Someone wrote a thesis on ARMA 3

[instagoat 133]

Female death battalions, gay formations (btw, when you say gay formations are you referring to male or female?), hell, it looks that you want to turn this subject in to a discrimination issue and that is not correct.

If you look at ARMA 3 (vanilla) we are supposed to play as Nato Forces, now point me one force that belongs to Nato that have female soldiers in combat situations, there is none and that's why we do not have female soldier models.

Like i've said the only reason for female models is Life Modification, but then we also should have babies in game because is there where everything starts.

Now, since Life is a modification why do you do not create a modification with some female models and monetize with some Life server? That's how it should be done, requesting female models in vanilla just does not make sense, according to game concept.

 

You did not read my post

[chortles 263]

Yes, because development of high-quality assets is costly and time-consuming and that fact will inevitably mean that some other assets/features should be put aside.

A phenomenon that IIRC has already pressing issues for the way forward with Apex, with a SITREP basically saying that "Apex release is greedily devouring all of our Art capacity" even after supplementing their artists with community artists/modelers... to say nothing of the earlier complaints about content level (or community worries about the extent to which modders could 'keep up' with the official content, or how few modelers there were versus scripters/configurers/retexturers).

Besides I don't think that less than AAA-game quality of certain modification was ever considered as a valid reason to not to use it, in Arma community at least. Personally, I'm here for great gameplay, not for fancy textures.

As someone who has seen a milsim player group turn down a mod because they thought it was mainly comprised of Arma 2 ports (versus whatever they considered to be mostly if not entirely from-scratch-for-A3 models) I can tell you that this absolutely is not the case as a hard-and-fast rule.

Her take on the immersion thing is interesting too. However, I find her extremely optimistic about the general openness of the community. We had veritable shitstorms before over X or Y being unrealistic, with whole scores of A2 players declaring they wouldn't touch/mod the game anymore. Though I think, one reason why interface/radio and realism mods dominate in this iteration of Arma is exactly that conflict: all groups want A3 to be the best game they desire. It can't be, so modders step in to serve the need.

Emphasis on "groups want A3 to be the best game they desire" and you'd be more on the right track.

@ac.mack if you're still soliciting feedback, then I'd point out that that's one of the bigger things I got out of interpreting your findings: a broadly shared sentiment for what the studied players professed to be looking for, but once gotten into the details their definitions of this nominally shared vision actually differed a bunch, to say nothing of where they chose to make their exceptions even if only passively (i.e. the paper pointing out the inherent contradiction of "realism gameplay while using situational awareness aid mods", though we can also look to Bohemia's own gameplay disparities in realism level as an "official" example) hence the shitstorms that instagoat describes.

The Idea of "Orientalization" is kind of derivative, though, mirroring a kind of general anti-imperialist language you get from academic sources rather often. It made me realize how well at demonizing the enemy the game is, because from second 1 you do not care about shooting up the AAF. (While CSAT is midly scary) On the other hand, CSAT does not come across as terrifically evil. In fact, they are technologically superior at this point, and seem to really have gotten their shit together. And their support of the AAF mirrors the way many governments have handled aligned/puppet government actions. See Russia in Crimea, the US in Georgia/Afghanistan in the 80s, the SU in Vietnam, etc.

And the shit-talking is mirroring what happens in real life. Also, compared to OFP:RR, A3 is really tame about the dehumanization.

Are you thinking of the PLA or "locals" WRT Red River?

 

The funny thing is, what you described about CSAT seems to tie into what was previously said about models... with replacement mods existing specifically to cater to preferred models. I do agree with you about how The East Wind treats CSAT (as an OPFOR in name) differently from how other shooters tend to, and I've tended to find it interesting in a positive way and raising TEW's merit as a story.

Then again, unlike a bunch of people on these forums who professed to like Adams more than Kerry, I thought that Adams walked into his fate... pun intended.

[mmaruda 20]

Female death battalions, gay formations (btw, when you say gay formations are you referring to male or female?), hell, it looks that you want to turn this subject in to a discrimination issue and that is not correct.

If you look at ARMA 3 (vanilla) we are supposed to play as Nato Forces, now point me one force that belongs to Nato that have female soldiers in combat situations, there is none and that's why we do not have female soldier models.

Like i've said the only reason for female models is Life Modification, but then we also should have babies in game because is there where everything starts.

Now, since Life is a modification why do you do not create a modification with some female models and monetize with some Life server? That's how it should be done, requesting female models in vanilla just does not make sense, according to game concept.

