Brink : No Girls Allowed

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think it's defensible especially in this case as they wanted a certain depth of customisation and movement (which also includes interaction with the environment). If it was a game with a single plain protagonist like mass effect I would question that excuse but in this case it seems reasonable to me.

I think part of the game leads you to disguise yourself as an opponent. Being the only female or male character in an arena would kind of make you stand out as the saboteur if you switched sides. It's just impratical from a gameplay point of view in that case.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I think it's defensible especially in this case as they wanted a certain depth of customisation and movement (which also includes interaction with the environment). If it was a game with a single plain protagonist like mass effect I would question that excuse but in this case it seems reasonable to me.

I think part of the game leads you to disguise yourself as an opponent. Being the only female or male character in an arena would kind of make you stand out as the saboteur if you switched sides. It's just impratical from a gameplay point of view in that case.

It's beginning to look like you're just making excuses for them now.

 

[Harry Mason]

Yeah... I was actually fairly excited about the game, and I can remember someone going "I'm sure there is a female choice in character customization. We just haven't seen it yet!" And then it never showed up.

The most powerful way to get around the "white boys club" aspect of video games is to have character customization include all different races and genders. It's worked well and contributed to the gameplay and fanbase size of every game it's been put in. I know women (and men) who wouldn't have bothered with Mass Effect or Fallout 3 or anything like that if their weren't a two gender option set.

Any game needlessly excluding half of the human race takes this medium a step backwards. It also loses money. I know I (and plenty of people I know) are boycotting the game for this very reason. Once there is a single game with deep customization that only includes female characters, The whole "why does it matter if the game is good" argument will fly. Until then, bad move, Splash Damage.

Agreed in full. I am boycotting the game for this very reason ("and I'm a man, man!"). It's lazy and immature to not go the extra mile they cold have gone here.

Also, the game looks pretty corny. Not sure I would've bought something that cheesy anyway.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think it's defensible especially in this case as they wanted a certain depth of customisation and movement (which also includes interaction with the environment). If it was a game with a single plain protagonist like mass effect I would question that excuse but in this case it seems reasonable to me.

I think part of the game leads you to disguise yourself as an opponent. Being the only female or male character in an arena would kind of make you stand out as the saboteur if you switched sides. It's just impratical from a gameplay point of view in that case.

It's beginning to look like you're just making excuses for them now.

No I'm trying to be reasonable and look at why they may have decided to cut female avatars rather than being irrational and crying sexism straight away.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

No I'm trying to be reasonable and look at why they may have decided to cut female avatars rather than being irrational and crying sexism straight away.

Then you're not doing a very good job of it. Or of common courtesy, for that matter.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Ah, yes, the good old "[a href=http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=2027]a matter of resources[/a]" argument.

That was a hilarious read. Funny how ridiculous it sounds when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

That was a hilarious read. Funny how ridiculous it sounds when the shoe is on the other foot.

Then it served its purpose.

As I said earlier in this thread, I don't always agree with The Border House. For one, one of their writers called misogyny on Rift despite its plethora of kick-ass women. But they nailed it in one with the "Resources" article.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

No I'm trying to be reasonable and look at why they may have decided to cut female avatars rather than being irrational and crying sexism straight away.

Then you're not doing a very good job of it. Or of common courtesy, for that matter.

Which, being reasonable? Or looking for reasons?

I am trying to be polite I assure you. I just can't stand it when people don't take a step back and look at the evidence rather than jumping to the most extreme conclusion. It doesn't exactly put female gamers in the best light.

 

[Skratt]

I choose female characters probably as much as I choose male characters, but I would also play a game with either only female or only male avatars without an issue.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Which being reasonable? Or looking for reasons?

Both of the above.

I am trying to be polite I assure you.

Let's see: You've accused people of crying, whining, being irrational, and being childish. If that's your idea of being polite, I'd hate to see your idea of rude.

I just can't stand it when people don't take a step back and look at the evidence rather than jumping to the most extreme conclusion. It doesn't exactly put female gamers in the best light.

Splash Damage has given their explanation. Frankly, it's one of the oldest, tiredest excuses in the book.

And yet, it somehow reflects poorly on female gamers to call that out, as opposed to on Splash Damage for making a poor decision and a clichéd excuse to begin with? The mind boggles.

Pffft to your customisable excuse, you can change loads of content in both tf2 and the modern cod games.

And yet, in both of those games, you play specific characters. But you clearly just want to be dismissive.

