LordofHats wrote: Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth and nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.
'Injustice: -Gods Among Us' had a similar problem IIRC. Fighting to get Wonder Woman on the box because marketing thought she would drive sales down.
There was also another game, ('Remember Me' I think) the dev spent a lot of time trying to find a studio/publisher for the game, but over and over again he got "We're very interested, but can you change the protagonist's gender?"
Look, many of the problems with how women are represented in games is not a product of creators simply expressing their (rightful) artistic freedom, it is, in fact the opposite. Devs are being told; "No, you can't do that, our audience/target demographic wont like it."
LordofHats wrote: Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth and nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.
'Injustice: -Gods Among Us' had a similar problem IIRC. Fighting to get Wonder Woman on the box because marketing thought she would drive sales down.
There was also another game, ('Remember Me' I think) the dev spent a lot of time trying to find a studio/publisher for the game, but over and over again he got "We're very interested, but can you change the protagonist's gender?"
Look, many of the problems with how women are represented in games is not a product of creators simply expressing their (rightful) artistic freedom, it is, in fact the opposite. Devs are being told; "No, you can't do that, our audience/target demographic wont like it."
I think I have made that point before.
I think more people who join the publishing scene who are into games and understand that innovation in this industry breeds more sales will understand.
Remember, things are not black/white or all-or-nothing.. No one is saying there has not been any progress. Just that it's not as much as they would like. Some legacies hold on.
AdeptSister wrote: Remember, things are not black/white or all-or-nothing.. No one is saying there has not been any progress. Just that it's not as much as they would like. Some legacies hold on.
Yes but acknowledging it should happen. And so far some have not. There are tons of games that are coming out that are like that. They do represent women in a positive light.
Pendix wrote: 'Injustice: -Gods Among Us' had a similar problem IIRC. Fighting to get Wonder Woman on the box because marketing thought she would drive sales down.
Wonder Woman? Like the third biggest DC hero?
(Or at least, that is apparently what they thought when they made DCUO)
Pendix wrote: 'Injustice: -Gods Among Us' had a similar problem IIRC. Fighting to get Wonder Woman on the box because marketing thought she would drive sales down.
Wonder Woman? Like the third biggest DC hero?
(Or at least, that is apparently what they thought when they made DCUO)
Its the publisher or the PR group that think they know what is best for the game.
For example I got cautioned not to name my book The Bastard Descendant. Because it was seen as an insult.
I do think things are going in the right direction. I think I've brought it up a couple of times before, but in Dragon Age 2, Aveline was a completely non-sexualised character with her own wishes and motivations throughout the 10 years the game lasted.
Yeah, the amount of... shall we say, guff, that 'The Last of Us' had to go through was terrible and yeah, rather shameful. However it managed to get through it all and was massively well received by pretty much everyone.
The trick I think, would be to build on that. Companies should be able to go to the publishers and say, "well, you were wrong about Last of Us. This one, with a female protagonist this time, might be the next smash hit."
Compel wrote: I do think things are going in the right direction. I think I've brought it up a couple of times before, but in Dragon Age 2, Aveline was a completely non-sexualised character with her own wishes and motivations throughout the 10 years the game lasted.
Yeah, the amount of... shall we say, guff, that 'The Last of Us' had to go through was terrible and yeah, rather shameful. However it managed to get through it all and was massively well received by pretty much everyone.
The trick I think, would be to build on that. Companies should be able to go to the publishers and say, "well, you were wrong about Last of Us. This one, with a female protagonist this time, might be the next smash hit."
Ha good luck.
The publishers sometimes only see it for the money, and they revenue they garner.
Compel wrote: I do think things are going in the right direction. I think I've brought it up a couple of times before, but in Dragon Age 2, Aveline was a completely non-sexualised character with her own wishes and motivations throughout the 10 years the game lasted.
American McGee's Alice had a completely non-sexualized main character 14 years ago. And I am pretty sure we could go further than that.
Well, you'd know better than me but... It stands to reason that, if (hah, IF) a company does only see it for the money, and The Last of Us made money and it provides an opportunity for the publishers to get the leg up on a new IP that another publisher doesn't.
Then yeah, I can see this scenario happening. Eventually. - Risk avoidance as opposed to risk management and all that, after all.
AdeptSister wrote: Remember, things are not black/white or all-or-nothing.. No one is saying there has not been any progress. Just that it's not as much as they would like. Some legacies hold on.
Yes but acknowledging it should happen. And so far some have not. There are tons of games that are coming out that are like that. They do represent women in a positive light.
WE have games dealing with sensitive subjects.
I am confused by your first sentence. Could you please expand.
Also, "tons of games" seems...excessive. There are more options, sure. But there are also a large amount that support the status quo.
Also while publishers have some blame, designer contribute to sexualization culture well. Skullgirls was made for a specific audience (hardcore fighting game enthusiasts who like some "fan service"). The designers were not trying to be inclusive, which is their right. They made the game they wanted to play. But creating things like DoA and Skullgirls are limiting their games to a smaller audience.
Asherian Command wrote: I think more people who join the publishing scene who are into games and understand that innovation in this industry breeds more sales will understand.
Honestly; I really don't think that more women in marketing/publishing will be enough. There will need to be a shift in perception and culture. As long as the target demographic is still "14 year old boys" it wouldn't matter if every member of staff, from CEO to janitor was a woman, the game would still have to bend to that idea of what the 'audience' wants. It's why we need discussions like this, and people willing to get up and let their preferences be known, and pundits calling companies out on it. We need to break the idea that Gamers are just "14-year-old-boys-&-the-shrill-manchildren-who-act-like-them". We need to let the people in the positions of power, the people who hold the purse strings know that the audicnce can be so much larger, so much broader, that there is real value in games that don't just pander to the lowest common denominator, hell, we need to break the idea of what that denominator even is.
And until we do that, change will slow and easily reversed.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Wonder Woman? Like the third biggest DC hero?
(Or at least, that is apparently what they thought when they made DCUO)
Yup. Remember if you are a fan of fight games and comic books, Marketing knows that you are also terrified of women.
AdeptSister wrote: Remember, things are not black/white or all-or-nothing.. No one is saying there has not been any progress. Just that it's not as much as they would like. Some legacies hold on.
Yes but acknowledging it should happen. And so far some have not. There are tons of games that are coming out that are like that. They do represent women in a positive light.
WE have games dealing with sensitive subjects.
I am confused by your first sentence. Could you please expand.
Also, "tons of games" seems...excessive. There are more options, sure. But there are also a large amount that support the status quo.
Also while publishers have some blame, designer contribute to sexualization culture well. Skullgirls was made for a specific audience (hardcore fighting game enthusiasts who like some "fan service"). The designers were not trying to be inclusive, which is their right. They made the game they wanted to play. But creating things like DoA and Skullgirls are limiting their games to a smaller audience.
I meant that some users have not used examples of games that can demean their message they are talking about.
Talking about the opposition and confirming its legitimacy.
Skullgirls wasn't really as sexualized. I saw it more as animeaish that happens in japan. its what japan does too garner interest.
I mean look at the television show Black Lagoon.
This Revy the main female in the series. She wears sexy things but that is just what she is. But she is absolutely terrifying,
Does it mean she is pandering to a large audience? Maybe but then you have to think.
Does it fit the setting? Yes. Yes it does.
The problem is not the people who pander to a smaller audience those games are quite rare.
But games that apply to a larger audience and do mis-justice to women are a big problem. Those that make light of the material and do not research it well. Those are bigger issues.
I think we need to add more female characters overall and make them better. But I think pandering to a smaller audience games should not be changed.
LordofHats wrote: I think Nomo is pointing out that games have a unique position in that they put the player in the role of the actor. This gives things that happen in games a different spin than what happens in TV or books. It makes a lack of tact when it comes to certain subject matter all the more egregious.
Forcing the player to kill and eat a family is a thing. I'm not going to say you can't do that. More just that you need to be responsible when you do do it.
I'm genuinely not certain what you mean by that, or how you would do it.
Ya you have to have tact and a understanding of what your doing. It's not the kind of thing you want to do flippy because you are putting the player in a very uncomfortable position. That needs to be acknowledged and to payoff for the player. Like one game that dose the "Make player do something horrible" thing well is spec ops the line. It doesn't just have a shocking moment to shock, it draws that moment out examines it and uses it offer incite to the player. It's not just there for shocks shake.
AdeptSister wrote: Yep. The alien designer was well known for his use of sexual imagery.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a very deep film.
Most horror films that are done right usually are.
The most famous horror game was silent hill 2.
Which its prevasive use of the pyramidhead.
It showed the characters sexuality.
It is about sexuality? I kind of think it's more about misogyny? James Sunderland sin isn't so much that he finds women sexually attractive, but that he doesn't care about them past how hot they are. At least that is my kind of take on it.
It is about sexuality? I kind of think it's more about misogyny? James Sunderland sin isn't so much that he finds women sexually attractive, but that he doesn't care about them past how hot they are. At least that is my kind of take on it.
Its both.
It is up to interpretation.
Now how publishers never caught on to this. I will never know.
"Relaxed" relative to what standard? I'm not sure the argument "it could have been worse" counts as an argument....
Like I said, they made the game they wanted. Which is fine. But it is sexualized.
I agree that it was aimed for a small audience and it is not supposed to be representative of a majority of games, but unfortunately certain aspects are representative of gaming in general.
AdeptSister wrote: "Relaxed" relative to what standard? I'm not sure the argument "it could have been worse" counts as an argument....
Like I said, they made the game they wanted. Which is fine. But it is sexualized.
I agree that it was aimed for a small audience and it is not supposed to be representative of a majority of games, but unfortunately certain aspects are representative of gaming in general.
I would disagree the fact is that women in the game are shown to be powerful.
Hell the majority of playable characters are women.
Also just checked it up...
They are not made by that company.
Developer(s) Reverge Labs Lab Zero Games
Publisher(s) Autumn Games Konami (2012-2013) Marvelous (2013-present) CyberFront (Japan)
What is your definition of sexualized, Ash? Because IMO, you can be both powerful and sexualized. The terms are not exclusive. There a few examples of such.
And I thought all the characters in Skullgirls were female. As that was a major point of the story.
AdeptSister wrote: What is your definition of sexualized, Ash? Because IMO, you can be both powerful and sexualized. The terms are not exclusive. There a few examples of such.
And I thought all the characters in Skullgirls were female. As that was a major point of the story.
Sexualized =
That is sexualized.
this is not
Showing over a little bit of curvyness is not bad.
The skull girls are not as bad as people make them out to be.
I mean its a comicbook world. Did you expect any less?
Skull girls is alright. It is quite tamed. I mean the entire cast is female. They all come with different skins and colors.
And they are all fighters.
Some maybe sexualized to some degree, but I can only think of four that are like that.
It is not a bad thing to show off cleavage.
Sexualization is something that happens a lot and it happens in tons of games.
It is all about representation of the character on the top had a character and was more than a googly eyed sock puppet to the player then it wouldn't matter what they wore.
Total Biscuit wrote:Perhaps one of the reasons why sites dont get taken seriously when they attempt to inject gender politics into articles about games, particularly reviews, is that their arguments are often provably false. This is a quote from the Verges article, which it claims is a "1000 hour review" of DOTA2.
"One of the artefacts of the game being designed by young males is in its presentation. Female characters tend to perform clichéd support roles while dressing in form-fitting costumes that seem to have shrunken in the wash. Most egregious for me is the case of Crystal Maiden, whose death animation involves a momentary glimpse of the character stripped down to her underwear. Maybe that’s an homage to Metroid, where a similar fate would befall Samus Aran, but it’s an unnecessary sexualization of a character that is made worse by its association with her death."
Now the facts. First lets address that female characters "tend to perform cliched support roles". Firstly this is factually wrong. Here is a list of the 17 female heroes in DOTA2 and their roles, as defined by DOTA2s own website:
This "tendency" to play cliched support roles is a total of 5 out of 17 heroes. Indeed there are far more male supports than there are female (but there are also far more male heroes in the game than female so that's to be expected). Indeed female heroes represent some of the most powerful carries in the game and are frequent top tier picks. In my personal opinion, the way that this statement is written is meant to imply that a support is somehow a weaker or lesser role than that of a carry, which is complete nonsense. Supports are vital and hold some of the most powerful abilities in the game that are crucial for getting ganks and changing the face of a team-fight. Maybe in other games the support was relegated to the role of healer and ward courier but in DOTA2, a game with very few actual healing abilities, supports have an array of powerful disables and extremely high damage nukes. Maybe I'm just reading too much into that sentence but it seems to be based on ignorance and factual inaccuracies. Now this statement.
"Most egregious for me is the case of Crystal Maiden, whose death animation involves a momentary glimpse of the character stripped down to her underwear. Maybe that’s an homage to Metroid, where a similar fate would befall Samus Aran, but it’s an unnecessary sexualization of a character that is made worse by its association with her death."
This is proveably false. It is not a deliberate implementation and is in fact an old bug, causing parts of the characters modular outfit (characters in DOTA wear items individually, which allows for visual customisation, rather than having complete "skins" like other games) to not display correctly. This Youtube video demonstrates the issue - link - you will notice her hair also disappears and she is rendered for a fraction of a second as bald. This also used to (and perhaps still?) happens with Lina every now and again. If this is the authors definition of "her underwear" then you're going to have to forgive me if I don't think that's much of an issue, since we don't live in the 1800s anymore. That's her underwear? That's three times more clothes than I'm wearing right now.
This sort of thing is why I also have problems with Anita Sarkessians videos. When she factually misrepresents games like Hitman by claiming the game is inviting you to violate the bodies of dead women, where in reality the game mechanically punishes you for doing so and the poses are simply a result of the rather dodgy havok physics engine implementation, you're gong to have to forgive me if I disagree with phrases such as "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality".
Trying to have this discussion while basing your assertions on factual inaccuracies only succeeds in muddying the waters. You weaken your own argument with such logical leaps which are based on extremely shaky ground. Perhaps we should just stick to the facts and build our arguments from there, rather than coming up with our agenda and conclusions in advance and working backwards to try and prove our point, which will invariably lead to some cognitive and confirmation bias, cherry-picking and at worst, flagrant misrepresentation.
As long as I can't play a female character in really heavy armour (Space Marine+) without boobplate, mysteriously bare belly, unnecessarily slim design etc., there won't be true equality.
Ashiraya wrote: As long as I can't play a female character in really heavy armour (Space Marine+) without boobplate, mysteriously bare belly, unnecessarily slim design etc., there won't be true equality.
Gief my armour. >:c
Only if you give me a video game where you play as a man running about in High Heels, Fish Nets and Corset, while fighting zombie nazi T-Rexes with my bear hands. That is not a typo, btw. I quite literally mean bear hands.
It shall be known as Transsexual Transylvanian Rampage : Electric Booglaloo
Heck, I said it before, I was happy with Anya in Gears of War 3. I count her advancement to front line fighter to be a great thing. And she actually looks sensible (in the context of the universe).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Tangentially related, but worth posting I think:
Total Biscuit wrote:Perhaps one of the reasons why sites dont get taken seriously when they attempt to inject gender politics into articles about games, particularly reviews, is that their arguments are often provably false. This is a quote from the Verges article, which it claims is a "1000 hour review" of DOTA2.
"One of the artefacts of the game being designed by young males is in its presentation. Female characters tend to perform clichéd support roles while dressing in form-fitting costumes that seem to have shrunken in the wash. Most egregious for me is the case of Crystal Maiden, whose death animation involves a momentary glimpse of the character stripped down to her underwear. Maybe that’s an homage to Metroid, where a similar fate would befall Samus Aran, but it’s an unnecessary sexualization of a character that is made worse by its association with her death."
Now the facts. First lets address that female characters "tend to perform cliched support roles". Firstly this is factually wrong. Here is a list of the 17 female heroes in DOTA2 and their roles, as defined by DOTA2s own website:
This "tendency" to play cliched support roles is a total of 5 out of 17 heroes. Indeed there are far more male supports than there are female (but there are also far more male heroes in the game than female so that's to be expected). Indeed female heroes represent some of the most powerful carries in the game and are frequent top tier picks. In my personal opinion, the way that this statement is written is meant to imply that a support is somehow a weaker or lesser role than that of a carry, which is complete nonsense. Supports are vital and hold some of the most powerful abilities in the game that are crucial for getting ganks and changing the face of a team-fight. Maybe in other games the support was relegated to the role of healer and ward courier but in DOTA2, a game with very few actual healing abilities, supports have an array of powerful disables and extremely high damage nukes. Maybe I'm just reading too much into that sentence but it seems to be based on ignorance and factual inaccuracies. Now this statement.
"Most egregious for me is the case of Crystal Maiden, whose death animation involves a momentary glimpse of the character stripped down to her underwear. Maybe that’s an homage to Metroid, where a similar fate would befall Samus Aran, but it’s an unnecessary sexualization of a character that is made worse by its association with her death."
This is proveably false. It is not a deliberate implementation and is in fact an old bug, causing parts of the characters modular outfit (characters in DOTA wear items individually, which allows for visual customisation, rather than having complete "skins" like other games) to not display correctly. This Youtube video demonstrates the issue - link - you will notice her hair also disappears and she is rendered for a fraction of a second as bald. This also used to (and perhaps still?) happens with Lina every now and again. If this is the authors definition of "her underwear" then you're going to have to forgive me if I don't think that's much of an issue, since we don't live in the 1800s anymore. That's her underwear? That's three times more clothes than I'm wearing right now.
This sort of thing is why I also have problems with Anita Sarkessians videos. When she factually misrepresents games like Hitman by claiming the game is inviting you to violate the bodies of dead women, where in reality the game mechanically punishes you for doing so and the poses are simply a result of the rather dodgy havok physics engine implementation, you're gong to have to forgive me if I disagree with phrases such as "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality".
Trying to have this discussion while basing your assertions on factual inaccuracies only succeeds in muddying the waters. You weaken your own argument with such logical leaps which are based on extremely shaky ground. Perhaps we should just stick to the facts and build our arguments from there, rather than coming up with our agenda and conclusions in advance and working backwards to try and prove our point, which will invariably lead to some cognitive and confirmation bias, cherry-picking and at worst, flagrant misrepresentation.
You can do better Verge.
I completely agree with that argument! I mean its kind of funny.
That people have an agenda and that is a bad thing.
It is an argument and an idea. I mean look at how many games that have come out that are considered sexist and the game reviewer thinks its sexist but hasn't played in depth as much as they should. And they just assume certain things and think it is sexist without fact checking or even worse. They don't even look at the game they are reviewing.
So we are given an example of someone promoting an agenda? Ok? So because of that example, are you implying that it applies elsewhere and other people's complaints are illegitimate? Or do we agree that there are some legitimate claims?
And are we arguing that because some specifics are incorrect, the overall trend is invalid. I agree that while it might weaken it, it definitely does not invalidate it.
Why does it seem like "Total Biscuit" as one of the better known game reviewers seems to make the most sense?
Just because the player can do something in a game does not mean it was core to design intent.
These ways of "proving" theories by looking around for anything that supports it without trying to dis-prove as well reminds me of a phrase: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
<edit> It is the full-on pointing out an issue and saying "it is bad" and not offering suggestions to improve on the matter or look at root-cause is the maddening part.
Be part of the solution! Offer suggestions on improvements to make the matter better.
Anita issues raised: It all comes down to the story/outline for a game. Have a mixed panel review the story. Take suggestions of how characters are presented. There may be certain target audiences the business is trying to get so the business decision of marketing "cat fight" can open some doors and close others (sex sells so social progressiveness may only happen with key content providers). Anita points out things in a very one sided way so can be perceived as unfair in the labeling she gives.
There is no "problem" to how a woman is represented in games if it is no more or less important if it was a man.
AdeptSister wrote: So we are given an example of someone promoting an agenda? Ok? So because of that example, are you implying that it applies elsewhere and other people's complaints are illegitimate? Or do we agree that there are some legitimate claims?
And are we arguing that because some specifics are incorrect, the overall trend is invalid. I agree that while it might weaken it, it definitely does not invalidate it.
It is not against all those arguments but it is put up to suspecting that sometimes the reviewer does have an agenda and does not see anything past the game other than what they defined as too sexy or sexualized.
They go in with a particular agenda feeling that if this game does something like 'sexualizing' its characters then that is a bad thing and is a no no.
Which is quite ridiculous. Because if you go into the game with an image and think to yourself that this is only what you are going to see. That is all you are going to see and the review will falter because you have an image in your head.
These ways of "proving" theories by looking around for anything that supports it without trying to dis-prove as well reminds me of a phrase: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
Not all the time. Sometimes there are times when there are some reviewers that just see everything as either sexist and do not see a deeper meaning sometimes they are so fething blind to see it that they can't just play the game.
A designer plays the game and deconstructs it.
A reviewer should do the same thing.
TotalBiscuit does quite a bit of deconstruction and his reviews I see as a standard of how to critic a game.
Ash, you do know that picture wasn't the main Skullgirls cast, right? With the original 8 playable characters? And then the added characters. Because I am not sure you are helping your argument using an incorrect picture.
Melissia wrote: So if all you have is hatred for feminism, everything starts to look like a "feminazi", whatever that is?
I hate to say I agree with you... it can be apparent with some.
You defend many of your viewpoints aggressively and in most cases can be commended.
I dislike strongly bullies so I am a "bullnazi"?
I figure as long as I do not gas anyone I can do without the title.
It is when a certain degree of fanaticism is applied to fighting things out when your "red button" has been pushed that still being able to see the other side of things is all the more important.
Sometimes things are planned out carefully, sometimes people do things on a whim.
Life lesson as a parent is: there are frequently bad decisions but few bad people.
If I insist on viewing people as a person rather than a guy or girl, am I guilty of not acknowledging the components of each person whose sum of their parts makes them unique?
It is like the Skyrim character creator: It was INSANE how many different options there were to change the look of the character and it really was just the tip of the iceberg.
Slapping a single word label on someone seems inadequate and a poor representation at best.
The problem is we all have "preferences" just like we all have opinions or a backside.
I like women to be smart, mean well and not to be a stick figure (if they make puns I may be in love...): that is not everyone's preference but I hope to see that each time in a game.
"Overly sexualize?" Once again I think the disconnect between us is what level of sexualization is acceptable. And that it happens mostly to female characters.
