"The research group wasn't planning on focus-testing female players - it's something we had to specifically request." - Naughty Dog creative director Neil Druckmann explains how his company had to step in during focus-testing for The Last of Us.
As part of the focus-testing for the upcoming title, Druckmann discovered that the research firm the company had brought in to handle the focus groups wasn't planning to poll a single female player.
"Players are rounded up and are asked to view materials and answer some quantitative and qualitative questions about it," he noted.
However, it came as a "big surprise" to find that he had to specifically request that the firm polled women as well as men.
"I hope this is a relic of the past that will soon go away," he added. This same marketing firm also told Naughty Dog that it would be best to put The Last of Us' female protagonist Ellie on the back of the box rather than the front, although Naughty Dog refused this advice.
This latter point echoes the words of Jean-Max Morris, creative director on upcoming Capcom adventure game Remember Me, who recently said that publishers were against having a female character as the main protagonist in video games.
Another recent focus testing case centred around Uncharted's female protagonist Chase, who focus-testers said was too much of a wimp. Sony Bend subsequentally made Chase a stronger character who could carry herself in situations.
]If a lot of the pushback against feminist critique of video games, or even the simple assertion that women enjoy playing games and so maybe a studio should consider them to be a valuable demographic, contains a core misconception, it is that the people calling for better representation in the games industry and in the female characters in games think that every man in the industry is an evil women-hating jerk. I mean, come on, those guys have mothers, wives, sisters, and female friends! They don’t hate women!
In fact, if the folks who were responsible for problematic portrayals of female characters or poor representation of real women in games industry were doing it all purely deliberately, it’d probably be a lot easier to fix. The reality is that a lot of this stuff is far more subtle than that, and the sad fact remains that all of us are capable of having noble or even neutral intentions while still overlooking the subtle ways in which we’re contributing to a stereotype, operating on a false assumption, or missing out on a different but important perspective. Case in point, some of the things the creators of The Last of Us have mentioned lately.
We last heard from developer Naughty Dog when The Last of Us scriptwriter Neil Druckmann and voice actress Ashley Johnsondiscussed the state of female characters in the industry, and Druckmann mentioned that he’d encountered marketing talk that recommended that Ellie, the game’s co-lead, be pushed to the back of the box art, lest her presence on the front lead to lower sales. Since the game purports to focus at least as much on strangers Ellie and Joel forging a parent/child relationship over their travels as it does shooting and stealth mechanics in a post-apocalyptic America, Naughty Dog insisted.
In a recent interview with The Escapist, Druckmann talked more about the odd hurdles Naughty Dog found between them and trying to make a more gender equitable video game. In this case, they discovered that the company they hired to do market testing weren’t planning on including any women in their focus groups… until it was specifically requested.
Another aspect that influences how a game is promoted is focus-testing. Players are rounded up and are asked to view materials and answer some quantitative and qualitative questions about it. My big surprise during this process is that the research group wasn’t planning on focus-testing female gamers – it’s something we had to specifically request. I hope this is a relic of the past that will soon go away.
So here we see a pretty serious effect of how the assumption “women don’t play video games” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we assume that women don’t play, then we’ll never ask them what they think of a game, and it becomes far more likely that we’ll create a game that presents gender in a limited way, from a limited perspective, or even an offensive one. And then women will be less likely to enjoy playing our game, but that’s all right, because we know that women don’t play games anyway.
It’s clear that not asking women about the quality of a video game is a habit for this company, likely something they’ve been doing for so long that it’s simply accepted as routine. Is that evil? No. Is it lazy, shortsighted, and wrong? Yes.
This was actually an article that made me feel some warmth inside, because Naughty Dog actually wanted to include women in the testing and demanded it.
Melissia wrote: So the gaming industry excludes women from focus testing unless they're specifically requested by developers, apparently.
women don't make the money so they matter less for marketing purposes.
I realize that this is likely intended to be a joke, but it's still in bad taste even compared to the other jokes in this thread (which were already starting off in bad taste anyway)
I think the thrust of Grundz point is that women aren't seen as the people to aim for to make the most money for the industry, so in turn games testers only bother with men for testing. Which is pretty sad and something I'd like us to move away from.
Then obviously you just have boob-envy, because everyone knows man-boobs aren't as awesome as girl-boobs.
Jokes aside, I'm also glad that they specifically pushed Marketing to stop being idiots.
He probably wins the boob war too.
Anyway, on topic.
Yeah.. had not expected it to be this bad. Hell, I have a mate who works as tester for EA in Ireland, I'm gonna see if I can get a word out of him on how many women he actually has as colleagues over there.
I think the biggest question to ask here is; Is this just an isolated instance of this happening with one backwards company(Which apparently is big and trusted enough to get the guys from naughty dogs to come to them) or is it as wide spread as we all probably fear? I'm pretty scared that the latter is more plausible considering this has to be one of the big boys in the market.
Yeah we went over related topics back in the Tropes vs Women tread. Another problem stemming from traditional mass marketing.
I think the biggest question to ask here is; Is this just an isolated instance of this happening with one backwards company(Which apparently is big and trusted enough to get the guys from naughty dogs to come to them) or is it as wide spread as we all probably fear? I'm pretty scared that the latter is more plausible considering this has to be one of the big boys in the market.
Doubt its isolated. This is how marketing is done. Products are usually targeted at a specific gender (unless we're talking about something like plain blue bed sheets). With video games, its still marketed as a boys world, similar to comic books or table top games.
Marketing I suspect is more a symptom than the root of the problem.
Statistics show that men are the majority but female gamers have been rapidly growing for a number of years now (even the most conservative estimates I think list them at nearly 20% of the AAA market). But the common mentality in the games industry is that it's a man's industry and the idea that women can make up a viable market for the product is something the industry at large seems to struggle to grasp. They don't consider women (as in the case in the op) as a demographic they can sell the product too.
It's especially weird as Survival Horror games like The Last of Us tend to draw an audience of both genders and very reliably. One would think people in marketing would be aware of this and look at the potential of the female market rather than ignoring it.
LordofHats wrote: Marketing I suspect is more a symptom than the root of the problem.
Statistics show that men are the majority but female gamers have been rapidly growing for a number of years now (even the most conservative estimates I think list them at nearly 20% of the AAA market). But the common mentality in the games industry is that it's a man's industry and the idea that women can make up a viable market for the product is something the industry at large seems to struggle to grasp. They don't consider women (as in the case in the op) as a demographic they can sell the product too.
It's especially weird as Survival Horror games like The Last of Us tend to draw an audience of both genders and very reliably. One would think people in marketing would be aware of this and look at the potential of the female market rather than ignoring it.
While women certainly play the more 'hardcore' titles, I think it's pretty difficult to deny that casual games tend to be where the majority of their video game dollars are spent. I'm not sure, if I ran, say, a shooter developer, I'd spend all that much time marketing to women, simply because it'd be such a low return on investment.
Melissia wrote: So the gaming industry excludes women from focus testing unless they're specifically requested by developers, apparently.
women don't make the money so they matter less for marketing purposes.
I realize that this is likely intended to be a joke, but it's still in bad taste even compared to the other jokes in this thread (which were already starting off in bad taste anyway)
Why would it be a joke? the male 18-25orsomething demographic is valued about 2 times larger than the same female demographic by marketing.
Because we make more money and spend it friviliously on things
Melissia wrote: So the gaming industry excludes women from focus testing unless they're specifically requested by developers, apparently.
women don't make the money so they matter less for marketing purposes.
