Jimquisition: Let's End the FPS Sausage-fest

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT


Clearing the Eye:
Unrealistic? There aren't many women in the armed services and none in front line combat for the countries you play as. That's entirely realistic.

Are there many women serving in the future wars where people wear nano-suits and flay around with jetpacks? Couldn't someone squeeze a woman protagonist into something as realistic as a re-born mobster possessed by the devil's arms?

FPS is a broad church. Bringing up the 'realism argument' only works if you are talking about ARMA II or anything meant as a simulation. Is anyone going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that Call of Duty or battlefield offers us a truely realistic picture of life on the battlefield? Would you find a female soldier more unrealistic and off putting then an unkillable man who gets covered in jam when he is shot and sets off about 12 nukes a day?

I was refuting the OP;

"Not only is that unrealistic, it's exclusionary, silly, and lacking a decent excuse. The FPS sausage-fest should come to an end."

Jim claimed it was unrealistic for no women to be on the front line (in a round about way) and I made the point that it's not unrealistic, as there are no women on the front line in almost every single armed force of the world. Nothing more. Nothing less.


it was vasquez who fished out two couplings, and gave one to drake. I remember him telling her 'you're just too bad!'

Jesus, really..? I gotta put the DVD in again, tonight and refresh my memory of these things... ._. I stand corrected.

Speaking from the view of a guy who plays as a woman whenever the option is given to I agree that we need more female characters in FPS's...

Another reason why you won't see females in grungy multiplayer FPS' any time soon:

Fox news would be all over it. They'd create topics like "New Game Published by EA Promotes Misogyny and Mass Murder of Women." Or "New Game Encourages Women to Leave Kitchen and Go on Rampages."

I almost wouldn't believe it myself, but this is Fox we're talking about. They go lower than that on a daily basis.

I don't really remember them making a fuss about gears of war 3 having female multiplayer characters, and this is the game that encourages you to execute your foes in MP and has a rifle with a chainsaw built in.

I do find it kind of ironic that with the dudebro fist-bumping rep gears has, the female characters in 3 are so very well done. Heck, it actually has distinctly older women (Myrrah and Bernie) in its roster, and not just pretty young women.


I'd say picking a fight about it over the internet would be pretty militant.

Yeah, you're definitely using the word "militant" wrong.

But yeah, I get you were being ironic. And you're also right, it didn't exactly show.

Also, a women meeting physical standards in an army, futuristic or current, is going to be a woman of a certain size.

I don't think you know what the standards are for women in the military now.



Yes, women are generally weaker than men, and so too were the guerillas of the Viet-cong generally smaller and weaker than well fed American Marines in the Vietnam war yet they fought a stand up fight and inflicted heavy losses, so many battles were won by the Americans only thanks to the entire military force working in coordination such as artillery and air support. The battle of Khe Sanh was won by brilliant military planning of defences with artillery and carpet bombing with B52 bombers so that Khe Sanh didn't end up like Dien Bien Phu. There is a good case to be made that almost every battle is won by who has the best use of heavy artillery.

It's not about being the strongest.

I recall part of the standing orders for US Marines when they were in Iraq was "do not die". To make it clear that it was part of their mission to absolutely minimise casualties and fatalities in their ongoing battle against the many insurgency factions. Being protective is part of the deal of modern combat where missions are about minimising losses. A common creed is "no man left behind". America's involvement in the Battle of Mogadishu was all about trying to rescue a few pilots who'd crashed in enemy territory, didn't make a difference they were all men and open homosexuals were banned from service.

The thing was, it wasn't an issue for the Viet-cong or the Red army to have mixed gender units, they were highly effective against a much better trained force.

Women in frontline combat may not be realistic, but it is at least practical.

I'll take this one point by point.

Khe San was a frontal assault done by the NVA, that is, the Army of North Vietnam. That was the regular Army, same as the U.S. Army, British Ground Army, German Heer, and the like. No women served in any capacity in the NVA. The VC, Viet Cong, were the insurgent forces of the Vietnamese people, obviously consisting both men and women (as well as children and the elderly). Casualty figures also need to be kept in mind. While it's true that strategically, American forces never really gained ground in the entire war, Tactically, American forces remained almost universally victorious (Even the Tet Offensive would be considered Tactically a Victory) That is all to say, Americans by and large always out gunned and thus, out killed, any aggressor in the entire Vietnam war. That's true now. While yes, Strategically, we are doing little to nothing in the mid-east, tactically we win every single engagement. We always kill more of them then they kill of us.

