So this topic is the spear counterpart to the one about women. I kind of doubt this it a hot button, but it just just doesn't get brought up much, or at all. One could get a wrong impression from that silence. So simple topic. What problems do you have with how men are portrayed in videogames?
My nitpick is with that default supper buff male body. If you get a game with a weak character creation system your often left with only a single body type and it's often this super buff slab of wall that looks silly when playing anyone but conan. WoW is kind of the poster child for this trope. It doesn't show up all the time and can be mild, but it still bugs me.
Agree how come all the space marines have to be so tall. Being tall has nothing to do with ability I know plenty of my Marine buddies that are short and can hang with the tall guys. I think it is a total fabrication of the truth there for is totally against short men. With that said im 6'2 and give them hell on the short jokes daily.
I feel like the whole over-sexualized female thing is just as bad for men (though not exactly in gaming). I mean yeah not every woman wants to be with a freaking Hercules but i'm sure a muscled guy with looks is attractive to them as a curvy girl is to a lot of us guys.
I mean i was rather annoyed with most of the characters in 'gears of war' as they're all muscle-headed beefy men. I found Dizzy and the 2nd carmine (possibly the 3rd as well) to be infinity more enjoyable as characters. The rest are just gritty vets that we've seen way too much of.
I just find it interesting though. All these guy characters we're taught to look up to and not one person mentioned how it could give guys a bad self image if they don't match up. In the end it's really those that fit the perfect light of what society deems greatest at a current moment though that changes with time somewhat (to an extent pretty people will always be in the limelight though).
--------
Anyway a little off topic but you want to know who has it really bad? "Little" people. I heard that the villain in 'xmen: days of future past' was the first time a "little' person went through a whole movie without being mentioned he was little. That took till 2014 to happen even once. I mean don't get me wrong sometimes they get a random job in a movie or show but it's usually something kind of demeaning. I dunno i just find it weird that's never brought up much either. Perhaps it's because they're such a small population of people. I dunno.
nomotog wrote: So this topic is the spear counterpart to the one about women. I kind of doubt this it a hot button, but it just just doesn't get brought up much, or at all. One could get a wrong impression from that silence. So simple topic. What problems do you have with how men are portrayed in videogames?
My nitpick is with that default supper buff male body. If you get a game with a weak character creation system your often left with only a single body type and it's often this super buff slab of wall that looks silly when playing anyone but conan. WoW is kind of the poster child for this trope. It doesn't show up all the time and can be mild, but it still bugs me.
On this topic I'm just going to mention Dragon's Crown. Seriously, I actually like a lot of the company's other games but this one just kinda put me off
The knight's proportions creep me out (but not too dramatically), the dwarf's super muscles of muscle machismo just looks wrong, the mage is alright although something about the head size and body shape odds me out, the sorceress and barbarian make me about as uncomfortable as the dwarf and knight. Seriously, the only ones I'd ever consider playing are the archer and the mage (even if technically bows and arrows would actually require some significant muscular strength. I'll just drop that to elf magicry)
nomotog wrote: So this topic is the spear counterpart to the one about women. I kind of doubt this it a hot button, but it just just doesn't get brought up much, or at all. One could get a wrong impression from that silence. So simple topic. What problems do you have with how men are portrayed in videogames?
My nitpick is with that default supper buff male body. If you get a game with a weak character creation system your often left with only a single body type and it's often this super buff slab of wall that looks silly when playing anyone but conan. WoW is kind of the poster child for this trope. It doesn't show up all the time and can be mild, but it still bugs me.
On this topic I'm just going to mention Dragon's Crown. Seriously, I actually like a lot of the company's other games but this one just kinda put me off
The knight's proportions creep me out (but not too dramatically), the dwarf's super muscles of muscle machismo just looks wrong, the mage is alright although something about the head size and body shape odds me out, the sorceress and barbarian make me about as uncomfortable as the dwarf and knight. Seriously, the only ones I'd ever consider playing are the archer and the mage (even if technically bows and arrows would actually require some significant muscular strength. I'll just drop that to elf magicry)
Won't even get into Dragon's Crown, as half the things that bother me are on the RPG aspect, not the visual aspect. I actually really like the visual look of Dragon's Crown. The game designer intentionally made them wacky and abnormal because he wanted something caricature-like to make the game stand out from every other RPG game. In that aspect, I think he certainly succeeded.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My big nitpick is that men are never shown as emotional. I think The Last of Us, for as much praise as it gets, is still woefully underrated. It is one of the few times a male protagonist is shown to have real emotion without it seeming comical or flat. Too many games go for the "My wife is dead! I'll have revenge on (whatever)!"
I am all about the revenge for lost family members, but without substance, it just seems like a cheap way to add emotion to otherwise flat characters.
Nothing.
Ego-Shooters usually have their buffed up Uber-soldier, but like with everything else, there are also exceptions like Half-Life and No One Lifes Forever.
RPGs? I don't really care, I want my character in the biggest armour around, but even here are exceptions like Dark Souls where the character looks malnourished (Dark Souls 1) or chubby (Dark Souls 2).
Only thing that can be annoying is the behaviour of characters. Certain games let you simply shoot them (Fallout) or I just don't play them (like Gears of War - too macho for me).
flamingkillamajig wrote: I feel like the whole over-sexualized female thing is just as bad for men (though not exactly in gaming). I mean yeah not every woman wants to be with a freaking Hercules but i'm sure a muscled guy with looks is attractive to them as a curvy girl is to a lot of us guys.
I mean i was rather annoyed with most of the characters in 'gears of war' as they're all muscle-headed beefy men. I found Dizzy and the 2nd carmine (possibly the 3rd as well) to be infinity more enjoyable as characters. The rest are just gritty vets that we've seen way too much of.
I just find it interesting though. All these guy characters we're taught to look up to and not one person mentioned how it could give guys a bad self image if they don't match up. In the end it's really those that fit the perfect light of what society deems greatest at a current moment though that changes with time somewhat (to an extent pretty people will always be in the limelight though).
I don't think people should really be looking up to and trying to intimate a lot of video game characters. Most are very very bad role models. I'd muse this extends to other places outside of gaming too. You don't get a lot of good male role models. At least I hope a lot of these characters and tropes aren't meant to be role models.
nomotog wrote: So this topic is the spear counterpart to the one about women. I kind of doubt this it a hot button, but it just just doesn't get brought up much, or at all. One could get a wrong impression from that silence. So simple topic. What problems do you have with how men are portrayed in videogames?
My nitpick is with that default supper buff male body. If you get a game with a weak character creation system your often left with only a single body type and it's often this super buff slab of wall that looks silly when playing anyone but conan. WoW is kind of the poster child for this trope. It doesn't show up all the time and can be mild, but it still bugs me.
On this topic I'm just going to mention Dragon's Crown. Seriously, I actually like a lot of the company's other games but this one just kinda put me off
The knight's proportions creep me out (but not too dramatically), the dwarf's super muscles of muscle machismo just looks wrong, the mage is alright although something about the head size and body shape odds me out, the sorceress and barbarian make me about as uncomfortable as the dwarf and knight. Seriously, the only ones I'd ever consider playing are the archer and the mage (even if technically bows and arrows would actually require some significant muscular strength. I'll just drop that to elf magicry)
Won't even get into Dragon's Crown, as half the things that bother me are on the RPG aspect, not the visual aspect. I actually really like the visual look of Dragon's Crown. The game designer intentionally made them wacky and abnormal because he wanted something caricature-like to make the game stand out from every other RPG game. In that aspect, I think he certainly succeeded.
Ya dragons crown's designs just don't look good to me. I guess I can get the idea that the director was going for, but the result is just really unappealing charter designs.
I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of every male protagonist being the pasty dude with stubble and brown hair. I am also sick of almost every version of that dude being motivated by the murder of his wife and kids.
Most of your enemies are males - so much that I tend to play women so that if I hear a "uumph" in a female voice, I know that someone off screen is beating on my character.
too muscled,
too tall,
always the same voices too... not all men are bass voices..
nothing but chisled chins and A-frames... Id love to play a gainly or fat guy with a huge nose or something.
men are the defacto generic "kill this guy" character for enemies
all the heroes are bland "tough guy" characters 99% of the time with no arc or developement, or agency in their choices.... they are there to die for _________ cause and nothing else. Their motivation rarely is more complicated the "I have my orders" or avenge _____'s death
men are reduced to objects that its ok to kill with impunity as well.
There is the problem with the idealized, accepted view of beauty, same as women. It has always irritated me. Why can't we get a main character who is not huge, muscled, and up to the eyes in testosterone. More realistic protagonists are desperately needed. Especially in games that are not just strait action, where it is very likely that they are not Hercules.
Manchu wrote: I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of every male protagonist being the pasty dude with stubble and brown hair. I am also sick of almost every version of that dude being motivated by the murder of his wife and kids.
Manchu wrote: I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of every male protagonist being the pasty dude with stubble and brown hair. I am also sick of almost every version of that dude being motivated by the murder of his wife and kids.
As a brown-haired stubbly male, I find this offensive
Fireraven wrote: Agree how come all the space marines have to be so tall. Being tall has nothing to do with ability I know plenty of my Marine buddies that are short and can hang with the tall guys. I think it is a total fabrication of the truth there for is totally against short men. With that said im 6'2 and give them hell on the short jokes daily.
I feel that when a character is supposed to be huge (A big villain, or a Space Marine for example) then about nine-ten feet is my fav size.
Both male
Spoiler:
and female
Spoiler:
I agree that men need some more variation in their portrayal, though.
This kind of things are very true for games with just one or two male characters, but for those that boast a large cast of characters that aim at being very distinguishable from each other, like fighting games and moba, you usually have at least one fat guy, and sometimes small guys too. The fat guy is an almost unavoidable trope for fighting games! On that regard, it is not perfect, but still better than for female characters.
The only game I can think of that gives us no fat guy, but a fat gal, is Loadout. That game is pretty special. And awesome.
My problems, are the "typical" issues.... In a fantasy/ sword type game, why does the bad guy always wear black armor, and have long black hair pulled into a pony tail?
Why can't good guys wear black armor or pony tails?
Just because it's drawn a certain way on some ancient Chinese scrolls doesn't actually mean that's what they'd really fight in (looking at you Dynasty Warriors)
I do get annoyed that there's 2 bodies for most male characters:
Duke Nuke'em/ Conan/Arnold Schwarzenegger, super buff/ripped
Ensis Ferrae wrote: My problems, are the "typical" issues.... In a fantasy/ sword type game, why does the bad guy always wear black armor, and have long black hair pulled into a pony tail?
Why can't good guys wear black armor or pony tails?
Just because it's drawn a certain way on some ancient Chinese scrolls doesn't actually mean that's what they'd really fight in (looking at you Dynasty Warriors)
I do get annoyed that there's 2 bodies for most male characters:
Duke Nuke'em/ Conan/Arnold Schwarzenegger, super buff/ripped
or
Super skinny, emo twig sized person.
Come get sum!!!!
I agree to pretty much all the points above. I think Elder Scrolls sort of does it right when it comes to men and women. Body types tend to be based solely on your actual race, and isn't so much just due to gender. I mean, yes, the men can tend to look more muscular, but it never feels out of proportion. Same with their heights. Nords and Orcs tend to be the bulkiest, as they should according to lore, with Argnians, Khajiit and elves being less so. 'Normal' Humans (Imperials, Bretons) feel like the nice middle ground.
And the men and women can feel as 'sexualized' as you want them to be really. And none of the NPCs feel really over sexualized either.
I have to admit, I'd like more games with slightly 'below average' looks for once too. Gone are the days of a rather fat mario killing goombas, as Mario tends to get less and less chubby as he goes. Same went for Sonic in his major image overhaul. Even classic characters are becoming more 'attractive' or 'appealing' to look at,
This kind of things are very true for games with just one or two male characters, but for those that boast a large cast of characters that aim at being very distinguishable from each other, like fighting games and moba, you usually have at least one fat guy, and sometimes small guys too. The fat guy is an almost unavoidable trope for fighting games! On that regard, it is not perfect, but still better than for female characters.
The only game I can think of that gives us no fat guy, but a fat gal, is Loadout. That game is pretty special. And awesome.
In a thread about what problems gamers have with how men are portrayed, why bring up how women are portrayed? Pretty sure there was a whole nother thread for it.
nomotog wrote: So this topic is the spear counterpart to the one about women. I kind of doubt this it a hot button, but it just just doesn't get brought up much, or at all. One could get a wrong impression from that silence. So simple topic. What problems do you have with how men are portrayed in videogames?
My nitpick is with that default supper buff male body. If you get a game with a weak character creation system your often left with only a single body type and it's often this super buff slab of wall that looks silly when playing anyone but conan. WoW is kind of the poster child for this trope. It doesn't show up all the time and can be mild, but it still bugs me.
That character generators aren't defacto standard in the FPS industry even though its been available over a decade. Its got nothing to do with white male gamers its just developers being lazy.
The issue with male characters, IMO, is that in the vast majority of games all they do is act as a gun carrier for the player. That is more of an issue with most games being generic shooters than the characters themselves.
As with female avatars, the majority of male avatars very much fit within a narrow range of looks, generally towards the tough, muscular, matcho range of the spectrum, which the majority of actual males do not match. Similarly with "personality" (or as much as is imbued in most games", personality very much tends to be a gritty, determined bad-ass, without much variation.
Male characters outside of the FPS domain do tend to have more of a role in games than females, being the default character choice for most developers, regardless of whether the story would work equally with a male or female character. For this reason I think you tend to see a wider range of male character types, personalities and looks than in female characters, although again they are generally skewed towards the gruff macho type.
Some of the best games in terms of character personality and looks are games which essentially have no character personality where you are able to give a variety of responses and have people respond to them, and where you can generate character looks and abilities either randomly or using a character creator. In this way, personality is supplied by the player responding to the story which in turn responds to the player.
I'll have to echo most of the posters here in that the default male character is just so incredibly bland. I've been fine with it for an entire decade, didn't even notice anything wrong, but I'm soo sick of it now that I've recognised the pattern. Variety ftw! Games need not just more female characters, but also more black or asian dudes. Ethnicity is actually what I consider to be a more established cliché than the Schwarzenegger body, at least right now where we've had a few more "normal" characters in major games. I feel that in the last years we even started to move away from the "brown hair, stubby beard" archetype again, or is that just my perception? Either way, I have to agree with Malevolence in that I'd also like to see a couple more chubby characters - a body type that nowadays seems to be "reserved" for supporting NPCs like the greasy engineer or the fuming chief of police.
flamingkillamajig wrote:I feel like the whole over-sexualized female thing is just as bad for men (though not exactly in gaming). I mean yeah not every woman wants to be with a freaking Hercules but i'm sure a muscled guy with looks is attractive to them as a curvy girl is to a lot of us guys.
That has nothing to do with women. Keep in mind that these games and movies like them are made with a male audience in mind - the huge, muscled guy is, as per established industry wisdom, generally thought to be a male power fantasy, representing martial prowess and the ability to force his will on those around him / protect the weak / etc. Generally speaking, a visual representation of their ability to be a "doer", as is part of traditional gender role system.
If you want to look at what young women are said to find attractive, I suppose good examples would be the recent Thor movies' Loki, or all those gel-styled boygroups, or .. hell, shojo manga, especially the shonen-ai subgenre or bishonen characters.
Bishop F Gantry wrote:That character generators aren't defacto standard in the FPS industry even though its been available over a decade.
Amen!
easysauce wrote:all the heroes are bland "tough guy" characters 99% of the time with no arc or developement, or agency in their choices.... they are there to die for _________ cause and nothing else. Their motivation rarely is more complicated the "I have my orders" or avenge _____'s death
Sigvatr wrote:This actually isn't a problem that has much to do with gender, though, but rather AAA games being very poorly written in general.
I dunno ... it could just be coincidence based on the scarcity of big budget games with female characters, but from looking at the ones we have, I do get the impression that they are generally more thought out.
It's probably more a case of devs who want to focus on mindless action being more prone towards going for the default white male cliché, rather than said cliché simultaneously also being a guarantee for bad story, though.
Sigvatr wrote:This actually isn't a problem that has much to do with gender, though, but rather AAA games being very poorly written in general.
I dunno ... it could just be coincidence based on the scarcity of big budget games with female characters, but from looking at the ones we have, I do get the impression that they are generally more thought out.
It's probably more a case of devs who want to focus on mindless action being more prone towards going for the default white male cliché, rather than said cliché simultaneously also being a guarantee for bad story, though.
It seem that most games that include a female character put focus on the character. They make a big deal of them. If they don't care about the character or the character is unimportant then they will make them male. (They don't leave then undefined or blank though and I kind of think they should.)
I think some of the baldness is intentional. That is they intentionally make the character bland in order to be inoffensive and some thing something immersion.
None that can't be more broadly generalized into issues with games characters as a whole. For the most part male characters get a wide variety of interesting character designs, narrative and mechanical roles, they're freely slotted into just about any archetype. On the whole I'd say the state of "Men" in gaming is about as good as any class of persons gets in gaming.
I know I can not properly explain this complaint, but I believe that games kind of butcher the idea of masculinity. Games tend to be very masculine, but it's a very malformed form that is immature and hollow... Ya I kind of can't explain it too well, but maybe someone else knows and can explain it better.
nomotog wrote: I know I can not properly explain this complaint, but I believe that games kind of butcher the idea of masculinity. Games tend to be very masculine, but it's a very malformed form that is immature and hollow... Ya I kind of can't explain it too well, but maybe someone else knows and can explain it better.
I think I get what you're saying. The depiction of "masculinity" in video games posits that to be "masculine" must mean that you're a) steroid-junkie huge, b) have absolutely zero moral qualms with killing a huge number of probably-intelligent beings, c) display no emotions other than rage or lust, d) tend to solve problems by shooting them.