I realize that this is likely intended to be a joke, but it's still in bad taste even compared to the other jokes in this thread (which were already starting off in bad taste anyway)
Why would it be a joke? the male 18-25orsomething demographic is valued about 2 times larger than the same female demographic by marketing. Because we make more money and spend it friviliously on things
No, that's not why.
Women spend money frivolously, too. I mean, at least that's what all the comedians tell me.
While women certainly play the more 'hardcore' titles, I think it's pretty difficult to deny that casual games tend to be where the majority of their video game dollars are spent. I'm not sure, if I ran, say, a shooter developer, I'd spend all that much time marketing to women, simply because it'd be such a low return on investment.
I'd suspect this is generally true, but Bungie did a poll way back in the days of Halo 3 and found that nearly a quarter of Halo's XBL player base was female. That's a pretty hefty number all things considered and it's not like making a game appealing to women inherently makes it unappealing to men. The simple option to be a female Spartan in subsequent Halo titles was probably fueled by that study and it's been fairly well received.
Before Halo 2, Bungie made a thread on their forums because apparently they'd realised that, wow, maybe women like playing female characters in games? And they asked if that was the case. It turned out the answer was yes, duh and they ended up adding the option to have a female character (visually identical, but different sounds) in multiplayer.
I wonder how widespread this issue is - how much business this "unnamed market research firm" gets and how many others act the same way.
That David Gaider article (linked near the end of the second spoiler) is really good, too.
While women certainly play the more 'hardcore' titles, I think it's pretty difficult to deny that casual games tend to be where the majority of their video game dollars are spent. I'm not sure, if I ran, say, a shooter developer, I'd spend all that much time marketing to women, simply because it'd be such a low return on investment.
I'd suspect this is generally true, but Bungie did a poll way back in the days of Halo 3 and found that nearly a quarter of Halo's XBL player base was female. That's a pretty hefty number all things considered and it's not like making a game appealing to women inherently makes it unappealing to men. The simple option to be a female Spartan in subsequent Halo titles was probably fueled by that study and it's been fairly well received.
Although I don't disagree with this, it kind of shows that you should market more for men.
Lets suppose the above is correct - 75% men, and 25% women in a game like Halo.
Lets assume that for every $1 spent on marketing, I get a $2 return on investment (RoI)
Lets assume a 0% carryover from marketing for men to marketing for women (as in, every dollar I spend on men does not increase female sales)
If I spend $100 marketing towards men, I get a $150 RoI
If I spend the same $100 marketing towards women, I get a $50 RoI (let loss of $50)
Even if you assume a 75% carryover from marketing for men to marketing for women the numbers come out in the male's favor:
Same situation - $100 towards men gives a $187.50 RoI
$100 towards women gives a $162.50 RoI
Purely marketing for men is, in this simplified case, a better bang for your buck.
Am I saying that women should be excluded? Of course not. I'm all in favor of getting more women into gaming. Fem Shep, fem spartans, etc. are good ideas and the trend should be continued if that's what it takes to get women to play those games. But the reality of it is, more men play video games than women and marketing should focus where their best return is. The video game world should be no different than any other market. It's sexist, but it's the way of the world. Cooking and cleaning products - women; power tools and sports cars - men.
Now, I admit that I'm no marketing major, nor am I getting into the whole debate of "if games were marketed more for women then more women would play games!" but I'd say the polling company probably had the right idea:
Dave - "What's our target demographic?"
Bob - "16-25 year old males"
Dave - "Hmm.... who should we poll to get information on what to do to make our target demographic buy this game?"
Bob - "Uhhh.... 16-25 year old males?"
Dave - "Great idea! Get on that!"
The problem is, marketing with one demographic in mind doesn't necessarily just increase sales to that demographic. It can also actively decrease sales to other demographics. Same with design. If you read David Gaider's article, there, you can see an example of the male writers being taken by surprise at the way all the female writers read something quite differently to them and in a negative way that the original writer did not intend.
Shrike325 wrote: Although I don't disagree with this, it kind of shows that you should market more for men.
Lets suppose the above is correct - 75% men, and 25% women in a game like Halo.
Lets assume that for every $1 spent on marketing, I get a $2 return on investment (RoI)
Lets assume a 0% carryover from marketing for men to marketing for women (as in, every dollar I spend on men does not increase female sales)
If I spend $100 marketing towards men, I get a $150 RoI
If I spend the same $100 marketing towards women, I get a $50 RoI (let loss of $50)
Even if you assume a 75% carryover from marketing for men to marketing for women the numbers come out in the male's favor:
Same situation - $100 towards men gives a $187.50 RoI
$100 towards women gives a $162.50 RoI
Purely marketing for men is, in this simplified case, a better bang for your buck.
Am I saying that women should be excluded? Of course not. I'm all in favor of getting more women into gaming. Fem Shep, fem spartans, etc. are good ideas and the trend should be continued if that's what it takes to get women to play those games. But the reality of it is, more men play video games than women and marketing should focus where their best return is. The video game world should be no different than any other market. It's sexist, but it's the way of the world. Cooking and cleaning products - women; power tools and sports cars - men.
Now, I admit that I'm no marketing major, nor am I getting into the whole debate of "if games were marketed more for women then more women would play games!" but I'd say the polling company probably had the right idea:
Dave - "What's our target demographic?"
Bob - "16-25 year old males"
Dave - "Hmm.... who should we poll to get information on what to do to make our target demographic buy this game?"
Bob - "Uhhh.... 16-25 year old males?"
Dave - "Great idea! Get on that!"
I don't disagree. My opinion on this is that its not really a problem that can be 'fixed'. It's not algebra where you can find x and the equation is solved. Human behavior is a more tenacious thing and sometimes I think people are forced to just wait and see how it works itself out. Being aware of the situation is of course step one I suppose.
From a marketing point of view, it makes perfect sense to have a majority of male testers as they make up for the biggest potential market in the case of such games - men core gamers are far more numerous than girl core gamers thus, if you're smart, you cater to males rather than females. Still, I wouldn't neglect such a market...why not have a few female testers as well? I don't see any downsides.
Sauce:
* Teens, Video Games and Civics (2008) * State of the Media: The Cross-Platform Report (2012)
...an on another regard: can we please leave David Gaide out of, idk, everything? He's a self-loving bunghole.
Had quite a long talk with my friend at EA yesterday.
He said, while his department (tech support and customer data analysis) was almost completely a boys club, it was run by a lesbian, which gave me chuckle.
Anyway, I asked a bit about their testing crew, apparently, their testing department is in Madrid and 90%+ is male. Not a big suprise there I guess.
What was amusing though, he told me about the difference between male and female accounts. Accounts owned by female, on avarage, are worth almost 4 times as much as the male avarage. Women are much bigger spenders then men on EA games with the avarage for women being over a 1000 dollars per account. Though most of it was attributed to sims games.
But considering that women seem to be bigger spenders when it comes to gaming it's odd that they still get so little love in the industry.
What was amusing though, he told me about the difference between male and female accounts. Accounts owned by female, on avarage, are worth almost 4 times as much as the male avarage. Women are much bigger spenders then men on EA games with the avarage for women being over a 1000 dollars per account. Though most of it was attributed to sims games.
Actually I want to say I heard something similar about Steam... Not sure where though (could be wrong and might be imagining it XD).
I'll bet it's a combo of Sims, which has always been popular with the people of Venus, and Bioware.
That's no surprise to me. I 've invested more in my Steam account than most of my friends on Steam as well, with 100+ games on my two accounts (excluding duplicates).
Soladrin wrote: Had quite a long talk with my friend at EA yesterday.
