Reconsider Female Characters!


(Profane) #341

[QUOTE=tokamak;207422]There are at least as many half naked/sexy men featuring as characters in games as there are sexy female characters.

If anything it’ll be the female characters who have some catching up to do. Go equality![/QUOTE]

Seriously?! WHERE? I always have to go to La Bare’s to get my hot naked-man fix. That is bloody expensive after a while. Suppose I could get it for free, but they’d want something in return, too. It just wouldn’t be money. >:|

I recall a Conan game I never played…that’s the only thing that comes to mind that might have half-naked, hot dudes in it. scowls No one can beat Arnold’s man-titties! Certainly not a computer creation, hmph.

@Strogg, I’ve seen the first study. Pretty entertaining. Personally, I’m waiting to read The Mathematics of Sex (Oxford Press). I had a boss when I was 15-16 beat sense into me, so I’m always happy to read contradictory arguments over sticky issues, provided it’s backed up by facts and not just generalizations.

There’s a lot of new research and studies being done on biological factors of gender differences. Some of it is downright fascinating.

@Apples - Um, yes. I’m a full-fledged member of the apparently inferior sex. :smiley: But I don’t take photos of my boobs, mate. They’d just end up on the internet, and then one day maybe my boss finds the photos, starts blackmailing me for sex…I end up on drugs and hooking… Wait, I think that’s a Lifetime movie directed at teens. snickers

The Jon Lajoie vid was unintentionally funny. So many people think he’s serious. shakes head at internet-people


(Senyin) #342

Adding sexy females to serve as eyecandy for the male players (which is done 90% of the time) is sexist.

I think it’s safe to say that female (FPS) models are usually not developed
with female gamers in mind. That’s the point.

On a seperate note, if somehow SD were to add female models, I have faith
they would be classy/normal ones. They have already shown they do not stoop to the
‘sex sales’ level


(Stroggafier) #343

@Profane, nice study.

In that study. researches found support for prior studies showing that the male brain is larger than the female brain. Bigger apparantly is not better, as they also found evidence to show that womens’ brains on average are more densely packed with grey matter (GM). In addition they provided new evidence to show that the amount of GM in certain parts of the brain associated with spatial, motor and sex drive is larger and specifically more densely packed with GM, in men (duh) and in gay women (ooh!?), than in women and gay men. GM, as you may recall from biology class is the inner part of the brain, which is covered in white matter (a kind of “sugar” coating!?), and is responsible for most of cognitive activity. (wonder if there was any difference between butches and femmes? :wink:)


(Nail) #344

woooo, this is all getting pretty deep, I thought we were talking about putting tits on a character.

:slight_smile:


(asmo) #345

i voted yes and i have reason, my girl playing what i’m playing.

however, i wont cry if i can’t play female character as it’s rare in fps games.

going forward. make child characters because my 4yold also play quakewars and - if there will be linux port - she will play brink for sure as well :wink:

p.s.
PEGI? what’s that :wink:


(PSG_Mud) #346

[QUOTE=Profane;207353]Why are we even talking about women in the military when it is a recent phenomenon? It proves next to nothing because we don’t understand, yet, how women function in the military and whether or not the male/female ratio has an impact on stress levels in female soldiers, feelings of isolation, etc. It’s a lot more complicated than straight up warfare-related PTSD. As bad as being mortared is, it doesn’t help when your only designation as a female soldier is that of whore, bitch or dyke. And besides hearing that from women soldiers - I’ve had male soldiers tell me the same thing of female soldiers. Made for some nice arguments with my ex.

So, no. PTSD rates by gender do nothing for your argument. They would if the military was split evenly across genders.

