Feminists next target; Battlefield 1.
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Black Ops III's story mode features multiple female characters who die as soldiers, and it wasn't some big deal. Neither was the fact that you can select a female avatar, even though the player character gets dismembered early in the game in a fairly brutal scene. This was a pretty big release, too.altnameJag said:
Part of the problem in coming up with examples is that there are few games where you actually do see women treated equally, outside of possibly multiplayer. So you're left with mostly FPS MP games in the first place. But even single player, story mode, you just don't see the same reaction when the female characters are actually treated like the men.
You do, however, see outrage just that female avatars have been introduced to COD and Battlefield and Battlefront. Just, you know, as you say: not from feminists.
Yes, how horribly unfair of me to restrict it to things which would actually demonstrate your argument. You claimed feminists wanted women to be treated differently in all cases, so we need to factor out the ones where feminists claim to want equality. This is how one falsifies a claim: by testing criteria which would prove or disprove it. Yellow hats has nothing to do with the claim, but testing the claim with examples where women are on equal footing does. Showing that there is an outrage over women being killed in games, even when played to male standards, would validate the claim. Showing feminists randomly complaining would not.Gengisgame said:
You won't do that, and realistically, you can't. You can't, therefore, claim in good faith that feminists want special treatment when the evidence is more consistent with the model that they want women to be treated like human beings, too. The evidence for this, as above, is that feminists don't complain when women are put on equal footing to men. In fact, given we don't see this outrage where we would expect to see it (literally everywhere) in your model demonstrates your model is wrong.
This is rather interestingly phrased, i never indicate that the lack of such a thing will impede mechanics, rather that i find it rarely done right. It's a time consuming and noble process to make the game true to life.Something Amyss said:
I don't quite catch the second half: "women in multiplayer should be the least of your concerns" if you mean adding in women then yes it is rather low on my list of concerns, the truth being i could care less if there were women or not.
That's neither here nor there but i do have to ask why does adding women to a video game which is based in a war that did not actually have women fight make any progress towards equality.
2 things
1. that's largely irrelevant, i'm playing devils advocate and explaining in part why these people react this way the historical significance WAS not to my knowledge an argument presented by the ganes press of that time likewise it makes no significant impact on the reactive state of the parties in question.
2. Explain what you mean by ignored historical accuracy, I'm not well read enough to know how many women were assassins in the chaos of the french revolution nor do i read at length tripe journalist present on topics like this because they are generally withered word salads and far to salty for my tastes.
The problem is quantification.
There was no news attached to this thread, and you didn't link to any examples. it's not expressed in the op (even if interpreted that way it isn't quantified).
Nobody has pointed to this group of people that don't want women because they are women. There are no communities pointed to and even /v/ doesn't care.
Nor was there any indication to my knowledge that EAs reasoning behind the change was anything to do with these so called people.
Skeptically and rationally i have no reason to be sure these people exist.
What i am asking for is for you to give me some.
Or failing that this is clap trap of the Solanas breed, paranoid, conspiratorial and highly gendered.
Actually, the vast majority of the blacks who fought in WWI were just straight-up African, not African-American.Lupine said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KzBDjr-Ys
Yes, WWI was fought in Africa, Asia Minor, the Middle East, SE Asia, and even a naval battle or two off the coast of South America IIRC. It's called World War I for a reason.
On a brighter note, I gotta Pimp The Great War: a YouTube video series that has been chronicling World War I on a week-by-week basis on the events that happened exactly one hundred years ago from the airing of each episode.
Naturally(and keeping on topic), here's their thoughts on the Battlefield 1 trailers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvzEZ1Sq4tI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYDA5usUzmg
And for completion's sake(and even more on topic), here's a few things they said about women in WWI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cVSjzuvThE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLYz6aWz1cs
SAMAS said:
Ssssshhhhhh... Hey now, don't be too mean to us Americans. As has been said elsewhere in this thread, our world war history lessons (prior to college at least) leave the very distinct impression that if it A) didn't involve the US, B) didn't involve Britain losing (in the lead up to America saving them) or C) didn't involve the French surrendering (again in the lead up to the US saving/liberating them), then it didn't happen.[footnote]obligatory USA, USA, USA! chant here[/footnote]
![ZeD [taken 0]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/192/192348.jpg?1620256419){kind=avatar}
I know I'm late to the party, but didn't EA refer to the singleplayer?
Because there's at least one female soldier (the one on the horse).
Because there's at least one female soldier (the one on the horse).
Knee Jerk reaction? Both sides are so primed to go at eachother merely a hint at a future possible conflict is like blood in the water. See women being playable as the line drawn in what is looking to be a weird anachronistic boom fest in a war that was anything but is kind of silly. I was already sperging out about how the French weren't going to be involved or that the gameplay looked like it was going to do the run and gun crap in a war that was so ridiculously far from that conceptually. The game looks retarded, and having playable female soldiers honestly would not be that big a deal in whats looking to be a sea of anachronisms and inaccuracies.Setec Astronomy said:
But that's not sexualised violence.erttheking said:
That's violence on sexy folks.
Sexualised violence would be something akin to dressing someone into a skimpy outfit and then pour some violence on the person(s), for reason of doing it to someone sexy.
And possibly posing them.
Ok so sorta related to what people are talking about in this thread. I am in the middle of replaying 13 because I just wanted something easy to play though. I never really looked at it before but the random female Psicom soldiers are dressed weird. I guess its because they wanted us to know they were female but just having them listed as Huntress would be enough. All the other Psicom enemies are fully covered and the Huntresses are the only ones who arn't. I wouldn't say the outfit is sexual. Its just weird. I guess they thought just having a model dressed the same but with a different body shape wouldn't be enough?
Its nothing to complain about but its something that I've noticed from time to time with randomly generated female combatants. The designers don't seem to have the confidence that the players would know a character is female by silhouette alone. So they over do the designs.
Its nothing to complain about but its something that I've noticed from time to time with randomly generated female combatants. The designers don't seem to have the confidence that the players would know a character is female by silhouette alone. So they over do the designs.
Bad design and isms tend to go together. Good design requires thought care and consideration. The different isms in the world are how we avoid TCC.ZeDilton said:
How do they go together?nomotog said:
Characters should simply be designed to look like they belong doing what they do.
Not sure why a lot of devs seem to shy away from that.
Also, "TCC"?
Thought care and consideration. (They all kind of mean about the same thing in this context though.) They go together because of what they lack. Effort. If you don't put in effort, you get a bad design and resorting to a ism is a really common way to avoid effort.ZeDilton said:
Yes, characters should be designed to look like they belong doing what they do. But in the case of badly designed female characters and its connection to sexism, its often that they are designed to show off that they are a girl/woman above all else. That can either come in the form of sexulization, or in just random overt girlyness. The images I posted I would put in the bracket of random overt girlyness.ZeDilton said: