Hurrah: Call Of Duty Has Women Now, Also Multiplayer

By Nathan Grayson on August 15th, 2013 at 12:00 am.

Call of Duty: Ghosts may have given dogs the spotlight ahead of, er, half of the entire human race, but I suppose this is a case of better late than never. I mean, this is Call of Duty we’re talking about. It really could’ve been never – or at least quite a bit longer. But hurrah: female combatants have finally joined the multiplayer fray! Even baby steps should be celebrated. Oh, and we can’t forget today’s other military-grade slab of COD news: Activision gathered a bunch of journofolk under some massive roof in Los Angeles to announce that Call of Duty still has multiplayer. The industry spent the year sick with worry, intestines tied in knots and palms slick with pale fear, over the obviously very real possibility that Activision might throw out the most lucrative part of its biggest breadwinner for no apparent reason.

Now, however, we can rest. Ghosts will have plentiful dudes (and ladies) with guns, dogs prancing about, and new mode where you can become the explosion. Sorta. I fear that this might lead to the occasional dogsplosion, though, and that is truly the saddest possibility.

According to the newshounds at VG247, standouts include new modes like Cranked – in which a kill will both boost your stats and turn you into a ticking time bomb, forcing you to either kill more or go ka-boom – and the life, death, and dogtag antics of Search and Rescue. Also on the docket: new killstreaks that include canine superstar Riley himself, customizable AI squads for a mode called – wait for it – Squads, new player customization options, and a persistent territory-based frolic in the battlefield known as Clan Wars. Could these be gaming’s warringest clans? There is certainly precedent for the suggestion.

Call of Duty: Ghosts be out on November 5th. Four-and-a-half seconds later, it will break 27 million sales, as is the natural order of our world. I wouldn’t call this one a bold stride into the unknown, but it is admirably pursuing a few interesting (and in the case of female characters, much-needed) avenues. Also, I want to play with the puppy. I’m still not in any rush to get this one, but between the aforementioned additions and a vaguely post-apocalyptic setting, my curiosity is maybe a little less morbid than it usually is about these things. How about you?

, , .

191 Comments »

  1. rockman29 says:

    Dogs before hoes!

    Kidding.

    Sadly, that is the best I could come up with… :(

    • Koozer says:

      Come ooon, there’s a really obvious one about female dogs, which is far too crass for someone such as myself to think of.

    • Flopper says:

      You can tell their artists have no experience drawing a female model. That women is a shovel face!

      • gwathdring says:

        Er. Looks like a normal person to me? It’s not like their male models look like … well male models, so i’m not seeing the problem.

        I’m personally fine with characters that look like real people and aren’t covered in the layers of makeup, plastic surgery, prosthetics and eugenics required to produce that on camera look the A-listers give us.

      • Brayduck says:

        Obviously all women in any army look like supermodels.

        • Premium User Badge

          fredcadete says:

          And all women in video games look like porn stars.

        • Grey Ganado says:

          That’s actually closer to the truth than you’d think.

        • harbinger says:

          Probably wouldn’t be that far off: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=745_1370308238

          On the plus side, white women can now join white men to shoot those dirty sand people and the evil communists together, equality fuck yeah!

          • elmo.dudd says:

            It’s like you specialize in not knowing anything about the franchise… Wow, scholarly studies are becoming quite niche indeed.

          • Faxmachinen says:

            So the franchise is about a fictional world where ‘muricans aren’t shooting “sand people” and “communists” for a change?

      • SheridaH says:

        Nothing wrong with her face imho…Just a strange smug expression.

        • Fanbuoy says:

          Well duh, she’s a pioneer. A frickin suffragette with an assault rifle.

        • LionsPhil says:

          And a ton of eyeshadow.

          It’s important to apply your makeup when going into battle.

          (Edit: Damnit, sinister.)

          • SheridaH says:

            Well, why not. It’s not a full face of makeup and for a lot of women it’s just a part of their daily routine, like brushing your teeth and putting on some moisturizer .

    • sabasNL says:

      Yo dawg,

      I heard you like women so I put women in the game that once was the last safe resort, a paradise of men (or boys, urgh, once upon a time it was men..) -only gloriness and shooter fun.

      On the other hand, now you can shoot women through the head when your girlfriend/wife/mother is asking you to stop gaming. Which is fun, I guess.

      Ah well, didn’t play/buy/like CoD anyways these days.

  2. Triplanetary says:

    Now if they could just take the women out of CoD Ghosts and add them to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, and also make CoD Ghosts not exist anymore, I’d be happy.

    • Arkh says:

      But it makes more sense to have woman in COD than in Chivalry because, you know, middle ages and all.

      • j3w3l says:

        Yes, because there are no historical records of any prominant women in the medieval ages Joan’sing for a fight

        • PatrickSwayze says:

          I tip my hat to you sir.

        • Arkh says:

          Yeah, because we should base games on the rare exceptions instead of the rule.

          • gwathdring says:

            Yeah! Like that rule where scientists can operate military and alien weaponry and beat the shit out of anything with a crowbar. Exceptions are for social progressives, not gamers!

          • Pillagerguy says:

            A single French chick is totally worth making an indie dev. model and entirely new set of anachronistic characters. Also, new animations and voices and so on.

          • gwathdring says:

            I know. Making an indie dev work his poor little heart out. How could I. And I didn’t even pay him overtime. How dare I forcibly enslave the—

            Ok. Enough sarcasm. Look, if the dev really doesn’t think it’s worth the time and effort to make a female character model and/or truly believes that it would ruin the historical mission of the game, that’s the dev’s thing.