He said, while his department (tech support and customer data analysis) was almost completely a boys club, it was run by a lesbian, which gave me chuckle.
Anyway, I asked a bit about their testing crew, apparently, their testing department is in Madrid and 90%+ is male. Not a big suprise there I guess.
What was amusing though, he told me about the difference between male and female accounts. Accounts owned by female, on avarage, are worth almost 4 times as much as the male avarage. Women are much bigger spenders then men on EA games with the avarage for women being over a 1000 dollars per account. Though most of it was attributed to sims games.
But considering that women seem to be bigger spenders when it comes to gaming it's odd that they still get so little love in the industry.
We can really blame most of that on the sims. It's a real cash cow franchise. I have easily spent 5 times as much on the sims then I have on any other EA game. It just has so many games and expansions, and spin offs. I wonder why no one else has put out a virtual doll house to compete with the sims. One could argue that the sims is a very good reason for game companies to invest more in women.
It's very easy for people to say "oh they just play Sims a lot" and then completely and utterly ignore the large number of women who play far more than just Sims.
Dismissing women is a long-beloved pastime of people seeking excuses for the status quo.
But you can't dismiss the money. Women have money, women like games, you make games. It should be an easy 1+1= profit.
Though we could be optimistic about this because things are shifting. They have added female avatars to most FPSMP and we are getting a more female characters. Even if they don't always make it on the box art.
I wonder if the focus test that picked the bioshock box art was all male?
nomotog wrote: They have added female avatars to most FPSMP
I don't know about that. Certainly not AAA shooters. Maybe for FPS-MMOs and free to play FPS games this is accurate, but most of the time if there is a woman in a shooter she's "The Girl", IE the token female, and usually in a class-based shooter she's the stealthy one, or the medic.
nomotog wrote: They have added female avatars to most FPSMP
I don't know about that. Certainly not AAA shooters. Maybe for FPS-MMOs and free to play FPS games this is accurate, but most of the time if there is a woman in a shooter she's "The Girl", IE the token female, and usually in a class-based shooter she's the stealthy one, or the medic.
Yeah, I never understood why a game like, for instance Battlefield 3 didn't simply have an option that says male/female. For a developer that big making those character models would've been a breeze, hell, the people who made the character models for them we're probably long finished before the game was done anyway. You could probably apply the same logic as is used for legitimate day 1 DLC, stuff the artists made in between finalization and release.
And Melissia, just out of curiosity, do you see the whole box art thing as a big issue? It's hard for me to see it as an issue since I completely disregard box art when evaluating the possible purchase of a game.
nomotog wrote: They have added female avatars to most FPSMP
I don't know about that. Certainly not AAA shooters. Maybe for FPS-MMOs and free to play FPS games this is accurate, but most of the time if there is a woman in a shooter she's "The Girl", IE the token female, and usually in a class-based shooter she's the stealthy one, or the medic.
I know halo has a female option from reach. I think gears of war added one in 3. OK I guess it's not most, but it's on the rise. If we can get women in COD I think that would clinch it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: I see it as more an extension of the issue already being discussed, of women being marginalized even in their own games.
Soladrin wrote:Yeah, I never understood why a game like, for instance Battlefield 3 didn't simply have an option that says male/female.
I have a feeling it may in part due to a certain fear from segments of the playerbase who are all "roar women shouldn't be in the military this is BS", regardless of current developments. Even in Mass Effect, I've seen people on the BSN forums argueing that Femshep "doesn't make any sense".
That said, you got to play a female jet pilot in the BF3 campaign, and the one from BF4 will apparently have a female chopper pilot NPC. Baby steps, but better than nothing I guess.
What's more worrysome is stuff like this. Damn, the game was good, but the excuses made in this video are so transparently silly.
I know, but it's a step for computer games. They do seem to lag behind a couple years regarding such things. Hell, even as far as ethnicity is concerned .. compare the number of movies with a black dude to the number of video games where you play one. GTA III felt pretty novel just for that. The average game protagonist is still the brown-haired white dude in his mid 30's, usually with a three-day beard. If it wasn't for the clothing, you might get the idea that it's the same character we get to see in half the shooters out there. Slightly exaggerated, but you get the idea.
Also, I thought we'd be talking about the Battlefield series in particular.
Lynata wrote: I know, but it's a step for computer games. They do seem to lag behind a couple years regarding such things. Hell, even as far as ethnicity is concerned .. compare the number of movies with a black dude to the number of video games where you play one. GTA III felt pretty novel just for that. The average game protagonist is still the brown-haired white dude in his mid 30's, usually with a three-day beard. If it wasn't for the clothing, you might get the idea that it's the same character we get to see in half the shooters out there. Slightly exaggerated, but you get the idea.
Also, I thought we'd be talking about the Battlefield series in particular.
Nah, it really isn't a step if you ask me, this is to tiny to be considered even that if you ask me.
In the case of Deus Ex: it's different than e.g. in Battlefield where you got no story and play a random character. Deus Ex was a story with a main, male, protagonist because the story's writer(s) decided their main character to be male. That's it.
I've seen this video being pulled in another forum too and it was hilarious...there was one guy who was *raging* all over the ending of ME and when people brought up that Bioware can put in the ending they want to because it's their story and "artistic vision", he raged again. On the other hand, in regards to the video, the same guy (or girl, idk, weird pony names don't make up for easy gender identification) replied to someone saying that it's the writer's idea to have a male protagonist. Was fun as long as it lasted.
Anyway: any developer is free to choose the protagonist's gender and some even removed genders from games entirely (e.g. Final Fantasy). In the case of Battlefield or rather action games, it's just that a lot more men play those games than women do. Hell, even in ME3, 83% (iirc) of the players chose Shepherd and not Femshep despite having the choice...and they had a fully voiced second character (which did, imo, a better job...).
Melissia wrote: It's very easy for people to say "oh they just play Sims a lot" and then completely and utterly ignore the large number of women who play far more than just Sims.
Dismissing women is a long-beloved pastime of people seeking excuses for the status quo.
I don't think that's what we're getting at. If women are spending a vast amount more than men "women play more games" isn't a very good answer. The Sims has like a bajillion expansions and it is a popular franchise with women (not that it isn't popular with men mind you) and since women make a smaller consumer base the ones who spend vast amounts exert a larger influence in the statistics (for example I've probably spent $2000+ on Steam, but there are a huge number more men on it and they probably vary more in spending practices keeping my huge spending from showing in statistics as much). I'm sure they play plenty of other games that aren't the Sims, but the Sims can go a long way in explaining why the average spending is so much higher. I think there's a word for it in statistics cause it happens in other areas of life too but its been a few years since that statistics class XD
The problem that remains is, with the industry as it is women pretty just face a barrier of even thinking about getting into certain games. Publishers and developers(to a lesser degree) are directly responsible for this barrier by refusing to cater to both genders in a proper way.
It's just a vicious circle in the end. Publishers see less money coming from females, publishers cater more to men, less women get into video games, less moeny comes from females etc. etc.
As for the gaming community, it's probably all the boys that don't want to feel ashamed for losing to a girl. (which in itself is a dumb notion.)
Sigvatr wrote:In the case of Deus Ex: it's different than e.g. in Battlefield where you got no story and play a random character. Deus Ex was a story with a main, male, protagonist because the story's writer(s) decided their main character to be male. That's it.
What exactly was supposed to be so important that he absolutely had to be male, though? The "Damsel in Distress" plot as a motivator? This can very easily be solved by either making the Doc into a man, by leaving her a female but make her a relative, or (*gasp*) by making Jensen a lesbian. Zero effects on the story and the character's overall appearance.
