Warface Producer Defends Female Designs as "Cultural Relativism"

[Friis]

How exactly would you have a woman in a MMS? Have you seen the gear soldiers wear? An ingame woman would be practically the same as a male so the only difference to the player is a word on a screen saying its a female and different sounding grunts.

But if you take women out because there's no practical difference you'd get the same sexism shouting.

I can't wait until a developer puts in an option for female soldiers that's the same model as a male except a bit shorter with different VA. I don't know whose heads would explode more.

The Delta Force games by NovaLogic did exactly that back in 1998... and I suspect Bohemia Interactive will do it with Arma 3.

 

[Friis]

The roles player characters take in shooting games (other than the Arma series) are completely unrealistic in and of themselves, having female soldiers in combat roles is highly unrealistic as well.

Women have taken part in military combat since military combat was a thing. There are plenty of examples of women taking part in firefights in recent conflicts and they've been gaining ground in being allowed into direct combat roles. To claim that female soldiers in combat roles is highly unrealistic shows a lack of understanding on what is and isn't realistic; women are already in combat roles, they're soldiers and taken part in combat, it just wasn't their official job.

If you honestly put the realism Warface's female designs on the same level as the realism of women being in the military and taking part in a firefight (which they've already done, for years, like, since forever), I can't really carry on this conversation anymore, because that's just ridiculous.

I can appreciate wanting less characters being objectified and more variation, but that should wholly go for characters of both sexes. However, using the idea of realism as an argument for making this change is dumb. We're talking about a free to play videogame version of a Michael Bay movie here.

The incredibly sad thing is that Michael Bay would be ridiculed endlessly if he pulled the shit that video games do. No film maker would have female police, or soldiers, or anything else beside their properly clothed male counterparts and looking like they do in Warface. So Michael Bay, on this topic, is more mature and realistic than a depressing amount of game designers.

A soldier in a support role finding themselves in a combat situation and a soldier in a combat role being put in a combat theatre are two very, VERY different beasts.
Don't let the popular media and a flock of feminists trying to further their political agendas inform you on things they know fuck-all about.
Female soldiers in combat roles will inevitably lessen the effectiveness of any unit they are put in and will in the end cause more soldiers lives to be lost, all so women can keep making believe that G.I. Jane wasn't just a big pile of bullshit.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Now, I wouldn't have minded if the females had a bit more streamlined look. Honestly, the male side needs that desperately. They're like walking collections of pouches that have gained sentience, but I digress. I could understand a less cluttered appearance if you didn't make it outright fanservice.

Boob windows? Really? Then again, I suppose both genders are pretty fucking ridiculous looking and the women did luck out in not getting the stupid as shit visors.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

A soldier in a support role finding themselves in a combat situation and a soldier in a combat role being put in a combat theatre are two very, VERY different beasts.
Don't let the popular media and a flock of feminists trying to further their political agendas inform you on things they know fuck-all about.
Female soldiers in combat roles will inevitably lessen the effectiveness of any unit they are put in and will in the end cause more soldiers lives to be lost, all so women can keep making believe that G.I. Jane wasn't just a big pile of bullshit.

The issue is proper training. Most males in general have an instinctual desire to protect women. They have more worth to the species and are more necessary for a sustainable population. Train men to defy that nature, and you can, and casualties will remain the same.

Plenty of cultures have put women on the front lines. From Sycthians/Sarmatians(whose women most likely inspired the Amazon myth), to Russian women in WWII, to Israel, where both genders have compulsory service and women are given combat roles. Granted, the Israelis generally believe they need every soldier they can get, but do you really think they would allow women to serve in combat roles if they decreased effectiveness on the battlefield?

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Nyahhhhhhhh.

That's me trying to simulate a defeated sigh in written form.

They're really starting to run out of excuses for boobage, aren't they?

