Actually, we really don't know much about any of that, and it's unwise to speculate. The few accounts we have are very fuzzy. We think she was involved in an assault, we think that she took the surrender of a castle, etc.
The fact of the matter is that, like a lot of history from that time, we don't know nearly as much as we'd like to. Presuming she was a "tiny teenager" is very silly; we know practically nothing, and she may have been a big, strong lady. Or she may have been a figurehead, who was ignored by the commanders on the battlefields, other than when she gave a speech. We really don't know, and probably won't ever know.
But hey, since you've already implied that I should kill myself and your every comment drips with sexist nonsense, it's not surprising that you want to both refuse to contemplate that Alonya character, who's both contemporaneous and totally on point, nor the list of ladies from the 18th and 19th centuries, but want to waste our time trying to make stuff up about the actions of the famous warrior woman we know the least about, in terms of fighting.
But hey, since you've already implied that I should kill myself and your every comment drips with sexist nonsense, it's not surprising that you want to both refuse to contemplate that Alonya character, who's both contemporaneous and totally on point, nor the list of ladies from the 18th and 19th centuries, but want to waste our time trying to make stuff up about the actions of the famous warrior woman we know the least about, in terms of fighting.
I pointed out that I want to ask about Jeanne trivially, but nooo, there you jump out with... me implying that you should kill yourself, comments dripping of sexist nonsense and making stuff up... I mean... seriously? Why such hate?
The bottom line: you say it. Just... deal with yourself or something, or at least try to read with understanding. It really helps a lot.
Oh, sorry for laying such waste to your cherished time. If that's what you want to hear. But I don't really mean it, no.
Well, on the matter, no one can deny that Queens, Tsaritse and the like "commanded" their military... well, I guess the more direct orders were given by war councils and field commanders, but still, command is command and it's in history.
Oh really now? You were there, in the councils of war? You have historical documents you'd like to show us? No? Then it's slanted speculation. It's like saying that some African became king somewhere, but "of course he didn't really command, because we know that all Africans are sub-human". It's sexist rubbish.
it is somewhat funny to call some time periods where there was not such concept as "sexism"
The concept of "sexism" has been around since there were men and women and cultures with sex roles (i.e., all of them). You're trying to draw a line here between when somebody formalized it and the actual thing, which is not historical analysis, and again is very slanted.
31 examples of European women KNOWN to have engaged in combat in half a century when TENS OF MILLIONS of European men engaged in combat.
A. What is "known" does not constitute, "all that happened".
B. I'd love to know where you got the "tens of millions" during a period where whole national armies rarely were larger than 100,000 troops.
But the numbers of females "serving" in the military are too meagre to be worth a mention, as if it was something natural, like some people here seem to do.
The idea of females in the military being "unnatural" is both sexist and absurd. Tell that to the Soviet women who fought in WWII, or the women who are in the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan, just to cite a couple of examples. It's a very sexist comment. And that's leaving aside all of the matriarchies, the violent behavior of Grecian women, the chronicles of female violence in the Nordic cultures, etc., etc.
Basically, your whole worldview is at odds with the real history of the world. Women can commit violence, just like men can. It's mainly cultural traditions, not "nature", that has kept women from being the fighters in most, but not all, cultures. Moreover, your concepts indicate you don't even understand the medieval world, let alone this period. Rape was common, and hardly punished; killing civilians wasn't a war crime, but was a normal part of military operations; women could be declared witches and burnt at the stake. The whole time period resembles the romantic fantasies of these games very little. So, if the game's not history, why is that even a defense, even if it was true, which it's not?
Also, by no means was I suggesting anyone go kill themselves.
Rather, I was discussing a legitimate competitive sport, much like dueling or knife juggling. That would actually allow something to happen rather than 83 pages of "No U!!!".
Actually, when you said it, I took it as a joke. I took it less so from the other source, given the tone of the rest of his statements
Considering that I've been accused of being female, being gay, been told to do various things to myself or others that are too foul to repeat, etc., etc.... being told to kill myself probably wouldn't even be a new low for the thread
Y'know? It's not the caps-locks idiots that bug me. It's the reasonably-intelligent guys who want to live in a fantasy world that didn't ever exist while claiming that it's history that bug me.
We've shown that there aren't any absolutes, and that history's a lot more complicated than the paternal story they're trying to sell; that gets ignored or belittled, even though they're the same sorts who like arguing over minor details of sword construction or the like. Oh, there, it's a 'serious discussion' and any flaws are accepted to present a new reality... here it's just shrugged off. It's totally two-faced behavior.
