Where are the girls?

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

The answer is simple and quite obvious. They don't have girls in Czechoslovakia.

You speak the truth (Czechoslovakia doesn't exist since 93 )

Comparing Schindlers List with Arma is more than comparing apples with stones. Arma has no message. It doesnt say: War is bad, don´t play the game.

Out of curiosity, a custom made campaign with children included with strong anti-war theme would be okay with you? (not that I'm planning something like that now)

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

there is a female voice wich u can use and if i remeber correctly a female face, when u go to edit user options. But for a side note, I dont think they let females fight in American army IRL.

yes they do....   maybe not as much as in IDF  

No they don't, Women are not allowed into Infantry or Special Operations units, they can be in Supply and shit like that, but never in an active combat role. (fixed wing/aircraft doesn't count)

Yeah, then I wonder what all those girls in MP, Civil Affairs, Psychological Operations, and what not were doing out on the roads everyday as gunners or participating in raids.

Women fight everyday in the US Army, and those that fight usually do a good job of it.

Both Civil Affairs and PsyOps are Special Operations, and we have girls in USASOC, which is Special Operations Command. Looks you don't know what your talking about, eh?

[DieAngel 0]

Balschoiw is it possible that you continue this passionating debate about kids IN YOUR OWN THREAD.

There was some good ideas tossed here and there but it gets completely covered with your wild and vivid war agains pixel kids.

[Balschoiw 0]

Just in case you haven´t noticed:

Quote[/b] ]End of offtopic now from my side.

*hands thread back to author*

Apart from that the issue arose from the thread, so don´t blame me but blame those who brought it in in the first place.

[johnwilso007 0]

wouldnt be to hard to sort of rebuild the model of the woman reporter into a soldier model would it?

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Anyway, I think DieAngel's original question was concisely

answered. BIS didn't add females to ArmA for reasons

of "project scope" (or "resources and time" as another

respondent summed it up). There were women civilians

in OFP right from the start and BIS had no moral compunction

about allowing that evil b*****d Guba to murder his

girlfriend Angelina on screen in the CWC campaign!

BTW Am I the only one who thinks that the woman reporter

character in ArmA looks really horrible compared to the soldier

figures?

[Maddmatt 1]

wouldnt be to hard to sort of rebuild the model of the woman reporter into a soldier model would it?

No, except that she would walk and move like a man .

Skeleton and animations need to be redone for women.

[celery 8]

Balschoiw, Armed Assault is a damn game, nobody gets hurt and every time we play an average PC game, we do stuff that would be absolutely abhorrent in real life. You consider it entertainment to kill men who have been drafted to the army and leave their wives and kids mourning, their parents getting the letter that their son died? With your logic it makes you a hell of a sick and vicious person who shouldn't even have access to modern technology, because people who just want children in a game are disturbed sickos. See the humor of it?

Essentially everything is about your decisions. In a computer game if you don't have an urgent need to gun down that woman with her kid, you don't have to. If you kill them, they die and that's it, what have you gained? You can simulate it by placing two unarmed men in the editor and shooting them. Just bits and pieces of code and graphics and when they die, nothing's gained or lost except the ammo you pumped into them. Nobody's rights have been violated. The freaks who played Postal 2 for example and complained how disgusting it is were voluntarily killing everyone and then pissing on their dead bodies, even though the game can be completed without bloodshed. And have those who slaughtered everyone in that game hurt somebody with their actions?

There is a tactical mercenary game called Jagged Alliance 2 where there are towns and lots of civilians, women and children who are totally killable just like everyone else. You can blow up a whole T-shirt factory with minor workers inside if you want, have a blast if that's your idea of fun, just don't do it in real life please. You act like you are the author on the matter just because you have "been there" and got your personal traumas.

I think women would be a good addition to the game, as well as children. In fact the party (be it private or BIS) that brings child models will have my congratulations just for the fun of seeing the hypocrites getting riled up for the possibility for them to shoot them, like they might fall into temptation from their high morals and commit a virtual crime. Children are pretty closely related to the topic, so I see no reason to exclude discussion of it just cause it doesn't suit someone's exact needs in the thread.

[Luciano 0]

Why would BIS add females to ARMA?

Since in ARMA the US marines are represented. How many females in the US military? Maybe 5%. How many of those on the front line? Not much. Close to 0 in the marines at least.

