Well it’s not a personal challenge. I’m basing myself on the millitary records I found here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/military-international/
if the figures are different from special forces, which does indeed approaches Brink better, then I would love to see them.
[QUOTE=tokamak;206632]Well it’s not a personal challenge. I’m basing myself on the millitary records I found here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/military-international/
if the figures are different from special forces, which does indeed approaches Brink better, then I would love to see them.[/QUOTE]
Disregarding that article I can tell you tokamak is indeed correct on the matter.
There are many more men in the military then females, and of said females who serve only a small portion of them are infantry or armored.
Most are either clerks or medics, they maintain their gender specific roles even in a world where every one is supposedly identical.
As you wish. This is what I see.
Yes, I wonder why?
You know, our modern western society is all about race, gender and religious equality. Am I right? As such, women are obviously worse than men doing socially important roles like being leading chefs, clothing designers, soldiers (yes, women are incapable of facing violence so they are not allowed in direct fighting capacities), business people, national leaders… basically women aren’t good for much of anything other than having and raising kids. That is all blatantly obvious fact if you accept the premise that our society does not favor any traits other than merit.
[quote=ThunderWank;206635]There are many more men in the military then females, and of said females who serve only a small portion of them are infantry or armored.
Most are either clerks or medics, they maintain their gender specific roles even in a world where every one is supposedly identical.[/quote]
Again, men are at the top of nearly all fields of society. That has no baring on whether or not they are objectively more fit for those roles.
I can’t understand how people point to society to prove ideal gender roles. That argument also supported the institution of slavery and European superiority. If you’re going to argue against having women in physically challenging occupations, do so with physiology, not socially imposed ideology. The latter has been proven flawed in the past.
But let’s keep it on the roles in this game, how many females are fighting at the front right now? Exactly.
How many are allowed to do so? Reference above.
Funny, reference above.
[quote=ThunderWank;206630]He’s calling you out broskie.
Now if we were on a play ground this is where the children would swarm and yell “FIGHT”.
But alas this is the internet, so to the gentleman whom tokamak is adressing it is either time to nut up or shut up.[/quote]
Lets try to act our age.
I’m not saying it’s the women’s fault they’re not having combat roles in the millitary, I’m just saying that they’re rare regardless of the reasons.
Maybe it’s a glass ceiling imposed by the management, who knows. What I’m getting at is, why would the Ark be any different? Compare it with movies, nobody is complaining about not seeing more women in movies, in fact, I think the movies are already over representing females for all the token girls they put in millitary situations.
My behavior is typical, if not overly mature for a person of my age.
Regardless as depressing as it is most females in the army do take the less combat specific roles because of the gender specific roles presented by society and not because of physical limitations.
But how do I know this?
Both my parents serve as do all the parents of all my friends and nearly every acquaintance of mine within a 50km radius.
Again, lest we forget, we are talking about a game, fantasy, escapism, unreality…
Couldn’t agree more with your comments @Profane; I want my avatars sexy! Besides just look to the classics for skin. Men exposed more than women back then.
This latest, gritty view of the world is just another fantasy. How about invisible force shields and no underwear just a power pack - for lightweight and flexibility in combat? Strip off the armour - to carry more weapons. Strip off the panties to run faster. Thermal paint instead of bras or shirts… 
Fantasy folks, not reality.
You can herd in the biggest amount of bullshit, although you already did a great job there, under the slogan ‘It’s fantasy’.
You don’t merely read one genre of book, do you? The same person can enjoy bayonetta and counter strike without needing them mashed n mixed together.
Very well. Perhaps incorrectly, I perceived your remarks regarding women on front lines as either not understanding military policy (which more or less reflects social will) or ignoring it to make a point. My mention of law enforcement (of which SWAT is a branch) was to point out that women can be perfectly capable on a front line. I don’t argue that there are no valid reasons, both practical and conceptual, to not including female player characters.
My mum’s job is basically doing research about minorities, especially women, on the labour market, especially typical male jobs like fire-fighters, security, and management positions. I know they’re not inferior in what they’re doing.
I’m just saying that including a disproportionate amount of women characters in the game just looks strange.
Sorry, gonna have to go with no, I would like women in brink, but since it is gonna take away from the customization, not to mention, the World of Warcraft clothing for women, if you wear regular shirt and pants for men, it is just a shirt and pants, but on women, they pretty much turn into a bikini and thong
something just dawned to me:
body type: Heavy - Medium - Light
for men : overly Muscular - Muscular - Agile/fast “runner type”
for women: …? - …? - bikini model
ditch the women idea please, lol! it’ll be messed up hahahaha
Now that’s a sexist remark! :eek:
Give me a heavy bikini model, please. Make mine male. 