As such to the grander idea, women, even part of a insurgent unit, would not fit in a modern setting FPS as you would ALWAYS be on the losing side tactically. I can't think of a game where your team receives greater losses then the enemy team and you still "win." If anything the casualty comparison is GROSSLY, sometimes in the 100's to 1 range in favor of the player character's side.

Next, speaking as someone who was in the military, leave no man behind is a core concept, but, as with EVERYTHING in the military, their is a hierarchy of needs and orders. Some things supersede others. The Soldier's Creed, which all U.S. Army personel memorize, goes as this:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

The order is as important as the words. The mission comes *first.* The only thing that can come between you and the mission is doing your duty to the United States. You *can* and may *have* to leave a fallen comrade should the mission demand it. For example, you're mentioning of the Operation Irene. Assuming you've read/seen more than just Black Hawk Down you may know that in fact, *many* U.S. Soldiers were left behind, at both crash sites and isolated pockets of soldiers. Additionally, securing the crash sites of the first, and then the second, helicopter had nothing to do with removing or recovering bodies. Standing military orders demand that *no* property, especially technology and vehicles, can be left to be looted by the enemy. Helicopters have secure satellite and radio uplinks built into them. That needs to be destroyed above all else as it can hurt OPSEC for soldiers any, and everywhere.

For the record, I went to West Point, military history, hierarchy, and strategy is kind of something I qualify as a true expert on. Women do not, nor will for the foreseeable future, have a place on a battlefield of this reality. It's not even their fault. There is no fault to be had, it's just how the pieces lay on the board. You wouldn't expect a quadriplegic to work in a coal mine, women cannot properly be integrated into an *effective* (key point) fighting unit. Rescuing survivors was a secondary, and in the eyes of the Ground Operations Commander. And that's how it always works. If we have a vehcile rollover (which I have hand many). First mission priority is to call the dozer's and flatbeds to recover the vehicle and get it back to base. We have to, in fact, call that in BEFORE, we can call in a CASEVAC.

How does this relate to the grander idea? Leaving no man behind in fact cause a number of extra casualties that were unneeded. The fact such extra resistance was present at crash sites while casualties were trying to be evacuated resulted in *more* casualties for the Americans then would have been necessary. A pilot captured during a failed attempt to rescue him (which resulted in deaths of his rescuers) ended up being returned to U.S. Custody. And that was just between friends and battle buddies. Imagine if it's a romantic interest. To great of a danger for high ranking members of the chain of command to risk. That is the reason we *still* and *will not* integrate women into combat units.

Also it is not presence of women that made the Red Army an effective fighting force. It was the sheer number and mass of people. In fact most military historians would argue the Red Army was probably the least effective fighting force in history, as combat related causalities it received were greater than those of all the major belligerents combined, some ten million killed/captured/wounded. That's *not* an effective fighting force, nor one I'd want to be part of/related to. The Viet-Cong have a similar situation, usually being massacred in any and all engagements. What made them "effective" was their ability to strike on their terms, when and where, which is a very effective Strategic goal to undermine an enemies fighting spirit, but due to their lack of training and poor equipment, they lost tactically every time.

Neither are indicative of a modern setting FPS, nor the world as we currently know it.

A lot of truth to this. Having playable, respect-worthy female characters/models would go a long way towards reigning in the "kitchen and sandwich" crowd currently poisoning online gaming. Not scantily clad emo waifs. Not love interests. Not butch feminist overcompensating big mouths. Just soldiers. Vasquez really did embody that.

On the other hand, "realistic" shooters that feature spec ops have little reason to yield to political correctness on this issue. Special Forces training from SEALs to SAS is brutally demanding and the vast majority of women can't make the cut. That's not chauvinist, just an uncaring fact of biology, size and strength. Featuring such in a game wouldn't be realitic. It'd be political correctness. Now raise your hands if you want political correctness in your escapism entertainment.