Besides, most games have class systems. Some of the classes are support. Engineers, medical, etc. The military uses women in mostly support positions. Body armor would not necessarily be a factor in a support class (not in the game world, anyway). Now, if you’d said female avatars couldn’t be in the ‘Heavy’ class within Brink’s world, then sure. I could buy it.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, women have been in wars/battles since war existed. Mainly however, in the ancient eras of time women had more important roles than battle. There have been many, upon many females who were honored in battle across the timeline.
It was a rare occurrence though in ratio to men who were skilled in battle for a variety of genetic anomalies. I can imagine a culture of females with the genetic myostatin deficiency(possibly amazons). However that may be statistically you will understand that they fall under the category of statistically significance of p<.05 as an invalid representation of the population, not to mention the population of today is genetically different than 1,000 plus years ago.
One will find that most famous female war mongers are in a sense ones who carried leadership roles. Female leaders, still a rarity are not unheard of but it still is quite different than bashing a woman in the face with a club till shes dead, or filling her skull with lead. Leadership and battle roles require different traits to be successful. Basic instincts we developed over the centuries strengthened our abilities to survive, against other humans. It is only basic instinct that women not be killed, but assimilated into the population. It is basic instinct to not allow women to fight other men, because a lack of physical and psychological opportunity to compete. In the rare cases women do fight, it is naturally as a last resort.

As far as the PTSD, I don’t agree. And, my quotes come from a leader in the military and a scientist who is specific for differences in women. I think they would know what they’re talking about. I worked in a kitchen for a few years who were worse than the “worstest” fithy sailors. Women were treated like whores, called names, and even borderline raped when they came back into the kitchen. Never once did they show the same symptoms. The only difference is they can choose to leave anytime they want. Military is all about breaking you down into nothing so nothing effects you. I am for women have the opportunity, but they just don’t hold up as well.

And your last part of your comment makes sense, if in a war women were having large causalities I think that would change though. The whole idea of women in support roles is to keep them out of battle. And, that is what I am talking about specifically. Being on the opposite side and killing females has not been “honorable” for most cultures across time. And, is something most men in the world do not want to do. Neither with children, its demoralizing, and some military leaders through out time exploit this advantage of demoralizing enemy troops by sending women and children to fight. It is in a sense a weakness of man for a variety of reasons. Thus, I don’t agree with it being fantasied in modern combat styled game, something everyone can relate to. You as a female can say its ok, but its similar to how a child says he wants to goto war.


(tokamak) #347

Because Brink plays in the near future it means it will have to do a lot of explaining why women suddenly are so accepted in the army. For a game that wants to resemble real conflicts going on today that might be a tough cookie.


(DarkangelUK) #348

But it doesn’t have to explain it, cos they’re not gonna be in it!


(CyburK) #349

this game is mostly gonna be sold to males. in my opinion males like to fight each other over women. but more in a funny way. like animals fight over some female. shooting at females does not satisfie the (average, male, white, drunk, ;)) gamer in that way as shooting a male oponent would.
so adding females would sell some more copies to women but at the cost of losing sales from the main group the males…
still in a game like brink where the characters look that strange and fictional it wouldnt matter that much.
peace


(tokamak) #350

Aye which I’m glad for. The only reason that this thread is going on for so long is because male vs female discussions always derail in the weirdest ways.


(Stroggafier) #351

I’m all for keeping the rails straight and riggid. But, I’m also for rounding out the form of the discussion and soft padding the rough points.

This makes sure we come to the point quickly.

:stroggbanana:


(DarkangelUK) #352

Indeed, it’s almost tempting to ask Badman to move this thread to the off-topic section!


(Stroggafier) #353

Do Scotsmen have a sense of humour? :confused:

No female characters for you! :smiley:


(Profane) #354

[QUOTE=Stroggafier;207498]@Profane, nice study.

In that study. researches found support for prior studies showing that the male brain is larger than the female brain. Bigger apparantly is not better, as they also found evidence to show that womens’ brains on average are more densely packed with grey matter (GM). In addition they provided new evidence to show that the amount of GM in certain parts of the brain associated with spatial, motor and sex drive is larger and specifically more densely packed with GM, in men (duh) and in gay women (ooh!?), than in women and gay men. GM, as you may recall from biology class is the inner part of the brain, which is covered in white matter (a kind of “sugar” coating!?), and is responsible for most of cognitive activity. (wonder if there was any difference between butches and femmes? :wink:)[/QUOTE]

snorts Butch or femme, they’re all gay as can be. I was actually looking for the study that showed some kind of brain structure that was extremely similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men. But that study was pretty entertaining, too. Brain science is always coming up with new stuff. :smiley:


(Profane) #355

I meant why are we talking about women in the military as it pertains to PTSD. There are a lot of variables regarding PTSD just for civvies, nevermind what is nearly an entirely different “society” of overseas military operations. I meant that women soldiers in battle (front line) is a recent phenomenon, and that could skew data from any PTSD study. And during history, most women only encountered battle when their homes were being ransacked by an invasive army.

