Far Cry 4 Is "Packed to The Gills" With Women

[SilverUchiha]

*sigh*...

well... I appreciate the effort and thought put into this. I really do. But I don't think the execution on this issue is quite right. It feels very "capcom-like" in that it doesn't really address the problem people had with Ubisoft to begin with and, in a certain light, makes Ubisoft look just as (if not more) guilty than before... even if they're sincerely trying and just not doing it right.

#1 - We wanted the option to play as a female character in a game which traditionally offered alternate character skins for online gameplay. Not to mention the game's setting made this seem like a no-brainer and having everyone be the protagonist just seemed like a stupid idea to begin with. This is Legend of Zelda: Four Swords, after all. It's motherfucking Assassin's Creed.

#2 - A response to "we want more women in our games" should be to put more women on the side of the antagonists for us to shoot. I'm not saying we can't have women antagonists or should. But... it's like saying we need more ethnicity in games and then we just texture a bunch of Latinos and African-Americans on the antagonists that we're expected to be shooting for the next several hours. It comes off as kind of creepy, just look at Call of Juarez: The Cartel

#3 - I really don't think this was something to drag Far Cry 4 into at all. The issue was with AssCreed because AssCreed has had female character models in previous games, plus the aforementioned online co-op/multiplayer gave us the belief that this should have just been part of the main game because that just makes sense. Far Cry 4 (from what I understand) has a main campaign that's offline (single player) and it's about a story of already pre-designed characters. If that story doesn't have female protagonists, not that big a deal. It's not like the setting or scenario call for it more than any other (unlike the French Revolution setting). So to make these changes suddenly in Far Cry 4 seems a little bit like pandering to the audience when FC4 really has/had nothing to do with the initial argument in the first place.

Again, I understand why and I appreciate the good intentions. Just missed the mark on execution.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Desperate to appear to be on the right side of a social issue for once, still utterly blind as to what the original outcry was about... cluelessness, thy name is Ubisoft.

 

[AlexReynard]

Literally nothing is ever good enough for you people, is it? No concession, no apology, is ever good enough that you won't nitpick the wording to pieces, trying to find some way to declare whoever-it-is as the problem. No matter what they do or say.

EDIT: How can some of you, with a straight face, complain about female enemies being killed in games, yet not care in the slightest that throughout the history of gaming, there have been innumerable games where you kill endless waves of all-male enemies, specifically because that is less troubling to the player than killing women?

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Any fish in this thread who can comment on how they pack their gills? Like seriously, do you roll or fold your women when you pack them?

 

[Something Amyss]

Unfortunately, the gills will not be animated, because gills are too difficult to animate.

This just reminds me of the Mitt Romney "Binders full of women" scenario.

Game companies often remind me of Romney and his rather stilted, out of touch approach to reality.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Anyone kinda weirded out by the way that he states this fact?

While I think that the sentiment here is awesome, there has to be a better way of saying it then "It's packed to the gills with women. They're everywhere, just like life."

It could have been worse.


Farcry 4's just bursting at the seams with women.

More women than you can shake a stick at.

We've got a metric fuck ton of women.

Due to a shipping error we're overstocked with late model female characters and we're passing the savings on to YOU!

We got women comin' out of our asses over at Farcry 4!

Farcry 4's got a lovely bunch of female characters (fiddle dee dee) here they are all standing in a row...








Ok ok, playful ribbing at their unfortunate turn of phrase aside.
I will say that I'm actually kinda glad they they not only addressed that the game has a decent sized female cast but that a decent portion of these characters are antagonists as well.

I always find it a bit unfortunate that the push for larger representation in games and popular media seems solely focused on the protagonist. While I 100% agree we need more Samus Arans and Jill Valentines we also need more Alessa Gillespies and Sarah Karrigans.

Whether any of these characters will be interesting or well written remains to be seen of course, but for now I'll grant them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Kameburger]

This just reminds me of the Mitt Romney "Binders full of women" scenario.

"No really guys, we have tons of women. We have games full of women!"

Lol I'm so mad I wasn't the first one to post this comment. But same.

 

[Vault101]

[i/]yess siree we got all kinds of women! sissy ones fat ones ones that climb on rocks! [/i]

"Well yeah, you can't play as a woman, but you can shoot women in the face, it's just as good, right?"

not as good

but its a start in a way, theres no reason to only be able to kill men, (ala Tomb Raider) I'd rather have women fighting than just be victims all the time

Literally nothing is ever good enough for you people, is it? No concession, no apology, is ever good enough that you won't nitpick the wording to pieces, trying to find some way to declare whoever-it-is as the problem. No matter what they do or say.

I don't think Ubi's feelings are in any serious danger of being hurt...

 

[Greymanelor]

This implies that Far Cry 4 is a fish.

