No women at all

[nicolasroger 11]

Like I said, I agree about civilian female. But I also remember all the rage in arma 2 about them not being able to hold a weapon.

And now I simply see more rage again. Nothing new under the sun.

[bad benson 1733]

Like I said, I agree about civilian female. But I also remember all the rage in arma 2 about them not being able to hold a weapon.

And now I simply see more rage again. Nothing new under the sun.

so what's the problem again? what's your point? that female civs wouldn't change a thing except improve the game to a point it already was in? exactly! :p

[nicolasroger 11]

My point is that there is too much raging going on. Having civilian female or not will produce the same among of raging. So if I were BIS I would ask: Why bother at all?

You guys told the dev you would like to see some female. They are now obviously aware of it and decided for whatever reason to do not do it. End of story.

It is just that those discussions often looks like when a child doesn't have what he wants, he will do everything to get it. But in the end he simply have to accept that it won't happen and move on.

I guess this critic is directed at most request thread, not just this one.

[hardsiesta 1]

So if I were BIS I would ask: Why bother at all?

I ask the same as a player, every time I see all these demands for useless shit that has little to nothing to do with what ArmA is supposed to do. From "we need women more than airplanes" to "civs aren't dressed fashionable enough" to "there's no furniture, BIS totally f*d it up, people are packing their bags" in the other thread. I mean, really??

Sure, let's have female characters with proper fashion and fengshui options and all that in vanilla ArmA, right after there's nothing else left to develop. Meanwhile, if you can think of some good use for it, couldn't you just mod that crap in for yourself?

Some times I have difficulty believing I'm reading an ArmA forum.

[Cyper 18]

We need femalt characters.

We need many for the civilian side, and a few for the OPFOR/BLUEFOR side.

End of discussion.

[lugiahua 26]

I ask the same as a player, every time I see all these demands for useless shit that has little to nothing to do with what ArmA is supposed to do. From "we need women more than airplanes" to "civs aren't dressed fashionable enough" to "there's no furniture, BIS totally f*d it up, people are packing their bags" in the other thread. I mean, really??

Some times I have difficulty believing I'm reading an ArmA forum.

How is it nothing to do with ArmA?

ArmA was based on a combat simulator concept,(with more entertaining elements) and an important feature of combat simulation is "shoot/no shoot"(target discrimination) training.

BIS marketed Arma3 as "Authentic, diverse, open"

Hence representing a realistic population background is important.

How can you represent a "realistic" urban warfare with such limited civilian options? Just check other thread, significant complains from Arma2 players toward Arma3 is currently lack of authenticity.

Recently I was trained in a Virtra 300 individual combat simulator, it features interactive characters of all background: man, women, kids, elders, police, EMT, legally armed civilians.

In one scenario I have to engage a female teenage active shooter taking hostages, another one with a elderly suicidal man with a gun.

Can you imaging if such simulator only feature young male character? No one would believe it as authentic then.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Lugiahua

[Sneakson 1]

This discussion is still going?

Basically, we want women. I think voting has shown that more than 90% of all users want women in ARMA3 in one way or another. However based on the discussion I’ve heard modding it would be to difficult so only BIS can do it and unfortunately BIS are currently very, very busy since one of their games came out six months ago and still doesn’t have a complete campaign even which is disastrous. Until BIS have time to spare to start developing brand new things there’s really no meaning to argue about this because it’s quite obvious that BIS are going to do it whenever they can which is after they are done with whatever they currently consider more important… and until then there’s nothing we can do about it, other than argue which is meaningless.

[supergruntsb78 67]

last i read someone was trying to import A2 Civilians in to A3 dont know how the project is going but i hope to see more civilians (and yes also female) to get better emersion (walking through a city with only very reckonisable surfer / tourist isn't realy a challenge [i (probably most players) can see in a blink of the eye if i/we need to shoot])

[lugiahua 26]

last i read someone was trying to import A2 Civilians in to A3 dont know how the project is going but i hope to see more civilians (and yes also female) to get better emersion (walking through a city with only very reckonisable surfer / tourist isn't realy a challenge [i (probably most players) can see in a blink of the eye if i/we need to shoot])

That is a good point

In ArmA2 Guerrilla often have same outfit as civilian, only difference was being armed, somewhat forcing player to carefully choosing targets.

