What is it with chauvinism in Military Shooters? The ARMA community is divided by a simple question over female player models. (feedback.arma3.com)

{arma}

34 ups - 28 downs = 6 votes

88 comments submitted at 16:07:13 on Mar 10, 2013 by drohne

  • [-]
  • Sairothon
  • -1 Points
  • 16:37:26, 10 March

I think it's mostly because some people bring their personal values in when it comes to this. This is a broad generalization, but on one side you have the people FOR female player models because they are pro-feminism and think its misogynistic to not add female player models. On the other half, the people AGAINST female player models, they simply don't want the game to have female player models for whatever reasons.

I personally don't think it'd be smart to add female player models since it really is (or should be) a cosmetic thing and therefore doesn't have any function, at least for most people, besides making the game file larger and wasting time on development. The thing is that in many games (i.e. planetside 2, Blacklight: Retribution), people pick female character models because they are normally smaller than their male counterparts, so it's an inherent advantage which could easily have been avoided by just not adding female character models at all. Also, modding is always an option for those wanting female character models.

  • [-]
  • 1Clash1
  • 8 Points
  • 17:34:49, 10 March

That is a broad generalisation yes and I would say that wanting there to be both male and female models is more of an egalitarian idea than a feminist one.

I don't understand how classing it as 'cosmetic' means it's less important? You can call the whole visual look of the game 'cosmetic' and of course 'cosmetic things' have function, the way you interact and play the game is visual so the way things look is obviously important.

I highly doubt adding in female player models would add to the file size to such a degree that it would be an issue, and since when has that ever been an issue gamers really worry about?

With regards to the size of female character models I assume you simply mean height which can be easily compensated for by making the female models as tall as the male models, surely? If you think that it's unrealistic for some reason, it's only as unrealistic as all the males in the whole game being exactly the same height and build. It's not really something you can pick issue with. Sure, it can be modded in. However, something as fundamental as the existence of women is surely something that should be in the base game.

Furthermore, you wouldn't use the justifications you outlined to deny the support for skins representing different ethnicities within the game would you surely?

  • [-]
  • BlinkingZeroes
  • 5 Points
  • 18:52:06, 10 March

Hey 1Clash1, I feel like you are the only person in this thread making sense on this issue.

My position is that I would like to see female soldiers represented in Arma 3 because that would allow for a more realistic representation of our current, and likely future armed forces. Whilst I feel there are other important issues to fix, I'd still register it as a request.

This feedback tracker is designed with the idealism of us, the games audience in mind. What would we like to see in the game.

The argument that it would take too many resources, is not a valid argument for why, ideally, you would not want female characters in the game. That line of justification cannot be made by anyone but the developers themselves and I am sceptical about the motivation behind any player making that argument.

  • [-]
  • 1Clash1
  • 5 Points
  • 19:09:30, 10 March

It's good to see I'm not the only one who thinks that, thank you.

  • [-]
  • Zazzerpan
  • -1 Points
  • 19:41:04, 10 March

That is not what the bug tracker is for. That is what the wishlist is for. The bug tracker is for (as it's name implies) bugs.

  • [-]
  • BlinkingZeroes
  • 4 Points
  • 20:41:18, 10 March

It's actually a feedback tracker. That's why it's called "Feedback tracker" - And whilst yes, bug stomping is a large reason for its use - It only takes a quick glance at the listed issues to see that it is being used for suggestions/general feedback too.

I.e. - Inability to rest weapons/use bipods is not a bug, but is a highly supported feature request.

It seems weird that the "It's a bug tracker!" is being used to so readily condemn this particular request. It's very clear, both from BIS's history of community interaction and the presence of a voting system (why would a bug tracker have a voting system?) that BIS are a company that cater to the consideration and demands of their community.

Furthermore, you wouldn't be able to list your feedback priority as "feature" if BIS didn't want people submitting feature requests. I consider the argument that it's a bug tracker being mis-used is pretty much bunk. The people making it are either misinformed or hiding another agenda.

  • [-]
  • Zazzerpan
  • 2 Points
  • 17:42:57, 10 March

Adding a new asset to a game is a task people seem to think is trivial. To add a female character set they would need to model, rig, texture, and animate a new character. I'm over simplifying it but there you go. All of that doesn't come cheap either. There's nothing wrong with having female soldiers in the game but it is purely a cosmetic thing and thus not what the alpha is for.

  • [-]
  • 1Clash1
  • 3 Points
  • 17:50:49, 10 March

I don't think it's trivial, I just think that any development time/cost it takes to implement female character models to the game is justified given the fundamental existence of females in war, it seems odd to have to explain that. I didn't at any point say that it should be implemented immediately, simply that it should be in the game at some point.

