However, considering that people's main objection to a female PC in GTA seems to be "the things you do in GTA are not befitting of a woman", and whether or not you think that's a valid argument or total hogwash, the concept of having 3 distinct playable characters with their own lifestyles/roles/gameplay really should have opened the door wider for one of those characters to be a woman, and it would have made sense to even the naysayers.
I'm not at all against a female PC in GTA, infact, i'd be very interested in playing GTAVI with 3 female characters.
I am however skeptical of the idea of character creation in the singleplayer portion of a GTA game, exactly because i like the more context focused approach they
try to have (not always succeeding).
Of course, i can't answer nor i am responsible for other people in the thread who are defending R*ìs move with different arguments than mine.
I can perfectly understand the disappointment and the desire to see a female character, though.
So you are saying that they have had females that can fit one perceptions of " masculine" yes?
Then... why the hell cant I play with them. Because clearly you have just said that they are capable of making women like that, now they have less of an excuse. I am not projecting anything, what is "masculine" is kinda of a vague social concept anyway, unless being physically a man is important to the story for some reason. I doubt it though GTA4 and San Andreas could have played out the same with some gender switches to be quite honest.
Well i'm not native English speaker, so i must go by the definition of masculine that i'm given here, but yes, i would say they have had "masculine" female characters before.
You can't play as one because they obviously started writing this story with a completely different idea in mind.
I doubt gender representation was the primary focus when writing the story.
As i said multiple times in the thread, i think they mention "masculinity" as exploring those elements that males feel like they have to live up to in our society, being tougher than everybody else, being alpha, providing for the family, being on top, and all that bullshit.
I think he's using masculinity with this meaning, but of course it's such a small and contextless quote that it's impossible to say.
Another element that's relevant was his intention to deconstruct the GTA character with these 3, and i've mentioned this previously:
Again, i read so many previews and interviews in the last 2 years that i can't remember where Dan Houser ( i think it was him) hinted at it.
But basically you can see at the three characters as three components of classic GTA characters, a deconstruction of it.
Trevor is the maniac that wreaks havoc without a reason, which is representative of the "open world" aspect you have in GTAs, where the player deviates from the story just to fuck shit up.
Michael is the protagonist of the classic GTAs AFTER a life of crime and having "arrived", but he's not happy with the results (he's the "after").
Franklin is the young up and coming, the classic GTA character that wants to get in on the action and get rich (the "before").
So basically all three are a comment on classic GTA main character tropes.
I find it fascinating.
Again, would it have been cool to have a female character? Yeah, absolutely. I don't think their intentions are, though, as malicious as you made them seem in your previous post.