RC1138 said:
Sylocat said:
Now, this raises another question: Given that this video referred to FPSs in general, and not just modern military FPSs, why are you so defensive over this one subset of the genre? Or do you have some grander reason for not wanting women in FPSs at all?
You're not addressing his question.
He talked about non-realistic shooters and you go on about shooters that try to be realistic. And so many of these games so completely flout realism, soaking up high power rifle shots like paintballs and sprinting everywhere with perfect accuracy, your objection to the mere possibility of females in any combat role, (CoD and other games often covers a so-called "grunt" role) comes of as an exceptional objection.
You rail against women more than the hugely confounding issue of making allies invulnerable to friendly fire, a HUGE issue, comes across as sexist.
I mean friendly fire is I think the most contentious issue between the public and the military, the public completely fail to appreciate how friendly fire tragedies could happen, and all these games that contrive them to not happen is a far bigger issue than the possibility that a female might reach standards and depicted as such.
"it's like a woman holding over a man's head that he can't grow a child inside him."
That's just biologically impossible and hardly something men are jealous of passing a football sized infant out their abdomen via a hole in their genitals, but it is not biologically impossible for some women to reach the performance levels required, as many have.
Lets list IMPOSSIBLE things so common in even the more realistic (less like TF2) shooters:
-doing anything after being shot with a rifle other than wait for a CASEVAC and trying to control bleeding
-Recovering from bullet wounds and blast damage in literally only 5 seconds
-Near instant resurrection after death
-Allies conveniently painted with a colour coded name tag so there is no ambiguity where your allies are
-Allies immune to all friendly fire
HUGELY Implausible but not impossible:
-World War 3 with Russia of all countries invading mainland USA without a massive nuclear exchange
-Treacherous US Military commander working with terrorists to frame America for war crimes for a favourable war
-Rogue Russian officers in the Cold War brainwashing American POWs to assassinate the US President.
-Those same Russian Officers running a secret underwater base in the Gulf Of Mexico to coordinate a massive nerve gas attack on the US.
-all the technology like heads-up top-down radar, motion sensors, bullet counters and ultra-lightweight thermal scopes
-Claymore and bouncing mines that can be set off by enemy movement but not by your own presence or presence of allies.
List of mere reasonable plausibility but low frequency (by how we actually see them in practice):
-Women in armed ground combat roles
The question was: "Why are you so defensive over this one subset of the genre? Or do you have some grander reason for not wanting women in FPSs at all?"
I believe that's all I answered. I stated why I don't think women belong in an a modern setting FPS and further stated that they can, and at times should, be in non-Modern Setting FPS's. If you can't gather that from what I wrote, then perhaps you need to reread it. If you still can't let me summarize my answer; I do not have an ulterior objective that is sexist against women; my objection women in modern setting FPS is based on the pervasive historical and current factual mistakes and blatant disregards places into games further breading a culture that does not understand what it's own militaries are like. *I do* however think women belong in non-modern FPS and, as I said before, some games they in fact would be better protagonists than a male (Bioshock was mentioned as well as the original Halo Trilogy).
Now if that's not answering *his* question, I don't know what else is. Now perhaps I didn't answer a question *you* have, but... what can I tell you, I'm not a mind reader and even if I was, it would be rather hard to do through a fiber optic cable.
And let me be clear, as both a soldier with combat experience, AND a law enforcement officer, that is, someone whose job it is to investigate crimes and criminal behavior in a military and/or war setting (and intentional Fratricide being a capital crime, it's called murder, and can possible classify as treason, which is actually treated as worse than murder in the American Military criminal justice system (a found verdict *has* to result in the death penalty)) friendly fire, speaking as what actually GOES ON down-range, is *not* a problem. That is to say, it doesn't happen that often. In fact I've never seen it take place, nor met someone that claims it did. I have investigated possible circumstance, but never found one that had actually happens. In the context we are discussing; ground troops, specifically Infantry and Special Operations, friendly fire is a very, very rare occurrence right now. Now if this had been about Air Crews and SAM fire, this would be different, but we are not.
I will not say it NEVER happens, but speaking as someone who has been shot at, and in combat in the vicinity of other units, friendly fire DOES NOT enter your brain. You don't even think about it because, you just don't. You know more consider that than you do fear a strafing run from a Fokker Triplane. It's just not in my mind nor other soldiers.