The incredibly sad thing is that Michael Bay would be ridiculed endlessly if he pulled the shit that video games do. No film maker would have female police, or soldiers, or anything else beside their properly clothed male counterparts and looking like they do in Warface. So Michael Bay, on this topic, is more mature and realistic than a depressing amount of game designers.

Oh shit... you're right. Now I'm a saaad panda.

 

[Aidan(Roland)]

Say what you will about Call of Duty, the female characters are realistic.

Oh hang on, there aren't any. Well if there were, they could potentially be realistic, so that at least counts for something.

(anybody think the sniper looks an awful lot like early MGS 5 character art for Quiet the Sniper?)

 

[I.Muir]

I get it, the boobs distract counter snipers and the lack of any musculature on the female rifleman shows that she'll blend in perfectly...

But in all seriousness it would be better if they just came out and said, "Fuck it we want em' to look sexy. Deal with it". At least then they'd be being honest about the designs.

They really should just cut the bullshit and just say it's because we can.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Forum gobbled my response, so I'm gonna try to keep this brief.

No one who matters cares about the social injustice of half-naked, large-breasted women in video games. These threads are nothing but echo chambers preaching to the choir in a community mostly removed from those supporting these decisions.

Let me explain.

AAA game development costs are measured in tens of millions of dollars now. Very few devs can put together that kind of capital on their own, so they need to go through publishers. When those publishers put up dozens of millions of dollars for a project that may or may not succeed, they are going to do everything they can to ensure success. This means focus groups, market research, etc.

When Crytek conducts this research and finds that 90%+ of the online military FPS gaming community is male, they are going to start tailoring every asset in the game towards attracting and pleasing this demographic. Think about the sort of people who play these games for a moment. Are they thoughtful? Introspective? Sensitive? I mean anything is possible, but are these likely descriptors for someone who endlessly butchers other virtual human beings for hours on end? No.

Complaining about these things is pointless. You cannot prevent or change the path of such developments because they are doing these things for purely financial reasons, which trump social justice every. single. time. The only way to "fight" exploitative depictions of women in games is to actually grow the industry with new ideas and projects that attract whole new demographics. This duty falls to whoever actually wants to do it. You can't just shame existing developers and demographics to accept alternative concepts and designs.

If games with proper female representation are profitable enough, the developers will flock to please that demographic. The market will dictate it. You cannot force this transition through sheer activism because it isn't a service industry or a commodity or anything so objectively quantifiable. It is, in the end, a creative medium fueled by artists and designers, and they're allowed to do whatever the fuck they want in pursuit of maximum profit for their funders.

So yeah. We should eventually take the hint and knock it off with these news reports and the predictably smug responses. It's getting to be a little embarrassing. Meet their drivel with your own ideas (backed by your own investments) or acknowledge the fact that your voices mean precisely fucking nothing in the face of economic factors larger than just about any one person can fathom.

 

[Friis]

A soldier in a support role finding themselves in a combat situation and a soldier in a combat role being put in a combat theatre are two very, VERY different beasts.
Don't let the popular media and a flock of feminists trying to further their political agendas inform you on things they know fuck-all about.
Female soldiers in combat roles will inevitably lessen the effectiveness of any unit they are put in and will in the end cause more soldiers lives to be lost, all so women can keep making believe that G.I. Jane wasn't just a big pile of bullshit.

The issue is proper training. Most males in general have an instinctual desire to protect women. They have more worth to the species and are more necessary for a sustainable population. Train men to defy that nature, and you can, and casualties will remain the same.

Plenty of cultures have put women on the front lines. From Sycthians/Sarmatians(whose women most likely inspired the Amazon myth), to Russian women in WWII, to Israel, where both genders have compulsory service and women are given combat roles. Granted, the Israelis generally believe they need every soldier they can get, but do you really think they would allow women to serve in combat roles if they decreased effectiveness on the battlefield?