Gender is overrated. It is not a defining trait of a character - or at least it shouldn't be (-> stereotypes).
Sigvatr wrote:Hell, even in ME3, 83% (iirc) of the players chose Shepherd and not Femshep despite having the choice...and they had a fully voiced second character (which did, imo, a better job...).
Whilst I don't doubt that the majority of gamers are male (especially since marketing for the series always favoured men, even in ME3), I do find the ratio provided should be investigated closer rather than just taking it at face value. How many of those 82% did not choose at all but simply pressed "start" because they don't give a gak about their character's gender and just want to play the game? Would the result have been different if players were forced to choose instead of having the option to customise?
Hell, even in ME3, 83% (iirc) of the players chose Shepherd and not Femshep despite having the choice...and they had a fully voiced second character (which did, imo, a better job...).
Whilst I don't doubt that the majority of gamers are male (especially since marketing for the series always favoured men, even in ME3), I do find the ratio provided should be investigated closer rather than just taking it at face value. How many of those 82% did not choose at all but simply pressed "start" because they don't give a gak about their character's gender and just want to play the game? Would the result have been different if players were forced to choose instead of having the option to customise?
And if I remember correctly the wording of the question in the poll left it ambiguous as to whether or not people played both. Wasn't it "Do you play ManShep" or "Do you play FemShep?" I don't remember there being a "I play both" option.
Lynata wrote: What exactly was supposed to be so important that he absolutely had to be male, though? The "Damsel in Distress" plot as a motivator? This can very easily be solved by either making the Doc into a man, by leaving her a female but make her a relative, or (*gasp*) by making Jensen a lesbian. Zero effects on the story and the character's overall appearance.
That wasn't my point. I wasn't saying that the protagonist could not have been female. I was saying that if the author decided it to be male, there is no reason to say "GIEF FEMALE". It's his vision of the story and nobody has the right to criticize him for that. It's a different thing with games like e.g. Dragon Age where the story is not as focused on a certain character i.e. you can "forge" your character and, of course, having both genders has been an option for ages now in RPGS (and rightfully so). The Witcher is another example.
Regarding the "damsel in mistress" thing: it doesn't work exactly vice versa. Men are biologically "programmed" to protect women, mostly to impress the female and get her back in his cave for showing her his mighty club. Women, on average, need a deeper motivation. Men can be simply motivated by "Look, a woman in need!".
Gender is overrated. It is not a defining trait of a character - or at least it shouldn't be (-> stereotypes).
Sigvatr wrote: Would the result have been different if players were forced to choose instead of having the option to customise?
Of course. GIve people a reason to bitch about and they're gonna bitch about it.
Hm, I guess I just can't see it the way you do. Gender or appearance has as little effect on the core elements of the story as the choice of weapons, how exactly you resolve a mission, or what answers you opt for when talking to NPCs ... all of which was possible in that game. I suppose you could say it's not about criticising the story itself (which, as mentioned before, has nothing to do with gender), but criticising that the author was only able to envision it with a male hero.
Also, the player character of a game like DE:HR is by default not an average person, hence there is no need to cling to the stereotypes I mentioned.
On a sidenote, I'd further argue that the behavior you described isn't biological but social programming - which is rapidly changing together with society, one might add. And in the case of Deus Ex, you'd have an established relationship, with the player character being an augmented security chief with a history in the police. Do you honestly think that with all these factors, if Jensen were a girl, she'd stay at home?
On a sidenote, I'd further argue that the behavior you described isn't biological but social programming - which is rapidly changing together with society, one might add. And in the case of Deus Ex, you'd have an established relationship, with the player character being an augmented security chief with a history in the police. Do you honestly think that with all these factors, if Jensen were a girl, she'd stay at home?
No, it's genetical. Survival instinct, men wants to have sex to reproduce, wants to make sure his kin survives, impress woman, have sex. It's been reinforced by society, that's a valid and fitting remark e.g. "Women and children first!", men being encouraged to take the first step towards relationships etc. But in the end, it comes down to biology. Don't bring that up with feminists though, stuff like that keeps them on their toes. Stuff like women being prone to be submissive etc. In the end, we still have a very similar "core" as our ancestors, we just became more intelligent and thus most of us are able to rationally look at things and control their behavior whereas others...well, decided to rely on their "intuition" and feelings alone. But alas, you can't force people to use what they're given
Regarding the Deus Ex thing: I did not want to say that Deus Ex could not have been with a female lead. My point is that the author decided the protagonist to be male and some people saying "OH LOL SEXIST AGAIN" is unjustified. It's his vision of the character. In games like ME, however, that's different as it's your character you develop e.g. choose between Paragon and Renegade thus it makes sense to have a very customizable character in order to make identification easier. Humans identify the most with characters that are similar to them and their ideas. That's the reason why most protagonists are white men. It's the biggest, by far, demographic thus you cater to them as a company. Cue in the cover discussion, hits the same spot.
If people want to change things, they have to realize that "OMG THAT'S SO SEXIST / RACIST I AM SO ANGRY IMMA GO POST ANGRY POSTS ON MY BLOG ON ZE INTERWEBZ". Become vocal. Gather a huge group of people and found an organziation etc. Nobody gives a flying saucer about a random person being silly mad about something on the internet. But a lot of mad persons become an angry mob. And nobody likes those.
Just take that Damsel in Mistress woman (sry, forgot her name) - she became vocal by marketing her ideas e.g. via kickstarter, the media etc. Imagine that with a bigger group of people and there we go.
But until that happens, all that companies will do is nod and smile.
Stop spazzing out, no one is shouting angrily at the top of their lungs here. We're discussing this rationally, perhaps you could join us in proper discussion on the issue, instead of attempting to ignorantly criticize a movement you know essentially nothing about and ranting on and on about a random tangent.
Melissia wrote: Stop spazzing out, no one is shouting angrily at the top of their lungs here. We're discussing this rationally, perhaps you could join us in proper discussion on the issue, instead of attempting to ignorantly criticize a movement you know essentially nothing about and ranting on and on about a random tangent.
I wasn't talking about the overall feminist movement in general, I referred to the usual uproar that rises and, pretty soon, disappears again after certain events. Hot Coffee. "OMG SO BAD OUR CHILDREN", soon after, never heard of again. That columbine game. Black zombies in RE5...or 6. etc. etc. etc.
If you're not comfortable (and you obviouly do not seem to be) with reflecting your position / thinking rationally, just ignore me and my posts. Thanks.
Sigvatr wrote:No, it's genetical. Survival instinct, men wants to have sex to reproduce, wants to make sure his kin survives, impress woman, have sex.
You say that as if women would not have an urge to reproduce or an instinct to survive. Just like that urge - be it in men or women - need not be a positive trait. Actually, I'd even argue that it has led to abuse, oppression and infidelity far more often than it led to some individual suddenly turning into a valiant hero to "save the day and get the girl". Also, somehow your explanation makes it sound as if men and women are two different species. They're not - they are rather remarkably similar, so much so that "something in between" can happen naturally. If there are differences in behaviour, they are the sole product of hormone balance levels which differ from individual to individual. For example, aggressiveness or the willingness to take a risk are linked to testosterone - and as previously pointed out, video game protagonists are not "John Q Public", so there is no reason to assume that it couldn't be someone with the appropriate characteristics (for a game example, see Femshep).