So, when does it get to the level of distracting you from the characters role? I know Lordofhats is frustrated with combat high heels.
High Heels no (I think I specifically said they didn't bother me that much). What irks me in female character design are the very creative and often ridiculous ways designers find to expose boobs as much as possible while not being full out porn.
Personally I find 'overly sexualized' a complete misnomer. Sexualized is a you are or you aren't situation. There is no over, except when it's taken to the point it becomes over the top and crosses into the land of satire (basically the entire point behind the outfits of the girls in Kill la Kill and Queen's Blade). Sexualizing female characters would be less of a problem if it wasn't so prolific. You rarely see a female character whose assets aren't somehow emphasized.
Not a sexualized female character, but you can still tell she's female as all the visual ques are there for us.
Even her true form manages to carry a bit of refinement to it even though it's quite fetching;
Midna was a character who was very feminine but who came off as refined and endearing for her character rather than her body. By the time we finally see Midna as a sexually appealing woman, that's kind of a footnote on her character, as we've already grown quite attached to her sheer awesomitude.
Then we have this;
You know Shang Xiang, you looked pretty cool in Dynasty Warriors 4, but I geuss you weren't showing enough skin so they had to make you look stupid. The above outfit is silly. It looks stupid and it's patently obvious why she's dressed this way. Another good example is Sophita over the course of the Soul Calibur series. Started off pretty decently, then just spiraled into the realm of the increasingly ludicrous outfits.
AdeptSister wrote: Ash, you do know that picture wasn't the main Skullgirls cast, right? With the original 8 playable characters? And then the added characters. Because I am not sure you are helping your argument using an incorrect picture.
. I remember the good old days! Compare those two Isabella Valentine, and tell me which one looks better. Really. Good old days Ivy was sexy, but also incredibly class. New Ivy is an horribly deformed women that must have fallen into a chemical plant or something.
Melissia wrote: So if all you have is hatred for feminism, everything starts to look like a "feminazi", whatever that is?
Do not use that terrible word. I know you used quotation marks, and you do not agree with it, but this is still a terrible word, do not use it .
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Your hard pressed to find any game that overly sexualize women, short of niche games.
What is a “niche game”? Are all games representing women “niche games” ? Smite. Or, I guess, LoL. Are those “niche”?
Now exclude all fighting games that sexualize men aswell, give me numbers, how much percentage of the market do these games have, sales numbers anything?
AdeptSister wrote: Ash, you do know that picture wasn't the main Skullgirls cast, right? With the original 8 playable characters? And then the added characters. Because I am not sure you are helping your argument using an incorrect picture.
Yep
So you did not want an actual discussion? OK, good to know.
Lordofhats, my mistake. And good summary.
Bishop, there has been a multiple responses on this thread explaining the difference between a male power fantasy and sexualization. While sexualization of male characters occurs, it is rare. Can you provide an example of one?
AdeptSister wrote: Ash, you do know that picture wasn't the main Skullgirls cast, right? With the original 8 playable characters? And then the added characters. Because I am not sure you are helping your argument using an incorrect picture.
Yep
So you did not want an actual discussion? OK, good to know.
Lordofhats, my mistake. And good summary.
Bishop, there has been a multiple responses on this thread explaining the difference between a male power fantasy and sexualization. While sexualization of male characters occurs, it is rare. Can you provide an example of one?
No I just can't find the right picture as of current.
And I think they aren't that sexualized.
Nor do I think they were meant to be.
There is no terrible message.
And I really won't give a what a person wears in real life.
Sometimes styles happen and people dress like 'sluts'
So what.
Shouldn't the same happen in games. They don't care what the character wears they just make a character.
A strong character.
You can have weak people, and pathetic people, because those do exist, but if there is one woman in a game who is weakwilled, then oh well. That is realistic.
Games are not meant to be all immersive they are not supposed to replace your real life, but they can address many things and remind us and teach us.
You are going to have weak willed people who can't do anything and are desperate for attention.
We will get that weak willed character in a game that undoubtedly causes you to have a downfall. That happens in games and those are good.
If a character no matter what clothing they have adds to the story. then who the hell cares what they are dressed like.
Example: Kill La Kill, Where the female protoganist is in a skimpy outfit but after each battle she leaves her loser naked after she cut off their clothing. fan service? Yes. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
No not really. It is only a problem if they focus on it. If you just simply have it there, and don't talk about it. I won't ask any questions, but if you do drag your attention to it. (I.E. high school of the dead) Then there better be a good freaking reason why they are dressed like skimpy morons.
Could you even propose ONE example of such a game? If there is ONE sexualized male character in a fighting game, that is already a damn rare exception. A game that would sexualized most of them? Unheard of.
Could you even propose ONE example of such a game? If there is ONE sexualized male character in a fighting game, that is already a damn rare exception. A game that would sexualized most of them? Unheard of.
so if the discussion is just about those "90% of fighting games" Why is the discussion about "games" implying all games, not just fighting games.
as there is 0% serialization in all other genres, which is at a minimum of 10 different categories, we are left with 9% of games with sexual characters.
So there is, in reality, only a minor problem with how women are represented in games, but no where near a significant amount when you include all other sub categories.
You are the only one here who ever said so. I mentioned a bunch of MOBA. I could mention more.
not applicable to all females though :/
Some women are attracted to those characters because of that.
She may not be attracted to it, but it is a theory.
The Female Gaze is a Gaze trope about the way a work is presented as from a female perspective or reflects female attitudes, either because of the creator's gender or because it is deliberately aimed at a female audience. While it can contribute to it, Female Gaze is not restricted to looking at sexy men but is more importantly about the expectations of how the (presumptive) audience relates to the work. Female Gaze is (almost) a Distaff Counterpart to Male Gaze, the trope page for which is currently full of "ogling women" examples but extends beyond that into the stuff that's currently on Most Writers Are Male. We write "almost" because of the fact that Male Gaze is pervasive and the default for works aimed at mixed-gender audiences, whereas Female Gaze is mainly found in works that are either assumed to be exclusively for women, like soap operas, chick flicks, shoujo manga, or more idiosyncratic and personal works by female creators. Besides, it's only fair that if straight men and lesbians receive Fanservice, straight women and gay men should be able to get some of their own. May overlap with Homosexual Male Gaze. Compare Eating the Eye Candy and Longing Look.
You are the only one here who ever said so. I mentioned a bunch of MOBA. I could mention more.
And that's a sub catagory of 'real time strategy games' Which still doesn't equate to any significant amount. By adding in the sub categories the number of games for comparison, then there is No Serialization in video games. Which is good because there is no problem with how women are being represented in games.
Melissia wrote: Did you have any point whatsoever in posting that image?
Pointing out the flaw in that comic's argument. It shows only one possible portrayal. It does not explain the success of the above, who do not appear to be built for dexterity, nor do they appear to have large expressive eyes.
Melissia wrote: Did you have any point whatsoever in posting that image?
Pointing out the flaw in that comic's argument.
It only one possible portrayal. It does not explain the success of the above, who do not appear to be built for dexterity, nor do they appear to have large expressive eyes.
Correct.
Girls on tumblr endlessly reblog a man with short hair and big abs.
A massively ignorant statement-- as if I saw a few men drooling over a bald tattooed musclebound biker girl with burn scars on half of her body from a nasty wipe-out and stated all men find bald, tattooed, musclebound biker girls with burn scars to be attractive. This is what you have done, and this is wrong and intellectually dishonest. While some men no doubt would find that extremely alluring, a lot of other men would be put off by it. Just as some women might find slabs of meat in the general shape of a man attractive, quite a few others do not.
Furthermore, I could actually ask men what they find attractive to find out, instead of observing a tiny sample size and then trying to make some sexist extrapolation about all men, such as like you're doing about women.
Asherian Command wrote: Hybrid makes those statements and forgets how easily refutable it is.
If it was easily refutable, he would have refuted it instead of posting some irrelevant garbage.
The Female Gaze is a Gaze trope about the way a work is presented as from a female perspective or reflects female attitudes, either because of the creator's gender or because it is deliberately aimed at a female audience.
A massively ignorant statement-- as if I saw a few men drooling over a bald tattooed musclebound biker girl with burn scars on half of her body from a nasty wipe-out and stated all men find bald, tattooed, musclebound biker girls with burn scars to be attractive. This is what you have done, and this is wrong and intellectually dishonest. While some men no doubt would find that extremely alluring, a lot of other men would be put off by it. Just as some women might find slabs of meat in the general shape of a man attractive, quite a few others do not.
Furthermore, I could actually ask men what they find attractive to find out, instead of observing a tiny sample size and then trying to make some sexist extrapolation about all men, such as like you're doing about women.
Asherian Command wrote: Hybrid makes those statements and forgets how easily refutable it is.
If it was easily refutable, he would have refuted it instead of posting some irrelevant garbage.
I think it happens in both genders.
ITs not very sexist in anyway.
It is an observation.
Both genders are attracted to things that the other is not. Unless in certain cases they do identify as male or female or possess other likes and dislikes. It is a theory not fact.
I am not saying it is truth to beheld,
But it is an idea.
Saying one is oversexualized over another is not true. But oversexualization can occur, if it shows off more assets than the other gender does.
You have yet to prove this assertion or contradict the vast amount of evidence presented to the contrary. Simply repeating yourself doesn't make it true, just like your repeated assertions that you're for equality are still also false given that you demonstrably oppose it.
I was under the impression that Hybrid was claiming that the Female Gaze would apply to characters like in that comic. However, the Chippendales are a very popular strip-tease group that caters to women, which proves that argument to be a tad incorrect.
Good luck everyone. I hope you all find whatever unlikely solution that will seem to make everyone happy, or, I guess, rather, the least overall pissed.
I'm still less certain of what it was now than I was before, but I'm now pretty certain I can't help.
sirlynchmob wrote: By adding in the sub categories the number of games for comparison, then there is No Serialization in video games.
So, you are expecting me to list for your own pleasure all the games that sexualize female character and will pretend that all games that were not listed are non-sexualized. You can go play with yourself, you know .
CthuluIsSpy wrote: [It does not explain the success of the above, who do not appear to be built for dexterity, nor do they appear to have large expressive eyes.
You might notice that “Built for dexterity” still means “More muscled than 90% of the French population”, at least.
Actually, I would post a picture of my brother's torso as an example of an extremely sexy build, but
a) I do not have one, and
b) I will not post picture of my brother on the internet .
sirlynchmob wrote: By adding in the sub categories the number of games for comparison, then there is No Serialization in video games.
So, you are expecting me to list for your own pleasure all the games that sexualize female character and will pretend that all games that were not listed are non-sexualized. You can go play with yourself, you know .
CthuluIsSpy wrote: [It does not explain the success of the above, who do not appear to be built for dexterity, nor do they appear to have large expressive eyes.
You might notice that “Built for dexterity” still means “More muscled than 90% of the French population”, at least.
Actually, I would post a picture of my brother's torso as an example of an extremely sexy build, but
a) I do not have one, and
b) I will not post picture of my brother on the internet .
The George Clooney link is broken. You may want to fix that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: The fact I am not into men does not mean I will not notice it when they are attractive. I am not feeling attracted though, I am feeling jealous .
I think his concern was more about him being your brother.
Works for me. Might be some anti-embedding measures. Anyway, just google “male underwear advertisement” and you will get sexy men. Compare that to bodybuilders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: To be fair, it got "weird" the moment we had straight men posting images of what they thought straight women were attracted to
The Chippendales perform in a ten-million dollar theater and lounge built specifically for them at the Rio All Suite Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. Annually, the official men of Chippendales are seen by almost two million people worldwide, performing in more than 25 cities in the U.S., 23 cities in Central and South America, 60 European cities, four Asian countries, and eight South African cities.[3]
Seems they are quite popular. If they were not attractive, would they have this much success? Isn't one of the selling points of a stripper, be it man or woman, is to be attractive?
Also, you are incorrect. Weird was when I pitched the idea for Transsexual Transylvanian Rampage : Electric Boogaloo. I will pile drive a prehistoric giant lizard in corset and heels one day.
CthuluIsSpy, your whole idea is that the Chippendales are not looking at all like in the comic. First, big scoop, a comic drawing is not realistic, and will put more emphasis on certain body part than it would be physically possible. The Chippendale do not have big eyes because, well, they are actual men and not drawing. Second, they are way less muscled than bodybuilders like Schwarzenegger. There is just no possible comparison.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: CthuluIsSpy, your whole idea is that the Chippendales are not looking at all like in the comic. First, big scoop, a comic drawing is not realistic, and will put more emphasis on certain body part than it would be physically possible. The Chippendale do not have big eyes because, well, they are actual men and not drawing. Second, they are way less muscled than bodybuilders like Schwarzenegger. There is just no possible comparison.
They are still more muscular than that sexiest man google link you posted, and than in that drawing.
And that most pictures of men underwear's adverts. Because they are on the muscled side of sexy, I guess. Next to the limit. But really, “sexiest men” is about as straightforward a research term as you can get, so I am not sure what you need to convince you. Even an actual woman telling you about it seems not enough either .
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If they were not attractive, would they have this much success?
Success in a capitalist market has more to do with marketing than it does with quality products. This is why sales workers are almost invariably paid more than line workers.
Even ignoring that, however, they're seen by "two million people worldwide" annually, in 120 major cities across the world. Assuming no repeat customers (a false assumption if there ever was one), it would take roughly 1800 years for all women currently alive on the planet to see one of those strippers. That's like taking a room of ten thousand people and asking five of them what they're attracted to and assuming all the rest of them are also attracted to it, without making an attempt to gather any more data.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And that most pictures of men underwear's adverts. Because they are on the muscled side of sexy, I guess. Next to the limit. But really, “sexiest men” is about as straightforward a research term as you can get, so I am not sure what you need to convince you. Even an actual woman telling you about it seems not enough either .
How do you explain their success, if they are not attractive?
Gah, ninja'd by Mel.
Yes, marketing is a factor. Another factor is that their customers enjoy their services. Marketing can only do so much, but if the quality is crap then no amount of hype could save the product (see : Daikatana). As they have been working for quite a while, it seems their quality is not sup-par.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Marketing can only do so much, but if the quality is crap then no amount of hype could save the product.
World of Warcraft says otherwise.
But I suppose I shouldn't devolve this discussion in to more blizzard-bashing.
To you maybe, clearly to thousands of gamers the quality is satisfactory. Different tastes, I suppose.
Now compare WoW to Daikatana, a game that had heavy marketing (Hey kids, remember that time when "John Romero was gonna make you his bitch"?), and was so horribly executed it completely failed commercially.
Regarding "different tastes": That was kind of my point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Now compare WoW to Daikatana, a game that had heavy marketing (Hey kids, remember that time when "John Romero was gonna make you his bitch"?), and was so horribly executed it completely failed commercially.
Compare that to the countless examples of drugs and cars/car parts that were marketed heavily, and sold heavily, but were poorly executed and actually got people killed or maimed, but were still so profitable that the company made millions or even billions even after the lawsuits were settled and the recalls were finished.
Except you can see if a piece of entertainment isn't going to be great. You don't really know if a piece of machinery or a drug is going to have side effects. At least not until the feedback comes in.
Did the products continue their commercial success after the accidents started, or did it stop?
That Chippendales image is an excellent case study is how to present a man as a sexual object (ie sexaulised). Take a close look at them. Each man is exceedingly well groomed, chest is shaved smooth & slightly oiled. They are well, but not overly muscled. Their hair is styled, and I suspect there is a certain amount of subtle makeup involved. They are all young men, less than 30 I believe (or at least look it) & present themselves a relaxed and friendly, posed as to suggest they are there for a good time (though that could be just for the photo, don't know how well that carries over).
Their outfits are really where it comes in though. Remember sexualisation is not a simple equation of more skin = more sexy (for men or women).Tight formal pants (for package prominence), little bow ties and cuffs - sans the rest of the rest of the upper cloths. It's both a nod to formal attire, and the wealth and civility associated with it, and more than a bit silly, in a manner that adds to the approachability & non-threatening-ness of their presentation. Despite showing a similar amount of skin to a typical Conan-style barbarian, they are a totally different presentation. The barbarian is anarchetypal male power fantasy, where as these guys are a different kind of fantasy, for a different kind of audience.
These guy's image is totally constructed for the 'female gaze'. Most of the computer game characters I see people claiming are 'sexaulised' male characters are nothing like these guys.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Except you can see if a piece of entertainment isn't going to be great. You don't really know if a piece of machinery or a drug is going to have side effects. At least not until the feedback comes in.
Did the products continue their commercial success after the accidents started, or did it stop?
For the drugs, yes. not sure about the cars. But I know it's a real problem within "Big Pharma".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pendix wrote: Most of the computer game characters I see people claiming are 'sexaulised' male characters are nothing like these guys.
Ashiraya wrote: As long as I can't play a female character in really heavy armour (Space Marine+) without boobplate, mysteriously bare belly, unnecessarily slim design etc., there won't be true equality.
Gief my armour. >:c
Only if you give me a video game where you play as a man running about in High Heels, Fish Nets and Corset, while fighting zombie nazi T-Rexes with my bear hands.
That is not a typo, btw. I quite literally mean bear hands.
It shall be known as Transsexual Transylvanian Rampage : Electric Booglaloo
Ashiraya wrote: As long as I can't play a female character in really heavy armour (Space Marine+) without boobplate, mysteriously bare belly, unnecessarily slim design etc., there won't be true equality.
Gief my armour. >:c
Only if you give me a video game where you play as a man running about in High Heels, Fish Nets and Corset, while fighting zombie nazi T-Rexes with my bear hands.
That is not a typo, btw. I quite literally mean bear hands.
It shall be known as Transsexual Transylvanian Rampage : Electric Booglaloo
It has been mentioned a few times, but I wonder what are people's opinion on Bayonetta? Personally, it is one of my favorite games and done in such an over-the-top manner that is extremely enjoyable. And I enjoyed her characterization.
I never played Bayonetta past the demo I'm afraid. I kind of fell in the trap of thinking that a game with a sexy woman on the cover is bad and is using sex and nudity to cove up it's flaws. (I'm also not into flashy fighters.)
I highly recommend it. The combat system is satisfying for both button mashers and skill-based play. I am actually thinking of getting the Wii U because of it's sequel.
The game has more Devil May Cry in its soul than the last game to actually be named Devil May Cry, so it's pretty much pure win Actually no, we need a crossover. True Dante and Bayonetta in the same game Shall be epic.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Marketing can only do so much, but if the quality is crap then no amount of hype could save the product.
World of Warcraft says otherwise.
But I suppose I shouldn't devolve this discussion in to more blizzard-bashing.
Aye thats a bit subjective that one Mel, I used to play WoW and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Back in the day, it was genuinely entertaining, especially after playing only solo offline stuff all through my teens. I loved Fallout, and the Eldar Scrolls, and Neverwinter Nights and everything.. arguably they are better executed games, but after getting introduced in 2005 by a mate who was as addicted to Morrowind as I was, I fething loved it.
The balance was piss poor, (my very first cat druid did less damage than standing still in caster form and twatting them with a staff!) and plenty of other things sucked, but it WAS addicitive, and pretty, it sounded ace, it was immersive, and.. well, lets just say I have many fond memories.
I started playing less and less over the years, and fethed it off entirely when Pandaria hit, but I loved those early years and cannot allow such blase criticism to stand unchallenged!
Haven't played Bayonetta yet. I want to, but money.
Also I don't really keep track of console stuff anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: I started playing less and less over the years, and fethed it off entirely when Pandaria hit, but I loved those early years and cannot allow such blase criticism to stand unchallenged!
I started playing shortly before the first expansion, and stopped playing almost immediately before it was announced.
My experience was "oh, it's just another generic fantasy MMO, but with a more boring story and less interesting character designs".
Then I went back to playing City of Heroes/Villains.
Then I went back to playing City of Heroes/Villains.
My mate used to love that, I tried it but it flat out refused to work. The same thing happened when I had a crack at Warhammer Online.
gak was weird back in the day, I think WoW had the smartest graphic designers, because loads of stuff ran badly on my old PC, but it always worked seamlessly.
AdeptSister wrote: I highly recommend it. The combat system is satisfying for both button mashers and skill-based play. I am actually thinking of getting the Wii U because of it's sequel.
It is not easy, you have to time your combo's precisely, Bayonetta is overly sexually expressive, she uses her sexuality as a weapon and males are pets to her, it is eye candy for male and maybe empowerment to females (maybe i am a male and this is just my assumption on why women may like Bayonetta - Disclaimer).
I liked it until i grew tired of the button mashing it is even more than in the latest DMC
AdeptSister wrote: I highly recommend it. The combat system is satisfying for both button mashers and skill-based play. I am actually thinking of getting the Wii U because of it's sequel.
It is not easy, you have to time your combo's precisely, Bayonetta is overly sexually expressive, she uses her sexuality as a weapon and males are pets to her, it is eye candy for male and maybe empowerment to females (maybe i am a male and this is just my assumption on why women may like Bayonetta - Disclaimer).
I liked it until i grew tired of the button mashing it is even more than in the latest DMC
I would not say males are pets to her. The journalist and fat guy are comic relief (and completely out of their element). And she has a equal relationship with the demon bartender. Unless you are talking about the angels (which she treats equal regardless of sex.)
She is definitely empowered, feminine, sexy, and competent. She is characterized as being in charge of sexuality and having flirty and confident personality. At least that is why I like her.
It's also nice to have a game heroine who doesn't have a ridiculous cupsize.
AdeptSister wrote: I would not say males are pets to her. The journalist and fat guy are comic relief (and completely out of their element). And she has a equal relationship with the demon bartender. Unless you are talking about the angels (which she treats equal regardless of sex.)
She is definitely empowered, feminine, sexy, and competent. She is characterized as being in charge of sexuality and having flirty and confident personality. At least that is why I like her.
It's also nice to have a game heroine who doesn't have a ridiculous cupsize.
There is a lot neat about the character. Now, my pondering is I wonder how many people got to see that. I can think of a few examples where people looked at the style of the character, and kind of said "Yep we have here another masturbation fantasy." Then they just left it at that and didn't look any deeper. (Maybe not helped by the game having a one handed play mode.) Was that unfair of them? Likely. Was it understandable given game history and how the character was presented? Maybe.