            It’s my thing if I want to accuse the dev of being silly because … historical accuracy? With respect to social order? And gender politics? In Chivalry? That idea is very, very silly to me. It’s not all THAT historically bound a game, and it’s certainly not very concerned with replicating the social politics of the time. Why are so many people ready to defend the absence of female characters on the grounds of historical accuracy, when so few people are really questioning the historical accuracy of core game mechanics? I’ll tell you. Because historical accuracy is not the point of Chivalry. It’s not period fiction. It’s period-inspired fiction and it’s got plenty of unrealistic and anachronistic elements.

            Your move, indie dev! Some people in the RPS comments thread made allusions to your game! Or something! I’m guessing this has done nothing to said indie dev, emotionally or otherwise. No one is making the dev do anything.

          • Bull0 says:

            In fact, Chivalry isn’t historically-bound at all; it’s pure fiction. The “historical accuracy” argument falls a bit flat when it’s used in reference to a non-historical game.

    • Wurstwaffel says:

      A woman with a gun I can get behind, but women in medieval melee combat, that breaks immersion for me.

      • inertia says:

        A medieval combat game involving fantasy nations and volcano fortresses.

      • greenbananas says:

        “A woman with a gun I can get behind”

        Well, never a good idea to stand in front of one, in any case. Still, better a gun than a steering wheel.
        You’ve been lovely. Thanks and goodnight!

      • Anabasis says:

        I love these types of articles because the “b-b-but, historical accuracy!” grognards come out of the woodwork, complaining about how women being represented a certain way would ruin their immersion or whatever. Which is weird to me because Chivalry is about as historically accurate to the Middle Ages as Call of Duty. Seriously, if you want a really accurate representation of medieval warfare wait for my upcoming release Medieval Warfare: Siege Simulator, in which you stand around for a year waiting. If that sounds dull, just wait until I leak the “catch a disease in camp and die horribly” mechanics.

        • gwathdring says:

          But historical accuracy is more important when it’s a micro aggression. Gosh. Keep up.

        • Arkh says:

          So, you can have woman knights in the middle age because it’s fantasy and the game is not realistic but you freak out because ironclad bikini women in fantasy medieval games is shit and unrealistic?

          • Dave Tosser says:

            It’s a matter of internal consistency, as men in- oh for fuck’s sake, why am I even bothering? If you don’t get by now that objectifying depictions of the female form for crude fanservice and attention are artistically lazy, morally questionable and utterly stupid, it’s probably a bit late for you.

            You lot are such bores sometimes.

          • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

            Try to imagine that women are actual people and it’ll make a bit more sense to you. Careful, though. Short bursts. Lie down if you get dizzy.

          • gwathdring says:

            Sexism is a problem in the world at large, and it has many signifiers in media including bikini armor. These signifiers have their place in art both high and low and are not inherently sexist. Rather they often signify a deeper sexism at work within their parent media, parent artist, and parent culture. Media makers have a responsibility to understand what their work signifies. Just as you aren’t supposed to tell your boss to “fuck off” in most offices, understanding when certain tropes or representations are appropriate and what they signify in a broader context is essential for media makers.

            The broader context of bikini armor is one of sexism; negative sexual objectification that reinforces problematic gender roles and isolates women from the relevant media works. Characters in these outfits are subjected to some rather disgustingly sexist treatment across many works of fantasy and the outfits have come to represent pervasive sexism in medieval fantasy.

            Bikini armor is fundamentally unsuitable–it does not protect and it does not cover a socially acceptable amount; this is not necessarily a problem, but it presents many questions. What is different about this character, her armor, or her society that makes this armor suitable? If it is not suitable, why should the audience accept it anyway? These are not questions that need explicit answers. But they demand some form of attention.

            Otherwise you lose control and reigning cultural assumptions take over your work. In the case of Bikini Armor, that invasive context is sexist and negative. Without proper explanation, elevation, or counter-context, you start participating in a sexist media culture by using these kinds of tropes.

            Here’s where your argument falls apart, though. Realism is a funny thing. It’s not the same as historical accuracy. Women fighting as knights is plenty realistic in a generic medieval setting. Women fighting as knights in a historically accurate 13th century France is not so realistic. Do you see the difference? We can have a realistic game bikini armor can’t fit in that still accepts female knights.

            Furthermore, once you enter the realm of fantasy, arbitrary gender bias (women can’t be Knights!) becomes less excusable. The unreal is infinite. You could have just as easily picked a non-sexist fantasy world. You need to explain why your fantastical, unreal world is bowing down to the exact same arbitrary, oppressive, sexist restrictions as the real world. Otherwise, you’re solidifying those arbitrary, oppressive, sexist restrictions for future generations of media consumers.

          • SuicideKing says:

            All three above me: Excellent replies, thank you.

          • DXN says:

            Good comments!

            People act like not bein’ a dick to women is incredibly difficult.

        • Misha says:

          Sure, Chivalry may not be historically accurate, but it’s claiming to be taking place in a universe with set rules so, yes, adhering to those rules does matter. Surely you’re not saying, for instance, that the fact that the Shermans in CoH are, shall we say, slightly more impressive against Panzers than they were in real life means that it’s wholly irrelevant to immersion whether you can recruit female SS-Panzergrenadiere or not?

          And no, that’s not being a misogynist, I just like for games to not actively sabotage my suspension of disbelief. Which is also why I’m a big fan of games set in fictional universes because then you can do whatever you like. Female warriors in Skyrim? No problem. Skyrim never existed, so if we want Valkyrie warriors there, so be it! And yes, I DO think that it’s nice that our lady fellow gamers can play characters that are female like themselves if they so choose. Why not? Why shouldn’t they have this option? Just how, exactly, does it hurt a fictional game taking place in a fantasy world that you can play as a grrl? I know how awfully awkward I’ve felt when trying on a female character in RPGs involving romantic interaction because I can’t really relate. Why would that be different for a woman?

