No women at all

[PN11A 2]

A pro artist does not complain about an automatic weighting tool not working 100%, he paints the weights manually. Spending time to fine tune the weight is part of the work. Also looking at the elbows of your alien creature your weighting skills need some work.

Also you are wrong about the community making more content. BI made the skeleton and all the animations that all character modding artists try to attach their models too. And if you would have any idea how much work that animation system was you would see that this outweighs most community work. BI made the game and all the important core content of which all other mods are based on and without it they would just be nice screenshots in a modeling forum. And dont start with this "community completes broken arma game" followed by "I am so great at weighting but the official tools failed me".

New mods are a nice addition but I did not buy arma for the mods for the most part mods do not reach the quality of the official arma assets, which is nothing bad as BI artists are paid professionals and the modders doing it in their free time are not getting paid.

Are you a "pro" artist ?

[Polygon 11]

I can definitely blame BI for releasing crappy tools and not documenting basically anything ever.

I assume bis already uses new tools internally and they're well informed about all ins & outs. otoh, making them public is a serious commitment in terms of quality and functionality. you have to polish stuff, and make sure it comes out solid. as outlined by some vets of the games industry before, this takes time and resources. however, the fact that your community starts to think of you as devoted for modding etc is a definite advantage.

I suppose many people here would "murder" for these tools. :D

[frag 0]

We can say whatever we want ... an island populated only by males will always look weird and unfinished.

I don't care about having no female soldiers. But no female civilians is just plain weird for any mission that interacts with civilians.. Period. We have dogs, goats, sheeps ...even rabbits and butterflies.

NO WOMEN!!??

Common guys

[iceman77 18]

Finally, a place I can go without a bunch of nagging.;) On a serious note, it doesn't bother me so much. I'm not here to look at atrociously done women characters. I just like to shoot things. (guys mainly)

[alleycat 28]

Are you a "pro" artist ?

I have experience with the craft

[jiltedjock 10]

Women civs certainly added to the immersion in Takistan.

I created a mod for personal use that provided 30 or so African male civs for use on Isla Duala. The lack of women wasn't an immersion killer, due to the large variety of male civs.

What is an immersion killer is a small number of male only civs. Diversity in civilian characters is critical if you are playing any kind of mission (such as MSO) which verges on role play - patrolling and possibly encountering very few Opfor.

[frag 0]

Women civs certainly added to the immersion in Takistan.

I created a mod for personal use that provided 30 or so African male civs for use on Isla Duala. The lack of women wasn't an immersion killer, due to the large variety of male civs.

What is an immersion killer is a small number of male only civs. Diversity in civilian characters is critical if you are playing any kind of mission (such as MSO) which verges on role play - patrolling and possibly encountering very few Opfor.

You exactly put in words what I think. It is really difficult as we speak to do mission involving civilians that do not look "staged" ...considering that there is like 7-8 models of civilians.

[bad benson 1733]

A pro artist does not complain about an automatic weighting tool not working 100%, he paints the weights manually. Spending time to fine tune the weight is part of the work. Also looking at the elbows of your alien creature your weighting skills need some work.

you're an insufferable swell head aren't you? seriously. who was talking about automatic weighting? i know how pros and everyone in the world except arma modders do weighting. i've done it before with great results and that's what i compare the shitty pipeline they gave us with.

you are just the typical talking out your ass guy who thinks because he made something some time he knows everything. it's kind of laughable. no pro artist in the world would work with o2. period. i know as someone like you it's easy to ridicule my results since you made nothing we can compare it to. as i described before, if you would've actually read, the problem is that my model didn't really fit the skeleton. that's my fault. i can admit that. but what do you know...the problem is an incredible tedious and unaccessible pipeline for skeletons and new characters (feel free to talk to smookie or other actual devs how much they like just working with it, it being more than modders have).