Which, frankly, is all entirely juvenile male power-fantasies. They don't make male characters huge and muscle-bound for female gamers, it's not eyecandy for them, it's eyecandy for the (ostensibly) male player, because the image is a male power fantasy.
Psienesis wrote: The depiction of "masculinity" in video games posits that to be "masculine" must mean that you're a) steroid-junkie huge, b) have absolutely zero moral qualms with killing a huge number of probably-intelligent beings, c) display no emotions other than rage or lust, d) tend to solve problems by shooting them.
Except for the a), Bastion in a nutshell, is it not? Except you can add smashing them, slicing them and burning them to shooting them. And with the narrator's choice emphasizing how you are acting like a total almost genocidal jerk, while making it look like he think you are justified in doing that. That game was pretty damn weird, disturbing. Great soundtrack though.
nomotog wrote: I know I can not properly explain this complaint, but I believe that games kind of butcher the idea of masculinity. Games tend to be very masculine, but it's a very malformed form that is immature and hollow... Ya I kind of can't explain it too well, but maybe someone else knows and can explain it better.
I think I get what you're saying. The depiction of "masculinity" in video games posits that to be "masculine" must mean that you're a) steroid-junkie huge, b) have absolutely zero moral qualms with killing a huge number of probably-intelligent beings, c) display no emotions other than rage or lust, d) tend to solve problems by shooting them.
Which, frankly, is all entirely juvenile male power-fantasies. They don't make male characters huge and muscle-bound for female gamers, it's not eyecandy for them, it's eyecandy for the (ostensibly) male player, because the image is a male power fantasy.
Ya it basically snips anything positive out, but then paradoxical still plays it as positive. I kind of think men need a better power fantasies then the kind that exists in a lot of games.
Psienesis wrote: The depiction of "masculinity" in video games posits that to be "masculine" must mean that you're a) steroid-junkie huge, b) have absolutely zero moral qualms with killing a huge number of probably-intelligent beings, c) display no emotions other than rage or lust, d) tend to solve problems by shooting them.
Except for the a), Bastion in a nutshell, is it not? Except you can add smashing them, slicing them and burning them to shooting them. And with the narrator's choice emphasizing how you are acting like a total almost genocidal jerk, while making it look like he think you are justified in doing that. That game was pretty damn weird, disturbing. Great soundtrack though.
Oh ya there is that weird paradox element in a lot of games. You have these people that can be rather nasty people, but the setting and game will present these people as justified and right. I kind of had this feeling with the last of us. Joe is kind of a bad person with really no redeeming qualities, but the game really pushed for the idea that he was exactly how he should be. (That is how I saw it anyway. There is room for interpenetration)
The only issues I have with representation of men in video games is race. Women whine about unequal representation in video games, which certainly is a valid complaint, but how many black protagonists do you see in video games? How many latino, or native american or arabic protagonists?
That's probably the only thing that really bugs me about male representation, but that isn't exclusively a male representation issue, as they're just as little racial minorities of the female variety in gaming.
Beyond that, don't really care. I like my muscle-bound Gears of War characters, and my buzz-cut 5 o'clock shadow soldiers, and my Rambos.
Oh ya there is that weird paradox element in a log of games. You have these people that can be rather nasty people, but the setting and game will present these people as justified and right. I kind of had this feeling with the last of us. Joe is kind of a bad person with really no redeeming qualities, but the game really pushed for the idea that he was exactly how he should be. (That is how I saw it anyway. There is room for interpenetration)
I touched on Joel's presentation in the other thread, the one on the appearances of females in video games, but I'll mention it again here.
Joel is presented to you, the player, as an idealized male figure, especially if you are a player of a certain age or of a certain background.
I was most-definitely that ideal player. I come from a region and a family in which I was taught that, as a man, it was my job to defend the home, provide for the family, and protect women and children. It was Southern Chivalry/Chauvinism at its finest.
Joel is entirely that figure. Ellie is entirely the perfect archetype to make the player want to protect her, and it is the belief that you, the player. will have the same social conditioning, that you have been taught that you, a man, are responsible for the well-being of women and children (and, *most especially*, female children)that will drive you to kill an entire battalion of soldiers with your bare hands (if need be), all in the selfish drive to protect your father/daughter relationship with Ellie, to the possible detriment of all Mankind.
If we are talking RPGs...I like misc. grizzled dude protagonists. Because the lead character is supposed to be me; the more characterization they force onto them the less I am that character. It's the quintessential difference between Western and Japanese RPGs ... in most JRPGs I am watching a movie starring someone else where I get to make some of the choices. In Western RPGs I am the lead character and this is my story.
I want the lead to be bland, and I want the side characters to be interesting.
Bromsy wrote: If we are talking RPGs...I like misc. grizzled dude protagonists. Because the lead character is supposed to be me; the more characterization they force onto them the less I am that character. It's the quintessential difference between Western and Japanese RPGs ... in most JRPGs I am watching a movie starring someone else where I get to make some of the choices. In Western RPGs I am the lead character and this is my story.
I want the lead to be bland, and I want the side characters to be interesting.
What if your not a grizzled dude. I can get behind blank characters, but they aren't giving us blank characters. They are giving us this one defined character over and over.
Even setting aside that an extremely generic white guy is only (or at least primarily) identifiable to white guys, the obvious answer to the problem of having an identifiable RPG protagonist is character customization.
Also - that definition of JRPGs would include many BioWare "RPGs" (not that I disagree with the definition).
Manchu wrote: Even setting aside that an extremely generic white guy is only (or at least primarily) identifiable to white guys, the obvious answer to the problem of having an identifiable RPG protagonist is character customization.
Also - that definition of JRPGs would include many BioWare "RPGs" (not that I disagree with the definition).
Some times a character creator isn't really reasonable or very practical. like in a FPS.
BlaxicanX wrote: The only issues I have with representation of men in video games is race.
That is not an issue with male character in particular, but with video games characters in general, as there are even less latino, arabic, native american, or black female characters than male characters.
That's one reason I really liked the Saints Row games. I made a BAMF Mexican woman that went around pistol whipping everyone.
"Toma te lo, pendejo!" I would shout with great relish.
jreilly89 wrote: In a thread about what problems gamers have with how men are portrayed, why bring up how women are portrayed?
For comparison purpose. What about the rest of my message? Do you agree with it? Would you like examples?
Why? There is no need for comparison in this thread, as the problems of how women are represented in games has already been hacked to death in plenty of other threads.
So people maybe wondering why there are two topics here when these issues are very closely related. Well it has to do with how people talk about these issues. When someone brings up the topic of how women might not be presented well in games people will bring up how men are not presented well, not as a meaningful inclusion in the conversation, but as a way to kind of say shut up this issue isn't worth talking about. There seems to be a little bit of a ditto factor here too. Why are we bringing up men in video games when men are doing so much better then women are.
I can't say that these statements don't have a point. Both are in fact rather true. The problem is how enough people use these statements as diversions and deflections to avoid actually addressing anything. That is kind of why this is two threads rather then one.
Why not? It gives perspective. What about the rest of my post? The part that should be interesting to you because it speaks about how men are represented in games?
BlaxicanX wrote:That's probably the only thing that really bugs me about male representation, but that isn't exclusively a male representation issue, as they're just as little racial minorities of the female variety in gaming.
I think male characters are notably less varied. The overall number might be in a similar ballpark, but when you consider that there's a lot more male characters in general, there is an obvious difference in the percentage.
This kind of ties into my earlier comment regarding a lot of devs going for the default white male when not being overly focused on story and character development. It's only when they really invest a lot of thought into a game's character/s that you start seeing deviations from the standard, in race as well as gender (and other details, such as the aforementioned sameness in terms of haircuts etc).
Nilin, Faith, Chell, Rochelle, D'arci Stern are some examples that spring to mind. Not sure if Alyx Vance would count as you only really play her in a spin-off/standalone xpac.
There certainly are similar tendencies, but overall I do see more variety.
nomotog wrote:Ya it basically snips anything positive out, but then paradoxical still plays it as positive. I kind of think men need a better power fantasies then the kind that exists in a lot of games.
I agree. Though that seems to be an issue with society in general, extending far beyond games (which, in a way, are only a reinforcing reflection of society) and encompassing both genders.
nomotog wrote:Some times a character creator isn't really reasonable or very practical. like in a FPS.
Except when it's a multiplayer game or you end up seeing your character in cutscenes.
Generally, any game that actually has a model for the player character.
Psienesis: Hmm, going purely by the design and presentation of said characters that is an impression I could not avoid myself. I'm simultaneously glad as well as disappointed to see this prejudice vindicated by people who actually played that game.
I was watching a documentary on horror films last night and there was a very good point about the justification of violence that I think applies to video games and particularly to how men are portrayed in them.
The point was that in the 1970s, a lot of movie good guys went around killing tons of bad guys because some bad guys did something bad to them, usually being they killed the good guy's wife and/or kid(s). This kind of "dark justice" style protagonist remains extremely popular in films and TV today and seems to describe about 90% of male protagonists in video games.
There could be a TV trope about it: "we're all Batmen."
BlaxicanX wrote: The only issues I have with representation of men in video games is race.
That is not an issue with male character in particular, but with video games characters in general, as there are even less latino, arabic, native american, or black female characters than male characters.
You should read people's posts before responding to them.
Manchu wrote: I was watching a documentary on horror films last night and there was a very good point about the justification of violence that I think applies to video games and particularly to how men are portrayed in them.
The point was that in the 1970s, a lot of movie good guys went around killing tons of bad guys because some bad guys did something bad to them, usually being they killed the good guy's wife and/or kid(s). This kind of "dark justice" style protagonist remains extremely popular in films and TV today and seems to describe about 90% of male protagonists in video games.
There could be a TV trope about it: "we're all Batmen."
Lots of revenge fantasies in video games. I wonder if that is any relation to the geek experience. You know the old you pick on me now, but I'll have my payback. It might also relate to how video game players seem to react as a whole to things. (You know what I mean.) There is this element of getting back at people who have wronged you that kind of envelopes game culture and games.
It gets kind of odd when you think about it. A lot of games expect the player to want to take revenge on NPCs and build their games around it. Like in bioshock 2 there was a segment where the game is expecting you to take petty revenge on someone who mildly inconvenienced you and then teats the opposite (that is not bloodily killing them for no reason.) as some big moral feat. (It wasn't. I mean come on why kill them at all when you don't have to.) There are other examples of games being set around revenge like the latter GoW games, Shadow of moredoor. Even saints row 2 as much as I like it has an entire segment all about more and more crazy revenge. (Though it dose play it as more horrible then justified.)
I am going to muse that revenge is even included in the gameplay of most games. Oh this boss has killed me 8 times I totally want to kill them now. The entire lutonarrative of dark souls basically revolves around getting enemies back for killing you.
Manchu wrote: I was watching a documentary on horror films last night and there was a very good point about the justification of violence that I think applies to video games and particularly to how men are portrayed in them.
The point was that in the 1970s, a lot of movie good guys went around killing tons of bad guys because some bad guys did something bad to them, usually being they killed the good guy's wife and/or kid(s). This kind of "dark justice" style protagonist remains extremely popular in films and TV today and seems to describe about 90% of male protagonists in video games.
There could be a TV trope about it: "we're all Batmen."
Lots of revenge fantasies in video games. I wonder if that is any relation to the geek experience. You know the old you pick on me now, but I'll have my payback. It might also relate to how video game players seem to react as a whole to things. (You know what I mean.) There is this element of getting back at people who have wronged you that kind of envelopes game culture and games.
It gets kind of odd when you think about it. A lot of games expect the player to want to take revenge on NPCs and build their games around it. Like in bioshock 2 there was a segment where the game is expecting you to take petty revenge on someone who mildly inconvenienced you and then teats the opposite (that is not bloodily killing them for no reason.) as some big moral feat. (It wasn't. I mean come on why kill them at all when you don't have to.) There are other examples of games being set around revenge like the latter GoW games, Shadow of moredoor. Even saints row 2 as much as I like it has an entire segment all about more and more crazy revenge. (Though it dose play it as more horrible then justified.)
I am going to muse that revenge is even included in the gameplay of most games. Oh this boss has killed me 8 times I totally want to kill them now. The entire lutonarrative of dark souls basically revolves around getting enemies back for killing you.
If designers are creating movies or videogames that are action packed based on the premise that action is entertaining and sells well then you need to craft a backstory that calls for lots of action. The easiest stories to contextualize car chases, explosions, brawls, firefights etc. are cops chasing bad guys, soldiers at war and protagonists seeking revenge. Horror and action movies want to entertain you with violent spectacles and videogames want to entertain by having you commit actions with your avatar/character. Killing something/one for flimsy specious reasons is probably more entertaining than just walking around not doing anything violent. Aren't the best selling games still dependent on driving/flight simulations and violence? How many games are escapist, immersive and have your character doing cool exciting stuff and not awash in violence? It's tough to find a way to have your character be that violent and still be the good guy unless you frame it so that everyone the protagonist maims and kills is bad. Revenge is great for that because since it allows the protagonist to go after everyone even people only tangentially involved with the original transgression/crime because a whole organization/entity of bad guys is tainted by that original sin.
Manchu wrote: I was watching a documentary on horror films last night and there was a very good point about the justification of violence that I think applies to video games and particularly to how men are portrayed in them.
The point was that in the 1970s, a lot of movie good guys went around killing tons of bad guys because some bad guys did something bad to them, usually being they killed the good guy's wife and/or kid(s). This kind of "dark justice" style protagonist remains extremely popular in films and TV today and seems to describe about 90% of male protagonists in video games.
There could be a TV trope about it: "we're all Batmen."
Lots of revenge fantasies in video games. I wonder if that is any relation to the geek experience. You know the old you pick on me now, but I'll have my payback. It might also relate to how video game players seem to react as a whole to things. (You know what I mean.) There is this element of getting back at people who have wronged you that kind of envelopes game culture and games.
It gets kind of odd when you think about it. A lot of games expect the player to want to take revenge on NPCs and build their games around it. Like in bioshock 2 there was a segment where the game is expecting you to take petty revenge on someone who mildly inconvenienced you and then teats the opposite (that is not bloodily killing them for no reason.) as some big moral feat. (It wasn't. I mean come on why kill them at all when you don't have to.) There are other examples of games being set around revenge like the latter GoW games, Shadow of moredoor. Even saints row 2 as much as I like it has an entire segment all about more and more crazy revenge. (Though it dose play it as more horrible then justified.)
I am going to muse that revenge is even included in the gameplay of most games. Oh this boss has killed me 8 times I totally want to kill them now. The entire lutonarrative of dark souls basically revolves around getting enemies back for killing you.
If designers are creating movies or videogames that are action packed based on the premise that action is entertaining and sells well then you need to craft a backstory that calls for lots of action. The easiest stories to contextualize car chases, explosions, brawls, firefights etc. are cops chasing bad guys, soldiers at war and protagonists seeking revenge. Horror and action movies want to entertain you with violent spectacles and videogames want to entertain by having you commit actions with your avatar/character. Killing something/one for flimsy specious reasons is probably more entertaining than just walking around not doing anything violent. Aren't the best selling games still dependent on driving/flight simulations and violence? How many games are escapist, immersive and have your character doing cool exciting stuff and not awash in violence? It's tough to find a way to have your character be that violent and still be the good guy unless you frame it so that everyone the protagonist maims and kills is bad. Revenge is great for that because since it allows the protagonist to go after everyone even people only tangentially involved with the original transgression/crime because a whole organization/entity of bad guys is tainted by that original sin.
I don't think that is the reason. I mean ya a lot of games use action and violence because that is what they are good at, but there are way more vehicles for action and violence then revenge. You listed a few yourself and their are tons just tons of reasons to have you killing all kinds of bad people who never did anything to you personally. Like you don't have to be personally hurt by evil to fight evil.
My musing is that revenge fantasists are used for their own sake and not just because they make an easy vehicle to drive action and violence. Borderlands 1 was not a revenge fantasy, but borderlands 2 was. The plot line in BL1 was actually a lot more simple and easier to set up then the plotline in BL2. Portal 2 was a revenge story (you could also muse the same about portal 1) Though it didn't have much action or violence to it.
I think part of my thought here is that revenge is selfish. It's not a noble goal. It's selfish small piety and all around a bad reason to do most anything. Nothing good comes from revenge by itself and I think that playing revenge as the answer or in some other positive light is maybe the wrong message to be putting out there.
Then again I may be thinking too hard about this as I am know to do.
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
I wouldn't mind there being some characters like that. Having too many characters that are homogonised and too similar to each other can be boring no matter what the character is.
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
I feel like there's a fallacy of some sort that deals with making an extreme, absurd version of what people are saying to make the argument look ridiculous. But I can't find it, so maybe not.
Also, someone did make just such a game and it is about depression. Actual Sunlight.
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
I feel like there's a fallacy of some sort that deals with making an extreme, absurd version of what people are saying to make the argument look ridiculous. But I can't find it, so maybe not.
Also, someone did make just such a game and it's is about depression. Actual Sunlight.
And people played it? My god.
The situation is so much worse than I originally feared.
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
I feel like there's a fallacy of some sort that deals with making an extreme, absurd version of what people are saying to make the argument look ridiculous. But I can't find it, so maybe not.
Also, someone did make just such a game and it is about depression. Actual Sunlight.
I think it's a strawman. I'm not quite sure.
Also, Frankenberry, you are being purposely ignorant. It's very possible to have a game with a non-generic protagonist without having it be something like that. Using extremes like that is not an actual argument.
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
I feel like there's a fallacy of some sort that deals with making an extreme, absurd version of what people are saying to make the argument look ridiculous. But I can't find it, so maybe not.
I think it's a strawman. I'm not quite sure.
OH! Strawman! How could I forget that? It's like the first fallacy anyone ever learns and it completely slipped my mind.