Funny thing, by the way: romantic relationships result in a decline of testosterone levels in the average male, whereas they rise in the average female. Meaning, the average male becomes less aggressive and less likely to take a risk, whereas it's the other way around for the average woman.
Sigvatr wrote:My point is that the author decided the protagonist to be male and some people saying "OH LOL SEXIST AGAIN" is unjustified. It's his vision of the character. In games like ME, however, that's different as it's your character you develop e.g. choose between Paragon and Renegade thus it makes sense to have a very customizable character in order to make identification easier.
That's the thing. You choose between Paragon and Renegade in Deus Ex as well, so it is your character anyways. You decide what Adam Jensen thinks, how he talks to people, and whether he's more of a sneaker or a shooter - and, if the latter, whether he prefers non-lethal stunners or shoots to kill.
Besides, your point isn't how it was explained in the video, anyways. They flat out went and said they couldn't have done that kind of story with a girl. This has nothing to do with preferences of a vision, but rather with a lack of vision and defaulting to gender stereotypes. And as much as I love that game and its atmosphere, this is something that will continue to haunt it (to me anyways).
Lynata wrote: You say that as if women would not have an urge to reproduce or an instinct to survive. Just like that urge - be it in men or women - need not be a positive trait. Actually, I'd even argue that it has led to abuse, oppression and infidelity far more often than it led to some individual suddenly turning into a valiant hero to "save the day and get the girl". Also, somehow your explanation makes it sound as if men and women are two different species. They're not - they are rather remarkably similar, so much so that "something in between" can happen naturally. If there are differences in behaviour, they are the sole product of hormone balance levels which differ from individual to individual. For example, aggressiveness or the willingness to take a risk are linked to testosterone - and as previously pointed out, video game protagonists are not "John Q Public", so there is no reason to assume that it couldn't be someone with the appropriate characteristics (for a game example, see Femshep).
Oh, certainly, not going to argue that men and women are largely similiar, as I stated, I was talking of men / women "on average". It's just that people often assume they are the same whereas there are considerable differences between the genders. It's a trait, but what people make of it is their own doing. A trait can't be good or bad, it's about what you make of it. I don't go around [forcefully penetrating] women because I am biologically programmed to reproduce and I won't just pee my pants because I need to - you control yourself.
Funny thing, by the way: romantic relationships result in a decline of testosterone levels in the average male, whereas they rise in the average female. Meaning, the average male becomes less aggressive and less likely to take a risk, whereas it's the other way around for the average woman.
Seems pretty logical to me tbh You got a family to protect now plus you got the woman in your cave already, no need to further impress her.
Sigvatr wrote:That's the thing. You choose between Paragon and Renegade in Deus Ex as well, so it is your character anyways. You decide what Adam Jensen thinks, how he talks to people, and whether he's more of a sneaker or a shooter - and, if the latter, whether he prefers non-lethal stunners or shoots to kill.
It's a very different scale. Deus Ex and e.g. ME are vastly different in regards of you determining your character's path. Let's stick to the story, else you could also say that in River Raid, you decide whether your plane decides to fight the enemy planes or dodges them.
Besides, your point isn't how it was explained in the video, anyways. They flat out went and said they couldn't have done that kind of story with a girl. This has nothing to do with preferences of a vision, but rather with a lack of vision and defaulting to gender stereotypes. And as much as I love that game and its atmosphere, this is something that will continue to haunt it (to me anyways).
No, it's their vision. They say they couldn't have done it with a woman (no pun intended), they couldn't. It's simple as that. Could someone else have re-written the game to feature a female protagonist? Sure. I could have re-written the ending of ME 3 as well despite Bioware claiming it's "how it had to end". It's *their* game and *they* decide what happens where, when and why. Not gonna doubt that it would have been possible to feature a woman, but I'd have expected her daughter being the damsel in distress then instead of her man.
There is a very distinct difference between "we should add something to games because games are awesome and we want to make them better" and "we should take something away from games because games are evil and we want protect people from them". Refusing to acknowledge the difference does not make it cease to exist, no matter how vehemently you do it.
Regardless, I would actually say that developers and producers DO pay attention to the various issues raised by activists. Perhaps not enough of it, but it's enough that we have industry veterans now speaking out about it on a regular basis. The industry has taken notice to some extent. So it is, in fact, working. Pressure just needs to be kept up.. and... that's what's happening.
Which is again why I say you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
Regardless, I would actually say that developers and producers DO pay attention to the various issues raised by activists. Perhaps not enough of it, but it's enough that we have industry veterans now speaking out about it on a regular basis. The industry has taken notice to some extent. So it is, in fact, working. Pressure just needs to be kept up.. and... that's what's happening.
Sigvatr wrote:It's a very different scale. Deus Ex and e.g. ME are vastly different in regards of you determining your character's path. Let's stick to the story, else you could also say that in River Raid, you decide whether your plane decides to fight the enemy planes or dodges them.
Where do you see these vast differences? Honestly, the only thing that springs to mind is that one game offers a choice of romance options and the other doesn't. That's it.
No, it's their vision. They say they couldn't have done it with a woman (no pun intended), they couldn't. It's simple as that. Could someone else have re-written the game to feature a female protagonist? Sure. I could have re-written the ending of ME 3 as well despite Bioware claiming it's "how it had to end". It's *their* game and *they* decide what happens where, when and why.
Here's where *I* see the different scale. You're comparing a major facet of the game series (Shep going out with a big boom) to a character's appearance.
To bring this into proportion: Would you still say the same if they'd have said something like "we couldn't have told a story like the one in DE:HR with a black dude"?
I have a feeling there'd be quite an uproar. Yet it is supposed to be okay when it's concerning women.
Sigvatr wrote:Not gonna doubt that it would have been possible to feature a woman, but I'd have expected her daughter being the damsel in distress then instead of her man.
Not gonna hold this against you - stereotypes really are that subversive, at least when we're constantly bombarded with them in the daily media.
Oh look a bunch of pointless, irrelevant links to an off-topic tangent that you didn't yourself actually read and which don't prove anything related to your point or do anything remotely related to disproving anything anyone in this topic has actually said.
I'd be surprised if pointless, irrelevant distractions weren't your normal MO on feminist topics.
Melissia wrote: Oh look a bunch of pointless, irrelevant links to an off-topic tangent that you didn't yourself actually read and which don't prove anything related to your point or do anything remotely related to disproving anything anyone in this topic has actually said.
On the contrary, I think the point that people care a lot about certain things for a short time and then move on the something else was rather well made, not that it would have to be if we were being intellectually honest in this thread.
The Haiti earthquake is the best example I can think of off the top of my head.
I'm an old grey-beard gamer. I've only played (TT and PNP RPG's) with 4 girls in my life. So I only have two thoughts on the subject. Yes, I feel they should include girls in focus groups, because they do have a different take on things and can add a lot to the plot of the game. When you only ask teenage boys you come up with crap like PlanetSide 1.
1. Female gamers tend to come up with the creative solutions and think outside the "try shooting it first" box, which is really refreshing for a GM and I'm loving it because some actual roleplaying happens most of the time when someone brings a girlfriend who's into gaming.
2. Where the hell were all the nerdy girls when I was in high school/college? I mean, back in the 80's you might find a girl who was into collecting unicorns or something but even admitting you played D&D meant striking out with the most desperate of the outcast girls. Back then, if there was a girl at an arcade she was inevitably bored and nagging her date to leave. Dammit, I can't even get my wife to watch Walking Dead or Game of Thrones with me, let alone GAME with us. At least once a night she bee-otches about getting my "stupid little men" off her dining room table.
