^^^

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to stop thinking with their second head. A woman can become sixy and strong using many different paths: Change her posture to a strict, domineering empress. Give her face a haughty "I'm-better-than-everyone" look, or trim her frame until she is mostly lean muscle.

This woman should be given an award. She did this all as a "what-if" project? I'd love to see what she can do with some financial backing! :woot:

Michelle Rodriguez doesn't scare me. I get lost in her eyes. :love:


As for Reach's customization, I disdain it. No one's gonna notice your visor color or kneepad or gauntlet unless they're doing so little that they have the time to inspect it, or your armor is so exorbitant and "look at me!" that no one has a choice. Plus, a lot of the options looked silly. Halo 3 had much better customization, in my opinion. By the time I got killed or killed someone, I could tell you every piece of armor they had on. Yes, half of the time it was all Hayabusa, but I could see it in half a glance. What's the point of aesthetic armor that's too small to see or too trivial for anyone to bother looking at?

Essentially, it's just as has been mentioned 600 times; adding in female characters would have taken more time, more money, more memory on the disc (which would have needed to be taken from somewhere else, i.e., all customization in general), and a drop in quality in just about every other aspect of the game. Balance is everywhere in our world, even in laser etching on a plastic disc. Splash Damage had to leave some stuff out to make what remains even better. Not to mention, a game not including female playable characters isn't uncommon at all. I'd expect the gaming community to be use to it and more understanding than all the discussion raised over a topic long-settled. I'm gonna do what I can to rocket this thread to 200 posts.

It's not that the act of adding female characters would take more time, money, or resources. It's that a particular vision of what that means could.

If you take the game from the very beginning and instead of making it a Light Male, Medium Male, and Heavy Male, you make a Light Female, Medium Male, and Heavy Male there is no difference in the issues of balancing the female model. Make all the outfits unisix and there's no additional resources required there. Then instead of recording 8 male accents, you record 7 male accents and a female accent. And instead of creating 24 faces for male characters you make 20 and 4 female faces.

Then you have the options for a female model and 2 male models with the same work, effort, and customization. Yes the developer could go beyond that based on their idea of what women characters need to be, but that's a decision that goes beyond whether or not to have them.

And what's with everybody thinking that because they're done on a particular topic the topic should end or that the discussion is over?

I'm not gonna sell Splash Damage so short as to assume they didn't consider that. I honestly trust that Splamage has done their best with this game, so I'm really not gonna question it. I would certainly like female models alongside the males, but that's not the case. I don't fight what I can't change.

That's rather insulting that you imply I'm so arrogant. I don't want this topic concluded because "the one great and almighty Nobhdy817 is done here". I want it concluded because it's 10 kinds of pointless. The ship has sailed. Splash Damage IS NOT going to change their minds this close to release so they can re-evaluate adding female playable characters. This metaphorical horse was dead ages ago, and is relentlessly being kicked even now. I'd rather, continuing this metaphor, burn the horse and let it's ashes scatter out of kicking range so we can go find a new horse, heart beating and all that fun stuff, and start kicking that one.

Nobody is trying to sell SD short. They did what they did, but they could have done something else, that's all there is too it.

I'm not trying to imply that you're arrogant, and as I said "everybody" it is not strictly in your direction either. It seems to be a trait in many threads that people are not interested in discussing.

The discussion isn't pointless just because it isn't going to happen this time. That's like suggesting that because last nights sports game is over there's no reason to talk about it. The whole point of the discussions is to open up opinions, gain perspective, and get to know people. There are people with an interest in this topic that don't care to put in their two cents in some of the other "pointless topics" so in order to get to know what they think you've got to come here.

If you're not interested in the discussion that's your choice, don't take part, but don't take the option from other people.

Hey, now. I think some people need to take a few minutes to relax a little before posting again. Please don't cause - or take - undue offence. The moderators will decide when it's time to close the thread.


:whisper: That's Jeanette Goldstein. She also played the foster mom in Terminator 2.


Well, that's what the argument basically comes down to, and nobody is going to "win" it. Splash Damage said that they were faced with the decision of either including female characters or extensive male character customisation. They took the latter decision. It's one I'd personally disagree with - especially on the basis that the people most likely to care about customisation are the ones who'd value a female option - but it was SD's decision to make.

