That sounds pretty hot

It is not that I miss the reason given, but rather that I see more depth to the reason.

With three types they could just put one female in instead of a male and leave it at that and would not need to change/duplicate anything if they simply made it a "unisix" option, because in game there needs to be very little difference between males and females, simply having the difference exist. Sure some might see that as a lack of customization, but the male/female choice doubles the options to begin with.

And it is due to the stereotyping and stigmas attached to the models in gaming. I'm not saying that SD is stereotyping or placing stigmas on them, but that they exist and change the precieved requirements. There's a belief that for it to be an acceptable female character model it requires a collection of differences for it to work, the majority of which don't actually need to be there.

Take a look at female character models in games like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Metroid etc. There's very little needed to define them as female. Then you look at other games like Soul Calibre, Tomb Raider, etc. There are some substantially more notable differences there. In either of the cases the charcacters are still recognized as women.

In short, what it means to be a "female character model" is being over thought, at least for the purposes of inclusion. In the long run more detail will always be welcome, but a foot in the door is still "in the door".

The act you're referring is actual cloning. Since the new baby gets genes only from one individual, it is basically a clone of it. That would not work preferably with humans, and most likely if men were to go extinct, the women would get new children by creating artificial sperm/seed from the stem cells of other women.

well still the last part was just too educate everybody with useless knowledge ,the first part is what matters "losing the Y chromosome".

Ah, you were talking about replacing one body type with females, my mistake, I think that is one valid option.

But I still do not think it is fair that you "see more depth to the reason". That is only unfair speculation if you point it at SD, which the post I originally responded to implied.
Sure, what you've said may be the reason why many games don't have females, but that is not the one SD had. They actually had a legitimate reason.

I'm not pointing anything at SD. I don't fault them for the decision, because it's their business and they're doing what works for them. The point I'm making is simply that there is a reason for the reason. The reasons they gave was that in order to give the females enough detail it would have halved the customization fo both male and female characters. It's absolutely a legitimate reason. They're right, in order to give the female "enough detail" it requires time and effort. But the reason that the thought of "enough detail" exists is that there's a belief already in place throughout the industry, community, and society of what that means.

A quick example: "Why do you drink milk?" "Because milk is good for me." Perfectly good reasoning, acceptable and unquestionable as a reason to drink it, but why do you think milk is good for you?

All I'm saying is that if they narrow the view of what's "enough detail" they already make a huge step that other devs haven't made. That's why you spark the debate in the first place, to listen to what "girl-gamers" actually feel is enough detail to make that start. That way when Brink 2 rolls around and they feel time constraints for other issues, they have an idea of how far to go to at least include the demographic. On top of that, you begin to break down those "behind the reason" reasons by looking further into them.

Oh I see, I didn't realize you extrapolated that point that far. Basically what you're suggesting is that if they had done the females properly, they could've done it so that they would re-use most of the mens clothing and models? Or that's how I understand it.
While there must have been some clothing and models where this simply couldn't have been done, due to anatomy, not culture, I guess they could've done it with many others.
The way you originally worded it made it sound a lot different, so I was taken aback.

Pretty much, yes. Obviously there are some items that might not work as well, but aside from shirtless (which could be nullified if the character model was already wearing a "shirt") there isn't much that I couldn't see a female character wearing without trouble.

Someone mentioned that in this artstyle, the women would look hard/tired, especially on the Resistance.

I think this would be interesting in the future to see how SD will handle females if SD does do females for the sequel.

I guess they would look a little hard-faced/experienced like her: http://images.wikia.com/gearsofwar/images/b/b6/GearsofWar3Bernie2.png.
(Oh, I can't wait to see Bernie in action in-game in GoW3! Loved her in theGoW books.)

It's not just you. One the reasons I stick around the forums is to help forum newbies, albeit in a sarcastic, snarky, and cynical attitude.



Rumors are bad stick to facts and NO!



Please at the very least read the posts on the previous page.

who makes these "rumors"? i'm gonna bludgeon them i swear it, it's not possible to fit that much into a patch for all the consoles it's too big it'd change the game entirely it's not just a new piece of clothing or another gamer pic ok? it's not like they can just shave off the privates of a male Lyt Med n Hev and say "there we go fems now" several months of art work voice acting game design go into a female and male selection.

and I swear if you start this rumor again, I will go too your house and I will cut you...just kidding Moder's

My girlfriend was mad excited about brink (last game she got that stoked over was borderlands) and today she found out about females not being in game...........needless to say she thinks this blows goats and is sad.
I understand the reason to exclude them, but you're excluding a large number of gamers as well who want the option.

Well you and your GF won't be the first or last.

I completely understand being extremely disappointed about not being able to play as female, but what I don't get is people who don't buy the game because of it. Last time I checked I was buying a fps not a dress up game.

harsh

no, truthful....

