[QUOTE=hexpunK;43444833]Uhhh writing them to be a "person that happens to be a woman" is the right way to go about writing female characters that aren't meant to be anything special. Drawing as little attention to the fact "hey, she's not a dude" is the right way to go.[/QUOTE]
i don't really agree with this
it's a fantastic ideal to strive for gender equality to the point where gender becomes a meaningless word in society, thus making gender in narratives and character writing irrelevant, but a contemporary story exists within society and this shouldn't be ignored
battlefield 4 doesn't exist within a bubble and nor should any narrative try to. the problem with trying to write female characters as genderless entities, especially in a story about the military, is that they just end up as being 'guys with tits' - they're not indistinguishable from the men because all of the characters in the story are genderless, they're indistinguishable from the men because, other than their 3D model and the voice acting, they [I]are[/I] men. the men are, for all intents and purposes, strong manly men, and the women are also... strong manly men?
women aren't men and they deserve to be written as women. you can have a strong female character who still has to deal with the issues of being a woman, especially the issues of being a woman in the military. even silly hollywood films like [I]aliens[/I] manage to deal with simple concepts like this. as far as i know bf4 isn't set in some utopian feminist future where gender no long exists, so why is the game presented like that? it creates a scenario that is unrealistic - a female agent in a marine squad - just so that they can cram a female character in there. the fact that she is no different to the men though, and the fact that the men don't seem to even notice or care that she is a woman in a totally insane and unheard-of situation, is kind-of insulting to the actually issues our society has today
the way to write a story that considers feminist theory isn't to erase gender from your narrative. that's not thinking about feminist theory and critiquing modern society, that's just pandering to a utopian ideal that some feminists have
tldr stories don't exist in bubbles and ignoring or pretending an issue doesn't exist doesn't equate to solving it
[QUOTE=Warriorx4;43465656]This is a really silly notion to have considering there's nothing inherently wrong with feminism.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of that, but coming across as a feminist online, in my experience at least, can provoke a pretty nasty reaction, so I kind of try to avoid it for the sake of avoiding a fight.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43465762]i don't really agree with this
it's a fantastic ideal to strive for gender equality to the point where gender becomes a meaningless word in society, thus making gender in narratives and character writing irrelevant, but a contemporary story exists within society and this shouldn't be ignored
battlefield 4 doesn't exist within a bubble and nor should any narrative try to. the problem with trying to write female characters as genderless entities, especially in a story about the military, is that they just end up as being 'guys with tits' - they're not indistinguishable from the men because all of the characters in the story are genderless, they're indistinguishable from the men because, other than their 3D model and the voice acting, they [I]are[/I] men. the men are, for all intents and purposes, strong manly men, and the women are also... strong manly men?
women aren't men and they deserve to be written as women. you can have a strong female character who still has to deal with the issues of being a woman, especially the issues of being a woman in the military. even silly hollywood films like [I]aliens[/I] manage to deal with simple concepts like this. as far as i know bf4 isn't set in some utopian feminist future where gender no long exists, so why is the game presented like that? it creates a scenario that is unrealistic - a female agent in a marine squad - just so that they can cram a female character in there. the fact that she is no different to the men though, and the fact that the men don't seem to even notice or care that she is a woman in a totally insane and unheard-of situation, is kind-of insulting to the actually issues our society has today
the way to write a story that considers feminist theory isn't to erase gender from your narrative. that's not thinking about feminist theory and critiquing modern society, that's just pandering to a utopian ideal that some feminists have
tldr stories don't exist in bubbles and ignoring or pretending an issue doesn't exist doesn't equate to solving it[/QUOTE]
well at least everyone can agree that actually putting women in these games in the first place is a step in the right direction. i think once it's boiled down to a problem with regular bad character writing rather than misogynistic character writing, then a lot more progress can be made
Oh man why is there always so much bullshit about this. Battlefield 4's story sucked as a whole to begin with, even if your personal notion of how women should be represented in games was perfect in it, it still wouldn't be a good example to help along the discussion. Personally, I thought BF4's approach was basically 'safe'. It does nothing interesting and tries not to offend anyone (but it always does in the end because internet). It's better than not having female characters at all, or female characters with insignificant roles.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43444833]Why would you hate to sound like a feminist? The movement is correct. It's the weird offshots and idiots you don't want to sound like.[/QUOTE]
People don't like carrying labels. That's why we should promote a label for the opposing team. Josh Weadon made a case for the term 'genderist' in [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDmzlKHuuoI]this speech[/url]. Being a 'feminist' should be the natural state.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43465762]i don't really agree with this
it's a fantastic ideal to strive for gender equality to the point where gender becomes a meaningless word in society, thus making gender in narratives and character writing irrelevant, but a contemporary story exists within society and this shouldn't be ignored
battlefield 4 doesn't exist within a bubble and nor should any narrative try to. the problem with trying to write female characters as genderless entities, especially in a story about the military, is that they just end up as being 'guys with tits' - they're not indistinguishable from the men because all of the characters in the story are genderless, they're indistinguishable from the men because, other than their 3D model and the voice acting, they [I]are[/I] men. the men are, for all intents and purposes, strong manly men, and the women are also... strong manly men?
