Jimquisition: Let's End the FPS Sausage-fest

[Treblaine]

He invented the red dot reflex sight sight by reflecting an image (the same way ALL reflex sights work, including the classic M68 Aimpoint, I might add, including holographic sights such as an EoTech 552) onto a sight objective. This technology exist, in a WORKABLE, WEAPONS MOUNTABLE FORM, by 1909 and was used by British troops in WWI. Usually mounted on machine guns but there was limited use on sub-machine guns as well.

Are you suggesting that the British used ANY Submachine guns in the First World War? And more than that, that they mounted "Red Dot Sights" on them, no, not "reflector sights" but "Red dot sights" which by definition need an LED light and small battery to work. The LED that was apparently first invented in 1927 in the Soviet Union where it was never put to any practical use as it did not emit in the visual spectrum, not till 1962 an LED emitting in the visual spectrum, not till 1972 an LED of useful brightness.

Red Dot Sight is a type of reflector sight in the same sense a Ford GT is a type of Car, but just because the car existed in 1909 doesn't mean the Ford GT existed and was used in 1909.

 

[Aggh]

Zombie studios is prolly the last place you want to ask about female character balance. The characters might have the same hit boxes, but the female models don't actually fill out the hit boxes. This means that they're not only harder to see and track (people don't aim at hit boxes after all) but there's a distinct visual advantage. When they start clearing a corner, that tiny bit of their hit box that isn't represented by the model is clearing the corner first. This means that they've already started clearing the corner before they're actually visible.

In a game where the time to kill is generally somewhere between .25-.5 seconds, this can provide a distinct advantage when pitting two good players against each other.

Then there's almost negligible visual difference between female heavy and light armor. About the only difference is they have a bit of metal plating on their legs, compared to male character models who get a freaking bomb suit for their heavy armor models and are instantly recognizable as to whether they're wearing a heavy/standard/light build.

http://blacklight-wiki.perfectworld.com/index.php/Armor

Scroll down to the chest and leg armor. The differences are pretty clear. No competitively balanced game would allow differences like that.

This isn't to say that it's stupidly harder to kill them, but it does break what would otherwise be a relatively level playing field.

 

[ElPatron]

Zombie studios is prolly the last place you want to ask about female character balance. The characters might have the same hit boxes, but the female models don't actually fill out the hit boxes. This means that they're not only harder to see and track (people don't aim at hit boxes after all) but there's a distinct visual advantage. When they start clearing a corner, that tiny bit of their hit box that isn't represented by the model is clearing the corner first. This means that they've already started clearing the corner before they're actually visible.

This happened in Combat Arms too, I think. There was a distinct advantage for female characters because males had their legs spread apart. There was a huge chunk of hitbox without a visible model filling it on females.

Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

 

[Aggh]

Zombie studios is prolly the last place you want to ask about female character balance. The characters might have the same hit boxes, but the female models don't actually fill out the hit boxes. This means that they're not only harder to see and track (people don't aim at hit boxes after all) but there's a distinct visual advantage. When they start clearing a corner, that tiny bit of their hit box that isn't represented by the model is clearing the corner first. This means that they've already started clearing the corner before they're actually visible.

This happened in Combat Arms too, I think. There was a distinct advantage for female characters because males had their legs spread apart. There was a huge chunk of hitbox without a visible model filling it on females.

Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

CA female character models had smaller hit boxes period lol :|

Blacklight isn't nearly that bad, but there are definitely issues.

 

[RC1138]

Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

That's why I set him to "ignore" after replying to his last post. The only thing worse than an uniformed troll is feeding one.

 

[Treblaine]

Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

[troll-attempt removed for taste]

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

You are right, it would be an insult and you have already been insulting, as knowing how the female body work is irrelevant to how close female performance is to males AS DEMONSTRATED.

Why would you have to explain the menstrual cycle when it IS trivial issue? The menstuation cycle does NOT disable women in any significant way, why do I have to explain that to you?

That's why I set him to "ignore" after replying to his last post. The only thing worse than an uniformed troll is feeding one.

Right so you are ignoring me after I ask you to provide sources for an incongruous claim of the British Army using Submachine guns or Reflex sights mounted on Machine Guns in the First World War?

Well that's pretty disingenuous.

I am not a troll. You are just being stubborn and dismissive of my reasonable discourse when I ask inconvenient questions and make points that challenge your preconceived notions.

 

[ElPatron]

Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

[troll-attempt removed for taste]

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

You are right, it would be an insult and you have already been insulting, as knowing how the female body work is irrelevant to how close female performance is to males AS DEMONSTRATED.

First of all, I did not insult you.

