This: The whole "objectifying women" is something Anita says a lot. "agents act, and objects are acted up". This is just a "die cis scum" tier argument. I seriously can't take you seriously if you say stuff like this. Another of Anita's mottos: "the industry perpetuates the trope that women are a weaker sex" as if there was some sort of conspiracy going on to perpetuate patriarchy. The whole "videogames make men misogynists" is just silly as heck.
Well considering some factions are genderless or kinda (necrons, nids, orkz...), you have male only and female only factions or units (SoB, SM...) and a combination of both (IG, Eldar, DE and so on). I don't think its really the lack of female characters that make this franchise not so very interesting to females in general. The whole universe is brutal, unforgiving, dark, gloomy even depressing (lacks happy endings and love in any shape or form that doesn't end bad or stale, it affects me at times too)..., even many dudes don't like it, instead preferring to run over to more happy settings like Star Wars and Barney. So even if there are more men than women in this setting its only because it takes a special kind of passive sadist and active masochist that is more prevalent in males. Besides women already pay tribute to the blood god (just a pun, don't get mad unless its for the Skull Throne, now that i think about it it would explain a lot of things, we men worship Slaanesh with every breath we take, so this is where the rivalry started at, damn you dark gods). We are f****d up is all.
Actually, I was referring to a panel by BioWare lead writer David Gaider here, hence why I specifically chose the term "industry wisdom". http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/28/dragon-age-iiis-gaider-on-the-impracticality-of-sexism/ But I'm sure that guy has absolutely no idea about video games or the gaming industry in general, unlike you.
I just want to say; don't get all tied up in the "there's no female human playable so it makes me slightly less likely to buy the game" yadadada. This game is deepseated in lore. AFAIK, all SPM (and therefore CSPM) are make. Presumably because all male Primarch's created in the male Emperors image? But also possibly for the earlier iterations of SPC, the genetic traits of males as a general and larger bulk made them more suitable for modification and battle. I'd be willing to discuss the real world applications of this with any of you (based off the idea that men and women in the future of WH40k are pretty much genetically identical. This said; it's hard to tell if females have different interests because of gender streamlining or just because girls like different things as a general. For example, my girlfriend has never been a girly girl, but she mocks my enjoyment (in an endearing way, honest ) of fantasty (... I'm gonna leave that typo, it's a nice phrase!) like LotR or WH40k for example. For me personally, I'm going to get into the game because I love the lore. The lore happens to be male dominated for the included factions. If SoB were in or if the lore of WH40k were female dominated, that really wouldn't affect me purchasing the game as a male because I enjoy the lore! tl;dr - I don't believe it's right to accuse WH40k or GW of sexism as I've never seen any evidence of it within the novels or in my few visits to the shop. As such, the game should be kept as close to the lore as possible and not include "fantasy" (ie not within WH40k lore) female characters "just because". EDIT: Removed a good chunk of my post because I got confused between the Silent Sisters and SoB!
How hard is it to accept that WH40K is oriented towards a male audience? Cosmopolitan targets a female audience, yet I don't see threads asking them to diversify their content to appeal the average male. Eternal Crusade is going to have a majority of male players, and adding SoB or female Astartes is not going to change it, because it's core (Warhammer 40k) was not created to please feminists. It was created to be fun and it was created by males for males. Deal with it. Now, about videogames, there are plenty with strong female protagonists. I'm getting real tired of 'feminists' cherry picking examples and completely ignoring the facts. Even if the videogame industry is mostly aimed for males is just a demographic issue. Males comprise the majority of gamers, and if females are a minority is not because they don't find strong female models on videogames (there are loads of them), but because women, on avergae, like different stuff than men. Oh, dear, what did I just say? Men and women are different? Well, we are, but not because of some patriarchy conspiracy, but rather because of a thing called sexual dimorphism. Having equal rights does not mean we have to share the same tastes on everything. And I've yet to find a study that proves there is a correlation between mysoginy and videogames. Do you know how are things proven? First you get the evidence and then you draw the conclusions. Not the other way around. And if you link me that interview as proof, let me tell you that is mostly his opinion on an interview, not an unbreakable fact.