If every female gamer decided to organise a mass boycott of Brink because it didn't include female characters, it would make approximately zero impact on the game's sales. If SD view it that there are more more male, Asian, fat players with beards and an eye-patch and a scar above their left knee than all of their female potential players put together, that is their prerogative to make. What's more, they'd probably be right.

What's more, SD probably guessed that as much as I'll complain and moan and declare that they might as well have run a Yorkie-style "it's not for girls" ad campaign, I'll still play it anyway.

And they'd probably be right there, too.

That's my point entirely. Why do you need so much customization to begin with? I don't care how much memory it would take up or how "hard" it would be to make all the animation and models and stuff. Sure we're a minority, and we know it, but that doesn't change the fact that we're here and we'd like to not be excluded simply because we're not the majority. Hey, call me racist, but I'm pretty sure that African Americans are a minority too, and they still get their character model... I'm just sayin'.

It's like this, "Oh. We could either include everyone..... or we could just make it include half the population and make it super special awesome for that one half. Screw the other half. They can deal with it."

I understand that it was a hard decision for them, but it defientally shouldn't have been. It should have been a no-brainer.

@The Kinectimal: Exactly! That was one of my #1 concerns when Halo Reach was in development as seen http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=48196702.

Individuality is a powerful thing.


There's more work to making games than you are making it seem.

Some people definitely underestimate the greatness and value of individuality.

Even though making games takes a lot of hard work and effort, this is what these guys do, its their job.
With that said, it can really be argued from both sides. A lot goes into the making of a video game, and it takes a toll on the maker.

I'm really surprised there has been so much talk about how there are no female avatars in the game.
Ive played countless FPSs in the past and I don't think I recall any female avatars. Even though I know several have had them.

Female characters in Brink means a lot of work for the developers. And I do mean a lot.
People tend to forget, that when a game is made with male only characters, it lacks girlyness usually.
Adding female models takes more than just a few days in an editor program and some voice-overs.
There is so much that goes into perfecting an avatar.

I don't want half-ass female models in my Brink. I think I can wait.
I'm not against the idea, just don't want it right now. Maybe much, much later. After launch.




- :flame:

Oh yeah! My bad. Still... Michelle Rodriguez. :love:

Well, they've stated that female characters will be a priority in any potential Brink sequel. I personally think that's going to (potentially) be something I'd be very excited for. I just like having the choice.

However, I gotta disagree about those fat males you mentioned. It seems to me that Splamage is building Brink to be the game THEY want it to be. I don't think Brink is being made based on any audience or standard as much as it is "Here's the game we wanted to make, whomever likes it, likes it." Splamage can take that approach though, because the game they wanted to make is a veritable badass-of-the-shelf title. They don't have to worry about not breaking even, even though Brink isn't the "Call of Duty, but different" that's infecting the FPS genre. I think that considering all the variables they considered when it came down to building the characters, I think the story would be polarized if the FPS community were mostly female. Even then, I'm not certain. Once again, I'm used to the male-dominant community, so I'm not really upset that we don't get extra.

You have to assume that a fair number of women worked on this game and I'm sure they fought for woman characters in the game as well, and not just the female workers but also a lot of the male workers would argue for female characters too. I'm sure it was a very tough decision and they've heard all the arguments that are being presented in these countless female topics in the forums.

They have stated that they will work hard to have female characters in a sequel. So not buying this game only hurts the odds there will be a sequel and therefore hurts the odds that a game with strong female and male customization is ever made.

Also Reach did not have good customization for males or females. All they did was take a male figure, thin his arms and legs and give him a nice ass and presto! female characters.

Wow I remember there being a massive forum thread back during quake wars about the same topic.

And they stated that women would be in, way back in early production.

It is far more sensible to not purchase something because you aren't getting what you were told you would, than to purchase something so you might get what you asked for the next time you purchase something.

It's honorable to stand by your convictions, if a gamer feels strongly about this than I would support their decision.

People don't buy games all the time for far less, this is at least something worth fighting for in many gamers' eyes.