          And letting players be women in CoD is really not hurting the concept or breaking the rules, since many militaries nowadays have female combatants.

          • gwathdring says:

            I’m going to shamelessly quote/paraphrase myself:

            Realism is a funny thing. It’s not the same as historical accuracy. Women fighting as knights is plenty realistic in a generic medieval setting. Women routinely fighting as knights in a historically accurate 13th century France is not so realistic (though it did happen). Do you see the difference? We can have a realistic game with no room for bikini armor or magic that still has room for female knights.

            The degree to which Chivalry aims to be historically accurate is the degree to which it can afford to be arbitrary crap like “women can’t be knights.” That’s not to say all games have to allow for female characters! Chivalry can get away with not having them in the following contexts:

            1) It only wants to target male customers
            2) It wants to be exceedingly historically accurate
            3) It wants to be roughly historically accurate AND features substantial social gameplay
            4) It has a fictional explanation (takes place in an alternate universe with no women, for example)

            To my knowledge, none of these things apply.

          • Pillagerguy says:

            I totally agree. You can’t shove women into every game, just like there are times where you can’t shove men into the game. If I made Womens’ Softball 2013 I wouldn’t complain that you can’t create a male character.

            Game universes have rules and contexts, and gamers should respect that instead of crying “sexism” at anything without a strong woman who don’t need no man.

          • DiamondDog says:

            “Game universes have rules and contexts, and gamers should respect that instead of crying “sexism” at anything without a strong woman who don’t need no man.”

            That’s easy to say when everything is catered to you. “Sorry, that’s just the way it is, not my fault.”

            This whole concept of realism is just another shield being deployed to protect people from being called on this stuff. Crying that “it’s not realistic” in relation to most games is bullshit, because they aren’t striving to be simulations. Even when games are striving for immersion they have to bend the rules of the real world to make everything fit together.

            But oh no, heaven forbid devs bend the rules like this. For women. That’s crossing a line that we won’t stand for. Regenerating health on my action hero? Fine. Women? Immersion breaking.

            This whole realism “it wasn’t like that” argument needs to die, quickly.

          • gwathdring says:

            Hell yes, Diamond Dog. Hell yes.

          • DiamondDog says:

            You’ve gone out of your way to talk a lot of sense down here gwathdring. I hope some of it sinks in to the people that read it.

          • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

            “Sure, Chivalry may not be historically accurate, but it’s claiming to be taking place in a universe with set rules”

            Every game does this. This is what makes them games.

            Which part of Chivalry relies on you believing it’s taking place in a fantasy world where women are incapable of fighting? Show me the parts of the game’s mechanics that would fall apart if there were a few ladies on the field of battle.

            I’m willing to be you can’t. But even if you could, then I’d just show you someone who needs to ask themselves why they need their games to be treehouses with NO GIRLS ALOWD signs hung out front.

          • Misha says:

            “Which part of Chivalry relies on you believing it’s taking place in a fantasy world where women are incapable of fighting? ”

            INCAPABLE of fighting? Where did I say that? I know full well that women are capable of fighting. I’ve met more than one who could probably kick my arse if I gave her compelling reason to do so.

            I guess it heavily depends on what you expect out of a title like Chivalry. Do you expect a game that tries to emulate being a fighter in medieval Europe or do you just want a first person action game with armor and swords? If the latter, they could call it Skyrim II. Skyrim already exists and it’s a bloody great game, and my female companions in Skyrim do not in the least bit destroy my immersion because I don’t expect women to act like women in medieval Europe. Plus, they’re bloody awesome and have saved my bacon more than once.

            Are you saying that you’d be OK with female U-boat commanders in Silent Hunter V too? Because it would be “sexist” to not allow for it? Fine.

            I, on the other hand, am not that hung up on it and it’s not because I’m a patriarchal misogynist evil bastard who doesn’t want grrrllls in my treehouse. As a matter of fact I love to see female characters in games where they fit.

            It just kills the immersion for me when they show up where they don’t, lest we offend some arbitrary, idiotic 21st century quota. Next we’ll be bitching about how there aren’t enough Inuit transgendered dwarf elves in Crusader Kings II.

        • Premium User Badge

          RedViv says:

          Crécy: Scary New Tech Survival Sim

      • LordofTheHereandnow says:

        Joan of Arc and this very partial list of female medieval warriors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_in_warfare_in_the_postclassical_era

        For fucks sake read some history all of you before pronouncing on it.

        • Lusketrollet says:

          Gods; that argument is so fucking tiresome.

          No-one is saying they didn’t exist.

          However, we *are* saying they were the exception to the rule.

          Thus, having a game that tries to pass itself off as somewhat historically authentic have a more or less even ratio of male and female combatants WOULD be bullshit, and WOULD be immersion-breaking for many.

          • Premium User Badge

            RedViv says:

            There there, it’s all good. Player choice will not make it an equally weighed selection during every battle anyway, so you can rest easily and don’t argue against evidence recounting exceptionality when the playable game characters are about potential exceptionality anyway.
            (Also: “No-one” really says that, except for the people who do so in these very comments, and worse all over the web.)

          • LordofTheHereandnow says:

            Sigh beyond sigh.

            Sorry to break it to you but your wrong, wrong and even further wrong.

            Recorded history as recorded by men towards a particular male centric view of the world will have recorded the barest fraction of women who involved in the fighting of wars – many, many more would have been involved. Especially below the level of command.

            Sorry facts conflict with your version of reality, its your version of reality at fault, not the facts.

          • LordofTheHereandnow says:

            Oh – and having re-read through the posts to check, no one said that (as RedViv points out). Everyone was taking it is a truth that women were not involved in fighting, both pro and anti depicting women in the mentioned game.