Then we point out that African men don't belong in this history either, by their logic. This gets ignored.
Then we point out that the female Companions make them look silly.
And then they want to talk about what a wee little waif Joan d'Arc must have been, when in fact we know practically zero about what she was actually like, because the chronicles of her life leave much to be desired and leave much room for interpretation, or they start yet-another argument about Huge Tough Guys vs. Little Women, when in fact we're talking about a period when those women might have guns, for goodness sakes.. It's really amazingly ungracious behavior.
The thing that gets me about this is that I wasn't terribly interested in women's rights, until I had to deal with people on this Forum.
All I wanted to do was make a mod that was ever-so-slightly racy; not even r-rated... and I've been dealing with massively conservative, can't-deal-with-clean-fun people ever since.
I think there's something about this game series that attracts hyper-conservatives who really do want to return to a past where kings were kings, men were men, and women shut the hell up and made babies and sandwiches. I've seen more posts on this forum talking about the beauties of Fascism and dictatorship than anywhere else I can think of, and then I have had to deal with all of this boorish behavior from grown men who should be mature enough to leave another man's juvenile fantasies alone. Then we got to this thread, where it went from merely jerkwad posters to flames and outright hatred and misogyny every few pages. I think there's a real problem here, frankly. If a guy like me, who just wanted a little gentle T&A in his mod, has become a defender of Women's Lib, then the enemy's knuckles are well beneath the earth's surface.
Then we point out that African men don't belong in this history either, by their logic. This gets ignored.
Then we point out that the female Companions make them look silly.
If a guy like me, who just wanted a little gentle T&A in his mod, has become a defender of Women's Lib, then the enemy's knuckles are well beneath the earth's surface.
I think that's been the problem I've had with the "it's historical" argument is that the game itself undercuts that argument with the inclusion of female npcs and black chaps (which I don't mind being in there by the way as it is just a game.).
Lastly, yeah, what's wrong with a little T&A? Don't we like women being around? Don't they...ahem...make things a whole lot better than just a bunch of guys? The level of hostility this whole thing has generated is rather amusing and enlightening. Especially when none of these guys in SP would ever have to encounter a female player (but their all probably charging about with Ingri and Fatima anyway).
Why do you guys even care so much anyway? You just get two almost non-existent bumps on your chest, a different hairstyle and a few different dialogues. That's really worth doing the whole "NO U!" crap for 84 pages.
xenoargh, will you just make yourself a small favour and give yourself a break with than Joan of Arc thing? I thought I made it quite obvious I was interested in the trivial nature of such knowledge, not that I wanted to use it as an argument against women in the military. You might call it "simple curiosity". Yes, such a thing exists, since I was taught for many years about the symbolism around that woman, but no one ever told us about details in her brief but remarkable military career. I just don't know where did you find yourself a hook to make such a fuss on this whole matter.
Let "the other source" tell you one more thing: you totally missed the "given tone" of the rest of my statements. I wasn't for once agressive towards you, yet somehow you saw an enemy in me. Fine, we don't have to be friends, anyway. I just don't like sycophancy, so spare it to me, if you would be so kind.
This. Please don't put unspoken words in my mouth. Unless you like being a martyr, but I don't care for you to be one.
Oh really now? You were there, in the councils of war? You have historical documents you'd like to show us? No? Then it's slanted speculation. It's like saying that some African became king somewhere, but "of course he didn't really command, because we know that all Africans are sub-human". It's sexist rubbish.
So... when a male general gives his orders to his brigadiers, the brigadiers to the colonels, the colonels to the lieutenants and so on, right to the private, that's sexist rubbish? Because that's what I meant. Structure of hierarchy. The higher you are, the less you get your own hands dirty.
You have a rich imagination though, laddy, I have to give you credit for that.
xenoargh 说:
The idea of females in the military being "unnatural" is both sexist and absurd. Tell that to the Soviet women who fought in WWII, or the women who are in the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan, just to cite a couple of examples. It's a very sexist comment. And that's leaving aside all of the matriarchies, the violent behavior of Grecian women, the chronicles of female violence in the Nordic cultures, etc., etc.
No, sorry, I didn't read that, I focus here on the 17th centure warfare, only. Note that I was writing in past sentences.