99.99% of the people playing ARMA are males. It doesn't make sense adding females from the realism point of view and resources point of view.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Why would BIS add females to ARMA?

Since in ARMA the US marines are represented.  How many females in the US military?  Maybe 5%.  How many of those on the front line? Not much.  Close to 0 in the marines at least.

99.99% of the people playing ARMA are males.  It doesn't make sense adding females from the realism point of view and resources point of view.

The soldiers in the game represent a US Army Stryker Brigade Combat Team, there are mistakes with some marine crossover stuff, but they are US Army with some MArine support units.

The ratio of females in the military is much higher than "5%". Are you in the US Military? I wonder how you get these ideas if you are not, and if you are, you must be in some kind of sausage-fest unit. In BCT alone, my platoon was almost 50/50 male to female, and the company as a whole only had a slighty larger male population.

Further, your claim that they're not on the front lines is asinine and uninformed. But then again, you civilians can sit and argue with those of us who are actually there and know all you want, that's okay, but you're still wrong.

[xawery 0]

Ah, this subject again... As per usual, the levels of hypocrisy make my eyes bleed.

Bals, you say that children should not be included because war can scar them for life. Why is including males (both soldiers and civilians' ok then? Or do you think that war does not affect them? Yes, PTSD is a fairytale...

You also claim that it´s impossible to simulate the true effects war has on children: traumas, etc. That´s true, but by the same logic we shouldn´t include men either, because the game fails to simulate the fate of many a soldier: loss of limbs, nightmares, panic attacks etc. Or do you believe that men cannot suffer from mental disorders?

To put it short: why would killing men be less disgusting than killing women or children? An adult male can be as defenseless as a child. If someone would point a gun at me right now I would put up as little of a fight as an eight year old girl. Of course, one could say that soldiers are fair game - they signed up for it. But when SLX included animations for dragging wounded teammates, I don´t recall you being outraged at the immorality of shooting someone who´s trying to help a wounded, defenseless comerade.

Now that we have established that excluding women and children from a wargame on moral grounds is nothing short of hypocritical, let´s explore the use of females and children in-game. Previous posters have mentioned enough uses: realism, immersion, moral dilemmas. You can´t just carpetbomb an enemy occupied town knowing that civilans, men, women and children are there as well. If you claim to offer a military simulator, you cannot just exclude such vital factors.

One of the most misused arguments is the fear that some sicko would create a mission where your task was to kill children. That possibility exists, but there is no evidence to support a high probability. After all, with the currently available mod tools, you could easily make a mission in OFP where you play a white supremacist and your sole task is to kill black people. Just download Tonal and there you go. Did it happen? Nope.

Of course, you could say that creating such a possibility alone would be damaging to BIS. Well, some sickos made a nazi death camp mod for Wolfenstein, but nobody accused ID Software of facilitating it, even though, strictly speaking, they ´created such a possibility´.

The probability of a morally apprehensive mission being made as well as it´s supposed impact are not only exaggerated, they also eclipse the sensible uses of such addons. For example, Jinef of Zeus made an excellent PvP mission a while ago where west was tasked with moving a convoy from A to B, while resistance in civilian clothes was supposed to intercept them. Sounds straightforward, until one throws AI civilians in who go about their daily things. The moral implications of distrusting every civilian, man or woman, sparked a very interesting discussion.

In essence: controversial material in the hands of responsible people will be a source of challenging, evocative missions. Any moddable material in the hands of bigoted fools will result in bad taste (vide the Raghead Hunt mission). If the developers believe that the negative consequences of the latter outweigh the benefits of the former, they shouldn´t make their game moddable. If they don´t, they shouldn´t try to sanitise a war simulator.

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

Quote[/b] ]So what do childrens add to a combat game ?

Realism ? If you had asked for cluster bombs, extended military features ok, but you seriously ask for something that is morally very dubious.

Why are children morally dubious?

Quote[/b] ]Why don´t you just give it a try, dial 911 and tell them you want to shoot up some kids or see them in action running from shootings ?

LOGICAL FALLACY! MISLEADING VIVIDNESS!

Quote[/b] ]If you haven´t learned about values it´s time that you do so.

LOGICAL FALLACY! AD HOMINEM!