women aren't men and they deserve to be written as women. you can have a strong female character who still has to deal with the issues of being a woman, especially the issues of being a woman in the military. even silly hollywood films like [I]aliens[/I] manage to deal with simple concepts like this. as far as i know bf4 isn't set in some utopian feminist future where gender no long exists, so why is the game presented like that? it creates a scenario that is unrealistic - a female agent in a marine squad - just so that they can cram a female character in there. the fact that she is no different to the men though, and the fact that the men don't seem to even notice or care that she is a woman in a totally insane and unheard-of situation, is kind-of insulting to the actually issues our society has today
the way to write a story that considers feminist theory isn't to erase gender from your narrative. that's not thinking about feminist theory and critiquing modern society, that's just pandering to a utopian ideal that some feminists have
tldr stories don't exist in bubbles and ignoring or pretending an issue doesn't exist doesn't equate to solving it[/QUOTE]
It's not that I want the characters written to be genderless, more that making a fuss of there being a woman is a problem. The fact that when approached with a genderless being, we automatically assume it is male is a problem that needs addressing, it would solve the "writing them as a person who happens to be a woman" being "a man with a female model".
There are issues they very well could have written into the story for her, assuming all the male cast are generic marines, they'd probably be apprehensive of her ability to fight, so her introduction to the team being her actually kicking some guys asses kinda solves that. Another issue people seem to think all women would suffer is being too emotional in combat, but that's not actually an issue if shes a trained combatant. They could easily write something about literally every other marine being an ass about her being in their squad after she's proven herself to the squad, however it would probably seem quite forced.
How do you "write a woman"? What could you write about a female character that doesn't draw massive attention to them because of their sex or turn them into something they shouldn't be? DICE seem to have taken to approach of don't write her as anything special, keep her relatively out of the way (which to be honest, is justifiable in that she's not meant to be in their squad), and just get on with it.
This idea isn't about "erasing gender", that's basically impossible right now, it's about just not taking too much notice of it instead.
It's ridiculous that we feel that we need to address female characters in some special way and it's a large part of what's keeping them out of the medium. They're just characters, and a most of the time gender really shouldn't matter.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43467462]The fact that when approached with a genderless being, we automatically assume it is male is a problem that needs addressing, it would solve the "writing them as a person who happens to be a woman" being "a man with a female model".[/QUOTE]
Is that actually a problem? Does women also assume it's male? If they don't, it isn't a problem.
this video confuses me
he raises some really good points about the character and her lack of meaningful development
but then right after he'd say something utterly retarded and legitimately misogynistic
i feel as if his misogyny wasn't fueling his videos he could make some very good content because he honestly raises really good arguments
[QUOTE=Lalelalala;43468531]Is that actually a problem? Does women also assume it's male? If they don't, it isn't a problem.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I'm not a woman. I've not asked a woman this question as I never remember to when we're discussing the complexities of female portrayal in writing.
But it's pretty likely, we tend to default to "male" for a lot of things. Animals for example. Unless we've checked or are told their sex, they're usually male.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43467462]How do you "write a woman"?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]There are issues they very well could have written into the story for her, assuming all the male cast are generic marines, they'd probably be apprehensive of her ability to fight, so her introduction to the team being her actually kicking some guys asses kinda solves that. Another issue people seem to think all women would suffer is being too emotional in combat, but that's not actually an issue if shes a trained combatant. They could easily write something about literally every other marine being an ass about her being in their squad after she's proven herself to the squad[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43469003]blankquote[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah. I know I addressed that myself :v: And other than the last bit about other marines (I've not played the game yet, or seen much of the story so I might be wrong) I don't think I've come across anything particularly like that being in the game.