That is incorrect.

Clearly you haven't heard the news. New DLC coming, Far Cry 4: Blood Fish. You play as Jawsome Megalodon Mawlone, a cybernetic street-shark cop who doesn't play by the rules and is a sex machine to all the ladies.

 

[RicoADF]

*sigh*...

well... I appreciate the effort and thought put into this. I really do. But I don't think the execution on this issue is quite right. It feels very "capcom-like" in that it doesn't really address the problem people had with Ubisoft to begin with and, in a certain light, makes Ubisoft look just as (if not more) guilty than before... even if they're sincerely trying and just not doing it right.

#1 - We wanted the option to play as a female character in a game which traditionally offered alternate character skins for online gameplay. Not to mention the game's setting made this seem like a no-brainer and having everyone be the protagonist just seemed like a stupid idea to begin with. This is Legend of Zelda: Four Swords, after all. It's motherfucking Assassin's Creed.

#2 - A response to "we want more women in our games" should be to put more women on the side of the antagonists for us to shoot. I'm not saying we can't have women antagonists or should. But... it's like saying we need more ethnicity in games and then we just texture a bunch of Latinos and African-Americans on the antagonists that we're expected to be shooting for the next several hours. It comes off as kind of creepy, just look at Call of Juarez: The Cartel

#3 - I really don't think this was something to drag Far Cry 4 into at all. The issue was with AssCreed because AssCreed has had female character models in previous games, plus the aforementioned online co-op/multiplayer gave us the belief that this should have just been part of the main game because that just makes sense. Far Cry 4 (from what I understand) has a main campaign that's offline (single player) and it's about a story of already pre-designed characters. If that story doesn't have female protagonists, not that big a deal. It's not like the setting or scenario call for it more than any other (unlike the French Revolution setting). So to make these changes suddenly in Far Cry 4 seems a little bit like pandering to the audience when FC4 really has/had nothing to do with the initial argument in the first place.

Again, I understand why and I appreciate the good intentions. Just missed the mark on execution.

The problem is that yourself and most people don't understand is that AC5 wont be offering a traditional coop experience but rather one similar to Watch Dogs. Let me explain:
In Watch Dogs when you invade another player's game your seen as some random NPC model to the other player however on your game you'll see yourself as Aiden Piece and the other player is a random NPC. In this way both players see themselves as the protagonist and see the other player and 'someone else', keeping the immersion of still playing your game while offering MP without a bunch of clones.

It sounds like AC5 is doing the same system however their using it for coop rather than verses, you will see yourself as the main assassin character and the other players will look like random NPC assassin models (both male and females), however each player will see themselves as the main character and you as the NPC model etc.

It makes a lot of sense and frankly I give credit to Ubisoft for pulling it off, when playing Watch Dogs it's quite fluid and pulls off the trick perfectly so I look forward to seeing it as a coop version in ACV, just wish Ubisoft had someone with some brains to explain it better so the general customers understood what the issue was.

 

[Strazdas]

Oh, yes, plenty of woman you should shoot, because they are evil of course. I see they still havent learnt how to not trip over themselves.

 

[RealRT]

Literally nothing is ever good enough for you people, is it? No concession, no apology, is ever good enough that you won't nitpick the wording to pieces, trying to find some way to declare whoever-it-is as the problem. No matter what they do or say.

EDIT: How can some of you, with a straight face, complain about female enemies being killed in games, yet not care in the slightest that throughout the history of gaming, there have been innumerable games where you kill endless waves of all-male enemies, specifically because that is less troubling to the player than killing women?

For one, concession? Apology? There weren't any. For two, actions speak louder than words.
People had problems with no female protagonists because female gamers felt underrepresented, they didn't have a heroine to associate themselves with. Imagine, just for a second, if in 90% of video games you could only play as a girl. I don't think you'd be comfortable with it. Now they say that there are female enemies. They can't make a female playable character, but they are okay with females being killed in their game. That says a lot.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Huh, this is like that thing about binders full of-

Goddamnit.

Literally nothing is ever good enough for you people, is it? No concession, no apology, is ever good enough that you won't nitpick the wording to pieces, trying to find some way to declare whoever-it-is as the problem. No matter what they do or say.

Well, they could try getting it right. That might help. Yes, there are lots of different ways to get things wrong. The problem isn't that people are getting things wrong the same way all the time, it's that they are getting it wrong all the time.

EDIT: How can some of you, with a straight face, complain about female enemies being killed in games, yet not care in the slightest that throughout the history of gaming, there have been innumerable games where you kill endless waves of all-male enemies, specifically because that is less troubling to the player than killing women?

This again?

Men are killed in games where the heroes are also men, in an industry dominated by male heroes, and male characters of every type.