Quote[/b] ]Children and a wargame do not mix up well.

Why?

Quote[/b] ]Thankfully BIS has always followed a morale line you, who are asking for kids in Arma, obviously never had or failed to learn.

LOGICAL FALLACY! AD HOMINEM!

By the way, four years ago I saved a child from being kidnapped on December 26th. Would you like to see the police reports? I'm sure I could dig them up, then we could see who's more morally responsible towards children.

Quote[/b] ]I have been to actual conflicts and I have seen what war does to children, so no I don´t want to see that in a GAME.

I have been to actual conflicts and I have seen what war does to people, and yes, I do want to see that in a SIMULATOR.

Quote[/b] ]So if you see nothing wrong with your "wishes" for inmates in a war-sim, it´s good to know that there are people who do actually think before they act. If you can´t do the thinking on your own in a morally right setup you have to rely on the producers of such game that they fullfill their responsibilities.

LOGICAL FALLACY! AD HOMINEM!

(Boy this is getting repetitive with you).

Quote[/b] ]Yeah sure. Keeping inmates out of a war shooter is so off...

What´s next ? Lets have some disabled ones ingame as they are part of the demographic breakdown ? Wouldn´t it be fun to shoot up Willi Wheelchair ?

LOGICAL FALLACY! SLIPPERY SLOPE!

(At least you came up with a new logical fallacy to use).

Quote[/b] ]Pure bullshit as I already posted that I opt for women ingame. You better read first, then talk, not vice versa.

Quote[/b] ]What´s next ? Ading a rape action function because it´s reality of war ?

Yup.

Quote[/b] ]Baff1, I do think that you are a more reasonable mission editor, but the mob screaming for kids are not really known for their reasonable missions.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Quote[/b] ]So while it may add to atmosphere in a mission done by a serious guy it would do much more harm in the hands of a guy who has neither high moral standards nor the intention to use the kids in a way that would be acceptable.

What harm? Even if we accept the argument that irresponsible missionmakers will use virtual children to harm them in a violent manner, what actual harm does this do?

On the one hand, Japan, which has the highest number of rape fantasy fiction in the developed world, also has the lowest incidence of actual rape in the developed world.

So, I'd say that right from the start you beating your head against a wall here. I have evidence that even if what you say is true and people will NECESSARILY make child-killing missions with children in the game, it might mitigate ACTUAL child shootings in real life. Where's your evidence to the contrary?

Quote[/b] ]What you all don´t see, apart from the moral issues, is that BIS

would get an international slam in the sack if they would release kids for their game. Even if implemented as suggested (wich doesn´t make little sense anyway, as it would be nothing than eyecandy for some, or eyepuke for others) it would be a company that would put kids in a wargame. Something that is assumed globally wrong.

Name me wargames that have children in them apart from the crappy Boiling point shooter.

Fallout and Fallout 2 have children in them that you can in fact kill in violent and extremely graphic ways.

Oh I forgot, it has to be a wargame, and it has to NOT be any wargame that is "crappy". You should also add the corillary that it can't be Fallout or Fallout 2.

In fact, why don't you just ask people to name to you any violent game that DOES have children in it, except tell people they can't name any of the ones that actually do.

By the way, and I know we were all waiting for this...

LOGICAL FALLACY! BURDEN OF PROOF!.

It's YOUR assertion, you list to ME the games that have children in them and have failed.

Quote[/b] ]So if it´s so universally wanted as you all say, why are there not more games with kids ?

Because just like female models they take a while to develop and are not economically worth it.

Quote[/b] ]I don´t even know a single comprehensive mod for OFP that introduced children. Don´t you think that at least this is an indication that some of your thinking is a bit off ? Those are mods done by gamers for gamers. Makes you think, no ?

No, it doesn't. I picked up most mods and went "where is x?" where x is a feature I wanted.

Perhaps in your mind .40S&W and .45ACP and 357SIG variants of Glock pistols are immoral. The difference between a Canadian rail and a Picatinny rail are immoral. Etc.

[max power 21]

To argue in such a way, Dr. Mojo, commits the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam.

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

Where did I assume his conclusion was false?

He may very well be right, people who want children in the game may very well be immoral. He's just not proved it so far.