            Both were wrong. You just swooped in afterwards to try and justify the particular side of wrong you agreed with.

            Its actually a highlights a very important point. Sexism is as much a cultural conditioning as personal attitude.

            or: Bullshit is Bullshit, even the bullshit you believe to be true

            My despair was for the ignorance of both sides.

          • gwathdring says:

            Immersion breaking. Unlike the text chat and the scoreboard an the kill-box, and the respawning and I’m bored of this now.

            Come off it. People who want intense historical detail aren’t looking for it in Chivalry. They’re hanging off of Clang’s painfully slow development, playing War of the Roses and Crusader kings, or joining the Society for Creative Anachronism and fighting in tournaments with real swords. Yes there’s a middle ground. I don’t think that middle ground is going to go “SHIT, I was enjoying this nice game of chivalry but that long female face just caused me to do a spit take all over my monitor!”

            Look, you can argue it was uncommon. You can’t argue it’s unrealistic. Women could be and could have been and occasionally were knights. If your aim is to be historically accurate … Chivalry has WAY bigger problems than hypothetical female knights. If your aim is to be realistic … then female knights aren’t even a problem.

          • gwathdring says:

            @ LordoftheHereandNow

            To be fair, in this sort of game you represent the great horde of plain soldiers. I think it’s reasonable to, without being sexist, depict a medieval battlefield without any armored women. Casually accepting that women weren’t knights for the purpose of this discussion isn’t the same as believing that women were NEVER knights. Not everyone speaks with absolutism and precision, so give us some wiggle room here. Even taken at face value, as casual assumptions about gender go? It’s not a particularly heinous one.

            Remember, it’s not even necessarily misogynist to say “Women were never allowed to fight in 13th century Europe”. We have a developmental historical narrative. We can WANT women to be treated equally and accepted as soldiers and twist history to be more strongly patriarchal and sexist because that makes our present look more progressive in comparison rather than because we like patriarchy.

            There’s more than one cultural force at work here in these kinds of assumptions, not all of them are negative, and not all of them have anything to do with gender.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            To be fair, in this sort of game you represent the great horde of plain soldiers. I think it’s reasonable to depict a medieval battlefield without any armored women.

            ^ This.

          • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

            ^ Selectively quoting someone who carefully destroyed his argument a few comments up

          • Merlkir says:

            :D :D “Men wrote history, therefore there were women fighting everywhere, because patriarchy!”

            The most beautiful insanely idiotic leap of “logic” I’ve read in a while. Thank you.

          • LordofTheHereandnow says:

            @Merlkir

            Actually – its your position that is not logical.

            War is all enveloping, when an army marches it marches through land, through people.Women, when their bodies and lives are at stake are just going to sit around and do nothing?

            Again I point you to the link I posted, those are the facts, facts, facts – you know what a fact is surely. And it I repeat, those are the notable examples.

            The argument isn’t that the norm was women treated as equal to men and given central roles in controlling warfare, that every battle would have women soldiers – and then this ‘truth’ covered up via conspiracy (that’s you constructing a false argument to mock) but that Women’s participation did happen often enough that its exclusion should not be a given and be more ‘realistic’.

            What happened was: certain acts of violence by certain people to certain people are held to moral justifiable while others not. When these non approved acts happen they are either openly derided or covered up, or dismissed as exceptions to the rule.

            The use of women directly in combat was viewed as barbaric last resort – but it happened. Which is what people where denying.

            Interestingly when its was pointed out as not being true the response was – ‘Yes it did happen but here I argue against something you never argued for’.

          • gwathdring says:

            @GunnerMcCaffrey

            We don’t have to disagree on everything. If I want to make arguments on both sides of the arbitrary line, people on either side are welcome to agree with those that suit them. Also people likewise not on a single side.

        • LordofTheHereandnow says:

          Maybe,

          but such ignorance seems to be spread all over, and maybe its the host of little lies that prop up the big one.

          And I think I covered the social complexity bit with the bullshit line.

          • gwathdring says:

            Which is the big one though?

            I think “Progress ever marches on and up” is a bigger lie than “women and men have their separate roles” or “women are worse than men at fighting.” The idea of evolution and development and progress is rather a big part of the biggest messes in our present world.

            But at the very least I’d argue it also qualifies as one of the big ones propped up by many little ones. That it in turn props up other big lies doesn’t make it subservient to matters concerning the other big lies.

          • LordofTheHereandnow says:

            And another, more germane to a gaming site, thing!

            You’d have thought a part of a creative industry would have come up with a creative way to address historical reality in a popular game form. I remember reading how they were proud of themselves for doing this with the weapons – balancing historical weapons with the play style they wanted. Why they didn’t do the same for the mechanics of the people holding the weapons seems a trifle odd.

            (gwathdring -I do agree that Hegelian and pseudo-Darwinian history is bunk, but I’m not arguing over the metaphysical interpretation of historical facts just the facts themselves)

          • gwathdring says:

            Oh, absolutely. I got that. I was suggesting that by arguing against the facts/assumptions alone and not considering their meta-historical origins, one can reduce even a relatively non-gendered or non-sexist series of miscommunication and corruptions of history into part of a sexist patriarchal narrative just as the patriarchy can construct a narrative for itself out of history. It goes both ways, and it’s easy to forget how important that is in one’s zeal for pro-social discourse.

        • LordofTheHereandnow says:

          Whoops, double post

    • misterT0AST says:

      Female knights make as much sense as male nuns. They work well in fantasy, but not in every single medieval setting.

    • Milky1985 says:

      Annnnnnnnddd yet again a post about a game devolves into more mud slinging over gender politics, both sides refusing to acknowledge anything from the other because they are worried that they will be seen as traitors to some cause or another if they do, rather than.. you know actually talking about things.