Also you are wrong about the community making more content. BI made the skeleton and all the animations that all character modding artists try to attach their models too. And if you would have any idea how much work that animation system was you would see that this outweighs most community work.

stop with the nonsense. you know exactly what i mean. you don't expect me to make a vehicle and weapon count comparison, do you? if course they make the game. stop the talking out the ass dude. i was talking about the already made content needed for females, being anims and a skeleton. but something tells me this isn't about a solution or actual facts. :rolleyes:

how do you know what i know? i invite you to compare our actual knowledge if that will make you shut your arrogant pie hole.

And dont start with this "community completes broken arma game"

where did i say that? i suggest you ask the devs what they think of the significance of mods for their game. i can assure you they are less delusional than you. i was never talking about any of your premade bullshit. if you want to make a clone BI defense rant than do so but please stop quoting me. i'm really tired of dealing with you.

"I am so great at weighting but the official tools failed me".

again. you can't do shit if you can only work with one skeleton. females with wide shoulders and manly moves are awkward. i know i suck so much and should take a page out of your pro book :rolleyes: but that's beside the point. i invite you to try to realize more than an arrogant forum post. come join us on the front and try to find out where the limits are. i'm sure you will become a bit more humble.

i have no intrest to deal with your "oh they insulted my precious BI. so i'ma go apeshit now". do that. but again. please leave me out of it.

for the record. i realize making females on the level as males (clothes and stances) is a huge amount of work. all i am personally (there is no collective opinion you know) infavour of are ported females. it's totally possible so spare me your pseudo expertise....

i hate this place. it could be good. but "attitude people" like you ruin it.

[roshnak 41]

I assume bis already uses new tools internally and they're well informed about all ins & outs. otoh, making them public is a serious commitment in terms of quality and functionality. you have to polish stuff, and make sure it comes out solid. as outlined by some vets of the games industry before, this takes time and resources. however, the fact that your community starts to think of you as devoted for modding etc is a definite advantage.

I suppose many people here would "murder" for these tools. :D

It's not how the community thinks of them, it's that they portray themselves as being devoted to modding. It doesn't really matter how easy or hard it would be to mod women in anyway, because the point is that the community shouldn't have to add women to the game. Women should have been included in the game from the start.

I have experience with the craft

This is great.

[antoineflemming 14]

Well let's just remember that back in 2011 there was at leat one female civilian, and now, in 2013, there are none. Honestly, even forgetting the women for a second, the civilians period are seriously lacking.

[dm 9]

Women should have been included in the game from the start.

I'm going to [continue] to play devils advocate here and ask: Why?

They're not integral to the story, they don't prevent any of the sandbox features from working, and in actual gameplay terms they add exactly what?

Don't get me wrong here, I am 100% for representing both genders fully, but I also know exactly how much work is involved in adding eye candy (in both senses of the word, and lets face it this is the only reason people want them).

[chops 111]

They're not integral to the story...

I'll be interested to see how BIS crafts the campaign/story around a Greek island with no females present at all. There were females in OFP for fuck sake.

...but I also know exactly how much work is involved in adding eye candy (in both senses of the word, and lets face it this is the only reason people want them).

It is not the reason I want a believable civilian population, and it's not the consensus of the posts I've read in this thread. Besides, there's a whole internet full of porn out there. What about female Arma III players? They just in it for the "eye candy"?

[simon1279 52]

I'm going to [continue] to play devils advocate here and ask: Why?

They're not integral to the story, they don't prevent any of the sandbox features from working, and in actual gameplay terms they add exactly what?

Don't get me wrong here, I am 100% for representing both genders fully, but I also know exactly how much work is involved in adding eye candy (in both senses of the word, and lets face it this is the only reason people want them).

Because personally i really missed bikini ladies shown in pre alpha screenies ;) with big "eyes" , but maybe altis and stratis are some kind of Mikonos... lol

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

They're not integral to the story, they don't prevent any of the sandbox features from working, and in actual gameplay terms they add exactly what?

How do you know if no one has seen the whole campaign yet? I'm sure BIS has a plan, but it's low priority right now.

[dm 9]

I'll be interested to see how BIS crafts the campaign/story around a Greek island with no females present at all. There were females in OFP for fuck sake.