I think that the white soldier player that has the always cool under fire black Sarge is a bit trope-ish. Black Sarge is sometimes used as the best friend character role but he always has that gruff no nonsense overly macho balls out attitude.
It sticks out to me because he's often the only black character in the game.
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
Personally, that sounds like the beginning of a VERY fun FPS game or possibly an open world game.... Although, to make it really work, it'd probably be very similar in feel to Saints Row
I don't have much sympathy for 'variety for the sake of variety' arguments, which are intellectually, ethically, and artistically lazy. My complaint concerning the stubbly white thirty-something male with brown hair has little to do with him being white, his age, his brown hair, or even his stubble. Sure, seeing variations on this guy appear in so many games is a comical testament to the lack of imagination inherent to the traditional partnership between developers and publishers. And I don't think the whiteness or the maleness of the avatar is coincidental. But the real issue is that our generic protagonist is the harbinger of a larger problem, that so many games boil down to righteous violence dramas.
Let's just take Shadow of Mordor, for example. The story begins with our hero's happy family life shattered by the murder of everyone Talion knows, most especially his family. Couldn't anyone think of a better reason for the protagonist to slide so easily into casual mass murder? Yes. It seems like the creators of the game did just that. Talion is guilty of killing a man (not an orc), which is why he is 'sentenced' to the Black Gate in the first place. I think the developers crammed in the tried and true 'they killed my family' angle to brighten up Talion's image. Without the dead wife and son, Talion might easily be read as a serial killer forced to prey on orcs because he has been justly exiled from human society, which is just not very heroic at all.
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
I feel like there's a fallacy of some sort that deals with making an extreme, absurd version of what people are saying to make the argument look ridiculous. But I can't find it, so maybe not.
Also, someone did make just such a game and it is about depression. Actual Sunlight.
I think it's a strawman. I'm not quite sure.
Also, Frankenberry, you are being purposely ignorant. It's very possible to have a game with a non-generic protagonist without having it be something like that. Using extremes like that is not an actual argument.
It's a strawman in totality, I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument, I'm merely exaggerating. My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
I'm frustrated is all, I'm tired of seeing people whining.
Frankenberry wrote: It's a strawman in totality, I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument, I'm merely exaggerating. My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
I'm frustrated is all, I'm tired of seeing people whining.
Frankenberry wrote: It's a strawman in totality, I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument, I'm merely exaggerating. My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
I'm frustrated is all, I'm tired of seeing people whining.
Seems you're easily frustrated if the little amount of that on this thread has lead to getting so annoyed. Especially if you're the type to exaggerate it and get even more mad about the caricature you've made.
Personally, I'm a fan of starting off with a somewhat mundane character. Such as in Morrowind, you can get your but kicked in a 1v1 fight against a level 1 peasant when you start playing for the first time. Dark Souls as well, especially if you haven't played that kind of game before.
Frankenberry wrote: It's a strawman in totality, I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument, I'm merely exaggerating. My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
I'm frustrated is all, I'm tired of seeing people whining.
Seems you're easily frustrated if the little amount of that on this thread has lead to getting so annoyed. Especially if you're the type to exaggerate it and get even more mad about the caricature you've made.
Personally, I'm a fan of starting off with a somewhat mundane character. Such as in Morrowind, you can get your but kicked in a 1v1 fight against a level 1 peasant when you start playing for the first time. Dark Souls as well, especially if you haven't played that kind of game before.
Frankenberry wrote: It's a strawman in totality, I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument, I'm merely exaggerating. My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
I'm frustrated is all, I'm tired of seeing people whining.
Someone obviously has never played The Sims.
Sims is most fun when it's crazy though. It's kind of a mix of mundane and fantasy that works best. That may just be me though. I'm not your typical sims fan. Most seem to want more and more realistic stuff. At least the people who talk the most want that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I don't have much sympathy for 'variety for the sake of variety' arguments, which are intellectually, ethically, and artistically lazy. My complaint concerning the stubbly white thirty-something male with brown hair has little to do with him being white, his age, his brown hair, or even his stubble. Sure, seeing variations on this guy appear in so many games is a comical testament to the lack of imagination inherent to the traditional partnership between developers and publishers. And I don't think the whiteness or the maleness of the avatar is coincidental. But the real issue is that our generic protagonist is the harbinger of a larger problem, that so many games boil down to righteous violence dramas.
Let's just take Shadow of Mordor, for example. The story begins with our hero's happy family life shattered by the murder of everyone Talion knows, most especially his family. Couldn't anyone think of a better reason for the protagonist to slide so easily into casual mass murder? Yes. It seems like the creators of the game did just that. Talion is guilty of killing a man (not an orc), which is why he is 'sentenced' to the Black Gate in the first place. I think the developers crammed in the tried and true 'they killed my family' angle to brighten up Talion's image. Without the dead wife and son, Talion might easily be read as a serial killer forced to prey on orcs because he has been justly exiled from human society, which is just not very heroic at all.
It would be a neat character though. Play with it a little. There is like an established trope for that kind of character even. You know the person who can't function in society, but at the same time they want to be valuable and productive so they do the one thing that lets them use their darker impulses/talents well also helping people.
I think there is merit in verity for verity's sake. Simply explained, novelty is nice. People like new and unexpected things particularly with characters. There can be other reasons to want change yes, but I believe verity has merit all by itself.
Frankenberry wrote: It's a strawman in totality, I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument, I'm merely exaggerating. My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
I'm frustrated is all, I'm tired of seeing people whining.
This might sound strange, but I wonder if it's like the uncanny valley for some people?
As in, there's a scale where someone needs to identify with a protagonist, but if you identify too much it becomes a negative and leads to unwanted self reflection.
Which brings me a baseless theory - I wonder if older gamers have less of a need to self-identify as the player character, as older video games had pre-packed main characters. You generally couldn't create 'yourself'
If true, that might mean that character customization becomes more of a standard as time goes by, because that's what the customer will demand
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
I feel like there's a fallacy of some sort that deals with making an extreme, absurd version of what people are saying to make the argument look ridiculous. But I can't find it, so maybe not.
Also, someone did make just such a game and it is about depression. Actual Sunlight.
I think it's a strawman. I'm not quite sure.
Also, Frankenberry, you are being purposely ignorant. It's very possible to have a game with a non-generic protagonist without having it be something like that. Using extremes like that is not an actual argument.
It's a strawman in totality, I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument, I'm merely exaggerating. My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
I'm frustrated is all, I'm tired of seeing people whining.
You represent everything that is wrong with modern game design.
stanman wrote: I think that the white soldier player that has the always cool under fire black Sarge is a bit trope-ish. Black Sarge is sometimes used as the best friend character role but he always has that gruff no nonsense overly macho balls out attitude.
It sticks out to me because he's often the only black character in the game.
"I'm too old for this gak." Actually, even in movies, cool under pressure black Sarge shows up WAY too much
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Which brings me a baseless theory - I wonder if older gamers have less of a need to self-identify as the player character, as older video games had pre-packed main characters. You generally couldn't create 'yourself'
I've gamed longer than almost anyone on the forums (Atari 2600 master race), and this sure as HELL ain't true for me.
Some older games did allow you to choose though. Like that weird little shooter for genesis, Zero Tolerance. Almost always played the Nurse character.
Melissia wrote: Some older games did allow you to choose though. Like that weird little shooter for genesis, Zero Tolerance. Almost always played the Nurse character.
A minority could allow you to choose, but not really customize. I meant more Baldur's Gate style character customization, and I haven't noticed it much outside of western RPGs.
I find I don't really give two gaks in most cases. In games where race or gender don't matter (which is most of them), then the PC should be customisable within a limited range of presets (skin tone, a few faces, gender, possibly a few body types.)
Most PCs in games like Call of Duty or Battlefield or their cohorts could fit this in pretty easily. When the character is more specific - like the Shadows of Mordor guy being a Gondor Captain then fine, go for whatever archetype is best used for that character (and FWIW, the SoM guy is as generic and boring as all hell).
Even Captain Whatsisface from Space Marine could have had a skin-tone slider (and maybe a few haircut options) without harming the game or going against the fluff.
If there's actual characters with specific characterisation in play, like, say, GTA5, then fine. Same deal with licenced characters in games.
Melissia wrote: Some older games did allow you to choose though. Like that weird little shooter for genesis, Zero Tolerance. Almost always played the Nurse character.
A minority could allow you to choose, but not really customize. I meant more Baldur's Gate style character customization, and I haven't noticed it much outside of western RPGs.
Most games didn't. Customization usually went as far as class/race or maybe stats, but actual look customization was pretty rare.
Anyone else wondering why this talk keeps coming back to customization? Maybe it's just melissia just bringing it up a lot or maybe there is something about games that invites it or something. Like you would never suggest a movie with a customizable protagonist.
Psienesis wrote: You represent everything that is wrong with modern game design.
Come on now, I disagree with Frankenberry but I would never go so far as to say that. I'd sooner say you represent everything wrong with modern discussion before I call Frankenberry such a big problem. But I won't, because it's not appropriate or true.
Melissia wrote: Some older games did allow you to choose though. Like that weird little shooter for genesis, Zero Tolerance. Almost always played the Nurse character.
*looks up Zero Tolerance Genesis*
*gasp!*
Melissia primarily chose a male character when given the choice of gender?? Truly, it was a different time.
Psienesis wrote: You represent everything that is wrong with modern game design.
Come on now, I disagree with Frankenberry but I would never go so far as to say that. I'd sooner say you represent everything wrong with modern discussion before I call Frankenberry such a big problem. But I won't, because it's not appropriate or true.
Melissia wrote: Some older games did allow you to choose though. Like that weird little shooter for genesis, Zero Tolerance. Almost always played the Nurse character.
*looks up Zero Tolerance Genesis*
*gasp!*
Melissia primarily chose a male character when given the choice of gender?? Truly, it was a different time.
Psienesis wrote: You represent everything that is wrong with modern game design.
Come on now, I disagree with Frankenberry but I would never go so far as to say that. I'd sooner say you represent everything wrong with modern discussion before I call Frankenberry such a big problem. But I won't, because it's not appropriate or true.
Melissia wrote: Some older games did allow you to choose though. Like that weird little shooter for genesis, Zero Tolerance. Almost always played the Nurse character.
*looks up Zero Tolerance Genesis*
*gasp!*
Melissia primarily chose a male character when given the choice of gender?? Truly, it was a different time.
Captain Satoe Ishii. I was wrong in saying she was the nurse; she was communications specialist. Was probably remembering some other old game.
nomotog wrote: Anyone else wondering why this talk keeps coming back to customization? Maybe it's just melissia just bringing it up a lot or maybe there is something about games that invites it or something. Like you would never suggest a movie with a customizable protagonist.
Because customisation is relatively easy to put into the majority of games where the race, looks and sex of the character is essentially immaterial to the plot (if the game even has a plot ). You wold not suggest a customisable movie because movies are typically shoot with real actors, and even digital films have a much tighter requirements for animation which means it is hard to render a user input in a reasonable time to give cinema grade visuals (though we are getting much closer these days to that capability).
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Which brings me a baseless theory - I wonder if older gamers have less of a need to self-identify as the player character, as older video games had pre-packed main characters. You generally couldn't create 'yourself'
I've gamed longer than almost anyone on the forums (Atari 2600 master race), and this sure as HELL ain't true for me.
Some older games did allow you to choose though. Like that weird little shooter for genesis, Zero Tolerance. Almost always played the Nurse character.
Bah! I had a dedicated Pong system as my first video game system, Atari is so for newbs.
I think in a lot of classic games gender was pretty much a non thing, Pac Man and Ms Pac Man were probably the first ones to have gender and I don't think they can really be considered trope-ish as tropes depend on being a repeated situation. (Which wouldn't occur until later games). The older games were a lot simpler and didn't get into all sorts of story heavy settings and most of them never even had any lines. For the most part they were just a bunch of sprites so I don't think too many people were upset or wrapped up in the genders as it was about pounding buttons. IMO that wasn't something that came around until much later when graphics evolved enough that you could show a character with heaps of muscles or over flowing boobs and they started trying to write personalities into the games. (and in most situations early games did a terrible job establishing any characters male or female)
Azazelx wrote: Even Captain Whatsisface from Space Marine could have had a skin-tone slider (and maybe a few haircut options) without harming the game or going against the fluff.
I am not sure GW would agree with that .
(Kidding, if we can have black sisters in official artworks, I guess we can have black ultramarines too.)
Frankenberry wrote: So...people WANT to play the 40-something, beer-gut having, balding, bad-skin sporting, deadend job-having majority?
Thank god you people don't make video games because jesus christ would they be depressing as hell.
I feel like there's a fallacy of some sort that deals with making an extreme, absurd version of what people are saying to make the argument look ridiculous. But I can't find it, so maybe not.
Also, someone did make just such a game and it is about depression. Actual Sunlight.
I think it's a strawman. I'm not quite sure.
Also, Frankenberry, you are being purposely ignorant. It's very possible to have a game with a non-generic protagonist without having it be something like that. Using extremes like that is not an actual argument.
It's a strawman in totality, I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument, I'm merely exaggerating. My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
I'm frustrated is all, I'm tired of seeing people whining.
You represent everything that is wrong with modern game design.
And you represent everything wrong with people on the internet. There, I can be an ass too.
I think the issues have been there since the beginning, but as games have started being more accessible, people are now stating their preferences. Like Melissa stated, in games where the protagonist's sex and race do not matter, customization is a relatively easy solution to allow the player to feel closer to their avatar.
Yeah, I am quite surprised by this argument. Japan gave use Ryu, Ken, Astaroth, Bass Armstrong, …
Okay, those are from fighting games, not RPG. That is because I am not into Japanese RPG. But a google image search with Final Fantasy barechested give me those images:
Spoiler:
That seems like very fit and attractive characters to me. Not “muscled hulks”, but is it not more fit than, say, 90 percent of the German population? Also, how is that feminine?
I think the word you were both looking for is attractive. Japan is designing attractive male characters .
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, that first image… should go to bikini armor battle damage if it is not already there . Sexualized “armor” male version!)
The guys don't have square jaws, looks like they wear make up, hairstyles are not like standard males, extremely fashionable outfits, male model body type.
I don't see many Japanese males like except as male hostesses.
Attractive is a subjective term, there are females who are not attracted to the ueber feminine males. Same with lots of females in RPG that are kawai (cute) to the power of ten.
Melissia wrote: "My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun"
You realize that the Sims is one of the most popular and profitable series in videogaming, right?
That doesn't mean it's good. Firefly only aired 5 episodes (I think) compared to the many years of Jersey Shore, it's arguable that just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's actually of better quality than the next thing.
Melissia wrote: "My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun"
You realize that the Sims is one of the most popular and profitable series in videogaming, right?
That doesn't mean it's good. Firefly only aired 5 episodes (I think) compared to the many years of Jersey Shore, it's arguable that just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's actually of better quality than the next thing.
She never said it proves it's a good game. It just proves that people want to play it and find it fun.
People enjoy watching jesery shore. feth knows why but they do.
I am disappointed with far too many games these days. We need to be tall and slim but powerful. Dominating and mysterious. Just a touch of eccentricity also.
Maybe white hair, 10' masamune blade, and random old school hockey pads.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if we could always kill the protagonists girlfriend, that would be good.
Melissia wrote: "My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun"
You realize that the Sims is one of the most popular and profitable series in videogaming, right?
That doesn't mean it's good. Firefly only aired 5 episodes (I think) compared to the many years of Jersey Shore, it's arguable that just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's actually of better quality than the next thing.
Some things that are bad are still quite fun. See: World of Warcraft, which many people find to be fun, even though it's one of the worst MMOS ever made.
My point is that I'm tired of reading about how people seem to think that playing a game based on every day lives would somehow be fun. I think that is beyond ironic, seeing as how we play video games to escape our reality, and yet...people bitch when that escape isn't realistic enough.
IOW: I came into a thread that was people discussing their viewpoints on gender/race inclusion in video games, and found that people have a problem with that, and I don't like it so I'm going to make a blanket statement and act like it's a universal truth.
...
There's a growing number of games that are very much "realistic" or "based on realistic people", because studios (especially independent studios) are realizing that video games, given their cultural ubiquity, can actually mean something more than disposable entertainment.
Although we aren't "there" yet with a truly great work of art, video games are being seen more and more like a work of art, akin to a novel or a play, than simply moving some pixels around on the screen. Even some of the AAA studios are starting to touch on this, to dip their toes into more-serious storytelling, dealing with more-serious themes and over-arching plot elements.
The push to realism is, basically, a fact of video games from the beginning until now, and will continue.
Compare "Adventure" on the Atari 2600:
Spoiler:
To the much-more-recent game Skyrim:
Spoiler:
Not only have the graphics gotten closer and closer to photo-realism (and, in some cases, almost as real as real), but audio tracks and voice-over work, too, have advanced right along with the graphics. Realistic lighting and physics engines, avatar ragdoll effects, analog movement controls that let you either tip-toe along, or sprint flat-out, rather than move at a constant, invariable pace. With the advent of "augmented reality" systems, we are taking yet another evolutionary step to making video games "as real as real".
... and this doesn't even touch on the crapload of "Realism" mods available for games like Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, etc. that require the player to attend to the human needs of their character during the course of game-play.
The demand is there. Players want their adventure-time to adhere as closely as possible to real life. Some, obviously, do not. And that's fine, but don't act like people who want their games to be more like real-life are somehow the odd ones, or are somehow "whining". There are definite issues in the gaming industry, and among the fandom, in that very large swathes of the games, and a very vocal subset (minority? majority? Does it matter) of the fandom are practicing, or are attempting to practice, a form of segregation, where things are pretty fine, as far as representation goes, if you're a white male, and there's a few white female roles, but only 2 major, non-caricature depictions of black males (one in Valve's L4D... and it isn't Coach, that character's a trope... one in Tell-Tale Games' "The Walking Dead") and one black female (in Valve's L4D2). While I'm sure there's more, the fact that I cannot easily think of them should indicate the scope of the problem. The number of games that permit character customization is fairly low (compared to all games with recognizably-human characters), and in some of those games, your customization options are often "some variation of white guy".