      Also for the love of christ stop screaming misogyny when you mean sexist, they are NOT the same thing, look it up for fuck sake, yet again its an idea thats being diluted because idiots keep using it when they mean sexist.

      I think its safe to say that all misogynists will be sexist, but not all sexists are misogynists.

      IN this case, not having female characters in a game from history is in theory sexist, as there is discrimination, but its not misogynist, its nothing to do with a hatred of women, more about historical accuracy.

      But of course this will fall on deaf ears becasues i’ve dared to mention that maybe its not black and white and instead need to meet somewhere in the fucking middle.

      • Unrepentant says:

        Thank you for that comment. It seems that for many adhering to prescribed philosophy is more important to people than working together, understanding others, or seeing the world in the greys it is.

      • gwathdring says:

        Setting yourself above it doesn’t really help, though does it? Either get in the trenches and sling mud as productively as you can, sling it with unproductive glee or … well, go elsewhere in the thread to just talk. People will follow.

        Sitting in the mud and complaining about all the slinging going on around you is a bit silly, justified as the complaints themselves may be. You don’t even have to pick a side to join in the slinging. There’s so MANY sides even if you want to pick one. And there are even more sides over there out of the mud pit with the nice green grass and the fluffy little bunny rabbits of Just Discussing Things and Making Puns. I like both places becasue I adore bunny rabbits and puns but I like a bit of fighting, too.

        But yes, shouting “STOP SHOUTING ABOUT THINGS AND BE REASONABLE LIKE ME” isn’t a course of action I really understand.

      • Koozer says:

        Well said. The cause may be noble, but all the patronising, wild assumptions and self-congratulatory back-slapping from the vocal social justice types makes any kind of civil discussion impossible. Guys, you’ll never bring anyone round to your way of thinking by calling them names.

        • DiamondDog says:

          “patronising, wild assumptions and self-congratulatory back-slapping from the vocal social justice types”

          “Guys, you’ll never bring anyone round to your way of thinking by calling them names.”

          I often see people talk about reasonable debate, and to some extent agree (from what I can see most here have been calm). But sometimes I think they want people to stop shouting because they don’t like what they’re saying.

          Be reasonable and be quiet so I don’t have to keep hearing about it.

      • LordofTheHereandnow says:

        Point taken on definition. Happy to be corrected.

        • Canisa says:

          Just gonna step in here on the last post of that thread and say that I had *completely forgotten* this was an article about CoD.

          Female viewpoint characters for 50% of the campaign, please. Perhaps a Russian Ultranationalist or two as well? I am a bit bored of Always-Morally-Justified-Heroic Westerners, Fuck Yeah!

      • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

        “Also for the love of christ stop screaming misogyny when you mean sexist, they are NOT the same thing, look it up for fuck sake, yet again its an idea thats being diluted because idiots keep using it when they mean sexist.

        I think its safe to say that all misogynists will be sexist, but not all sexists are misogynists.”

        The term misogyny can be a bit fluid I think, since sometimes one needs a gender-focused equivalent to terms like structural racism, white privilege, or white supremacist (which can also refer to both structural racism, or to an individually extreme racist.)

        There are individual acts of sexism and misogyny, but then there are also the cultural/social structures built on those individual things. This structural sexism takes on a life of its own, and makes it that much harder to push back against individual actions because it’s no longer just on the level of individual choices. Considering the evolution of the term cultural hegemony from hegemony might be helpful.

      • The Random One says:

        “I think all black people should die!”
        “I think no black people should die, and also that this other guy is a racist asshole.”
        “Guys guys, why can’t you be REASONABLE like me and try to meet the other one halfway? We’ll kill half of all black people, ok?”

        • CloakRaider says:

          Well that’s the worst analogy I’ve ever read

          for the sake of sanity and logic, never try to make an analogy again please

    • Ebavkasglupacite says:

      Wow stupidity of some don’t stop to amazes me.So you are still not happy to blow women’s heads with guns and want to cut their limbs and chop their heads.

  3. DickSocrates says:

    Every ‘joke’ I’m thinking of might get me banned so I’ll just laugh privately to myself.

    Tee-hee-hee.

  4. dontnormally says:

    I’m going to make fun of this then eventually buy it. For console.
    I am an average RPS reader.

  5. Cerebulon says:

    Well, I can’t imagine this will cause any kind of shitstorm among… That part of the internet. And that shitstorm being ceaselessly hilarious and horrible at the same time.

  6. Koozer says:

    Cranked mode, a sly nod to the film Crank maybe?

  7. OddsAgainst says:

    Now if only they’d add guys to Skullgirls

  8. Premium User Badge

    Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    Okay people, you know the drill. Everybody take a petrol canister and start splashing down your local corner of the Internet. Wait for the signal, then we’ll all flick matches at once. Once the Internet is safely ablaze, return to your vaults and set the timer for 18 months. Stay alert, stay calm, and we’ll all get through this.

  9. zachforrest says:

    I would have thought any misogynist worth his salt would relish the opportunity to shoot a lady avatar in the face.

    • Premium User Badge

      RaveTurned says:

      You’re missing the part where they’d have an equal opportunity to be shot in the face by a lady avatar, which would completely ruin their adolescent power fantasy.

  10. HisMastersVoice says:

    “Even baby steps should be celebrated.”

    Baby steps to what exactly?

    • Arkh says:

      Social justice, of course.

      • elmo.dudd says:

        Not to be confused with non-social justice, righting a wrong between one person and no one else.

      • IonTichy says:

        Can we now finally leave out pointless politics from game discussions and concentrate on the games themselves?

        Really, I don’t get people that feel discriminated against by games/movies/books/the sky….it’s fiction so stop it already.