Second, if you think a reaction video is trolling, you should grow a thicker skin. You're free to edit out a video because it's large, but trying to call me a troll is an Ad Hominem and a very poor defense too.

Not everything in this world is about you. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Why would you have to explain the menstrual cycle when it IS trivial issue? The menstuation cycle does NOT disable women in any significant way, why do I have to explain that to you?

First, tell that to PE teachers in the whole world so that it stops being an excuse.

Second, I never mentioned physical disabilities so please stop with the straw-men right now.

 

[Treblaine]

Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

[troll-attempt removed for taste]

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

You are right, it would be an insult and you have already been insulting, as knowing how the female body work is irrelevant to how close female performance is to males AS DEMONSTRATED.

First of all, I did not insult you.

Second, if you think a reaction video is trolling, you should grow a thicker skin. You're free to edit out a video because it's large, but trying to call me a troll is an Ad Hominem and a very poor defense too.

Not everything in this world is about you. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Why would you have to explain the menstrual cycle when it IS trivial issue? The menstuation cycle does NOT disable women in any significant way, why do I have to explain that to you?

First, tell that to PE teachers in the whole world so that it stops being an excuse.

Second, I never mentioned physical disabilities so please stop with the straw-men right now.

It was trollish, it was not a video expressing your mere incredulity or disagreement, it was mocking and insulting. That's inflammatory. Here is a non trollish reaction video:


Here is a trollish one:


Now you know the difference, you have no excuse.

See you can tell by putting yourself in the shoes of the person it is directed at and imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving end, will it seem like they are expressing their stance or trying to belittle and denigrate?

I did coed sports in school and heard explicitly from every PE teacher in UK that they would not accept any stage of a healthy menstrual cycle as an excuse (much to their embarrassment) and it was not an issue when they did play. The PE teachers who excuse female who are on their period do to out of gratuity, not necessity. Menstruation hasn't been an issue with women in other physically active employment, including the military.

I never said you mentioned "physical disability". You said enough for me to raise the issue of physical disability - where I simply stated the facts - after you insultingly mocked me for stating 'it was trivial to military life' where such duties are most distinct by the physical ability required.

After all, you said you might have to "explain you how the female body works" as if I wouldn't know something as women's menstrual cycle. It seem it is YOU who doesn't understand how it effects women, you mocking laugh at the idea of women in the military because of their menstrual cycle.

 

[ElPatron]

you mocking laugh at the idea of women in the military because of their menstrual cycle.

Your whole post was a gigantic straw-man that culminated here. You're not arguing with me, you're just making assumptions and arguing against them.

You're creating the issue and criticizing me for those issues, adding Ad Hominems to the mix. GG.

I know what trolling is and calling me a troll is a lame defense - not only you're implying you know my true colours trough simple text on the internet like if you were a supernatural polygraph, you're also intulting me.

Last time I checked none of us had the authority to decide whether Professor Farnsworth is trolling or not.

 

[Treblaine]

you mocking laugh at the idea of women in the military because of their menstrual cycle.

Your whole post was a gigantic straw-man that culminated here. You're not arguing with me, you're just making assumptions and arguing against them.

You're creating the issue and criticizing me for those issues, adding Ad Hominems to the mix. GG.

I know what trolling is and calling me a troll is a lame defense - not only you're implying you know my true colours trough simple text on the internet like if you were a supernatural polygraph, you're also insulting me.

Last time I checked none of us had the authority to decide whether Professor Farnsworth is trolling or not.

You are just listing irrelevant fallacies.

Where did I Straw-man (misrepresent your stance)?

Where did I use Ad Hominem ('shoot the messenger' rather than address the substance of the discussion)?

I don't know if you are a troll, and I never said if you were, but that response WAS Trollish in the sense it was inflammatory. See this is a straw-man right here, I directly challenge what you DID and then you are saying I am going on about WHAT YOU ARE! That was NOT my stance! I gave you are very clear indication of what was trollish and what was not. That is helpful and not insulting.

I have as much authority as you in judging what in inflammatory/trolling, as I have explained to you: put yourself in the other persons shoes, would they interpret it as insulting directed at them and denigrating. These here forum rules do have the "don't be a jerk" clause, and part of being a jerk is not doing to others what you wouldn't like done to you.

 

[ElPatron]

You are just listing irrelevant fallacies.

Actually pretty relevant. The direction of the discussion swerved completely out of the path it was taking.

Where did I Straw-man (misrepresent your stance)?

Just now, you accused me of ridiculing the idea of women in the military (which I support, and already happens in many countries) so that you could criticize me for it.

Where did I use Ad Hominem ('shoot the messenger' rather than address the substance of the discussion)?