MMOs, obviously, are an exception to this, though MMOs often have the same problems that comic books and fantasy art have with female representation.
Can you imagine growing up a huge fan of video games but being a person of color? Where's the video game heroes for you? Where's the video game characters that even suggest that people of color exist in these fantasy worlds? Where's a character that's not a caricature? Only recently have we started seeing characters who were people of color in major, pivotal roles that were not caricatures, like some wannabe-Dennis Rodman or a Mike Tyson clone, or a character that walked out of a 1970s blaxploitation film.
To quote Jamin Warren (co-founder of Kill Screen) "When the time comes for a child to ask "Who am I?," games, like all great art forms, should have an answer. The worry is that the response, more often than not, is nothing at all".
And that's really, really sad that this artform, now approaching its 60th birthday, has that as an answer to that question... in that it really doesn't have an answer, both for people of color and for girls and young women. This is changing (slowly), but there seems to be an absolutely *deplorable* amount of push-back against it, as if video games including more women and more minorities somehow means that other games won't be made... which is both counter-productive and stupid.
So I'm going to hop into this because I haven't learned not to play with fire!
As per Franken's post. Now then, I'll say I don't think really there's a big market for realistic games. Games with authenticy? Most certainly. Realistic where you just go about a completely ordinary life? No. Games strive often for authenticy in their sense of realism and touch on different subjects. Even Sims is, in reality is often played to just god over some people and screw with the people. Basically play a really fickle god that can't decide whether he loves them or loathes them with a passion of a thousand blazing stars. That said, there is a massive demand for games with an authentic feel to them as Psi mentions. Heck, I'm playing Fallout NV again and I almost always have Project Nevada on. A mod that really fleshes out the game and makes it feel less clunky, more gamey, head shots against enemies without helmets are gruesome, leg crippling is significantly worse, and edits to survival mechanics which is in a game that already had them in it. Does that mean tossing aside the dragons, the robots, and the energy guns or wacky stuff? Not really. Gonna kill the murderhobo adventuring around? Not really but it's something that's become popular or has been. Not that you won't also have Borderlands games where they decide to make ammo shoot super slow and inaccurate.
That said, I would like to direct a question at Psienesis as to the push-back against people of color and females. Where have you seen it? I mean, I've just never really seen full blown rage against it besides small pockets throughout the years which, considering how the internet functions, this seems to happen in basically everything from cinema to tv shows to games when they come online. Along with this odd sense of the internet hates absolutely everything at the same time .
As per myself, I think that there's almost a negative feedback loop. Games are getting pricey in development where games can be considered failures despite great sale numbers. A combination of developers originally being white males developing games for people that were primarily white males lead to a pretty significant bias. Toss on cultural upheavals, the fact that there's still flaws in filming and music further exacerbating it, and then toss on the fact that, at the moment women are statistically focused upon games such as the facebook sort, solitaire, etc with one significant exception being WoW where it's a closer balance between the two sexes (which might or might not show signs that further inclusiveness could boost up interest although to what degree I don't quite know). Is it biologically a general assumption of preference, life teaching you cultural values that inclinate these things, some mix of the two, or something else entirely? Frankly I'm just tossing out guesses at this point. Then there is the fact that games are so risky in general that companies step it cautious, publishers worry and further block certain aspects and you can see drops. Companies start thinking that putting some female character on it won't work possibly from faulty calculations, and so on.
Really I think the biggest thing to influence it would simply be an increased number of Colored people and Females in game development. I really do think that's part of the reason it's been on rise (honestly almost feeling like it's made more progress on females in comparison to colored people in general). Also big successes with good representations will probably encourage more to follow it. That's my best bet.
StarTrotter wrote:Now then, I'll say I don't think really there's a big market for realistic games. Games with authenticy? Most certainly. Realistic where you just go about a completely ordinary life? No.
That's a good point, to a degree. Realism makes an experience more authentic, and games are about providing experiences different than your everyday life.
That being said, there are games like Train Simulator or Farm Simulator etc that seem to be at least somewhat popular (in that they are successful enough to be widely known and get more and more DLC every year). The truth is that "completely ordinary life" is something very subjective, and what can be boring for one person (because they do it everyday) can be exciting for another. So much so that people pay good money to be allowed to work on a farm and call that a vacation.
I actually agree that Sims is not an ideal example, although I think that's true for a different reason, namely that Sims is (or at least can be) about ordinary life, but it's not realistic as you have much more control over it and good things just fall into your lap. In essence, the game is heavily biased towards making your characters lead an exciting, happy life in the lap of luxury. But it's still about living a civilian life, not saving the world.
In this, the Sims is like the polar opposite of Fallout or Skyrim, where things are much more realistic (as per their own world) and grim, but you still get to play the hero. And then there are quasi-sandbox games like Elite, that let you be a merchant or a miner or an interstellar bus driver - a fairly ordinary profession, except that it's IN SPACE, which makes it far more exciting for us than it would be for the people who may do this sort of job in a thousand years from now.
I suppose this entire sub-debate about ordinary lives has become somewhat off-topic. The bottom line is that greater variety between character types makes for improved authenticity, and for some people that is a huge bonus to immersion.
StarTrotter wrote:That said, I would like to direct a question at Psienesis as to the push-back against people of color and females. Where have you seen it?
I'm gonna take a guess and say various gaming site comment fields, youtube, his facebook feed, and even dakka. Gamergate anyone?
This belongs more into the other thread, though, even though the issues are connected (which is why I feel it may have been a mistake to split up the topics, given that both have the same source of the problem: the "default protagonist"), for I haven't seen as much in terms of pushback against people of colour - albeit the most likely reason for this would be that there hasn't been much in terms of a push FOR them, either, compared to the current conflict in gender equality which is raging on multiple fronts simultaneously, so it may just be a question of timing.
StarTrotter wrote:Really I think the biggest thing to influence it would simply be an increased number of Colored people and Females in game development.
And publishers, for as it turned out, even a studio willing to go for less conventional characters can face quite a lot of resistance - and no money means no game being made.
Really I think the biggest thing to influence it would simply be an increased number of Colored people and Females in game development.
What's so sad about it: the only constructive thing about #Gamergate and anything surrounding it, aka female developers being supported to make an own game, was initiated by a group of men.
There actually are more women involved in the creation of games than one might assume, they mostly take care of art design etc. They still are in the minory, which mirrors the market. Men are widely dominant in the design of core games because it was mostly men who grew up with video games when they were young and on top of that, they design games for, mostly, men.
When looking at mobile games, that soon changes and women grow more frequent - and again, they mirror the market
This is same issue (diversity) that is seen in the comic book and tech industry: people hire friends/people in the same circles which reinforce the same homogeneous environment. And while having a greater diversity of designers would be good, let's not let the current groups off the hook. People have to learn empathy and being able to expand their comfort zone. I am wary that if that is not supported, women or minority designers will automatically be pigeonholed into being responsible for having to be the flag bearers for diversity. That is not fair to limit them to that.
And I hopeful that we will continue to expand our range of characters.
Lynata wrote: That being said, there are games like Train Simulator or Farm Simulator etc that seem to be at least somewhat popular (in that they are successful enough to be widely known and get more and more DLC every year).
Alright then, I'll seccede on some of my points. I still doubt somebody wants a 100% realistic game set on farming where you have to restroom, eat, sleep, take care of a family, take care of crops, etc in a 100% genuine manner (unless we make some neural head one that basically puts you into the world. Then I'd totally buy the heck out of that!) Still, I'll agree with you on that. And as per the last part I'll be honest, I'm totally fine with us moving away from the 30 year old grizzly bearded aftershave brown haired sometimes buzzcut white dude that's in a physically prime stage or dramatically over what could be considered healthy fit. Then again I play a game that has super beefy usually bald Space Marines so maybe I can't really be too critical of it
Joking aside I'm actually playing as a blacksmith orc right now in Skyrim. A bit frustrating (I'd love to find a mod to make a shop). Toss in a bit of adventuring and the mod that turned off me being a dragonborn. It's honestly pretty fun despite it's faulty parts.
Lynata wrote: I'm gonna take a guess and say various gaming site comment fields, youtube, his facebook feed, and even dakka. Gamergate anyone? I
This belongs more into the other thread, though, even though the issues are connected (which is why I feel it may have been a mistake to split up the topics, given that both have the same source of the problem: the "default protagonist"), for I haven't seen as much in terms of pushback against people of colour - albeit the most likely reason for this would be that there hasn't been much in terms of a push FOR them, either, compared to the current conflict in gender equality which is raging on multiple fronts simultaneously, so it may just be a question of timing.
This belongs more into the other thread, though, even though the issues are connected (which is why I feel it may have been a mistake to split up the topics, given that both have the same source of the problem: the "default protagonist"), for I haven't seen as much in terms of pushback against people of colour - albeit the most likely reason for this would be that there hasn't been much in terms of a push FOR them, either, compared to the current conflict in gender equality which is raging on multiple fronts simultaneously, so it may just be a question of timing.
Honestly I think part of the fault is that there are a group of nut job SJW (and I'm mostly using this in reference of bloggers particularly on Tumbler) that basically use minorities as a shield for their own popularity. I've had enough insults thrown at me and being belittled for being one group that they "campaign for" (and I'm a white male so you can guess past that ). Toss on I think there's an irritation with public proclamations of resistance. For example, gaming is going digital. Most things in life are going digital yet when XBox One pushed for ways to punish resales and perhaps attempt to encourage digital purchases, there was a massive backlash. As per Gamergate, I really don't want to hop into it besides saying I don't quite agree with Sigvatr as per #Gamergate. Overall I think the most positive things to come out of it have been some fundraisers including the female developer support, revealing that there was a massive number of game "journalists" that made a group to swap around ideas and honestly plan out things unethically, the change in the escapists rules, and kotaku and polygon's changes. That said, it's come at the cost of the internet going berzerk, death threats to everybody and anybody, trolls trolling harder than ever, doxxing, lies and misinformation spreading around, sending syringes and knives, false cop calls, and more. Also I hate to see stuff like this politicized. Stop making everything a game of politics! Sorry anyways ranted too much and it's frankly just a mess of murky waters where speaking up on either side or remaining neutral (if on an openly public level) just leads to more harm. Oh dear, sorry for going off on that.
Oh, and the gamer to game makers thing is interesting. I'm somewhat cynical of the statistics (because I'm in statistics at college and loving it ) but it is true that the proportions are out of whack. Actually they cited Resident Evil. Honestly, I don't think the whole black zombies is the issue because, well, africa and zombies usually black? Not really surprised. My biggest criticism on that is that the support character (never played but it's the female) is black but she's very light toned compared to the other zombies which feels incredibly funky.
AdeptSister wrote: This is same issue (diversity) that is seen in the comic book and tech industry: people hire friends/people in the same circles which reinforce the same homogeneous environment. And while having a greater diversity of designers would be good, let's not let the current groups off the hook. People have to learn empathy and being able to expand their comfort zone. I am wary that if that is not supported, women or minority designers will automatically be pigeonholed into being responsible for having to be the flag bearers for diversity. That is not fair to limit them to that.
And I hopeful that we will continue to expand our range of characters.
No offense, but those are empty words. The question is - how do you want to back those up? The premise that more women in gaming will automatically mean better games is foolish and naive.
In order for there to be a change, there have to be women MAKING games. And women making games must make GOOD games in order to be appreciated for their work instead of their gender or their victimization as the latter are sexism. And women making games need to stand up against the very vocal slacktivists who only care for their fame and money. Those people slander the actual work of women in the industry.
Sigvatr wrote: Japanese game characters don't even have a gender anymore
On the other hanad, though, that also has a lot to do with culture. Being fit isn't a large focus in the East whereas it is in the West.
ummm... no, its shamefull to be fat in the east, I would say even more so then over here.
personally, I think the idea of getting to co op or fight against fat guys, short guys, pimply neck beards, would be fun... im sure plenty of people would rather have an avatar that looks like themselves even if they are fat/ect
the game doesnt have to be about boring real life scenarios to incorporate real life graphics....
no one complains about realistic physics engines being "borning" because no one wants to play with real physics....
AdeptSister wrote: This is same issue (diversity) that is seen in the comic book and tech industry: people hire friends/people in the same circles which reinforce the same homogeneous environment. And while having a greater diversity of designers would be good, let's not let the current groups off the hook. People have to learn empathy and being able to expand their comfort zone. I am wary that if that is not supported, women or minority designers will automatically be pigeonholed into being responsible for having to be the flag bearers for diversity. That is not fair to limit them to that.
And I hopeful that we will continue to expand our range of characters.
No offense, but those are empty words. The question is - how do you want to back those up? The premise that more women in gaming will automatically mean better games is foolish and naive.
In order for there to be a change, there have to be women MAKING games. And women making games must make GOOD games in order to be appreciated for their work instead of their gender or their victimization as the latter are sexism. And women making games need to stand up against the very vocal slacktivists who only care for their fame and money. Those people slander the actual work of women in the industry.
See, I have few issues with that stance. While agree that it would be good for women or minorities to be making good games, once again you are putting the onus on them (and only them). That is not realistic or fair. That their game must be spectacular, if not, it's a failure. And it sounds like instead of aiming for addressing a faulty the system, you expect them to have to better than everyone to even compete.
It IMHO, is silly to put the entire burden on women and minorities to change the industry. Like everything, it takes empathy and collaboration.
No. It's on them. It's an industry, not a children's ball park. If you want to be successful, you have to deliver a good product - hands down. If you can't, you should fail.
Why should the industry suddenly start making amendments? Just because they're women? That's sexist.
Without support and experience? Of course. It sounds like you want something created without development of an infrastructure. Great games are not created from aether. Art is made from struggle, experimentation, repeated failure and collaboration. You are saying that women need to make good games, but are not allowing the same resources to gain the experience, support and contacts that are usually required. It can happen, but it would be rare.
For a fundamental change to occur, one cannot usually do solely on their own.
AdeptSister wrote: Without support and experience? Of course. It sounds like you want something created without development of an infrastructure. Great games are not created from aether. Art is made from struggle, experimentation, repeated failure and collaboration. You are saying that women need to make good games, but are not allowing the same resources to gain the experience, support and contacts that are usually required. It can happen, but it would be rare.
For a fundamental change to occur, one cannot usually do solely on their own.
All can equally suffer through the process of programming at home or at College. Just be warned that the answer to your problems is not hitting your computer with a wrench
AdeptSister wrote: Without support and experience? Of course. It sounds like you want something created without development of an infrastructure. Great games are not created from aether. Art is made from struggle, experimentation, repeated failure and collaboration. You are saying that women need to make good games, but are not allowing the same resources to gain the experience, support and contacts that are usually required. It can happen, but it would be rare.
Female game developers follow the exact same pattern any male developer does. The exact same pattern. Gender has nothing to do with it. You could literally create a game completely anonymous and people wouldn't care at all as long as the product is good. You're making the assumption that every man who gets into game development is immediately welcomed because all men essentially are bros and totally stick to each other. Hm.
If you think that women need special support when making games, then you're saying they're worse / less skilled than their male counterparts. Hm. I disagree.
Melissia wrote: "All can equally suffer through the process of programming at home or at College."
Actually, most people don't have to. You never did in order to play games you want.
It's maybe one of the bigger fallacies of game design. You can be a part of game design without coding a single line of code. Yes with most video games, someone somewhere coded something, but that doesn't need to be you. Also some games require zero coding. (Table top games.) Coding and game design are really two different disciplines.
Sigvatr, we fundamentally disagree if you think that the issues women face to be successful in the gaming industry are the same as men. It is not about "special" treatment, it is about equal opportunity.
Melissia wrote: "All can equally suffer through the process of programming at home or at College."
Actually, most people don't have to. You never did in order to play games you want.
It's maybe one of the bigger fallacies of game design. You can be a part of game design without coding a single line of code. Yes with most video games, someone somewhere coded something, but that doesn't need to be you. Also some games require zero coding. (Table top games.) Coding and game design are really two different disciplines.
Ah, apologies on that. Frankly I was more messing up because I had been in computer science for a year. Decided it wasn't for me so really was more joking on that. As per the talk about table top games, doesn't really matter considering we're in a board for video games which is my assumption.
That said, it's very much the truth that there is the designer, artist, the other branches (which I honestly don't quite know every part of it), the advertisement segment, the publisher (which might advertise it?). So yeah, lots of ways to get in and overall it probably matters more to get into the design aspect of it and/or whoever designs the characters and the sorts.
Melissia wrote: You never had to be any of those things to enjoy the games.
Wait huh? I thought we were talking about game development not people that like games. Now I'm really confused
You are (or appear to be) arguing that women should have to take part in designing our own games in order to be included. However, you never had to take part in designing your own game in order to be included.
Sigvatr wrote: No. It's on them. It's an industry, not a children's ball park. If you want to be successful, you have to deliver a good product - hands down. If you can't, you should fail.
Why should the industry suddenly start making amendments? Just because they're women? That's sexist.
Then why are men still in the industry? There are far more gakky games than good ones.
Melissia wrote: You never had to be any of those things to enjoy the games.
Depends on what you mean by included
Joking aside, I'm not saying that anybody is "supposed to". I was more discussing that it'd likely produce the most significant increase of games with PoC and women. As much as I know, the majority of the developers for games that have significant places in making "core games" are predominantly white males and, despite the significant number of black and latin gamers hasn't significantly influenced those numbers despite the fact that they are a significant number of consumers. Honestly the best I can say is perhaps more women gamers has lead to a push for more games where you can customize your characters.