I've never really understood the obsession people have with Vasquez. She is just simply there to die. Created solely to be contrasted against the main character Ripley, so that James Cameron can drive home a point that a woman's 'true strength' comes from her 'maternal instinct'.

TVtropes is a badly moderated open-forum, it doesn't even pass for a Wiki, it is the internet equivalent of "I heard from the guy in a pub".

Really the trope at play here is "main character lives" which is a bit of a no-brainer. Ripley was the main lead role and Vasquez was not. Hudson, Apone, Frost, Ferro, everyone on that drop-ship, they were all dead meat the second you saw the actors' billing. Are each of them going to get a trope "Aponealways dies" "Hudsonalways dies". No, the trope is "only the lead roles survive".

Hicks got melted, Bishop got bisected, only the Main lead of the Series and The Cute Kid survived intact. Duh.

Vasquez was not "there to die" any more than anyone else who didn't get top billing.

I get mad at people reading unnecessary subtext into films too, but this is a James Cameron film. Herein your argument is therefore invalid. He's just simply that kind of guy.

The stereotype of the 'macho military chick' has been subsequently been transplanted into other films, often by inferior filmmakers that either don't quite understand why Vasquez was written into the film to play the role that she does. Cameron's intent was not to 'bury the butch', but to create a mirror counterpart to the main female protagonist. In this role Vasquez serves to underscore that Ripley's awesomeness originates not from her desire to confront and kill the enemy, but from her desire to protect herself and others from harm. None of the other characters share that level of moral authority, hence everyone but the nice guy and the kid die by the end of it all.

Although, at least we can agree that I should watch Aliens again. It is a most excellent film.

It's a particularly male genre that focuses on different aspects/tales of femininity, of which Vasquez represents one.

People will geek out over the unlikeliest of minor characters I guess. I understand that she's the original mould for nearly every subsequent macho military woman. The continued interest and awareness of the character after 26 years and many many imitations still surprises me somewhat.


Kitsune Hunter:
Good point Jim, but actually in Call of Duty, they do show women, well actually, a woman in CoD4 as she's hear in the mission, Charlie Don't Surf, then you have to rescue her from a downed helicopter in the mission, Shock and Awe

So the only woman is an earpiece and then a damsel in distress? Kinda just proves his point. And there's still none in the online component.

As a man, I prefer to play as men in online games. That character is my avatar in the world, and playing as a girl feels wierd. So yeah I can imagine some girls would feel the same way.

Although with CoD and BF raking in the money they do with their current gaming model, I can't see them changing any time soon.

Actually, Peyalo was kinda of a bad ass. She was downed, injured, dying and was still firing her serviceman pistol while you're trying to rescue her (Only survivor of the chopper crash). Plus, being a chopper pilot inherently means bad assery. Just sayin' really.

Mass Effect was much better in its treatment of women. Everyone in the game wore functional space clothes bar the rich patrons. Both women and men could be anything and anyone, bad ass fighters (Ashley for one) to deft politicians or reporters (Emily Wong). Mass Effect 2 kinda trashed that whole line with the whole "Hotter and Sexier" trope. Really, too many cat suits, though it's justified in Miranda's case. She is a infiltration specialist and a manipulator. Using her body as a weapon to influence others is a valid tactic.

Ashley, in the first game at least, before she was put on a bus for the second, was one of the better female characters in a while. Let's see. We are introduced to her early on as a tom boyish soldier, all serious, who'd never wear a skirt and seems most comfortable in armor. Later on, through dialogue, we learn about her family, her worries, dreams, and hopes. Her history with her grandfather and her own personal conflict over it. Her love for poetry and epics. Her belief in faith in a human world that is mostly atheist (going of apparent source material) and her own questioning if she's silly for believing in faith after all that's she's seen. Her own problems with Xenophobia and learning to trust the crew you build up, till the point where by Virmire, if you leave her to die, you learn she's become quite friendly with the aliens you recruited and considered them her friends. It was remarkable growth for a character and a great plot to boot.

So we have Halo:Reach and Mass Effect 1. Any others.

I don't know about you guys, but I think Jim's hitbox increased this week!

So, what's female Jim's name?

I vote Janquisition.

