Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It ruins the atmosphere still.

No it doesn't, not in any way whatsoever. Games are about telling interesting interactive stories and allowing the player to have fun with them. Historical accuracy is really low on the list of things that are necessary for a game to be fun. Pretty much the bottom of the list really.

 rockerbikie wrote:
Especially for multiplayer games like chivarly.

Multiplayer has no atmosphere.

Ever.

Chivalry has no atmosphere with or without female characters . It's a gakky game anyway.

Yes, it does. From the slave pits of the Order to the slaughter of peasants. It is about the grittiness of medieval combat. It ruins historical accuracy and that means a lot to me in those games for atmosphere.

 rockerbikie wrote:
It ruins historical accuracy

It's a bizarre day when people continually argue that being historically accurate ruins historical accuracy.

 Melissia wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
"There are no girls on the internet" was a tongue-in-cheek ironic joke.

No, it was not. Denying that it was used as an excuse to abuse women does not make you correct.

You attempt to dismiss the issue by saying "stop taking it so seriously" only because you have no goddamned clue what the hell is going on. "Oh they're just joking" which is why they viciously attack for hours on end, making up lies and throwing every insult they can at you-- and do this non-stop for almost a fething decade.

If this is your idea of a "joke", then you are a very, VERY sick individual.

I still live by the "there are no women on the internet" . I assume everyone is male and therefore treat everyone the same. I don't fawn over people , act superior to people or dismiss people based on whatever gender they decide to advertise on the net.
It's a good system.

 Melissia wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
So what battles did women participate in historically?

Most medieval wars, most wars prior to medieval times, both of the world wars, most of the wars after WWII.

Basically, just about every single war in human history had women participating as combatants. During the "War of the Roses", for example, there have been well-preserved historical records showing that women were part of the basic infantry, sometimes bringing their own weapons and other times coming with nothing and being provided weapons. Women participated in battle in both world wars, but it's especially noticeable in WWII where entire regiments of women participated in the Russian army, including famous sharpshooters and pilots, as well as women participating in the various resistance movements There were fighters amongst the Viet Cong and North Koreans, who were female as well, and women have been involved in combat (despite the supposed lack of "combat roles", the reality on the ground is that female soldiers have participated in combat) in every single major war the US has been involved in since the first invasion of Iraq-- and by now most modern military forces don't distinguish on gender, but rather on ability (which leads many to ask for highly talented female specialists as well as grunt soldiers). There have been numerous female leaders of armies, as well as noble warriors such as knights and samurai, as well, including leaders of entire nations that led their armies to war.

I'd actually ask you to bug Lynata about it more than me, however. I'm not a history buff. I find history to be boring unless it can be subverted and changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:
You can have your Call of Doodies and your Mario Karts

What makes you think I play either?

It still accounts for only small amount of participants in the battle. I already covered if it was for a specific group or individual. If it is story driven, I am fine with it but if it is a common mechanic, it becomes a problem. A degree of realism is important in a medieval game to fully appreciate it.

 rockerbikie wrote:
It still accounts for only small amount of participants in the battle.

Not relevant.

 rockerbikie wrote:
if it is a common mechanic, it becomes a problem.

No it doesn't. If more people want to play the female characters, let them. It's not an issue. Player choice is more important than a fake and half-assed dedication to "realism".

 rockerbikie wrote:
A degree of realism is important in a medieval game to fully appreciate it.

No it's not. Hell, fake realism like that which you supports usually just gets in the way of enjoyment.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It ruins historical accuracy

It's a bizarre day when people continually argue that being historically accurate ruins historical accuracy.

It's percentage of participants that were female. We have issues with hit boxes, due to females being smaller, also females did not recieve military education most of the time in medieval Europe. If they were introduced in Medieval games like Chivarly, would their attacks feel awkward?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It still accounts for only small amount of participants in the battle.

Not relevant.

 rockerbikie wrote:
if it is a common mechanic, it becomes a problem.

No it doesn't. If more people want to play the female characters, let them. It's not an issue. Player choice is more important than a fake and half-assed dedication to "realism".

 rockerbikie wrote:
A degree of realism is important in a medieval game to fully appreciate it.

No it's not. Hell, fake realism like that which you supports usually just gets in the way of enjoyment.