Friendly fire is far from the most contentious issue between the military and the rest of the country either. If you truly think that I suggest you start researching, heavily, about recent Senate hearing and the like. By far, without question, the most contentious issue is Suicides. Ask any soldier in the past 6 years and they'll tell you that every month SOMETHING new gets added, some new SOP in relation to suicide prevention and care. AND it's a very hot button issue in the private sector about the military as both pro and anti war groups use it as arguments for their camp; pro-war see it as a response to a lack of troops and equipment and thus need to buckle down and send MORE troops overseas, anti-war feel it's a sign of troops breaking under constant extreme pressure, and thus should end the war.
Friendly fire is no more an issue than using Pakistan contractors to build our toilets. I don't say that as a joke, but rather as it's a rarely, but currently on *occasion* spoken of issue.
So no, me not considering how friendly fire relates at all to ANYTHING in this argument does not make me a sexist, nor would it reflect on me having sexist, it reflects on me being a realist and dealing with the world AS IT IS, now how I *think* it is, as, if you're honestly believing friendly fire is a constant problem, you're clearly not.
Give me an example of one, just one woman meeting the criteria, and I mean ALL the criteria for entrance into a true first rate Special Operations Troops (in the vain of U.S. Army Special Forces, KSK, SAS, Navy SEAL's and the like, not the U.S. Marine crops or U.S. Army Rangers). It has never been done. Period. This will be the last time I say this as I'm tired of repeating myself; women DO NOT SERVE in SPECIAL OPERATIONS DETACHMENTS. That's it. It doesn't matter how much you want it, how unfair you think it is, what you wish the world is, what you think the world SHOULD be like, here, now, in REALITY. Remember that thing, reality. It's the real world, where people live and die every second of the day? WOMEN DON'T SERVER IN SPECIAL OPERATIONS. That's it, end of discussion. That's why I made the analogy to given birth. That's all there is to it, one is as impossible as the other. No amount of pandering or greasing, or even threatening will ever get a women INTO Special Operations. Only a true technological advance that could even the playing field (and bearing in mind, where both were physically equal, not just women gaining a physical advantage over now, if the gap still existed between the sexes, it would not change) could change that.
Okay you listed a bunch of GAME MECHANICS. I think you need to watch a few episodes of Extra Credits to learn the difference. Game Mechanics are light years away from Story Elements. A female soldier in a Special Operations unit is a STORY element, not a mechanic. Mechanics are parts of the game that make user interface possible, and at times, enjoyable or challenging or a multitude of things, but what they share in common is if the mechanic fits the setting and is executed correctly, you, as the player, should forget it's present. I liken it to how pilots claim flying a plane starts to feel like an extension of their body rather than holding onto controls. As a gamer I've regularly felt that I was *in* game. Mechanics do that, they add immersion. Putting in something as unrealistic as women in a Special Operations troop, or even a regular infantry unit, would jar someone out that immersion much more than say, respawning in MP. Just the simple fact they've never BEEN in a modern setting FPS would cause a second glance to even those casually aware of military dogma. Anyone who new what they were talking about would be genuinely confused. It then ceases to be modern setting FPS, and becomes a FANTASY game, as that is pure fantasy with no grounding in reality. Why isn't MW2 a fantasy game because Russia invades the U.S.? Because for almost 70 years THAT WAS a possibility, a genuine fear for both sides. It *is* grounded in reality. The game's mechanics have nothing to do with that. I said in a previous post, a truly realistic game exists, it's called reality. If we're at the point of playing a video-game, you've clearly made the mental choice to sacrifice and suspend a little bit of realism for entertainment sake. But there is a line in the sand that, genre specific can't be crossed. Like I said with Madden NFL; you as the player allow the unrealistic snap throw and catch because it makes the game flow, but if you gave a player a jetpack to hop over the opposing line, while interesting, would NOT belong in that game as that is not what that game is trying to do; it's trying to realistically simulate the the NFL game and world while remaining accessible and user friendly. The same holds true for any of these FPS's.
"HUGELY Implausible but not impossible:
1-World War 3 with Russia of all countries invading mainland USA without a massive nuclear exchange
2-Treacherous US Military commander working with terrorists to frame America for war crimes for a favourable war
3-Rogue Russian officers in the Cold War brainwashing American POWs to assassinate the US President.