By calling me a troll and focusing on my intentions.

 

[Treblaine]

You are just listing irrelevant fallacies.

Actually pretty relevant. The direction of the discussion swerved completely out of the path it was taking.

Where did I Straw-man (misrepresent your stance)?

Just now, you accused me of ridiculing the idea of women in the military (which I support, and already happens in many countries) so that you could criticize me for it.

Where did I use Ad Hominem ('shoot the messenger' rather than address the substance of the discussion)?

By calling me a troll and focusing on my intentions.

Yes, it was taken off course by your petty little reaction video that in response you told me simply I "should grow a thicker skin", you clearly knew it was supposed to get at me personally and that I should just sit there and take it, now you are playing dumb as if you had no idea it was inflammatory.

And you DID direct a reaction video laugh at the statement that women shouldn't be excluded from the military for their menstrual cycles, that is the context that you cut out from that quote. That IS "ridiculing the idea of women in the military". No straw man. You are trying to squirm out of what you said rather than just issue a retraction. You have not made yourself clear if you meant something else than ridiculing the idea of women in the military.

Please go back to this post:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.382898.15182784

And explain what the hell you meant.

It's obvious what I meant, that Hormonal cycle in women like menstruation is TRIVIAL to their inclusion. What is so deserving of insulting laughter at that? Do you understand what the word "trivial" means?

I never EVER called you a troll. I labelled your video as trollish because it was, but that's doesn't define you as a troll.

 

[Treblaine]

Don't get into it with him. He argued with a Military Police officer for four pages about how women behave in the military, how likely women are to be in Special Operations units (given his extreme number of years of service in the military), how *soldiers* react and consider friendly fire, whether or not rape or even suicide are FAR bigger concerns for both the U.S. Military and the individual branches themselves, oh and the best, how being a paramedic, while an admirable position and job, in any way shape or form compares to being a soldier (where part of my job involves *me* shooting at someone, something I consider the hardest part, far harder than being shot at myself; the need to take life far outweighs the risk to one's own).

He is simply a kid, mind you he may be older than both of us, but maturity knows no number. He very much reminds me of the son arguing with his father over the ways of the world, grasping at experience he lacks and relying on things he's read or heard. And lest we forget, his only method of arguing is to attack the validity of the speaker, and feign personnel damages as if anyone cares what he feels, in either direction. It is funny that now two people, with conflicting views it seems, both came under fire from him for the same reason. Doubt he'll notice the irony.

Quit while ahead with him, and simply set him to ignore. There is no reason to waste cache space on his words.

Yes, I argued with facts that you ignored, and you just keep using the Fallacy of Argument From Authority. "I'm a Military Police Officer" doesn't rank your opinion over facts. I think cases like the tragic death of Pat Tillman where he was killed by friendly fire to spite no enemy gunfire in the area contradicts a lot of what you say about friendly fire never mistaking US small arms for insurgent small arks like AK47.

You make so many claims that are not backed up by facts and contradictory of the facts.

And what the hell, I never even discussed women in Special Operations Units. I discussed then in non-special forces and how even those are depicted in such video games.

You never said why a paramedic wasn't comparable with being a soldier in a way that was relevant. What possibly makes you conclude women can't kill when they are trained and ordered to?

Why have you come to a DISCUSSION BOARD if you keep citing your unproven credentials as a Military Police Officer as reason to NOT DISCUSS this. You seem to just want to tell people the way it is with zero dialogue, contradiction, sources or analysis.

I don't get this, you call me a "simply a kid" yet you are ignoring me, every reasonable thing I say you are ignoring me. That's not very mature.

What do you think you are proving by doing the electronic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALAA! I can't hear you!"?

Step back and take a look at the way you are acting.

Don't come on a DISCUSSION board to DICTATE. I'm trying to discuss things with you fairly, will you return the favour.

 

[MercurySteam]

And here's why everyone was happy when Gears of War 3 introduced plyable female Gears. Sure, very few women play Gears of War but on the brink of extinction, it's kinda expected that you'd see some women running around toting guns and armour.

 

[ElPatron]

Yes, it was taken off course by your petty little reaction video that in response you told me simply I "should grow a thicker skin", you clearly knew it was supposed to get at me personally

The reason you need a thicker skin is because you were egocentric to the point of assuming am here to have fun on your expenses. The reason you need a thicker skin is because you see personal attacks where they do not exist.

And you DID direct a reaction video laugh at the statement that women shouldn't be excluded from the military

I never said they should be excluded.

It's obvious what I meant, that Hormonal cycle in women like menstruation is TRIVIAL to their inclusion. What is so deserving of insulting laughter at that? Do you understand what the word "trivial" means?

