Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
almanzo

No women at all

Recommended Posts

How do I know people would complain about them? Because these solutions were used in ArmA and ArmA.2, and people complained about them.... at length...

so what is your point? get to it! they will complain more and the complain-o-meter will break since it will shoot over the fragile balance we have now? sounds like voodoo to me :p

All code is magic. You should know that by now. And not happy-go-lucky Disney movie magic, neither. Terrible magic! With terrible consequences!

You want an example, how about the FSM support that broke the domove command? How about the changes to the way armour is handled that left CSAT troops nigh bullet-proof? How about using the "climb over" command to phase through walls?

Heck, just look at all the unsolvable bugs in AiA wrought by seemingly inconsequential changes to the engine.

dude sorry but all you do is rambling about random stuff. literally. all that has zero to do with what we are talking about. it's just you being paranoid about past fails. almost starting to sound like you are afraid of BI breaking something. again ;)

However; compared to rewriting the base code, rewriting all the uniform and vehicle configs, recreating all the infantry models and adding a new animation set... it suddenly doesn't seem like so much work.

according to your view the rewriting would only be needed in the situation that requires the new anims and models though :p

An example of how something can be worse than nothing... well... nuclear waste, people trying to kill you, cancer, the conservative party... you'd rather have these than nothing?

are you actually serious?! i'm not talking about life, granny. i'm talkign about females in arma. what does all that have to do with anything...lol?

No, the engine only checks which side you're on. And, more importantly, it's not changing anything about the uniform based on this, just telling you you can't wear it if you aren't the right side.

so what makes you think that another check (gender) that will just pick another piece of data in the config (could be inside current classes or new ones with _fem suffix or whatever) be any different at all? it's not magic at all. again you are only dodging my concrete questions and examples. this is starting to feel terribly cyclic already. so i'll resign. i made my point. you didn't...really

Edited by Bad Benson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they were animals, not people. Like, literally.

That's nonsense, while they do have the same simulation type as animals do, so do men. Config-wise they inherit from civilian man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this a thread? BIS has a million more important things to work on, not once while playing do I think, "Wow, some females would sure make this more immersive!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is this a thread? BIS has a million more important things to work on, not once while playing do I think, "Wow, some females would sure make this more immersive!"

You may not have thought that, but others have. I've noticed the lack, to the point where I have ideas for a game mode which would be impossible to do without in game females. Arma 3 is the only game I play, I create content for the community I play with, I admin their server, I tinker with mods and so on. Arma 3 is a fabulous platform for me to be able to create immersive stories for lots of people to enjoy, but without the relatively simple addition of female player models, it is a platform with an unhappily large flaw.

Arma 3 has been billed as a sandbox and it is. It's a huge, beautiful, detailed playground, but it's missing the component which would make it perfect. I don't understand how this is an argument at all. Purely from a content creators perspective, female player models would add an unbeatable layer of richness and immersion to our toolbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so i'll resign. i made my point. you didn't...really

I'd... like to retort... but... to be honest, now that I think about it... did we just waste a whole day arguing over whether "This would require a change in the base code that isn't going to happen" or "This would require a change in the base code that isn't going to happen"? I sort of feel as though we did. I mean, it was a Saturday, so, you know, no big loss, but... still... I feel kinda foolish now...

But, hey, DeadMeat, you know, from BAS, my all time hero. He actually agreed with something I said. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is this a thread? BIS has a million more important things to work on, not once while playing do I think, "Wow, some females would sure make this more immersive!"

Other than optimisation and bug fixing I can't think of anything that would really provide as much to the game as introducing female characters, or anything that BIS has less of an excuse for not including in at least some form. Excluding 50% of certainly the civilian populations, and a meaningful percentage of the military population, in a game that's meant to be attempting to simulate a civil-war-cum-international-conflict is ridiculous. If it is difficult to do, or might increase the risk of bugs - neither of which I doubt are true - then they could at the very least provide us with female civilians like in Arma 2. All they need to do is move the old models over and change a few of the clothes to look more Mediterranean, and in return for that they'd drastically improve the immersion of the game. Not to mention they'd be showing that they're making an effort towards improving the tarnished reputation of the representation of females in games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaving this thread. I'm convinced all of you 2013er's who just joined and want women have some kind of mental illness. Bye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's nonsense, while they do have the same simulation type as animals do, so do men. Config-wise they inherit from civilian man.

Whoops, sorry. I must've misinformed myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm leaving this thread. I'm convinced all of you 2013er's who just joined and want women have some kind of mental illness. Bye!

