@Ayzed Gender equality is important, but I do think that a company being attacked for not including something is a bit excessive. Imo, there is a difference between excluding something and just not including it...
@afphero It's not JUST copying and pasting it all though. They'll be changing a few things here and there, which will require modifications to the old models BUT if you are going to include optional female leads in the story, you also need to hire an extra voice talent for that. You need to rewrite the script, at least a little, to compensate for a female role. You can't simply change the gender of the main character without changing anything else.
@freedomzealot You will not offend anyone on the forums if we remove the ability to use every word in the dictionary! Lets go ahead and remove the forums too....
@gameransa It's not at all absurd to have a female assassin. What IS absurd is to shoehorn in a female character into a story JUST to have a female character. IF you have a good story that has a female character, GREAT!!! Include the female character 100%. However, these calls to include equal marriage in Nintendo's game or female assassins into ACU simply to have them...is stupid.
IF they design the story/world around having you play as a female assassin, there does need to be a female assassin. BUT until then, including time/effort/money to put in bewbz for the sake of bewbz is just stupid.
If they want to give me the ability to create a female assassin in the story, build the story around that. You need to include animations, voicing, etc to build around it and if it is just shoehorning it into the game simply to appease political correctness, it's just bad game design.
And btw, who said female assassins was absurd? What I think is absurd is shoehorning in certain things like that (like how every member of your party in Dragon Age 2 couldn't take a hint and wanted one giant fun time) is very detrimental to the experience and makes for a MUCH less enjoyable game.
I'm all for options, I like Starcraft, I like peanut butter, but that doesn't mean Blizzard should include the peanut butter squad into SC3. Equal marriage rights doesn't make sense in that universe (well, not with the impending Zerg invasions), but it doesn't make Blizzard sexist for not including them in there. At the same time, why can't I play as female Jim Rainor? Or male Kerrigan? Those characters were good characters because they were well defined. I'm all for options, I'm all for female leads, I'm all for everything, JUST as long as it has a purpose to be there.
@alley3zonme I would ask though, would you want to play a female character that came as a shoehorned detriment to the game? More work is more money required, so the money has to come from something in the budget. I'm all for playing as a female or male or whatever, if it isn't a shoehorned "feature" meant for nothing but political correctness.
Games are art though, and I feel that we should burn the Mona Lisa and make a version that contains a male too! Because male. Thinking man? More like "thinking Woman!"! Give me the option to remove his bits for political correctness!
@PixelAddict What are you talking about?! "Those in denial cannot blame "liberals" from the USA, because other world governments are actually acting on it"
Obama CLEARLY bought 97% of scientists from every nation on earth to further his ultra leftist Liberal "let's stop being dependent on 100 year old technology" agenda..../sarcasm
@deathstream @---Cipher--- I played very little Halo Wars on console. I'll admit that it worked, but it felt very shallow for a strategy game. If I remember right, the winning strategy was "2>1". It CAN work, but you have to sacrifice a lot for it to work.
Look at SupCom on PC vs console. Aside from all the other technical issues, a "real" RTS game doesn't really work well with the layout of the console.
---Cipher---'s comments