        If you want to do something good, there are more real issues where this rage would be more appropriate as people really get hurt based on who and what they are.

    • Doomsayer says:

      I, for one, welcome our new female overlords.

    • Premium User Badge

      Gap Gen says:

      Ah, the pitter patter ot tiny bullet casings.

  11. Strangeblades says:

    Huh. This is supposed to be a next-gen console game? I was ready to see something similar to what my older PC can put out. (Radeon 6870 HD, AMD 3.4 GHz quad-core with 8 gigs of ram).

    • elmo.dudd says:

      Coming to next-gen, but not distinctly next-gen. I’d wager the next Treyarch one will be the first “next-gen” CoD. This is a transition one, and considering their touting of player progress transitioning if you buy it on 360 and then move to the Xbox One, they’re counting on it being a transition title.

  12. Wulfram says:

    Well, it makes sense in the setting, from what I’ve heard of it.

  13. tnzk says:

    That looks so boring and mindless.

    I’d rather them remove the women, make everyone a 6″2 blonde haired, blue-eyed male, and make the gameplay really interesting.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      Well, you weren’t likely to get that anyway. Small blessings, right?

  14. amanitazest says:

    I was going to say that this isn’t the first CoD game with playable female characters, but then I realized I was actually thinking Medal of Honor and its spinoff title, Medal of Honor: Underground. Not only did MoH have playable female characters, they had a full-blown game with a female lead (based on a real badass!) in 2000. That’s over a decade ago… and as far as I know, it’s still one of a kind. God, the female lead’s even on the front of the box. Lord knows Naughty Dog had to fight for the right to put Ellie on the cover of The Last of Us, imagine what kind of nonsense EA would have gotten over a decade ago. Cripes.

  15. Blkcrow says:

    This is just depressing… what other franchise could get away with a sequel whose only ‘meaningful’ addition is a playable female and a dog?

      • gwathdring says:

        Although Madden adding dogs might have unfortunate implications.

    • QualityJeverage says:

      So…did you just not read about any of the other new features and game modes?

      Not trying to be a CoD apologist or something here, but distilling all the stuff they announced today to “It has girls and a dog now” is pretty silly.

      • Dave Tosser says:

        But are there lady-dogs?

        • Fanbuoy says:

          “Kill those bitches!” Activision has given up any attempts to make their player-base not awful, and instead try to provide an acceptable context for any foul things they spew out, one insult at a time.

      • uh20 says:

        silly you, Call of Duty never changes, we just joke about the small differences you can actually make out before they start chugging out another installment.

      • Bull0 says:

        I’m a CoD apologist, nothing they do is *ever* good enough for this crowd. Which suits me fine, the sneers don’t really affect my enjoyment at all, and it’s not like the series is in any danger financially… each game should be assessed individually, certainly the series has had some dull notes but I’m not sure when/why dismissing a game offhand months before it’s hit shelves became something to be intellectually proud of.

        • gwathdring says:

          PC-legs gOOd! Console-legs BAd! Arahgaf. -foams -

          That (sarcastically) said, Call of Duty is cause for concern for me not becasue I hate it or think it is all that’s wrong with gaming or any of that. But because it represents an unsustainable form of business. Every game company wants a CoD just like every MMO wants to be WoW. It’s not a model that works for every game, it’s not a level of success that’s attainable for most games, and it’s a business model that produces fun but safe products.

          I’m a designer at heart. I crave unsafe games. Novel games. Weird games. I backed Tangiers and I don’t care if it’s crap. That doesn’t mean I have no room for Call of Duty. I don’t enjoy the mechanics, but I would have room for the kind of game design it represents if I had room for the kind of game it is to play. But it’s such an attractive looking thing to publishers or worse their investors … and that pressure trickles down.

          It reinforces the railroad-singleplayer, online-multiplayer, bing-bang-boom model in an industry over saturated with games that don’t do in anywhere near as well. While there would be an abundance of bad games anyway, the number of games that were good and needed some extra polish but had this awful tacked on multiplayer eating up budget and time? Urgh.

          Now that’s not CoD’s fault, exactly. But CoD is a poster child of a style of blockbuster development that I believe to be problematic en masse. On it’s own? Not a problem. I found MW3 1:1 couch multipalyer quite fun the one time I tried it and as best I can tell they’re really well made games if you like what they’re selling. But.

          • Bull0 says:

            Oh, totally. You’re right that CoD is a textbook example of the unsustainable game budget bubble, and I agree that that bubble is a big, looming problem. But it’s going to be the ActiBlizzards and EAs that suffer when that bubble bursts, right? Our charming, novel, plucky indie games will have the advantage, even, because they’re already happily carving out territory in that new world while the AAA studios glower over the ruins of the old. Adjusting will be very painful for them.

          • gwathdring says:

            Fair enough. But I do like my AAA games from time to time. They aren’t as charming or as innovative, but they can be so very good and interesting and clever at times. And they can afford so much ambition … losing access to that ambition by squandering it on unsustainable practices will mostly hurt those companies. But, at least temporarily, it hurts us too.

            I mean, it means no Call of Duty once they lay the final straw on their own backs, for one thing. No skin off my back, but I lose me my Mass Effect. Where the real loss occurs, though is in the Mirror’s Edge’s. The ambitious, quirky, AAA games that do something a little different and sometimes fall flat because it doesn’t quite work. That’s what I’m really scared for. Those games are disappearing and the … (as that massive interview series a while back dubbed it) triple-indie scene hasn’t quite picked up the slack.

  16. Boosterh says:

    I just can’t get over that expression on her face.
    Nobody should ever have that ‘mildly bored but still amused’ look on their face while they have a rifle in their shoulder!
    It is seriously starting to creep me out.