[hardsiesta 1]

snip

Nice misquote there, bro. Let me repeat, since you felt like ignoring a part of my post: It's not a civilian simulator, so it's not important. Having an identifiable civilians is sufficient while there are better things to do, whether they have tits or clothes that you like is irrelevant. You're free to disagree, though. And what "other thread"? As if lack of authenticity is a problem in ArmA. Lmao.

All BIS should do is make it possible to mod in civilians for those who need the extended authenticity in that particular field, as they have done AFAIK. Same for the furnitures and other useless shit. You could just reskin them to look like women in whatever clothes you want, put them in a skirt or whatever, but then you would probably complain they don't look womanly enough at close, because your "civilian simulator" needs to be perfect.

Basically, we want women. I think voting has shown that more than 90% of all users want women in ARMA3 in one way or another.

What voting? That's 65% on the tracker, and that's pretty low considering how many have probably voted for, just because it would be a "nice to have" rather than "need to have", while some of those who don't give a damn just haven't voted on the issue. Like me, until now.

[roshnak 41]

Let me repeat, since you felt like ignoring a part of my post: It's not a civilian simulator, so it's not important. Having an identifiable civilians is sufficient while there are better things to do, whether they have tits or clothes that you like is irrelevant.

Last time I checked VBS wasn't a "civilian simulator" -- whatever that means -- and it has female civilians and soldiers as well as civilian children. Just because something isn't important to you, that doesn't mean it isn't important to other people.

There are quite a few people in this thread who seem to think that having female civilians, at least, would improve their gameplay experience, to say nothing of the women playing the game who might like to play as their own gender.

This really shouldn't be this big of a debate in this day and age. I can understand and would even expect there to be people saying that this shouldn't be a top priority, but it's honestly pretty saddening that so many people just flat out deny there being any value to representing both genders in this game, and going so far as to suggest that it should not be done at all. It's astonishing to me that anyone would say that having female characters in this game -- or any game -- is a completely superfluous addition.

[hardsiesta 1]

Last time I checked VBS wasn't a "civilian simulator" -- whatever that means -- and it has female civilians and soldiers as well as civilian children. Just because something isn't important to you, that doesn't mean it isn't important to other people.

There are quite a few people in this thread who seem to think that having female civilians, at least, would improve their gameplay experience, to say nothing of the women playing the game who might like to play as their own gender.

This really shouldn't be this big of a debate in this day and age. I can understand and would even expect there to be people saying that this shouldn't be a top priority, but it's honestly pretty saddening that so many people just flat out deny there being any value to representing both genders in this game, and going so far as to suggest that it should not be done at all. It's astonishing to me that anyone would say that having female characters in this game -- or any game -- is a completely superfluous addition.

VBS has many features that would be great and relevant in ArmA 3, from which civilians are again one if not the least important one. But this is ArmA 3 forum, if you want VBS then why don't you get it? Civilian centered scenarios can very well be within VBS's scope of purpose, but not ArmA 3's. Likewise, just because this is important to you, it doesn't mean that it's important to ArmA 3 as a game, which isn't meant to be or compete with VBS. Sorry to tell you this.

Yes, women wanting to play their own gender is a valid argument. It still isn't exactly a human right, there are plenty of games where I wouldn't have the option of playing a male PC. But I'm not complaining. And as it was mentioned previously, too many women would break the authenticity of A3 as well. So why should BIS bother if it's not "mission critical" to ArmA 3? Anyone's free to mod their game, unlike in Battlefield, but I can't remember anyone complaining this shit on BF forums... Funny, huh?

But it *is* superfluous. It's all about details in models and skins, ffs.

Edited February 22, 2014 by HardSiesta

[ProfTournesol 956]

Civilian centered scenarios can very well be within VBS's scope of purpose, but not ArmA 3's.

