Brink : No Girls Allowed

[Kahunaburger]

I've read an article, forget where. The Brink developers all said that the inclusion of female models would not only mess with the depth of the customization, but with balance and appearance.

Look at the heavy body type in this game. Now, imagine him as a female. No matter how you do it, the female characters would have less health, or look insanely unrealistic. That would force players who want to go heavy to play as men. Women are lighter, so they would be unfairly faster.

They want to do it right.
They plan on working on it for a future release. I wouldn't be surprised if they already started.

(Note: This is based off of an article I read a few weeks back. I'm not sure if everything is accurate, but I know they wanted it.)

Well, the heavy body type in this game appears to be a man on some sort of sci-fi steroid analogue. You could have the female equivalent be A. a woman on some sort of sci-fi steroid analogue, or B. a woman in power armor with the same hitbox as a man on some sort of sci-fi steroid analogue.

Re: the speed thing, it's actually the other way around, but any IRL gender-based speed difference is unimportant anyway. Brink doesn't need to try to realistically depict micro-differences in male vs. female body performance at the peak of physical conditioning for the same reason that it doesn't need to portray realistic consequences of getting shot.

Also, these problems would also immaterial if the devs had decided to only have female characters. Considering that they decided they would rather allocate resources to 1 gender and more minor customization options than 2 genders and fewer minor customization options, that would have been a completely valid and more interesting option for them to take. It also would have been a step in the right direction re: gender imbalance in video games.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Some of the more vocal opponents of the developer's decision to omit female avatars weren't ever even considering purchasing this game, so I believe aiming for a larger audience does not necessarily equate to getting more buyers.

"Some" does not equal "all."

Just because you shoot for the stars doesn't mean you get there, and making design decisions based on hypothetical buyers instead of market research is a recipe for bankruptcy.

There's a difference between "making design decisions based on hypothetical buyers" and "going above and beyond the target market." And that doesn't change the fact that they cut something that should have been basic (character models).

As for the 'typical shooter player', it is my belief that they likely don't really care about the issue one way or another.

That may be what they claim, but at least a certain percentage get a bit too...vocal...for it to actually be true (at least of them).

You know what I mean: "I don't care, how dare you care, and I'm going to shout you down until you stop caring!" Don't tell me you've never seen that. (I call it "pseudo-indifference.")

 

[Chibz]

This is probably why the devs went in the direction that they did. Last study I read (on the internetz, so I'm positive it is accurate!) was that females were a minority in the FPS community, and while I agree with the devs and with some of the posters here when they said it was unfortunate that they weren't able to add female character models, it is what it is.

Two of the three people were THINKING about it, but the noninclusion of female avatars killed it for them. I briefly thought about it, was more skeptical than anything about the high customization (Whether they'd actually do it). Turns out: No. They didn't.

They want to do it right.
They plan on working on it for a future release. I wouldn't be surprised if they already started.

That's actually just as bad, but for different reasons. The assertion than being able to play as a female character is just an "extra option" is just as bad as what I've been saying...

 

[OutforEC]

Some of the more vocal opponents of the developer's decision to omit female avatars weren't ever even considering purchasing this game, so I believe aiming for a larger audience does not necessarily equate to getting more buyers.

"Some" does not equal "all."

Um...ok. That's why I said "some". Not sure why you mentioned it, but thanks you for the clarity.

Just because you shoot for the stars doesn't mean you get there, and making design decisions based on hypothetical buyers instead of market research is a recipe for bankruptcy.

There's a difference between "making design decisions based on hypothetical buyers" and "going above and beyond the target market." And that doesn't change the fact that they cut something that should have been basic (character models).

It's an FPS; if they cut out guns, then I could agree that it is a 'basic' thing that was cut, but cutting out a character model is superficial. To be honest, it wouldn't bother me if the game had an entire cast of females. Or Asians. Or unrecognizable aliens. Or any other design decision that the devs decided to go with. Because it was their decision, and that's the only thing I'm trying to defend here. They took the risks, they made the tough decisions, and they managed to release a game they wanted to release, and for that I applaud them. For those that don't agree with something they've done, for whatever reason, their power is in purchasing or not purchasing the game. It's easy to sit back and complain about a decision when there's nothing on the line, no deadlines to try to hit, no bosses to try to please, and no company to try to maintain.