    • gwathdring says:

      Never play ARMA II. Same thing there. Creepy as fuck. Everyone’s got this half smile on their face and talks like a robot over the radio. -shivers -

    • uh20 says:

      that face is just as unimportant as every other soldiers “generic male” face
      chances are the guys will still be too bummy to actually make better models and roles for em.

  17. sinister agent says:

    Remember, when you’re on the front line, it’s important to always carry and apply eyeliner. This way the enemy will sometimes rout after mistaking you for a panda.

  18. Olydark says:

    Celebrating baby steps only leads to more baby steps, and less leaps.

    • gwathdring says:

      I don’t exactly see the party streamers. The article was still pretty snarky and critical.

  19. cdx00 says:

    Call of Booby

  20. Misha says:

    Praise the gods! There are women in Call of Duty the Umpteenth! Now I will definitely buy it because my worst fears have been allayed. On to minor issues like gameplay, design, graphics and the like.

  21. Megakoresh says:

    The amount of fucks I give cannot be divided by.

  22. HadToLogin says:

    If I’d play CoD multiplayer, I’d play as woman. I love when developers puts “cheats” by themselves in myltiplayer games, since she will have smaller hitbox.

    • mondomau says:

      Wut.

    • Premium User Badge

      RaveTurned says:

      Nope, sorry. According to Polygon, Activision have already stated the hitboxes for male and female characters will be of equal size, by the strategic placement of gear on the player model.

    • Bull0 says:

      Yeah, probably not mate

    • Koozer says:

      I can’t think of any multiplayer FPS, ever, which had different hitboxes for different characters. Even TImesplitters, and that had a a giant squid man, a stone golem, and a goldfish in a bowl with a robot body.

      Oh wait, monkeys. They don’t count!

      • gwathdring says:

        The larger concern than smaller hit-boxes should be invisi-boxes that extend beyond the model or that the model extends outside. Using the same hitbox on different models requires some degree of cleverness else it ends up being way more of a problem than different hit-boxes. Games tend to exert that degree of cleverness, in my experience.

        • Koozer says:

          I would imagine the differences in model between male and female would be as minor as the difference between Soldier Man With Utility Belt and Flak Vest and Baddie Soldier Man With Cargo Pants and Tank Top.

          • gwathdring says:

            I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Just that I don’t having the hitboxes be the same would not be my first concern if I were the designer. Making them align well with the model would be my first concern.

            I’m not disagreeing with you exactly. Just talking.

      • SRTie4k says:

        Goldeneye 64. Oddjob had a smaller hitbox than the standard character model, whereas Jaws had a larger hitbox.

        When my friends and I would get together to play after school, we’d ban Oddjob as a playable character for that reason.

        • Koozer says:

          Oh! Elvis from Perfect Dark too. But they obviously don’t count because it would mean my statement above is ill thought out and highly flawed.

  23. Deadly Habit says:

    Christ when did the RPS comment section get overrun with Tumblr feminists?
    I’m sure the media is going to have a field day with this if they catch wind.
    Hopefully they do this right without the makeup look, proper animations, and not giving it any extra attention or bringing it up in game, but just treating them like another grunt in the squad.

    • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

      Sweetie I was a feminist before Tumblr even existed. And I guarantee I’m not the only one here (or the only one on Tumblr). Do you find the world easier to handle if you imagine anything you don’t agree with is just a trend that started a year ago?

      • elmo.dudd says:

        I find things easier to deal with by opening up with “sweetie”.

      • Deadly Habit says:

        Tumblr is full of all the radical feminists which make actual feminism look bad, so yes I feel it’s appropriate.

    • Skabooga says:

      I recognize you are using that term in the pejorative, but I cannot help but feel it is the equivalent of saying, “Gracious Ignatius, when did my larder become chock-full of all this delicious food!?”

      • Deadly Habit says:

        Tumblr feminists is the equivalent of that vegan who feels it needs to tell you that delicious food your eating is murder and how much better they are than you every chance they can.
        Or more appropriately the Tea Party movement here in America, a small incredibly vocal minority with absolutely misplaced ideas.

  24. Bull0 says:

    new modes like Cranked – in which a kill will both boost your stats and turn you into a ticking time bomb, forcing you to either kill more or go ka-boom

    Well, that sounds brilliant

  25. Premium User Badge

    CelticPixel says:

    Good.

  26. PatrickSwayze says:

    I for one am glad to be seeing female soldiers in the army #solidarityisforwhitewomen

    • bstard says:

      And the strange thing is yesterday during a BFBC2 round of Gustaving some hacker noobs I was told to ‘go back to cod’. Wut omg I feel insulted!

    • cunningmunki says:

      I believe the new character customisation feature lets you choose your skin colour too. If I’m taking your point correctly.

  27. Screamer says:

    Finally they can explain why in such a realistic military shooter, all the kitchens are empty!

    • Premium User Badge

      tomeoftom says:

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA!!!!!

      Awesome, man! High-five!

  28. Pillagerguy says:

    This might as well be a skinpack for CoD 4.

    When are they going to change the game?

    Silly question, they’ll never make anything new.

  29. WinTurkey says:

    I can’t wait to see the new generation of rape threats from 13 year olds in CoD multiplayer now that there are women in it.

    • Premium User Badge

      fredcadete says:

      On the plus side, it will mean the end of the quasi-monopoly of teabagging. Talk about role reversal…

    • cunningmunki says:

      I don’t think there’s any lack of rape threats already.

  30. radian says:

    What if we could talk to the explosions ?

    • Tei says:

      Sorry, but WE ARE THE EXPLOSION. What you think is the big bang that created us?