I agree with Prophit.


It is at least 50:50 RPG:Shooter.


BRINK is a shooter at heart. Just like all recent shooters it borrows some elements which are typical RPG, to make the players keep playing it for longer.

Character development is not only based on visuals (like in Saints Row), but also on stats and attributes. And this is where Borderlands is more RPG than normal shooters.


"RPG" is a term which describes the mechanics a game is based on; character-development (attributes, abilities et cetera), quest-systems ...

Mass Effect isn't a shooter either.
Nor is Fallout.

But both have borrowed elements from shooters.

Disagree. While what you listed are the defining elements of RPGs, they are not what dominates the concerns of "how to play." Basically, an RPG player may not pick up a game like Borderlands or Fallout 3 (although VATS makes this a special case) because while they are adept RPG players, they cannot shoot to save their lives and without those FPS/TPS abilities you cannot survive in Borderlands, or Fallout 3 to an extent.

I don't disagree that they are heavily saturated in RPG elements and could easily be placed in the RPG section, but the gameplay will appeal to more shooters than RPGers. Most games take heavily from RPGs because an RPG is basically the statistics/quest system. That's all you need for it to be an RPG on some level, but the second the gameplay mechanic is no longer dependant on statistics it has reached into a different genre.

People can choose what they want to do with their money. EDIT: Especially since game prices are expensive and there are so many out there!
I would not buy the sequel if they did not put females in when they said they originally wanted to put it in the first one (but couldn't for good reasons)
and also said they would put it one of their top priorities for the future if Brink's successful enough.

And Brink's NOT part dress-up game? Whaaaaaaaaaaat?
Lol, let's take out the customization then---clothing, faces, archetypes, gun customization (it's still "dressing up" your gun), etc. Just to add, guns are considered as "lethal accessories" to me, lol!

I mean, isn't that the biggest reason why females were taken out---due to resources so you guys can have more clothes and guns, body types, etc, to your dress up Barbie Ken? :yes:

The gameplay will appeal more the shooter-players, of course. At least for Borderlands, that is. But that doesn't mean it's no RPG. And we do agree there, I see.

Borderlands is the Sci-Fi-Shooter version of Diablo, essentially. Which - as well - is a RPG. Action-RPG, granted, but still a RPG:

Yeah, I don't see how the dress-up nature isn't recognized. Half the guys on the forum have said the first thing they'll do is spend hours perfecting their toon. If what the new "Unofficial FAQ" says is true and you can choose Security and Resistance outfits for each of the 16 toons you can bet I'll be spending a lot of time tweaking my 32 looks.

And said "dress-up" was certainly the reason given for not having female characters, so point for you there too.



I think we're starting to reach the same place. I see Brink as having enough RPG elements to draw a similar crowd to that of Fallout3 and Borderlands, although obviously the shooter and outright action elements are defined more so than story or quest system, but both exist.

Wait, what!?
That is something I really don't think.

Unlike Borderlands, BRINK is still a competitive mutliplayer game the least necessary player-interaction with the actual game world. Which often is the exact opposite of what typical Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and Borderlands gamers want.

I'm not saying all the same guys. But there's a crowd of players drawn to Fallout3 and Borderlands that like the RPG nature of the game, but are shooters at heart.

Part of the reason people jumped for Borderlands is because of the human interaction. Brink's SP and Co-Op are going to draw out some of those same interests in players.

Keep in mind, that although it's streamlined, Brink has a stat/ability/character customization system, as well as the quest system. It isn't as deep as a mainstream all out RPG, but it isn't as selfish or simple as mainstream shooters. It's going to get the guys that lean towards various things but don't commit to the most "strict" genre classification.

Borderlands isn't a shooter at heart, Borderlands is a dungeon crawler at heart with FPS elements, it plays more like Diablo than COD.

Fallout is a former dungeon crawler style RPG, RPG at heart with Dungeon crawler elements. then it progressed to RPG with FPS elements (it relies on stats, story, and tactics more than running and gunning)

Brink is a FPS with RPG elements, priority was the gameplay, customization is the 2nd priority, if this game svcks at controls and game play, i will quit playing it (good thing that is not the case) and it could have the best customization in the world. but if the game play is awesome and they cut back on customization to make everyone happy by including females, i will play it like an addict. If they keep it the way it is, i will still play it like an addict because it is going to have GREAT GAMEPLAY.

I understand Bunny's position, they promise to include females in the sequel and if they don't follow through, she will feel lied/betrayed to.

I was refering to players who are "shooters at heart" not the games. There are a collection of gamers that love shooting games, but want substance that went to FO3 and BL because the control required to play the games are "Shooter" controls.

A lot of Fallout players didn't make the jump to FO3 because it completely changed the kind of game it was, in fact many didn't even go to Tactics because it traded TBS for RTS as a combat option.