AdeptSister wrote: I would not say males are pets to her. The journalist and fat guy are comic relief (and completely out of their element). And she has a equal relationship with the demon bartender. Unless you are talking about the angels (which she treats equal regardless of sex.)
She is definitely empowered, feminine, sexy, and competent. She is characterized as being in charge of sexuality and having flirty and confident personality. At least that is why I like her.
It's also nice to have a game heroine who doesn't have a ridiculous cupsize.
Not completely agree with that, she toys with them, i kind get a dominatrix vibe from her, i mean she uses her sexuality to exemplify their weakness, teasing the guys with something they will never get.
She treats demon bartender differently because he is a demon and doesn't see her sexually.
I guess the idea I was evolving towards is that, well, its pretty easy to see when a male character (regardless of medium) is designed to appeal to women (or at least a subset of them). That intent is visible, in the same way as the intent of designing a character to be a male-power-fantasy is visible. Sure, there can be some overlap; a MPF can include 'sexaulised for women', or occasionally be presented in a way that is sexualised (see that one scene from Thor, that I never noticed, but every woman I know did), but it's not automatic. The 2 are distinctly different things, and we can tell, we can pick it apart (just as Amber does in that Shortpacked strip), so just saying 'all these dudes are sexualised too' is a cheep, flawed, and easily dismissed argument.
mattyrm wrote: Aye thats a bit subjective that one Mel, I used to play WoW and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Back in the day, it was genuinely entertaining, especially after playing only solo offline stuff all through my teens. I loved Fallout, and the Eldar Scrolls, and Neverwinter Nights and everything.. arguably they are better executed games, but after getting introduced in 2005 by a mate who was as addicted to Morrowind as I was, I fething loved it.
The balance was piss poor, (my very first cat druid did less damage than standing still in caster form and twatting them with a staff!) and plenty of other things sucked, but it WAS addicitive, and pretty, it sounded ace, it was immersive, and.. well, lets just say I have many fond memories.
I started playing less and less over the years, and fethed it off entirely when Pandaria hit, but I loved those early years and cannot allow such blase criticism to stand unchallenged!
See, I'm also (sort-of) a wow fan, but in an almost inverted way. It's my second favorite MMO (It would be third if EVE's community wasn't . . . well, yeah), but I hated Vanilla, and thought that Cataclysm was the 'best'. There was a sharp drop off in Pandaria though.
Melissia wrote: Then I went back to playing City of Heroes/Villains.
I mentioned WoW was only my second favorite right?
This is just a WIP pic drawn with MS paint, it has no arms or legs yet and proportions still need looking at, but it should illustrate what I mean with 'armour'.
This is just a WIP pic drawn with MS paint, it has no arms or legs yet and proportions still need looking at, but it should illustrate what I mean with 'armour'.
Spoiler:
When the game industry is in ashes, you will have permission to wear armor
/bane
Seriously though, as grim as it sounds, another industry crash might be a good thing. That should give smaller companies a chance to fill in the void, and introduce new ideas and mechanics.
AdeptSister wrote: I would not say males are pets to her. The journalist and fat guy are comic relief (and completely out of their element). And she has a equal relationship with the demon bartender. Unless you are talking about the angels (which she treats equal regardless of sex.)
She is definitely empowered, feminine, sexy, and competent. She is characterized as being in charge of sexuality and having flirty and confident personality. At least that is why I like her.
It's also nice to have a game heroine who doesn't have a ridiculous cupsize.
Not completely agree with that, she toys with them, i kind get a dominatrix vibe from her, i mean she uses her sexuality to exemplify their weakness, teasing the guys with something they will never get.
She treats demon bartender differently because he is a demon and doesn't see her sexually.
See I think of its still a stretch to say that she sees them as pets (which implies a lot. ) She does see those two as lesser beings (like Muggles) and treats them as such, which IMO goes with her British characterization. She will protect them, but just doesn't take them
seriously. They are not at her level.
The bartender she treats as an equal; and he treats her as one as well. There is definitely sexual tension between them, but it is balanced with respect and friendship.
Imo, I think she is a good example of sexualization without derement to the charicter. She is still a strong character, she is just also sexy. Some people don't seem to get that you can be both. Just look as Samus (although, apparently not so much in the most recent game, didn't play it)l
Samus might be attractive, but I don't think her being attractive is a core part of her character given that outside of the one or metroid games with her in her Zero Suit and the Smash Brothers game, she's pretty much a person in a fantastic suit of power armor doing badass things. And even in her zero suit, her being attractive is just there, it's not really built in to her character in anywhere near the same way-- and she certainly doesn't act sexual.
Which I'm fine with, in fact, I usually prefer it that way, given the history of male writers writing female characters whom are sexual.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Imo, I think she is a good example of sexualization without derement to the charicter. She is still a strong character, she is just also sexy. Some people don't seem to get that you can be both. Just look as Samus (although, apparently not so much in the most recent game, didn't play it)l
The issue is that I rarely see both working together. Often a character's sex appeal is sacrificed to up their awesomeness, or their awesomeness sacrificed to up their sex appeal. Seeing a character that manages to blend both is quite rare. Bayonetta as previously mentioned is a character who blends both and comes out a complete bad ass for it. EDIT: I'd agree with Mel that Samus generally doesn't come off to me as sexy. I mean yes, she's hot under that armor, but when I think of Samus I don't think of a hot buxom blonde. I think of a suit of armor that's about to wreck gak.
It's a very difficult mix to hit, and I think not just because of issues our culture with women but issues our culture has with sex. I think those two things can be considered separate but overlapping conflicts in our cultural mindset. Sex is taboo, and that makes it edgy, but edgy things also tend to lose their flavor when used too much. There are times where creators are clearly nervous portraying sexuality in any way, leading to creators who blow sexuality up to exploit its tabooness, but they tend to realize this is a gamble, meaning they tend to blow that edge on side/supporting cast where the 'sexiness' of the character ends up dominating the character.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Imo, I think she is a good example of sexualization without derement to the charicter. She is still a strong character, she is just also sexy. Some people don't seem to get that you can be both. Just look as Samus (although, apparently not so much in the most recent game, didn't play it)l
The issue is that I rarely see both working together. Often a character's sex appeal is sacrificed to up their awesomeness, or their awesomeness sacrificed to up their sex appeal. Seeing a character that manages to blend both is quite rare. Bayonetta as previously mentioned is a character who blends both and comes out a complete bad ass for it.
It's a very difficult mix to hit, and I think not just because of issues our culture with women but issues our culture has with sex. I think those two things can be considered separate but overlapping conflicts in our cultural mindset. Sex is taboo, and that makes it edgy, but edgy things also tend to lose their flavor when used too much. There are times where creators are clearly nervous portraying sexuality in any way, leading to creators who blow sexuality up to exploit its tabooness, but they tend to realize this is a gamble, meaning they tend to blow that edge on side/supporting cast where the 'sexiness' of the character ends up dominating the character.
Really, I think you hit the main problem, sex is taboo. If we spend all this time worrying about "Oh no, sex!" we will never move forward.
Well, the other issue is as Melissa mentioned gaming's history is full of examples of them completely missing the mark on the issue.
I can definitely see the argument of avoiding it if people continue to do it poorly. Sex can have its place in games but often like violence, it is used poorly. And can also sometimes just feel tacked on.
AdeptSister wrote: Well, the other issue is as Melissa mentioned gaming's history is full of examples of them completely missing the mark on the issue.
I can definitely see the argument of avoiding it if people continue to do it poorly. Sex can have its place in games but often like violence, it is used poorly. And can also sometimes just feel tacked on.
There are some games that do hit the mark though.
but there are plently examples of it being poorly done in other games.
I remember there have been a few games dealing with female abuse and how bad it is, but it was just an offshoot of the game and never really delved into it.
Watch Dogs delved into sex trafficking but it was only a side mission.
Another major issue is the way they represent it sometimes.
IT is very rare that a game design team actually goes in with a good idea of how to execute that scene. Though there are some teams that I confidently say they do.
Agreed. It is frustrating when they use women abuse as cheap heat to show "this bad guy is bad" or "this is a serious, gritty world." It just feels ...lazy.
AdeptSister wrote: Agreed. It is frustrating when they use women abuse as cheap heat to show "this bad guy is bad" or "this is a serious, gritty world." It just feels ...lazy.
The trend of primarily using women for this also shows that most writers don't value the women characters as actual characters, but rather, as victims to be killed off in order to move the plot-- and usually without consciously thinking about the message this sends.
I can definitely see the argument of avoiding it if people continue to do it poorly. Sex can have its place in games but often like violence, it is used poorly. And can also sometimes just feel tacked on.
This is very much the case. Enter: Bioware. To Bioware's writers, sex is a reward for the player and the pinnacle of a relationship. Very appealing to teenagers. Downright embarassing to any literate adult.
Seriously though, as grim as it sounds, another industry crash might be a good thing. That should give smaller companies a chance to fill in the void, and introduce new ideas and mechanics.
No offense, but...I am not sure if you're sure what you're talking about...Yes, it's dominated by a few large studios, but that applies to each and any form of entertainment. Those studios solely produce for profit and know how to maximize it by catering to the largest and most profitable groups. But at the same time, computer and video gaming has never been in a better state especially for indie developers. Kickstarter. Steam Greenlight. Countless indie contests. There's more. This is a golden time for any developer. How did Mojang start out? Where did he end up? DayZ and its wide-spread popularity? The entire sandbox survival genre has been born by indie developers.
Hoping for a "crash" is, with all due respect, short-sighted and lacks all common sense. This is the golden age of computer and video gaming. Right now.
The proportions look a bit off, among other things, but Cassie Cage at least has neither cleavage, bikini, high heels or anything! I am looking forward to MKX even more now.
Hoping for a "crash" is, with all due respect, short-sighted and lacks all common sense. This is the golden age of computer and video gaming. Right now.
I wouldn't say it's the golden age. If it were the golden age you wouldn't have stuff like the Xbox One, AAA games with little content, Day 1 DLC and bloated games that take much more HD space than they actually need. Though yes, you do have a point about the indie scene - that is doing quite well.
This is very much the case. Enter: Bioware. To Bioware's writers, sex is a reward for the player and the pinnacle of a relationship. Very appealing to teenagers. Downright embarassing to any literate adult.
Funnily enough the few games that have relationships, Shadow of the Colossus, the goal of that relationship is trying to resurrect the other.
I remember antia saying the girl that was already dead was a damsel. And yet completely forgeting the context of the entire scene. (Sorry that bugs me completely, she's dead, she's not a damsel in distress, we had no idea she was a damsel, we had no idea it would work. Plus according to those circumstances, the boy was a damsel in distress because he was in distress and he didn't know what to do. In the end the character doesn't even get to see her come back to life, )
Another one is Hotline Miami. A suttle idea is that the main character and a woman slowly start to become closer, as his places starts to get cleaned, and the beds start to move closer.
Mass effect had a lot of problems, that with sex being the reward. I thought the goal of every relationship was just to be able to be around each other.
A simple hand holding means a lot in real life and in games.
Instead of delving into sex they just need regular types of relationships, not all relationships should be based around sex.
Though I do see in games like jade empire, star wars knights of the old republic (Biowares first one), where it was just kissing and hugging. I see that as more mature than mass effect's..... More interesting scene.
But considering todays culture. Sex is sometimes seen as the reward for doing things.
The proportions look a bit off, among other things, but Cassie Cage at least has neither cleavage, bikini, high heels or anything! I am looking forward to MKX even more now.
Yeah, it seems nice. But the end animation makes little sense. She get her gun out of her holster, do not fire, and still there is smoke coming out of the gun to blow at…
Asherian Command wrote: Another one is Hotline Miami. A suttle idea is that the main character and a woman slowly start to become closer, as his places starts to get cleaned, and the beds start to move closer.
Hotline Miam is a good example of both Damsel in distress and then Woman in Refrigerator.
Hotline Miam is a good example of both Damsel in distress and then Woman in Refrigerator.
Yes but then we have actual value to the characters.
The main character doesn't kill her, someone else does.
The entire characters motivation is to avenge her.
I don't like saying those cliches are bad. They are just cliches and can be used whenever because its a writers ability to use cliches in order to tell a story.
Antia forgets that men and women can be used for both those cliches.
Just labelling it only for women is kind of not seeing the whole picture.
Because in many games you have to rescue a group of soldiers, or a son is killed, or your father is killed, or your brother is killed etc etc. etc.
Hotline Miami is a great example of a relationship down right. She is important to the player.
I wonder what antia would think of edgar allan poe's interpretation of women.
The main character doesn't kill her, someone else does.
The entire characters motivation is to avenge her.
Woman in refrigerator. Like that is basically the definition.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Because in games like that we see what it does to the character.
What character are you talking about?
Both of the characters.
In the end the main character lets go.
Saying it is bad to have those relationships is stupid and childish.
Those things do happen. People get killed and that is not sexist.
It would be sexist if she was killed in a way only to suite the plot, but both he and her were both shot. He just happened to be the only one to survive.
Because thus far antia sounds like she dislikes that woman are used for plot devices. Where men are also used for plot devices as well.
I think having a balance in a game of using both men and women as plot devices is a good thing. Its not a throw away as long as it impacts the character. It is not a bad thing to use a character as a plot device. As long as it serves its purpose and impacts the main character in someway.
The main character doesn't kill her, someone else does.
The entire characters motivation is to avenge her.
Woman in refrigerator. Like that is basically the definition.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Because in games like that we see what it does to the character.
What character are you talking about?
Both of the characters.
In the end the main character lets go.
Saying it is bad to have those relationships is stupid and childish.
Those things do happen. People get killed and that is not sexist.
It would be sexist if she was killed in a way only to suite the plot, but both he and her were both shot. He just happened to be the only one to survive.
Because thus far antia sounds like she dislikes that woman are used for plot devices. Where men are also used for plot devices as well.
I think having a balance in a game of using both men and women as plot devices is a good thing. Its not a throw away as long as it impacts the character. It is not a bad thing to use a character as a plot device. As long as it serves its purpose and impacts the main character in someway.
Melissia wrote: Hotline: Miami was a fun game in terms of gameplay, but man was it boringly cliche right from the start.
That was kind of the point of the game. The game was anti-violence and anti-hero. The game was showing the faults of the gaming community. The entire game was a message against this type of stuff. A misunderstanding of that basic understanding and the metaphors it used is clearly not catching onto it. As the developer even said it was an anti-violence game.
Why do you think focus on brutallity in such a way?
Why do you think they had those breaking moments where the guys mind exploded when he saw his girlfriend?
The problem with the woman in refrigerators trope, well one of the problems, is that they die for someone else benefit. It doesn't matter to their story arc motivations often because they don't have an arc or motivations. They are a prop for the hero. A way for the hero to have a deeper character.
I haven't played hotline miami, so I don't really know how well this fits.
nomotog wrote: The problem with the woman in refrigerators trope, well one of the problems, is that they die for someone else benefit. It doesn't matter to their story arc motivations often because they don't have an arc or motivations. They are a prop for the hero. A way for the hero to have a deeper character.
I haven't played hotline miami, so I don't really know how well this fits.
Well that happens a lot death changes people. It is not a problem.
If it has meaning to that death. Especially if that death was the main characters fault.
And it makes the character grow, just saying that is a bad thing is not enough.
Its like saying it is stupid that my main character changed because his sister died. He committed euthanasia on her because there was no other alternative, he either let the monster devour her, or he dealt with her himself and ensured she wouldn't suffer anymore. Is that a bad thing? No. It is morally right to do.
If you want to talk about what is ethical and what is not, you will lose this debate from the get go.
In truth you should be able to take vengeance for someone's death, and the blame falls strictly on you. But if you are a crime fighter and you are fighting to stop a russian mob. What is the mob's universal rule? Hit them where it hurts. What does the mob do? The exact same thing, they hire someone and get the main character severely wounded and his girlfriend killed.
By that same logic, when Ashley dies (or mattering who you try to help on the attack on one of the places.) is a damsel in distress or woman in the fridge. But that is only a brief look at it. That is a scratch on the surface. And at the surface it seems very sexist, but then you have to remember you have a choice to make. Save either ash or kaidan.
By that logic again with woman in the fridge. Then according to that I am sexist, because I had a woman die and she impacted someones life because of her death.
That is not a bad thing. That is showing human reaction. That is normal.
Are you saying, that if someone blew away your girlfriend you would have no reaction? and then she would be labelled a women in the fridge? How would you feel?
That is a normal reaction and a very real element. When someone dies we feel like we have to avenge them, do something for them. Not because it is sexist. But because We love them. Not because of some sexist ideology pattern.
But because we love them. This simple out of context idea called the woman in the fridge is a stupid idea. Because that is a bare scratch on the door. That line of thinking is incredibly inaccurate and paints characters who are motivated in terms of love for their family or their loved ones past, as sexist in motivation. That is outrageous and ill thought out.
And I will not stand for someone saying that. Just because I choose to kill someone's sister, to change the character, to put them on the right path to redemption, should not been as sexist. As that is a very real thing that happens, for either good or ill.
I can't untangle that either. I though It explained well, but I guess not. The problem is really the same problem at the core of a lot of sexist tropes. Ask yourself what is in for the woman's arc? If your response is, what arc? Then there you go. Women often play the role of props and not agents.
nomotog wrote: I can't untangle that either. I though It explained well, but I guess not. The problem is really the same problem at the core of a lot of sexist tropes. Ask yourself what is in for the woman's arc? If your response is, what arc? Then there you go. Women often play the role of props and not agents.
Then so do many other characters.
Like that marine that you kill in a game. Or hell all the bad guys in the game that are male. What about their stories?
What about their lives? What about their ideals?
You have lost this debate completely once that is brought up.
That is not sexist. Considering in all games the main enemies are usually Male. (That is sexist)
There is no sexism involved. Saying there is just scooping on the surface. That is just a little tap on it.
The woman already had her story told. Just because her story is not finished does not mean it is sexist.
The main focus is on the main character. Not the characters he/she meets on the way.
I can sort of see both angles here. It does feel it can get incredibly repetitive.
On the other hand... Just how many times has the main characters relatives and close family actually survived any games in mostly one piece?
Anyone that is remotely approaching a mentor / father figure has a high tendancy gets killed off no later than Act 3. - Usually due to the Heroes Journey factor.
Asherian Command wrote: I don't like saying those cliches are bad. They are just cliches and can be used whenever because its a writers ability to use cliches in order to tell a story.
Problem is when it is always the same gender playing the victim part and the same gender playing the savior/avenger part.
nomotog wrote: The problem with the woman in refrigerators trope, well one of the problems, is that they die for someone else benefit. It doesn't matter to their story arc motivations often because they don't have an arc or motivations. They are a prop for the hero. A way for the hero to have a deeper character.
There is very few character development for the main character, and absolutely none whatsoever for his female love interest.
Asherian Command wrote: That was kind of the point of the game. The game was anti-violence and anti-hero. The game was showing the faults of the gaming community. The entire game was a message against this type of stuff. A misunderstanding of that basic understanding and the metaphors it used is clearly not catching onto it. As the developer even said it was an anti-violence game.
Oh. I though it was a psychedelic ultra-violent game about listening to cool mind-blowing music while killing goons in ultra-violent manner in a psychedelic view.
Asherian Command wrote: But if you are a crime fighter and you are fighting to stop a russian mob.
What the hell, man? Have we been playing the same game? At that point you are
Spoiler:
a psycho that enlisted into some program that you know nothing about except that you will get random phone calls telling you to kill people. Later in the game you learn it is about a nationalist terrorist/resistance organization trying to make a Russian/US Alliance fail.
Asherian Command wrote: What is the mob's universal rule? Hit them where it hurts. What does the mob do? The exact same thing, they hire someone and get the main character severely wounded and his girlfriend killed.
Iirc, it is not the mob but the network from the crazies that send a guy to kill you. Your girlfriend just happens to be in the way.
Problem is when it is always the same gender playing the victim part and the same gender playing the savior/avenger part.
That I would agree with.
I hav
e no idea which game you are talking about.
Mass effect.
There is very few character development for the main character, and absolutely none whatsoever for his female love interest.
That is a problem as a whole gaming has. There is very little character development at all. Right now the only thing we have is motivation to fight bad guys instead of delving into the mind of the main character who has to go through this pain of seeing his or her loved one die in front of them..
Did not stop me from enjoying Hotline Miami. Even though more female PC and enemies would have been nice. Right now there are only two female characters, and they both die without ever fighting.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Did not stop me from enjoying Hotline Miami. Even though more female PC and enemies would have been nice. Right now there are only two female characters, and they both die without ever fighting.
Umm. The boss at the end of the game was a female ninja.
Here's something my buddy just shared:
http://imgur.com/RfYnkBt I realize this thread isn't about Gamergate, per se, but it certainly ties in to this topic.
And apologies if people already mentioned some of the female characters featured in this piece. 60+ pages is a hell of a lot to read (especially when people start to go off-topic).
But looking at some of the characters they do have, there's Samus Aran, Kerrigan, GLaDOS, the entire cast of Skullgirls, Maleena, Alyx Vance, and so on... Gaming has had its problems with sexualization over the many years, but I think characters like these show that the industry, as a whole, is slowly improving. It provides developers and designers to create female characters who are not at all stereotypical. They can be strong, angry, petty, they have their weaknesses and shortcomings, and all of this adds to create characters who are three-dimensional. That being said, we still have a long way to go: for every fleshed-out female character, there's a stereotyped background character, as well. It's not something that will go away soon (if ever).
Me, personally, I always loved Samus. I played as her in all three Super Smash games, as well as Metroid: Fusion and Zero Mission. I didn't have much of a problem with her character being female because she was a female who could kick serious ass.
We really need to stop bringing up jade. I mean I get it, it was a fun game, but Me and my dog were like the only ones who played it. That a game was so undersold that they had to give it away with cheese and the sequel is ten years late. (Heck my dog is dead, that is how old that game is.) I get it, there aren't a lot of god female characters to pick from, so some times you have to travel back in time and get obscure. That is the problem.
nomotog wrote: We really need to stop bringing up jade. I mean I get it, it was a fun game, but Me and my dog were like the only ones who played it. That a game was so undersold that they had to give it away with cheese and the sequel is ten years late. (Heck my dog is dead, that is how old that game is.) I get it, there aren't a lot of god female characters to pick from, so some times you have to travel back in time and get obscure. That is the problem.