Pointing out logical fallacies and refusing to address their arguments (for obvious reasons) does not mean I am disagreeing with his conclusion (though I am, but when I make the arguments to disagree I provide documentation such as Japanese rape fantasy fiction != increase in Japanese rape crimes).

It's no more an argument from fallacy than your post is (which is to say, not at all).

[max power 21]

It was implicit to me in the rhetoric that you seemed to be showboating your CT skills and in a way, appealing to your own authority. It's an effective way of arguing in order to convince people (including but not limited to the arguer) that they are wrong without having to actually say much. It just seemed to me that that is what your rhetorical aim was.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]He's just not proved it so far.

I don´t have to prove anything as this is in no way a scientific debate about the sideeffects of computergaming.

I am however entitled to have my own opinion and even if you have fun in making it look like a lawsuit ( using smart repetative phrases doesn´t automatically make you smart) it is no lawsuit.

I´m getting 35 years old this year and I´m certainly not wasting my time with debating issues that I have a grown opinion upon.

You don´t share it, great.

You don´t understand it, great.

Morale and ethics are debatable terms. Nowadays such go down the drain very easy as it seems.

Do I care ?

Yes.

Quote[/b] ]To put it short: why would killing men be less disgusting than killing women or children?

Because you should have an inbuilt natural limitation not to kill children. If you lack that natural feature you have a problem.

Maybe you google a bit on reports about fighting kid soldiers. This could help.

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

Next time, don't read into something that isn't there. I don't address logical fallacies explicitly because they are fallacies and I never shy away from pointing them out. They're broken logic and have no place in an argument. If he wants to amend them, fine.

By the way, I should also point out that attempting to colour critical thinking in a negative light ("showboating your CT skills and in a way, appealing to your own authority. It's an effective way of arguing in order to convince people (including but not limited to the arguer) that they are wrong without having to actually say much. It just seemed to me that that is what your rhetorical aim was.") is prima facie an argument ad hominem and anti-intellectual -- your argument here being that I "didn't say much" (my argument was vapid or meaningless or without credence) simply because I know what I'm talking about.

Please don't assume that people who attempt to keep an argument on a logical, rational course are doing it for any reason OTHER than keeping an argument on a logical, rational course without evidence to that effect.

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don´t have to prove anything as this is in no way a scientific debate about the sideeffects of computergaming.

Unfortunately, this is inconsistent with your previous assertions, including the very scientific assertion that those who want children in video games have psychic or neurotic issues.

Both statements cannot simultaneously be true. Either this is NOT a scientific debate and you had no basis involve the sciences of psychology and neurology, or it IS a scientific debate and your above claim is false.

Quote[/b] ]I am however entitled to have my own opinion and even if you have fun in making it look like a lawsuit ( using smart repetative phrases doesn´t automatically make you smart) it is no lawsuit.

As is everybody else in this thread, who you have not hesitated to rip into for having no morals or for having a mental defect.

Again, this is inconsistent. Either all people are entitled to their opinions and you have an equal right to call them mentally defective and morally sociopathic, and I have an equal right to call you illogical, or neither of us have the right. Again, both cannot simultaneously be true.

(By the way, using smart repetitive phrases doesn't automatically make me not smart or, more importantly, wrong.)

Quote[/b] ]I´m getting 35 years old this year and I´m certainly not wasting my time with debating issues that I have a grown opinion upon.

Then why are you posting in this thread? Again, this is completely inconsistent. Either you will not waste your time debating moral issues, or you will. However, you've posted in this thread debating moral issues, and now you are saying you will not. Again, both of these cannot simultaneously be true.

Quote[/b] ]Morale and ethics are debatable terms. Nowadays such go down the drain very easy as it seems.

Well, which are they? Relatives or absolutes? If morality is relative, how can it go down the drain? If morality is absolute, how can they be debatable?

[lwlooz 0]

Usually I don't post in these threads which spring up from time to time because I consider them unbelievably silly , but because I am fed up with ArmA base research right now,I thought I might hop in.

The problem with this topic/demand is that there is an conflict of interests. There are 2 types of people who are playing OFP/ArmA.

Type A) plays ArmA because it is a game , a game in which the gamble and thus fun come for the mechanics of warfare. That means this group of people want to have warfare simulated, but no real war by all means.