First of all, the problem isn't just that the male soldiers will instinctively want to protect the female ones despite doing so being counter productive.
When a soldier is wounded, he or she will need to be carried out of the line of fire and brought to a safer spot. That is, one fairly large person in full friggin' combat gear. A male soldier is generally much more capable of doing this than a female one.
On longer missions, personal hygiene becomes a huge problem for female soldiers and can easily become detrimental to their health, and a sick soldier in a unit will wreak havoc on the entire unit's combat effectiveness.

Secondly... How many of those cultures you listed still exist today? And of those that do, how many still have women in combat roles in their military? One of them... and that one only allowed women in combat roles since the year 2000 and has a grand total of 3% of their combat troops made up of women.

Thirdly! Women being worth more to the species because they are needed to sustain the population is hardly an issue with the planet being as overpopulated as it is. The inherent disposability of men must be brought to an end, but I don't think putting women in combat roles in the military will help with that problem. Giving men the basic human rights and privileges that women currently enjoy as well as getting rid of legislation that discriminates against men is the best way to achieve this.

 

[CHUD]

The inherent disposability of men must be brought to an end, but I don't think putting women in combat roles in the military will help with that problem. Giving men the basic human rights and privileges that women currently enjoy as well as getting rid of legislation that discriminates against men is the best way to achieve this.

Sooo.... Men should get equal treatment in the areas you personally feel they are discriminated... but women should still be kept out of the military while the menfolk do the "real" work.

Truly, you are an egalitarean....

(Also, what "basic human rights and priveleges" do women have that men do not?)

 

[kael013]

Yes, because as a female I would GLADLY give up the safety of been fully covered in protective gear to make sure the enemy has a nice view of my tits when pointing their laser sight at them while aiming for my unprotected heart. Or, gotta show off that dem arms and midriff, right boys?~

Cultural Relativism my ass. If they're going to make the male counterpart more realistic then why not female too? Consistency people, consistency.

Weapons having different recoil levels in different regions makes no damn sense either.

^THIS. As a guy, this just insults me because it assumes this is what I want. You're making a "realistic" military shooter. I get it, sex sells, but your game isn't where people are going to go for fap material. It's a war game, they're there to shoot things - preferably enemy players, but FPS gamers aren't that picky. Also, calling it "Cultural Relativism" means NOTHING! It just makes you look like a pretentious idiot who's failing to create a new industry buzzword.

In short: Congrats, you made fanservice skins for the horny male teens. Now where are the realistic skins and are they default or am I going to have to buy them?

 

[Da Orky Man]

For the first time in possibly forever, 40k is the more grounded version. Lieutenant Mira of the Imperial Guard, wearing sensible armour in a plain pose:

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I actually like cleavage so am all for such a thing. If given the option of cleavage or no cleavage, I will go with the first option. It is one of the good things in life one can never have too much of.

 

[Friis]

The inherent disposability of men must be brought to an end, but I don't think putting women in combat roles in the military will help with that problem. Giving men the basic human rights and privileges that women currently enjoy as well as getting rid of legislation that discriminates against men is the best way to achieve this.

Sooo.... Men should get equal treatment in the areas you personally feel they are discriminated... but women should still be kept out of the military while the menfolk do the "real" work.

Truly, you are an egalitarean....

(Also, what "basic human rights and priveleges" do women have that men do not?)