The thing with Hitboxes is that (shocker) you don't see them. So, it's not so much the Hitbox as it is the actual Model. It would have to be the same size, otherwise it does fuck with balance.

Mylinkay Asdara:


Mylinkay Asdara:


More cinematic games need female protagonists, Portal 2, Mirror's Edge, Beyond Good and Evil, Metroid Prime 3, and Final Fantasy XIII are examples. The important thing here is making a good game that will override misogynists idiots from spouting hatred (OK FFXIII is dubiously good).

Another solution when only having a male protagonist is to make them appealing to women to some extent. The game still has to be good.

My last solution is to create an androgynous/sexless character like Kirby and Yoshi, which appeal to kids and adults and boys and girls. Pokemon also thrives on having Cute/Badass mons that are gender equal.

Still it would be funny to have games like Uncharted or God of War having the option to play as a woman while the rest of the content remains the same. Games would now only appeal to heterosexual men and homosexual women.

Okay, I'm going to apologize in advance in case I'm misinterpreting your last portion here, but the "slippery slope" type talking on this issue kinda is a pet peeve of mine. Firstly, it isn't that games with male protagonists don't appeal to female players. We've all, I'm sure, played a lot of them over our tenure as gamers, and most of them have been enjoyable enough that we'd play them again no problems. That doesn't change the fact that there is a notable lack of games with female protagonists that have been done equally well or the fact that a great many female players would like that to change someday. Secondly, it is missing the point entirely to start talking about "then games would only appeal to X group or Y group or Z group if we did A or if we did B or if we did C." This isn't about catering to a "special interest group" of people. It isn't like saying we should make games that appeal to people with fear of spiders (which I can't spell, but there is a movement for that has vocalized their position elsewhere on these boards before) or people who are of a certain sexual persuasion (either heterosexual or homosexual or any of the others) or people who want to see more child-murder in their games - this is far more basic. The very first division of human beings (and pretty much every other species) provided by nature: male and female. That isn't all too specific I wouldn't think, and doesn't qualify to be compared to smaller groupings as if it were.

Well with that off my chest, yes sometimes non-sexed protagonists are the answer, sometimes having both sexes as the player's option is an answer too. There are a lot of possible answers to the general issue, and I'm keen to see the game developers start exploring them. Removing the option to play females in situations where multiple choices are an option (like multiplayer modes) isn't really a step in the right direction though, and I'm glad Jim pointed that out in this video.

What I meant is making games that don't try their hardest to scare away women from playing it. I mean there is a commercial for Ninja Gaiden 2 (I think...) which basically says: BOOBS! LOOK AT THE BOOBS! If I was a woman I would never buy the game, since they don't respect women, why should women respect the game. It invalidates all the merits the game may have for a female player.
But still some women play Gears of War, because while the game is incredibly macho, it doesn't offend women, and the merits it has can still be appreciated.
Basically treat all people with the respect they deserve and you can have more sales. This is why games with a lot of sexual advertising tend to sell less, no one except teenage like those ads, you are disrespecting everyone if that's your sales pitch.

Captcha: "ladies, first"

I see, and agree to Mr. Sterling's point. But I really don't give a hoot what gender I play as. In fact I rather enjoy playing as the opposite gender. Especially if the game is very generic.

I don't understand this video, or why Jim feels qualified to speak of issues of gender at all when he puts dramatic misconceptions on display every time he does. One of the premises is that the lack of women is unrealistic, even though the reason there are so few of them is because that's realistic?

There are tons of women in fantasy and sci-fi games, since with magic, augmentations, or the inherent suspension of disbelief that accompanies anything set in either of those settings, that the genders have different physical attributes doesn't really matter all that much anymore. When my character can headbutt a krogan into submission, even though it lacks the weight required to even nudge a huge creature like that, then it's clear that all pretense at realism has gone out the door long ago.

In contemporary settings it really does matter, though, for the sake of the feeling of authenticity the game instills. And, like, because the institutions presented (or mirrored) in these games are that way in reality.

I know they said that Fall of Cybertron wouldn't have female transformers for alot of the reasons this video disagreed with, but honestly I'm fine with that. I realize female transformer characters were made to appeal to the female audience, but they don't make sense. They don't reproduce like organics do, thus there is no point to having two different genders, which always bothered me when I saw a character like Arcee. (I will admit Arcee is done well and written well in Transformers: Prime, but that doesn't change the fact that the gender differences make not sense with the robots) I keep wanting Shockwave to burst in and scream that it's illogical.