Son moved away to college. Can I have his room for my hobbies now? NOOooooooooo.....because he might decide once in a blue moon to grace us with his presence for a couple days if it's a holiday or something. Sigh.
It's just not (censored) fair. I'd trade her in for a new model but all the "gamer chicks" my age are spinsters who sit on their fat backsides playing WOW 8 hours a night. I hate Raids and I hate eating out of a bag every night. Can I get a "Whoa BUNDY!"?!?
Sigvatr wrote: In the case of Deus Ex: it's different than e.g. in Battlefield where you got no story and play a random character. Deus Ex was a story with a main, male, protagonist because the story's writer(s) decided their main character to be male. That's it.
I've seen this video being pulled in another forum too and it was hilarious...there was one guy who was *raging* all over the ending of ME and when people brought up that Bioware can put in the ending they want to because it's their story and "artistic vision", he raged again. On the other hand, in regards to the video, the same guy (or girl, idk, weird pony names don't make up for easy gender identification) replied to someone saying that it's the writer's idea to have a male protagonist. Was fun as long as it lasted.
Anyway: any developer is free to choose the protagonist's gender and some even removed genders from games entirely (e.g. Final Fantasy). In the case of Battlefield or rather action games, it's just that a lot more men play those games than women do. Hell, even in ME3, 83% (iirc) of the players chose Shepherd and not Femshep despite having the choice...and they had a fully voiced second character (which did, imo, a better job...).
They wanted to include the option to pick gender, but they ran out of money.
Melissia wrote: Oh look a bunch of pointless, irrelevant links to an off-topic tangent that you didn't yourself actually read and which don't prove anything related to your point or do anything remotely related to disproving anything anyone in this topic has actually said.
I'd be surprised if pointless, irrelevant distractions weren't your normal MO on feminist topics.
Oh look, Melissia refusing facts because they conflict with her own opinion.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh look, Melissia refusing facts because they conflict with her own opinion.
Misusing and misapplying statistics in order to prove something completely unrelated to what your opponent is arguing, and which the statistics don't actually prove anyway, is not the same as posting a fact.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh look, Melissia refusing facts because they conflict with her own opinion.
Misusing and misapplying statistics in order to prove something completely unrelated to what your opponent is arguing, and which the statistics don't actually prove anyway, is not the same as posting a fact.
nomotog wrote: What are we talking about? I'm not sure I can tell anymore. I kind of doubt this is productive.
Sigvatr is responding to a thread where gamers and game developers are being vocal in our desire for change in the gaming industry by requesting that we be vocal in our desire for change in the gaming industry.
Bit late to the party but going back to the orignal post I can't help but remember this article about Avatar: The Legend of Korra and the issues the creators had convincing the studio to greenlight a series with a female protaginist.
Some Nickelodeon executives were worried, says Konietzko, about backing an animated action show with a female lead character. Conventional TV wisdom has it that girls will watch shows about boys, but boys won't watch shows about girls.
During test screenings, though, boys said they didn't care that Korra was a girl. They just said she was awesome.
I'm also trying to recall another article that I saw a few years ago similar to this where execs in a company were challenged by the developers on what kind of games appeal to the market and who they appeal to. Their answer would be to call a focus group and stack it with people that fit their preconcieved views and use the results as evidence to make devs churn out same product over and over again.
It's this kind of thinking that leads to an industry full of this.
5 of the guys up in the top left corner could be mistaken for the same person. Try and tell me with a straight face, that each of these male protaginists was their creators artistic vision and not either:
a) Clever marketing/design decisions in order to appeal to the mass, young male demographic. Because they're the only ones who play games right?
or
b) A symptom of an industry so resistant to change that they just go along with it rather than challenge the status quo.
Groupthink has long been a problem in business in general, not just within the gaming industry. It's caused many companies to miss changes in the market, ignore problems within their company, and in some cases, even caused companies to utterly collapse.
Conventional wisdom is crap. It's wrong to just assume things are because that's just how it is. In an ideal world that is what market recherche is out to fix by investigating the conventional winsome and seeing if it actually the case. Just some times people don't actually do their job. They get lazy. Like when they don't think to include half the population as part of a test group.
I think the entire thing about letting more women into the game industry is a great thing, however i doubt the problems will just go away that easy when it comes to issue.
There is to me a double standard in this matter as well,for if men and women are to be totally equals in the game industries then things such as booth babes should be removed but here is a problem with that, you can't take away booth babes if there are still women who are actually enjoying doing that witch in turns will send out a double message.
Also there is some times to much focus on the stereo typical
female characters in games that we over look the men as well, after all i'm sick and as a guy to see majority of male characters in various games having six packs and being like super macho and such instead of well more down to earth like.
SneakyMek wrote: Also there is some times to much focus on the stereo typical female characters in games that we over look the men as well, after all i'm sick and as a guy to see majority of male characters in various games having six packs and being like super macho and such instead of well more down to earth like.
No, we aren't overlooking that.
For example:
This is a serious problem for male characters even ignoring the feminist side of the issue.
A few of those we can discount (Eastenders is obviously a joke, and Riddick can't be said to be typical as it's based on a real person... and Heavy Weapons Guy, well... we can discount him... and the Assassin's Creed guy... is he bald?).
Melissia wrote: I see what you did there, you fiend. Tempting me to make gay jokes.
Not at all. It was just the second time in the past couple of weeks where I've had an apropos moment to post a link to that article, so that more people can see it for the sheer absurd nonsense that it is.
Okay granted, ignoring it might have been the wrong word to use since you do have a point there. To rephrase it i think that it's being well falling into the shadow of the entire focus on female characters. It would be better if the entire game industry would focus on the problem with stereo types of both sexes at once.
SneakyMek wrote: Also there is some times to much focus on the stereo typical female characters in games that we over look the men as well, after all i'm sick and as a guy to see majority of male characters in various games having six packs and being like super macho and such instead of well more down to earth like.
No, we aren't overlooking that.
For example:
This is a serious problem for male characters even ignoring the feminist side of the issue.
What do a large number of these characters have in common?
Spoiler:
Military backgrounds, where a shaved head is a regular occurrence
Personally I don't mind the relatively similar character design. You're going to have similarities when you have a protagonist that they want to remove the "stormtrooper effect" from in a military capacity.
In some cases (Mass Effect and Too Human off the top of my head, with Killzone and Gears of War to a lesser extent as it is restricted to their MP components) you have the options of different helmets/headgear and facial/player skin options.
On another note, I find it ridiculous that the "Gears of War" photo is of a character who isn't even a main character. Tai is a third string character at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: A few of those we can discount (Eastenders is obviously a joke, and Riddick can't be said to be typical as it's based on a real person... and Heavy Weapons Guy, well... we can discount him... and the Assassin's Creed guy... is he bald?).
To be fair, there's quite a few "Assassin's Creed guys".
Desmond is bald/shaved head. It grows out over the course of the different games though.
Ezio had hair, Altair had hair, the characters from ACIII had hair, and the character from Black Flag is a pirate and has hair.
SneakyMek wrote: Okay granted, ignoring it might have been the wrong word to use since you do have a point there. To rephrase it i think that it's being well falling into the shadow of the entire focus on female characters. It would be better if the entire game industry would focus on the problem with stereo types of both sexes at once.
Different problems but same solution. If you remove the perception that the main character needs to pander to 18-25 year old white males, then things really open up. Not only will we have nice female charters, but we will also get more diversity of male charters.
SneakyMek wrote: Okay granted, ignoring it might have been the wrong word to use since you do have a point there. To rephrase it i think that it's being well falling into the shadow of the entire focus on female characters. It would be better if the entire game industry would focus on the problem with stereo types of both sexes at once.