The customization is one of the selling points. The developers want players to make the Brink world "their own world". A bunch of options just adds to the immersion. If you're looking for a game WITHOUT a lot of customization you're looking in the wrong place, and I have no doubt the majority of people here support the degree of customization available here, which you seem not to.

From what I understand, it's a HUGE strain on memory to add a female body type without making huge cuts to male options. Simply saying you "don't care" and you want it anyway just makes you sound ignorant and naive.

For African Americans it can be as simple as a skin tone change. A quick and minor-detailed re-skin with some tiny scale tweaks. Nothing as strenuous as female models. And I know it's not saying much, but I hear a LOT more African Americans on mics than females... a lot. I'm just sayin'.

And half the population? It's nowhere near that comparable. You're dreaming if you think it's anywhere above, or probably even near, a fifth. The shooter market audience is dominated by males, marketers don't sit down with the devs and say "kay guys, we're marketing this to both males and females aged 15-30". A studio wouldn't make a chick-flick with any form of consideration for a male audience... it's the way the market works, it thrives off stereotypes because that's the sure-fire way to keep the masses happy AND turn a profit.

I have a question for you Mathonn that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread: Do you enjoy playing devil's advocate because it's all I see you do in any thread here lol? You never seem to actually agree with anything, or voice your own opinion...

Back on topic; I don't get why some people are making a really big fuss over this, it's not like playable female characters are a standard in shooters. And before anyone mentions it, yes I do understand that at some early point in development SD had said they would (I don't remember them guaranteeing it though tbh) female avatars. [censored] happens, and if something like this will keep you from buying the game, well that's your loss.

ts;dr




- :flame:

Last I checked before they had to scrap female character's they had most if not all the major issues figured out that dealt with hit boxes and the Light, Medium, and Heavy character classes. They were faced with a choice of either delivering mediocre male and female character creation with mediocre animations or focus on one.

They decided to go with focusing on the male characters and deliver excellent character customization and animations for male characters. From what I recall they regret having to cut female characters because they could not do female characters the same justice as they have done with male characters.

With Brink soon releasing they will hopefully have the available time and resources available to them so that they can give female characters the proper attention, details and justice that they have done with the male characters.

this is a much longer post i made saying pretty much the same thing in this thread (in the spoiler) - http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1115738-female-gamers-want-female-characters-yesh-i-read-the-faq/page__st__80 -

Perhaps, as that is generally the most effective way to learn the most about other people and their views, but if you look around the forum you'll find plenty that I do agree, or disagree, with and the opinions that go along.

as stated way back in production? you can't take anything stated way back in production as binding. I'm sure there were a lot of ideas and other things that they said they'd do but got scraqed for various reasons.

It is honorable to stand by convictions but I really don't see how "not buying a video game based off the lack of female characters" is an honorable decision.

Brink is already pretty much making a completely new direction for video games that really bring out some big ideas that will be copied and scrutinized for a long time. I'd say we should cut them a little slack.

Hey, now, we need to move away from the more personal nature of what look like attacks against each other. Please think a little before posting, and be a bit less confrontational. :stare:



http://www.splashdamage.com/people
As far as I can see it, Splash Damage only have one female developer on the whole team.


I believe that would have been a reference to women being half the world's population. I'm not sure if it's changed in recent years, but a little while back the UK population was actually 51% female, making women a slight majority.

Personally my issue with Brink is how that male-only decision works in the context of a game set in a colony. Call of Duty can get away with being all male because of its setting. It doesn't really register as being unusual if, confronted with the front line of a warzone, you don't see any female faces. Brink, by contrast, is set on a colony where people live. Unless it's an island of monks, having women missing is very clearly missing half of the population of that world. It's not even like not having any children or old people - having no women in a place where you expect 50% of that population to be women is going to be jarringly obvious. One in every two people on that colony is clearly, obviously, visibly missing.

From the description of Brink: "Now thousands of men, women and children live in tight, confined spaces with almost no access to vital resources. Out of this decay, the Resistance was born, and they continue to use the city as a base of operations, hiding amongst the civilian populace."

The only way to have got around that decision would have been to make the Ark a male-only prison colony or monastery.