I mean, if I am right, and that is how we should write women, she seems at least half way there. They just needed to find more reason for her to be around in some of the plot. It seems she does just stand around a bit in places. Which I guess kinda makes sense for someone thrown into a squad that they have very little reason to be in.
This guy is ridiculous. I tried to actually watch the video so I could argue with the guy (he told me to grow some balls and counter-argue) and I just couldn't keep a straight face. Some of his points are so goddamn stupid I think I don't even want to see his name on the Internet again. This guy is disgusting, not to mention a massive moron.
I do agree with the point about the pointless gender changes for two-dimensional characters in the game, but everything else is just pants-shitting retarded. I can't believe this guy has almost a thousand subscribers (he even refers to them as 'his intelligent fanbase')
when you think about it it's really sad there are so many people like this guy who are offended and threatened by the mere suggestion that a woman could possibly stand up to a man in any way.
yes i did watch the whole video.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
not to mention how straight-up ignorant and misogynist videos like this get bombarded in likes and positive comments while people like anita sarkeesian have to disable ratings and comments and still have to put up with daily death threats from angry gamers.
So I watched the video to the end, and remembered another female character! Says a lot about the game's story doesn't it.
Now I can elaborate a bit more. Greenland is a-OK. Hannah is shit. Why? Because Greenland's gender isn't as shoved in my face "look! female character! wooow, innovation, female character!". It doesn't then proceed to "woooow, look at that, don't miss it! Female character who has a leading role for reason that is absolutely fucking nothing!"
What further makes it an insult, is that during that period of the game, the player character supposedly (according to story) is a squad leader. And our guy has no say in the matter. It's not like the first time it happens, but stripping PC off his commanding role at a major plot point is not really a good idea. Immersion at this point is already killed and buried, and now it just damages the story beyond FUBAR level.
Plus Greenland has more interesting personality. Don't get me wrong, they're both little more than a plot devices in terms of "great" writing this game has, but Greenland is less obvious in that respect.
What I want to say in terms of plots and writing, is that Greenland is a good example of female character, because it's a good example of role reversal. "Rough commander on the front line" is traditionally a role for male character, and here we suddenly see female character, who turns out to be just as fitting. You don't see obvious seams here.
All the while Hannah doesn't play any new roles that wouldn't be traditionally filled by female characters. She's a bond-girl with half character traits missing. Triple agend who looks suspicious, then she turns us in, then - plot twist - she's good, and even great, and we are told to like her. All that for no reason what so ever, because nothing happening in this game has a clear observable reason.
This wouldn't happen if, say, for example instead of PAC we had a female character in our squad from the start of the game. Yeah, maybe at first it could've felt like "look, a female character all of a sudden". But then the feeling would fade away, and there would be no need for any reasons for her to be in the game. When shoving a character, who just happens to be female, in player's throats at the middle of the game, you basically force the players to ask "what the fuck, why's she here". It further damages the view of female characters in games, because you not only shoehorn a new character with no good explaination, you do so with a female character, putting a stress on character's gender. You create a feeling (in case of BF4, correct feeling) that this character is here for the sole purpose of female character being in the game, that is to say, to appease feminist critics.
[QUOTE=OutLawed Blade;43461738]A properly trained woman can be as much of an asset as a properly trained man.[/QUOTE]
She can in your liberal equality fairness world but not in reality. I work in the military and women are simply not as strong as a men. Not even the women want to be in the same combat scenarios as men, because unlike you liberals who sit on a computer detached from reality, they live in the real world. Women aren't as strong as men, pretending they are is counter productive. We're different and that's not a bad thing.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;43463925]We're not in medieval times anymore where warfare was as brutal as it could get and you needed a lot of physical strength to kill somebody.
Now we have guns and killing machines. Women can do both of those as good as a man can with proper training.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever used a gun? Do you know what recoil is? Women aren't as physically capable as men and it's harder for them to use them. Guns can be heavy, especially LMGs.
[QUOTE=HerrWolf;43472481]She can in your liberal equality fairness world but not in reality. I work in the military and women are simply not as strong as a men. Not even the women want to be in the same combat scenarios as men, because unlike you liberals who sit on a computer detached from reality, they live in the real world. Women aren't as strong as men, pretending they are is counter productive. We're different and that's not a bad thing.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
Have you ever used a gun? Do you know what recoil is? Women aren't as physically capable as men and it's harder for them to use them. Guns can be heavy, especially LMGs.[/QUOTE]
uhm i'd be willing to concede that your average man has more physical power than your average woman, but unless every man on the planet is stronger than every woman on the planet then i see no reason to enforce double standards.
also your statement that women are simply too weak to carry a gun is pretty narrow-minded and ignorant. any able-bodied person can pick up a heavy object with effective strength training.