There were females in Resistance, original OFP had Angelina and "she" was used for a few cutscenes...

Arma 1 had Marian Quandt, and she was also used only for a handful of cutscenes...

Arma 2 had the various female civs, but since they couldn't hold weapons or use the majority of vehicles, they were really only for "set decoration".

It is not the reason I want a believable civilian population, and it's not the consensus of the posts I've read in this thread. Besides, there's a whole internet full of porn out there.

Again, playing devils advocate here, but: functionality wise, how are female character models any different to males? Do you expect them to have less [average] carrying capacity and less [average] stamina than their male counterparts? Do you expect them to be shorter and lighter [on average] than their male counterparts?

That you jump to objectifying women into the porn category says more about you than the flow of this thread ;)

What about female Arma III players? They just in it for the "eye candy"?

That's a straw-man argument if ever there was one, does not being able to play a character of your own gender negatively affect your gaming experience? Are you not as effective as a player if you're playing as a character of the opposite gender?

And to finally boil it down to some measurable metric, does it really bother you that all the character models in the following screenshot don't have breasts and their hair in a bun? What/how does it negatively impact on the game play that these characters are all male?

Again: devils advocate - I understand the immersion aspect of having female civilians to populate the terrain with (most certainly comes under the "eye candy" category), I'm just questioning the game play value...

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Again: devils advocate - I understand the immersion aspect of having female civilians to populate the terrain with (most certainly comes under the "eye candy" category), I'm just questioning the game play value...

Devils advocate to a devils advocate, if you're going to look at the game as a purely "military action, with generic shooty objectives, at all times" then you are right. But there is merit in storytelling perspective, as certain stories cannot be told without both genders present. Some things certainly wouldn't be the same.

What if Valentina was the same character with the same lines but instead she was a he.

What if Angelina was Angelo?

What if Liz was a he?

And so on. Sure, they're minor roles, but I'd argue that they bring a storytelling impact. Even as "set decoration".

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm generally ambivalent about the topic, however, I will admit that I am less likely to shoot a "female" video game character than a "male" one, as stupid as that sounds :)

[chops 111]

@DM Personally, I'm not that interested in females in combat roles in Arma III, for the reasons you point out. But to have them absent as civilians just makes the setting feel odd - when civilians are used in a mission and they're all men, it's weird. As for the rest, you clearly missed my point.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Again: devils advocate - I understand the immersion aspect of having female civilians to populate the terrain with (most certainly comes under the "eye candy" category), I'm just questioning the game play value...

Gameplay without immersion is called Tetris.

[bad benson 1733]

Again: devils advocate - I understand the immersion aspect of having female civilians to populate the terrain with (most certainly comes under the "eye candy" category), I'm just questioning the game play value...

well let me ask another question someone asked before: why goats, rabbits, snakes etc? how come those are ported over but the females aren't? they surely don't add gameplay with their shitty AI and anims (except the rabbit, it can be fun to hunt ;)).

you can always play this game of "how much do you really want this, would you die if you wouldn't have females". you can do this with many features or "eyecandies". the only thing that keeps arma 3 from feeling dead and sterile is the campaign voice acting. this reduction of "unneeded" stuff takes something away that made these games special. remember chernarus apocalypse? how are you gonna have characters like that with this awkward collection of civs? anyways. i see where this is going. arma is a serious, dry simulation of military things, that's why everything that isn't straight functional and "merely" adds some immersion can be thrown out the window. who needs that shit, right? people, go play some games. this isn't one. sandbox? pfft. this is jsut shooting some dude 500m away. i know sad but that's it.

oh and about the "extra work" part. these are the dayZ males

http://31.media.tumblr.com/1902395a59281f2301aa4120a3fe4a19/tumblr_mh6sv0lGYW1rd90z0o5_r1_500.jpg

look familiar?

these are the females.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18eyvipx5hghbjpg/k-bigpic.jpg

they should just hire allycat and his experience with the craft to add them to arma 3, should be a quicky :p

Edited October 31, 2013 by Bad Benson

[dm 9]

well let me ask another question someone asked before: why goats, rabbits, snakes etc? how come those are ported over but the females aren't? they surely don't add gameplay with their shitty AI and anims (except the rabbit, it can be fun to hunt ;)).