And how do you come to that conclusion ? Because you are the one who knows how ArmA3 should be played ? There are always been civilian women in OFP and other ArmA iterations, i fail to know why this one shouldn't, apart from DM statements about time consuming development.

[hardsiesta 1]

And how do you come to that conclusion ? Because you are the one who knows how ArmA3 should be played ? There are always been civilian women in OFP and other ArmA iterations, i fail to know why this one shouldn't, apart from DM statements about time consuming development.

For example: BIS didn't priotize civilian variety, and I haven't seen one mission in the series where civilian diversity mattered. There were civs here and there, and that's it. Remind me how it was important in those games? Or tell me a practical application of gender specific civilian in infantry/combined ops fighting scenario? I'm having a hard time coming up any for VBS too...

Edited February 22, 2014 by HardSiesta

[ProfTournesol 956]

For example: BIS didn't priotize civilian variety, and I haven't seen one mission in the series where civilian diversity mattered. There were civs here and there, and that's it. Remind me how it was important in those games? Or tell me a practical application of gender specific civilian in infantry/combined ops fighting scenario?

Immersion is the key word. So civilian diversity matters.

[hardsiesta 1]

Immersion is the key word. So civilian diversity matters.

Immersion (by superfluous visual detail) isn't exactly a key word in ArmA, though. The game has always been about soldiers fighting each other, yet people ruminate about wrong kinds of shirts on civilians you hardly even see while doing the thing. It's completely reasonable why BIS hasn't prioritized civilian variety, yet OP says female civilians would be better for "immersion" than airplanes, another mission critical on the front page says "BIS fucked up A3 because no furniture" and so on...

This is ridiculous.

[Sealife 22]

Or tell me a practical application of gender specific civilian in infantry/combined ops fighting scenario?

Some players are Female and have been in the Armed forces and would like the same sense of simulation that males get whilst playing the game , similarly some males when playing with females would like there female clan members to be represented visually to match the voice they are hearing in TS :)

Stop being so selfish , there are 100 resons for females for every one of yours against it , whetehr females ebter this series or not has no impact on your experinece whatsoever as you have already stated , you are simply here with no other reason than to deny someone elses needs and or wishes , there is no other reason for you entering this dicuission , because if BIS did add females to the series it would not affect your ability not to add them or not .

[ProfTournesol 956]

Immersion (by superfluous visual detail) isn't exactly a key word in ArmA, though.

You think it is superfluous. I don't think furnitures are superfluous, nor tank interiors, nor vehicles doors, nor weapon resting. Airplanes are coming, that's not a matter. What's ridiculous is to think that you are the only one to know how this game should look like.

[hardsiesta 1]

You think it is superfluous. I don't think furnitures are superfluous, nor tank interiors, nor vehicles doors, nor weapon resting. Airplanes are coming, that's not a matter. What's ridiculous is to think that you are the only one to know how this game should look like.

You're talking by yourself. You are listing some good suggestions for the game there, I can even help you: Vehicle and weapon variety, firing from vehicles, injury system... OFF TOPIC. Even the furniture is a better topic in terms of immersion, than this. Remember what this thread was about? Remember I complimented the poster who said "too much rage" about this? Obviously not.

Good job trying to shove this on me. The problem is BIS doesn't agree with your priorities. I'm here trying to reason why, for you, but "immersion is the key word" obviously makes YOU the expert on how the game should be, above the devs even. How about you answer my previous questions properly, instead of avoiding it by trying to make this about me, eh?

you are simply here with no other reason than to deny someone elses needs and or wishes , there is no other reason for you entering this dicuission , because if BIS did add females to the series it would not affect your ability not to add them or not .

How about you read what I've posted and then start putting words in my mouth, buddy. Reading the OP would be a good idea, too.

Edited February 22, 2014 by HardSiesta

[Sealife 22]

How about you read what I've posted and then start putting words in my mouth, buddy. Reading the OP would be a good idea, too.

the OP

For me this is quite devestating, as I plan to use female characters as part of a future campaign.

your denial of someone elses wishes that wont affect you in any shape or form and a response to your request in the OP that you didnt read obviously .