Plus, let's be honest, I don't believe Transformers have many female fans anyway, even with the female robots. I recall seeing a single youtube comment where the comment mentioned making a "fan-girl scream" but that's the only evidence I've found. Plus, I'd take the insecticons and dinobots for customization options over a female gender any day, and not because I'm sexist, but because, unlike adding another gender, insecticons and dinobots can really help spice up the gameplay.

My point is, I don't want complaints from people about Fall of Cybertron lacking female characters.

First reaction to the opening: SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS! Jim in drag!

The rest: Although I don't play female characters as I'm one of those guys you mentioned who is just more comfortable playing a male character, I still think it's strange that anyone would exclude female characters. Blacklight as you mentioned was a good example. I have yet to notice any difference in gameplay between male and female characters so the "Balancing and hit box" arguments are just shit.


I'll be honest: before reading the description i was hoping this was going to be a discussion on moving away from shooters in general.


That wig is terrible with that dress. You're bad and you should feel bad >=(

... Uh, i mean, You're right as always. Thank god for you.

Come on Jim, you shouldn't have thanked God this time, thank Mother Gea, when dressing a feminist womyn, you don't need to thank a phallocentric Male God, thank a female one, for Gea's sake.

God is an all-powerful being. If she wanted to be a guy, he could make himself a girl at any time she wanted. Heck, he could probably switch her gender in the middle of a sentence and nobody would notice that he'd changed his gender at all. Bet it'd be fun to watch the puny mortals change between 'she and he' in the middle of a paragraph when talking about her.

I think the outrage over not having female characters is easier for the companies to deal with instead of the outrage of putting female characters in a video game and having them get violently killed.

It's a catch 22 really. The only way western culture allows female characters in video games are:
A) Snarky, sarcastic love interests
B) Scientists or super skilled side characters
C) Dishing out violence towards monsters or male characters

We're not quite at the point where companies and social-political groups are comfortable putting in female soldiers in a AAA major title like COD and letting you blast their heads or limbs off.

They're still used for emotional impact like in SpecOPs: The Line when they die. "My god, you didn't just kill any civilian, you killed a WOMAN and a kid!" as if just a group of civillians wasn't bad enough. Or hell, a father and son even.

Female characters recieving (real-world warzone-like) violence is still a no-no (Tomb Raider trailer?), so don't expect equal representation for some time. Though you'll probably see that before a story with a male character and primary male love interest rather than just an RPG option.

Also: Does Jim live next door to Pee-wee's playhouse?

I don't really understand the hit box argument anyway...
I mean... some characters can have special power (more strength, more stamina...), so why not a reduced hit box? And if this is a real advantage, then... play a woman character !

One of my favorite games of all time is Perfect Dark a first person shoot where you play as a female. I also think games should have more gender options not just for the female demographic but I myself played a female in saints row so I could look at my characters sexy ass all day.

Aside from the idea of Jim's crotch-less lingerie that has been engraved into my mind, I have to agree with everything Jim said. Though I suppose that's nothing new.

How about some props to Halo for having the option of playing female characters since Halo 3?

in the halo lore a lot spartans are women.One of the best is Kelly even Master Chief aka John doesn't wanna mess with her.

You also have Linda,Lucy,Kat and even Spartan six can be a female. You have quite a few female marines fighting along side in the storymode.

Miranda Keys also counts???

I totally agree with Jim on this one.
However, I am dreading what will happen if it does change.

"Games are now encouraging young men to murder women!"

I mean, GoW will be making an exception to what Kratos can kill based on some of his "Victims" being female. (A move which I am opposed to.) Because of the public backlash against game violence directed towards women.

Aside from agreeing with the magnificent Mr. Sterling here, I'm of the opinion that both sexes should be equally represented in our cross-hairs. And that when it happens, nobody should complain about it!

I'm sorry, but the so called "realism" is hardly an excuse.