Not really hahaha.
You keep saying that but I can pull out hundreds of female characters.
nomotog wrote: We really need to stop bringing up jade. I mean I get it, it was a fun game, but Me and my dog were like the only ones who played it. That a game was so undersold that they had to give it away with cheese and the sequel is ten years late. (Heck my dog is dead, that is how old that game is.) I get it, there aren't a lot of god female characters to pick from, so some times you have to travel back in time and get obscure. That is the problem.
Not really hahaha.
You keep saying that but I can pull out hundreds of female characters.
I smell a challenge. OK here are the rules. No one who is from a game ten years or older. They have to be playable and the game has to have been ported or released on console. Basically if you can name 100 non obscure playable female characters, I will be very impressed.
nomotog wrote: We really need to stop bringing up jade. I mean I get it, it was a fun game, but Me and my dog were like the only ones who played it. That a game was so undersold that they had to give it away with cheese and the sequel is ten years late. (Heck my dog is dead, that is how old that game is.) I get it, there aren't a lot of god female characters to pick from, so some times you have to travel back in time and get obscure. That is the problem.
Not really hahaha. You keep saying that but I can pull out hundreds of female characters.
I smell a challenge. OK here are the rules. No one who is from a game ten years or older. They have to be playable and the game has to have been ported or released on console. Basically if you can name 100 non obscure playable female characters, I will be very impressed.
I have trouble naming even 50 characters, male or female, I can remember the names of. I can still name the entire BG cast off my head and what made the characters unique.
nomotog wrote: We really need to stop bringing up jade. I mean I get it, it was a fun game, but Me and my dog were like the only ones who played it. That a game was so undersold that they had to give it away with cheese and the sequel is ten years late. (Heck my dog is dead, that is how old that game is.) I get it, there aren't a lot of god female characters to pick from, so some times you have to travel back in time and get obscure. That is the problem.
Not really hahaha.
You keep saying that but I can pull out hundreds of female characters.
I smell a challenge. OK here are the rules. No one who is from a game ten years or older. They have to be playable and the game has to have been ported or released on console. Basically if you can name 100 non obscure playable female characters, I will be very impressed.
I have trouble naming even 50 characters, male or female, I can remember the names of. I can still name the entire BG cast off my head and what made the characters unique.
I was thinking that too. That's why it will be impressive if they can do it.
Compel wrote: To be honest, I'd struggle naming 100 playable characters... But to start off: The female cast of Dragon Age 1, 2 and soon to be 3.
Rules are they have to be playable and I will go ahead and add that custom made characters don't count.
Sigvatr wrote: Actually, how many characters does Skullgirls have? Are we close yet?
Skull girls has 12 playable characters one is a man. Ya actually fighting games are likely going to be were you can get a lot of female characters because these games just have so many playable characters.
nomotog wrote: We really need to stop bringing up jade. I mean I get it, it was a fun game, but Me and my dog were like the only ones who played it. That a game was so undersold that they had to give it away with cheese and the sequel is ten years late. (Heck my dog is dead, that is how old that game is.) I get it, there aren't a lot of god female characters to pick from, so some times you have to travel back in time and get obscure. That is the problem.
Not really hahaha. You keep saying that but I can pull out hundreds of female characters.
I smell a challenge. OK here are the rules. No one who is from a game ten years or older. They have to be playable and the game has to have been ported or released on console. Basically if you can name 100 non obscure playable female characters, I will be very impressed.
Lara Croft Samus Aran Jaina Proudmoore (Wc3 Lady Vashj (Wc3) Tyrande (Wc3) Meivdh (Wc3) Slyvana Wind Runner ( Wc3) Rubi (Wet) Faith Connors (Mirror's Edge) Radiant Jen Zi (Jade Empire), Scholar Ling (Jade Empire), Wu the Lotus Blossom (Jade Empire) Princess Peach Celemetine (Walking Dead) Tifa (Final Fantasy) Sakura Haurno ( Naruto ultimate storm not going to list the other 20 ^.^ far too many) Abelia Schillfelt Amy Angol Fear Ashlotte Aurelia Dichalla Dolce Dalkia Cassandra Alexandra Hildegard von Krone Hualin Ivy Valentine Kamikirimusi Luna Lynette Scheherazade Seong Mi-Na Setsuka Shura Sophitia Alexandra Tak Talim Tira Valeria Xianghua (This is only a few of them there are twenty more of them ^.^)
Only Queen of Pain is sexualized? While DOTA2 is certainly not the worst MOBA in that regard (they have nothing on Smite), it takes a whole level of bad faith to say this is not sexualized:
Spoiler:
Really, in an image calling journalists on their dishonesty, that is pretty rich. I think that screen capture gives a perfect example of a “form-fitting costume that seems to have shrunken under the wash”.
The GJW that made that image is being completely dishonest. He or she is a pretty good example of why GamerGate sucks.
I was hoping for a nice concise list not a bunch of links. You do have a some that don't count per the rules.Like for example warcraft 3 is over 10 years old.
nomotog wrote: I was hoping for a nice concise list not a bunch of links. You do have a some that don't count per the rules.Like for example warcraft 3 is over 10 years old.
Eh. Those characters are also playable in heroes of the storm. If you want a concise list that would take me three hours to complie it all. And considering I have more important things to do. (like programming and animating for a bunch of projects)
Nice full armor:
Legion Commander
Luna (but she is pointing her torso forward in a very strange way )
Phantom Assassin
Medusa
Tons of unnecessary cleavage:
Drow Ranger
Mirana
Templar Assassin
Crystal Maiden
Windranger (her torso is really WTF!?!)
Lina
Echantress (arguably non-sexualized though given the way the character is designed)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Nice full armor:
Legion Commander
Luna (but she is pointing her torso forward in a very strange way )
Phantom Assassin
Medusa
Tons of unnecessary cleavage:
Drow Ranger
Mirana
Templar Assassin
Crystal Maiden
Windranger (her torso is really WTF!?!)
Lina
Echantress (arguably non-sexualized though given the way the character is designed)
Oversexualized:
Vengeful Spirit
Queen of Pain
Non-sexual nudity:
Naga Siren
Broodmother
Not sure where to put Death Prophet
Did I forget some?
So what about sexualized.
Sexualization does not mean it is extremely bad considering that sometimes women do wear that type of stuff. But not as common.
Some do have that image in real life. And also it is fantasy.
What about it? It means the GJW who made the image was lying through his or her teeth (or made terribad research on the subject) when he made that image where he or she accused journalists of not being honest. What kind of message does that sends us about GG?
Because I was complaining that jade was in a unpopular game over ten years ago, but is almost always brought up when people complain about the lack of women in games. I liked the game ya, but it's just not all that current. So ya, there isn't really like a scientific reason or anything. If I was going to be scientific, I would have limited it to about 5 years because I was taught you don't want to use a source over five years old as evidence.
What about it? It means the GJW who made the image was lying through his or her teeth (or made terribad research on the subject) when he made that image where he or she accused journalists of not being honest. What kind of message does that sends us about GG?
What does this have to do with gamergate?
Female representation is an issue, we have said that many times.
Because I was complaining that jade was in a unpopular game over ten years ago, but is almost always brought up when people complain about the lack of women in games. I liked the game ya, but it's just not all that current. So ya, there isn't really like a scientific reason or anything. If I was going to be scientific, I would have limited it to about 5 years because I was taught you don't want to use a source over five years old as evidence.
Meh, that depends. In some areas, you are forced to use older data. A good, and very fitting, example would be looking for whether there is a correlation between how a specific matter (violence / sex) is represented in the media and how (or if!) people change their behavior according to it. Surprise, there isn't
In this very case, though, I don't understand why there would be a limit :/ In my eyes, the representation of male or female characters hasn't changed at all in video games. It's just that feminism, or faux-minism in some cases, see Zoe Quinn and the endless flood of SJW fools, is an "in" topic right now. It's a constant ebb and flow, and right now, this is "in". Wait a few months and we're back to square one.
If you think that there has been a major change, though, please elaborate on it, I might just not be able to see it.
Because I was complaining that jade was in a unpopular game over ten years ago, but is almost always brought up when people complain about the lack of women in games. I liked the game ya, but it's just not all that current. So ya, there isn't really like a scientific reason or anything. If I was going to be scientific, I would have limited it to about 5 years because I was taught you don't want to use a source over five years old as evidence.
Meh, that depends. In some areas, you are forced to use older data. A good, and very fitting, example would be looking for whether there is a correlation between how a specific matter (violence / sex) is represented in the media and how (or if!) people change their behavior according to it. Surprise, there isn't
In this very case, though, I don't understand why there would be a limit :/ In my eyes, the representation of male or female characters hasn't changed at all in video games. It's just that feminism, or faux-minism in some cases, see Zoe Quinn and the endless flood of SJW fools, is an "in" topic right now. It's a constant ebb and flow, and right now, this is "in". Wait a few months and we're back to square one.
If you think that there has been a major change, though, please elaborate on it, I might just not be able to see it.
In this case there is no reason to use old data. We aren't really looking for a correlation. It's more just a count of he number of female playable characters. The only reason you would need to pull an example form long ago would be if you count find any enough current examples. That was kind of my point.
I kind of think things have gotten more even in the past few years, but that is just a impression I have. Not hard numbers. I could look into things maybe taking a sample of the top selling games and compare year by year to see if there is a trend, but that would take some time to put together so we would have to wait on that.
In this case there is no reason to use old data. We aren't really looking for a correlation. It's more just a count of he number of female playable characters. The only reason you would need to pull an example form long ago would be if you count find any enough current examples. That was kind of my point.
I kind of think things have gotten more even in the past few years, but that is just a impression I have. Not hard numbers. I could look into things maybe taking a sample of the top selling games and compare year by year to see if there is a trend, but that would take some time to put together so we would have to wait on that.
Thats my impression as well.
It has become more even as time has gone on.
The entire idea that the games are still sexist is kind of.... dumb.
Only Zoe Quinn (creator of depression quest) has said that. Along with the feminists in the gaming industry. (Well the third wave feminists that is)
Not baring in mind that The Fine Young Capitalists are doing a great job and are becoming a gaming company with mostly female developers.
In this case there is no reason to use old data. We aren't really looking for a correlation. It's more just a count of he number of female playable characters. The only reason you would need to pull an example form long ago would be if you count find any enough current examples. That was kind of my point.
I kind of think things have gotten more even in the past few years, but that is just a impression I have. Not hard numbers. I could look into things maybe taking a sample of the top selling games and compare year by year to see if there is a trend, but that would take some time to put together so we would have to wait on that.
Thats my impression as well.
It has become more even as time has gone on.
The entire idea that the games are still sexist is kind of.... dumb.
Only Zoe Quinn (creator of depression quest) has said that. Along with the feminists in the gaming industry. (Well the third wave feminists that is)
Not baring in mind that The Fine Young Capitalists are doing a great job and are becoming a gaming company with mostly female developers.
I didn't say that. I said that I feel things have gotten a little better the last few years.
The entire idea that the games are still sexist is kind of.... dumb.
I didn't say that. I said that I feel things have gotten a little better the last few years.
Not you there are some here who don't believe that sentiment!
My sentiment is just a feeling I have. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to have a different feeling then I do. It is not as though my word is law or anything silly like that
Asherian Command wrote: The entire idea that the games are still sexist is kind of.... dumb.
[…]
Not baring in mind that The Fine Young Capitalists are doing a great job and are becoming a gaming company with mostly female developers.
You do realized that the whole point of the Fine Young Capitalist is about having video-games to be less male-centered, right?
Asherian Command wrote: The entire idea that the games are still sexist is kind of.... dumb. […] Not baring in mind that The Fine Young Capitalists are doing a great job and are becoming a gaming company with mostly female developers.
You do realized that the whole point of the Fine Young Capitalist is about having video-games to be less male-centered, right?
First what picture are you refering to? because gamergate has nothing to do with this thread.
So saying Gamer Justice warriors is just idiotic on this thread.
Umm
The Fine Young Capitalists' mission is to create media using under represented labour, for unexplored demographics to fund non-profit organizations.
We took 5 women who had never designed a video game before and gave them professional concept artists to create their ideal game. We created a prototype and now want the internet to vote on the best game so we can make it and give all the proceeds to charity.
For more info go to
Nope.
he Fine Young Capitalists are all about education. So we've done videos discussing gender representation in video games, explaining how to pitch video games, and examples of art - all free to view on our website. Backers of this project will have a say on which videos we work on next.
They want to cater to everyone, but have more of a female focus in their development team.
Dr. Temujin wrote: Here's something my buddy just shared:
http://imgur.com/RfYnkBt I realize this thread isn't about Gamergate, per se, but it certainly ties in to this topic.
Even in a today’s society, companies are not willing to hire women for leadership roles.
Our focus is to empower women and to encourage them to take part into a leadership role while interacting with a creative framework. We want to support and embrace a higher number of women hired by any entity in the whole spectrum of the videogame industry.
We are strengthening bonds across cultures so everyone is invited to back great games that can only be made with the support of a community. We are also exposing new and compelling ideas that everyone can enjoy.
The purpose of The Fine Young Capitalists is to create the means for that production. To allow people that would not have access to the funds or labour to present their ideas and be given the change to have it judged on only its merits.
The creator of these ideas will never lose ownership. All of the art, programming and everything we create will be licensed to them so they can present their idea to anyone that will listen. The only condition is that we get the chance to present it to the public and help them in making the game come to life.
Now, you have the chance to support the creators and so the women in the videogame industry. If you choose you can become a backer of any one of these woman’s game. We want you to be critical and judge which one of the five pitches you think it'd be a success. You will get profit participation in the game for your contribution as well as a copy of the game. Part of every dollar the game makes will go to a charity you choose.
The money that you give will pay for the salary of professional video game developers that will take the creator vision and bring it to life.
The artists will be paid, the creator will receive royalties and you will have backed a project created by a women because you believe that woman can succeed in business.
All of the code for the game will be open source. All of the games support modding. Even if you don’t have a money to spend you can help the production.
Women should be doing more games, should be leading more startups and should be creating more meaningful projects. Likewise technology industries should be more inclusive with women as leaders.
http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/Voting
Totally not about getting more women into the game industry, because they sure believe there is absolutely no problem currently.
I know that is what they are talking about but you worded it like this:
You do realized that the whole point of the Fine Young Capitalist is about having video-games to be less male-centered, right?
You did not say industry. Be specific. If you were specific I would agree with you.
No, screw gamergate, let it keep getting its own threads locked, not this one.
Asherian Command wrote: The entire idea that the games are still sexist is kind of.... dumb.
No, your attempt at dismissing anything said by feminists because they're feminists is dumb. The idea that many writers have, which is "I think you should assume a character is male unless you have a reason for them being female" is sexist-- male is default and men can have any role, women are relegated only to roles where the author thinks women should be in-- and this makes no exceptions for writers in the gaming industry. And specific games can be sexist on their own (lack of) merit, or even if one assumes that most games are not sexist on an individual level, trends can still add up to sexist implications on a broader level taking in to consideration games as a medium. You haven't actually presented an argument against either of these statements, aside from repeating "nuh uh!" for over sixty pages.
Melissia wrote: No, screw gamergate, let it keep getting its own threads locked, not this one.
Best let Hybrid know then
. . .even if one assumes that most games are not sexist on an individual level, trends can still add up to sexist implications on a broader level taking in to consideration games as a medium.
Most games aren't sexist, but added up games are sexist?
I think an issue is the whole. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes!" thing. (Including the unintentional irony).
A lot of the issue I think is people are equating, "there are not enough female protagonists / of agent / of technical literature-ey term I don't know" with, "there are no female protagonists / of agent / of technical literature-ey term I don't know."
Whereas, others are interpreting things as.
"There are many good, enjoyable female protagonists and things are still improving as time goes on." with "STFU, we don't want cooties in our games, this is a boys club."
Albeit, there is always some jerky jerkfaces around.
A damsel in distress appearing in a single work isn't necessarily sexist unless we take the absurd position that anyone who ever puts a woman in a position of helplessness is a sexist prick (silly idea).
However if you take 500 works, all by different authors/creators, and say, 425 of them have a damsel in distress, then there might be something of a problem.
I.E. The sum is greater than the parts here can be taken as meaning that the whole of a culture can portray a picture very different from what any individual example amounts too.
Melissia wrote: No, screw gamergate, let it keep getting its own threads locked, not this one.
Best let Hybrid know then
. . .even if one assumes that most games are not sexist on an individual level, trends can still add up to sexist implications on a broader level taking in to consideration games as a medium.
Most games aren't sexist, but added up games are sexist?
Did I read that right.
If a group of writers only added black characters as rappers, gangbangers, and slaves and none of them were willing to write about black people in any other fashion, their works might not individually be racist (though there probably would be examples of racism in the works), but collectively, their works would reek of latent racism.
Melissia wrote: No, screw gamergate, let it keep getting its own threads locked, not this one.
Best let Hybrid know then
. . .even if one assumes that most games are not sexist on an individual level, trends can still add up to sexist implications on a broader level taking in to consideration games as a medium.
Most games aren't sexist, but added up games are sexist?
Did I read that right.
If a group of writers only added black characters as rappers, gangbangers, and slaves and none of them were willing to write about black people in any other fashion, their works might not individually be racist (though there probably would be examples of racism in the works), but collectively, their works would reek of latent racism.
I wonder if it's off topic to try and think of the last time I played a game with a black man that wasn't a rapper gang member or slave. All I have is gears of war. Most examples I can think of are gang members.
For me it was Remember Me, where the black guy was the owner of a bar and possibly the protagonists past love interest (I didn't quite understand the innuendo between them tbh).
I wonder if it's off topic to try and think of the last time I played a game with a black man that wasn't a rapper gang member or slave. All I have is gears of war. Most examples I can think of are gang members.
Yeah, Thats where I stop you and everyone in this thread with assuming something like that. One of my favorite games of all time Spec Ops: The Line and The Walking Dead (The walking dead had the main character be African american, spec ops had an African american in a support role to the main character who was white.)
Very often people forget that there are examples of it happening and whinning and complaining it does not happen all the time is just very short sighted, I see it more of as an offense to those game makers who are doing their best to represent people.
No, your attempt at dismissing anything said by feminists because they're feminists is dumb.
I have never said feminists are dumb. I said the third wave feminists have often shown to be ill-researched in certain matters, and just bull rush in with little context for scenes.
The idea that many writers have, which is "I think you should assume a character is male unless you have a reason for them being female" is sexist-- male is default and men can have any role,
I did not say that. Men can not have the role of the maternal mother. They cannot do certain situations. That is ignoring what makes men and women different.
But there has to be a difference between a male or a female character. Having a blank slate character is not as strong as having a determined character with a determined sex. People remember Clemetine better than mr. or mrs. skyrim girl.
Women are relegated only to roles where the author thinks women should be in-- and this makes no exceptions for writers in the gaming industry.
Not all the time. Often times they are trying to illustrate social issues in the world as well. You want them not to illustrate that? To be silent on those matters? That sounds awfully like censorship.
Just because you think that men can't write about social issues does not mean they should or should not.
I remember talking to someone who identified as a feminist and she called a certain scene sexist. Till I pointed out the fallacy in the statement. She thought the scene where Lara Croft is caught by one of the islanders and is supposedly raped.
I asked "How is that sexist?"
"Because why did the game makers put it in?"
"lets see a bunch of savages find a woman, a very pretty woman, what do you think they would do have chips and tea? You can't just call it sexist, because the game makers wanted to make a point, men can beasts. Just ignoring that critique is just as silly as saying that only focusing on lara croft is sexist."
And specific games can be sexist on their own (lack of) merit,
I can agree with that I can list a few games that are incredibly sexist, but I hate those types of games and they are propaganda games.
or even if one assumes that most games are not sexist on an individual level, trends can still add up to sexist implications on a broader level taking in to consideration games as a medium.
False. Thus far there is no implications of games actually have a averse affects on players. There is actually the opposite, gamers are usually more accepting of women period. This generation has been extremely accepting of women. To ignore that is pretty stupid in my honest opinion.
You haven't actually presented an argument against either of these statements, aside from repeating "nuh uh!" for over sixty pages.
I have presented the argument and said that women can be in any game, but it has to make sense to their role. Just as it does for men. They (A woman) can't take on the role of the gruff sarcastic man balls to the wall warrior. They can take the feminine version of that character though and have a woman inherit that. Because males and females reacts differently to the same situations, this means that women in general would react to say a baby differently than a man would. Though there are some cases of this not happening, where the woman does not react or the male does react to the baby. But on average the woman usually reacts to the baby. (Maternal Instinct) But that does not mean it is less badass or more sexual or whatever, its just a character.
It has to make sense in terms of the environment. For example you can't have captain walker replaced with a female version it wouldn't reach the audience it was supposed to reach. Plus alot of people would take offense to the fact that a woman slaughtered and murdered a bunch of american soldiers. And the message would be a little bit different.
In this day and age just the idea of switching the genders for a game just seems silly and kind of sexist.
There are some games that are sexist, but having one trope be very common in them is hardly meaning it is entirely sexist, because if you look at a games as a whole most games woulds be sexist towards males, because the violence taken against men. If you want to raise up one trope, then I will raise up two other tropes, such as the faceless enemy trope or the dude in distress. Where in almost every game we have to save from an enemy we haave no idea who they are but they are mostly male soldiers and we know nothing whether they are good or bad. And we have to save a group of men from some other faceless group.
Lets see how common that is. Just applying the lgoc that has been used that means that every game that is a modern shooter is sexist towards the male gender.
I can't make outlandish statements like that because yet again that is not all games, games do not capitalize on these scenes. (Well they do, and how they glorify war in these types of games)
I think the glorification of war is a problem it is propaganda which is shown to have an averse effect on people. But that is not the same as saying that people's behaviors will be changed.
You may be desensitized to it, but it does not mean your behavior is changed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: Things seem to have moved on in that front now, for the games I play at least.
Although, could there be a danger of that being the new stereotype? At least it's a improvement, I guess.
I think the only games that have african americans in those roles are sandbox games. Or Call of Jaurez which I discredit it quite often as just as a propaganda bull-
Where the game was so ill-researched that I wanted to smash it to pieces because i thought of it as legitmately sexist and racist.
Along with ride to hell retribution where its message about how to treat women is entirely terrible and borders on the path of psychopathic.
