, players come to want it, and taking back something you promised is an asshole move.
Yeah, letting there be female combatants in multiplayer because there were very few female combatants in the war would completely destroy any sense of historical accuracy.
I mean, it's not like I'm going to be using bandages to heal myself from the damage taken from mustard gas, strap on my armor plate, grab my incredibly rare Mexican semi-auto rifle and go shoot down that Zeppelin that's flying within rifle distance for some reason.
Historical Accuracy!
Side note: I am actually interested in this game. This reasoning is bollocks though. "Balances the Triforce" and "Breaths through her skin" bollocks.
I mean, it's not like I'm going to be using bandages to heal myself from the damage taken from mustard gas, strap on my armor plate, grab my incredibly rare Mexican semi-auto rifle and go shoot down that Zeppelin that's flying within rifle distance for some reason.
Historical Accuracy!
Side note: I am actually interested in this game. This reasoning is bollocks though. "Balances the Triforce" and "Breaths through her skin" bollocks.
You are correct. We've gone 5 pages arguing about a thing that's merely predicted to happen.Setec Astronomy said:
You mean, until it's every game right?erttheking said:
Then there literally couldn't be more.
I get the taking back of things. But to be fair Zelda never promised a female Link, they only ever said they would look into it and everybody jumped the gun.
This Battlefield thing has become very convoluted in this thread, and I don't have time to look up and see if they ever actually promised women in the game, so I admittedly can't say anything further, thus the hyperbole.
God Mighty no. 9 made sad.
Oh don't be like that. I was trying to be generous by saying that there could be more. That was the most soft hearted way that I could put that, at best, 20% of games let you play as a women and that's not really a lot.CritialGaming said:
The problem people have with that is that it's a compromise between wanting a female character and Zelda never getting her own freaking game, and the fact that most of the anger comes from Nintendo putting their foot in their mouths, making it look like they're run by idiots.
Well they did. And this convoluted nature was mainly caused by people launching a per-emptive strike against feminists. So...yeah.
I apologize in advance if anyone already linked you:Stewie Plisken said:
It's actually still a problem today. The UK articles are from 2002 however. But the ban on women in the front line for the same reasoning has only just been lifted, I can't say for sure if that attitude is one that persists back to WW1 and further, but presumably so.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16680097-not-so-fast-women-on-frontlines-distracting-say-critics?lite
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1395053/Women-banned-from-front-line-as-a-dangerous-distraction.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2880029/Girl-soldiers-fight-frontline-2016-senior-officers-warn-allowing-women-infantry-tank-regiments-mistake.html
Today at least, it's less of an jab against women, and more that men are a bit crap at keeping their focus away from women, in that it may cause them to do more reckless things to cover a comrade. Of course I have no doubt that the attitude of women not being fit for combat also existed, but it was more about not wanting to subject them to war and men not focusing. So it's sexist for both parties.
However, this report shows that mixed genders cause lower combat performance.
http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/
Take from that what you will and with a little salt.
I'll let Phasmal be the judge of that. The trade could have been anything for all I care if it gets rid of QTEs, escort missions and underwater levels (assumedly not counting entire games centered around water).Vigormortis said:
So the OP theorises that a few disgruntled gamers complaining about the lack of females in game will lead to the next feminist rant against a game, and everyone just rages away assuming that it has in fact already happened.
20% dude? Really? You don't think it's a bit better than that? I mean what classifies playable character. Do Final Fantasy games count if you get a female party member, because technically you control them?erttheking said:
What about games that give you the choice in like a silent protagonist kind of way, like Skyrim?
Because I think you'll find a lot more female playable presence than you are giving the industry credit for.
Also I want to put on the record that Steam shovelware, Unity asset flips, and shit like that do not count in this debate. A line has to be drawn somewhere at least.
I suppose we could push it up to 25%. Though, to be frank, I kind of consider games where you control all the characters and one of them happens to be a woman the easy way out.CritialGaming said:
I was counting them. And while I love those games, unless it's Mass Effect, it's kind of the easy way out.
I think I'm being very generous with the industry. It doesn't have the strongest track record.