The difference being that the animals have a very simple set of abilities and animations (they don't need to be able to operate weapons or vehicles, or speak, for instance) so amount of work to create the animals is but a teeny tiny fraction of the amount of work required to create a new human (inc all animations/functionality/interactivity).

oh and about the "extra work" part. these are the dayZ males

mmmm, and so the armchair expertise raises its head again.

Ok, so dayz has the models, except some genius decided to make a new skeleton for them == incompatible with A3, not to mention that dayz does not have confirmed interactivity with vehicles (a key aspect of A3, not so much in dayz).

There is far more involved with getting functional females ingame than just "port them from A2 or dayz", especially considering that all the people complaining about the lack of females would be the first in line to complain about incorrect movement animations/inability to use weapons/inability to operate vehicles/inability to function with one of the hundred or so other ingame systems that are designed to use the current male skeleton/animations.

And once again: I'm not against the idea, I'm just playing devils advocate because I know exactly how much work is involved in getting them to work properly vs. the fairly minimal gain in game play.

[bad benson 1733]

of the amount of work required to create a new human (inc all animations/functionality/interactivity).

what are you not getting? the females are done to a big degree. they just need to port the skeleton from arma 2. yes it involves work but not redoing of everything.

mmmm, and so the armchair expertise raises its head again.

Ok, so dayz has the models, except some genius decided to make a new skeleton for them == incompatible with A3, not to mention that dayz does not have confirmed interactivity with vehicles (a key aspect of A3, not so much in dayz).

There is far more involved with getting functional females ingame than just "port them from A2 or dayz", especially considering that all the people complaining about the lack of females would be the first in line to complain about incorrect movement animations/inability to use weapons/inability to operate vehicles/inability to function with one of the hundred or so other ingame systems that are designed to use the current male skeleton/animations.

what makes you think i don't know that? stop assuming what i don't know. there's a big difference between arma 2 and dayZ females as you pointed out. i fail to see how reusing models that use the same proportions since ages and rigging them to another skeleton with those proportions (like the a2 female one or even the a3 male one and replace some of the more "manly anims") involves anything you just mentioned though. you claim you know a lot. then admit at least that a2 and a3 are almost identical when it comes to vehicle interaction. so why would they suddenly have to redo all that eventhough it's in arma 2? aren't females even kinda limited there when it comes to vehicles? not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

again, i specifically was talking about civs and not soldiers. it's funny how you always turn "some work" into "all the work". some stuff might have been redone but it's simply not true that they would have to make a 100% new skeleton and all the anims. you're "non-armchairness" should make you realize that. :p

also interesting how first it's "oh you modders of today are so unskilled and lazy, just make better tools and work harder" but then when asking something being simply ported by BI it suddenly becomes an impossible amount of work.

are you some kind of a BI dev union guy or why are you always advocating for them not doing their job/additional work? i smell some hidden disillusion about BI's capabilites in your attitude. they are capable of things, believe me. :p

you might want to stop riding that "but it's so damn hard" argument to death. it's not. they just decided to not do it because they are probably busy with dayZ and never planned on exchanging the new females they made for it eventhough it would be a good solution among others. again. i'm talking about reusing meshes and rigging them to the existing civ skeleton. just pointing out in general that lots of the work is already done. that's why i advocate for female CIVILIANS since anything else seems to be too much to ask.

especially considering that all the people complaining about the lack of females would be the first in line to complain

who gives a fuck? i certainly don't. what's with this "devs can't win in some people's opinion so better not even try" attitude all the time? the fact of the matter is that any type of implementation is better than none at all. and some kinds involve a very much smaller amount of work. no armchairness involved just a less one sided view on things. ;) ad you don't need to explain to me that additional content means additional work. it's kinda obvious if you ask me...