Yeah, those extra 4 months make you real special. Bonus points for fully disregarding half of the human population. I don't see how wanting to see more than one gender in this game is any less valid than wanting more than one airplane or different turrets on vehicles. They are all valid and reasonable concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm leaving this thread. I'm convinced all of you 2013er's who just joined and want women have some kind of mental illness. Bye!

I'm the author of the thread, and I've been around since operation flashpoint. It's rather uncivil to replace arguments with insults. This community is usually made up of mature people.

I get that women are not important to some, but it is for many. I would rather have a game without civillians, than have only male civillians. For people who care about story telling and background for their missions, civillians can play an important role. Stop being infantile about it. It's perfectly fine that you have different priorities, accept that we do too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BI's not going to spend lots of time and effort making a feature that only appeases a few members of the community. I have personally never seen any protest or argument about females in A3 aside from this post and the Feedback tracker, and I have never met anyone in-game who gave a shit. Would much rather have weapon resting/more jets/3d editor/optimization then females, and would be the same if there were only females in the game and no men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BI's not going to spend lots of time and effort making a feature that only appeases a few members of the community. I have personally never seen any protest or argument about females in A3 aside from this post and the Feedback tracker, and I have never met anyone in-game who gave a shit. Would much rather have weapon resting/more jets/3d editor/optimization then females, and would be the same if there were only females in the game and no men.

Do you play with a community? We used civs alot in ARMA II, and are using them alot now. It depends on what kind of player you are. We are at 32 pages, should give a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you play with a community? We used civs alot in ARMA II, and are using them alot now. It depends on what kind of player you are. We are at 32 pages, should give a clue.

32 pages are by no means an indication of how many people would like to see females in arma. I mean half who have posted in this thread are arguing against females to some degree.

If female soldiers/civs to "properly" implement in the game, there would already be mods that did so.

Female civs would be nice, as it would open up for deeper story telling. But i don't by any means see it as necessary, especially if it means taking already sparse resources from other areas of the game.

If you want to convince BI and the rest of the community, produce some solid arguments that convince us so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 pages are by no means an indication of how many people would like to see females in arma. I mean half who have posted in this thread are arguing against females to some degree.

If female soldiers/civs to "properly" implement in the game, there would already be mods that did so.

Female civs would be nice, as it would open up for deeper story telling. But i don't by any means see it as necessary, especially if it means taking already sparse resources from other areas of the game.

If you want to convince BI and the rest of the community, produce some solid arguments that convince us so.

There was one, just the creator got banned from the forum (not to complain about moderation, just stating facts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to convince BI and the rest of the community, produce some solid arguments that convince us so.

Roughly half of the Earth's population is female.

Women serve in militaries around the world.

The United States is planning on integrating women into the combat arms.

Women have already been engaged in combat in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many NATO countries already allow women in every role in the military, and those that don't are trending in that direction.

Women have been involved in combat with almost every guerrilla force in the modern age.

Girls do play video games. They would perhaps like to be acknowledged and represented.

Not including women or not allowing them to hold guns (Arma 2) when so many other games at least give some representation to women gives the impression of misogyny or a political statement (I think I remember some BIS devs actually saying they did not believe women should be in the military -- don't quote me on that).

The video game industry should be trying to improve the way it represents women, not make it worse by not giving them the same abilities as men or not even representing them at all.

These are just a few reasons that are not "it's dumb that there are no civilian women" (it is).

P.S. Denying a couple of these arguments literally makes you a bad person.

Edit: What else is the art department working on?

Edited by roshnak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: What else is the art department working on?

I've been asking myself that for ages... I'm starting wondering if there's any at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not including women or not allowing them to hold guns (Arma 2) when so many other games at least give some representation to women gives the impression of misogyny or a political statement (I think I remember some BIS devs actually saying they did not believe women should be in the military -- don't quote me on that).

This is such a bullshit/strawman argument, much like the rest of the thread I guess.

The number of times people have explained why there are no women in the game is crazy, the number of times it is met with non-developers going "well why don't they just do... ...its easy" is even more ludicrous.

There are no women in Arma3, not because the devs hate women (I have it on first hand that the truth is quite the opposite), but because adding women is a fuckload of work to do properly for very little gameplay gain. The cost:reward ratio is just too high for BI to really be bothered putting in the effort. There are many other things, more important things, which are better spent developing than eye candy for missions.

I can't be bothered to type out the giant long list of "things what need to be done in order to get female characters working in A3 properly" again, because like the last dozen times, it'll be ignored with cries of "well why cant they just <insert half-assed take the data from somewhere else idea here> instead?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is such a bullshit/strawman argument, much like the rest of the thread I guess.