  31. Tei says:

    The limitations of the engine are obvious if you know where to look. This is simple scripted destruction. Theres something off and unnatural to how character move,and the face of the lady is made of iron, she has not capabilities of expressions.

    The game somehow looks more dumbified than older versions. What happened?

    Well, duh, anyway will probably be a very fun game.

    • elmo.dudd says:

      Note that they never tout “destruction”, they focus on player initiated events that change up the lines of sight or paths on a level. As for the quality of the destruction, that comes down to how much of your artists time you want to spend on slicing up assets, if you want actual destruction you can always play Red Faction.

  32. Carlos Danger says:

    Man talk about celebrating low hanging fruit.

  33. XhomeB says:

    Wow. Bravo, RPS staff and readers. Bravo.
    Surely, the fact you will be able to KILL WOMEN in video games is a cause for celebration. Rejoice.

    • Sian says:

      So you’re saying we should keep female characters out of video games to… protect them? You do know there’s a patronising side to sexism, don’t you?

      • XhomeB says:

        All I’m saying is that this obsession has gotten out of control and clouds everyone’s judgement. FFS, don’t you see you’re contradicting yourselves here?

        • Sian says:

          Where’s the contradiction? Equal rights, equal representation, equal duties. Women in the real world want to be able to fight and die for whatever cause they believe in – why should they be kept from fighting and dieing in the virtual world where there are no consequences?

          By the way, wanting equal rights for all of mankind is not an obsession, it’s wanting what’s right.

  34. Agamemnok says:

    http://www.gaminggurupc.com/product-p/moxypremade.htm

    High performance gaming systems that are easy on the wallet.

  35. visionsofamber says:

    Yep, it only took a cataclysmic catastrophe for the army to start recruiting a literal half of the human population.

  36. Mctittles says:

    It seems weird making a big deal out of this, considering I’ve been playing female soldiers in games like Rainbow Six for many years now.

    • gwathdring says:

      Well gaming’s been moving a bit backwards in terms of pro-social gender attitudes of late. So moving forwards again has become a big deal.

    • Dave Tosser says:

      The big, dumb manshoot is going to need a bit more than just Ayana Yacoby to out-do Raven Shield, sadly.

  37. belgand says:

    Now, while women certainly should be allowed to serve in front-line combat positions if they want to in many countries they are not currently allowed to. If they’re making a game based around the US military, which is what I am given to understand they are doing, it would be a bit out-of-place to have women there. Realism, in CoD? Yeah, that’s… not especially compelling, but there’s a certain sense to it. Set it in the near-future where women have been allowed to serve in combat roles (2016 is the current target) though and yes, there ought to be women there. Just keep in mind that current statistics show that women only account for 14% of the US military. If women don’t want to fight (and I applaud them for that) we probably shouldn’t go about forcing it.

  38. Shadowcat says:

    I guess that’s a point to the publishers — they must have succeeded in getting people’s attention when the thread has 191 comments, and not one of them is about how god-awful the music is.

  39. Arkh says:

    Well, we can always be more progressive by adding more minorities like black people, black woman, transvestites, transgenders, homosexuals and all related marriages and relationships.

    Or you can just put some women humiliating some men, that’s a lot of people sense of progressiveness and social justice.

  40. gwathdring says:

    I think baby steps is a bit unfair, too. But were I to posit as to why it’s baby steps? Because one game, even a game this popular, doesn’t represent the entire medium. There’s still a lot of unpleasantness in communities, still designers and project leads and publishers who look down on having female characters in games or believe that women are inherently uninterested in video games, etc.

    As ever, the problem is the aggregate picture not any one game. As such changing any one game is only ever so much of a big deal. It’s the same reason having games with an all/mostly female cast is a good thing without that being some kind of reverse sexism. Perfect equality is not and never has been the goal except for crazy people. My vision is an aggregate culture/attitude/catalog in which everyone can find something the like to play in reasonable proportion and no-one is unduly mistreated or looked down upon … and in which enough games avoid negative social tropes or make intentional, thoughtful commentary on them to make up for the inevitable mass of games that perpetuate them.

    One military human-shoot isn’t going to change the aggregate culture and business model. Especially given how long the series has run without including women even in it’s modern combat settings, and the reputation of it’s online community. But I agree that the sheer size of Call of Duty merits labeling this more than a “baby step.” If nothing else it is a baby step made by the biggest fucking baby in gaming.

  41. SuicideKing says:

    Baby steps for the medium in general.

  42. amanitazest says:

    Nah, I think it’s still pretty heavily skewed. Although America didn’t have as many women on the frontlines (though it did have auxilary units like WAAC ready), there were plenty of women fighting for France, Germany, Poland, Canada, and Soviet Russia. So that’s still thousands upon thousands of women being soldiers, gunners, spies, freedom fighters, etc. and so far we have maybe a handful of female game characters to represent them.

    Then again… we have a much more even ratio of men to women in the army today and we still don’t have a much better representation in games. It’s gonna take some serious work to correct that.

  43. Neo says:

    Can we then add gameplay elements that force you to question why you care about who your faceless soldier avatar wants to have sex with?

  44. Fanbuoy says:

    Are you saying that black women aren’t people? That’s pretty racist, dude. Or is it misogynistic? Both? Neither? I’m confused.

  45. Werthead says:

    Yup. 75,000 women fought at Stalingrad alone. And that’s fought as in being tank crew, pilots, front-line combat troops, artillery operators, snipers (most famously) and pretty much any other role you can think of.

    In the defence of Leningrad, the government put almost the entire civilian population of the city, including about a million women, to work in building defenses around the city (on top of a 12-16 hour work day in the factories).

  46. chopsnsauce says:

    That’s only the Soviet Army.

    British, American, German, Japanese armies had NO women fighting in the front line