[QUOTE=Stroggafier;206698]Now that’s a sexist remark! :eek:
Give me a heavy bikini model, please. Make mine male. [/QUOTE]
sorry, to me the “heavy” model for women would be a steriod pumped russian woman…
just had to mention it
Ah, thanks for clarifying @WhiteAden. Changed my mind. Make my heavy bikini model a female! 
Hey hey hey, you don’t even know what you are talking about.
I say yes to female models
AND
[QUOTE=signofzeta;204845]Is there a way to customize your character so that he only runs around in his underwear? Not that I actually want that in the game though.
Even if you took off all your clothes, what is the default clothing set that cannot be taken off?[/QUOTE]
So how about an offer. Female models on Resistance side, and male models on Security.
[QUOTE=Szakalot;206544]If to be Sexy something needs to be sexist…
well well now.
Let us discuss the definitions, see if we disagree there.
On a simple basis:
Sexy - noticing a gender difference and liking what you see
Sexist- noticing a gender difference and disliking what you see, and not because it is a gender difference expressed in poor quality, but because IT IS a gender difference.
Its dislike by default.[/quote]
Mmm, no. Sexy as a requirement is sexist. I’d be willing to accept an argument that the fashion industry (with its sexy as a requirement) isn’t sexist, but it’d be acceptance with snark. Sexy has no relevance in a video game (unless playing one of those creepy Fashion games made for pre-teen girls). Sexy as a requirement of BOTH genders could pass for non-sexist. But one gender? How does sexiness for female characters have any place in a video game whose primary objective is shooting things? Does the sexy make her bulletproof? Does it enhance experience points (presumably via magic)? And if sexy matters to the female, and presumably has a point beyond titillating male viewers, why wouldn’t it also be a male attribute?
Best thing I can compare it to is the first half of the 20th century. One word: secretaries. Hot women were preferred so their bosses had something to stare at, but they didn’t necessarily have better office skills than their not-hot counterparts. It’s sexist because the intent wasn’t for improvement of work, but so men could stare (and often more). And by your definition, it’s still sexist. It’s dislike of the gender, with exceptions for “sexy” females. Basically, requiring sexy is inherently sexist simply because it puts an entire gender as only useful (in video games) if there is some sexual satisfaction to be had, however minute. I don’t see gay dudes screaming for hot, half-naked chicks to be present in video games.
You gave us a lot of interesting data.
But I do not see how it should convince SD that they MUST have female avatars. Show them where the money is. You can talk a lot about ideals, and no one will disgree, but this is business - its about the money.
It is as if you tried to show that McDonalds serves unhealthy food, and you decided to boycotte that. I don’t think anyone can disagree, but still, people go to McDonalds, because of other values, and McDonalds thrive because it does not live on ideals, but on money.
A) women still make up a quarter to a forty percent of gamers (it varies across games and genres); so why not have female avatars? (Except in Brink, that’s already a done deal.) I like Mercenaries’ approach: two dudes, one chick.
B) the lack of female PCs in many games (and in advertising) who aren’t half-naked gives the impression (especially when combined with stereotypes about video games) that men are the only ones who play video games; ergo, women are less likely to even try games that seem super-manly on the (sometimes right) assumption that the game was designed exclusively with males in mind. Some of the stuff I read (particularly on IGDA) talked about the role of women in development - if a company is almost entirely made up of young males…then the games they create will be very much in line with what they desire. It makes a game more likely to appeal to very specific players, as opposed to broad appeal. Broad appeal = better sales, more money. And no, not broad as in female.
C) a greater number of female players (customers) isn’t going to happen via wave of the magic PS3 wand. Or in xbox’s case, that Natal thing. It requires effort on the part of game studios, not merely throwing a bit of pink around and hoping for the best. So making female avatars standard (instead of an afterthought) is a way of forcing the change, instead of hoping.
I suspect better advertising and/or more women in game development might have greater effect on whether or not women play, but female avatars are a bit less complicated. And since I know nothing of the game industry’s attempts to attract female gamers with advertising (beyond that I can’t think of any commercials not belonging to Nintendo or littleBIGplanet that weren’t seething with testosterone), I’m sticking to my avatars argument.
sigh The sad thing is, this whole discussion makes me look like a humorless feminazi. 
Speaking of childish…dangles a Twinkie in front of ThunderWank
One could argue that all the male characters in Brink are sexy… and one could come to the conclusion that SD deliberately made the characters that way to appeal to all the male homosexual gamers out there.
I’d have to admit that I’m quite displeased with SplashDamage’s approach. Im a really ugly guy cough and I feel that there is a deep need to have ugly characters in the game, to truly reflect who I am and others who arent “sexy”. Its sexist! Why cant us ugly guys have ugly characters!?!?!?
Gimme a break.