[QUOTE=Cyanlime;43472533]uhm i'd be willing to concede that your average man has more physical power than your average woman, but unless every man on the planet is stronger than every woman on the planet then i see no reason to enforce double standards.
also your statement that women are simply too weak to carry a gun is pretty narrow-minded and ignorant. any able-bodied person can pick up a heavy object with effective strength training.[/QUOTE]
There are double standards enforced in the military, that's because if there weren't, no women would make it into the military. They say it's male dominated, which all of our officers laugh at. The standards are lowered for women, I have to be twice as fit as a woman to qualify for entry, so theoretically there should be far more women in the military than men, yet it's about 20% and those are usually in support roles such as medic and intelligence.
The special forces have no double standard however, and not one single woman has gotten in, ever. There's no rule that says a woman can't join, and they have applied, but none has ever come close to passing since it involves things that are lightyears beyond what any woman is physically capable of.
[QUOTE=HerrWolf;43473058]The special forces have no double standard however, and not one single woman has gotten in, ever. There's no rule that says a woman can't join, and they have applied, but none has ever come close to passing since it involves things that are lightyears beyond what any woman is physically capable of.[/QUOTE]
hahahahahaha
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
#science
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43473383]hahahahahaha
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
#science[/QUOTE]
we measure female inferiority with light years now apparently. i guess all those failed special forces candidates have colonized the vacuum of space or something
[editline]9th January[/editline]
mr president we've got ten AU of dumb women clogging up our military what do we do
[QUOTE=HerrWolf;43473058]There are double standards enforced in the military, that's because if there weren't, no women would make it into the military. They say it's male dominated, which all of our officers laugh at. The standards are lowered for women, I have to be twice as fit as a woman to qualify for entry, so theoretically there should be far more women in the military than men, yet it's about 20% and those are usually in support roles such as medic and intelligence.[/QUOTE]
You ever think that maybe this has less to do with the physical capacity of the women in question and more to do with the fact that women will feel less compelled to join the military because it goes against the social expectation and is seen as abnormal, where as men are usually praised for doing so? And that women in the military will be more likely to go into support roles because that's what's expected of them?
Also it's pretty insulting to say that women are so inherently weak that even with training they can't be expected to be able to wield firearms.
man i sure do hate women who else here hates women their intellectual intelligence and physical capabilities are so mediocre compared to my own *lifts arm to shove cheetos into his fat greasy mouth*
[QUOTE=HerrWolf;43472481]She can in your liberal equality fairness world but not in reality. I work in the military and women are simply not as strong as a men. Not even the women want to be in the same combat scenarios as men, because unlike you liberals who sit on a computer detached from reality, they live in the real world. Women aren't as strong as men, pretending they are is counter productive. We're different and that's not a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Yo, dude I know you get a hard on talking about how you can beat the shit out of women but I said a [b]properly trained woman[/b]. If it were two shmucks off the street ya the guy would probably win in a fist fight but if it were a trained woman VS a trained man it wouldn't be so clear cut.
[QUOTE=HerrWolf;43473058]There are double standards enforced in the military, that's because if there weren't, no women would make it into the military. They say it's male dominated, which all of our officers laugh at. The standards are lowered for women, I have to be twice as fit as a woman to qualify for entry, so theoretically there should be far more women in the military than men, yet it's about 20% and those are usually in support roles such as medic and intelligence.
The special forces have no double standard however, and not one single woman has gotten in, ever. There's no rule that says a woman can't join, and they have applied, but none has ever come close to passing since it involves things that are lightyears beyond what any woman is physically capable of.[/QUOTE]
It must be nice living on neptune because I have no fucking idea how you can be living on earth.
Just to let you guys know there was a ban on combat roles for females in the US until 2013, and it's estimated that they can begin Ranger and SEAL training in 2015/16
So he's making shit up
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
In any case you shouldn't be taking someone with an ubermensch avatar seriously when it comes to these topics lol
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
Oh he's from NZ
There's like a few hundred women in the NZ army so it's not that big a surprise that none have gotten into the NZSAS
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;43444454]He's right you know. They could have gone places that actually made her being a woman important to her role. Instead she's just a "person" that so happens to be a girl. The writers didn't want to give her any weaknesses incase it could be stringed to her being female; thus getting biased reviews from some reviewers or hate-mail. They made the singleplayer campaign about as "safe" as they could, and it really ruined most aspects of it.