Not to say that it's necessarily true though. Honestly I wish that we actually had statistics for every single gamer and proportions of genres, race, and sexuality along with family wealth for PC gaming, Wii gaming, XBox gaming, PS gaming, handheld gaming, and Phone/Social Media (including all Facebook here). That said, maybe I just like the thought of all those numbers all over the place and as I was speaking I kept on adding caveats of ooo those numbers and aaaaah those numbers would be interesting! Think of all the things you could see from them!
Sigvatr wrote: No. It's on them. It's an industry, not a children's ball park. If you want to be successful, you have to deliver a good product - hands down. If you can't, you should fail.
Why should the industry suddenly start making amendments? Just because they're women? That's sexist.
Then why are men still in the industry? There are far more gakky games than good ones.
Ah my favorite tactic. The one where we escalate! I use slippery slope! Sturgeon's Law claims that 90% of everything is crap. 90% of all games are crap+90% of people's ideas are crap = to the same equation for every other field including books and movies. This leads us to the acclamation that due to the fact that there are too many bad things in the world, we must destroy all entertainment and people. That or we must ascend from our pathetic human nature to harmonize with our world or we must ascend by way of technology past our pathetic meatbags. All purity must be destroyed
Melissia wrote: You are (or appear to be) arguing that women should have to take part in designing our own games in order to be included. However, you never had to take part in designing your own game in order to be included.
I'm not sure what 'included' means here. I've never felt any barrier to me playing a game beyond it appealing to my tastes.
But who is supposed to make these games that will make you feel included? More importantly if they don't want to, why should they?
Ah my favorite tactic. The one where we escalate! I use slippery slope! Sturgeon's Law claims that 90% of everything is crap. 90% of all games are crap+90% of people's ideas are crap = to the same equation for every other field including books and movies. This leads us to the acclamation that due to the fact that there are too many bad things in the world, we must destroy all entertainment and people. That or we must ascend from our pathetic human nature to harmonize with our world or we must ascend by way of technology past our pathetic meatbags. All purity must be destroyed
And here we go with someone entirely missing the point and trying to be cute about it.
No, women and people of color should not have to trail-blaze their way to their own AAA studio and produce the next mega-bazillions-making game in order to then finally earn a place at the table. Feth that.
What needs to happen is that studios need to a) stop listening to their marketing teams, because their marketing teams are really, really wrong and b) tell the basement-dwellers that they're going to have to learn to play nicely with others, because gaming is now a mainstream cultural affair. It is no longer something just for nerds and geeks, it is now a hobby enjoyed by a significant portion of the population.
In short, gaming has "arrived", and now it's time for it to start broadening its horizons and appealing to the demographics that got it there, which most certainly includes women and people of color.
Awww come on, I just wanted to have a bit of fun on it. I mean, I just sat there, tossed in a sturgeon's law reference and then was mentioning the newest Civ Game....
I was more just talking about the thing that would influence it the most naturally without anybody saying it. I'm not talking some grand trail-blaze of people into it because over the year's it's been changing to begin with. It all changes. Opinions, fields, etc. That and because it feels more likely than economists realizing it
Besides that,
a) As mentioned before, I agree it's completely idiotic and I'd love to see publishers (in particular) and developers (to a lesser extent) realize that's it's a bunch of smoke in the air. That and even the train simulator thing sold I think around one million dollars worth. That said I'd rather avoid tokenism so not just tokenism for that matter.
b) Telling the basement-dwellers that they have to play nice with others? You mean the internet's nasty habit of being malicious in general and largely toxic? Can't complain if that left but I really doubt that will happen... ever. MOBAS prepare your legion of insults!
In short, gaming has "arrived", and now it's time for it to start broadening its horizons and appealing to the demographics that got it there, which most certainly includes women and people of color.
I agree that gaming has "arrived".. but how do you "broaden its horizons"?? Apparently for you, it's affirmative action and shoehorning people into jobs, regardless of qualifications just because there "needs" to be more of some demographics represented in gaming.
To me, that is just simply the wrong fething answer.
Did a google search for video game credits, and this site came up near the top. It's for Uncharted 3. The Vice President is someone named Isabel. 1 of 3 "Senior Environment Artists" are women, 2 of the "Environment Artists" women.
Hell, the url is for an article specifically recognizing the artists and people involved who are Filipino, which, last I checked, Filipinos are not white.
If we, or rather, the gaming industry, follows the standard hiring laws we will continue to see these numbers increase. As you yourself said, women and people of color are now a fairly significant demographic within the video gaming, and gaming industry. Another generation from now, and I will not be surprised in the least to see more and more women in the credits to games.
To be exact, I don't think that the broaden horizons is really that. He's more talking about the PCs, support cast, etc. In fact I was yammering about how it'd possibly be influenced by a greater number of women and other ethnicity in game development would very likely influence these factors and, as long as it doesn't involve filling it to "make demographics more even in the industry". I was just talking about as gaming becomes more accepted, more people will likely want to go into the field and thus it will move on. Give it a generation and the proportions will likely be significantly different.
tldr: the only thing that Psi was talking about is the PCs and NPCs of the games itself, not the race or sex of the ones making the games.
No, women and people of color should not have to trail-blaze their way to their own AAA studio and produce the next mega-bazillions-making game in order to then finally earn a place at the table. Feth that.
Sorry StarTrotter, but this bit I quoted here has NOTHING to do with NPCs or PCs, and everything to do with the people who program them into games.
I do agree with you though, that as we get more women and other minorities into game design, we'll see more PCs and NPCs that reflect those designers own demographics.
Will we? Because we really haven't so far. Uncharted 3 is still a story about Whiteboy McWhiteyson, with brown hair and a grizzled 5 o'clock shadow.
Go a bit further back in the thread, and you'll note that the comment of mine you quoted is a direct response to someone stating that, if women/minorities want to be accepted in the developer side, they will have to do all the work themselves. Which is, I think, an asinine position.
But in the main, that is somewhat secondary. I mean, sure, yes, there should be more women and people of color in the industry in general. That's true of just about any tech-job, of any stripe, which is still predominantly white-males-only (this has gotten slightly better in the last decade, but only slightly).
The casts of games are still almost-entirely-white-dudes. Most female characters are presented solely as a Damsel in Distress, with little to no agency of her own, as a romance target for a male character, or as eye-candy/sex symbol for the assumed-male player.
Psienesis wrote: Will we? Because we really haven't so far. Uncharted 3 is still a story about Whiteboy McWhiteyson, with brown hair and a grizzled 5 o'clock shadow.
Go a bit further back in the thread, and you'll note that the comment of mine you quoted is a direct response to someone stating that, if women/minorities want to be accepted in the developer side, they will have to do all the work themselves. Which is, I think, an asinine position.
But in the main, that is somewhat secondary. I mean, sure, yes, there should be more women and people of color in the industry in general. That's true of just about any tech-job, of any stripe, which is still predominantly white-males-only (this has gotten slightly better in the last decade, but only slightly).
The casts of games are still almost-entirely-white-dudes. Most female characters are presented solely as a Damsel in Distress, with little to no agency of her own, as a romance target for a male character, or as eye-candy/sex symbol for the assumed-male player.
I think though, that, as I commented, in another generation of developers, we'll start seeing more and more "different" main characters. I mean, if we look at other avenues of media, look at movies. Sure there were a number of minorities in film, but it wasn't until the 70s that we really see a number of minorities really cast in the lead role? And I'm not really referring to "blaxploitation" films either.
Just because we "suddenly" have more voices on the backside of games doesn't mean we'll suddenly see "results" as we're talking here. These things take time. Once we have ONE truly successful gem of a game with a female, or really minority character, we'll see more pop up. And I mean, successful on the COD level, because as we've seen with Tomb Raider, she didn't really spawn a huge offspring of other female lead games.
Sigvatr wrote: What's so sad about it: the only constructive thing about #Gamergate and anything surrounding it, aka female developers being supported to make an own game, was initiated by a group of men.
I know the founder of TFYC is a man, but iirc, there are also women in TFYC.
Anyhow, do you have any idea who makes the game you play? I personally have next to none. Most games involve a huge cast, and I do not even know what exact work most titles means. I never paid attention to how many women were mentioned in the credit, and I would not be able to determine what their influence on the game was even if I did watch the credit explicitly for that purpose. So, I do not really see what you mean by “Women will earn respect by making good games”. Respect from whom? Can we even expect a big title to be made only by women? And why would we expect that?
I am a bit lost on that whole “female designers” argument.
I have problems with the stereotypical muscled white guy protagonist; I'd like to see some more variation and customisability.
When it comes to male gamers, the most damaging thing is the way women are portrayed in gaming; I don't buy a game for tits and ass, I buy a game for a good story and/or good game-play. I would like it if game developers started to treat us as more than just perverts who will buy anything with tits in it.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Once we have ONE truly successful gem of a game with a female, or really minority character, we'll see more pop up.
It'll take a lot more than that to overcome the biases inherent in those whom decide where money is spent in the video game industries, and this applies to both "what problems do gamers have" threads.
I just don't believe in the "one shining example" theory as I don't think it will be enough to motivate permanent change. Maybe spark some emulators, but not change an Industry. Change only occurs with perseverance. And it cannot be done by a minority alone. It is a collaborative process. But it requires people to believe/acknowledge a problem and working together be create a possible solution.
So it seems like the general consensus on this thread is that people would like a greater diversity of male characters. How does one promote this?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Once we have ONE truly successful gem of a game with a female, or really minority character, we'll see more pop up. And I mean, successful on the COD level, because as we've seen with Tomb Raider, she didn't really spawn a huge offspring of other female lead games.
Isn't that setting the bar just a *tad* high? After all, the Tomb Raider franchise is still one of the highest-grossing video game series of all time, but still has only a third of COD's sales. Even the Halo franchise has not sold as many units as the COD franchise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...and the cast of COD is more Whitey McWhiteBoy.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Once we have ONE truly successful gem of a game with a female, or really minority character, we'll see more pop up. And I mean, successful on the COD level, because as we've seen with Tomb Raider, she didn't really spawn a huge offspring of other female lead games.
Isn't that setting the bar just a *tad* high? After all, the Tomb Raider franchise is still one of the highest-grossing video game series of all time, but still has only a third of COD's sales. Even the Halo franchise has not sold as many units as the COD franchise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...and the cast of COD is more Whitey McWhiteBoy.
I suppose I should have elaborated some, I don't necessarily mean success on the same monetary level as CoD. As you point out, Tomb Raider is a serious video game Icon. But, as games with multiplayer, like CoD are the "thing" now, we sort of do need a COD killer type of game with a good female lead character.... I cant tell you how happy I'd be if Half Life 3 didn't feature Gordon Freeman, but rather the niece you meet in HL2 (I forget her name), but is still a badass with a crowbar and serious sci-fi guns.
Sigvatr wrote: Aye, and that's the logic of a free market. There's no reason to cater to a minority if it doesn't equal to a higher profit.
To mention a "free market system" in this context does you no service, because there has not been a game like CoD featuring predominantly-female or predominantly-minority characters, and a market without competition is entirely the opposite of a free-market system. HALO does not feature minorities as the main protagonist, and the underlying story-arc of the first 2 games was entirely discarded for every entry in the series that followed.
I suppose I should have elaborated some, I don't necessarily mean success on the same monetary level as CoD. As you point out, Tomb Raider is a serious video game Icon. But, as games with multiplayer, like CoD are the "thing" now, we sort of do need a COD killer type of game with a good female lead character.... I cant tell you how happy I'd be if Half Life 3 didn't feature Gordon Freeman, but rather the niece you meet in HL2 (I forget her name), but is still a badass with a crowbar and serious sci-fi guns.
Then why, when Tomb Raider was the #1 selling video game, before COD existed at all, did we not see the results you claimed would happen?
Because Laura Croft, as a character, is a male fantasy. She's not designed, or intended, to represent or appeal to the female gamer, with the *possible* exception of the latest entry in the series (although, even in that game, there's a barely-escaped rape...).
Sigvatr wrote: Aye, and that's the logic of a free market. There's no reason to cater to a minority if it doesn't equal to a higher profit.
To mention a "free market system" in this context does you no service, because there has not been a game like CoD featuring predominantly-female or predominantly-minority characters, and a market without competition is entirely the opposite of a free-market system. HALO does not feature minorities as the main protagonist, and the underlying story-arc of the first 2 games was entirely discarded for every entry in the series that followed.
No, that's exactly what it is. A market that does not ALLOW for a free market isn't a free market. The market, however, is free and open to anyone with anything. If you want a minority or anything to be represented in games, make a good game and it will sell well and thus inspire others to do the same. The latest prominent game with a female protagonist was Tomb Raider. Flopped and did not meet expectations. Where the girl gamer market at? :(
Psienesis wrote: ...and the cast of COD is more Whitey McWhiteBoy.
Could you stop this? Could you just say white? Or at least extend the cute naming convention to other skin colors? I'd love to see what you do with brown or yellow.
Could you stop this? Could you just say white? Or at least extend the cute naming convention to other skin colors? I'd love to see what you do with brown or yellow.
That would lead to a Dakka ban
It's totally ok and accepted to discriminate whites. Privilege etc.
Still, hypocrisy and double standards are disgusting to me. I know we are all guilty of succumbing to those failings at one time or another, but trying to maintain a base line of respect for all parties involved int his discussion should be manageable, no?
I am disgusted by the term "privilege". It's abused in so many ways, it's not even funny. It's often used to shut people down e.g. when white people talk about racism and are shut down by referring to their "privilege". Not to mention that this is racism at its best.
Sigvatr wrote: It's totally ok and accepted to discriminate whites.
If “Whitey McWhiteBoy” is the worst discrimination you had to face, you are pretty lucky.
Just to keep things in context.
So a little discrimination is okay?
Look. If you want to portray yourself as an open-minded, egalitarian person you can't besmirch one group in your campaign to help other groups. Don't be hypocritical with your terminology, because if it is okay to refer to white males as "Whitey McWhiteBoy" then it should be okay to refer to brown males as "Brownie El-Brown-brown", or yellow skinned males as "Yellow with a side of rice", right? And lets not get into the fun terms we could throw around for females of particular skin colors because damn, that would open up so many more options!
If it isn't okay to make ridiculous euphemisms for black, brown and yellow people then it certainly isn't okay to make those terms for white people.
ON TOPIC: It would be nice to see a more average male figure as the heroin, but even then you usually get armor or something that ends up making them look badass, so does it really matter how they start out?
Chris_P wrote: ON TOPIC: It would be nice to see a more average male figure as the heroin, but even then you usually get armor or something that ends up making them look badass, so does it really matter how they start out?
Do you think that the six guys in the Left 4 Dead series represented average, if unique, people?
I think the series did fairly well in its representation of variety, moreso than most other game series at least.
A “little” discrimination is certainly better than much more meaningful discrimination, sure.
Just for reference, I have one Iranian friend whose worst anecdote about racism since she came in France was how some guy, upon learning that she was Iranian, started to complain about how some Iranian roommate of old gave him some disease (cannot remember which one). This also falls into the “I am pretty happy that is the worst discrimination you had to face ”. Well, that is not the worst discrimination she had to face because, huh, she kind of was discriminated by the state for being a woman quite a bit until she left Iran, but you get what I mean, right? Just to say, that is not something I would only say about white European people.
A “little” discrimination is certainly better than much more meaningful discrimination, sure.
The severity of the discrimination is irrelevant if you are advocating against discrimination in the first place.
If I advocate for nonviolence, and then stab you in the shoulder with a pen knife, that action isn't justified because I didn't shoot you with a pistol. It is still a violent act and I am suddenly a huge hypocrite for committing said act.
Do you honestly not see the problem with using the term "Whitey McWhiteBoy" or are you just being contrary to be contrary?
Let's not get into an argument about discrimination and if it is offensive. That would be pointless and would go nowhere. He deemed it offensive, and he is allowed to ask the person to change it. I don't think it is vital to Psienesis point.
Anyone play the escapest? (You should it's a RPG of crazy levels of openness.) It's a game about prison and one of the little details I like about it is that it doesn't have a drop the sop joke. I expected the exact opposite. As a whole I think we are still at the stage were male rape is handled poorly. Many times as a joke.
Psienesis wrote: ...and the cast of COD is more Whitey McWhiteBoy.
Could you stop this? Could you just say white? Or at least extend the cute naming convention to other skin colors? I'd love to see what you do with brown or yellow.
Once we have "generic Black protagonist" or "generic Asian protagonist", I will do so. Unfortunately, they don't exist.
Saint's Row allows total character customization; the "character", such as it is, is not a Black character, although you can choose to make them such.
Separate this from, say, the Witcher, where your character, Geralt of Rivia, has a pre-defined, unchangeable appearance. Or the characters in CoD or GoW. Or in the first 2 entries of the Doom franchise (all white, all blonde).
Outside of the L4D franchise and Tell-Tale's "The Walking Dead", the only applicable labels would be either "Token McTokenson" or "Stereotype O'DasRacist" (I'm looking at you, Square Enix; you, too, Team Ninja).
Television shows have gotten *much* better at having characters of miscellaneous minorities not be defined by being that minority, and by not playing to racist stereotypes of that minority. They've gotten away from (and often subvert/ridicule) the trope of "Oh, you're Asian! You must be smart!" or "Oh.... you're Black. Don't rob me!"... though it has taken a long, long time to get to this point. White people on TV, of course, run the gamut, and pretty much always have. For every Homer Simpson there's a Doctor Who or Doctor House. For every King of Queens there's a Mad Men.
Psienesis wrote: Saint's Row allows total character customization; the "character", such as it is, is not a Black character, although you can choose to make them such.
Separate this from, say, the Witcher, where your character, Geralt of Rivia, has a pre-defined, unchangeable appearance. Or the characters in CoD or GoW. Or in the first 2 entries of the Doom franchise (all white, all blonde).