First off, modern war shooters are not realistic. They are "movie accurate" we could say, with spectacular grittines akin to that of Hollywood blockbusters. Realism, the likes of which you can find in hardcore simulators or older iterations of tactical shooters like Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six or SWAT, is not the fast paced gun-and-run action that sells AAA games.
And that's in the carefully balanced campaign modes, multiplayer has always been an unrealisitc mess on any game.

Secondly, they are GAMES. Meant to be fun. Meant to entertain. Why is the entertainment of MEN valued more than that of WOMEN? (Sales figures aside, we're discussing a moral issue)

And finally, videogames, as any media, have a responsibility to the society they exist within. If in order to further the erradication of unfair biases in our society our entertainment's realism has to take a few hits, so be it. Black Norse Gods? Female Soldiers? Asian Cowboys? Transgendered Naval Captains? Unless you're making a documentary, all fine by my book.

"Nurb" appears to have said what I was thinking better than I could have.

I would add something to his list of acceptable female characters though: Man Killers.

The general consensus regarding sex and violence is that it's A-O-K to direct as much of it towards men as you want, regardless of how helpless or dangerous they are. Whereas directing any violence towards women is seen as a monstrous act, regardless of how helpless or dangerous they are.
This means that you can find yourself in a situation where killing a male civilian posing no threat is seen as more acceptable than killing a female assassin who just tried to murder you with a ROCKET LAUNCHER!

But I digress.
The other Socially Acceptable method of including women as game characters, is to have a team of immortal a-la-C.O.D. ladies who never die as part of the plot, gunning down thousands of white men. And as for their physical appearance, they better not be attractive! Lest they be described as appealing to heterosexual men!


Jimothy Sterling:
The Jimquisition dons its armor ... as well as its lingerie ...

Point of order, Jimothy; why would crotchless knickers chafe your balls? Wouldn't they just be hanging out, swinging back and forth, roaming wild and free as the good Lord intended? This seems like a serious plot hole to me, which hints at a lack of attention to detail and I'm afraid I just can't take you as seriously as I used to.

I would assume that by his balls he meant that part of his nutsack that joins up with the rest of his body(There's probably even a specific medical term for it), which the crotchless opening was probably constantly rubbing against. That would probably get pretty uncomfortable.

I agree that violence towards women is irksome, but the reason why it is irksome is because said violence, and the shock related to it, is based only on the fact that the women *are* women.

What I mean by this is that placing female characters in dangerous situations can be as equally acceptable as doing it to male characters as long as their female condition is not a factor to be exploited.

Example: In GTA:VC I can chainsaw any pedestrian in half, be it a man, a woman or an elderly skater. The gender or age of the character being cut in half has no bearing on the act.

If, on the other hand, when attacking a female character the game focused on the act more dramatically, or, even worse, had my (male) character behave in a way as to imply sexual assault or domination of any kind, then it would be exploitative and "wronger" than the standard violence common to the game.

In the context of shooters, having female characters is seamless. They get the same death screen as anyone else, thus their gender (online idiots aside) is irrelevant.

Heck, Rainbow Six Vegas 2 does this, you can customize your character, multiplayer or SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN, to be female, and appart from the voice actress, it has no bearing on the game action.

So, while I do agree that gender motivated violence and exploitation is awful, it really should have no bearing to the inclusion of female character options in modern shooter games. I mean, would Spec Ops: The Line have been less dramatic if the morally bankrupt actions had been performed by a woman?

Such shooters like call of duty, especially in the historical wars, where they try to constantly make the warfare is real as they can (or whatever...) there simply isn't any room to have women as front line troops.

How many women stormed the beach on D-Day? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

How many women fought as troops in the vietnam war? If memory serves, (At least, on the american side) zero. Nada. Zilch.

How many women (at least, for russian and american forces) serve as front line? If memory serves, zero. Nada. Zilch.

It's not as much as it being forced to be a sausage-fest, as is the fact that they try to base wars on the real world, with the standards of that world, where women simply do not serve as straight up combat troops like men are is a fact.

Battlefield is another such game. It bases the game on the real modern world, standards, and fact is, women do not serve as front line troop combat branches.

However in games with alternate universes, I see no problem with including women assuming the standards of the universe make it so. Halo being one such example, where EVERYONE is required to fight because they are overwhelmed technologically, numbers, and so on. It makes perfect sense that women must fight and help in any way they can to win the war.