Try reading the post you're actually responding to instead of making a strawman argument.
The rest of your post is just freaking tiresome. If the only way a writer can think of a woman is as a rape victim, that writer is trash and should be banned from writing.
nomotog wrote: I wonder if it's off topic to try and think of the last time I played a game with a black man that wasn't a rapper gang member or slave. All I have is gears of war. Most examples I can think of are gang members.
Broken Age had a black woman protagonist. Team Fortress 2 had the demoman which was not a rapper or a gang member. I am trying to think of other black video game characters. Well, there is Ted McPain from Awesomenauts, that guy is a though action hero reborn through a cloning machine that wears no pant.
There is also Street Fighter's Balrog and Dudley:
Spoiler:
Unlike the other boxer character of the series, the villainous Balrog, Dudley is portrayed as a well-mannered English gentleman. In the games, he also has far less loftier motivations than other characters—Dudley's storylines in the games have him recovering his father's car (in Street Fighter III) or looking for roses to plant in his garden (in Super Street Fighter IV).
There are also the numerous zombies in Resident Evil 5 (if we do consider that they are not voodoo zombie but Romero zombies, and therefore not slaves nor allegory for slavery).
The black alternate skins in Shank/Shank2 do not count, do they?
I wonder if it's off topic to try and think of the last time I played a game with a black man that wasn't a rapper gang member or slave. All I have is gears of war. Most examples I can think of are gang members.
Yeah, Thats where I stop you and everyone in this thread with assuming something like that. One of my favorite games of all time Spec Ops: The Line and The Walking Dead (The walking dead had the main character be African american, spec ops had an African american in a support role to the main character who was white.)
I did forget the walking dead. Lee is a history professor. (Do we ever learn if he was guilty?)
I think the only games that have african americans in those roles are sandbox games.
That could be it. I played almost every sandbox game and they were the ones that came to mind when I pondered.
Shank certainly feels like he was supposed to be a gangbanger though. Or at least that's what the visual style and the name of the game indicated to me when I played it.
The rest of your post is frankly garbage. If the only way a writer can think of a woman is as a rape victim, that writer is trash and should be banned from writing.
Yet again that is not what I said.
He was illustrating a very great point. Especially the lara croft example. But I often say that if your going to go onto that scene it has to have meaning to it. Other than be a throw away scene. It should have repicurations on the main character. (lara)
I never said just use a woman as a rape victim. It has more meaning the more we know about the character. IT illustrates a great point if they use that character. Because it literally could happen to anyone, just using it for the sake of using it is stupid. But using it because you want to talk about a major issue is a good thing. But it needs to be well used.
Yes you did. You explicitly and specifically advocated for what I stated.
I said and I quote
There has to reason to having a different gender.
Which also means, there needs to be a plot reason as to why they are like this. There has to be a good reason as to why they act a certain way. Other than she is a girl and because she can is ill thought out. I am more looking for the reason as to why this character is in this role and not another gender. I am not asking for the reason why she needs to be in the game at all. As you have often mistook as what I have said.
No there doesn't.
There has to be. Just switching it out for another model is stupid. IT doesn't help the cause. Otherwise it is just a skin.But men and women react differently to situations. You can deny that reasoning all you want, but there is a difference. And that should be shown. Not anything big, just something subtle.
Try reading the post you're actually responding to instead of making a dumb strawman argument.
I did, but then I would ask you to read my entire post before attacking my individual points. Because they do not fit with criteria.
Yeah, I think this is where I'm sorta diverging in opinion from Asherian Command a bit now. - No offence intended.
I think the world is too complicated for that. And, especially when talking about games, the protagonist, male or female, is not the average of either sex.
They're an action hero, the amazing, goddamned awesome of awesome exceptions. There's no reason to restrict them by gender roles. In my own view, "The Action Hero" should be the character type, not a subdivision between "The Male Action Hero" and "The Female Action Hero."
Asherian Command wrote: hey (A woman) can't take on the role of the gruff sarcastic man balls to the wall warrior.
I agree. They can take the roll of the gruff sarcastic woman balls to the wall warrior just fine, though.
Asherian Command wrote: Because males and females reacts differently to the same situations, this means that women in general would react to say a baby differently than a man would.
Uh? What the hell?
Asherian Command wrote: In this day and age just the idea of switching the genders for a game just seems silly and kind of sexist.
If you have a problem with switching the gender of a role, it basically means you want to segregate the role of men and women, and this is basically by definition sexist.
Asherian Command wrote: because if you look at a games as a whole most games woulds be sexist towards males, because the violence taken against men.
There is no “sexist against men”. It is either sexist, or not sexist. If there is some mechanism in the game preventing you from hurting female character while allowing you to butcher the male character, that is sexist.
Compel wrote: Yeah, I think this is where I'm sorta diverging in opinion from Asherian Command a bit now. - No offence intended.
I think the world is too complicated for that. And, especially when talking about games, the protagonist, male or female, is not the average of either sex.
They're an action hero, the amazing, goddamned awesome of awesome exceptions. There's no reason to restrict them by gender roles. In my own view, "The Action Hero" should be the character type, not a subdivision between "The Male Action Hero" and "The Female Action Hero."
I am not saying that at all. But there should be subtle differences.
But there are differences between the two genders.
Ignoring that is ignoring human qualities based on gender is kind of immersive breaking. It should be just subtle not a big difference like a woman action hero has to take breaks during fighting and the guy has big bulky muscles. I think just introducing a gender advantage, like women are shown to be better talkers or more intelligent than men. And men have better skills in terms of adapting to a situation or have less health than women.
Something like that. But not limiting weapon choices or classes based on gender.
I think that is entirely sexist. (basing classes on gender. WHo thought of that idea? I mean I get it a man can't be a priestess, and a woman can't be a priest, but they should have access to the same abilities)
Uh? What the hell?
Its called Maternal Instinct.
Men don't get it.
Ever heard of don't disturb the cub if mother bear is around?
I agree. They can take the roll of the gruff sarcastic woman balls to the wall warrior just fine, though.
I agree. You just need to make that distinction or you don't. And you make it clear the character does not give a gak that she is a woman, she just punches out people and fights crime.
But that is a subtle difference from a man. it is very subtle difference. Not even noticable.
If you have a problem with switching the gender of a role, it basically means you want to segregate the role of men and women, and this is basically by definition sexist.
That is not what I mean. I mean is that there are certain roles women and men can't assume.
There may be exceptions to this though.
But switching genders just because I think is just pandering. And will not help representation of women.
If you have a problem with switching the gender of a role, it basically means you want to segregate the role of men and women, and this is basically by definition sexist.
According to the logic presented yes it is sexist. Because I am only targeting men. I am only killing men. If you can't see how that is even a small amount a bit sexist then tell me how is that not sexist.
Killing men for the sake of killing is much different than killing men because they are men.
That is the difference, if you kill for the sake of killing it is worse in my opinion but it is worse if you are doing it because you are specifically targeting men.
Though feminists on the other side if I replaced men with women and I just killed for the sake of killing would think it was sexist. So i implying the feminist logic from the male side.
It is mostly to diffuse that idea entirely. it is sexist on both sides if you come up to that with that mindset.
Asherian Command wrote: IT doesn't help the cause. Otherwise it is just a skin.But men and women react differently to situations. You can deny that reasoning all you want, but there is a difference. And that should be shown.
“I am sexist and games should be sexist too otherwise they are not helping my cause” .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Shank certainly feels like he was supposed to be a gangbanger though. Or at least that's what the visual style and the name of the game indicated to me when I played it.
What?
The name is referring to his main weapon as far as I can tell, and the visual style only screams “super though action hero” to me. Did I miss something?
"Women should only ever be added in when you have a reason for them to be a woman."
That's what you said. That's what you're still saying-- that men don't have to justify their existence, but women do. And that if a woman is in the game, the game must talk about what you consider "womens issues", because as we all know, a female soldier doesn't worry about killing the enemy while on the job, no, she worries about being a mother. Seriously, what the hell?
To put it bluntly, you're explicitly advocating for MORE sexism in video games, not less.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, Asherian. I think it's just to prescriptive for games and, personally, feels uncomfortable to me. I sort of get what you're saying, I mean you do have the separate athletic events in the real world after all, and for good reason. But this isn't the Olympics.
You know this is kind of a place were I think I agree with Asherian Command Gender can inform our perceptions of a character and well I don't believe you need a good reason to make a character female or male. (Characters get all kinds of traits for all kinds of silly reasons.) That choice will have an effect on how they are perceived by your audience. It's important to be away of that.
"Women should only ever be added in when you have a reason for them to be a woman."
That's what you said. That's what you're still saying-- that men don't have to justify their existence, but women do. And that if a woman is in the game, the game must talk about what you consider "womens issues", because as we all know, a female soldier doesn't worry about killing the enemy while on the job, no, she worries about being a mother. Seriously, what the hell?
To put it bluntly, you're explicitly advocating for MORE sexism in video games, not less.
No I am saying there should be a small details that are different. Not completely different .
And that is not what I am saying you can play a woman and the entire game be about male issues. You can choose whatever character, whatever gender for any game, as long as the character has meaningful backstory and reason to exist in that setting. But there should be a small difference between how she acts and her male counterpart.
And that is not what I am saying. Again. I said there is a small difference between men and women.
I would like to say that men and women are completely the same, but I can't ignore biology. I can't say that women are exactly the same as men. Because that type of ideal is in someway sexist to someone, I am taking the neutral stance of saying that there are small differences, but not that big of a difference.
A woman can be a badass, and can be a warrior. I am not denying that. So stop twisting my words to fit your narrative of me.
It is kind of sickening.
“I am sexist and games should be sexist too otherwise they are not helping my cause
Do you really want me to bring out the whats the difference between men and women quote from scientists?
There are differences, and it is fine to say yes there are differences. And they have reasons for it.
But saying both genders are exactly the same is a misjudgement and false.
A game can say that. IT can say yes there are differences. And it can have subtle differences.
A woman in a game might put more effort in certain situations and sound different when a situation comes up, but a male might tried to hide it. You can use this to your advantage. One of the reasons why everyone thinks that femshepherd is stronger is because women are better at emoting and expressing. They are naturally better talkers. And are naturally prone to being more intelligent in this way. Men do not have this luxury.
Yes, gender is one of many things that can inform how a person acts. It's not the only thing, however, and acting like it has to be is deeply ignorant. It's an attitude that says men are defined by what they do, women are defined by being women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: And that is not what I am saying you can play a woman and the entire game be about male issues.
Are you trying to say anything that's not about motherhood is "male issues"?
nomotog wrote: You know this is kind of a place were I think I agree with Asherian Command Gender can inform our perceptions of a character and well I don't believe you need a good reason to make a character female or female. (Characters get all kinds of traits for all kinds of silly reasons.) That choice will have an effect on how they are perceived by your audience. It's important to be away of that.
I have said that constantly thank you. -.-
I think there needs to be a reason why you the designer filled that role as a woman. If you show why through gameplay and character, why that character could of been anything then yes. If you want to have a female character for the sake of having a female character is good, but what is bad is if you want to cater to a female audience. I find that despicable you are just pandering and I don't like pandering, it is fine to pander to an audience as long as you are doing it to teach a point to give out a point. That is fine, but not it is not fine if you are trying to actively get people to empty their wallets for you because they believe in a certain thing.
I think what's trying to be suggested is, shouldn't there also be a case of: "there needs to be a reason why you, the designer, filled that role with a man."
What I'm trying to suggest, personally, is that there's a whole bunch of situations where gender really does not matter that much when casting a character. - An action hero is an Action Hero, not a 'Male Action Hero' nor a 'Female Action Hero' in my view.
Melissia wrote: Yes, gender is one of many things that can inform how a person acts. It's not the only thing, however, and acting like it has to be is deeply ignorant. It's an attitude that says men are defined by what they do, women are defined by being women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: And that is not what I am saying you can play a woman and the entire game be about male issues.
Are you trying to say anything that's not about motherhood is "male issues"?
I agree with the first bit.
But you can have a woman deal with other issues its fine the creator can do whatever the hell they want to do it is their creator tool. But they need to remember the differences between gender. You would see a difference between a female character and a male character, even if they had the same personality. They would act differently. Infact they would act like two different people. That is pyschology its called gender roles. We are given them at an early age. Those are subtle differences.
You can have any reason to have a character. This is where I also say that you need to have a reason as to why the creator of the game decided to go this path instead of this other path. Just saying just because is not good enough. I can't just haave my character have blonde hair. Why would this character have blonde hair? Why is that significant to put on my character? AS to would having the gender be on my character. Why is my main character male? Because you can identify with him better? Or because think male characters are easy to write because you are a dude? That is the thought process I have behind thinking reasoning behind why your character is .....
It needs to have meaning behind it, or else your entire game is meaningless and the message is not as well crafted, because you can't pick someones hair blue just because. Everything that is selected must have reasons to behind it.
It must be a good reason or else your message that you are trying to create will falter and not be as strong. This is behind the character as metaphor. ITs not saying that a blonde hair or a blue haired person would tell the story better but the writer needs to understand that they are trying to write for an audience and trying to balance a setting, they need to make a character that will cater to an audience and make sense in the environment. Like you can't have a military badass from call of duty be in a horror game with a massive gun, it destroys the horror setting. You can make them weird and whatever but in certain settings it wouldn't make entirely any sense. It sort of disconnects the player if your character has blue eyes, and is a tap dancer in a horror setting. (Well you could, but damn would that be hard to pull off and be it serious)
I am not saying you can't, you can, you can do it without reasoning, as everyone here should know. I fething hate absolute wording, and if I do. My apologies. But there are some instances where genders can assume the role better than the other gender. As they are far easier to write. That is fine.
Asherian Command wrote: I think there needs to be a reason why you the designer filled that role as a woman.
But not for a male character.
No it can be for a man as well.
Men and woman can fufill any role. But only lazy writers actually rely on stereotypes. Which can be interpreted as sexist. Ill-researched and not well thought out types of characters are the ones that are sexist and are racist.
Just because you research your character and both genders and you actually have qualities of what makes a woman a woman, is not sexist. That means you researched and gave the subject meaning to it. You were able to make a blank slate more than a blank slate, you shaped it into a character.
A designer needs to have a reason as to why they filled that role with what.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I think what's trying to be suggested is, shouldn't there also be a case of: "there needs to be a reason why you, the designer, filled that role with a man."
What I'm trying to suggest, personally, is that there's a whole bunch of situations where gender really does not matter that much when casting a character. - An action hero is an Action Hero, not a 'Male Action Hero' nor a 'Female Action Hero' in my view.
I agree. I am not suggesting a designer needs to have a reason because a woman is a woman in this game. It should have a reasoning to the designer. As to why they choose this gender over the other. Its more of a why have this when you can have this.
Asherian Command wrote: I think there needs to be a reason why you the designer filled that role as a woman.
But not for a male character.
No it can be for a man as well.
It's taken you sixty eight pages to say that writers need a reason for characters to be male. I don't believe for an instant that you honestly think that, especially after you've consistently thrown excuses out for devs who mostly write male characters in the past anyway.
This obsessive need to have every small detail of a person be massively significant just leads to terrible writing.
Ehh wrong.
Captain Walker was originally a full set of hair. The reason why they gave him blue eyes, and made him white was because it was to reflect the average game.
James Suntherland was shown to blonde. This was completely purposeful.
The best characters in my opinion everything is selected for a damn good reason.
Silent Hill 2 the reason why James Suntherland is shown to be aryan looking is because
Its not obessive as long as you write it with purpose.
t's taken you sixty eight pages to say that writers need a reason for characters to be male. I don't believe for an instant that you honestly think that, especially after you've consistently thrown excuses out for devs who mostly write male characters in the past anyway.
You can believe whatever you want >.>
Also I didn't make that statement till page 20 or so.
And I always felt like that. The fact you think I am sexist is quite insulting to say the least, but I won't take it as an insult because I am used to people thinking I am sexist because I think people who white knight for women are sexist.
Asherian Command wrote: Captain Walker was originally a full set of hair. The reason why they gave him blue eyes, and made him white was because it was to reflect the average game.
Which is crappy writing.
Asherian Command wrote: James Suntherland was shown to blonde. This was completely purposeful.
There is nothing about James Sutherland that would have changed if his hair color was black or brown. In fact, his hair was really closer to a light brown than a blonde anyway.
Asherian Command wrote: Captain Walker was originally a full set of hair. The reason why they gave him blue eyes, and made him white was because it was to reflect the average game.
Which is crappy writing.
Asherian Command wrote: James Suntherland was shown to blonde. This was completely purposeful.
There is nothing about James Sutherland that would have changed if his hair color was black or brown. In fact, his hair was really closer to a light brown than a blonde anyway.
He is dirty blonde like me
But this is where I paths diverge on liking particular writing styles over others.
Its more of a matter of taste and not what is actually better or more effect. As either style has its own merits in writing.
The reason why they made him like that is because of the writers wanting to show something hidden and evil. When james suntherland looks in the mirror all he can see is (Bleeps are for spoilers)
LordofHats wrote: A damsel in distress appearing in a single work isn't necessarily sexist unless we take the absurd position that anyone who ever puts a woman in a position of helplessness is a sexist prick (silly idea).
However if you take 500 works, all by different authors/creators, and say, 425 of them have a damsel in distress, then there might be something of a problem.
But 500 out of how many? And is that an issue of sexism in the industry, or laziness?
Melissia wrote: If a group of writers only added black characters as rappers, gangbangers, and slaves and none of them were willing to write about black people in any other fashion, their works might not individually be racist (though there probably would be examples of racism in the works), but collectively, their works would reek of latent racism.
Again, would that be an issue of racism, or laziness in overly relying on tropes? Because how would you change that, if you believed that interpretation of the situation
nomotog wrote: I wonder if it's off topic to try and think of the last time I played a game with a black man that wasn't a rapper gang member or slave. All I have is gears of war. Most examples I can think of are gang members.
Sazh in Final Fantasy 13-2. Still my tied favourite character (with Fang)
(apologies if I'm re-hashing anything from earlier in this thread. I'm assuming at 68 pages this might be old ground)
It's just an example (though it is large enough to be taken as a valid statistical sample).
And is that an issue of sexism in the industry, or laziness?
You say that like it can't be both. Lazy writers are more prone than any other to fall back on stereotypes. All writers tend to fall into them to some degree, especially when improvising.
It's just an example (though it is large enough to be taken as a valid statistical sample).
I'm honestly curious if someone has crunched the numbers. Has anyone analyzed the frequency of the Damsel in Distress trope over the last few years, to see % use and growth/decline?
I am looking at crunching some numbers number, but I am looking a my first snag. You can't look every game. It's a lot of games, so I am thinking what ones do you look at. My first thought is to simply look at the highest grossing games. The funny thing is that the highest grossing games are not the games you normally think of when someone says video game. Like Kinect adventures is one of the higher sold games for Xbox. Another Idea I have is to just look at the top ten lists put out by game web pages. Finally we could just pick a random selection if you wanted to be scientific.
Not entirely true. Maternal Instinct is significantally stronger in women than in men, but it does exist among men as well. Men, in general, have lesser need of it because men can "activate" adrenaline surges far easier than women and thus do not need a more specific trigger.
Just one slight remark in general: you certainly deserve credit for still discussing with Melissia, but keep one thing in mind: you two will never come to any agreement because you come from a very different point of view. Melissia cannot rationally discuss the topic at hand because she is extremely emotionally involved in it. This isn't a bad thing per se, and not meant to be as such, everyone got such topics. The problem, however, is that you come from a more rational point of view and bring up things like sexual dimorphism which exists just as gravity does. It's a scientific fact, however, that doesn't go along with people who come from a solely emotional point of view. What you two have been doing for the entirety of all threads and posts on this topic is you throwing arguments against a wall "nu-uh". And while this certainly is entertaining to watch, it's like trying to grow crop on salted ground
Each of you represents a polar opposite and there will never, ever be a compromise of any sort. Oxayotl is different. Still emotionally involved, but listens to points and is open to any counter-argument.
Anyway, back to the thread. Just wanted to get that off my chest.
I think there needs to be a reason why you the designer filled that role as a woman.
...and a man. Every writer makes that decision and in video games, it mostly is a rational marketing decision. Call of Duty game with a female protagonist? Stupid. You'd alienate a huge part of your customers. Nancy Drew game with a male protagonist? Drown in a sexist poo-storm on Twitter.
Every writer has a reason for why a certain character is male or female. Denying this means not understanding it.
It's just an example (though it is large enough to be taken as a valid statistical sample).
I'm honestly curious if someone has crunched the numbers. Has anyone analyzed the frequency of the Damsel in Distress trope over the last few years, to see % use and growth/decline?
Because if someone hasn't, I will.
Pretty sure nobody has. The problem is that you would have to seperate the findings by genre and then would need to define the genres etc. It's a lot of work. But if you want to do it, by all means, do so, I'd be interested in it
nomotog wrote: I am looking at crunching some numbers number, but I am looking a my first snag. You can't look every game. It's a lot of games, so I am thinking what ones do you look at. My first thought is to simply look at the highest grossing games. The funny thing is that the highest grossing games are not the games you normally think of when someone says video game. Like Kinect adventures is one of the higher sold games for Xbox. Another Idea I have is to just look at the top ten lists put out by game web pages. Finally we could just pick a random selection if you wanted to be scientific.
Woah now, who said anything about being scientific?
I was just going to grab the games released from 2010-2013, flag if they include a kidnapped character that needs to be rescued as part of the plot, keep it simple.
I'll need help though so I'll start a new thread once the groundwork has been laid.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Again, would that be an issue of racism, or laziness in overly relying on tropes?
Racism or sexism inspired by laziness is still racism or sexism.
What if the writers don't know any black people, and their only frame of reference is crappy tropes? Would it be best in that situation to just not include any (leaving it to other writers) and perpetuate a lack of black characters? Bearing in mind Sturgeon's law
...and a man. Every writer makes that decision and in video games, it mostly is a rational marketing decision. Call of Duty game with a female protagonist? Stupid. You'd alienate a huge part of your customers. Nancy Drew game with a male protagonist? Drown in a sexist poo-storm on Twitter.
Every writer has a reason for why a certain character is male or female. Denying this means not understanding it.
Whoops I think I should change that, meant to say both male and female.
But yes I can see your point.