  • [-]
  • Zazzerpan
  • -2 Points
  • 17:54:06, 10 March

Is there a big enough market for female characters though? Is it worth the investment? If there is a market for it than I'm sure BI would be interesting in implementing them. Otherwise I just don't see it happening before release. It could happen as DLC or as part of an expansion but even then you have to think of it as a business decision and not a political one.

  • [-]
  • 1Clash1
  • 4 Points
  • 18:07:25, 10 March

I'd like to think that BI puts realism and authenticity over worries about marketing. I'd also say that implementing something as essential to the authenticity of the game as the existence of women is more important than worrying about whether there's a large amount of women playing the game. For example, you don't try and work out how many players of a certain ethnicity play a game when you go to implement skins that reflect different ethnicities as they are fundamental to the authenticity of the game. I would argue this is the same with female skins.

  • [-]
  • Zazzerpan
  • 0 Points
  • 18:19:17, 10 March

Woman exist (they are in the class lists) but I'm not sure if they done any work to make them more than civilians. Anyway, the issue is this isn't a skin. A skin is just a texture and thus far far easier to make. What you are asking for would require at least a month a dedicated work if not more. For a game trying to release in Q3 that's just asking too much.

  • [-]
  • 1Clash1
  • 3 Points
  • 18:35:17, 10 March

I don't profess to completely understand game design but I highly doubt it would take a month of dedicated work given that you wouldn't really have to apply that many changes to the male model to make it female. Also, I think it would be strange for a realistic game like this to launch without any female characters. I haven't seen any valid arguments or reasons to exclude this feature other than arguments about development time which, given the authentic value female character implementation would give, aren't very compelling.

  • [-]
  • Zazzerpan
  • 0 Points
  • 18:48:58, 10 March

As someone who has actual development experience (I'm student studying to be a rigger/character TD) I can tell you this stuff very much takes that much time. A base character rig can be done In 6-13 hours if the rigger is decent with another month or so of tweaking and fixes afterword. That's not including all the time it takes for motion capture to be done, cleaning, then having the animator tweak it further. Of course this all happens after the model is done. If you want a nice looking female model rather than just a dude with a puffy chest than they'll have to make an entirely different model which can take a week or more depending on what other assignments they have. All these people have to be payed during this time mind you, If BI operates like other studios many of them will need to be hired (since the art team tends to disband after they're done.) So yeah, this takes extra development time and it's all for something that is really just a cosmetic choice. It adds nothing but roleplay value which is not something the ArmA is designed to be about. People may play the game in that fashion but it's not part of the main design for the game.

  • [-]
  • 1Clash1
  • 4 Points
  • 19:08:34, 10 March

Fair enough, but regardless of whether that's true my main point was that development time isn't a valid argument against implementing female characters, it was that it is a neccessity in an authentic game.

You, and others, keep referring to it as a 'cosmetic choice'. Simply identifying that it is a visual factor doesn't negate it's importance. BI put a lot of work into the game to make sure it is visually authentic, this is especially true with how they approach map design. Being female isn't a cosmetic choice as I'm sure you'd concede. Soldiers don't choose to be female or male, females and males exist in the military and the civilian population, it's ridiculous I'm having to explain this. Therefore, given that the female sex is such a fundamental part of life they need to be included in a game that seeks to be authentic. How can you worry about the authenticity of uniforms, guns and vehicles when women don't even exist? Surely that's a big issue when it comes to authenticity.

On the issue of rolepalying; simply giving females existence in a game isn't 'roleplay' it's realism, it can't be passed of as roleplay and therefore not neccessary. And even if you want to define it as roleplay it can be argued that in a sense when you play Arma you are roleplaying. The game is geared towards providing an authentic realistic experience, you're playing the role of a soldier and BI are attempting to make it as realistic as possible within a game.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • SovietRaptor
  • 2 Points
  • 17:52:01, 10 March

Don't forget voice-work. And rigging the new model would require every single weapon, vehicle, site etc.

  • [-]
  • Zazzerpan
  • 2 Points
  • 18:06:41, 10 March

It would depend on how they made the rig. In my experience such things can transfer over decently. But with how arma binds animations to how the character handles it would be a bit more complex to make it all run smoothly. Holding weapons, saluting, sitting down and the like could all be transferred over if they wanted to. All stances and movement though would need to be done from scratch. Also They would have to remodel all the clothing (vests, helmets, all that) to work for the female models. Right now I think all the male models are the same so I don't think they could just hook it up as a blendshape and would instead have to check the sex of the character an pull the proper model.

  • [-]
  • LKS
  • 6 Points
  • 16:47:13, 10 March

I just think it's ridiculous that they are abusing the Bugtracker like that. Huge comments with no real meat to it.

It's a minuscule feature request with most of the work already done for DayZ Standalone. If it's BIS adding them before release, cool thing. If someone ports them over from DayZ, well, now we have them too, just as a mod.