4-Those same Russian Officers running a secret underwater base in the Gulf Of Mexico to coordinate a massive nerve gas attack on the US.
5-all the technology like heads-up top-down radar, motion sensors, bullet counters and ultra-lightweight thermal scopes
6-Claymore and bouncing mines that can be set off by enemy movement but not by your own presence or presence of allies.
List of mere reasonable plausibility but low frequency (by how we actually see them in practice):
7. -Women in armed ground combat roles"
1. Okay you don't know about strategic planing but let me clue you in, if Russia, North Korea, AND China invaded the U.S. Simultaneously, there would be 0 nuclear response. Strategic planning denotes, and is accurate in it's assessment, that nuclear weapons are of no use against countries that possess them themselves. We wouldn't use them, ESPECIALLY if we were already invaded. It's one thing to nuke someone on your terms, when you control the engagement (Air Superiority, fighting in *THEIR* country, not yours) but to use nukes when enemy troops are already within your boarders is bad strategy. If you use them on their troops, your bombing your own people, which is bad for a multitude of reasons, least of which it's a quick way to guarantee civilian uprising. If you bomb your enemy's home while their still in yours, you're guaranteeing swift reprisals against your civilian populous and the result is the same as the previous.
2. Oh that's cute, you think American officers never double deal. I'm sure with your years of criminal investigative experience and time spent around General officers has lead you to that conclusion. Read up on the Military Industrial Complex and any dealing with H&K and Beretta in the past twenty years.
3. Um... they did. Or rather tried. Look up MK-Ultra. It was the American version. Many of the personnel testing it were KGB turncoats. So were they successful, no, at least probably not, but they DID try, and sounds like a decent jumping off point for a shooter based in THAT time period.
4. That one was a little... odd, and while current military knowledge does not show evidence of them ever place submerged bases anywhere the U.S., the Russians did experiment with refueling stations for diesels in the North Sea. So it's still not without basis in reality.
In contrast, name me one time female soldiers were used as SFO's. I make a point of studying this stuff and went to school, and held a job, based on this stuff, and I've never come across even a hinting. The closest thing would be KGB case officers being women, but that's still light years away from say, a female SAS Operator.
5. Everything you named exists. Granted not in the 70's, but right now, we have each and every one of those things. And to be fair, motion sensors have existed since the 50's. Weapon mounted thermal scopes have exist since the 60's, now a-days they weigh no more than a standard night optic, neither of which I would describe as "ultra light weight," but not drastically more than a standard M68.
6. Again, basis in reality, as far back as the 30's magnetic Anti-Tank mines were being designed by the Germans to not detonate in the presence of the type of hulls used on their own tanks while still detonating under any other vehicle. In the modern world, smart mines are starting to come out that use advance FF settings to distinguish an enemy combatant from a friendly. Again, this has a basis in reality.
7. Give me an example of women serving in Infantry or Special Operations in the modern world. Just because Russians had female infantrymen in WWII does not somehow mean it's plausible now. Considering that was a conscript Army armed with bolt action rifles and sub machine guns made in some guys basement, it's not indicative of a Special Operations trooper who trains, minimum, for 5 years to get to that point, and is equipped with a half a million dollars of the finest equipment, firearms, and tech on this planet. You can't, it hasn't been done.
I think you need to stop assuming you know how ANY of this stuff works, and actually do some long research into the history of the world's militaries. It's probably one of the most well documented things in history (other than tax records, which isn't a joke). Before I will engage you further in this, as it's clearly something you know very little about, not much more than can be gained from a 10 minute google internet search, read a book called: "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society." DONT JUST READ THE WIKIPAGE. I don't agree with everything he states but he does go into depth how women on battlefields function and how male soldiers react to them. Again it's not female soldier's fault. IT IS MALE SOLDIERS' faults. The Israel Army actually bars women from Infantry units because of a statistical norm of how male soldiers reacted to female soldiers being wounded. This has been well documented for DECADES.
So returning once again to the task at hand, women DO NOT belong in Modern Setting FPS's as player characters should the player character be a representative of any first rate Infantry (or Combat Arms branch) and especially SFO's as there are 0 examples, and thus 0 basis in reality, for either.