As for going above and beyond the target market, they don't call it a 'target' because you're trying to shoot beyond it. It is normally prudent to cater to those gamers that you are more likely able to attract than to hope a game made for the 'typical shooter player' somehow attracts all the 'typical female players', which statistically is mainly the Farmville and Angry Birds crowd.

As for the 'typical shooter player', it is my belief that they likely don't really care about the issue one way or another.

That may be what they claim, but at least a certain percentage get a bit too...vocal...for it to actually be true (at least of them).

You know what I mean: "I don't care, how dare you care, and I'm going to shout you down until you stop caring!" Don't tell me you've never seen that. (I call it "pseudo-indifference.")

Yeah, that's why of all the forums I frequent I really enjoy this one, because here it is usually more discussion and less rage-filled vitriol. And to be honest, I'm an RPG fan, and rarely get into FPSs; I don't really even have a dog in this hunt. I just find it somewhat humorous that the women that are complaining about lack of female representation in-game are actually arguing on the side that wants to shoot at women, and that the devs basically left out one customization option and the sky started falling. I suppose I should just follow South Park and admit that "I don't get it" since I'm not a female gamer and can't look at the issue with that perspective.

 

[flying_whimsy]

This is probably why the devs went in the direction that they did. Last study I read (on the internetz, so I'm positive it is accurate!) was that females were a minority in the FPS community, and while I agree with the devs and with some of the posters here when they said it was unfortunate that they weren't able to add female character models, it is what it is.

Two of the three people were THINKING about it, but the noninclusion of female avatars killed it for them. I briefly thought about it, was more skeptical than anything about the high customization (Whether they'd actually do it). Turns out: No. They didn't.

They want to do it right.
They plan on working on it for a future release. I wouldn't be surprised if they already started.

That's actually just as bad, but for different reasons. The assertion than being able to play as a female character is just an "extra option" is just as bad as what I've been saying...

I actually sent Splash Damage (the dev) an email explaining to them that I was really looking forward to the game and didn't buy it because there were no female character models; more a matter of principle, really... (I just sent it the other day so I haven't received a response yet.)

I also suggested for the sequel they include children as playable characters because honestly, how awesome would it be to fight in a civil war as a 12 year-old girl with a gatling gun? Not to mention the story implications.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Um...ok. That's why I said "some". Not sure why you mentioned it, but thanks you for the clarity.

Because you seemed to be using the fact that "some of" the people complaining hadn't been planning on buying it as evidence that "aiming for a larger market does not equate to getting more buyers." It doesn't follow.

It's an FPS; if they cut out guns, then I could agree that it is a 'basic' thing that was cut, but cutting out a character model is superficial.

Not when they boast about their "infinite" customization, it's not. (And yes, they've apparently used the word "infinite.")

Because it was their decision, and that's the only thing I'm trying to defend here. They took the risks, they made the tough decisions, and they managed to release a game they wanted to release, and for that I applaud them.

It's always "their decision." But if a game company makes an ill-advised decision, you don't defend, much less "applaud," it. You call them on it.

For those that don't agree with something they've done, for whatever reason, their power is in purchasing or not purchasing the game. It's easy to sit back and complain about a decision when there's nothing on the line, no deadlines to try to hit, no bosses to try to please, and no company to try to maintain.

Do you really think that just not buying a game because the developers made a bad call is criticism enough? Is the company going to learn anything from that? No.

It is normally prudent to cater to those gamers that you are more likely able to attract than to hope a game made for the 'typical shooter player' somehow attracts all the 'typical female players', which statistically is mainly the Farmville and Angry Birds crowd.

I'm going to be generous and presume that you weren't trying to be condescending there.

Yeah, that's why of all the forums I frequent I really enjoy this one, because here it is usually more discussion and less rage-filled vitriol.

I don't know; I've seen plenty of "rage-filled vitriol" in this thread alone. And I'm sure this is where someone accuses me of same.

I just find it somewhat humorous that the women that are complaining about lack of female representation in-game are actually arguing on the side that wants to shoot at women, and that the devs basically left out one customization option and the sky started falling.

But it's not "one customization option." It's half of their potential customization. In a game which, once again, is being marketed on its "infinite" customization.

I suppose I should just follow South Park and admit that "I don't get it" since I'm not a female gamer and can't look at the issue with that perspective.

You know there are guys out there who do "get it," right? (In before pages and pages of smack-talk about how guys like that are all wimps.)