@Mud - The study doesn’t take in account other forms of PTSD-causing trauma. Or of factors that would essentially ‘encoursage’ PTSD. I read something recently about a certain form of breast cancer that has very high rates in a Chicago ghetto. Women who scored high on a “loneliness” test were more likely to develop the cancer and for it to develop faster. They replicated it in rats predisposed to breast cancer - isolated rats had 20% more tumors than non-isolated rats. It has to do with cortisol. So, like I said, the idea that women experience more PTSD simply because of their biology, and not potentially because of other factors affecting the gender, is stretching it.

I brought up the cortisol thing not to talk about breast cancer, but to point out that we’re still figuring out how the body and brain reacts to external stimuli. If social isolation can lead to breast cancer because of a stress hormone (cortisol), what else might be going on? You also have to consider how many men would refuse to seek treatment on the idea that it’s for wimps. snicker


(Profane) #356

tokamak, where are those naked vg dudes, eh? EH?


(Reanimator) #357

First of all! GAH THREE POSTS IN A ROW!!.. ok.

Where are the naked vg chicks??


(PSG_Mud) #358

[QUOTE=Profane;207598]I meant why are we talking about women in the military as it pertains to PTSD. There are a lot of variables regarding PTSD just for civvies, nevermind what is nearly an entirely different “society” of overseas military operations. I meant that women soldiers in battle (front line) is a recent phenomenon, and that could skew data from any PTSD study. And during history, most women only encountered battle when their homes were being ransacked by an invasive army.

@Mud - The study doesn’t take in account other forms of PTSD-causing trauma. Or of factors that would essentially ‘encoursage’ PTSD. I read something recently about a certain form of breast cancer that has very high rates in a Chicago ghetto. Women who scored high on a “loneliness” test were more likely to develop the cancer and for it to develop faster. They replicated it in rats predisposed to breast cancer - isolated rats had 20% more tumors than non-isolated rats. It has to do with cortisol. So, like I said, the idea that women experience more PTSD simply because of their biology, and not potentially because of other factors affecting the gender, is stretching it.

I brought up the cortisol thing not to talk about breast cancer, but to point out that we’re still figuring out how the body and brain reacts to external stimuli. If social isolation can lead to breast cancer because of a stress hormone (cortisol), what else might be going on? You also have to consider how many men would refuse to seek treatment on the idea that it’s for wimps. snicker[/QUOTE]

I’m really not in the mood to debate right now, rather depressed the Ravens lost to the colts but… I was talking about PTSD because Fayetal asked for proof about the military stance on physical and psychological obligations vs opportunity. The conversation has evolved into a more unorganized crossfire of opinions. And, you are right, we don’t know a whole lot about ultra complex human mind. But, that doesn’t mean people are not going to generalize obvious commonalities. Like I said, before its a battle of obligations vs opportunity in terms of survival.


(Azuvector) #359

[QUOTE=MoP;203448]I’d love to see female characters in Brink too - I think we all would! In fact, we did explore female characters in our early concept art :slight_smile:

However, given the realities of development, we had a choice between having a wide range of options for male characters, or a much more limited set of clothing options that allow for both genders.

We figured it would be the best use of our time to have a big set of quality customisation options for males instead of less and lower quality for females and males.[/QUOTE]

Something to point out, is if you guys are considering DLC for female characters, you’re likely much better off putting them in at the start, and offering DLC for character customization of both genders.
Disclaimer: I’m not especially interested in Brink, nor especially a fan of DLC in general.


(Profane) #360

[QUOTE=Reanimator;207606]First of all! GAH THREE POSTS IN A ROW!!.. ok.

Where are the naked vg chicks??[/QUOTE]

Be thankful I didn’t make it four. looks askance at Reanimator And I meant half-naked. I’m told, though, that Mass Effect had some nekkid in it.

Azuvector - I haven’t seen anything on this thread about female DLC. It’s just been a suggestion. But, I think I’d prefer that, too. On the other hand, it probably wouldn’t sell as well as the character customization DLC for things like LBP.

Honestly, I’d just be happy with a non-gendered avatar. :stuck_out_tongue: Maybe a Scotsman and his kilt.