The number of times people have explained why there are no women in the game is crazy, the number of times it is met with non-developers going "well why don't they just do... ...its easy" is even more ludicrous.

There are no women in Arma3, not because the devs hate women (I have it on first hand that the truth is quite the opposite), but because adding women is a fuckload of work to do properly for very little gameplay gain. The cost:reward ratio is just too high for BI to really be bothered putting in the effort. There are many other things, more important things, which are better spent developing than eye candy for missions.

I can't be bothered to type out the giant long list of "things what need to be done in order to get female characters working in A3 properly" again, because like the last dozen times, it'll be ignored with cries of "well why cant they just <insert half-assed take the data from somewhere else idea here> instead?"

First of all, I did not say that the developers hate women. I said that the complete lack of representation of a substantial portion of the human race gives the impression that the developers do not care about the representation of that gender. Whether or not that is actually how they feel is irrelevant to how it looks. Imagine being a girl playing this game and realizing that there is no one that looks like you represented at all. I'm really trying not to sound to melodramatic about this, by the way, but women exist and they are serving in conflicts around the world and they deserve to be represented in this "military sandbox."

I never said that adding women into the game would be easy, nor did I suggest that BIS use the male skeleton and animations or take data from anywhere else or do anything short of a full, proper implementation. It doesn't really matter how much work it would be because it is worth doing.

Furthermore:

What else is the art department working on?

Surely there are full time artists on the Arma 3 dev team. And don't they have their own mocap studio? What is that being used for right now? Sure, there is other content that still needs to be added (more planes?) but almost 6 months from the official release date, we haven't seen any of that, yet. Maybe that stuff is waiting on the campaign episodes to be released. For all I know, BIS is working on adding women right now.

Also, you should look up what a straw man argument is, because what you quoted is not a straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise that it's a ton of work, but work is what people do, when they are at work.

They have full time employees for whom modelling and rigging character models is part of their job description.

Having 25 years experience working in an industry where not doing something because it is difficult or complex simply isn't an option I really struggle to accept a "it's hard, we can't do it" excuse, especially when they obviously can.

For what it's worth I personally am only asking for them to look into after the campaign is completed, I don't want them to just drop everything.... but neither do I want them to just leave us with a world that only represents the small portion of the population that are physically fit men aged 20-45. I understand that it wouldn't add much if you just play multiplayer spec ops type stuff, but that isn't how everyone plays, its a sandbox, and the lack of women seriously limits the scope for story based mission creators.

Another thing to note from my personal experience, I'd rather have too much work than not enough...

Edited by motorizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realise that it's a ton of work, but work is what people do, when they are at work.

They have full time employees for whom modelling and rigging character models is part of their job description.

Having 25 years experience working in an industry where not doing something because it is difficult or complex simply isn't an option I really struggle to accept a "it's hard, we can't do it" excuse, especially when they obviously can.

For what it's worth I personally am only asking for them to look into after the campaign is completed, I don't want them to just drop everything.... but neither do I want them to just leave us with a world that only represents the small portion of the population that are physically fit men aged 20-45. I understand that it wouldn't add much if you just play multiplayer spec ops type stuff, but that isn't how everyone plays, its a sandbox, and the lack of women seriously limits the scope for story based mission creators.

Another thing to note from my personal experience, I'd rather have too much work than not enough...

The thing is there are many more things that are MUCH more important than getting female models in the game. The soldiers themselves doesnt count, Its the experience. I really dont see why we need models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is there are many more things that are MUCH more important than getting female models in the game.

For what it's worth I personally am only asking for them to look into after the campaign is completed, I don't want them to just drop everything.... .

You might not see a need, but I do, and so do others, it's a glaring omission in an otherwise largely believable setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realise that it's a ton of work, but work is what people do, when they are at work.

They have full time employees for whom modelling and rigging character models is part of their job description.

Having 25 years experience working in an industry where not doing something because it is difficult or complex simply isn't an option I really struggle to accept a "it's hard, we can't do it" excuse, especially when they obviously can.