 

[loodmoney]

Is there an explanation in the narrative of the game? I thought the setting was kind of a giant floating prison, which is male only could be wrong shall google it.

But if that is the case having female characters is plain wrong. Also the first two Gears games managed to make headway without female characters. To be fair I would play a sentient lump of Tofu if the game was good!

The problem with this kind of response is that the developers decide what the narrative is. The decision would have been no less sexist if they had decided to set the game in an all-male location. If, on the other hand, they were basing it on real events or pre-existing fictions, then they might be able to justify the lack of women.

Which is also the problem with this idea:

I've read an article, forget where. The Brink developers all said that the inclusion of female models would not only mess with the depth of the customization, but with balance and appearance.

Look at the heavy body type in this game. Now, imagine him as a female. No matter how you do it, the female characters would have less health, or look insanely unrealistic. That would force players who want to go heavy to play as men. Women are lighter, so they would be unfairly faster.

The developers don't have to do anything of the sort. They have not limited themselves to (some twisted version of) reality where all women are always weaker than all men. Their universe is one populated by men with distorted noses and chins, and where body weight is correlated with resistance to metal projectiles. Realism!

It is their game, they decided the laws of the in-game world. And if those laws meant that there were no women, then they made the wrong choice.

 

[OutforEC]

It is normally prudent to cater to those gamers that you are more likely able to attract than to hope a game made for the 'typical shooter player' somehow attracts all the 'typical female players', which statistically is mainly the Farmville and Angry Birds crowd.

I'm going to be generous and presume that you weren't trying to be condescending there.

Not condescending in the least, just factually accurate. I game with some women who put my skills to shame, but statistically the majority of female gamers are mobile or casual. But I worded it like that to prove a point to myself, that you would automatically take offense and focus on the 'female' aspect of the sentence. Thanks, I'll not waste anymore of your time here.

 

[distended]

Not when they boast about their "infinite" customization, it's not. (And yes, they've apparently used the word "infinite.")

In a game which, once again, is being marketed on its "infinite" customization.

I'm sure you realize that "infinite" anything in a video game is impossible. And that even if they add in female character models, the customization will not be infinite. In light of this fact, would you still have been opposed to buying the game if it had female characters from day 1?

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Not condescending in the least, just factually accurate. I game with some women who put my skills to shame, but statistically the majority of female gamers are mobile or casual. But I worded it like that to prove a point to myself, that you would automatically take offense and focus on the 'female' aspect of the sentence. Thanks, I'll not waste anymore of your time here.

Oh, so in other words, you worded something that may be factually accurate but doesn't actually prove anything in a deliberately condescending fashion. But it wasn't because you were actively trying to be condescending; it was so that you could try to paint me as being "oversensitive" or whatever the trendy accusation of the day is when one is trying to be dismissive.

In case you didn't notice, I'd made it clear that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But it seems I gave you too much credit.

I'm sure you realize that "infinite" anything in a video game is impossible. And that even if they add in female character models, the customization will not be infinite. In light of this fact, would you still have been opposed to buying the game if it had female characters from day 1?

There's a pretty big difference between touting something as "infinite" and at least trying to deliver on it, and touting something as "infinite" after having cut half of the character models.

 

[distended]

There's a pretty big difference between touting something as "infinite" and at least trying to deliver on it, and touting something as "infinite" after having cut half of the character models.

Actually, mathematically speaking, there's precisely zero difference between the two.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Actually, mathematically speaking, there's precisely zero difference between the two.

Now you're just splitting hairs. If you're making a video game marketed on its customization and have to cut something (provided we argue that their "matter of resources" argument actually has any validity), why cut something that obvious and major?

 

[distended]

Now you're just splitting hairs. If you're making a video game marketed on its customization and have to cut something (provided we argue that their "matter of resources" argument actually has any validity), why cut something that obvious and major?

Well, I can't claim to know the real answer, but it's feasible that the gender customization option respresented the biggest resource drain. So despite being one of the more important customization features, it's still possible that cutting out females was their best option in terms of the ratio of resources saved to quality diminished.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Well, I can't claim to know the real answer, but it's feasible that the gender customization option respresented the biggest resource drain. So despite being one of the more important customization features, it's still possible that cutting out females was their best option in terms of the ratio of resources saved to quality diminished.

Only if one ignores the fact that character models are usually a high-priority item, and argues that cutting half of one's character models is not an inherently bad move.