The problem is that you hide behind the world "military" and try to run it like if it's all the same shit.

Listen to RC1138, because honestly he knows his shit better than I ever will.

 

[RC1138]

The problem is that you hide behind the world "military" and try to run it like if it's all the same shit.

Listen to RC1138, because honestly he knows his shit better than I ever will.

Thank you. While I don't agree 100% with, what I feel, was your selling the COD audience short (I could be misreading but it seemed along those classic lines). By all means indeed, I agree and am all to aware of the stereotype, "COD KIDDIE" the guy who only ever plays COD or it's ilk, thinks they are a Special Forces Operator and weapons expert because they reached the highest rank in MP, and doesn't know enough about history to separate what facts are indeed present in the games, from the fiction. That all said I cannot help but wonder if that's a very vocal minority or COD players and most have perspective and realize what is actually going on, and can separate out what is being realistically displayed, and what is being done for sake of convenience (my favorite of all time was the FAMAS in BLOPS being a model that wasn't released until 2009 (the game taking place in 1968-ish). I mean *I* know better, a number of people I've seen on these boards (and others) seem to know better. I know it's anecdotal (as honestly who would do an actual study on this) but I would be very surprised if MOST persons of the "COD Audience" are a little bit more self aware then perhaps they are given credit.

To the grander issue at hand, I also like to think most people, of either gender, can realize that the developers are not, not including female player-characters and even NPC not out of some misplaced ideal or even basic sexism, but because it really would not fit with what is trying to be told and displayed within the game. Of course there are sexist players, in BOTH directions I might add, that will use it as fodder for their argument, people with a degree of WORLD experience and *life* experience will know, and I believe do know, that those people will find fodder anywhere, they will say what they say no matter what you do. If all the world was equal, and there was no "allowed" discrimination between any disparage groups, there would still be people complaining, in both directions, and finding "evidence" to support their claims. It's human nature, you can't, and won't, change that. You have to deal with the world as it is (which I still think is the core issue here more than sexism, more than equal opportunity, it's just a grand lack of grounding) not how you think it ought to be.

 

[ElPatron]

The problem is that you hide behind the world "military" and try to run it like if it's all the same shit.

Listen to RC1138, because honestly he knows his shit better than I ever will.

Thank you. While I don't agree 100% with, what I feel, was your selling the COD audience short (I could be misreading but it seemed along those classic lines). By all means indeed, I agree and am all to aware of the stereotype, "COD KIDDIE"

I believe that people complaining about it are even more annoying. Not only they keep drawing attention to CoD every time they post a rant, most times that rant was not asked for.

I don't believe it is anything new. Rambo and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies were full of BS (what about that Die Hard 2 movie? The Glock 7 is made of porcelain to pass trough metal detectors). Heck, ever heard about Gecko45, the original "mall ninja"? That was back in 2001, which is an eternity by internet standards. Back then people were bitching about Rainbow Six, which is a series that is praised for being more realistic than Call of Duty.

Like you said, people always find things to complain about.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, it was taken off course by your petty little reaction video that in response you told me simply I "should grow a thicker skin", you clearly knew it was supposed to get at me personally

The reason you need a thicker skin is because you were egocentric to the point of assuming am here to have fun on your expenses. The reason you need a thicker skin is because you see personal attacks where they do not exist.

And you DID direct a reaction video laugh at the statement that women shouldn't be excluded from the military

I never said they should be excluded.

It's obvious what I meant, that Hormonal cycle in women like menstruation is TRIVIAL to their inclusion. What is so deserving of insulting laughter at that? Do you understand what the word "trivial" means?

The problem is that you hide behind the world "military" and try to run it like if it's all the same shit.

Listen to RC1138, because honestly he knows his shit better than I ever will.

That's not how the term "thick skin" works. And I think you know that.

You laughed at their inclusion. You are using weasel words.

What precisely is the problem with my use of the term "military"? I have made myself clear and it is obvious to you that I mean "Infantry". I have refuted everything that RC1138 has claimed and now he is ignoring me with great immaturity. Well I think he is ignoring me for one reason and that is that he cannot explain his poor logic and inconsistency with the facts.