You just chose to pick on it because you like to be on your high and mighty gender equality horse rather than us people down here using the sensible, there are finite constraints and a target amount of copies this game has to sell.

Oh, the irony.

And to be fair

"customisable"
beats
"has womens"

on a game sleeve EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

ITT: female characters should be considered a special feature!

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think it's an acceptable reason and I don't think they made the decision out of sexism merely expediancy. I think you have already firmly made up your mind on this and won't even entertain debate. It's all rather pointless.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I think it's an acceptable reason and I don't think they made the decision out of sexism merely expediancy.

Because "expediency" is a perfectly logical explanation for cutting female characters from a game that's being marketed on its customization.

And it's "pointless" as long as people keep toting Splash Damage's sedan chair and calling it "debate."

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

They had to make a business desicion that was right for them. No one was rubbing thier hands together evilly and touting sexism

I came to you with the issue that having two sexes would make one of the game mechanics difficult at best and you didn't even entertain it.

If the desicion had been reversed and they decided to keep just female characters do you think that would have went better for them or worse?

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

They had to make a business desicion that was right for them. No one was rubbing thier hands together evilly and touting sexism

You keep talking about evil sexist conspiracies. I have never said anything about evil sexist conspiracies. There's a big difference between "they made an ill-advised decision" and "evil sexist conspiracy."

I came to you with the issue that having two sexes would make one of the game mechanics difficult at best and you didn't even entertain it.

Because that, and the "business decision" argument, are the same old, tired "matter of resources" argument that have been used a thousand times before.

If the desicion had been reversed and they decided to keep just female characters do you think that would have went better for them or worse?

I'll give you credit for not trotting out Tomb Raider.

People will undoubtedly claim it would have gone worse. But it's likely that a "girls with guns" game would have sold well by virtue of sheer novelty. That said, it would have been an equally poor decision.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

They had to make a business desicion that was right for them. No one was rubbing thier hands together evilly and touting sexism

You keep talking about evil sexist conspiracies. I have never said anything about evil sexist conspiracies. There's a big difference between "they made an ill-advised decision" and "evil sexist conspiracy."

I came to you with the issue that having two sexes would make one of the game mechanics difficult at best and you didn't even entertain it.

Because that, and the "business decision" argument, are the same old, tired "matter of resources" argument that have been used a thousand times before.

Perhaps because they are an actual valid reason. Much like 'don't touch that fire because you will burn yourself' just because something is old doesn't mean it's innacurate. Like someone said Splash Damage are a small company and perhaps in this case thier reach exceeded thier grasp.

I apologise if I insulted you before however, that was not my intention.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

jesus this thread has gone ballistic, i might just buy brink based on the fact that it pisses off so many femi-nazi's in the process.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Perhaps because they are an actual valid reason. Much like 'don't touch that fire because you will burn yourself' just because something is old doesn't mean it's innacurate. Like someone said Splash Damage are a small company and perhaps in this case thier reach exceeded thier grasp.

There's a difference between a basic law of the universe (such as "don't stand in the fire") and an excuse made by a game company for reasons of "expediency." Especially when they're cutting half of the potential customization from a game marketed on customization for reasons of allegedly making their customization deeper.

Again, even if it's not sexism, it's cognitive dissonance. And sure, they could add female models as DLC. But why weren't all of these extra customization options that they added instead of female characters the potential DLC, instead? It speaks of skewed priorities.

Of course, if female models were that "difficult" for reasons of body physics, that probably means that they would be godawful pin-ups. But that wouldn't be a strike against their addition; it'd be another strike against the game, and against Splash Damage.

I apologise if I insulted you before however, that was not my intention.

Apology accepted, then.

And ITT: Godwin's Law.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

What I meant by that was perhaps it is a valid reason for them to limit the game to just male characters. They had to somehow cut down thier workload and it was either to sacrifice the customisation which they wanted as a heavy part of their game in the first place. Or one of the genders. You can at least accept thier reasoning even if you question thier motive even on a subconcious level.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

What I meant by that was perhaps it is a valid reason for them to limit the game to just male characters. They had to somehow cut down thier workload and it was either to sacrifice the customisation which they wanted as a heavy part of their game in the first place. Or one of the genders. You can at least accept thier reasoning even if you question thier motive even on a subconcious level.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. There are really too many other factors at play here. If you need evidence of that, just take a look at some of the posts in this thread.