Basically, your whole worldview is at odds with the real history of the world. Women can commit violence, just like men can. It's mainly cultural traditions, not "nature", that has kept women from being the fighters in most, but not all, cultures. Moreover, your concepts indicate you don't even understand the medieval world, let alone this period. Rape was common, and hardly punished; killing civilians wasn't a war crime, but was a normal part of military operations; women could be declared witches and burnt at the stake. The whole time period resembles the romantic fantasies of these games very little. So, if the game's not history, why is that even a defense, even if it was true, which it's not?
Sorry, again, I can't attach anything of what you accuse me to something I've said. And I thought we were talking Renaissance-Baroque.
You know, I wonder openly why you deal with me with such genuine hate, yet I end up being called the hater. The misogynist. The sexist. Well, I thought this placed had some civilised people to argue in a civilised manner. I still do, though, even if the level of the discussion gets really low. And no, mate, not because of me. Chaotic good doesn't always serve the cause.
Finally, if you read some of my posts way back, you might actually realise what's my point. Because flaming... sorry to disappoing you, but it isn't. No, wait! I'll make it easier for you, to avoid more misunderstandings, to which you tend so easily: I actually want the option to play as female to be available! Surprised? Well, if you first thought, then wrote, you wouldn't be. But, since the option is not available I try to discuss the reasons why. Eventually, I made a trivial question about the patron of my Academy. And then, boom! Rage! Why?
Still, I suggest you count to ten while taking deep breaths before answering to a post. Not mine, anyone else's Then read it again, refer to previous things a person said... you know. It makes things less tense.
I hope I made myself clear, although the hope is meagre.
Ive figured it out. maybe all the women in the game are so well disgused as men we cant tell they are actually women!!!
making all the people who want women..happy, making all the historically correct people happy. and making all the women haters happy as they wont notice them!!
Honestly, it could go both ways. On one end of the spectrum, you could be a male chauvinist pig who likes to see women in battle lingerie, and on the other you're a feminist defending the right of women to flaunt their assets and be stupid about their clothing.
If this thread was done in a constructive manner like the people who asked for Polish Republic to be renamed to include Lithuania, I'm sure the devs would be more than happy to consider adding a female NPC to the game. I even personally created a bug report to support their case, though mine was rejected, and someone else's bug report was accepted.
http://bugs.taleworlds.com/edit_bug.aspx?id=3610
This thread is nothing but man-bashing simply because, there is no playable female NPC.
They repeatedly ignore the fact that many games like Tomb Raider and Portal 2 feature only female characters, when it is merely a game design. But somehow the lack of option for a female character in Fire & Sword is the most offensive thing in the gaming industry.
And now they spin overly-exaggerated stories about how people who defend there being no female generals as people who want women to be back in the kitchen and shut up, implying we are offended by a woman speaking her mind. That is the equivalent of saying Tomb Raider is misandry. I mean, a woman beating up men. That's violence against men, right?
Feminism used to revile Playboy or scantically clad women as objectifying, but now their daughters are embracing it.
They used to say a woman has the right to abortion, and any man who oppose it are misogynists and women who oppose it are "nothing but the master's tool to break down their fellow women". But now women are against it.
So you radical feminists think you're so clever by trying to turn things into a man vs woman kind of thing to push your agenda, but all you're doing is alienating even your own gender, because you were never interested in promoting women's rights. You're nothing but a special interest group telling women what to do. The dictators simply changed genders.
I personally have no problem having a female NPC, it doesn't bother me. But I'm gonna ask the devs not to cave in to unconstructive nonsense like this, because I will keep supporting your games. If none of these people here can form a proper or constructive suggestion like the Lithuania suggestion, without turning it into hate speech, you should ignore them.
This thread should be locked, because it is just a handful of whiners crying about nothing, and trolling.
I am definitely not happy that this game doesn't have playable female characters. I read a good 22 pages of this thread before I had enough of the upsurd arguments against it. Its one thing if the Mount and Blade series never offered the gender option but they did and just took it away. I understand that it is more work for the developers but really isn't it atleast moderately important for a gaming company to make a quality game to please their fans and also bring in more fans. (more fans = money) but I guess money is not important these days..
I bought this game and had no idea that they took out the gender option otherwise I wouldn't have bought it in the first place. I understand it is only $15 but I really have little interest in playing the game now so that $15 could have been spent better elsewhere.
I understand it was hard for a woman to rise up in that time period but it certainly was not impossible. They could have done something interesting for female characters like having them work under an established lord for awhile and gaining recognition based on performance in battle. Then they could get renown that way so they may work under a king.
I don't know I just pulled that idea out of my arse. It just seems like this was rushed and they should have at least for the sake of their fans not take the loved features out.