Different problems but same solution. If you remove the perception that the main character needs to pander to 18-25 year old white males, then things really open up. Not only will we have nice female charters, but we will also get more diversity of male charters.
Doubtful, as long as they continue to try to do military styled games.
SneakyMek wrote: Okay granted, ignoring it might have been the wrong word to use since you do have a point there. To rephrase it i think that it's being well falling into the shadow of the entire focus on female characters. It would be better if the entire game industry would focus on the problem with stereo types of both sexes at once.
While I'm all for better writing in games the issue of boring male characters is different to the issues facing female characters. It is moreso an issue of lack of creativity and stagnation in the industry creating those carbon copy male protaginists. Whereas the depiction of women in gaming or infact the lack of women in general is a more deeper problem that there is the perception that women have no interest in gaming therefore there is no reason to make them anything more than an object of desire in games.
Going on what nomotog said, every year we see more and more surveys saying the people playing games are getting older and older and women are making an increasingly larger portion of gamers. The industry in my view is cripiling itself by focusing on one demographic.
SneakyMek wrote: Okay granted, ignoring it might have been the wrong word to use since you do have a point there. To rephrase it i think that it's being well falling into the shadow of the entire focus on female characters. It would be better if the entire game industry would focus on the problem with stereo types of both sexes at once.
Different problems but same solution. If you remove the perception that the main character needs to pander to 18-25 year old white males, then things really open up. Not only will we have nice female charters, but we will also get more diversity of male charters.
Doubtful, as long as they continue to try to do military styled games.
Well ya we would do fewer military shooters. People are starting to get sick of them anyway. Maybe we can go back to the old days where you didn't need military training to punch aliens in the face.
Kanluwen wrote: On another note, I find it ridiculous that the "Gears of War" photo is of a character who isn't even a main character. Tai is a third string character at best.
That's not Tai. It's Kim, from the first game. Um, which you might find even more ridiculous given he dies at the end of the first level.
Anyway, what's this business about the Deus Ex HR guy? Was there a link somewhere? It sounds like Sigvatr has some serious misconceptions about creative work and the purity of the ~artistic vision~.
Melissia wrote: The onus is on you to prove that feminists aren't doing this:
Never said that. I said to become vocal. And I don't mean your definition of vocal aka making irrational claims. You do not seem to having had a look at how such a behavior is treated in levels that actually matter - people laught at your face. Becoming vocal means being serious - about your arguments and, most of all, about your appearance. That does happen in few places, but the problem are people like you, female supremacist / sexists who are very vocal but cannot back up anything they got and, as stated before, refuse logical reasoning. The consequence? Put every such movement in a bad light.
The initial point, that you tried to dodge, was that talking about sexism in video games is a trend that will go away as soon as it came. As factually proven above, it happens to everything and I don't see any reason why this topic should be an exception. It will fade away in a few weeks; actually, it's fading away right now. Unless you accept reality, you will never have an impact on anything.
Going on what nomotog said, every year we see more and more surveys saying the people playing games are getting older and older and women are making an increasingly larger portion of gamers. The industry in my view is cripiling itself by focusing on one demographic.
You need to have a look at more detailed studies though. Women are, by a long shot, preferring social games and such whereas men heavily prefer action games. We saw a huge influx of female gamers with a spike not so long ago due to the rise of facebook / social games whereas the classic core genres did not change much in regards to gender preference.
Different problems but same solution. If you remove the perception that the main character needs to pander to 18-25 year old white males, then things really open up. Not only will we have nice female charters, but we will also get more diversity of male charters.
It needs to fit though - a fat guy or even an average man wouldn't be able to handle himself in a generic military shooter...and those are a huge genre that is vastly preferred by male players. Successful genre, dominated by male players => make more games and cater to the crowd.
Personally, I'd like to have more 3rd person games with females a I also play female characters in, e.g., World of Warcraft - if I am stuck with staring at a character's back for lots of hours, I'd want it to be an attractive one.
Kanluwen wrote: On another note, I find it ridiculous that the "Gears of War" photo is of a character who isn't even a main character. Tai is a third string character at best.
That's not Tai. It's Kim, from the first game. Um, which you might find even more ridiculous given he dies at the end of the first level.
You're totally right. They're both completely unremarkable third string characters who die horribly.
It's sad really, because even after all this time it still has a lot of untapped potential.
The desire for "historical accuracy" and trying to desperately be relevant to current news in real modern wars gets in the way of many military shooters actually innovating both their storytelling AND their gameplay. Which is why you get several series of near-identical games (battlefield, call of duty, medal of honor, etc).
Soladrin wrote: It also helps that they fail in both of those cases due to being one guy killing thousands.
Which is why they shouldn't bother focusing so much on it in the first place.
That's kind of what I liked about Quake 4. It didn't try to be historically accurate. You were a fething badass in a badass army, fighting off aliens with just barely futuristic weapons (most of them were just modern weapons with cool user interfaces, really, aside from the rare energy weapon).
Also had great visuals and a torture scene before it became popular to add a torture scene in.
Soladrin wrote: Never played Quake 4, never really got into that series except for Q3 arena.
I highly recommend it for its single player. It multiplayer is basically "Q3 Arena with better, browner graphics", which is not necessarily bad per se, but it doesn't stick out like the single player campaign does.
Soladrin wrote: It also helps that they fail in both of those cases due to being one guy killing thousands.
Which is why they shouldn't bother focusing so much on it in the first place.
you cant exactly make a shooter about baking cakes, as much as you'd buy the hell out of it.
driving a motorcycle off a building while firing two grenade launchers one handed will always be far more fun than the "realism" you guys call for.
news flash: in a real gunfight you're mostly waiting around for the other guy to stick his head out or puttering around action movies have spoiled you
Soladrin wrote: It also helps that they fail in both of those cases due to being one guy killing thousands.
Which is why they shouldn't bother focusing so much on it in the first place.
you cant exactly make a shooter about baking cakes, as much as you'd buy the hell out of it.
driving a motorcycle off a building while firing two grenade launchers one handed will always be far more fun than the "realism" you guys call for.
news flash: in a real gunfight you're mostly waiting around for the other guy to stick his head out or puttering around action movies have spoiled you
News flash: I don't want realistic at all, I'm pretty sure I just said I don't like military shooters, how does this in anyway tell you that I want realism? It's the last thing I want in my video games.
The problem is that those games are trying to do both.
The problem is that those games are trying to do both.
you just have to /believe/ solo
also I went back and played doom a while back, either my pc was way slower back then and I never noticed or I did a TON of coke in my youth, because I dont remember being able to nearly outrun a missle O_o
Soladrin wrote: Are previous titles required to enjoy it a bit more?
No, actually. It ties in to the previous doom games, but it's entirely a self-contained war story.
Mind you, it's perilously close to Starship Troopers, but in a good way.
Grundz wrote: driving a motorcycle off a building while firing two grenade launchers one handed will always be far more fun than the "realism" you guys call for.
I don't call for it-- indeed, I've been stridently opposed to "realism" in modern games for a long, long time.
Melissia wrote: The onus is on you to prove that feminists aren't doing this:
Never said that. I said to become vocal. And I don't mean your definition of vocal aka making irrational claims. You do not seem to having had a look at how such a behavior is treated in levels that actually matter - people laught at your face. Becoming vocal means being serious - about your arguments and, most of all, about your appearance. That does happen in few places, but the problem are people like you, female supremacist / sexists who are very vocal but cannot back up anything they got and, as stated before, refuse logical reasoning. The consequence? Put every such movement in a bad light.