 

It makes sense, beacause it's a game. Moreover, a game set in a fictional setting. People play this game and among those people are women and they have to play as men because it's too much of an effort to add new models and animate them. Put yourself in their perspective. How would you feel? Or perhaps relate it to yourself directly, how would you feel, if for example there was no representation of your race in the game and the reason someone gave you for it would be that it's too much of an effort to change the texture colors? I know it's not the same from a developer's point of view, but to a simple user it does not matter. This has nothing to do with realism. It just wasn't a priority and it still isn't. Read the thesis - she actually submited a ticket for it and checked for similar issues. Read the findings and the response she got. From an academic perspective with regards to gender studies this was just sad and if she was a fighting feminist, she could have a field day. It's a good thing Arma is not on Anita Sarkeesian's radar. :D Facts are facts though, whether it matters to anyone or not, Arma 3 is not a gender inclusive game.

 

On a side note, it's not only a question of having women in Arma's military. In Arma 3 there are no women at all! Personally I don't care much, but look at the story of Arma 3 and compare it to Arma 2 that treated war in a serious manner without fear of tactling diffucult and sometimes unpleasant issues  - war crimes, the mistreatment of women during a war ( that same argument given for not having women in Arma 3 and it was in 2 in the very first mission!), PMCs and making a profit on war, the responsibility of a commander for his men... The list goes on and on. And here we are in Arma 3 with a story that is on par with... Call of Duty and Battlefield. I feel like Arma 2 was a much more ambitious product with regards to a virtual representation a conflict on all levels, whereas Arma 3 is all about the weapon sway and how fast you spit out your lungs after running too much.

[I give up 152]

I am imagining myself as a female, playing as Sheriff's girlfriend in some Life server still being forced to use a male avatar, that's indeed a nasty situation.
But hey, there's still some games with female avatars, Second Life for instance.

[semiconductor 309]

How would you feel?

Sigh, when will all those well-meaning people who apparently have nothing better to do than protect somebody they consider "insulted" in the Internet finally realize that computer games are not about not-insulting-anyone's-feels?

Answering your question: I wouldn't be bothered by it. Probably it's because I'm not an 10 year old kid who thinks that world revolves around him, that his fe-e-e-e-e-ls matters to anybody except himself and gets insulted over every inconsequential thing that somehow stings one of his countless insecurities.

 

Not to mention that getting gravely insulted and starting running around in tears just because someone doesn't want to appease you isn't even a 10 y.o. level, it's literally something that 1.5 year olds do. Makes you wonder whether some people have never left this stage of mental development despite being physically grown up.

[mmaruda 20]

Sigh, when will all those well-meaning people who apparently have nothing better to do than protect somebody they consider "insulted" in the Internet finally realize that computer games are not about not-insulting-anyone's-feels?

Answering your question: I wouldn't be bothered by it. Probably it's because I'm not an 10 year old kid who thinks that world revolves around him, that his fe-e-e-e-e-ls matters to anybody except himself and gets insulted over every inconsequential thing that somehow stings one of his countless insecurities.

 

Not to mention that getting gravely insulted and starting running around in tears just because someone doesn't want to appease you isn't even a 10 y.o. level, it's literally something that 1.5 year olds do. Makes you wonder whether some people have never left this stage of mental development despite being physically grown up.

 

Wow, that is some exageration. You do realise that by hyperbolising your rethoric in such a way, you seem more bothered by the issue, than anyone else? Which post are you actually refering to and who are you do mean in your last two sentences? Because reading that I got the impression you are trying to somehow mix another discussion from some other place in here. It's not Reddit. ;)

[semiconductor 309]

Wow, that is some exageration. You do realise that by hyperbolising your rethoric in such a way, you seem more bothered by the issue, than anyone else?

At which point I'm hyperbolising? From what I'm gathered from your post, you actually consider feelings of people who aren't included in game as a problem worth addressing and I just can't really understand how come that their feelings should be a problem of Bohemia Interactive or Arma community. Games are about having fun, not about being "%noun% including", "welcoming" or "politically correct". It's a piece of entertainment made by private company which does not owe you anything, take it or leave it. It is not a public service provided by public organization funded from your taxes that must follow whatever ideology your government currently adores.

 

Besides, this problem is not just inconsequential, it's also fundamentally unsolvable. I mean, okay, BI have included women but the game is still not homosexual and bisexual people/tall people/short people/fat people/skinny people/people with poor eyesight/colorblind people/married people/rich people/middle class/young people/old people/people with teeth problems/people with acne/crippled people/180-193 entries long list of states that are not represented in-game goes here/aliens from outer space/any other characteristic of a person/object - inclusive. No matter what BI does, there will always be somebody "excluded" and "offended". So what, it absolutely does not affect the purpose of a game - entertainment. Being "inclusive" is not necessary for that.

 

Which post are you actually refering to and who are you do mean in your last two sentences?