I don't agree about how he says they SHOULD have been males... but he brings up a proper point: they [i]could[/i] have been males. Even without any modifications to their personality or script whatsoever. Just a model change and a voice change. The only reason they are females in the first place is so the game has a more diverse cast of characters, it doesn't go any deeper than that.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion they did the character wrong. I mean this guy brings up a few good points; at no point does she show weakness in comparison to Irish for example. In addition, couldn't they randomize the models of random soldiers and include some female ones in there? That'd make them just as equal as men in the missions; they go in, they shoot and advance until they die, then get replaced by others.
As for this HerrWolf dingwit, this whole "women are weaker than men" bullshit is something I see [I]every day[/I] and not only nearly all women, but most men are misinformed about this. I've done a ton of slogging through research papers about this subject and part of my knowledge is also empirical. On [U]average[/U] a female representative of the human species has approximately 70% of the [U]upper body[/U] strength of a male represenative of the human species. As for lower body strength, the difference is about 10% on average, females having the 90% of a man's. [B][I]However,[/I][/B] this is only for the "natural" strength that you get by simply doing normal exercising below the aerobic threshold or without increasing power, such as walking, jogging, stretching, et cetera. The [U]upper limit[/U] of strength is completely random for both men and women. Therefore it's just a matter of training more for women to reach the same amount of power which [B]they can reach[/B] provided that they're patient. Because women have less testosterone, their physical power develops slower. However their body isn't devoid of the hormone. As such they need to do extra work to reach the same results as a man for two reasons: lower starting point and naturally smaller gains.
And even this is when we're talking about averages. Differences within sexes are [B]FAR[/B] larger than differences between sexes. There is also a matter of culture that hinders gender-equal serving in military roles. Let's take a look at Israel. They have gender-equal conscription and in training exercises it's been discovered that Israeli men have been distracted by even "wounded" female comrades and as such, their effectiveness as a soldier has been lowered. This has been used as evidence that women have no place on the battlefield. However, in Norway where the same thing was applied a while ago. In Norwegian military exercises no such thing was discovered. What's the difference between these two? Gender roles in culture. If a boy is raised by their environment to believe that they should protect the women because they cannot do it themselves, then that's what they'll be inclined towards. If a boy is raised by their environment to believe that they should just protect those that he cares about or something similar, then their sex stops being an issue.
You might also throw the "but it's instinctive behavior to protect women" argument. First of all you have no fucking clue how the human psyche works. Second of all instinctive impulses are repressed regularly by well trained military personell. If you really serve in the army like you claim to, you should know that troops have to be capable of enduring hunger, pain, sleep deprivation and other physical detriments that might be encountered in combat scenarios and war overall. These impulses are much stronger than protecting females of the group. All of these impulses also originate from our brain's primitive sections. Since we, as humans, have a cognitive side of our mind as well (not to mention it's the dominant side) we use that to make decisions primarily. This is located on the outer reaches of the brain, the unique part of the brain that humans have and it's also the part that's most developed. It's what soldiers need most, especially when learning and applying tactics in a combat scenario since you need to think through the enemy's eyes to outsmart them. Women and men have no difference other than as individuals in this ability.
Overall I haven't yet met any argument against this that could not be fixed simply by overhauling society itself. Easier said than done, but there is nothing that could not be remedied without sacrificing effectiveness.
If you want sources for all of this, I can gladly scrounge up the .ppt .pdf and .doc-files and pack them up in a .rar so science itself can tell you the same things in a more boring way in the face. However, most of my sources are in Finnish and I have no interest in translating them just for your convenience. Or, you know, being the adult you are you could look it up yourself from non-red pill websites, since it's no doubt the only place where you go for information about these topics.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;43474272]You ever think that maybe this has less to do with the physical capacity of the women in question and more to do with the fact that women will feel less compelled to join the military because it goes against the social expectation and is seen as abnormal, where as men are usually praised for doing so? And that women in the military will be more likely to go into support roles because that's what's expected of them?
Also it's pretty insulting to say that women are so inherently weak that even with training they can't be expected to be able to wield firearms.[/QUOTE]
I don't care if you're insulted, your feelings have no effect on reality. I work with women in the military, they are simply not as strong as men, that's a matter of biology, not social pressure. Have you ever heard of testosterone?