Everyone should be able to work in the job they are qualified and suited for. Women just aren't suited for combat roles in the military. It's not discrimination based on sex, but on ability.
In western society women are given a multitude of rights and privileges not given to men.
Women have government funded shelters for victims of domestic violence, men do not... despite the fact that half of all domestic violence is reciprocal, and of the half that is non-reciprocal, in 70% of the cases the woman is the abuser and the man is the victim.
The Violence Against Women Act funds police training in dealing with Domestic Violence according to the Duluth model, which rationalizes and excuses arresting the man despite clear signs that he is the victim and the woman is the violent abuser.
Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 effectively removes the right to due process for any male college student accused of sexual misconduct. Colleges where male students are likely to be instructed, during mandatory "She Fears You" lectures, to stay on the opposite side of the road from female students walking around at night. Being treated by the school, not as paying customers, but as potential predators... threats.
The legal definition of rape has been expressly written to exclude and ignore male victims as well as female perpetrators by not including rape by envelopment, meaning that any woman in America (and Europe) can force a man to have sex with her and not be guilty of rape.
Government funded feminist organisations like the NOW are lobbying (successfully) to keep rape by envelopment from being included in the legal definition of rape... those same organisations are all too happy to make numerous campaigns telling us that "Men can end rape.". The implication being that rape is a male problem. On the contrary, according to the CDC, in 2010 1.1% of women reported being raped within the last 12 months, and 1.1% of men reported being "forced to penetrate" within the last 12 months. Of course being as how rape by envelopment isn't included in the legal definition of rape, none of those male victims show up in those rape statistics that those same feminists are so eager to publicize.
There are several Federal Offices for Women's Health and none for Men's Health, despite men having on average 5 years shorter lifespans.
Significant government funding goes into making the job-market more woman friendly and safe for women, meanwhile 95% of all workplace deaths are men.
Family courts are notorious for discriminating against men in divorce settlements, alimony, child custody etc. There are underage boys currently facing prison-time for being unable to pay child-support to their female rapists.
Debtor's prison is illegal, except in the case of men being unable to keep up with child-support payments (they lost their job or had to take one that pays less).
Men get on average 50% longer sentences than women for the same crimes and are in general significantly more likely to be convicted at all.
Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It?s a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. A man losing his kids in a divorce is about 10 times more likely to commit suicide.

Is it any wonder that 80% of suicides are men?

And here we are, in yet another thread for people to complain about skimpy clothes on female video-game characters.

 

[Psychobabble]

Yea sniper boobs and rifleman bare bellybutton whats wrong with that. Tbh i think the devs are just pulling this crap because they get free buzz about it. And half naked ladies sell. Its been that way for ..well forever and it will not change.

Here's something I don't understand, why do people seem to assume that sexy women inherently sell more games? I get that there's the ever-present idea that "sex sells" and, while I'm sure that helps somewhat, it's not like games are trying to sell you on sex appeal. When was the last time COD, or Battlefield, or Dark Souls, or any other incredibly successful game used sex appeal? When was the last time a game that used sex appeal did better than these games, or other games, and can claim "sex appeal" as the reason?

Because the people making this game think all men act like this (see photo below) when we see a set of breasts. Sorry Crytek but not all of your customer base are horny tweens that have never seen a real woman naked in their entire life.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Say what you will about Call of Duty, the female characters are realistic.

Oh hang on, there aren't any. Well if there were, they could potentially be realistic, so that at least counts for something.

(anybody think the sniper looks an awful lot like early MGS 5 character art for Quiet the Sniper?)

actually the new ones got em and last I checked there consistant with the male designs.

 

[Amakusa]

The inherent disposability of men must be brought to an end, but I don't think putting women in combat roles in the military will help with that problem. Giving men the basic human rights and privileges that women currently enjoy as well as getting rid of legislation that discriminates against men is the best way to achieve this.

Sooo.... Men should get equal treatment in the areas you personally feel they are discriminated... but women should still be kept out of the military while the menfolk do the "real" work.

Truly, you are an egalitarean....

(Also, what "basic human rights and priveleges" do women have that men do not?)