 

[Treblaine]

To the grander issue at hand, I also like to think most people, of either gender, can realize that the developers are not, not including female player-characters and even NPC not out of some misplaced ideal or even basic sexism, but because it really would not fit with what is trying to be told and displayed within the game. Of course there are sexist players, in BOTH directions I might add, that will use it as fodder for their argument, people with a degree of WORLD experience and *life* experience will know, and I believe do know, that those people will find fodder anywhere, they will say what they say no matter what you do. If all the world was equal, and there was no "allowed" discrimination between any disparage groups, there would still be people complaining, in both directions, and finding "evidence" to support their claims. It's human nature, you can't, and won't, change that. You have to deal with the world as it is (which I still think is the core issue here more than sexism, more than equal opportunity, it's just a grand lack of grounding) not how you think it ought to be.

What is trying to be depicted? Certainly not a sense of authenticity. What if what is trying to be depicted is a macho mens only club then is this really commendable? Do we really want this?

What spurious logic, you are saying it is human nature to complain regardless of if there is anything to actually complain about as reason to ignore them. That doesn't mean you can dismiss anything on the assumption there is nothing to dispute.

You think sexism or equality aren't the problem but a lack of grounding... oh and you are grounded because you went to West Point and we aren't. No matter how much I've sought to inform myself from reliable sources like Janes rather than COD, you seem to suggest a Heinlein idea of military supremacy of sociatal worth.

The problem is you constantly deny evidence, you ADMIT to wilfully ignoring it, wilful ignorance. You refuse to hear or consider anything I say which is just immature.

Are you going to keep going with the Dictating thing? I suppose that is something you have in common with so-called-feminist Anita Sarkeesian, you ignore your detractors, you denigrate and dismiss them. You cite credentials ("I went to college/west-point") rather than give reasons that stand on their own merit.

Like you said, people always find things to complain about.

And complaining about even the IDEA of women depicted in War FPS games? How does that nit-picking make you any different from complaining about how unrealistic it is having women in an Infantry role in the military.

I mean Captain Price smokes a cigar, often and even immediately before an operation. It absolute peak physical condition like the 5-10% difference between men and women is needed, why the hell is he smoking? As THAT impairs your physical ability more than not-having-testicles! But if the performance loss of chronic carbon-monoxide poisoning and emphysema aren't an issue, and it suits the artist's aesthetic, then why does this apply to smoking but not female presence?

And Price's beard. Looks awesome, super manly, but totally impractical for use with a full-face gas-mask. RC1138 goes on endless rants about how women would never ever ever be allowed in certain infantry forces, would he be so bullish in shaving off Price's macho beard to conform with much more practical regulations that you must have a clean shaven face.

 

[ElPatron]

What precisely is the problem with my use of the term "military"? I have made myself clear and it is obvious to you that I mean "Infantry".

No, I was not obvious. When I think of military, I think about the National Guard, Coast Guard, helicopter pilots, on-board navigators, sailors, gunners, medics, MPs, firemen, mechanics, air traffic controllers, divers, EOD, paratroopers, etc etc etc.

And complaining about even the IDEA of women depicted in War FPS games? How does that nit-picking make you any different from complaining about how unrealistic it is having women in an Infantry role in the military.

Uh, I was clearly talking about Rainbow Six and Call of Duty. I'm sorry for using the same words as him if it's such a big deal, but how about not arguing with me about things other people said?

I mean Captain Price smokes a cigar, often and even immediately before an operation. It absolute peak physical condition like the 5-10% difference between men and women is needed, why the hell is he smoking? As THAT impairs your physical ability more than not-having-testicles! But if the performance loss of chronic carbon-monoxide poisoning and emphysema aren't an issue, and it suits the artist's aesthetic, then why does this apply to smoking but not female presence?

1. Cpt. Price also is clearly old so his skills are more important than peak physical condition. I mean, many forces actually put their trainees trough regimes so intense they lose a lot of muscle weight. They are not normal infantry. It's not about the muscles. It's about how long can you swim underwater. How well can you think and plan, and how well you can survive in the jungle if you have to. How long can you hold up during torture if you're captured. How high can you climb a mountain with a broken limb. I mean, people in the Special Forces are not meatheads. They usually study several languages and know more about plants than you or it.

2. Then it might depend on the mask. I don't know a lot of masks and I admit I can't even identify the one in the game, but I have worn a few with a beard and it's not impractical. Some times operatives are encouraged to sport a beard because of the country they might operate it.

3. Captain Price was alive back in WWII. Are we seriously going to argue about Price in-depth?

4. If the author's view is so important, why are we even arguing about his work?

And Price's beard. Looks awesome, super manly, but totally impractical for use with a full-face gas-mask. RC1138 goes on endless rants about how women would never ever ever be allowed in certain infantry forces, would he be so bullish in shaving off Price's macho beard to conform with much more practical regulations that you must have a clean shaven face.

If there was a change of Price being sent to an Arab country then he would be granted an exception to the grooming standards.

Spoiler: case in point