Edited October 31, 2013 by Bad Benson

[fragmachine 12]

No women no cry.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[DJankovic 401]

Happy wife happy life.. and there is no women in game there is no wife there is no happy life :) This makes no fckn sense but YOLO!! :) I would love to see women`s in game because it gives diversity as for Takistan civilians i find it very cool when i play i see man and wife struggling true life while my unit is charging true XD IMMERSION is most important thing for me! :)

[dm 9]

what are you not getting? the females are done to a big degree. they just need to port the skeleton from arma 2. yes it involves work but not redoing of everything.

Yes, because porting is always easy... :j:

what makes you think i don't know that?

The way you post :)

i fail to see how reusing models that use the same proportions since ages and rigging them to another skeleton with those proportions (like the a2 female one or even the a3 male one and replace some of the more "manly anims") involves anything you just mentioned though.

Because it is more than just the models that would be needed.

you claim you know a lot.

I know a lot about a little. That is all

then admit at least that a2 and a3 are almost identical when it comes to vehicle interaction. so why would they suddenly have to redo all that eventhough it's in arma 2? aren't females even kinda limited there when it comes to vehicles? not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

Yes, they are identical. Both games can not handle multiple skeletons using weapons/vehicles/anything else rtm driven - you have the standard male skeleton, and that can do everything. As soon as you add a new skeleton, it can not, by default, use weapons/vehicles/anything else rtm driven. It is the nature of the system.

again, i specifically was talking about civs and not soldiers. it's funny how you always turn "some work" into "all the work". some stuff might have been redone but it's simply not true that they would have to make a 100% new skeleton and all the anims. you're "non-armchairness" should make you realize that. :p

My are non-armchairness? ;)

Yes, you may be talking about non-weapon-toting, non-vehicle-driving, non-clothes-changing, non-scuba, non-skydiving, non-ragdoll civs, but do you think that BI might have decided that they want all or nothing? There is more to it than just plain models, there are levels of design (what they want the models to do) and integration on the engine side to consider.

also interesting how first it's "oh you modders of today are so unskilled and lazy, just make better tools and work harder" but then when asking something being simply ported by BI it suddenly becomes an impossible amount of work.

Well modders have the luxury of "infinite time". BI is a business, they have to pay staff, they have to meet goals, they have to achieve deadlines. Where does the manpower come from to do this? You assume that they're all just sat around drinking beer/whiskey now that release has happened. Who is supposed to take the time (quite a bit of it) to do this work?

are you some kind of a BI dev union guy or why are you always advocating for them not doing their job/additional work? i smell some hidden disillusion about BI's capabilites in your attitude. they are capable of things, believe me.

Oh, I think I know pretty well what BI are capable of. I would happily be paid to be their "union" rep tho. At least that way I could push back both ways ;)

I'm not delusional, just a realist.

you might want to stop riding that "but it's so damn hard" argument to death. it's not.

I never said it was hard. I just said it was a lot more work than you claim it to be :)

they just decided to not do it because they are probably busy with dayZ and never planned on exchanging the new females they made for it eventhough it would be a good solution among others. again. i'm talking about reusing meshes and rigging them to the existing civ skeleton. just pointing out in general that lots of the work is already done. that's why i advocate for female CIVILIANS since anything else seems to be too much to ask.

Again with the "its not much work" when really it is, a lot of work. An awful lot of work...

who gives a fuck? i certainly don't.

Well that's great for you. Pretty sure that DnA and RiE feel differently tho. :)

what's with this "devs can't win in some people's opinion so better not even try" attitude all the time?

Because the aforementioned devs have stated time and again that they want A3 to be better. And being better means cutting features that are incomplete. Females being unable to use weapons or drive vehicles (or do anything else cool that was introduced for the human models in A3) seems pretty incomplete to me.

the fact of the matter is that any type of implementation is better than none at all. and some kinds involve a very much smaller amount of work. no armchairness involved just a less one sided view on things. ;) ad you don't need to explain to me that additional content means additional work. it's kinda obvious if you ask me...

Again, in your opinion.

From an "educated" point of view, it is a lot more work (even to do your "simple" port) than you suggest it is.

:)