I was talking about people and states (yes, Iran, I'm looking at you) who go apeshit, start making mountain of a molehill and slap a "victim" label upon themselves each time somebody does not want to cater to their deisres, thus allegedly "huting their feelings". They don't seem to remember, however, that the state of their feelings is completely up to them and their are not a valid reason for anybody to give in to their demands. Like, at all. Their own feelings are their own problem and nobody cares about them, except for their close friends and family maybe.

 

That is why I think that your point about Arma being inclusive and "How would you feel?" question are irrelevant to the discussion.

[mmaruda 20]

As I said before, I don't really care, but man, you are taking this waaaaay too seriously. Here I was thinking maybe lets have a theoretical discussion, but there you are apparently bothered by some completely different discussion and you imprint all this here. Look man, were are having a chat about Arma. Noone knows those people and Iran you are talking about. Perhaps your are biased towards all the social justice warrior, but as I sais, it's not Reddit. This is a discussion about a game. Calling people 10-year olds and whatnot without even a relation to the discussion... Come on.

 

Also this quote:

"It is not a public service provided by public organization funded from your taxes that must follow whatever ideology your government currently adores."

Are you American by chance, possibly Canadian? Becasue all around the rest of the world the fact that you are paying taxes does not entitle you to anything. So no, I do not feel entitled that BIS should antyhing in the game. Besides this is "General Discussion" and not the request box. Chill.

[semiconductor 309]

Here I was thinking maybe lets have a theoretical discussion,

Probably you wanted to have a theoretical monologue becasue as far as I'm aware a discussion does not consists from evading counter arguments, not bothering with substantive responses and claiming that you don't care, especially since your opponent is allegedly Reddit-using social justice warrior-bashing communist American (I'll consider that a compliment since my English level is painfully far from that of average American :D). There simply could be no discussion when one side sincerely doesn't want to participate in it.

 

Well, apparently I've made a mistake thinking that you've come here to discuss something, not just express your opinion. That's totally fine though, in that case I won't bother you again. :)

[I give up 152]

 

And thus female characters should be added.

Maybe your wishes are coming true, since in British Army women are going to "close combat" situations after 2016.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12060225/British-Armys-women-soldiers-to-go-into-combat.html

[cosmic10r 2326]

A huge part of the issue is the left really wants to occupy that high moral ground. In this case, it is the fact that they want to be "inclusive". So the general statement is that if you are not on my side or include what I think should be relevant, you are some type of misogynist racist hillybilly because I am just trying to include everyone and you don't want that. All this is an attempt to occupy the high moral ground by saying look at how much better than you I am because I want to include people. It really boils back to a lot of the rhetoric that goes on in the world today in the vein of what is Politically Correct. 

 

So if we make a game about Aliens and there are no human models are we not being inclusive. Are people being oppressed because they can't express themselves in this game about an alien world. We better convene a human rights tribunal. This world is bordering on ridiculous and it's going to get worse...

 

 

The socialists attempted to remold human nature. Their failure is further evidence that the nature of man is universal and unchanging. Man is a rational animal, a social animal, a property owning animal, and a maker of things. He is social in the way that wolves and penguins are social, not social in the way that bees are social. The kind of society that is right for bees, a totalitarian society, is not right for people. In the language of sociobiology, humans are social, but not eusocial. Natural law follows from the nature of men, from the kind of animal that we are. We have the right to life, liberty and property, the right to defend ourselves against those who would rob, enslave, or kill us, because of the kind of animal that we are.

[I give up 152]

A huge part of the issue is the left really wants to occupy that high moral ground. In this case, it is the fact that they want to be "inclusive". So the general statement is that if you are not on my side or include what I think should be relevant, you are some type of misogynist racist hillybilly because I am just trying to include everyone and you don't want that. All this is an attempt to occupy the high moral ground by saying look at how much better than you I am because I want to include people. It really boils back to a lot of the rhetoric that goes on in the world today in the vein of what is Politically Correct. 

 

So if we make a game about Aliens and there are no human models are we not being inclusive. Are people being oppressed because they can't express themselves in this game about an alien world. We better convene a human rights tribunal. This world is bordering on ridiculous and it's going to get worse...

 

 

The socialists attempted to remold human nature. Their failure is further evidence that the nature of man is universal and unchanging. Man is a rational animal, a social animal, a property owning animal, and a maker of things. He is social in the way that wolves and penguins are social, not social in the way that bees are social. The kind of society that is right for bees, a totalitarian society, is not right for people. In the language of sociobiology, humans are social, but not eusocial. Natural law follows from the nature of men, from the kind of animal that we are. We have the right to life, liberty and property, the right to defend ourselves against those who would rob, enslave, or kill us, because of the kind of animal that we are.

Mate, your words deserve the great zombie of war ballad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de5DDoo78iI

[Pictou 0]

Nice reading!

[svarun 16]

//MODERATOR PLEASE DELETE//

[nodunit 397]

really