Type B) wants to be a virtual soldier, these people do not care so much about that gamey fun value of wargaming , all they care about is feeling like they are in a real war,with real soldiers doing real soldiery stuff like having strict discipline even if its for no reason or committing atrocities(Or the avoiding of those).

If you are Type B) children make complete sense,because "Duh" in the real world children exist.

If you are Type A) children and even woman are in my opinion totally unnecessary.

Why?

Because of you have civilians in your mission, it doesn't at all matter what they are. They are civilians , in the abstract world of ArmA that fact fully describes their role.

Most of ArmA's combat is mostly conventional anyways.

[max power 21]

Dr. Mojo,

Not everything is a logical fallacy. I could return some of your same statements with regards to your critique of my last post. I didn't say that CT was bad. I said showboating it to lend credence to your argument is bad. It's like implying, "I'm a doctor, therefore, I'm correct". It's an ethos based appeal. It's not logically sufficient. It's not super weak, but it's also not airtight.

I'm sure that you realise that when you are dissecting an argument, you often have to reconstruct it. Arguments made by laypeople often have missing arguments or even a missing conclusion. Your argument had no specific conclusion. If it was not your intention to imply that he was wrong based his appeals to pathos and logical fallacies, perhaps it would be better to clearly state the point you are making. Not many people are going to fish 'it's possible you could be right but your argument needs work' out of:

"WRONG

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG!"

It might also help your cause if you had made a critique of his argument that contained less fallacies itself.

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not everything is a logical fallacy. I could return some of your same statements with regards to your critique of my last post. I didn't say that CT was bad. I said showboating it to lend credence to your argument is bad. It's like implying, "I'm a doctor, therefore, I'm correct". It's an ethos based appeal. It's not logically sufficient. It's not super weak, but it's also not airtight.

No, you didn't say CT was bad. You said that I was showboating and "appealing to my own authority" to display CT skills, the implication of which being that my argument was wrong or weak or fallacious because I had these supposedly negative connotations associated with me, which is exactly what I said before.

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure that you realise that when you are dissecting an argument, you often have to reconstruct it. Arguments made by laypeople often have missing arguments or even a missing conclusion. Your argument had no specific conclusion. If it was not your intention to imply that he was wrong based his appeals to pathos and logical fallacies, perhaps it would be better to clearly state the point you are making. Not many people are going to fish 'it's possible you could be right but your argument needs work' out of:

I did. I asked "why?" Why does he believe this? Multiple times, in fact, which was my only point. I wasn't making a counterpoint, just examining his arguments. If and when his arguments are laid out in a logically sufficient manner with enough corollaries on them to adequately illustrate that even though situations x and y are similar (such as simulated children/real children v. simulated rape/real rape) then and only then will I know enough to make an informed decision as to what I wish to debate. As it stands, there is nothing to debate because he is all over the place with his assertions and arguments. Debating him at this point would be useless.

Quote[/b] ]"WRONG

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG

WRONG!"

Since I never said that, you are ascribing to me a position I do not hold. And we both know that is a strawman fallacy.

Quote[/b] ]It might also help your cause if you had made a critique of his argument that contained less fallacies itself.

Don't make assertions without proof. Quote, parse, and demonstrate any fallacies of mine.

[MisterXY 0]

No biatches in my game!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why does he believe this?

If you are not totally blind you can read it. I have explicitly explained why I think so.

Quote[/b] ]As it stands, there is nothing to debate because he is all over the place with his assertions and arguments. Debating him at this point would be useless.

Ah, really.

The only thing I can read from you on the issues are phrases of no contextual relevance and hot air.

A lot of it actually.

[Dr. Mojo- PhD 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you are not totally blind you can read it. I have explicitly explained why I think so.

1) It was a rhetorical question meant to illustrate why I was posting to a you, directed at a poster other than you.

2) You have also changed positions multiple times and refused to address evidence that is contrary to your position, so your explicitness is not as explicit as you might think it is.

Quote[/b] ]Ah, really.

Yes.

Quote[/b] ]The only thing I can read from you on the issues are phrases of no contextual relevance and hot air.

A lot of it actually.

Then your reading comprehension is lacking, which is not any fault of mine.

[Balschoiw 0]

You know what ?

Take your fantasy wannabe PhD, smear it on a slice of bread and have a nice chew.

That´s all what it´s for as it seems.