Not entirely true. Maternal Instinct is significantally stronger in women than in men, but it does exist among men as well. Men, in general, have lesser need of it because men can "activate" adrenaline surges far easier than women and thus do not need a more specific trigger.
Just one slight remark in general: you certainly deserve credit for still discussing with Melissia, but keep one thing in mind: you two will never come to any agreement because you come from a very different point of view. Melissia cannot rationally discuss the topic at hand because she is extremely emotionally involved in it. This isn't a bad thing per se, and not meant to be as such, everyone got such topics. The problem, however, is that you come from a more rational point of view and bring up things like sexual dimorphism which exists just as gravity does. It's a scientific fact, however, that doesn't go along with people who come from a solely emotional point of view. What you two have been doing for the entirety of all threads and posts on this topic is you throwing arguments against a wall "nu-uh". And while this certainly is entertaining to watch, it's like trying to grow crop on salted ground
Each of you represents a polar opposite and there will never, ever be a compromise of any sort. Oxayotl is different. Still emotionally involved, but listens to points and is open to any counter-argument.
Anyway, back to the thread. Just wanted to get that off my chest.
Hmm. interesting.
I agree with the maternal instinict. Though because from my encounters with most men, they seem to avoid babies like the plague. So thats where I got my hypothesis/idea from. Real life experiences and then applying them to the discussion, Looks like a generalization on my part on men. I think that makes me sexist in someway O.o
...and a man. Every writer makes that decision and in video games, it mostly is a rational marketing decision. Call of Duty game with a female protagonist? Stupid. You'd alienate a huge part of your customers. Nancy Drew game with a male protagonist? Drown in a sexist poo-storm on Twitter.
Every writer has a reason for why a certain character is male or female. Denying this means not understanding it.
Whoops I think I should change that, meant to say both male and female.
But yes I can see your point.
Not entirely true. Maternal Instinct is significantally stronger in women than in men, but it does exist among men as well. Men, in general, have lesser need of it because men can "activate" adrenaline surges far easier than women and thus do not need a more specific trigger.
Just one slight remark in general: you certainly deserve credit for still discussing with Melissia, but keep one thing in mind: you two will never come to any agreement because you come from a very different point of view. Melissia cannot rationally discuss the topic at hand because she is extremely emotionally involved in it. This isn't a bad thing per se, and not meant to be as such, everyone got such topics. The problem, however, is that you come from a more rational point of view and bring up things like sexual dimorphism which exists just as gravity does. It's a scientific fact, however, that doesn't go along with people who come from a solely emotional point of view. What you two have been doing for the entirety of all threads and posts on this topic is you throwing arguments against a wall "nu-uh". And while this certainly is entertaining to watch, it's like trying to grow crop on salted ground
Each of you represents a polar opposite and there will never, ever be a compromise of any sort. Oxayotl is different. Still emotionally involved, but listens to points and is open to any counter-argument.
Anyway, back to the thread. Just wanted to get that off my chest.
Hmm. interesting.
I agree with the maternal instinict. Though because from my encounters with most men, they seem to avoid babies like the plague. So thats where I got my hypothesis/idea from. Real life experiences and then applying them to the discussion, Looks like a generalization on my part on men. I think that makes me sexist in someway O.o
Technically men have "paternal" instinct, which is similar. Hence the stories of the father being defensive of his daughter...or this
...and a man. Every writer makes that decision and in video games, it mostly is a rational marketing decision. Call of Duty game with a female protagonist? Stupid. You'd alienate a huge part of your customers. Nancy Drew game with a male protagonist? Drown in a sexist poo-storm on Twitter.
Every writer has a reason for why a certain character is male or female. Denying this means not understanding it.
Whoops I think I should change that, meant to say both male and female.
But yes I can see your point.
Not entirely true. Maternal Instinct is significantally stronger in women than in men, but it does exist among men as well. Men, in general, have lesser need of it because men can "activate" adrenaline surges far easier than women and thus do not need a more specific trigger.
Just one slight remark in general: you certainly deserve credit for still discussing with Melissia, but keep one thing in mind: you two will never come to any agreement because you come from a very different point of view. Melissia cannot rationally discuss the topic at hand because she is extremely emotionally involved in it. This isn't a bad thing per se, and not meant to be as such, everyone got such topics. The problem, however, is that you come from a more rational point of view and bring up things like sexual dimorphism which exists just as gravity does. It's a scientific fact, however, that doesn't go along with people who come from a solely emotional point of view. What you two have been doing for the entirety of all threads and posts on this topic is you throwing arguments against a wall "nu-uh". And while this certainly is entertaining to watch, it's like trying to grow crop on salted ground
Each of you represents a polar opposite and there will never, ever be a compromise of any sort. Oxayotl is different. Still emotionally involved, but listens to points and is open to any counter-argument.
Anyway, back to the thread. Just wanted to get that off my chest.
Hmm. interesting.
I agree with the maternal instinict. Though because from my encounters with most men, they seem to avoid babies like the plague. So thats where I got my hypothesis/idea from. Real life experiences and then applying them to the discussion, Looks like a generalization on my part on men. I think that makes me sexist in someway O.o
Technically men have "paternal" instinct, which is similar.
Hence the stories of the father being defensive of his daughter...or this
VorpalBunny74 wrote: What if the writers don't know any black people, and their only frame of reference is crappy tropes? Would it be best in that situation to just not include any (leaving it to other writers) and perpetuate a lack of black characters? Bearing in mind Sturgeon's law
A good writer will endeavor to write as best they can in the minds of the characters they create. A good character is still a good character regardless of race or gender.
I'm actually in a position where I am writing a deliberately diverse ensemble cast for a video game project and it's pretty difficult. The key is to make good characters first. Do that, and barring specific issues you could essentially assign race and gender by rolling a die. Thankfully, the genre I'm working in is very tolerant of melodrama, as is the video game market overall, perhaps a little too tolerant.
Now, as mentioned, there are issues specific to race and gender. However, if you even have to wonder if you're able to properly write character issues pertaining to race and gender, then either you shouldn't even try, or you do the due diligence and hard work it takes to properly write such a character, without falling back on tired tropes. If you are going to use tropes, then do your job as a writer and actually break those tropes in an interesting way. That's what turns a trope into an archetype.
I've erred on the side on mostly avoiding those issues and presenting positive examples and nods. But, I did have a long dark idea session where I considered putting in a segment where the player might have to deal with some cyber harassment as a female character, or help a companion deal with it.
Haven't followed the rest of this thread though, kind of too busy with stuff to go through 68 pages of heated gamer debate.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: What if the writers don't know any black people, and their only frame of reference is crappy tropes? Would it be best in that situation to just not include any (leaving it to other writers) and perpetuate a lack of black characters? Bearing in mind Sturgeon's law
A good writer will endeavor to write as best they can in the minds of the characters they create. A good character is still a good character regardless of race or gender.
I'm actually in a position where I am writing a deliberately diverse ensemble cast for a video game project and it's pretty difficult. The key is to make good characters first. Do that, and barring specific issues you could essentially assign race and gender by rolling a die. Thankfully, the genre I'm working in is very tolerant of melodrama, as is the video game market overall, perhaps a little too tolerant.
Now, as mentioned, there are issues specific to race and gender. However, if you even have to wonder if you're able to properly write character issues pertaining to race and gender, then either you shouldn't even try, or you do the due diligence and hard work it takes to properly write such a character, without falling back on tired tropes. If you are going to use tropes, then do your job as a writer and actually break those tropes in an interesting way. That's what turns a trope into an archetype.
I've erred on the side on mostly avoiding those issues and presenting positive examples and nods. But, I did have a long dark idea session where I considered putting in a segment where the player might have to deal with some cyber harassment as a female character, or help a companion deal with it.
Haven't followed the rest of this thread though, kind of too busy with stuff to go through 68 pages of heated gamer debate.
You really didn't miss anything just game designer vs gamers.
Otherwise I completely agree. And good on ya. Its hard to write in the perspective that you are not used to.
Asherian Command wrote: And that is not what I am saying you can play a woman and the entire game be about male issues.
What the hell is a man issue? I do agree that if a game is all about writing your name in the snow without using your hands or your feet, it calls for a male character, but apart from that?
Asherian Command wrote: But there should be a small difference between how she acts and her male counterpart.
Like the female character going all crazy if a baby is involved while the man do not give a damn? Blah! *disgusted face* Please tell me that is not what you are thinking about.
Apart from the ability to bear a child (well, even that, in a sci-fi or fantasy setting, who knows…) and the ability to write your name in snow by dropping some hot liquid on it, I do not see what you mean.
Asherian Command wrote: I would like to say that men and women are completely the same, but I can't ignore biology.
Do you want a list of games utterly ignoring biology, and physics too, when it comes to the performance of their characters?
Asherian Command wrote: One of the reasons why everyone thinks that femshepherd is stronger is because women are better at emoting and expressing. They are naturally better talkers. And are naturally prone to being more intelligent in this way.
…
You are kidding, right?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: And is that an issue of sexism in the industry, or laziness?
How does that matter? Then end result is the same…I think this is what Melissia is trying to say too. I mean, we are not trying to paint game developers as “bad guys” or to distribute blame. We just want to put the spotlight on something we find problematic so it can be changed. It is a totally different mindset.
Asherian Command wrote: And that is not what I am saying you can play a woman and the entire game be about male issues.
What the hell is a man issue? I do agree that if a game is all about writing your name in the snow without using your hands or your feet, it calls for a male character, but apart from that?
Asherian Command wrote: But there should be a small difference between how she acts and her male counterpart.
Like the female character going all crazy if a baby is involved while the man do not give a damn? Blah! *disgusted face* Please tell me that is not what you are thinking about.
Apart from the ability to bear a child (well, even that, in a sci-fi or fantasy setting, who knows…) and the ability to write your name in snow by dropping some hot liquid on it, I do not see what you mean.
Asherian Command wrote: I would like to say that men and women are completely the same, but I can't ignore biology.
Do you want a list of games utterly ignoring biology, and physics too, when it comes to the performance of their characters?
Asherian Command wrote: One of the reasons why everyone thinks that femshepherd is stronger is because women are better at emoting and expressing. They are naturally better talkers. And are naturally prone to being more intelligent in this way.
… You are kidding, right?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: And is that an issue of sexism in the industry, or laziness?
How does that matter? Then end result is the same…I think this is what Melissia is trying to say too. I mean, we are not trying to paint game developers as “bad guys” or to distribute blame. We just want to put the spotlight on something we find problematic so it can be changed. It is a totally different mindset.
I think you are taking my ideas and taking them to the extremes. I said subtle, not stupidly over the top. You can hear subtle differences.
Rationality is something I am good at.
Being sexist is not rational to me. It doesn't really compute with my brain.
I think there is a big difference between being lazy and being compotent.
Propaganda games are a big issue.
But being lazy can be just as devastating as someone who is willingly making a propaganda game
Laziness can only go so far.
There are quite a few lazy games. (like ride to hell retribution). That paint women as commodities that is completely sexist.
Those games though are frowned upon and hated. By the entire game industry in general.
Also I am calling women more intelligent then men. That is truth. We have be told women have smaller brains and are stupider by scientists for years. I literally looked up are women smarter then men? I found yes and yes. Women's brains are far more efficient then men. Just put two of the same personality type and tell them to get work done. Who would be more efficient? The Woman. Sadly I judge intelligence based on how efficiently someone works and works with other peoples.
But seriously, if being sexist is irrational to you and "doesn't compute in [your] mind", then perhaps you should try to stop advocating for sexist things like gender essentialism.
Melissia wrote: But seriously, if being sexist is irrational to you and "doesn't compute in [your] mind", then perhaps you should try to stop advocating for sexist things like gender essentialism.
Classy. I like how they generalize and make it seem like it is wrong to believe that there are genetic differences between men and women. And physical differences.
Being me I refute the following men and women cannot do eithers job better. That is false.
I am not saying men can do something that women can do better. I am not saying the reverse there are just times and places when these physical differences are apparent. They are subtle. But they are not eye numbingly obvious.
These types of websites also use their own definitions under their definitions I would be classifed as a sexist because I think there is a difference between the two genders. A subtle difference how they do things. I advocate for that belief and I will defend it with scientific fact.
Vertrucio wrote: A good writer will endeavor to write as best they can in the minds of the characters they create. A good character is still a good character regardless of race or gender.
I don't disagree, but don't good characters have flaws? Unless we are meaning 'good' in the moral alignment sense, not as 'well rounded'
Now, as mentioned, there are issues specific to race and gender. However, if you even have to wonder if you're able to properly write character issues pertaining to race and gender, then either you shouldn't even try, or you do the due diligence and hard work it takes to properly write such a character, without falling back on tired tropes. If you are going to use tropes, then do your job as a writer and actually break those tropes in an interesting way. That's what turns a trope into an archetype.
That was basically my point - that if someone wants to play it safe, they won't be introducing characters that could be in any way held as sexist or racist. But I disagre that tropes should always be broken - Tropes Aren't Always Evil after all, and we could get in the situation where adhering to a trope is actually shocking and pleasing to the audience, due to all the smarty pants trope breakers
I don't disagree, but don't good characters have flaws? Unless we are meaning 'good' in the moral alignment sense, not as 'well rounded'
Yes a good character always has glaring flaws.
That was basically my point - that if someone wants to play it safe, they won't be introducing characters that could be in any way held as sexist or racist. But I disagre that tropes should always be broken - Tropes Aren't Always Evil after all, and we could get in the situation where adhering to a trope is actually shocking and pleasing to the audience, due to all the smarty pants trope breakers
I think tropes are fine, people might be sick of them, but thats like saying you don't like the heroes journey and it is old and tired.
Because no matter what you do most books or movies unwillingly follow the heroes journey and its archetypes.
You're claiming that there are genetic differences between male and female personalities that are universal to men and women, and that you know what these differences are-- without actually giving any examples of it, without saying what those differences are, without providing any proof at all. But don't worry, you assure us, even though you can't explain what the supposed universal differences are and what proof you have that they exist, you clearly know what they are!
Except you don't. And don't start quoting some pseudo-science garbage, either. "Evolutionary Psychology" is the Homeopathy of the social sciences.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: How does that matter? Then end result is the same…I think this is what Melissia is trying to say too. I mean, we are not trying to paint game developers as “bad guys” or to distribute blame. We just want to put the spotlight on something we find problematic so it can be changed. It is a totally different mindset.
I'm sorry Hybrid, and this is outside of your control, but I can't take a post seriously if it has the word 'problematic' in it.
Not even kidding. It's like the word 'sheeple' or 'synergy'
Melissia wrote: You're claiming that there are genetic differences between male and female personalities that are universal to men and women, and that you know what these differences are-- without actually giving any examples of it, without saying what those differences are, without providing any proof at all. But don't worry, you assure us, even though you can't explain what the supposed universal differences are and what proof you have that they exist, you clearly know what they are!
Except you don't. And don't start quoting some pseudo-science garbage, either. "Evolutionary Psychology" is the Homeopathy of the social sciences.
Okay fine. The Y Chromosome
Women are different
It is my position that men and women are equal but different. When I say equal, I mean that men and women have a right to equal opportunity and protection under the law. The fact that people in this country are assured these rights does not negate my observation that men and women are at least as different psychologically as they are physically.
None of us would argue the fact that men and women are physically different. The physical differences are rather obvious and most of these can be seen and easily measured. Weight, shape, size and anatomy are not political opinions but rather tangible and easily measured. The physical differences between men and women provide functional advantages and have survival value. Men usually have greater upper body strength, build muscle easily, have thicker skin, bruise less easily and have a lower threshold of awareness of injuries to their extremities. Men are essentially built for physical confrontation and the use of force. Their joints are well suited for throwing objects. A man’s skull is almost always thicker and stronger than a women’s. The stereotype that men are more "thick-headed" than women is not far fetched. A man’s "thick headedness", and other anatomical differences have been associated with a uniquely male attraction to high speed activities and reckless behavior that usually involve collisions with other males or automobiles. Men invented the game "chicken", not women. Men, and a number of other male species of animal seem to charge and crash into each other a great deal in their spare time.
Women on the other hand have four times as many brain cells (neurons) connecting the right and left side of their brain. This latter finding provides physical evidence that supports the observation that men rely easily and more heavily on their left brain to solve one problem one step at a time. Women have more efficient access to both sides of their brain and therefore greater use of their right brain. Women can focus on more than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve problems through multiple activities at a time. Nearly every parent has observed how young girls find the conversations of young boys "boring". Young boys express confusion and would rather play sports than participate actively in a conversation between 5 girls who are discussing as many as three subjects at once!
The psychological differences between man and women are less obvious. They can be difficult to describe. Yet these differences can profoundly influence how we form and maintain relationships that can range from work and friendships to marriage and parenting.
Recognizing, understanding, discussing as well as acting skillfully in light of the differences between men and women can be difficult. Our failure to recognize and appreciate these differences can become a life long source of disappointment, frustration, tension and eventually our downfall in a relationship. Not only can these differences destroy a promising relationship, but most people will grudgingly accept or learn to live with the consequences. Eventually they find some compromise or way to cope. Few people ever work past these difficulties. People tend to accept what they don’t understand when they feel powerless to change it.
Relationships between men and women are not impossible or necessarily difficult. Problems simply arise when we expect or assume the opposite sex should think, feel or act the way we do. It’s not that men and women live in completely different realities. Rather, our lack of knowledge and mutual experience gives rise to our difficulties.
Despite great strides in this country toward equality, modern society hasn’t made relationships between men and women any easier. Today’s society has taught us and has imposed on us the expectation that men and women should live together continuously, in communion, and in harmony. These expectations are not only unrealistic but ultimately they leave people feeling unloved, inadequate, cynical, apathetic or ashamed.
The challenge facing men and women is to become aware of their identities, to accept their differences, and to live their lives fully and as skillfully as possible. To do this we must first understand in what ways we are different. We must avoid trying to change others to suit our needs. The following illustrates some important differences between men and women. These differences are not absolute. They describe how men and women are in most situations most of the time.
Men aren't from Mars and women aren't from Venus, but their brains really are wired differently, a new study suggests.
The research, which involved imaging the brains of nearly 1,000 adolescents, found that male brains had more connections within hemispheres, whereas female brains were more connected between hemispheres. The results, which apply to the population as a whole and not individuals, suggest that male brains may be optimized for motor skills, and female brains may be optimized for combining analytical and intuitive thinking.
"On average, men connect front to back [parts of the brain] more strongly than women," whereas "women have stronger connections left to right," said study leader Ragini Verma, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania medical school. But Verma cautioned against making sweeping generalizations about men and women based on the results.
Previous studies have found behavioral differences between men and women. For example, women may have better verbal memory and social cognition, whereas men may have better motor and spatial skills, on average. Brain imaging studies have shown that women have a higher percentage of gray matter, the computational tissue of the brain, while men have a higher percentage of white matter, the connective cables of the brain. But few studies have shown that men's and women's brains are connected differently.
In the study, researchers scanned the brains of 949 young people ages 8 to 22 (428 males and 521 females), using a form of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) known as diffusion tensor imaging, which maps the diffusion of water molecules within brain tissue. The researchers analyzed the participants as a single group, and as three separate groups split up by age.
As a whole, the young men had stronger connections within cerebral hemispheres while the young women had stronger connections between hemispheres, the study, detailed today (Dec. 2) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found. However, the cerebellum, a part of the brain below the cerebrum that plays a role in coordinating muscle movement, showed the opposite pattern, with males having stronger connections between hemispheres.
Roughly speaking, the back of the brain handles perception and the front of the brain handles action; the left hemisphere of the brain is the seat of logical thinking, while the right side of the brain begets intuitive thinking. The findings lend support to the view that males may excel at motor skills, while women may be better at integrating analysis and intuitive thinking.
"It is fascinating that we can see some of functional differences in men and women structurally," Verma told LiveScience. However, the results do not apply to individual men and women, she said. "Every individual could have part of both men and women in them," she said, referring to the connectivity patterns her team observed.
When the researchers compared the young people by age group, they saw the most pronounced brain differences among adolescents (13.4 to 17 years old), suggesting the sexes begin to diverge in the teen years. Males and females showed the greatest differences in inter-hemisphere brain connectivity during this time, with females having more connections between hemispheres primarily in the frontal lobe. These differences got smaller with age, with older females showing more widely distributed connections throughout the brain rather than just in the frontal lobe.
Currently, scientists can't quantify how much an individual has male- or female-like patterns of brain connectivity. Another lingering question is whether the structural differences result in differences in brain function, or whether differences in function result in structural changes.
The findings could also help scientists understand why certain diseases, such as autism, are more prevalent in males, Verma said.
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFVoaw1cywE Smart guy on this subject. "biology is becoming more in line with a feminist line of thinking. Infecting itself into academia. This is not a problem, but at the same time is and is quite biased."
That took me around a half hour to find. There are about 2,750,000 results.
I bring up the TV show 'Lost Girl' quite often in these kind of threads but I'm going to mention another TV I enjoy watching due to the 'Call of Duty' angle that was mentioned earlier.
There's a show called 'Strike Back' that I enjoy watching. It treads an interesting line on the whole debate too. The show is produced by a combination of the UK Sky TV with the US channel, Cinemax. Cinemax being nicknamed as Skinemax... As such, there tends to be a situation where, if a female character is introduced, there's a 50/50 chance you're going to see her with her clothes off before the end of the episode.
However, this is where it becomes relevant... It's your typical Military tv show, very Call of Duty-esque.
Except, well, watch this.
4 goodies in a firefight. Half of them are female and the women are shown perfectly competently picking off the baddies, just as well as the guys are. - Not to mention, their boss is none other than Rhona Mitra.
Now, that's a TV show and this thread is about games. Going back to Call of Duty, I'll be honest, I've not played much of the series, but... I remember in Call of Duty 5 you played different characters in individual chapters.
Additionally, as multiplayer is the games emphasis anyway, encouraging the single player game writers to open their minds to thinking, "maybe a female player character might actually add to the game" would not seem to be such a bad idea to me.
I'm aware that you believe men are default and women are therefor weird for not being men, yes.