[editline]11th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=OutLawed Blade;43482472]Yo, dude I know you get a hard on talking about how you can beat the shit out of women but I said a [b]properly trained woman[/b]. If it were two shmucks off the street ya the guy would probably win in a fist fight but if it were a trained woman VS a trained man it wouldn't be so clear cut.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;CpW2ygr97ZY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpW2ygr97ZY[/video]
[QUOTE=HerrWolf;43484945]I don't care if you're insulted, your feelings have no effect on reality. I work with women in the military, they are simply not as strong as men, that's a matter of biology, not social pressure. Have you ever heard of testosterone?[/QUOTE]
Let's say I haven't please elaborate on this more if you want us to take you seriously
[QUOTE=legolover122;43443962]Oh god the comments I gotta go get myself checked for cancer[/QUOTE]
the whole fucking channel is making me feel like i have brain cancer
While in general I'd agree that there isn't a huge reason for Hannah's role in the story to [B]need [/B]a female character, this video doesn't present a very compelling argument that it [B]can't[/B] use a female character. Most of his points seem to come from the fact that a female soldier would be less viable than a male soldier, hence breaking down the sense of immersion. He feels there aren't situations in the game that men can overcome through physical, mental, or emotional fortitude that a woman couldn't. This isn't because the developers at DICE are trying to make a statement about female superiority to pander to Anita Sarkeesian; it's because these games aren't supposed to realistically portray the limits of human endurance. Non-player characters in modern military shooters like Battlefield 4 are notoriously rugged, shaking off physical and emotional trauma while going through the motions as they murder tons of enemy soldiers by the player character's side.
On that note, Irish admitting a fear of heights is also by far the exception rather than the rule when it comes to squad members in games like these. Nowhere in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor does a character every reveal their fear of heights or spiders or dogs or whatever. The expectation that Hannah should have to reveal a weakness about herself just because Irish did is ridiculous, and the implication that this is the developers subtly trying to blue-pill gamers with the idea of female superiority is absurd. As to Hannah's actual strengths, the two ones cited are when she kicks two Chinese soldier's asses with hand to hand combat, and when she mentions her medical degree. The first one is more or less the "don't judge a book by it's cover" trope. You don't expect this Chinese civilian woman to be able to beat up two soldiers but she does. It causes the soldiers of Tombstone to question the idea that she is simply a Chinese civilian and a setup for further exposition and revelation. The medical degree one is just a tiny one line joke and I don't see much of a reason to defend it's inclusion.
Overall most of his complaints would cover modern military shooters (or even WW2 shooters) pretty well and none of those games have female squadmembers. Lazy writing and ubiquitous squadmates that determine your rate of progression are stock standard parts of games like Battlefield and Call of Duty, but it seems the problem with Red Pill Gaming is that a female character is receiving the same benefits. Four soldiers who go around destroying legions of enemy troops while remaining functionally immune to all but the most sustained damage while exhibiting little in the way of physical, mental, or emotional strain is fine as a plot until one of the soldiers is a girl, in which case these various strengths that apply to literally hundreds of male characters in other games is suddenly a feminist conspiracy to blue-pill video gamers into believing in the superiority of the female warrior.
[QUOTE=Macneil_bmx;43464289]I think he makes some very good points, I'm very sure the character Hannah was a decision made as soon as Anita was in the picture. It's crazy how Hannah starts off really as a helpless citizen then out of nowhere she is this super woman who is pretty much invisible. That's obviously what throws Red Pill of the single player campaign is that Hannah is so pushed into the players face. Hannah can do this, can do that, she has a medical degree, she starts to literally become the commander having the final word on things. Like even fictionally the plot of her being rescued then suddenly being the game's main hero makes no fucking sense.
I mean I don't even care in the slightest if someone makes a female character that is really awesome, it's all the unnecessary hinting that woman are better than men that it brings it to a level where it just feels really silly.[/QUOTE]
1) I'd like any reasoning about Anita Sarkeesian being integral to Hannah's existence in BF4.
2) Hannah never starts off as a helpless civilian, it's established that she is Chinese Secret Service.
3) Lack of layer agency is a problem with the genre, not her being a female.
[QUOTE=HerrWolf;43472481]
Have you ever used a gun? Do you know what recoil is? Women aren't as physically capable as men and it's harder for them to use them. Guns can be heavy, especially LMGs.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah ?
If they're so heavy why are they called [B]LIGHT[/B] machine guns.
Checkmate atheists.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