I am definitely not happy that this game doesn't have playable female characters. I read a good 22 pages of this thread before I had enough of the upsurd arguments against it. Its one thing if the Mount and Blade series never offered the gender option but they did and just took it away. I understand that it is more work for the developers but really isn't it atleast moderately important for a gaming company to make a quality game to please their fans and also bring in more fans. (more fans = money) but I guess money is not important these days..
I bought this game and had no idea that they took out the gender option otherwise I wouldn't have bought it in the first place. I understand it is only $15 but I really have little interest in playing the game now so that $15 could have been spent better elsewhere.
I understand it was hard for a woman to rise up in that time period but it certainly was not impossible. They could have done something interesting for female characters like having them work under an established lord for awhile and gaining recognition based on performance in battle. Then they could get renown that way so they may work under a king.
I don't know I just pulled that idea out of my arse. It just seems like this was rushed and they should have at least for the sake of their fans not take the loved features out.
50% of players dont give a f*** if females are in game or not.
40% are against because IT'S. GOD. DAMN. HISTORICALLY. CORRECT.
10% is you whiny little girls without a brain and blonde hair who crash cars into pedestrains because you're so damn dumb, frankly.
You're the minority. Buy the game and play it or gtfo. Simple.
50% of players dont give a f*** if females are in game or not.
40% are against because IT'S. GOD. DAMN. HISTORICALLY. CORRECT.
10% is you whiny little girls without a brain and blonde hair who crash cars into pedestrains because you're so damn dumb, frankly.
You're the minority. Buy the game and play it or gtfo. Simple.
Its one thing to give your personal opinion but don't pull numbers out your ass like you took a survey of all the Mount & Blade players. So feel free to take your own advice and GTFO. Thank you
I don't know if that was aimed at me or just folks in this thread in general, but if it was aimed in my general direction, I haven't commented on the African men issue (didn't even know there was one) because I don't have the game, I'm not an African man, and I have no opinion on African people in computer games.
I am, however, a woman who has been an avid gamer for over twenty years, and wanted to throw in my two cents, since this thread seemed to comprise of a group of screaming girl-gamers and a handful of men talking about how unfair it is to women that there is no option to create a woman protagonist in the game, versus a bunch of idiots who got themselves muted for stupid flame-bait sexist posts. Of course, there have been level-headed people here too, but they tend to be drowned out between the back-and-forth bickering.
I read some of the earlier posts of this thread a while back, and whilst I don't have WFaS yet, I would consider buying it in the future. The gender of my character has no bearing on whether or not I buy a game -- two weeks ago I bought L.A. Noire and think it's a fantastic amount of fun, in spite of (or perhaps even because of) the male protagonist. I think it's a shame when people threaten to boycott a game just because one aspect of it does not suit them. I saw the same thing over on Bioware's social forums regarding romance combinations, and the potential for homosexual alien romances with male Shepard et al.
Anyway, digressing. I think people just need to take a step back and realise that TW, or anybody else involved in the game, is not trying to disrespect female gamers by missing out a female protagonist option. I don't know why they did it, and I'm not trying to make excuses for it. It's just the way it was done. They may change it in the future, but arguing isn't going to convince them, nor is threatening not to buy the game because it doesn't have a gender option. A good game is good because of its storyline, its graphics, and its gameplay, and if a tiny little thing like gender is all that it takes to make a good game bad (or vice versa) for you, then you really need to spend that $15 on getting some better life-priorities.
Anyway, digressing. I think people just need to take a step back and realise that TW, or anybody else involved in the game, is not trying to disrespect female gamers by missing out a female protagonist option. I don't know why they did it, and I'm not trying to make excuses for it. It's just the way it was done. They may change it in the future, but arguing isn't going to convince them, nor is threatening not to buy the game because it doesn't have a gender option. A good game is good because of its storyline, its graphics, and its gameplay, and if a tiny little thing like gender is all that it takes to make a good game bad (or vice versa) for you, then you really need to spend that $15 on getting some better life-priorities.
Just to bring this forward - be aware that Taleworlds didn't exclude the female protagonist. The game was developed by a third party and everyone does things differently.
Clearly, not everyone agrees with or understands our style of allowing the player to play however they wish, and third party development demonstrates this.
It's reasonable to expect that now that the in house team is taking a closer look at the code, and with the volume of helpful feedback that has come from this forum and others - that some things you expect to see in the game will be included with patches to come.
That being said, I make no specific promises with regards to time or content =)