You linked to a study which had no conclusive findings in actual differences (the Scientific American article made no actual assertions on how men and women are different, only "maybes", and made no assertion that the physical differences in womens vs mens' brains were actually genetically coded), some evolutionary psychology garbage (the EHBOnline article), an article which argued AGAINST your statement (the APA article), an irrelevant short story with no citations, an article on "popular psychology" which provided no citations of of the supposed research discussed in their article, and some random douchebag on the internet.
I'm aware that you believe men are default and women are therefor weird for not being men, yes.
You linked to a study which had no conclusive findings in actual differences (the Scientific American article made no actual assertions on how men and women are different, only "maybes", and made no assertion that the physical differences in womens vs mens' brains were actually genetically coded), some evolutionary psychology garbage (the EHBOnline article), an article which argued AGAINST your statement (the APA article), an irrelevant short story with no citations, an article on "popular psychology" which provided no citations of of the supposed research discussed in their article, and some random douchebag on the internet.
You fail at providing any evidence.
So do you
Men and women have different chromosomes and ever since they do. They are subtle. I have said subtle. Not large and with differences.
Because you have only used a wikipedia article and I could disprove your articles one by one.
I supplied one that was against my point just to humor you. To see if you actually read the articles.
Ignoring articles because of where they come from because they do not align with your beliefs is a sign of willful ignorance Melissia.
Just saying you don't believe that is in itself a terrible idea. You can't say that. Just because you disagree with me.
You are entitled to your opinion yes, but it has to be within reason and rationality. Just saying nope not listening is not helping your case. I listed the Y chromosome as something that makes men and women different. I posted an article which lists that men and women have different wired brains, but over time this changes and slowly start to begin to be similar. During the teens certain parts of the female brain are wire to certain areas. This is commonly known. If you want me to I could call up a doctor ask them this question, they would say the same thing. Men have a difference as well.
Forgetting this is something that designers often forget. Making a girl who acts like a robot is the dumbest idea ever and one of the reasons why i am supporting more subtle differences.
Asherian Command wrote: Men and women have different chromosomes and ever since they do. They are subtle. I have said subtle. Not large and with differences.
You still haven't named what any of those supposed universal psychological differences between men and women actually are.
I can't blame you for not being able to name things that don't actually exist, but that's usually a good sign that you should stop asserting their existence.
nomotog wrote: I am looking at crunching some numbers number, but I am looking a my first snag. You can't look every game. It's a lot of games, so I am thinking what ones do you look at. My first thought is to simply look at the highest grossing games. The funny thing is that the highest grossing games are not the games you normally think of when someone says video game. Like Kinect adventures is one of the higher sold games for Xbox. Another Idea I have is to just look at the top ten lists put out by game web pages. Finally we could just pick a random selection if you wanted to be scientific.
Woah now, who said anything about being scientific?
I was just going to grab the games released from 2010-2013, flag if they include a kidnapped character that needs to be rescued as part of the plot, keep it simple.
I'll need help though so I'll start a new thread once the groundwork has been laid.
Well part of my idea was to gather a game list that could be used to look at other trends not just the DiD.
Asherian Command wrote: I think you are taking my ideas and taking them to the extremes. I said subtle, not stupidly over the top. You can hear subtle differences.
I still do not think a female character should be more unsettled by a baby than a male character. I think the character's personality and history should determine that, along with the story you want to tell. That can totally mean having a female character playing kick the baby . Would this seem subtle to you?
Please provide an example of a subtle difference that you would deem necessary. Any thing that you would never agree with a female character doing, for instance.
Asherian Command wrote: There are quite a few lazy games. (like ride to hell retribution). That paint women as commodities that is completely sexist.
There is another game that literally treats women as a commodity, at least in multiplayer: Postal². On the other hand, this games try so hard to be offensive in every possible regard that it is actually funny. Like this multiplayer map called Intifada, where the base of one team is a mosque and the map of the other is a synagogue. And that is just the multiplayer, the story mode have tons of pearls, like the only local Pakistani shop being a terrorist base (duh!), some Taliban attacking the local church, some re-enactment of the Waco siege, …
They even managed to include vegetarians as some kind of hate group in the game .
Actually, I just checked their page on Steam, and they have that achievement (a bit NSFW, but I hope it is still okay with Dakka's rules):
Spoiler:
It's not cheating, because it's YOUR dog
That is just one among tons of terrible stuff, but I thought it was worth sharing .
You know that is still sexism, just like saying black people are more intelligent than white people is still racism, right?
Anyhow, I do not understand your hate of propaganda games. I have been playing a bunch of PETA's “propaganda” game, they seemed quite effective at communicating ideas in an enjoyable format. Of course you are not going to enjoy propaganda games that carry what you consider bad ideas, but here the problem is the message, not the format.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm sorry Hybrid, and this is outside of your control, but I can't take a post seriously if it has the word 'problematic' in it.
Not even kidding. It's like the word 'sheeple' or 'synergy'
You are damn wrong, because Synergy is an awesome piece of software. I mean it. By the way, they are recruiting, and if you go there using my referral, I will get £1000. I know that seems insane, but this is completely, 100% genuine!
http://synergy-project.org/jobs/ I have no idea what my referral is supposed to be, but if you are interested by the job, I will definitely look very hard to learn about it .
nyhow, I do not understand your hate of propaganda games. I have been playing a bunch of PETA's “propaganda” game, they seemed quite effective at communicating ideas in an enjoyable format. Of course you are not going to enjoy propaganda games that carry what you consider bad ideas, but here the problem is the message, not the format.
I have disdain for them because they say the wrong things. They are used to further a goal. And is another form of brainwashing, it is trying to use a movement and trying to force their values upon you. This is why I hate modern feminism or masculism by the way or any movement that trys to silence any voice of opposition, because they don't present facts from both sides and aim to discredit and attack the oppossing side.
They try to make it clear why their ideas are better. Peta can try all its best but it is a propaganda game. They can be well researched. But one day our ancestors are going to look back at these propaganda games, where we demonize russians, middle eastern peoples, europeans, asians, and south americans, And will just shake their head in disgust.
Most propaganda games are usually bad. They paint a false image, they demonize the enemy. They make them seem like evil. Like true evil. Not cartoon evil. I think that is a problem. It is fine to have bad guys, that are a different race, but just making them very similar to a current event is an issue, now if you paint the americans as bad guys I am all for that. But is that propaganda is up for debate. True propaganda are games like Zod's Massacre or Peta games, or America's Army. Those games are quite corrupting and dangerous.
I still do not think a female character should be more unsettled by a baby than a male character. I think the character's personality and history should determine that, along with the story you want to tell. That can totally mean having a female character playing kick the baby . Would this seem subtle to you?
Please provide an example of a subtle difference that you would deem necessary. Any thing that you would never agree with a female character doing, for instance.
I said there are exceptions. And there can be exceptions, but women at certain ages are more emotionally involved than men are. Its just biology of the brain. And development cycles. Though Melissia likes to ignore those studies and bring up feminist studies which say the same thing as I have been raising there are subtle differences. Not big and glooming differences. There are women with smaller muscle mass the men. This does not mean there aren't some women that can have big muscles. There can be, but there will be less of them.
Feminism likes to blame society for this, I would like to blame developmental biology on this. Not society or its pressures.
You know that is still sexism, just like saying black people are more intelligent than white people is still racism, right?
Yes I know but it is not like i am actively putting down an entire gender. There are strengths to each gender. ignoring these strengths is stupid and pointless. Someone growing up in the wilds of kenya are probably better runners than someone growing up in the midwest.
That is a development because of geography which usually has a hand in peoples physical performance. Someone who is from a mountainous area is probably going to be a better runner than someone at sea level.
Geography, and biological components are these small differences, or they are very small differences but they are differences. Men and women have these differences, for example women are usually prone to having more hair and more emotional control. Men do not have this emotional control. And my source for that is read a bloody biology book it will say that.
Though people like to deny that evidence all the time. Saying it is racist or sexist. But what about its just fact? People want us to recognize these people and thats fine, but to always be correct and politically accurate is insane. They don't want to hurt anyones feelings because of facts.
Generalizing is wrong and stupid. But I am not generalizing in this case. I am deliberately going down specific cases and saying this can happen here sometimes and sometimes this can happen.
It is a case by case idea informing my conclusions and proving my hypothesis.
Men and woman are different because:
Their brains are wired differently Women can have childern Men produce sperm Women are subject to having more fat cells Men are not subject to having more fat cells Women have more lean muscles (This is more efficient) Men can have bigger muscles. Women are more dexterious Women are more emotionally involved, Men are more rational based, Women develop Maternal Instinct, Men develop Paternal Instinct, Women are more resistant to pain.* Men are less resistant to pain.*
This is not to say.... That men can't be more resistant to pain, and women sometimes are less resistant to pain.
We will find individuals that will prove that wrong. Due to genetics and biological hereditary traits. Does each one have an advantage over the other yes and no.
Men and women possess certain traits. But in order to well. Exist as a species knowing full well what your gender is capable of is healthy and fine. But saying that both genders are equally the same in every way is just insane. Though that does not mean they are not politically, or socially equal. I mean that they are both socially and politically equal in everyway.
How they are treated is different according to different societies.
Asherian Command wrote: Generalizing is wrong and stupid. But I am not generalizing in this case.
Yes you are. You're quoting pseudo-scientific nonsense to try to claim there are universal differences between the psychology of men and women, and therefor you're advocating women characters MUST be written differently than male characters, while also asserting that basically anything other than childbirth is a "male" topic.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: How does that matter? Then end result is the same…I think this is what Melissia is trying to say too. I mean, we are not trying to paint game developers as “bad guys” or to distribute blame. We just want to put the spotlight on something we find problematic so it can be changed. It is a totally different mindset.
I'm sorry Hybrid, and this is outside of your control, but I can't take a post seriously if it has the word 'problematic' in it.
Not even kidding. It's like the word '███████' or 'synergy'
Do not use the cursed word, lest you cause the awakening of the forsaken ones.
Not necessarily. You can do “propaganda” for the “right” things. I personally agree with PETA on some stuff.
Asherian Command wrote: They are used to further a goal. And is another form of brainwashing, it is trying to use a movement and trying to force their values upon you.
Oh, you mean, they are trying to convince you to share their views. How terrible. That is something horrible you would never do, right?
That was sarcasm, just in case .
So, when designing a video game, if you want your character to have some reaction, because it fits the personality of the character and the style of story you want to tell, how the hell is the gender of the character relevant? They are by very definition exceptions!
Asherian Command wrote: And there can be exceptions, but women at certain ages are more emotionally involved than men are. Its just biology of the brain. And development cycles.
Yeah, right…
I am calling bs on it.
Asherian Command wrote: Feminism likes to blame society for this, I would like to blame developmental biology on this. Not society or its pressures.
Sure you would like to!
Asherian Command wrote: Yes I know but it is not like i am actively putting down an entire gender. There are strengths to each gender. ignoring these strengths is stupid and pointless.
That is pretty much what most sexists have said and still says when trying to defend their sexism. They love expressions like “different but equal”. Actually, quite a bunch of Muslims used that argument to justify the different treatment between men and women in Sharia/Islam. And some of them even dared pretend that the position of women was better than the position of men. Damn fething hypocrites!
Asherian Command wrote: Someone growing up in the wilds of kenya are probably better runners than someone growing up in the midwest.
That is a development because of geography which usually has a hand in peoples physical performance. Someone who is from a mountainous area is probably going to be a better runner than someone at sea level.
What the hell, man? Are you planing to give a talk at BAH or something? Their theories make more sense, and are actually corroborated way more by actual evidence. That is telling something.
Asherian Command wrote: Men and women have these differences, for example women are usually prone to having more hair and more emotional control. Men do not have this emotional control. And my source for that is read a bloody biology book it will say that.
I… do you get your biology book from some Christian or Muslim organization? That would explain quite a bit.
Their brains are wired differently Dubious
Women can have childern True
Men produce sperm True
Women are subject to having more fat cells Maybe Men are not subject to having more fat cells
Women have more lean muscles (This is more efficient) Maybe Men can have bigger muscles.
Women are more dexterious You got to be kidding me!
Women are more emotionally involved, bs Men are more rational based, Double bs Women develop Maternal Instinct, The only difference is that you adjust the term to suit the gender
Men develop Paternal Instinct,
Women are more resistant to pain.*That is the basis of the movie Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS. Just to show you how wrong this is.
Men are less resistant to pain.*
Not necessarily. You can do “propaganda” for the “right” things. I personally agree with PETA on some stuff.
Asherian Command wrote: They are used to further a goal. And is another form of brainwashing, it is trying to use a movement and trying to force their values upon you.
Oh, you mean, they are trying to convince you to share their views. How terrible. That is something horrible you would never do, right? That was sarcasm, just in case .
So, when designing a video game, if you want your character to have some reaction, because it fits the personality of the character and the style of story you want to tell, how the hell is the gender of the character relevant? They are by very definition exceptions!
Asherian Command wrote: And there can be exceptions, but women at certain ages are more emotionally involved than men are. Its just biology of the brain. And development cycles.
Yeah, right… I am calling bs on it.
Asherian Command wrote: Feminism likes to blame society for this, I would like to blame developmental biology on this. Not society or its pressures.
Sure you would like to!
Asherian Command wrote: Yes I know but it is not like i am actively putting down an entire gender. There are strengths to each gender. ignoring these strengths is stupid and pointless.
That is pretty much what most sexists have said and still says when trying to defend their sexism. They love expressions like “different but equal”. Actually, quite a bunch of Muslims used that argument to justify the different treatment between men and women in Sharia/Islam. And some of them even dared pretend that the position of women was better than the position of men. Damn fething hypocrites!
Asherian Command wrote: Someone growing up in the wilds of kenya are probably better runners than someone growing up in the midwest.
That is a development because of geography which usually has a hand in peoples physical performance. Someone who is from a mountainous area is probably going to be a better runner than someone at sea level.
What the hell, man? Are you planing to give a talk at BAH or something? Their theories make more sense, and are actually corroborated way more by actual evidence. That is telling something.
Asherian Command wrote: Men and women have these differences, for example women are usually prone to having more hair and more emotional control. Men do not have this emotional control. And my source for that is read a bloody biology book it will say that.
I… do you get your biology book from some Christian or Muslim organization? That would explain quite a bit.
Their brains are wired differently Dubious Women can have childern True Men produce sperm True Women are subject to having more fat cells Maybe Men are not subject to having more fat cells Women have more lean muscles (This is more efficient) Maybe Men can have bigger muscles. Women are more dexterious You got to be kidding me! Women are more emotionally involved, bs Men are more rational based, Double bs Women develop Maternal Instinct, The only difference is that you adjust the term to suit the gender Men develop Paternal Instinct, Women are more resistant to pain.*That is the basis of the movie Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS. Just to show you how wrong this is. Men are less resistant to pain.*
Like if someone grew up a certain way or in a certain area they would grow up according to those circumstances?
So, when designing a video game, if you want your character to have some reaction, because it fits the personality of the character and the style of story you want to tell, how the hell is the gender of the character relevant? They are by very definition exceptions!
Correct. Heroes are usually an exception to the rules set up of the world. Gender is not relevant to the main character. The hero is not always the main character though. Only in video games are the main characters in most games the hero.
The hero can be. The hero can conform to society and its pressures.
The main character does not. Usually.
Oh, you mean, they are trying to convince you to share their views. How terrible. That is something horrible you would never do, right? That was sarcasm, just in case .
Ehh matters on situation and the point mostly.
Yeah, right… I am calling bs on it.
Most do say that. But then forget that is biological.
That is pretty much what most sexists have said and still says when trying to defend their sexism. They love expressions like “different but equal”. Actually, quite a bunch of Muslims used that argument to justify the different treatment between men and women in Sharia/Islam. And some of them even dared pretend that the position of women was better than the position of men. Damn fething hypocrites!
Wow taking my words and taking them to the extremes. Like you always do, I said subtle. Not nuclear differences. Know the difference. Because you just equated
What the hell, man? Are you planing to give a talk at BAH or something? Their theories make more sense, and are actually corroborated way more by actual evidence. That is telling something.
What does someone in kenya not have that someone in America has? They have to walk everywhere! And thats not racist. Kenya is a jungle. America is plains and filthy filthy rich. Welcome to this episode of point out the fething obvious.....
I… do you get your biology book from some Christian or Muslim organization? That would explain quite a bit.
*sigh* Yeah the bit on the hair I was wrong, but emotional control.... That is a common phenomenon.
Women are more dexterous You got to be kidding me! Women are more emotionally involved, bs Men are more rational based, Double bs
Women are more resistant to pain.*That is the basis of the movie Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS. Just to show you how wrong this is. Men are less resistant to pain.*
Please note I was highly doubtful of these as well. I doubted it extremely.
I think that particular aspect has reached an impass to be honest. I think Asherian, Melissa and Hybrid have all made their points of view quite clear on it. If anyone comes into the thread now, I think they've got enough summary of the viewpoints to come to their own conclusions...
So, how about switching to a different tact and maybe putting a more positive spin on things. If you were to pick a female character from some recent games that you could pick up and point to a major games studio and say. "Morein her vein please." Who would it be?
And, why?
Personally, I've said it before, but more Aveline style characters would be awesome. Admittedly, with a slightly more interesting tweak to her but still.
"Evolutionary psychology" again. A bunch of pseudoscience nonsense, which provides no evidence for its assertions, with no testable hypothesis.
And your theories do not? You have yet to also post a creditable source. You just dismiss because you think it is a pseudo science yet you have said that over and over and I have found large amounts of counter arguments.
I will continue to use them dispute your beliefs. I will continue to post more and more until you are proven completely wrong on this subject.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I think that particular aspect has reached an impass to be honest. I think Asherian, Melissa and Hybrid have all made their points of view quite clear on it. If anyone comes into the thread now, I think they've got enough summary of the viewpoints to come to their own conclusions...
So, how about switching to a different tact and maybe putting a more positive spin on things. If you were to pick a female character from some recent games that you could pick up and point to a major games studio and say. "Morein her vein please." Who would it be?
And, why?
Personally, I've said it before, but more Aveline style characters would be awesome. Admittedly, with a slightly more interesting tweak to her but still.
hmm Tell tale games have made on of the best childern characters in gaming Clemetine that is believable and is also a female. I want more characters that are not sexualized more interesting.
Asherian Command wrote: And your theories do not? You have yet to also post a creditable source.
I'm not the one making claims. I'm disputing yours. As such, I am not the one that needs to prove my position. You have yet to provide anything other than quackery and vague "maybes" as support for your argument.
Yeah, just like I've found plenty of people arguing that black people are inherently less intelligent than white people. In scientific research, quantity does not override quality.
I really need to stop saying I agree with people. I don't really agree with most of what Asherian Command is saying. They seem to be arguing about different perceived differences as if they were hard indelible facts that should be followed when making a character. That isn't what I would argue.
I think just think it's important to understand that these are perceptions that your audience might hold and that they can paint how they will react to a character.
Asherian Command wrote: And your theories do not? You have yet to also post a creditable source.
I'm not the one making claims. I'm disputing yours. As such, I am not the one that needs to prove my position. You have yet to provide anything other than quackery and vague "maybes" as support for your argument.
Yeah, just like I've found plenty of people arguing that black people are inherently less intelligent than white people. In scientific research, quantity does not override quality.
Are those articles from .edu websites? Are they accreditted by scientists and referenced? No? Then they don't really particularly answer anything.
I really need to stop saying I agree with people. I don't really agree with most of what Asherian Command is saying. They seem to be arguing about different perceived differences as if they were hard indelible facts that should be followed when making a character. That isn't what I would argue.
I think just think it's important to understand that these are perceptions that your audience might hold and that they can paint how they will react to a character.
I am not saying that there are completely needed, there are differences between men and women. In games you don't always have to, but it would be nice if you broke these stereotypes. That is fine.
You can disagree with me. But they are there, but are they important. Not really, but they are subtle differences and knowing those differences are things to remember.
Saying that there are not subtle differences between men and women is just stupid... its so stupid. I can't even comprehend how people say. "Nope, women are the same as men." Yet forgetting basic biology and throwing it to the side because they don't agree with evolutionary biology.
I mean sexual identity I think is another thing games should address.
Compel wrote: So, how about switching to a different tact and maybe putting a more positive spin on things. If you were to pick a female character from some recent games that you could pick up and point to a major games studio and say. "Morein her vein please." Who would it be?
The female agents (But not the named characters, whom are kind of lame) in Blacklight: Retribution would be an excellent start. Other multiplayer 1st person shooter games could do much worse than following their excellent example.
But if you're referring to roleplaying games specifically, the female player characters in Divinity: Original Sin, Commander Shepard, and female player characters from Shadowrun: Returns, and so on. Characters whom are defined by the player's actions, rather than by the writers, are far more interesting to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: Are those articles from .edu websites? Are they accreditted by scientists and referenced? No? Then they don't really particularly answer anything.
Actually, go back half a century and they were.
Just because you believe in the social sciences' version of homeopathy doesn't mean that it has nay merit.
Compel wrote: So, how about switching to a different tact and maybe putting a more positive spin on things. If you were to pick a female character from some recent games that you could pick up and point to a major games studio and say. "Morein her vein please." Who would it be?
The female agents (But not the named characters, whom are kind of lame) in Blacklight: Retribution would be an excellent start. Other multiplayer 1st person shooter games could do much worse than following their excellent example.
But if you're referring to roleplaying games specifically, the female player characters in Divinity: Original Sin, Commander Shepard, and female player characters from Shadowrun: Returns, and so on. Characters whom are defined by the player's actions, rather than by the writers, are far more interesting to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: Are those articles from .edu websites? Are they accreditted by scientists and referenced? No? Then they don't really particularly answer anything.
Actually, go back half a century and they were.
Just because you believe in the social sciences' version of homeopathy doesn't mean that it has nay merit.
:/ Are they accreditted? That means no.
I mean Freud or some other psychologists I outright ignore.
You are damn wrong, because Synergy is an awesome piece of software. I mean it. By the way, they are recruiting, and if you go there using my referral, I will get £1000. I know that seems insane, but this is completely, 100% genuine!
http://synergy-project.org/jobs/ I have no idea what my referral is supposed to be, but if you are interested by the job, I will definitely look very hard to learn about it
I meant, of course, the corporate buzzword:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synergy 'the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; synergism.'