The argument that having female characters would be too much of a resource hog falls down simply because almost every other game features female characters. I might have missed something that said that there were female NPCs, but surely if there were female NPCs then they'd be playable. It's not like GTA 4 where if you played as a female character you wouldn't be Nico Bellic any more. It's not like Max Payne 2 where you're playing a fixed character with a fixed story - and even that lets you play as Mona Sax for a while. It's not Half-Life 2 where even though you're playing a specific male character you get to interact with interesting, well-written female characters. And it's not like almost every other game on the planet that gives you that kind of choice on what to play - Left 4 Dead, Borderlands, even Resident Evil 5 has the option of playing as a female character. Bioshock, Alan Wake and Dead Space featured prominent female characters (where your own character was a fixed, specific male) - and that's long before you get to role playing games, which have been featuring female characters in combat situations for over 15 years.

When you put that into the context of a game which, if you cut the character customisation options by half would still feature more than the average level of choices for the player, you get to see why so many people think Splash Damage simply made the wrong decision.

I personally think female characters should have been included. That being said, I haven't seen very many FPS on the consoles (as I am a mostly console gamer) that give you that option with really only Halo coming to mind. Its true other genre games have featured female characters for a long time but this is an original IP and SD's first major shooter on the newer consoles so I can see how they would want to focus on having a very high quality game rather than sacrifice that quality to include female characters (if that is indeed the real reason). Look at how long its taken Epic to put playable female characters into the Gears of War franchise and I know for a fact there are a whole lot of female gamers playing all of the Gears games. I guess my point is I think SD should be given the benefit of the doubt in this case especially since they have already stated that including playable female characters would be a priority in any sequel. For now ladies enjoy the insane level of customization that Brink is going to offer and look forward to being able to use that same customization on your own female characters in Brink 2. (Assuming that this game turns out to be as awesome as it looks and there IS a Brink 2.)

Exactly, so how can you take something said during the production of one game as "binding" in reference to a game that isn't even in production yet?

Because they're doing it as a way of standing by their convictions. It's not always going to make sense to people that want the game more than they want a female character to play.

How much slack is a little slack? I honestly don't see it as a completely new direction, and while certain features are more or less theirs and will likely be copied by others. In no way does that support the thought that people who are unhappy with a decision (or multiple decisions) should buy the game. That's more or less the point of "deciding whether or not to buy a game" isn't it?

Sorry but I don't really understand what you're saying in the first two paragraphs, if you could please elaborate.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have women as a possible character in this game. And since you can have, what 10?, different characters leveling up at the same time I guarantee that I would have a couple of women as characters that I would be playing as simultaneously with my others. But to have gamers, GAMErs, basing the decision of buying a GAME only on the fact that female characters aren't included when it doesn't change the game-play even a little boggles my mind. I have never, NEVER bought a game on the premise of, who my character is, but on, game-play fun, replay ability and if my friends bought it (not important for this argument). I know there are woman gamers and I understand it must svck to be such a minority, but if you were GAMErs I don't know how much the fact that only males are characters would matter.

Also, this is a side note. People keep pointing out the fact there are obviously women on the arc so they should be there to fight. If I lived on the Ark I would not let any women fight. Think of it like this. If there was a village with 10 people, 9 men and 1 woman how many babies could be born in a year? 1. If a village with 10 people had 9 woman and 1 man how many woman could be born in a year? 9. Women are more important to the survival of a species than men are so they should not be fighting if there is a chance that there are only 50,000 people in the world.

Also, princess_stomper thank you for the link to the people who worked on Brink, it does seem to be a sausage fest but that doesn't ruin my argument.

I wonder if they could have achieved female and male options via some sort of slider style of customization like Saints Row 2.

I mean, look at how many options SR2 has for clothing (all unisix) gender and weights. Instead of pre-fab body types, I wonder if they could have made it so you select gender and then via sliders adjust your weight and pre-made faces..

I don't know anything about making games other then the fact that it takes alot of hard work, talent, brains and dedication lol. All of which Splash Damage seems to have.

I'm sure that they went over everything before giving female characters the ax. I mean, if you really need to let everyone know you're a girl, you could always make your characters wear pink...? Sorta' like a G.I. Joe in Ken's clothing.