 

[distended]

Only if one ignores the fact that character models are usually a high-priority item, and argues that cutting half of one's character models is not an inherently bad move.

Well, arguably, cutting anything that's optional from a game is inherently a bad move. No one's saying that less character models is a good thing. And just being high priority (I freely admitted it's one of the "more important customization features") doesn't mean it's a given that it won't be cut. And it's only a high priority relative to other customization options. I would imagine customization as a whole is given a very low priority in an FPS, where things like gameplay, balance, guns, etc. are much more likely to make or break a game.

Is your beef here that there are half as many character models as there could be or that the half that are missing are the female ones? I'm sorry if you've already stated this but I haven't seen you make the distinction in recent posts and I'm not going to read through 21 pages.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

And it's only a high priority relative to other customization options. I would imagine customization as a whole is given a very low priority in an FPS, where things like gameplay, balance, guns, etc. are much more likely to make or break a game.

Is your beef here that there are half as many character models as there could be or that the half that are missing are the female ones? I'm sorry if you've already stated this but I haven't seen you make the distinction in recent posts and I'm not going to read through 21 pages.

Okay, let's see: You're claiming that character models (which are a basic feature of a game like this) are a high priority, but only compared to other customization options. The trouble with that logic is that in this case, other customization options were considered a higher priority than character models. They cut female models and added in...well, my hypothetical "more hats."

And generally, character modeling is handled by its own specific team. (Sure, you can argue that Splash Damage is a small company. But no company that can make a game as sophisticated as Brink at all is exactly struggling.)

One could certainly argue that they'd have had to cut their customization (read: clothing/hairstyle/tattoo choices) in half to allow for female characters. In fact, people have been arguing just that. Hell, that was the first excuse Splash Damage came up with (before they started complaining that female models are difficult). The trouble is that by excluding female characters, they've already cut their customization in half--and in a much more blatant way.

And while we're at it, the fact that they made excuses doesn't justify it. Excuses are like...I'm gonna be polite and say "armpits." If anything, it's insult to injury.

 

[distended]

Right, but say adding female models would have taken 100 hours, and that adding a bunch of hats and tattoos would take 10 hours. If we're going with their excuse of limited resources, maybe they only had 20 or so hours to spend on customization. The point being, it's possible that adding hats and frills is much cheaper than creating new character models, which would obviously factor into the decision of what to leave out of the game.

And while we're at it, the fact that they made excuses doesn't justify it. Excuses are like...I'm gonna be polite and say "armpits." If anything, it's insult to injury.

Well, it was your idea a few posts ago to entertain their excuse that resources were limited. That's all I'm doing.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Right, but say adding female models would have taken 100 hours, and that adding a bunch of hats and tattoos would take 10 hours. If we're going with their excuse of limited resources, maybe they only had 20 or so hours to spend on customization. The point being, it's possible that adding hats and frills is much cheaper than creating new character models, which would obviously factor into the decision of what to leave out of the game.

But if "customization" is the name of the game, female models should be just as much of a priority as male models. Full-stop. No excuses.

Well, it was your idea a few posts ago to entertain their excuse that resources were limited. That's all I'm doing.

But I wasn't really "entertaining their excuse." Their excuse is ridiculous [http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=2027]. I was simply acknowledging that they were making excuses.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

But if "customization" is the name of the game, female models should be just as much of a priority as male models. Full-stop. No excuses.

Well, it was your idea a few posts ago to entertain their excuse that resources were limited. That's all I'm doing.

But I wasn't really "entertaining their excuse." Their excuse is ridiculous [http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=2027]. I was simply acknowledging that they were making excuses.

Except thats a damn good excuse.
Asking the Brink devs to make female models with their own sets of options for pretty much everything would be like asking say Bungie to have 1000 player matches in their next game, for instance.

I see what you mean, but put it this way;
Would anyone really like the look of female avatars in the games style? Furthermore, you can be a 'heavy' bodytype.
Who's gonna wanna see a female heavy?

Just, seriously.
How much of a game is affected by the absence of female characters? Why should it even matter?
It just isn't an issue, but feel free to try and give me a good reason why it is.

 

[distended]

But if "customization" is the name of the game, female models should be just as much of a priority as male models. Full-stop. No excuses.

Well that's your opinion, which are a lot like excuses... which are a lot like armpits as you put it.