There are games like Tomb Raider, Metroid and Portal for that. I see it as ruining the atmosphere. It's the same reason GW won't let female marines in game. Realism and dedication to semi-realistic game is better than a gender choice. It's the core mechanics and the games atmosphere that is the problem.

 rockerbikie wrote:
It's percentage of participants that were female.

Not relevant.

 rockerbikie wrote:
We have issues with hit boxes

Nothing more than a fake and unnecessary excuse. Men vary wildly in height, yet all the men are the same size in these games. There's no reason that they can't do the same for female characters.

 rockerbikie wrote:
also females did not recieve military education most of the time in medieval Europe.

Not relevant. Most soldiers didn't.

 rockerbikie wrote:
If they were introduced in Medieval games like Chivarly, would their attacks feel awkward?

Yes, but that's misleading. The attacks of male characters in Chivalry are also awkward.

 rockerbikie wrote:
I see it as ruining the atmosphere.

I don't agree. Or care, really, given your inherently contradictory belief systems.

 rockerbikie wrote:
It's the same reason GW won't let female marines in game.

Don't. No. Do not open that can of worms. GW doesn't give a gak about realism.

 rockerbikie wrote:
Realism and dedication to semi-realistic game is better than a gender choice.

You're contradicting yourself here. Not that I believe for a second that you actually give a damn about realism anyway, but at least make a fething stand one way or the other.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It's percentage of participants that were female.

Not relevant.

 rockerbikie wrote:
We have issues with hit boxes

Nothing more than a fake and unnecessary excuse. Men vary wildly in height, yet all the men are the same size in these games. There's no reason that they can't do the same for female characters.

 rockerbikie wrote:
also females did not recieve military education most of the time in medieval Europe.

Not relevant. Most soldiers didn't.

 rockerbikie wrote:
If they were introduced in Medieval games like Chivarly, would their attacks feel awkward?

Yes, but that's misleading. The attacks of male characters in Chivalry are also awkward.

 rockerbikie wrote:
I see it as ruining the atmosphere.

I don't agree. Or care, really, given your inherently contradictory belief systems.

 rockerbikie wrote:
It's the same reason GW won't let female marines in game.

Don't. No. Do not open that can of worms. GW doesn't give a gak about realism.

 rockerbikie wrote:
Realism and dedication to semi-realistic game is better than a gender choice.

You're contradicting yourself here. Not that I believe for a second that you actually give a damn about realism anyway, but at least make a fething stand one way or the other.

Not really. I find the attacks satisfying. View it as a medieval tf 2. Also, in Chivarly there is no blacks. It is not racist. When I play FF X-2 there were no guys but I did not whinge.

 rockerbikie wrote:
When I play FF X-2 there were no guys but I did not whinge.

You attempt to use FFX-2 as a counter-example?

So the historical inaccuracy of having disproportionately many female warriors is not okay, but the historical inaccuracy of there being no female warriors is okay?

If they want to have female warriors, go ahead, go nuts. I'm not about to make a snot nosed crowdfunded critique of it on Youtube.

The entire purpose of videogames is fantasy or wish fulfillment, roleplaying or just plain entertainment. I don't begrudge people wanting to fulfill their fantasies and to that extent I don't particularly fething care if someone wants to have an ample chested breastplate and a sword. I'm not going to roll in bed at night in agony. I don't know about the rest of you, though.

"Historical accuracy" in videogames. "Atmosphere."

Keep in mind that Agatha and the Mason Order are fictional factions with (on purpose) absolutely no basis in history or otherwise on the present reality, geographically or temporally. They are made up nations having made up battles.

"Historical accuracy" in videogames. "Atmosphere."

The people complaining about "historical accuracy" don't actually care about historical accuracy.

Well, there's nothing to be concerned about on the basis that it's again, a fictional conflict.

But by comparison, I don't know why you would care that there are no women in the game. I also don't know why anyone would care if there were women in the game.

Again, the purpose of a game is functionally wish fulfillment/roleplaying/entertainment. I could see someone being annoyed if it wasn't fulfilling one of those goals by means of its not having their particular wish fulfillment fantasy being featured, but that is utter petulance. It's not your decision what a crowdfunded game, or a game financed with multiple tens of millions of dollars should have in it unless there is some compelling economic justification for that. I can't have my every arbitrary personal whim obeyed by the myriad industries of the world, that's why I have to listen to godawful music on the radio punctuated by obnoxious blathering and annoying advertisements. That's why television sucks. The market is governed by LCD (lowest common denominator). Get used to it. If you're not the average level IQ bro, chances are you're going to be unhappy in this world.