For example: BIS didn't priotize civilian variety, and I haven't seen one mission in the series where civilian diversity mattered. There were civs here and there, and that's it. Remind me how it was important in those games? Or tell me a practical application of gender specific civilian in infantry/combined ops fighting scenario? I'm having a hard time coming up any for VBS too...

because if BIS did add females to the series it would not affect your ability not to add them or not .

Practice what you preach , however seeing your already dictatorial posts , i wonder if its harder for you to do that than it is for someone to request something they wish to have in the game on here ;)

Edited February 22, 2014 by Sealife

[hardsiesta 1]

Practice what you preach , however seeing your already dictatorial posts , i wonder if its harder for you to do that than it is for someone to request something they wish to have in the game on here ;)

Ok, that makes so little sense you probably just ignored my last post as much as you did with the ones you were supposedly referring to earlier. Way to contribute to the discussion at hand, by the way. That's enough crazy for me now, have fun telling your mom about the giant rat monkeys I was frothing about earlier.

[Sealife 22]

Ok, that makes so little sense you probably just ignored my last post as much as you did with the ones you were supposedly referring to earlier. Way to contribute to the discussion at hand, by the way. That's enough crazy for me now, have fun telling your mom about the giant rat monkeys I was frothing about earlier.

Dont worry , most people who enter a discussion and try to be dictatorial and have no counter arguments of substance always end with a denail of understanding post ;)

You came here to tell people the things they are already are aware of there is no women, thats easy because its a fact , you then proceeded to mix facts with your own POV about why there are no women and why there own requirements for women are wrong and or unsubstantiated , you knew you couldnt lose or so you thought and at the point you realised that your only contribution was to defend the status quo and not actually contribute to the thread in which the OP and many others have given substantial evidence to change the status quo , you fell back to the old " i will just call them stupid and deny the fact they have a point "

I hope you dont get too emotional , we have all seen the light of our own selfishness at some point , it goes away .

Just incase my posts are too complicated for a mind that thinks about Giant Rat monkeys i will make it very simple in summary ;)

Your resposne to the thread should be to play your combat scenarios without women and continue to be happy that whether BIS add women or not has absolutely no consequence to yourself at all .

For me why i am here and contributing , i belive BIS should add women but i wont come here and just rely on it i will get off my laurels and morals and help at least make a stop gap and hope to help those waiting .

http://i.imgur.com/K9UpdON.jpg

Edited February 22, 2014 by Sealife

[ProfTournesol 956]

You're talking by yourself.

Absolutely

The problem is BIS doesn't agree with your priorities.

I don't care. They deal with their own priorities, i don't see why i shouldn't request for what as always been in their games until now. Or for what should be.

I'm here trying to reason why, for you, but "immersion is the key word" obviously makes YOU the expert on how the game should be, above the devs even. How about you answer my previous questions properly, instead of avoiding it by trying to make this about me, eh?

I'm not expert of anything, but contrary to you, i don't pop up in a request thread saying "hey, that's eye candy, we don't need it". See the difference ?

[hardsiesta 1]

Absolutely

I don't care. They deal with their own priorities, i don't see why i shouldn't request for what as always been in their games until now. Or for what should be.

I'm not expert of anything, but contrary to you, i don't pop up in a request thread saying "hey, that's eye candy, we don't need it". See the difference ?

Oh, this was your request now? See, you quoted me answering someone else, quoting me answering someone else, etc, making it your discussion. You might want to go back few posts and actually look where and how I actually popped up into this discussion, since you talked about it already.

Edit: Btw your signature animation makes this perfect. So, if you think vanilla ArmA should be more about civilians than soldiers, then fine. I suppose I shouldn't disagree, huh.

Edited February 22, 2014 by HardSiesta

[roshnak 41]

So, if you think vanilla ArmA should be more about civilians than soldiers, then fine. I suppose I shouldn't disagree, huh.

For anyone who may have been confused, this is what a straw man argument looks like.