Outside of the L4D franchise and Tell-Tale's "The Walking Dead", the only applicable labels would be either "Token McTokenson" or "Stereotype O'DasRacist" (I'm looking at you, Square Enix; you, too, Team Ninja).
Television shows have gotten *much* better at having characters of miscellaneous minorities not be defined by being that minority, and by not playing to racist stereotypes of that minority. They've gotten away from (and often subvert/ridicule) the trope of "Oh, you're Asian! You must be smart!" or "Oh.... you're Black. Don't rob me!"... though it has taken a long, long time to get to this point. White people on TV, of course, run the gamut, and pretty much always have. For every Homer Simpson there's a Doctor Who or Doctor House. For every King of Queens there's a Mad Men.
You can't really blame Doom for that, since it was the first FPS shooter ever made and was literally MADE by White Dudes trying to have a power fantasy for themselves. The fact that every FPS after it being the same is whats sad.
Also, GoW in total didn't really have any stereotypes (As long as we are counting the EU). The Cole Train in the first two games was a horrible stereotype, I will be the first to admit it, but in the third game and in all the books he was easily my favorite character. Also, considering how much it makes Dom and Marcus out to be brothers (Hispanic and White, respectively), it's not exactly making racist remarks there.
Honestly, much like with the female case, I don't really care. My main case with a game is gameplay, nothing else. I couldn't give less of a damn about the main character and whether they're bland or not- I largely avoid story-based games centralizing on a campaign for both lacking replayability and also just being downright horrible stories as gaming is still a young medium. The only game I'd even really consider as exceptional in the story department is the Last of Us and Alien Isolation... and that's it really.
The only time I have a problem with the character model and skinning is when the model is either downright pornographic or racist. I prefer my pornography separate from my gaming experience, and playing a game where a character is wearing black-face (or something similar) leaves both a bad taste in my mouth and a desire to sock the dev in the jaw.
But otherwise, I just really don't care. If I pop in Halo, I'm neither noticing how boring Chief is as a character or ogling Cortana, I'm there corralling some friends into a campaign or custom game to have a nice good 'ol match of Fiesta Slayer.
The problem isn't a lack of diversity in games like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. You could slap a woman in there or a lanky male protagonist- the problem is the writing is downright horrible and the story is snore-worthy, on top of mediocre gameplay. I'd much rather pop in the Godfather and enjoy a quality, master-crafted story then play through a fairly passable title that can't stand up to even stories in comic books.
Hopefully though, give it two decades or so, and single-player games with stories on par of the Last of Us or the Alien Isolation experience will be far more common.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: I am disgusted by the term "privilege". It's abused in so many ways, it's not even funny. It's often used to shut people down e.g. when white people talk about racism and are shut down by referring to their "privilege". Not to mention that this is racism at its best.
Not to jump into this subject, but you live in Germany. Depending on where you live in the 'States, being white is a massive boon for your overall life, as you won't have to deal with corrupt racist cops, missed job opportunities (although that carries over for males as well, as white males are more likely to be hired then white females), etc.
There is legitimate white racism, but at least in the 'States, it's a lot less of a problem compared to racism against blacks or arabs especially.
StarTrotter wrote:As per Gamergate, I really don't want to hop into it besides saying I don't quite agree with Sigvatr as per #Gamergate. Overall I think the most positive things to come out of it have been some fundraisers including the female developer support, revealing that there was a massive number of game "journalists" that made a group to swap around ideas and honestly plan out things unethically, the change in the escapists rules, and kotaku and polygon's changes.
If you honestly believe that this is what Gamergate did, then I'm not surprised that you didn't perceive a pushback anywhere.
Sigvatr wrote:You could literally create a game completely anonymous and people wouldn't care at all as long as the product is good.
Ironically, anonymity would be the ideal way to make a game, as apparently humans are such a flawed species that they allow their judgement to be clouded even by miniscule details such as someone's first name, because they assume a person is either of a specific ethnicity or gender.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Did a google search for video game credits, and this site came up near the top. It's for Uncharted 3. The Vice President is someone named Isabel. 1 of 3 "Senior Environment Artists" are women, 2 of the "Environment Artists" women.
Hell, the url is for an article specifically recognizing the artists and people involved who are Filipino, which, last I checked, Filipinos are not white.
If we, or rather, the gaming industry, follows the standard hiring laws we will continue to see these numbers increase. As you yourself said, women and people of color are now a fairly significant demographic within the video gaming, and gaming industry. Another generation from now, and I will not be surprised in the least to see more and more women in the credits to games.
Just having women or - to get back to the original topic of the thread - other ethnicities in the credits does not automatically dictate a change. I'm not sure how much experience you have with how jobs are awarded, especially in the games industry, but just like in politics an important ability is to "play ball". Someone who is "being difficult" by pushing what will ultimately be perceived as a personal agenda specifically because that person is not part of the status quo themselves can easily manoeuver themselves into a corner.
Most people want to get along with their colleagues, so heated debates about controversial issues are generally avoided, which is why it takes such a long time for things to change. Opinions diverging from the company line essentially have to "infiltrate" a studio in the form of slight preferences rather than political agendas, and ideally pushed by someone who would not be regarded as doing so just out of their own situation, thus slowly changing the group consensus over a scope of years or decades. Nobody wants a Nagging Nancy in their team, especially not with the current cultural climate where it's apparently widely considered a bad thing to advocate social equality, if we believe the internet (individual dakkanauts in this very thread included).
tl;dr: Just because you have a Fillipino artist doesn't change squat about what he gets told to draw.
Psienesis wrote:Television shows have gotten *much* better at having characters of miscellaneous minorities not be defined by being that minority, and by not playing to racist stereotypes of that minority. They've gotten away from (and often subvert/ridicule) the trope of "Oh, you're Asian! You must be smart!" or "Oh.... you're Black. Don't rob me!"... though it has taken a long, long time to get to this point.
Agreed. I think this will ultimately happen to games as well, as part of "growing up" into a more mature medium.
Wyzilla wrote:Not to jump into this subject, but you live in Germany. Depending on where you live in the 'States, being white is a massive boon for your overall life, as you won't have to deal with corrupt racist cops, missed job opportunities (although that carries over for males as well, as white males are more likely to be hired then white females), etc.
As a former German, let me assure you that these issues exist there as well (just against different groups, including white males from socially disadvantaged families, up to and including a bias based on first names that have nothing to do with gender or ethnicity, but attached stereotypes). There's just a lot of Germans who don't like to acknowledge this (which kind of ties into this very thread; perhaps it really is just all about the ability to "put yourself into their shoes" that has us form such conflicting opinions on topics such as these).
Wyzilla wrote:Not to jump into this subject, but you live in Germany. Depending on where you live in the 'States, being white is a massive boon for your overall life, as you won't have to deal with corrupt racist cops, missed job opportunities (although that carries over for males as well, as white males are more likely to be hired then white females), etc.
As a former German, let me assure you that these issues exist there as well (just against different groups, including white males from socially disadvantaged families, up to and including a bias based on first names that have nothing to do with gender or ethnicity, but attached stereotypes). There's just a lot of Germans who don't like to acknowledge this (which kind of ties into this very thread; perhaps it really is just all about the ability to "put yourself into their shoes" that has us form such conflicting opinions on topics such as these).
Well hopefully that at least doesn't lead to murder. Unfortunately in the "bad areas" of the US, "shot for being black" isn't just a joke. Honestly we're just a slightly better version of South Africa on that issue, as tensions have boiled over at multiple points in our history, like the LA riots.
I can't really imagine hatred for the name of somebody though.
Wyzilla wrote:Well hopefully that at least doesn't lead to murder.
Not the names, but every now and then there are some very messy "incidents" with immigrants. At least it has by now been about two decades since the last block was burned down and the police did nothing but watch whilst the firemen pleaded with them to secure a path so they might be able to help the Africans trapped inside.
Nowadays we just have smaller stuff like individuals being hunted through the streets by a small mob of youngsters or people getting beaten in the subway, and even that only seems to happen once every year or so. I'm sure it's nothing compared to some areas in the US.
It only gets into the major news particularly because it is thankfully a rare occurrence that shakes up the nation every time it happens. It's also a very unpleasant reminder of my home country's past, though, and I consider it to be important proof for why we should not forget history, regardless of how some Germans are sick of hearing about WW2. Arguably, some haven't heard enough yet.
Not that Germany is alone with these (largely economically-based) problems.
Wyzilla wrote:I can't really imagine hatred for the name of somebody though.
Oh, yes, it's not hatred - just stigmatisation and a high likelihood of being disadvantaged.
I'm not sure if this is an apt comparison, but perhaps you could say having the first name of "Kevin" could be compared to growing up in Harlem and having that show up in your CV?
Wyzilla wrote:Well hopefully that at least doesn't lead to murder.
Not the names, but every now and then there are some very messy "incidents" with immigrants. At least it has by now been about two decades since the last block was burned down and the police did nothing but watch whilst the firemen pleaded with them to secure a path so they might be able to help the Africans trapped inside.
Nowadays we just have smaller stuff like individuals being hunted through the streets by a small mob of youngsters or people getting beaten in the subway, and even that only seems to happen once every year or so. I'm sure it's nothing compared to some areas in the US.
It only gets into the major news particularly because it is thankfully a rare occurrence that shakes up the nation every time it happens. It's also a very unpleasant reminder of my home country's past, though, and I consider it to be important proof for why we should not forget history, regardless of how some Germans are sick of hearing about WW2. Arguably, some haven't heard enough yet.
Not that Germany is alone with these (largely economically-based) problems.
Wyzilla wrote:I can't really imagine hatred for the name of somebody though.
Oh, yes, it's not hatred - just stigmatisation and a high likelihood of being disadvantaged.
I'm not sure if this is an apt comparison, but perhaps you could say having the first name of "Kevin" could be compared to growing up in Harlem and having that show up in your CV?
It'd certainly be amusing, but it'd at best just give the officer dragging him in for mischievous activities a bit of a chuckle. Honestly though it'd be a better name then some of the weird stuff that comes out of the Ghetto. Key and Peele did a good skit on it.
Psienesis wrote: Separate this from, say, the Witcher, where your character, Geralt of Rivia, has a pre-defined, unchangeable appearance. Or the characters in CoD or GoW. Or in the first 2 entries of the Doom franchise (all white, all blonde).
A little nitpick but:
So a game called Witcher that is about a preexisting character Gerald of Rivia should have a hero who is not Gerald of Rivia?
Or is it in a bad taste to create a game about existing white character?
Macok wrote: So a game called Witcher that is about a preexisting character Gerald of Rivia should have a hero who is not Gerald of Rivia?
That's been my point all along. The characters should flow naturally from your story. Making the character a blank slate (almost literally in some cases), only makes them less important to the narrative.
Macok wrote: Or is it in a bad taste to create a game about existing white character?
It's an interesting point, though. If the official Geralt of Riva has one specific hairstyle, why are you allowed to change it in your game?
And if you're allowed to alter his appearance this way, why not alter all the other things as well, such as skin colour (e.g. Zerrikanian) - notably whilst keeping the typical signs of their curse intact? It wouldn't need to have any effect on the story, especially as the PC is already an outsider just by, y'now, being a witcher.
Undoubtedly there are cases where a fixed appearance is necessary, but I find that these would be exceptions rather than the rule. In this case, The Witcher is undermining itself by allowing the player to change some things, but not others.
Wyzilla wrote:I can't really imagine hatred for the name of somebody though.
Oh, yes, it's not hatred - just stigmatisation and a high likelihood of being disadvantaged.
I'm not sure if this is an apt comparison, but perhaps you could say having the first name of "Kevin" could be compared to growing up in Harlem and having that show up in your CV?
Interesting that you said my first name of all names. I actually used to think kevin was more of a nerd's name and seeing what i like that wouldn't be too far off.
Also sometimes there are weird coincidences. Have you never met 3 people with the same first name and each was somebody you didn't like. It's kind of a curiosity.
Lynata wrote: It's an interesting point, though. If the official Geralt of Riva has one specific hairstyle, why are you allowed to change it in your game?
And if you're allowed to alter his appearance this way, why not alter all the other things as well, such as skin colour (e.g. Zerrikanian) - notably whilst keeping the typical signs of their curse intact? It wouldn't need to have any effect on the story, especially as the PC is already an outsider just by, y'now, being a witcher.
Undoubtedly there are cases where a fixed appearance is necessary, but I find that these would be exceptions rather than the rule. In this case, The Witcher is undermining itself by allowing the player to change some things, but not others.
Because a man can change his hair but not his face. Same thing with clothing.
Lynata wrote: It's an interesting point, though. If the official Geralt of Riva has one specific hairstyle, why are you allowed to change it in your game? And if you're allowed to alter his appearance this way, why not alter all the other things as well, such as skin colour (e.g. Zerrikanian) - notably whilst keeping the typical signs of their curse intact? It wouldn't need to have any effect on the story, especially as the PC is already an outsider just by, y'now, being a witcher.
Undoubtedly there are cases where a fixed appearance is necessary, but I find that these would be exceptions rather than the rule. In this case, The Witcher is undermining itself by allowing the player to change some things, but not others.
I would argue that changing one's hair style is vastly different from changing one's race / gender.
I can give myself a mohawk and not many would care. If I change my gender or skin pigmentation, then that would cause quite a stir; I imagine the first reaction of most of my acquaintances would be "who the feth are you, and how do you know where I live?!"
Geralt is an established character; he has physical traits that make him recognizable. His hair isn't really one of them. Also, he is known as the "White Wolf"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Once we have ONE truly successful gem of a game with a female, or really minority character, we'll see more pop up. And I mean, successful on the COD level, because as we've seen with Tomb Raider, she didn't really spawn a huge offspring of other female lead games.
Isn't that setting the bar just a *tad* high? After all, the Tomb Raider franchise is still one of the highest-grossing video game series of all time, but still has only a third of COD's sales. Even the Halo franchise has not sold as many units as the COD franchise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...and the cast of COD is more Whitey McWhiteBoy.
I suppose I should have elaborated some, I don't necessarily mean success on the same monetary level as CoD. As you point out, Tomb Raider is a serious video game Icon. But, as games with multiplayer, like CoD are the "thing" now, we sort of do need a COD killer type of game with a good female lead character.... I cant tell you how happy I'd be if Half Life 3 didn't feature Gordon Freeman, but rather the niece you meet in HL2 (I forget her name), but is still a badass with a crowbar and serious sci-fi guns.
The marine you play as in CoD4 is black. He's the guy on the cover of the game. You can even see his wrists in fps mode occasionally and they are certainly darker than white.
There are, but they are mostly (though not entirely) to do with race, trans*men, and gay men-- or, to be more precise, any man whom doesn't live up to the grizzled, stubby-chinned straight white guy that makes the "standard" video game protagonsit.
Melissia wrote: There are, but they are mostly (though not entirely) to do with race, trans*men, and gay men-- or, to be more precise, any man whom doesn't live up to the grizzled, stubby-chinned straight white guy that makes the "standard" video game protagonsit.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more. Videogames are about making money, not catering to every single minority- which in fact would actually probably draw in less money.
Just look at movies. Sure, getting an Oscar is nice, but quite often those films that qualify for them are just murdered at the box office by other movies like Transformers.
Wyzilla wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more.
Could you try to avoid making a strawman next time you make an argument?
Wyzilla wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more.
Could you try to avoid making a strawman next time you make an argument?
Well that's what some people are arguing for, correct? Just slapping in a minority figure doesn't somehow change the quality of a game- it's just pandering and may even hurt the sales of the game. As with any minority representation, you should come up for a reason for them to be in the game. Or better yet, just make a legitimately good game.
But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.
Wyzilla wrote: Well that's what some people are arguing for, correct?
All those traits in one character in a CoD game? No, I don't think anyone asked for that, which is why I called it a strawman, a ridiculous representation of what is actually being said to make the targeted argument look foolish.
Wyzilla wrote: Just slapping in a minority figure doesn't somehow change the quality of a game- it's just pandering and may even hurt the sales of the game. As with any minority representation, you should come up for a reason for them to be in the game.
Yes yes, straight while male is the default and everyone else is relegated to only exist when the story calls for it. A character shouldn't be fat, black or gay unless there's a good reason.
Wyzilla wrote: Or better yet, just make a legitimately good game.
You make it sound like making good games with such characters is more difficult than making good games without them, even though you just said it won't change the quality of the game.
Wyzilla wrote: But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.
And I argue that a homosexual, Mexican whatever can be a buff space marine, I don't see the problem here. I think every man in the world being a 500 pound hulk of muscle is more unrealistic. For people to take getting shot in the face with little more than a headache to be more unrealistic. For one man to take down hundreds of trained soldiers to be more unrealistic. But apparently for you, for that guy to prefer getting a dicking is something that crosses the line. Or that being 60 pounds lighter than an athlete means they're incapable of taking down a regiment on their own but the athlete can.
What is up with your strange skewed vision of realism and representation?
Wyzilla wrote: But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.
Tell this to Quake III, the science fiction shooter that gave us Xearo:
Oorb:
and Lucy:
Okay, that game was not really high in realism, but seriously, pretending only the overused doomguy clone is interesting? That is ridiculous.
Lets be honest almost COD main character could have been gay for all we know as its not like they have relationships in the game. Except Mason who had a child.
carlos13th wrote: Lets be honest almost COD main character could have been gay for all we know as its not like they have relationships in the game. Except Mason who had a child.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: My problems, are the "typical" issues.... In a fantasy/ sword type game, why does the bad guy always wear black armor, and have long black hair pulled into a pony tail?
Why can't good guys wear black armor or pony tails?
Also, good guys always use pistols or an assault rifle while all bad guys use ak-47s
This is a horrible issue.
Also, bad guys are usually bigger if they actually have significance (i.e. bosses)
carlos13th wrote: Lets be honest almost COD main character could have been gay for all we know as its not like they have relationships in the game. Except Mason who had a child.
Gay people can have kids.