Find some like-minded people and craft a niche.

Edit, on that salient point,

Both Chivalry -and- the feminist critique of the "Damsel in distress trope" were crowdfunded thru Kickstarter. In which case I would say, if you have a problem with Chiv not having female character models, how about you take some of the cash that successfully crowdfunded that video and put it towards a female Chivalry with an all-you-can-eat Joan of Arc buffet of diversity-rich medieval combat?

 TedNugent wrote:
It's not your decision what a crowdfunded game, or a game financed with multiple tens of millions of dollars should have in it unless there is some compelling economic justification for that.

There is, most notably, the quickly growing market of female gamers.

But, given the industry's history, that will not be enough to actually make the industry take action.

The "free market", insomuch as it actually exists (it doesn't, but let's roll with it anyway for the sake of the discussion) fails all the time. It oversaturates and undersaturates markets all the time. It fails to take advantage of emerging markets and fails to notice when markets are shrinking. Insofar as it is a thing at all, it is inherently flawed and frequently doesn't work.

I mean hell, just look at our current economic situation.

Then write your wonderful, attentive, and beautiful Congressmen and explain to them in all the flowery detail you can muster the dire seriousness of this matter and the need for serious legislative action on the matter of tropes in videogames that are unsatisfying to women.

I am sure they will send you an immediate, tailored, and positive response indicating their sincere commitment to this important matter right before they get back to shoveling another bucketload of taxpayer dollars into a suitcase.

AN ADDENDUM:

The "free market" as you describe it, if it exists, should, in accordance with capitalist theory, eventually respond to the demands of this "growing female market" to which you allude. I've just indicated to you a powerful tool at your disposal for that purpose: Kickstarter, the same vehicle that successfully crowdfunded the feminist critique of the "Damsel in Distress trope" video.

But of course, the "free market" does not exist, at least not in the developed world, where public funding and infrastructure has been crucial to the development of private enterprise in virtually every sector of the economy. In fact, government intervention into the economy is rampant, and is typically imposed in order to insulate the economy from the effects of market dynamics rather than to emphasize critical areas of growth and development that need immediate attention, such as education, roads, scientific research, etcetera. They are dumping boatloads of cash, pulling out wads of dollars hand-over-fist to ensure that thieves and robber barons govern this great economic system. If they can create monopolies, they do it. If they can merge gigantic businesses together, they do it. If they can wipe clean balance sheets and sanction criminal fraud and theft, they do it.

"Free market." Come on.

 TedNugent wrote:
If they want to have female warriors, go ahead, go nuts. I'm not about to make a snot nosed crowdfunded critique of it on Youtube.

The entire purpose of videogames is fantasy or wish fulfillment, roleplaying or just plain entertainment. I don't begrudge people wanting to fulfill their fantasies and to that extent I don't particularly fething care if someone wants to have an ample chested breastplate and a sword. I'm not going to roll in bed at night in agony. I don't know about the rest of you, though.

"Historical accuracy" in videogames. "Atmosphere."

Keep in mind that Agatha and the Mason Order are fictional factions with (on purpose) absolutely no basis in history or otherwise on the present reality, geographically or temporally. They are made up nations having made up battles.

They are suppose to accurately be a depictation of medieval society. Also, don't take this the wrong way but what parts would fly off from the female body if they were present in chivarly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
When I play FF X-2 there were no guys but I did not whinge.

You attempt to use FFX-2 as a counter-example?

The thing is be mature about it. I won't be able to play male every game as you can't play female every game. You can't honestly expect a female option for every game.

 rockerbikie wrote:
The thing is be mature about it. I won't be able to play male every game as you can't play female every game. You can't honestly expect a female option for every game.

FFX-2 was nothing more than Japanese Fanservice: The Game, complete with lesbian bath parties and massages. Seriously, don't try to use that as a counter-example.

Also? I'm not asking every game to have a female option. Hell, I'd settle for 60:40 given the propensity for male writers to write male characters. Currently we don't even break 90:10.