I would certainly like to see more games include women but call of duty franchise and such should not change this, because it would not make sense. Of course, assuming they just keep going on further in the future, they could certainly change this up. So yeah.


Hey, i have an idea. How about in stead of FPS's we make some FPS's? First Person Stabbers? I like a game were i'd use a knife to fight some one else with a knife instead of, As yahtzee says "Me shooting at something really far away and me dying alot"

Thief and the Elder Scrolls series have melee combat and only that.

You know, except for the bows and the spells.

I don't like "health" in most games. My all time favorite title was the original Ghost Recon. God I played that game like a religion. In that game basically a single shot anywhere killed you and if it didn't, it would permanently lower your fighting capacity (give your character a limp, or a reduce accuracy things like that) That said for most games that doesn't work and is obviously not useful in COD or MOH and similar titles. Personally, my favorite health system of all time is Killing Floor's. Health doesn't regen on it's own but you have, as do your teammates, essentially health kits that you can use on yourself or others that constantly regen. So yes, you have "unlimited" health, but you actually have to DO something to be healed and you cannot heal and shot.

Ah. So, health meters and sci-fi healing techniques are okay, but having female soldiers is unrealistic enough to break immersion, huh?

Ah. So, health meters and sci-fi healing techniques are okay, but having female soldiers is unrealistic enough to break immersion, huh?

Like I said, I don't *like* health systems. I prefer sim-combat games to be honest (ARMA's, the original Ghost Recons, OFP's) but in games like Call of Duty or the newer Medal of Honors, that system doesn't really blend with the stylistic and design choices for the levels and story's being told. 1 Hit kills don't work well in corridor shooters. Because of the nature of a corridor shooter, the designer, and thus the player, have to accept somewhat that they *are* going to get hit, no matter how hard they try not to. In open world games (which all the ones I named happen to be) with multiple angles of attack, as well as FAR greater ranges in which to play with, having the element of being killable in 1 hit is acceptable and won't detract from the experience. Look at it like this, in ARMA II, being shot and killed in 1 hit does not aggravate you *nearly* as much as say, if you were killable in 1 hit in COD4.

Health systems are a necessary evil in order to make the game mechanics of many types of FPS's work. You are, however, mixing apples and oranges here. Health systems (preferences aside) are a mechanic of the game, same as jumping, whether or not you can aim down sights, or sprinting. Having female characters in Special Operations troops is not a mechanic, it's a story element. One that would be as realistic in a Call of Duty or OFP Dragon Rising as a jet pack or anti-gravity lift. It's simply something that doesn't exist. Health meters don't break immersion in corridor shooters. If anything they allow immersion to continue. What would break immersion more? Getting shot once or twice and having to take cover to heal, or being shot once, dieing, and having to repeat a particularly nasty corridor 10 times? The idea of immersion is to *forget* you're playing a game and feel like you're there. Repeating a section because of a mechanical choice breaks immersion far worse than say, a slightly unrealistic mechanic.

Seeing a female Special Operations member would however not only break immersion, but essentially change a games genre from "Modern Setting FPS" to "Fantasy FPS" in the vain of Bioshock. Women do not serve in that capacity. Period. This isn't a thing that can really be debated. It's just a fact. I happened to have served in a unit where the likelihood and amount of combat seen by female soldiers is inordinately high, and it still is by no stretch comparable to what is depicted in the FPS du jour of the month. Like I said in a previous post, you could make a game where a female could be a player character in an FPS, but it would be a VERY boring and tedious FPS 90% of the time and it would lake most of the... well standard things that are expect to be in an FPS of that genre.

I see what your saying there. And I agree with most of what you said.
I'm not convinced though that the inclusion of a playable female character automatically makes the game boring.

As for levels of realism, (if you could call it that in this context), Would you be opposed to female soldiers serving on the front line of a futuristic battlefield, where tech has advanced to the level where cybernetics or other "Upgrades" creates the Warhammer 40K ish Space Marines?

First person shooters, as a genre, are really just great big circle-jerks, you see. You can't have female characters because they can't contribute to the cookie.

Careful, Jim: you keep thoughtfully examining gender issues in video games, and I just might develop an unhealthy crush on you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here