That is very true. Mason is one of the few characters who actually had some kind of relationship alluded to in the game though. No one else really has.
carlos13th wrote: Lets be honest almost COD main character could have been gay for all we know as its not like they have relationships in the game. Except Mason who had a child.
Gay people can have kids.
That is very true. Mason is one of the few characters who actually had some kind of relationship alluded to in the game though. No one else really has.
You don't have to be in a relationship to be gay. That is kind of the short way to say there is more then one way to paint a character as heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or whatever. Lots of games manage to tell us a lot about a character with small bits of information. I don't know if this counts with CoD though. It has been a long time since I have picked up CoD, but I recall the games being very spartan and very narrowly focused on war.
Just the point is that there is more to sexuality then dating and relationships.
I never said you have to be in a relationship to be gay. Most COD characters dont have their relationships or personal thoughts of feelings broached in any way shape or form. We never get to see anything about the characters personalities, sexualities or anything else in the COD games.
As I said any one of them could have been gay for all we know.
Regardless, because of the immaturity of the producers who say things like "we can't have a female protagonist kiss her boyfriend, that would make the male players uncomfortable!" (something producers actually said regarding Remember Me)... it's hard to believe that they aren't straight.
Melissia wrote: Regardless, because of the immaturity of the producers who say things like "we can't have a female protagonist kiss her boyfriend, that would make the male players uncomfortable!" (something producers actually said regarding Remember Me)... it's hard to believe that they aren't straight.
Cant really argue with that.
Also what a ridiculous thing for the producers of remember me to say.
"We had some that said, 'Well, we don't want to publish it because that's not going to succeed. You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that,'"
[...]
"We wanted to be able to tease on Nilin's private life, and that means for instance, at one point, we wanted a scene where she was kissing a guy," Morris added. "We had people tell us, 'You can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward.'"
It's just society moving on from the whole perceived role that a guy must be the dominant one. He has to ask the woman out, possibly pay for the meal but also initiate the kiss or whatever. Oddly enough doing some of these things and believing guys to often be the aggressor is just dumb. Sometimes women can be dominant or the aggressor just as men can be more submissive or the damsel in distress in a sense.
As far as my problem with men being perceived in games to get this thread back on topic i'd say not all men like the steroid and growth hormone induced super man which towers over all other men at 20 feet tall.
I'm more bummed how gaming changed. Now it's all about freaking black ops bad *ss super soldiers. Most RTS games have died off so much so i wonder if the whole genre is dead (which is a terrible loss). Also most of these games complained about for being so male centric don't even appeal to me anyway and often don't appeal to the female gamers. That said just because i dislike where most games are now doesn't mean i can't enjoy the games i like. I don't suggest others change to suit me, my goals and my interests. I just play what i like.
Also yeah i'd say often as far as character development goes most male protagonists in games are very pathetic as characters. For instance describe to me what character depth exists for the playable characters in games like 'call of duty: modern warfare 2'. There's no back story much of the time. In fact i remember hearing the character doesn't even have a face on the model. Yeah it's that bad.
I'm sure RTS will bounce back eventually. Genres tend to experience ups and downs. Just look at the space sims, which are just now rising like a phoenix from the ashes with Elite and Star Citizen. Or turn-based strategy with X-Com and Shadowrun Returns.
It's just old-fashioned established industry wisdom discouraging development of anything that isn't somewhat close to a recent success. Publishers generally shy away from risky experiments, instead preferring the idea of sequels or clones, so it usually takes at least one hit until the beancounters acknowledge there's potential and greenlight the respective projects. It's just a matter of time until said hit shows up, but it takes cash and people willing to take a risk. The industry generally only rewards results, not ideas, and this hinders creativity.
The genre pretty much lived and died with Command & Conquer, but in time they'll either reinvigorate that franchise or (more likely) a competitor will arise. Even if it's just a sequel to one of the other older titles. I'd certainly be interested in another Dune or Warcraft. Let's not forget that StarCraft is going to receive one more campaign, though.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:I can give myself a mohawk and not many would care. If I change my gender or skin pigmentation, then that would cause quite a stir; I imagine the first reaction of most of my acquaintances would be "who the feth are you, and how do you know where I live?!"
Geralt is an established character; he has physical traits that make him recognizable. His hair isn't really one of them.
Generally, appearance changes in a game's character customisation are applied retroactively. The gang in Saint's Row isn't suddenly shocked by the fact that you've customised the hell out of their Boss either, simply because the game will treat the character as if they always looked that way.
And I assume that Geralt's hairstyle, much like his other traits, were described in one of the novels at some point.
Besides, if you wanted you could've even made that a part of the plot. Polymorph spells exist in that world.
Or even better: Have the players build their own character in this established setting ... thinking about this, it does makes me wonder: What do people find in pregenerated, prewritten characters? Is it really that fun to play with what is essentially someone elses dramatis persona, knowing that any deviating choices you can make won't be "canon" anyways? It's not your character, nor can you change anything about how he is handled officially, so what makes this a popular approach? Genuinely interested in any answers from people who enjoy this style of games here.
SirSertile wrote:Also, good guys always use pistols or an assault rifle while all bad guys use ak-47s
This is a horrible issue.
Isn't this more an issue of the bad guys usually being Russians, Chinese, Cubans or North Koreans etc, rather than of a nationality where western firearms are common? Fairly sure there's some sort of national typecasting going on in gaming.
That said, I was positively surprised by how C&C Generals or BF2 and BF3 went about depicting China and Russia. More shades of grey rather than black and white, just like with the real world.
Melissia wrote:" 'We wanted to be able to tease on Nilin's private life, and that means for instance, at one point, we wanted a scene where she was kissing a guy," Morris added. "We had people tell us, 'You can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward.' "
Yeah, that sounds as if "we" is the studio and "people" is the publisher or an investor.
Would've been surprised if that would have come from the inside, given how they struggled to maintain their vision.
Lynata wrote: thinking about this, it does makes me wonder: What do people find in pregenerated, prewritten characters? Is it really that fun to play with what is essentially someone elses dramatis persona, knowing that any deviating choices you can make won't be "canon" anyways? It's not your character, nor can you change anything about how he is handled officially, so what makes this a popular approach? Genuinely interested in any answers from people who enjoy this style of games here.
Sometime, you do not want to write your own character and story, you just want to enjoy a well-written character and story that someone else made. And sometimes, the story really calls for a specific character. For instance, American McGee's Alice was all about Alice Liddell becoming insane after her whole family perished when her house burned down, and her escaping from the asylum she is interned in by going to a Wonderland that is now tainted by her madness. That story really would not work anymore if you replaced Alice by some random Doomguy clone, or by anything else than, well, Alice. It is about games where the interactive aspect is only gameplay-wise, but the story is preset. You are really enjoying the story the same way you would be enjoying watching a movie or reading a book.
Lynata wrote: ... thinking about this, it does makes me wonder: What do people find in pregenerated, prewritten characters? Is it really that fun to play with what is essentially someone elses dramatis persona, knowing that any deviating choices you can make won't be "canon" anyways? It's not your character, nor can you change anything about how he is handled officially, so what makes this a popular approach? Genuinely interested in any answers from people who enjoy this style of games here.
Well, thinking about it; as much of a fan of character customisation as I am, some of my favourite games have been 'pre-set protagonist' games.
I think, in some games, it's about creating your own story (with in a frame work), and for those games customisation should be basically mandatory (although Planescape Torment remains a wonderful exception). However, other games, are about experiencing/participating in someone else's story, in which case customisation is not really necessary, and even adds less than in the former type of game.
When crafting your own story, being able to say what the played character looks like enriches the experience, and plays well into the whole idea of this being 'yours'. Your Choices, Your Character, Your Story. Where as in the other type of game, well, you could get all the customisation in the world, and it would still not be 'Your' character, the story being told is not one you have much say in, so having a character that is 'yours' is not valuable in the same way.
At least; this is what came to mind when I saw the question. There is certainly more to it than that.
Wyzilla wrote: But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.
Tell this to Quake III, the science fiction shooter that gave us Xearo:
Oorb:
and Lucy:
Okay, that game was not really high in realism, but seriously, pretending only the overused doomguy clone is interesting? That is ridiculous.
Keel and Huntress deserve their own game! Dammit iD be cool again just once!
Wyzilla wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more.
Could you try to avoid making a strawman next time you make an argument?
Well that's what some people are arguing for, correct? Just slapping in a minority figure doesn't somehow change the quality of a game- it's just pandering and may even hurt the sales of the game. As with any minority representation, you should come up for a reason for them to be in the game. Or better yet, just make a legitimately good game.
But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.
The vast majority of soldiers are fairly skinny. Generally around 180-200 pounds, 5'6" to 6'0" tall. You know, falling within the range of human averages because they are people drawn from average backgrounds, in average towns, from average families with average hobbies, interests and past-times.
Many NCOs, of the E5 rank and higher, are actually kind of fat... mainly because they're older and the body doesn't naturally support being ripped as you age (not without extensive gym work and specified nutrition... neither of which a military lifestyle actually provides for particularly well, as meals tend to be high-starch, high-sodium and time is rarely available to live in a gym). This isn't to say that it's impossible or that it doesn't happen, but in such cases genetics and race/ethnic background tend to be significant determining factors (some individuals, and some ethnic groups, will gain muscle mass and definition faster/more easily than others). Even the "buff" soldiers tend to be more "defined" than being just huge piles of muscle.
The concept that the average grunt, or even a particularly exceptional grunt, is Bigguy McLargehuge is so far from realism that it's laughable.
Also, being Bigguy McLargehuge makes you a bigger target, which is bad in a firefight. Always remember this important combat tip from our pal, Murphy: Try to look unimportant, the enemy may be low on ammo.
Playing and interesting well crafted story and character is just as interesting and powerful as playing your own.
Actually its often more powerful and engaging than slotting a generic custom character into a game. I think both approaches have their merits and appeal in different ways.
Wyzilla wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more.
Could you try to avoid making a strawman next time you make an argument?
Well that's what some people are arguing for, correct? Just slapping in a minority figure doesn't somehow change the quality of a game- it's just pandering and may even hurt the sales of the game. As with any minority representation, you should come up for a reason for them to be in the game. Or better yet, just make a legitimately good game.
But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.
The vast majority of soldiers are fairly skinny. Generally around 180-200 pounds, 5'6" to 6'0" tall. You know, falling within the range of human averages because they are people drawn from average backgrounds, in average towns, from average families with average hobbies, interests and past-times.
Many NCOs, of the E5 rank and higher, are actually kind of fat... mainly because they're older and the body doesn't naturally support being ripped as you age (not without extensive gym work and specified nutrition... neither of which a military lifestyle actually provides for particularly well, as meals tend to be high-starch, high-sodium and time is rarely available to live in a gym). This isn't to say that it's impossible or that it doesn't happen, but in such cases genetics and race/ethnic background tend to be significant determining factors (some individuals, and some ethnic groups, will gain muscle mass and definition faster/more easily than others). Even the "buff" soldiers tend to be more "defined" than being just huge piles of muscle.
The concept that the average grunt, or even a particularly exceptional grunt, is Bigguy McLargehuge is so far from realism that it's laughable.
Also, being Bigguy McLargehuge makes you a bigger target, which is bad in a firefight. Always remember this important combat tip from our pal, Murphy: Try to look unimportant, the enemy may be low on ammo.
Madness! Their testosterone obviously protects them from harm! Haven't you ever wondered why all those gruff and grizzly main characters have regenerating health? It's the testosterone man! And that boob plate armor? The reason it works for females is because of the magical power of femininity Sorry couldn't help but joke here.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Sometime, you do not want to write your own character and story, you just want to enjoy a well-written character and story that someone else made. And sometimes, the story really calls for a specific character. For instance, American McGee's Alice was all about Alice Liddell becoming insane after her whole family perished when her house burned down, and her escaping from the asylum she is interned in by going to a Wonderland that is now tainted by her madness. That story really would not work anymore if you replaced Alice by some random Doomguy clone, or by anything else than, well, Alice. It is about games where the interactive aspect is only gameplay-wise, but the story is preset. You are really enjoying the story the same way you would be enjoying watching a movie or reading a book.
I still can't quite follow that thought. Granted, in the case of an Alice game there is probably a pre-attached image for how the character should look like, but if we limit it solely to a game's own story, what difference is there supposed to be between one that has a fixed character and one that lets you alter him? For example, excepting the aforementioned preconception (which is debatable, anyways, given that American McGee's version is a pretty warped variant of the original fairytale), how would it have affected the game if Alice was a black girl, or a young boy? You could still have the exact same narration, the exact same challenges, the exact same background and outcome.
I have yet to see a single game where I really had the thought of the player character absolutely having to look "that" way instead of any other possible options. And don't get me wrong - Deus Ex HR for example is one of my favourite games, yet I struggle to see how customisation could have possibly impacted it negatively. What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age? These games are all a similarly "cinematic" experience, yet only the latter two have customisation. What's the difference between them?
Or are we talking about different games?
Pendix wrote:Where as in the other type of game, well, you could get all the customisation in the world, and it would still not be 'Your' character, the story being told is not one you have much say in, so having a character that is 'yours' is not valuable in the same way.
I suppose it's really just a matter of preferences, as I'd prefer to just have the option in case I don't like whatever the devs came up with. I mean, this thread deals a lot with stereotypes - offering a choice for alternatives might do a lot about the impression of the industry trying to shove the same old archetype down our collective throat again and again. For the people who prefer pregenerated characters, there's always the option of just running with whatever template the designers present as the default, right?
Lynata wrote: . . .I have yet to see a single game where I really had the thought of the player character absolutely having to look "that" way instead of any other possible options. And don't get me wrong - Deus Ex HR for example is one of my favourite games, yet I struggle to see how customisation could have possibly impacted it negatively. What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age? These games are all a similarly "cinematic" experience, yet only the latter two have customisation. What's the difference between them?
Or are we talking about different games?
Pendix wrote:Where as in the other type of game, well, you could get all the customisation in the world, and it would still not be 'Your' character, the story being told is not one you have much say in, so having a character that is 'yours' is not valuable in the same way.
I suppose it's really just a matter of preferences, as I'd prefer to just have the option in case I don't like whatever the devs came up with. I mean, this thread deals a lot with stereotypes - offering a choice for alternatives might do a lot about the impression of the industry trying to shove the same old archetype down our collective throat again and again. For the people who prefer pregenerated characters, there's always the option of just running with whatever template the designers present as the default, right?
Still, thanks for the thoughts, you two.
Thank you for posing the question. I hadn't given much thought to character customisation in this context before.
I certainly think that there is less customisation than there could be, but I can definitely see places where it doesn't belong. Or rather, does not add as much, as it does elsewhere.
Lynata wrote: . . . What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age?
Lets take a look at these two. Deus Ex HR could certainly have benefited from /some/ additional customisation (different outfits/hairstyles perhaps), particularly since there was a choice system in the game. Tomb Raider, on the other hand, is a story with very little narrative agency given to the player. Consider if you gave Lara customisable outfits, a pretty mild type of customisation right? But if they had implemented it they would have had to relinquish the 'clothes getting more damaged as the game goes on' thing they did. Or they would need to exponentially increase the effort to make all the outfits undergo the same effect. Would that be worth it? For some players; certainly, but for the Devs? I don't know.
It's that cost-benefit analysis that I think is at the heart of it. And if we think of the developers as storytellers (which, I imagine, is how many of them see themselves), everytime they yield a tool or an option to the player, it becomes a tool they can no longer use, or can no longer use in the same way. It's very interesting this tension between creator and audience that games can create, it must be one of the unique things about games as a medium.
You know, I too was perplexed that there wasn't a customization option in DXHR. You could slightly customize Denton in the first game, so logically, there should have been some minor customization options in HR as well.
It doesn't really detract anything from the game, but it is inconsistent.
Lynata wrote: For example, excepting the aforementioned preconception (which is debatable, anyways, given that American McGee's version is a pretty warped variant of the original fairytale), how would it have affected the game if Alice was a black girl, or a young boy? You could still have the exact same narration, the exact same challenges, the exact same background and outcome.
McGee's version is quite faithful to the original one, as far as I can tell. Granted, she had changed because of her trauma, but that is the whole concept of the game.
Nothing in the game's story make sense without the original books to explain who are the different characters, so you cannot really remove it. If you do remove it, even while keeping that same character, it does not make any sense anymore.
Lynata wrote: What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age?
I have not played any of those game, so I cannot tell.
Lynata wrote: I mean, this thread deals a lot with stereotypes - offering a choice for alternatives might do a lot about the impression of the industry trying to shove the same old archetype down our collective throat again and again.
Well, never underestimate human nature! You could have a customization tool that only allows for boring stereotypes . Pretty easy to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: Well, yes, but game designers are still leery about that AO rating... and they'd really prefer if "Free Willie" was remembered as a whale.
Well, Kirikou the video game does have a main character with a free willie. And you will get to see naked human breasts too! Shock and horror.
(The intro is a scene from the movie where Kirikou talk to his mother from insider her womb, and then he decide to get born. And therefore go out of her. )
Pendix wrote:Lets take a look at these two. Deus Ex HR could certainly have benefited from /some/ additional customisation (different outfits/hairstyles perhaps), particularly since there was a choice system in the game. Tomb Raider, on the other hand, is a story with very little narrative agency given to the player. Consider if you gave Lara customisable outfits, a pretty mild type of customisation right? But if they had implemented it they would have had to relinquish the 'clothes getting more damaged as the game goes on' thing they did. Or they would need to exponentially increase the effort to make all the outfits undergo the same effect. Would that be worth it? For some players; certainly, but for the Devs? I don't know.
Budget restrictions I could understand, same as setting-based limitations. I'm chiefly opposing the "but story!" argument that some posters have made in the past.