Everyone should be able to work in the job they are qualified and suited for. Women just aren't suited for combat roles in the military. It's not discrimination based on sex, but on ability.
In western society women are given a multitude of rights and privileges not given to men.
Women have government funded shelters for victims of domestic violence, men do not... despite the fact that half of all domestic violence is reciprocal, and of the half that is non-reciprocal, in 70% of the cases the woman is the abuser and the man is the victim.
The Violence Against Women Act funds police training in dealing with Domestic Violence according to the Duluth model, which rationalizes and excuses arresting the man despite clear signs that he is the victim and the woman is the violent abuser.
Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 effectively removes the right to due process for any male college student accused of sexual misconduct. Colleges where male students are likely to be instructed, during mandatory "She Fears You" lectures, to stay on the opposite side of the road from female students walking around at night. Being treated by the school, not as paying customers, but as potential predators... threats.
The legal definition of rape has been expressly written to exclude and ignore male victims as well as female perpetrators by not including rape by envelopment, meaning that any woman in America (and Europe) can force a man to have sex with her and not be guilty of rape.
Government funded feminist organisations like the NOW are lobbying (successfully) to keep rape by envelopment from being included in the legal definition of rape... those same organisations are all too happy to make numerous campaigns telling us that "Men can end rape.". The implication being that rape is a male problem. On the contrary, according to the CDC, in 2010 1.1% of women reported being raped within the last 12 months, and 1.1% of men reported being "forced to penetrate" within the last 12 months. Of course being as how rape by envelopment isn't included in the legal definition of rape, none of those male victims show up in those rape statistics that those same feminists are so eager to publicize.
There are several Federal Offices for Women's Health and none for Men's Health, despite men having on average 5 years shorter lifespans.
Significant government funding goes into making the job-market more woman friendly and safe for women, meanwhile 95% of all workplace deaths are men.
Family courts are notorious for discriminating against men in divorce settlements, alimony, child custody etc. There are underage boys currently facing prison-time for being unable to pay child-support to their female rapists.
Debtor's prison is illegal, except in the case of men being unable to keep up with child-support payments (they lost their job or had to take one that pays less).
Men get on average 50% longer sentences than women for the same crimes and are in general significantly more likely to be convicted at all.
Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It?s a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. A man losing his kids in a divorce is about 10 times more likely to commit suicide.

Is it any wonder that 80% of suicides are men?

And here we are, in yet another thread for people to complain about skimpy clothes on female video-game characters.

Seriously WTF, Give me sources cause most the stuff you say is bull or exaggerations of truths. 70% cases of domestic violence is against men with the women is the abuser. Umm no. So when i say sources i mean legitimate ones, preferable from academics, case law, or legislation. I do not want BS sources from some random generic "men that hates women agency" internet group.

Seriously

Crimes Act 1900 No 40 (NSW Australia)
Current version for 12 September 2013 to date (accessed 9 October 2013 at 21:13)
Part 3Division 10Section 61I



61I Sexual assault

Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and who knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

Source http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+40+1900+cd+0+N

Please tell where is says that rape (sexual assault is the legal word in NSW) is man attacking women only in that definition? Seriously you are exaggerating or literally pulling shite out of thin air.

And here is an example of the the New York State Legislature of a Rape Crime which is a USA jurisdiction.

Penal


§ 130.35 Rape in the first degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
1. By forcible compulsion; or
2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
or
3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more.
Rape in the first degree is a class B felony.

Source http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

As again please tell which jurisdictions have rape as man raping women only, because you have made some very BIG generalisations.

The only valid case you might have is in relation to the family court. However you don't go to jail in Australia for failed child support. You can get sued. However if you tried to commit fraud to avoid paying, then you could go to jail possible since fraud is a crime and that would be separate case pursued by the ATO or the Crown (state).

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00465 Is the link for the child support law.

Listen its okay to for you to say you dislike women and think they are second rate people. Be honest instead of outright misrepresenting things and making weak links with no sources and with no context. This reminds me of the White guy defense force carton on critical miss that enraged some readers a few weeks ago.

 

[Riot3000]

For the first time in possibly forever, 40k is the more grounded version. Lieutenant Mira of the Imperial Guard, wearing sensible armour in a plain pose:

Yes we will have pratical female armor 40000 years into the future. Honestly 40k is pretty consistent with their woman in armor than most would give them credit.

 

[Winnosh]

Its not that simple though. I have played some games with my girlfriend and she absolutely hates non sexy female armor. Sometimes it's not the guys pushing for it.