The only parts you can sever in Chiv are: the lower leg at the knee, the arm at the shoulder joint, and the head at the neck.

I know, I've done it nearly every opportunity. I try as much as I can to turn my opponent into a "Black Knight," Monty Python style.

Also, Medieval combat is supposed to be, as referenced from their design goal, the best multiplayer melee combat game. It is heavily influenced by medieval combat, weapons, techniques, and equipment, as well as warfare tactics, but it is in no way an accurate depiction of any actual historical event, people, culture, nation, etcetera.

It is basically the most generic medieval fiction universe they could come up with.

 rockerbikie wrote:
They are suppose to accurately be a depictation of medieval society.

No, they aren't.

If they accurately depicted medieval society you'd call it unrealistic.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
They are suppose to accurately be a depictation of medieval society.

No, they aren't.

If they accurately depicted medieval society you'd call it unrealistic.

It if it was there would be random spawning of female character. A smalll chance. Not a choice.

 rockerbikie wrote:
It if it was there would be random spawning of female character. A smalll chance. Not a choice.

No, that would be stupid, just like removing female characters entirely is also incredibly stupid.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
The thing is be mature about it. I won't be able to play male every game as you can't play female every game. You can't honestly expect a female option for every game.

FFX-2 was nothing more than Japanese Fanservice: The Game, complete with lesbian bath parties and massages. Seriously, don't try to use that as a counter-example.

Also? I'm not asking every game to have a female option. Hell, I'd settle for 60:40 given the propensity for male writers to write male characters. Currently we don't even break 90:10.

Yeah, still games such as Metroid and Tomb Raider take fem leads. There are some things in life that are unfair, I struggle to find a decent straight up romance book with a male lead. A majority of romance books have female leads but I am softie sometimes so I like romances. I wish proportions could be meet in gender but it isn't, given the current majority of game designers being men.

 rockerbikie wrote:
Yeah, still games such as Metroid and Tomb Raider take fem leads.

The only two you can actually name, I see.

So you admit that your position is wrong and that there needs to be a change in the industry.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It if it was there would be random spawning of female character. A smalll chance. Not a choice.

No, that would be stupid, just like removing female characters entirely is also incredibly stupid.

There has been no battle with a 50/50 split of male/females in a battlefield, not even close.

 rockerbikie wrote:
There has been no battle with a 50/50 split of male/females in a battlefield, not even close.

You say that like it matters. Or like I should care even.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Yeah, still games such as Metroid and Tomb Raider take fem leads.

The only two you can actually name, I see.

So you admit that your position is wrong and that there needs to be a change in the industry.

There needs to be a change that appeals to female demographics, like there are books movies etc. appealing to men, there should be some appealing just to women. There are just some games I would not enjoy seeing a fem character in like TF2 or Chivarly.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It if it was there would be random spawning of female character. A smalll chance. Not a choice.

No, that would be stupid, just like removing female characters entirely is also incredibly stupid.

No it is not.

That requires them to build, on a shoestring budget no less, 8 additional character models with suitable animations, wire frames, and hitboxes. It is not a matter of "decision" and the instant generation of content, in which case it might very well be in the game. It is a matter of decision plus implementation.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
There has been no battle with a 50/50 split of male/females in a battlefield, not even close.

You say that like it matters. Or like I should care even.

Make up your mind. Are you for your skewed idea of historical accuracy or not? Some people enjoy the idea of realism. Your comment is a previous thread saying that you want a "custom" faction in a historical game prooves you have no caring of realism of any kind in the video game industry.

 rockerbikie wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
There has been no battle with a 50/50 split of male/females in a battlefield, not even close.

You say that like it matters. Or like I should care even.

Make up your mind. Are you for your skewed idea of historical accuracy or not?

I have said from the beginning that I don't give a damn about historical accuracy.

But then again, neither do you, you just like acting like you do.

 TedNugent wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
It if it was there would be random spawning of female character. A smalll chance. Not a choice.

No, that would be stupid, just like removing female characters entirely is also incredibly stupid.

No it is not.

That requires them to build, on a shoestring budget no less, 8 additional character models with suitable animations, wire frames, and hitboxes. It is not a matter of "decision" and the instant generation of content, in which case it might very well be in the game. It is a matter of decision plus implementation.

Not to mention 16 sets of voice acting.