"Yeah, you can be in this game, you can be the villains" isn't ever likely to go down well with people wanting more inclusion. Put them as the heroes and the villains, fine, but just the villains...no.

 

[Dalisclock]

This implies that Far Cry 4 is a fish.

That is incorrect.

Possibly a gay fish?

Or is that just Kanye West?

 

[Johnson McGee]

You could say that Farcry 4 has binders full of women...

dated references anyone?

 

[Ix Rebound]

Wait, what?

So their earlier excuse of "animating women is HAAAAARRRD guizzzz" is now completely invalidated now that their game is now "Packed to the gills with women".

"OMG guys!, turns out animating women is so easy, we decided to shove a shit-load of them in the game, who would have thought?.......Hmm?....What's that? Having a female protagonist? Why would we have that?"

 

[gittonsxv]

seems odd to me that they want to stress this fact...
far cry 3 had your female friends for you to save, a temple female that was nuts, female ncps here and there but no female enemies i think but considering i was setting them on fire, blowing their brains out and stabbing them in the neck that is almost a good thing,
trying to overcompensate and be like "ALL THE FEMALES, THE ENEMIES, THE NCPS, THE BAD GUYS...GIRLS!" seems strange and...forced.

 

[AlexReynard]

A couple of people have replied to my post with the argument that, 'Well of course women are upset if there's a lack of female player characters and this company says that they have lots of women enemies."

My rebuttal: "On your side, one of the main leaders of the rebel faction is a woman, half the rebels that fight with you are women."

How many of you even saw that?

How many of you chose to see only the parts that justify your anger and ignored the part that didn't?

Maybe this game was already made and he's merely describing what's already in it, and this is not a decision to make women "just the villains". I'm quoting thaluikhain, who also said "Put them as the heroes and the villains, fine"

THEY ARE. THEY LITERALLY ARE. And unless you want the franchise's central character's gender changed, what more can you ask?

 

[Therumancer]

Wait, what?

So their earlier excuse of "animating women is HAAAAARRRD guizzzz" is now completely invalidated now that their game is now "Packed to the gills with women".

"OMG guys!, turns out animating women is so easy, we decided to shove a shit-load of them in the game, who would have thought?.......Hmm?....What's that? Having a female protagonist? Why would we have that?"

Well, the thing is that there is a difference between animating a woman and animating a protagonist/heavily playable character. Strictly speaking most of their games have had a decent number of ladies around, it's just that they were not playable and that is what people are complaining about. Having women in the background and showing up in cut scenes as NPCs and such pretty much sounds like their typical game M/O but being spun in response to this latest controversy. For example one can argue in Assassin's Creed 4 women are also everywhere, but Edward Kenway is a guy, and he's the playable character that does everything of note and needs to be animated heavily as a result.

I also find this kind of hilarious given that neither China or Tibet are exactly sterling examples of women's rights. If Ubisoft wants to be realistic about the setting, one would expect what's going on in the background to be highly sexist in many respects, and not called into question. Even a very liberal main character would have to keep his mouth shut if he wanted to blend in or accomplish much of anything. In some respects it will be comedy gold if they decide to make this game their big feminist Magnum Opus in response to criticism where it just doesn't fit, with the writers creating "strong female characters" in great numbers in some of the places your least likely to find them. The only way they could make it funnier would be to do this in a game set in "The Middle East", or "India" given some of the comments recently made about women and rape there.

I mean don't get me wrong, but Tibet is kind of a mess, it's a somewhat backwards and unevolved culture, under Chinese occupation, where China has kind of met resistance in trying to change or progress things. Every once in a while you hear stories about monks getting machine gunned by Chinese soldiers during protests or whatever and a few things like that. There is still plenty of primitive mysticism and such in the region as well. In short it makes a great game for something like "Far Cry" as you've realistically got rebel factions to fight for, perhaps an alternative choice to fight against the rebels with the Chinese military, then you've doubtlessly got organized crime (which I'm guessing the cover character represents) that is probably selling guns to the rebels, and/or exploiting the situation to provide vices to the soldiers and such, as well as plenty of historical ruins, temples, and even monastic orders and such that have remained largely unchanged for centuries (or so I hear). You can go up into the mountains, fight guys with machine guns, explore ruined temples, and there is even place for some weird side story stuff (Shangri La, Yeti, etc...) if they wanted to insert some weird elements. That said, I don't think I'd expect it to be a hotbed of political correctness and first world morality. Indeed I'd expect for the most part it would be such a morally repugnant cesspool by our standards on both sides, that you can wander around the map and gun down villages and encampments and such without feeling guilty about it (exploring and finding stuff to assault/destroy is a Far Cry tradition, and I'd imagine why they chose the location since it's somewhere out of a jungle where you could do the same kind of thing).