193 réponses à ce sujet

[Ledgend1221]

No.

[himohillo]

Stardusk wrote...


It's a freaking game. They are just characters in a co-op game, nobody I play with thinks about the sex/gender of their character because it is irrelevant.

I always pick my characters based on their abilities, not gender.
Though if I use hSoldier, it's going to be female since she has grenades and my male has CS, which I never use and won't bother for respec, and BF3 soldier has carnage.

It's all about performance, not outfit. Looks don't count in a fight.

[Stardusk]

himohillo wrote...

Stardusk wrote...


It's a freaking game. They are just characters in a co-op game, nobody I play with thinks about the sex/gender of their character because it is irrelevant.

I always pick my characters based on their abilities, not gender.
Though if I use hSoldier, it's going to be female since she has grenades and my male has CS, which I never use and won't bother for respec, and BF3 soldier has carnage.

It's all about performance, not outfit. Looks don't count in a fight.

Exactly.

[Stardusk]

Data7 wrote...

himohillo wrote...

Stardusk wrote...


It's a freaking game. They are just characters in a co-op game, nobody I play with thinks about the sex/gender of their character because it is irrelevant.

I always pick my characters based on their abilities, not gender.
Though if I use hSoldier, it's going to be female since she has grenades and my male has CS, which I never use and won't bother for respec, and BF3 soldier has carnage.

It's all about performance, not outfit. Looks don't count in a fight.

Yeah I agree looks don't count.  But I disagree with the blantant ignoring of female exclusion. 
The point was 'everyone fights' and what Mp is looking more like is "it's war, get the men"

I think you are imagining things. The entire Asari race is female and how many do we have now? 5. It is a game. It is not meant to be realistic in any sense (if it were there would be even fewer females). 

[himohillo]

Data7 wrote...

himohillo wrote...


I always pick my characters based on their abilities, not gender.
Though if I use hSoldier, it's going to be female since she has grenades and my male has CS, which I never use and won't bother for respec, and BF3 soldier has carnage.

It's all about performance, not outfit. Looks don't count in a fight.

Yeah I agree looks don't count.  But I disagree with the blantant ignoring of female exclusion. 
The point was 'everyone fights' and what Mp is looking more like is "it's war, get the men"

Females are more valuable at giving births during war. Survival ain't going to happen without them.

[Ledgend1221]

Data7 wrote...

himohillo wrote...

Stardusk wrote...


It's a freaking game. They are just characters in a co-op game, nobody I play with thinks about the sex/gender of their character because it is irrelevant.

I always pick my characters based on their abilities, not gender.
Though if I use hSoldier, it's going to be female since she has grenades and my male has CS, which I never use and won't bother for respec, and BF3 soldier has carnage.

It's all about performance, not outfit. Looks don't count in a fight.

Yeah I agree looks don't count.  But I disagree with the blantant ignoring of female exclusion. 
The point was 'everyone fights' and what Mp is looking more like is "it's war, get the men"

Well if you have people who are phyiscally better built and more disposable, you use them first.

[Ledgend1221]

Data7 wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

Well if you have people who are phyiscally better built and more disposable, you use them first.

Then the salrian females should be the only two playable Salarian characters, not the only two male salarians. 

So you didn't read the codex on salarians.

[lazysundae]

Data7 wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

Does anyone else find it creepy that people ask for this incessantly?

Right because wanting to represent ones self as female is completely creepy. 
Especially when one is female and has only two species options to represent themselves as female during multiplayer gameplay. 
Sure there are pigs out there who want to oggle the females like drooling varren. 
Just as I'm sure there are boyfriends who want to show off their matching alien counterparts.

One pervy creepy issue out of two lesser pervy creepy issues. 

I am a female.  I have never once based my character selection on my gender and representing myself.  Nor would I have noticed the "imbalance" if these boards weren't so worked up about it.

[Stardusk]

himohillo wrote...

Data7 wrote...

himohillo wrote...


I always pick my characters based on their abilities, not gender.
Though if I use hSoldier, it's going to be female since she has grenades and my male has CS, which I never use and won't bother for respec, and BF3 soldier has carnage.