This can and is actually being tracked; the interests as well as skillsets of female populations have begun to change ever since society has allowed them to branch out of their traditionally assigned roles. Of course, this is an ongoing process that takes generations to evolve, but it has started many decades ago already. I don't think this warrants further discussion here, though, as it is unnecessary for the topic at hand and I have a feeling some posters may disagree on principle. Personally, I consider the availability of female player characters in a game to actually be independent of female gamers. The irony is that we're all humans, yet there is not a single purely human faction in the game. GW isn't really sexist, even though their portrayal tends to forget about females, or non-White males in general. However, both these things still exist in the setting; the background already provides for them. That they aren't in the spotlight is, I suppose, simply a case of most authors and artists falling victim to operating from a "mirror perspective". They are white males themselves, so the characters many of them write and draw tend to be white males by default. It's a subconscious thing, and I suspect this tendency to be present in female and/or non-white authors and artists as well, just mirroring their own selves. But I don't think this is what is being discussed here. The background allows for powerful female human characters. I don't even agree that the background of WH40k is "male dominated", because I consider it to be fairly egalitarian! Some gamers just wish that the developers of Eternal Crusade make use of potential that the lore already offers. You are confusing the Sisters of Battle with the Sisters of Silence; in spite the similar moniker, there is a massive difference between the two: Out of universe, SoS only show up in the Black Library Horus Heresy novels and are a very new idea that has so far not seen any mention in core GW material such as rulebooks and codices. So far it appears the core GW studio is ignoring them, like they do with many ideas from the novels. In universe, the SoS seem to have been an anti-psyker division of the Astra Telepathica, and exclusively Nulls (a very rare genetic trait that renders them immune to psychic powers). They were around during the Horus Heresy (about 10,000 years prior to current events), but since no other 40k material of the current era mentions them and their jobs are "currently" performed by other organisations, they may well not have survived the Heresy era. Out of universe, SoB are a longtime part of 40k lore, invented by Games Workshop themselves (rather than an outsourced freelance author, like with the SoS), and have been around ever since the game's first edition in 1987. They are an existing tabletop army and received multiple codices, novels and even a comic and an audiobook over the years. In universe, SoB were not around during the Horus Heresy. They came into existence following the Age of Apostasy, originally recruited out of a secluded all-female cult on some backwater agri-world about 6,000 years prior to current events, became the bodyguards of an ursurper, ended up killing him, and finally assumed the role they have now as the armed warriors of the Imperium's state church, aka the Ecclesiarchy. "The Sisters of Battle are exceptionally well equipped, with armour and weapons the equal of any Space Marine Chapter." - 3E Codex: Witch Hunters "As the Chamber Militant of the galaxy-spanning Ecclesiarchy, the Sisters of Battle are fierce warriors that are equals to their brother Space Marines. What the Sisters lack in genetic enhancement they make up for in faith and devotion." - GW website It is of note that the Sisters of Battle lack the genetic enhancements that provide the Astartes with superior strength and resilience. What the Sisters have, however, is extensive training and zeal; unlike Marines the Sororitas are trained and indoctrinated from birth, selected solely according to a recruit's final scores in the academy rather than geneseed compatibility and archaic tradition. This mixture of high willpower and honed bodies, combined with general superstition, may result in what is commonly regarded as "miracles" - meaning individual Battle Sisters pulling off impressive feats that should by all rights be far above of what the human body should be capable of. For example, even though a Sister's body is less resilient than that of a Marine, she may keep fighting even if mortally wounded. The end result would be that she'll probably collapse after the battle and die a hero's death, whereas the Marine would survive and continue to fight the next day. The extreme recruitment requirements and the higher casualty rate are very likely the reason for why, in GW's own material, there are less Battle Sisters than Space Marines in the galaxy. For the purpose of applying this to Eternal Crusade, it could easily be simplified to giving both types of characters the same amount of hitpoints - simply because everyone is going to respawn anyways. Honestly, stuff like Devastators repairing vehicles would be a far graver offense to the lore. Not to worry! The franchise is, by now, several decades old and has seen many additions adding detail to the game's background. It is perfectly understandable, even expected, for most players to lack knowledge here or there! Taking myself for example, I only know about the Imperial and Chaos factions, and have very limited understanding of the various Xenos, even though I've been a 40k fan for over a decade now. There's just too much stuff to read! It is also important to keep in mind that, in spite of what you may hear elsewhere, there is no canon for Wh40k, just a general tone with very few fixed facts. Many authors write contradictory material, making it even harder to get a good picture. For example, anything I've written above is probably contradicted in a Black Library novel somewhere, even though I've pulled this info straight out of GW's own books. And neither of those sources would be "wrong", they are simply depicting different interpretations of the world. Your comment about lasguns is a good example, because even though this is a common trope in Marine novels, it arguably does not apply to the tabletop, GW's own background (see the 2E Codex Angels of Death), or GW's d100 "Inquisitor" game (in that ruleset, power armour provides an armour rating of 10, lasguns have a maximum damage of 12 - a single point of damage is sufficient to trigger injury levels up to and including death). Anyways, have fun with further readings about the setting; you've got a lot to discover! Golokopitenko: Debates like these are a dime a dozen on the internet. From your wording, you are obviously a lost cause, and I assume from your convenient point of view you consider me one as well, so I suggest we just skip ahead and pretend we discussed this for 10+ pages and move on. I certainly did not intend to summon the White Guy Defense Force.
Yeah I could go on despising you, but you're right. We shouldn't stain this forum further. Fair enough.
I stand by my point that the presence of eldar women at launch, as well as the possible addition of SoB post-launch is more than enough to satisfy any egalitarian desire. I never understood some journalists' and SJWs' obsession with representing every strata of society / humanity in a video game or other fiction. It makes little sense to me. For example, I am a white male but I am never bothered if I have to play as a different ethnicity, species or gender. In fact, I always choose something non-human in most games. So for me the claim that we need every human gender and major ethnicity present in a game to provide strong role models is laughable.
Well im a Male who wants to take part in this game but thats a given, The poll here might be lopsided in a sense most female gamers tend to hide behind a male persona to avoid unecessary attention and abuse.