The initial point, that you tried to dodge, was that talking about sexism in video games is a trend that will go away as soon as it came. As factually proven above, it happens to everything and I don't see any reason why this topic should be an exception. It will fade away in a few weeks; actually, it's fading away right now. Unless you accept reality, you will never have an impact on anything.
Going on what nomotog said, every year we see more and more surveys saying the people playing games are getting older and older and women are making an increasingly larger portion of gamers. The industry in my view is cripiling itself by focusing on one demographic.
You need to have a look at more detailed studies though. Women are, by a long shot, preferring social games and such whereas men heavily prefer action games. We saw a huge influx of female gamers with a spike not so long ago due to the rise of facebook / social games whereas the classic core genres did not change much in regards to gender preference.
Different problems but same solution. If you remove the perception that the main character needs to pander to 18-25 year old white males, then things really open up. Not only will we have nice female charters, but we will also get more diversity of male charters.
It needs to fit though - a fat guy or even an average man wouldn't be able to handle himself in a generic military shooter...and those are a huge genre that is vastly preferred by male players. Successful genre, dominated by male players => make more games and cater to the crowd.
Personally, I'd like to have more 3rd person games with females a I also play female characters in, e.g., World of Warcraft - if I am stuck with staring at a character's back for lots of hours, I'd want it to be an attractive one.
Even if your doing a hard core military game, there is still room for more diversity. You don't have to use that generic white guy just because your doing a military game. You could do characters with different races. You could even do it with a female character. Maybe you play a female truck driver, but you convoy is attacked and you have to find your way back to base by yourself. Maybe a truck driver isn't really as capable as a marine, but that just makes her a more compelling as a character as she struggles to rise up above what she is in order to survive. It's a perfectly realistic idea and it dosen't require that you play a generic white guy.
I don't think it's realism that limits these characters. It's more the pandering thing. The idea that a main character needs to be someone who 18-25 year old can identify with. It's an actual thing that publishers and marketing people try to push onto games. Games often get told to charge their main character to fit this over used mold.
nomotog wrote: Even if your doing a hard core military game, there is still room for more diversity. You don't have to use that generic white guy just because your doing a military game. You could do characters with different races. You could even do it with a female character. Maybe you play a female truck driver, but you convoy is attacked and you have to find your way back to base by yourself. Maybe a truck driver isn't really as capable as a marine, but that just makes her a more compelling as a character as she struggles to rise up above what she is in order to survive. It's a perfectly realistic idea and it dosen't require that you play a generic white guy.
I don't think it's realism that limits these characters. It's more the pandering thing. The idea that a main character needs to be someone who 18-25 year old can identify with. It's an actual thing that publishers and marketing people try to push onto games. Games often get told to charge their main character to fit this over used mold.
I'm surprised we don't see this more often in gaming as its fairly common in movies, particulary horror and thriller and very easy to pull off. Kill off all the capable characters to create the suspense about how the less capable main character will win.
I also get tired of people who use realism as an excuse for lazy character design. Many people hurled complaints at the America's Army game because it wasn't realistic enough... when compared to other shooters. Reloading, flashbangs, weapon recoil/accuracy, etc. All of that stuff in the majority of modern military shooters is actually horribly unrealistic so why all of a sudden pull out the realism card when we get to the main character.
nomotog wrote: Even if your doing a hard core military game, there is still room for more diversity. You don't have to use that generic white guy just because your doing a military game. You could do characters with different races. You could even do it with a female character. Maybe you play a female truck driver, but you convoy is attacked and you have to find your way back to base by yourself. Maybe a truck driver isn't really as capable as a marine, but that just makes her a more compelling as a character as she struggles to rise up above what she is in order to survive. It's a perfectly realistic idea and it dosen't require that you play a generic white guy.
I don't think it's realism that limits these characters. It's more the pandering thing. The idea that a main character needs to be someone who 18-25 year old can identify with. It's an actual thing that publishers and marketing people try to push onto games. Games often get told to charge their main character to fit this over used mold.
I'm surprised we don't see this more often in gaming as its fairly common in movies, particulary horror and thriller and very easy to pull off. Kill off all the capable characters to create the suspense about how the less capable main character will win.
I also get tired of people who use realism as an excuse for lazy character design. Many people hurled complaints at the America's Army game because it wasn't realistic enough... when compared to other shooters. Reloading, flashbangs, weapon recoil/accuracy, etc. All of that stuff in the majority of modern military shooters is actually horribly unrealistic so why all of a sudden pull out the realism card when we get to the main character.
I think it's mostly the empowerment trend in gaming. Hyper empowered charters are fun to play. It's really visceral to pick up a bus and use it to play skiball. It's only a trend though not a universal rule. You look in gaming past and in gaming future and you find games that put the focus on the struggle. Survival horror, use to be quite big. I think we might also be trending back with games like XCom where the effort is put back on making the player struggle.
Reality is unrealistic. The majority of realistic games simply aren't realistic in any shape or form. It's more just a shared delusion of reality.
Kanluwen wrote: Doubtful, as long as they continue to try to do military styled games.
There's more variety in the military than 18-25 year old white male skinheads.
Yup, but that does tend to be the average profile of tip-of-the-spear outfits, as long as you add 10 years to the given age range. NSW's even been on a, "Seriously, if you're a minority, we'd love to have you. Please, please, please come to BUD/S," kick lately.
Kanluwen wrote: Doubtful, as long as they continue to try to do military styled games.
There's more variety in the military than 18-25 year old white male skinheads.
Yup, but that does tend to be the average profile of tip-of-the-spear outfits, as long as you add 10 years to the given age range. NSW's even been on a, "Seriously, if you're a minority, we'd love to have you. Please, please, please come to BUD/S," kick lately.
But that's no excuse for games to exclude them entirely.
Melissia wrote: But that's no excuse for games to exclude them entirely.
Just bad game design.
Depends on if they're going for realism or not.
Either way, I'm not sure the argument that Modern Warfare 4 needs to be the vehicle for politically correct social change is going to have a lot of resonance.
Melissia wrote: But that's no excuse for games to exclude them entirely.
Just bad game design.
Depends on if they're going for realism or not.
Either way, I'm not sure the argument that Modern Warfare 4 needs to be the vehicle for politically correct social change is going to have a lot of resonance.
Melissia wrote: But that's no excuse for games to exclude them entirely.
Just bad game design.
Depends on if they're going for realism or not.
Either way, I'm not sure the argument that Modern Warfare 4 needs to be the vehicle for politically correct social change is going to have a lot of resonance.
Oh so it's not realistic to depict a black soldier?
Melissia wrote: Oh so it's not realistic to depict a black soldier?
It's absolutely realistic.
If you're going for, "MOST LOL REALISTIC NAVY SEALMAN SIMULATOR OF ALL TIMES!!!eleventyone!!!" then it'll mostly be white dudes, because, hey, that's the majority composition in reality, for whatever reason.
Realism's also a stupid goal unless you're the guys developing Arma.
Seaward wrote: Realism's also a stupid goal unless you're the guys developing Arma.
Please, stop claiming ARMA's realistic, you're only going to encourage them to keep making gakky games.
I don't recall claiming it was.
Even acting like they're trying to be realistic is probably too much.
They just want the pretense of realism because it drives up sales from people who think to themselves "ooh, realistic! That means that I get to be a real badass this time!".
It's like gun advertisements. Actually, ARMA does gun adverts, amusingly enough.