It's all about performance, not outfit. Looks don't count in a fight.

Yeah I agree looks don't count.  But I disagree with the blantant ignoring of female exclusion. 
The point was 'everyone fights' and what Mp is looking more like is "it's war, get the men"

Females are more valuable at giving births during war. Survival ain't going to happen without them.

Indeed. The female has always been the limiting factor in reproduction, hence her intrinsically higher value both in perception and treatment. When men have been sent off as canon fodder in war, women were preserved because without them the race would go extinct.

[lazysundae]

himohillo wrote...

Females are more valuable at giving births during war. Survival ain't going to happen without them.

Oh geez here we go.

Also, who will cook dinner for all the hungry soldiers, and do their laundry?  <_<

[Stardusk]

lazysundae wrote...

himohillo wrote...

Females are more valuable at giving births during war. Survival ain't going to happen without them.

Oh geez here we go.

Also, who will cook dinner for all the hungry soldiers, and do their laundry?  <_<

You are missing his point. The female of the species has intrinsic value. 99% of the males of a species could die out but you would only need 1% or less to impregnate females. This is why male life has less intrinsic value than female life. Women=limiting factor in reproduction.

[billy the squid]

lazysundae wrote...

himohillo wrote...

Females are more valuable at giving births during war. Survival ain't going to happen without them.

Oh geez here we go.

Also, who will cook dinner for all the hungry soldiers, and do their laundry?  <_<

That's it, you've got it now. Knew people would understand that the ladies have to prepare the Samiches for the lads on the front.

[Crypticqa]

Stardusk wrote...

himohillo wrote...

Data7 wrote...

himohillo wrote...


I always pick my characters based on their abilities, not gender.
Though if I use hSoldier, it's going to be female since she has grenades and my male has CS, which I never use and won't bother for respec, and BF3 soldier has carnage.

It's all about performance, not outfit. Looks don't count in a fight.

Yeah I agree looks don't count.  But I disagree with the blantant ignoring of female exclusion. 
The point was 'everyone fights' and what Mp is looking more like is "it's war, get the men"

Females are more valuable at giving births during war. Survival ain't going to happen without them.

Indeed. The female has always been the limiting factor in reproduction, hence her intrinsically higher value both in perception and treatment. When men have been sent off as canon fodder in war, women were preserved because without them the race would go extinct.

That is like...completely irrelevant.
There would always be some who would choose to fight over having babies. Especially in turian military where is supposed to be same rate of males and females in military.
All we need is 4 women of ME races for one squad. Are you saying there wouldnt be 4 females willing to fight the reapers?
That is nonsense

[Ledgend1221]

Data7 wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

So you didn't read the codex on salarians.

90% of the species is male as a result of the egg junk. Not to mention the males run the military pretty much. 
E-Yup. I don't care. I still want at least one female for each species that has them. 
So there will be some anarchist female salarian out in the fray against the Reapers. 
Fight or die. Some Salarian females at the very least would be smart enough to know their contribution would increase the odds at winning. Regardless of  how much or how little they could contribute. 

Using rough numbers here, but:
1 salarian female + Some guy = 100 potential soldiers and 5 potential leaders.
1 salarian female + MARUADERS! = Dead salarians and lack of bodies in the future.

I would hope that you never decide the overall strategy in any major war.

[DirtySHISN0]

turian females all round!

[lazysundae]

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

himohillo wrote...

Females are more valuable at giving births during war. Survival ain't going to happen without them.

Oh geez here we go.

Also, who will cook dinner for all the hungry soldiers, and do their laundry?  <_<

You are missing his point. The female of the species has intrinsic value. 99% of the males of a species could die out but you would only need 1% or less to impregnate females. This is why male life has less intrinsic value than female life. Women=limiting factor in reproduction.

Somehow this thread has gone to applying real world gender roles in a video game full of futuristic aliens.  I admit to being at least partially responsible.

In an attempt to add some levity I'm going to ask "how is babby formed?"