And no, I'm not going to apply for a job to get you £1000. I don't mind if I don't make the scene, I've got a daytime job, I'm doing alright
The topic of the supposed link between race and intelligence is a heated debate even today in the academic world. The objections to the older research are based off of methodological flaws and false assumptions that the research made (the studies did not control for different social upbringings, education, etc., and assumed a genetic cause first before it was actually proven)-- and they're very similar to the flawed methodology and assumptions of the papers you're citing.
The topic of the supposed link between race and intelligence is a heated debate even today in the academic world. The objections to the older research are based off of methodological flaws and false assumptions that the research made (the studies did not control for different social upbringings, education, etc., and assumed a genetic cause first before it was actually proven)-- and they're very similar to the flawed methodology and assumptions of the papers you're citing.
As are yours. The feminist papers written thus far have ignored certain things and have cherry picked certain things.
I haven't cited any "feminist papers", or whatever vague, anti-intellectual nonsense you're spouting right now. The "geek feminism wiki" site I linked to was simply a discussion of the topic of gender essentialism, not an academic paper, and I never made any assertion that it was anything to the contrary-- as I said, I'm disputing your alleged points, I don't need to prove my position, just prove that yours is utterly baseless.
But even if I had made such a claim, you're making a Tu Quoque fallacy, which does not prove the point you are trying to make.
Firefox has that nice search feature that will highlight the word you are searching for. There were no maybes and no ifs in the part of your message I quoted!
Asherian Command wrote: What does someone in kenya not have that someone in America has? They have to walk everywhere! And thats not racist. Kenya is a jungle. America is plains and filthy filthy rich. Welcome to this episode of point out the fething obvious.....
I managed to track down the article on vervet monkeys (page 5) here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08000949 BUT THAT GODDAMN WEBSITE WILL NOT LET ME CONNECT THROUGH MY INSTITUTION LOGIN EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A VALID LOGIN AND PASSWORD! DAMN YOU WEBSITE!
(Somehow, plush became dolls.)
I am a bit confused about that computer science then-student (and now post-doc) posting some report on neuroscience. Being admitted first on the entrance exam at école polytechnique is pretty damn impressive, though. Fun fact: this is were I go twice per week to do climbing.
Other fun fact: she was more talked about in newspapers for being first at some ancient Greek and Latin translation exercise when she was 16 than for any of her later achievement! Apparently she even got to meet our then president! You can see all about it here:
http://cs.nyu.edu/~ylan/old_website/ , on the «ma minute de gloire» section.
Yeah, I went completely off-topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: So, how about switching to a different tact and maybe putting a more positive spin on things. If you were to pick a female character from some recent games that you could pick up and point to a major games studio and say. "Morein her vein please." Who would it be?
Ittle Dew and her, well, sidekick Tippsie.
Asherian Command wrote: Are those articles from .edu websites? Are they accreditted by scientists and referenced?
Well, you just put a link to some student's report. Which was NOT a peer-reviewed article referenced by scientists, obviously. Even though the author seems to be very brilliant student, who went on to continue on an academic career on image recognition.
Just so you know, I am a PhD student, so I can put any article I want on my personal website hosted by the lab, like she did. It will hold the same value. The articles she lists as reference actually are real research papers though.
Firefox has that nice search feature that will highlight the word you are searching for. There were no maybes and no ifs in the part of your message I quoted!
Asherian Command wrote: What does someone in kenya not have that someone in America has? They have to walk everywhere! And thats not racist. Kenya is a jungle. America is plains and filthy filthy rich. Welcome to this episode of point out the fething obvious.....
I managed to track down the article on vervet monkeys (page 5) here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08000949 BUT THAT GODDAMN WEBSITE WILL NOT LET ME CONNECT THROUGH MY INSTITUTION LOGIN EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A VALID LOGIN AND PASSWORD! DAMN YOU WEBSITE!
(Somehow, plush became dolls.)
I am a bit confused about that computer science then-student (and now post-doc) posting some report on neuroscience. Being admitted first on the entrance exam at école polytechnique is pretty damn impressive, though. Fun fact: this is were I go twice per week to do climbing.
Other fun fact: she was more talked about in newspapers for being first at some ancient Greek and Latin translation exercise when she was 16 than for any of her later achievement! Apparently she even got to meet our then president! You can see all about it here:
http://cs.nyu.edu/~ylan/old_website/ , on the «ma minute de gloire» section.
Yeah, I went completely off-topic.
I withdraw my statements.
But yeah the article on women is something I do not. On differences yes.
(NSFW) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_physical_appearance Acoording to some scientists human beings according to where they are located their appearances are changed. This is over a long period of time. Not instantly.
Asherian Command wrote: But yeah the article on women is something I do not. On differences yes.
I just have no idea what you mean.
Anyhow, in case you missed it, there is no some more stuff in my last message.
Well I cannot personally access pinkies' article because I do not have a login key. So I cannot directly reference the articles. If I could I would. :/ Sadly my school does not give me that luxury.
What I mean is there are subtle differences between men and women, they exist. And per that article they do indded happen to be in existance. They are not as big and different as people make it out to be. They are slight precentages not overwhelmingly large like people like to think.
When I say a woman is more emotional involved. It does not mean to the extreme it means more than a man, which is a tiny, tiny percentage higher.
Those are usually what the science reports say.
Well, you just put a link to some student's report. Which was NOT a peer-reviewed article referenced by scientists, obviously. Even though the author seems to be very brilliant student, who went on to continue on an academic career on image recognition. Just so you know, I am a PhD student, so I can put any article I want on my personal website hosted by the lab, like she did. It will hold the same value. The articles she lists as reference actually are real research papers though.
It is extremely well written and something I can see as being referenced for science papers. Though I don't think it should be dismissed. It is obvious that it was reviewed and editted severally which gives it crediability to the subject at hand.
Though another thing is that I am the son of a PHD student. I know you peeps get access to a ton of things. My mother worked in an insane asylum and no longer works as a doctor but a church secretary.... (yeah she needs a better job and I keep telling her she would be less stressed as a doctor, if you could believe that.)
Asherian Command wrote: What I mean is there are subtle differences between men and women, they exist. And per that article they do indded happen to be in existance.
.
Asherian Command wrote: When I say a woman is more emotional involved. It does not mean to the extreme it means more than a man, which is a tiny, tiny percentage higher.
If it is less than the variance between men, then it is pretty clear that you can completely forget it when designing video games, you know.
Asherian Command wrote: It is extremely well written and something I can see as being referenced for science papers. Though I don't think it should be dismissed. It is obvious that it was reviewed and editted severally which gives it crediability to the subject at hand.
Oh Asherian Command, you really have no idea how research work, do you?
That is my work. I know about it.
I knew that PhD could last longer in the U.S., but how old are you? I mean, you said you were a game designer!
20
But I am an idiot sometimes. It is not uncommon for me to challenge older people to intellectual fights. Though that might be because I like learning and being proven wrong.
I am considered a game designer, not because I am also studying it, but because I am actually good at what I do. Mostly at writing, critiquing and figuring out alot of things that players like. Such as engagement.
Oh Asherian Command, you really have no idea how research work, do you?
That is my work. I know about it.
Matters on the research, it could be personal observation,
Hitting the books, searching it up, from personal experiences, from other experience.
If it is less than the variance between men, then it is pretty clear that you can completely forget it when designing video games, you know.
They are subtle they should be made aware of, but only when in detailing the character. You have to be very specific when creating a creator in a game. Otherwise the game is no good.
A good character is one that is been designed. Hence our name Game Designers.
So, your father is still a PhD student at around 40? In France, really, being a PhD student after turning 30 is already pretty damn exceptional. At least in “hard” science and mathematics.
Asherian Command wrote: I am considered a game designer, not because I am also studying it, but because I am actually good at what I do. Mostly at writing, critiquing and figuring out alot of things that players like. Such as engagement.
I am not sure what you mean. Do you get a check every day for your work as a game designer? Can you name a video game you worked on?
Asherian Command wrote: Matters on the research, it could be personal observation, Hitting the books, searching it up, from personal experiences, from other experience.
I should have said academic research. Her work is a student assignment. Maybe it is a very good one, but there is no original results in it. It was never published or peer-reviewed, and it was never meant to be. It is a good introduction, and list of reference, but that is all it is supposed to be. The article even qualifies itself as a “mini-review”:
We have not mentionned(sic) evolutionary considerations so far, as they were outside the scope of that mini-review ;
Page 14.
Asherian Command wrote: They are subtle they should be made aware of, but only when in detailing the character. You have to be very specific when creating a creator in a game. Otherwise the game is no good.
I am not sure what you mean. Do you get a check every day for your work as a game designer? Can you name a video game you worked on?
I've only worked on one. Though I am only accredditted as an editor Remember we are designers in training, but we are still considered a designer.
So, your father is still a PhD student at around 40?
In France, really, being a PhD student after turning 30 is already pretty damn exceptional.
At least in “hard” science and mathematics.
My father never got his PhD, my Mother was the only person able to get her PhD, my father got his masters in health and business. They are well in to their 60s.
Compel wrote: So, how about switching to a different tact and maybe putting a more positive spin on things. If you were to pick a female character from some recent games that you could pick up and point to a major games studio and say. "Morein her vein please." Who would it be?
Just wanted to bring something up that tangentially relates to this question.
I'm not a believer in false equivalency.
In this case, it's important to point out that if someone were to say, make a series of videos covering the representation of women in video games, they would be justified in filling every segment with hundreds of negative examples, and still be both correct and justified in their representation of women in gaming media. That is, at least until the topics reach very recent times, which the percentage might go up for positive examples a small amount. The same goes for making a forum thread too.
And that's no matter how much others, even myself, don't like the videos for the lack positive examples.
This is very important to realize. Promoting positive examples is a good thing, and in fact it's the only way to move the industry forward. However, to gloss over or deny the fact that over 99% of portrayals of women in gaming media for decades has been negative doesn't help either.
It's why I've decided not to have high heeled, boob plate, armored women sculpts in my miniature game, even though most I've talked to would be okay with some level of that if it wasn't ridiculous.
There has to be some level of snap back against the decades of negative examples prior.
Also, at this point, I'm not even sure what Asherian, Melissia, and Co. are even arguing about. It's devolved into obscure long chains of multi and line quoting that no one can even follow. I'm not even sure if they're all even arguing against, or if they're even on opposite sides of an argument.
I think this is a bit of a silly issue to discuss because games are so broad and varied in their depiction of female characters. I definitely have a problem with the idea that we should force developers to arbitrarily include more women or more important roles for women in their games.
Kali wrote: I think this is a bit of a silly issue to discuss because games are so broad and varied in their depiction of female characters. I definitely have a problem with the idea that we should force developers to arbitrarily include more women or more important roles for women in their games.
So basically balance it out? I mean I think it is dumb too to demand that developers follow my perceptions.
except if they are do so in an insulting manner.
I think games have come a very long way, and will continue to strive forward.
Sex should be a facet of a character, not the other way around. If the story calls for a female character, then go for it, but don't modify the story or the characters to suit political purposes.
Kali wrote: Sex should be a facet of a character, not the other way around. If the story calls for a female character, then go for it, but don't modify the story or the characters to suit political purposes.
What if they do it just because they want to? Maybe if you can give me an example of where gender flipping has actually had a negative effect, like, any negative effect at all, then I might start to understand your view. Heck, there may even be an example in that link I just posted. There's hundreds there so at least one of them has to be bad, right?
Vertrucio wrote: Also, at this point, I'm not even sure what Asherian, Melissia, and Co. are even arguing about. It's devolved into obscure long chains of multi and line quoting that no one can even follow. I'm not even sure if they're all even arguing against, or if they're even on opposite sides of an argument.
I visit this thread every other day and I wonder why the arguments always change. How can this go on with only... what? half a dozen or three regular posters?
Kali wrote: Sex should be a facet of a character, not the other way around. If the story calls for a female character, then go for it, but don't modify the story or the characters to suit political purposes.
What if they do it just because they want to?
That's perfectly valid since it's their vision to make the character that way. I'm concerned about constraining developers because of political pressure, unfortunately quite a real threat today.
Political pressure constraining creators is not new, nor is it anymore threatening today than it was five hundred years ago, or five hundred years before that.
If someone is so weak willed that they'll allow public opinion to decide how they practice their craft, they're probably not producing anything worthwhile anyway.
LordofHats wrote: Political pressure constraining creators is not new, nor is it anymore threatening today than it was five hundred years ago, or five hundred years before that.
If someone is so weak willed that they'll allow public opinion to decide how they practice their craft, they're probably not producing anything worthwhile anyway.
It may not be new but the battle is nevertheless ongoing and there are victories to be won, so I'm not inclined to detach from the issue and let chips fall. If nobody stands up for creative freedoms, then even the most independent-minded developers will be forced to toe the line or else lose access to resources and audiences that only the mainstream provides.
Kali wrote: then even the most independent-minded developers will be forced to toe the line or else lose access to resources and audiences that only the mainstream provides.
That pretty much already happens with the current developer/publisher relationship in the game industry. Honestly, feminist advocates getting their way would reduce this trend, not increase it. Publishers already exist in some bizarre pseudo-universe where women don't exist and are utterly convinced that Generic White Grunting Guy is the only protagonist that sells.
Publishers are interested in selling to their market and their market is overwhelmingly male and young. Expanding that market means creating new niches, not reinventing the wheel and displacing your core audience. As a gamer, I'm simply not interested in feminist values permeating my entertainment media and most developers feel the same way. It's not only a matter of how gaming isn't equal in its pandering, but also why it shouldn't be. After all, we all want creators to make things that we like and I'm just one among countless others who are interested in defending and promoting the community and market to incentivize that productive behavior.
Kali wrote: Publishers are interested in selling to their market and their market is overwhelmingly male and young.
And? It's kind of outlandish to proclaim young males only wanted to play white men considering the popularity of Tomb Raider, Metroid, etc etc.
As outlandish as claiming this group will lose interest if other kinds of protagonists are created.
As a gamer, I'm simply not interested in feminist values permeating my entertainment media and most developers feel the same way.
Framing this as an issue of advancing feminist values is a complete misnomer. Nothing about including more dynamic females in lead and supporting roles is all that obstructive. To the contrary, most developers seem amicable to broadening horizons. Why wouldn't they be? If you're just retreading the same ground as everyone else, then your job is pretty boring. It's publishers who aren't interested because publishers don't care about creation (just profiting from it).
Kali wrote: Sex should be a facet of a character, not the other way around. If the story calls for a female character, then go for it, but don't modify the story or the characters to suit political purposes.
The problem here is that games designers, and you apparently, assume the male to be the default. We get lots of male characters in video games because all of the stories call for them, and then a few women thrown in when we need a love interest or something to placate those whiney female gamers.
Its not a question of whether the story calls specifically for a woman (otherwise we default to a man), but a question of 'why on earth shouldn't it have a woman in it?'. Its a fictional game; if your imagination can stretch to whip-blades, laser guns and zombies, but not to women wanting to use the guns or fight the zombies, I think there is something very wrong with your imagination.
The story doesn't have to change. It just needs more women in it. Maybe they could even be wearing clothes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kali wrote: Publishers are interested in selling to their market and their market is overwhelmingly male and young. Expanding that market means creating new niches, not reinventing the wheel and displacing your core audience. As a gamer, I'm simply not interested in feminist values permeating my entertainment media and most developers feel the same way. It's not only a matter of how gaming isn't equal in its pandering, but also why it shouldn't be. After all, we all want creators to make things that we like and I'm just one among countless others who are interested in defending and promoting the community and market to incentivize that productive behavior.
As a gamer, I am truly interested in feminist ideals permeating the games that I play. Would it really hurt to include a playable female character? You could keep the male character. Honest. Just a little toggle to the left on the main screen and the character gets another X chromasome. That's all I'm after.
The problem with saying that the market is 'male and young' is that it creates a catch 22 in favour of the status quo. All of the main characters are men, so you attract a male audience. Then if women don't want to play the games with a male character, you point and say 'obviously only men want to play, lets make more male main characters'. But if women do play the games with male main characters, you get to point and say 'we're attracting a female audience, lets change nothing'.
I'll leave this here. 50% of games purchased by women. 48% played by women. Average game player is 31. There is your 'Overwhelmingly young, male audence'.
It's not even necessary to go into demographics. Really, all the argument amounts to is "I think games shouldn't be influenced by any sort of pressure, except for the ones that interest me." It's a moot argument (they keep coming up in the this thread it seems).
If people want the industry to be free of political pressures, they're barking up the wrong tree trying to reinforce the current status quo, as it only really exists because of a round of circular logic produced by publishers (granted, it's by no means unique to video games). They already engage in censorship quite actively.
If a character is good, they will garner interest, whether they be man, woman, hero, villain, murderer, rapist, etc. So long as it is interesting it will fly. What's between their legs is really a ludicrously minor issue to have blown up as much as it is. Some women asking for more women in games isn't going to ruin anyone else's fun times.
Kali wrote: I think this is a bit of a silly issue to discuss because games are so broad and varied in their depiction of female characters. I definitely have a problem with the idea that we should force developers to arbitrarily include more women or more important roles for women in their games.
I'd like to point out that the portrayal of female characters in games actually hasn't been that broad and varied up until very recently, and even these days the portrayal of a vast majority of female characters is iffy. That's the whole point of this, and many other discussions on the topic. I think I can count the number of female characters in all of video games that aren't wearing something either skin tight, or with a low cut, boob hugging top.
And, most importantly, no one is forcing you, or developers, to do anything. There is no political pressure, there is creative pressure to do a better job of making characters that don't follow the same tired tropes. Pointing out these issues of portrayal is getting such a defensive reaction because people are too used to it being the norm.
Also, you have to realize that there is also real political, social, and marketing pressure to make characters male. Not sure if you realize this. If you don't, you should go examine the phenomenon before continuing. I'm a male, and I can look around with eyes open at the reality of it. If you're also male, look down and take a look at your body and see if any of the men portrayed in games are representing anything like you.
Also, publishers only think that their market is male and young. The reality is that the game playing and buying public is actually made up more of 20-30+ year olds. Also, the gap between male and female players is dwindling. But part of the reason there is a gap at all is what we're talking about. If you talk about different gaming markets, there's actually a huge number of female game players that play casual games. Those might never be converted to the type that will play or at least try an in depth game, but we'll never know if the market doesn't change it's portrayal of women that drives away women from even trying.
It's a common defensive reaction to think that feminism is a negative pressure. Reality is, that pressure is just eyes being opened. It's like your avatar. Japanese animation, while often lauded for unique portrayals of women, is just as much a cesspool of the worst portrayals of, well, any group of people in existence.
Kali wrote: If nobody stands up for creative freedoms
The convenient, hypocrite excuse.
Kali wrote: As a gamer, I'm simply not interested in feminist values permeating my entertainment media and most developers feel the same way. It's not only a matter of how gaming isn't equal in its pandering, but also why it shouldn't be. After all, we all want creators to make things that we like and I'm just one among countless others who are interested in defending and promoting the community and market to incentivize that productive behavior.
The truth.
It is funny how you did not even notice how you were contradicting yourself.
Kali wrote: If the story calls for a female character, then go for it, but don't modify the story or the characters to suit political purposes.
So, what do you believe:
- If the story explicitly require a male character (because of that segment when he cannot use his hands and have to write his name in the snow ), then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character (because she will become pregnant during the game ) then make her a woman, and if none of the above, make him a man, or
- If the story explicitly require a male character , then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character then make her a woman, and if none of the above, toss a coin to see if you are going to make it a man or a woman, or
- If the story explicitly require a male character, then make him a man, if the story explicitely require a female character then make her a woman, and if none of the above, make her a woman, that is fine for you.
I strongly suspect it is the first solution.
Also please provide example of why a story would have to be modified if the character's gender is changed.
So, people don't like the current level of female characters available for play in games in addition to tropes that come along with being a female.
Has it occurred to anything to actually do anything about this?
I don't get it, is the cry for equality or more attention? Because if anyone has actually played any video games in the past, say, 15 years there have been MASSIVE improvements in gender equality within gaming. Of course, no one will actually admit to this, because, it's easier to bitch and complain.
Right, because I have the millions of dollars needed to make a big budget game. Because that's the kind of game we're referring to here-- most indie games do not get the kind of market share or impact that games by multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar producers get (indie games are also more likely to be creative, but have less budget to use to expand on their creativity). Your objections are meaningless.
Frankenberry wrote: Because if anyone has actually played any video games in the past, say, 15 years there have been MASSIVE improvements in gender equality within gaming.
I am not so sure. Fourteen years ago we already had American McGee's Alice. About forty years ago we had Metroid. Nowadays we have Smite.
15 years ago, Brood War had those female units portraits:
Now, we have this in Starcraft II:
(Most ridiculous boobplate ever!)
Granted, the medic is still badass-looking:
Not to say it is worse now, but it goes both way. There was terrible stuff back then, there still is now. There was awesome stuff back then, there still is now.
Frankenberry wrote: Because if anyone has actually played any video games in the past, say, 15 years there have been MASSIVE improvements in gender equality within gaming.
I am not so sure. Fourteen years ago we already had American McGee's Alice. About forty years ago we had Metroid. Nowadays we have Smite.
15 years ago, Brood War had those female units portraits:
Now, we have this in Starcraft II:
(Most ridiculous boobplate ever!)
Granted, the medic is still badass-looking:
Not to say it is worse now, but it goes both way. There was terrible stuff back then, there still is now. There was awesome stuff back then, there still is now.
That's not a boobplate. She's just wearing a very tight suit.
For science reasons.
Frankenberry wrote: Because if anyone has actually played any video games in the past, say, 15 years there have been MASSIVE improvements in gender equality within gaming.
I am not so sure. Fourteen years ago we already had American McGee's Alice. About forty years ago we had Metroid. Nowadays we have Smite.
15 years ago, Brood War had those female units portraits:
Now, we have this in Starcraft II:
(Most ridiculous boobplate ever!)
Granted, the medic is still badass-looking:
Not to say it is worse now, but it goes both way. There was terrible stuff back then, there still is now. There was awesome stuff back then, there still is now.
Silly thing is, the boobplate actually makes sense here, while pulling high G manouvers having proper support makes sense, its still eyecandy but its kinda justified as silly as it is.
The QoB's high chitin heels Nope nope nope makes no sense at all aswell her boobplate makes no sense at all...
.
.
what a person wears in real life.
.
.
It's not cheating, because it's YOUR dog