For what it's worth I personally am only asking for them to look into after the campaign is completed, I don't want them to just drop everything...

that pretty much sums it up.

no pseudo educated vague explaination does negate the fact that it can be done without making the engine collapse or cause years of work. and that's basically the core of the discussion, if one extracts the political craziness from it: priorities.

but because adding women is a fuckload of work to do properly for very little gameplay gain. The cost:reward ratio is just too high for BI to really be bothered putting in the effort. There are many other things, more important things, which are better spent developing than eye candy for missions.

how about you stop mixing up full and partly implementation? you can't say "eye candy for missions", explicitly talking about female civs, and then go on to argue how costly a full implementation is. that is what happens when you try to argue against a whole thread or a group of individuals as if they are one homogenous thing. you become vague in what you say hoping no one will notice :p

these attempts at making the whole request for females, in any form, sound like a disconnected ludicrous one are not convincing. especially when it comes to a limited implementation which for some reason is being treated like a side note although a good part of the requests tends towards that. arma 2 > arma 3 when it comes to females. so shut up about humongous changes already. it simply has been cut from the game. it's not like the game is so horrible incompatible to do the task.

i mean they even created new females for the arrowhead DLC to have matching civilians for the new geographical area (no "czech hookers" bullshit). and yet some people like to act like the idea of female civs is like out of this world when infact BI themselves have made them a constant in their games. VBS has even children. so much for "gameplay gain".

There are many other things, more important things

what are these things and which of them are actually on the way and also which of them require animators and modellers? it becomes less of a knock out argument the more specific you get.

it comes down to this

work is what people do, when they are at work.

which can be seen in the case of dayZ. your "there are more important things to be done" magic bullet is only half the truth. and i think you know it. that's why pointing at dayZ's fully functional females gets quickly turned into "you can't just port" mumbojumbo by you when it was simply done to illustrate the possibility of it being done as a counter against "you have no idea how hard...etc bla bla".

so how about a bit more tolerance for other opinions when it comes to what is useful to players and what should be prioritized? because so far this is what this is. two differing opinions. there is no technical "that's why" no matter how hard you may try to make it look like there is. females are not important to you whatsoever? fine. move on unless you found out that RV has an inbuilt female block. i'll be all ears about the specifics :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having 25 years experience working in an industry where not doing something because it is difficult or complex simply isn't an option I really struggle to accept a "it's hard, we can't do it" excuse, especially when they obviously can.

But its not just about how hard it is, its about the payoff of what all that hard work actually brings to the game. and gameplay wise, that is very little. So they have decided it is not worth the amount of effort it would need.

if one extracts the political craziness from it: priorities.

And they have decided that it isnt one?

how about you stop mixing up full and partly implementation? you can't say "eye candy for missions", explicitly talking about female civs, and then go on to argue how costly a full implementation is.

Why?

1. BI have stated clearly that they are not going to do anything in half measures anymore. So if they do women, they do them fully.

2. Female models, whether combat capable or not are still eye candy. Not in the sexist way most people in these sorts of threads take that to mean, but in the same way having different RWS models for both sides (instead of the "cut and paste" jobs we have at the moment) would not provide any different functionality. They are there purely for aesthetics.

I for one see no difference between the two. Either way you have to mess around with new skeletons/rigs (something I know the engine doesnt like), new anims, and new models. If you go the full hog you also have to rework weapons, equipment, interacting with vehicles, climbing, scuba, skydiving, etc etc etc, the list is endless.

that is what happens when you try to argue against a whole thread or a group of individuals as if they are one homogenous thing. you become vague in what you say hoping no one will notice :p

No, generally thats what happens when you argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience [of being idiots] :)

these attempts at making the whole request for females, in any form, sound like a disconnected ludicrous one are not convincing. especially when it comes to a limited implementation which for some reason is being treated like a side note although a good part of the requests tends towards that.

Except that A2 had little to no real creative leadership. And as such was a bit shonky (ACR DLC anyone?). RiE and DnA have both state (and again I repeat myself) that they arent going to do anything half-assed anymore. If they do something new, they will do it properly.

what are these things and which of them are actually on the way and also which of them require animators and modellers? it becomes less of a knock out argument the more specific you get.

If you follow the twitter accounts of various people who work at BI, you will see quite clearly that the animators are all working on other projects (DayZ, and others), leaving no one to work on A3.

which can be seen in the case of dayZ. your "there are more important things to be done" magic bullet is only half the truth. and i think you know it.

I know a lot more truth than 99% of the people in this thread ;)

that's why pointing at dayZ's fully functional females gets quickly turned into "you can't just port" mumbojumbo by you when it was simply done to illustrate the possibility of it being done as a counter against "you have no idea how hard...etc bla bla".

Except you can't "just port" from dayz. There is so much going on "behind the graphics" and there is so much archaic bullshit in the engine, that just mashing the two things together is NOT going to end well.

there is no technical "that's why" no matter how hard you may try to make it look like there is.

Except there really is. Many different reasons at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×