I'n terms of character customisation, if clothing is a problem because of issues with scaling it to altered body shapes, you could limit it to the face, as well as basics such as gender (requires only a second set) and skin colour (no effect on clothes). This is how it works in Mass Effect and Dragon Age, and I think in most games that allow you to customise a character's appearance. Full body customisation a la APB is unfortunately still pretty rare.
That being said, technology to have clothes adapt to body shapes is possible, as some games have proven - it really does come down to whether or not a developer thinks it's worth it. But let's just say I may not agree with the prioritisation that some studios make when it comes to a game's budget.
(by the way, you can actually buy a variety of alternate outfits for Lara as DLC)
Pendix wrote:It's that cost-benefit analysis that I think is at the heart of it. And if we think of the developers as storytellers (which, I imagine, is how many of them see themselves), everytime they yield a tool or an option to the player, it becomes a tool they can no longer use, or can no longer use in the same way.
Isn't it the other way around, though? In many games, character customisation and other assets often use the same rules and basics used by the designers themselves, just adapted/streamlined into an easier and more appealing form for the consumer - basically, you need to invest into a new interface, but (barring cases where a studio will model NPCs from the ground up) the sliders people use to change a character's looks have the same effect as the devs' tools.
Games such as NWN, Civilization or Star Trek Online intentionally open up parts of its innards to allow other people to use these tools to build new things, and it always results in the game receiving a boost to longevity, because new stuff means people may play a product more. Look at the modding scene for Fallout 3 and Skyrim, or how the vast repository of adventure modules, equipment and script tweaks kept NWN1 alive for more than a decade.
This is deviating a bit from just character customisation, but I feel it's connected in a way as you brought up developers supposedly being better off barring people from "messing" with their game.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:You know, I too was perplexed that there wasn't a customization option in DXHR. You could slightly customize Denton in the first game, so logically, there should have been some minor customization options in HR as well.
It doesn't really detract anything from the game, but it is inconsistent.
I remember it bothered me that you couldn't make the character female as it was possible in DX2.
Primarily because, in response to the media's inquiries into this "step back", they went with some weird PR spin about how they "couldn't have told the same story with a woman", which really rubbed me the wrong way. I would have perceived it differently had they just said that they didn't want to invest the necessary amount of cash, but this way it comes off as either dishonest or sexist.
Plus, Jensen really looked awfully cliché, and character customisation may have allowed to mix it up a bit even if we had just made him black (would've fit the voice better anyways, imo ... but now I may be dipping into clichés myself ). Still it wasn't quite as bad as the protagonists in other games, and I ended up enjoying it nonetheless thanks to its gameplay and world design - in spite of what I still consider a drawback.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:McGee's version is quite faithful to the original one, as far as I can tell. Granted, she had changed because of her trauma, but that is the whole concept of the game.
Oh, that wasn't referring to the look of Alice, but the entire game, which seems to be quite grimdark as opposed to the colourful childrens' tale. If you change that - the entire appearance of the world - why not have a black Alice? Or an Allen? At this point it really shouldn't matter anymore. The narrative would remain the same either way, the rest is just perception.
Melissia wrote:Quite frankly, especially when it comes to "historical" settings, these are pretty much exclusively laziness, and I don't respect it.
For the most part I'd agree here, but I can see very specific roles where "excessive" customisation could break with a game's immersion. A modern soldier with long hair, a female detective in the 60s, or a black US soldier in the same unit as white ones during WW1.
In some few cases, an alternative solution could be to treat specific assets of character customisation a "secret" within the game's universe, such as playing a crossplaying female soldier in the American Civil War, or acknowledge the character being different with a few lines of dialogue justifying them as an exception, such as a black knight in medieval Europe.
Lynata wrote: Oh, that wasn't referring to the look of Alice, but the entire game, which seems to be quite grimdark as opposed to the colourful childrens' tale.
Well, the original children tale is actually quite frightening from time to time, if I recall correctly. But you are missing the point. The whole story is a continuation of Alice's stories. So, you could have an Allen if you explained Alice went through a sex change surgery, or a black Alice if you explained she did an inverted Michael Jackson, but both would feel very very weird and forced.
I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.
Melissia wrote: I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.
And I'd almost guarantee that the writing would be chock full of sexist comments and other shenanigans... It'd be a field day for people like Sarkeesian.
Melissia wrote: I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.
And I'd almost guarantee that the writing would be chock full of sexist comments and other shenanigans... It'd be a field day for people like Sarkeesian.
That's if it is written by someone incompetent, or whom refuses to question their own biases and think about what they're actually writing.
Granted, this applies to a lot of writers, and certainly a lot of video game writers, too. But it doesn't HAVE to be the case.
Melissia wrote: I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.
And I'd almost guarantee that the writing would be chock full of sexist comments and other shenanigans... It'd be a field day for people like Sarkeesian.
Sarkeesian loved veronica mars. She even did a video asking for more girl detectives. I think she would like a game staring a female detective no matter what era it was in. Also having a female main character dose put a different spin on sexism depicted, so like your going to get different reactions.
Melissia wrote: I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.
And I'd almost guarantee that the writing would be chock full of sexist comments and other shenanigans... It'd be a field day for people like Sarkeesian.
That's if it is written by someone incompetent, or whom refuses to question their own biases and think about what they're actually writing.
Granted, this applies to a lot of writers, and certainly a lot of video game writers, too. But it doesn't HAVE to be the case.
The thing is, IMO, a detective game set in the 60s should be fairly "accurate" to the time. This means you'd see a lot of comments/lines as we did in Mad Men that are blatantly sexist in today's world, but were accepted as the "norm" back then. IIRC, that 1940s detective game had quite a few "sexist" lines... PCs or even the Detective's partners calling women "toots" and such was true to period, but still would be inappropriate in today's world (not saying that it doesn't happen today, just that it's accepted as being inappropriate now)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing is, IMO, a detective game set in the 60s should be fairly "accurate" to the time.
Why?
The idea that the technological and aesthetic setting of the time necessarily needs to be associated with the gender norms of the time is very restrictive on the creativity of the writers involved.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:You know, I too was perplexed that there wasn't a customization option in DXHR. You could slightly customize Denton in the first game, so logically, there should have been some minor customization options in HR as well. It doesn't really detract anything from the game, but it is inconsistent.
I remember it bothered me that you couldn't make the character female as it was possible in DX2. Primarily because, in response to the media's inquiries into this "step back", they went with some weird PR spin about how they "couldn't have told the same story with a woman", which really rubbed me the wrong way. I would have perceived it differently had they just said that they didn't want to invest the necessary amount of cash, but this way it comes off as either dishonest or sexist.
Plus, Jensen really looked awfully cliché, and character customisation may have allowed to mix it up a bit even if we had just made him black (would've fit the voice better anyways, imo ... but now I may be dipping into clichés myself ). Still it wasn't quite as bad as the protagonists in other games, and I ended up enjoying it nonetheless thanks to its gameplay and world design - in spite of what I still consider a drawback.
They aren't entirely wrong about that, unless you factor in same-sex relationships. Which is a whole different can of worms, that probably needs a thread of it's own.
I do agree that Jensen just oozes with manufactured (heh) cool guy though. VG cats even made fun of that at one point.
Basically the point was that the character at the beginning was a normal character, and throughout the story slowly starts to degrade and wither. And something happens to him and forces him to wear a mask that covers his face. He has black hair and a pale face.
I think the problem though in games is that they are cattering to the everyday person. Instead of making unique characters.
I mean how many characters that are men do we remember really well?
I remember Captain Walker(Spec ops:the line), Booker (Bioshock), Leon Kennedy (Resident Evil 4), Master Chief (halo), The Rookie (Halo ODST), Buck (Halo ODST), Commander Shepherd, Mario (Super Mario), Link (Zelda), Nathan Drake, and Lee Everett (The Walking Dead Game).
Those are the only ones that come up to me as being memorable. You know How I remember the first two? because they did something radically different from other characters. They were soldiers at war, but they were human beings, they were fleshed out. Booker is mysterious in his motives, and Walker is just a PTSD strucken soldier.
The halo characters had lovable personalities. Commander Shepherd is memorable because of what you could do.
Lee Everett is the only character on there that is a minority character. Because minority characters are rare in games.... For some reason.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:You know, I too was perplexed that there wasn't a customization option in DXHR. You could slightly customize Denton in the first game, so logically, there should have been some minor customization options in HR as well.
It doesn't really detract anything from the game, but it is inconsistent.
I remember it bothered me that you couldn't make the character female as it was possible in DX2.
Primarily because, in response to the media's inquiries into this "step back", they went with some weird PR spin about how they "couldn't have told the same story with a woman", which really rubbed me the wrong way. I would have perceived it differently had they just said that they didn't want to invest the necessary amount of cash, but this way it comes off as either dishonest or sexist.
Plus, Jensen really looked awfully cliché, and character customisation may have allowed to mix it up a bit even if we had just made him black (would've fit the voice better anyways, imo ... but now I may be dipping into clichés myself ). Still it wasn't quite as bad as the protagonists in other games, and I ended up enjoying it nonetheless thanks to its gameplay and world design - in spite of what I still consider a drawback.
They aren't entirely wrong about that, unless you factor in same-sex relationships. Which is a whole different can of worms, that probably needs a thread of it's own.
I do agree that Jensen just oozes with manufactured (heh) cool guy though. VG cats even made fun of that at one point.
I won't be making that thread.
Square actually did a neat job with jension. They feel like a very grounded part of the world with a past, history, personality and ties to the different people and things. You meet people form their past, you even get to read a letter about their dog. The note worthy thing is that I don't think any of traits that make them up relie on them being a man, white. Even the same sex thing wouldn't actually stand out as odd in the setting.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:The whole story is a continuation of Alice's stories.
Oooh, okay. I thought it was a re-telling of sorts. Well, so much for that then!
Melissia wrote:I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.
Sorry, I meant a police detective, not "private eye", and the former simply wouldn't get hired. The latter would absolutely be possible, and I agree that a clever dev could even make social biases a sort of additional challenge of the narrative, not only telling a story but adding social commentary.
Unfortunately, in the current cultural climate, I have a feeling no Triple-A studio would touch a concept like that out of fear for it tanking in sales due to its niche nature, and indie devs generally stick to other genres, though interactive novels might come fairly close if you don't mind missing out on FPS/3PS action (some of those are actually fairly cool! I can recommend a few if anyone is interested).
But this seems like a topic more suited for the other thread (I still feel it weird/wrong that we have two when it's the same problem).
CthuluIsSpy wrote:They aren't entirely wrong about that, unless you factor in same-sex relationships.
Either that, or simply make the damsel a female character's sister. There, importance of the plot device preserved. Or (oooh, twist) a female Jensen would have to rescue a male lover. Though I have a feeling that girl-on-girl would, ironically, be more mainstream with the target audience?
I remember that comic, tho! Awesome.
nomotog wrote:Square actually did a neat job with jension. They feel like a very grounded part of the world with a past, history, personality and ties to the different people and things. You meet people form their past, you even get to read a letter about their dog. The note worthy thing is that I don't think any of traits that make them up relie on them being a man, white.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:The whole story is a continuation of Alice's stories.
Oooh, okay. I thought it was a re-telling of sorts. Well, so much for that then!
Melissia wrote:I'd love to see a female detective set in the 60s. Nothing that would stop that from happening; if you HAD to add societal gender biases to the game, you could have her try to overcome them.
Sorry, I meant a police detective, not "private eye", and the former simply wouldn't get hired.
Unless you ignore that aspect of history. Emperor knows that games ignore non-essential historical facts all the time.
If you're entirely and wholly constrained by historical fact, you will make boring games. No exceptions.
Doesn't British television have a whole genre of women Detectives in historical periods? It's pretty common and is not attacked for showing historical prejudices. It's only when a media revels in them that they get criticized.
AdeptSister wrote: Doesn't British television have a whole genre of women Detectives in historical periods? It's pretty common and is not attacked for showing historical prejudices. It's only when a media revels in them that they get criticized.
Not sure if it's a genre, but I do know of a famous example of what you described - Miss Marple.
She's an old lady who can solve pretty much every murder mystery.
AdeptSister wrote: Doesn't British television have a whole genre of women Detectives in historical periods? It's pretty common and is not attacked for showing historical prejudices. It's only when a media revels in them that they get criticized.
Not sure if it's a genre, but I do know of a famous example of what you described - Miss Marple.
She's an old lady who can solve pretty much every murder mystery.
Yeah its not exactly a female thing, the detective genre is just detectives, I think sex doesn't really seem to play a role, so I guess its all about equality really.
I love Miss Marple though she was good, but I cant think of many more.
Maybe DCI Tennison from Prime Suspect? I used to watch that. Oh and maybe one of the female detectives off "The Bill"
Melissia wrote:If you're entirely and wholly constrained by historical fact, you will make boring games. No exceptions.
Naah. I think you just have to spend more brainjuice, and I firmly believe the outcome would be more compelling - as far as my own preferences are concerned, anyways. I like realism!
It's like in 40k authors are playing fast and loose with the background for quite the same reason - the belief that they'd write "boring stories" if they allow themselves to be "constrained" by a canon. I just couldn't disagree more. Working within firmly established confines, accepting the world "as is" and still managing to insert an entertaining story into this pre-established setting like a puzzle piece seamlessly fitting into a gigantic picture, that's the art. And various games as well as books show that this is quite possible.
Matter of preferences, I'm sure, but certainly simple adherence to a canon doesn't make anything boring. And ultimately, real life is just a sort of canon, too.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Not sure if it's a genre, but I do know of a famous example of what you described - Miss Marple.
She's an old lady who can solve pretty much every murder mystery.
Hooo boy, I remember that show from when I was young.
But Miss Marple was a private detective, too, not a police officer.
To be honest, Adam Jenson from Deus Ex: Human Revolution does look awfully like his voice actor, Elias Toufexis. - So I can't really blame them for that.
He certainly looks a lot closer to his character than Mark DeMeer as male-Shepard. On another note, male-Shepard has the strangest baldspot (or line), I've ever seen. Seriously, it's like his electric shaver ran amok.
Incidentally, you could change Lara's clothes in the newest Tomb Raider game, they didn't do the whole damage stuff, but you could do it.
Personally, I'm of the view that character customisation should be in a lot more things. Ok, fair enough if it's imported from other media (EG The Witcher, but the hairstyle thing seems a bit random and weird. Or, well, Batman. Because Batman.) but, more customisation seems harmless in probably the vast majority of computer game situations out there.
On the slightly off-topic thing. - Don't forget about Ros Myers from Spooks.
Compel wrote:To be honest, Adam Jenson from Deus Ex: Human Revolution does look awfully like his voice actor, Elias Toufexis. - So I can't really blame them for that.
Really? Okay, that's kind of cool, I like it when games pay homages like that. BioWare did a similar thing with Samara, and her voice actress even occasionally cosplays the character.
I suppose the physical attributes being close to the cliché was just coincidence, then. At least he's not buff.
Melissia wrote:If you're entirely and wholly constrained by historical fact, you will make boring games. No exceptions.
Naah. I think you just have to spend more brainjuice, and I firmly believe the outcome would be more compelling - as far as my own preferences are concerned, anyways. I like realism!
So you'd like a civilization game where you were forced to make the exact same decisions as the historic leader you picked?
In order to have a "historical" game, you must violate history, or not have a game at all.
Lynata wrote: What's the difference between, say, Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider and Mass Effect or Dragon Age?
The former two are stories about a specific character. The latter two are more about narrative than a specific character, as, especially in the case of Mass Effect, it doesn't matter who or what Shep is, because the same things happen anyway.
Melissia wrote:No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.
I thought we're taking this for granted, specifically because it's so obvious. That doesn't change the fact that I (and others) can enjoy setting-based limitations. Look at the real world: it obviously has a ton of limitations in place. Yet does anyone believe that you can't experience stunning adventures in it?
I see setting-based limitations a bit like weaknesses in character designs. They may appear like a flaw, but ultimately result in a more immersive experience due to feeling more believable.
H.B.M.C. wrote:The former two are stories about a specific character. The latter two are more about narrative than a specific character, as, especially in the case of Mass Effect, it doesn't matter who or what Shep is, because the same things happen anyway.
That's kind of claiming a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. If you made Jensen customisable, you'd still get the same story with the same things happening, right up to the "push one of three buttons" ending. The only thing that makes characters like Jensen or Lara specific is designers taking choice away from you instead of leaving multiple options.
Crafting a well-rounded narrative that caters to multiple styles of gameplay certainly adds some workload, but ultimately makes for a (subjectively) more compelling experience due to leaving more agency (assuming that we want to play games to have an effect on the world, otherwise we could just watch a movie instead).
The irony is that DXHR actually does give you a bunch of choices resulting in your character receiving different treatment from the NPCs (example: lethal or non-lethal approaches affecting the cops' reaction to you), yet apparently having Jensen be an Asian or a black dude or a woman would have been "too much of a change". Wut? Different personalities, styles of problem-solving and opinions on various topics (right up to choosing whether or not humanity should embrace augmentation) are okay, but appearances are too much?
Lynata wrote: assuming that we want to play games to have an effect on the world, otherwise we could just watch a movie instead
I disagree here. Certainly you cannot take the pure challenge/problem solving part of the equation. You might want to play game that combine a set story like a movie and some challenging gameplay mechanics, but without wanting your gameplay to influence the story.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I disagree here. Certainly you cannot take the pure challenge/problem solving part of the equation. You might want to play game that combine a set story like a movie and some challenging gameplay mechanics, but without wanting your gameplay to influence the story.
But in that case your actions still "have an effect on the world", by either driving the narrative forward, or failing to do so. By taking on those challenges and solving those problems, you become the hero.
Alternatively, for games like minesweeper and tetris that don't really have a story, I added the "assuming" part, but I'm sure that these games are not what we are discussing here.
It's why I worded this part of my sentence like that instead of using a simpler way.
Melissia wrote: No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.
Sorry Melissia but no.
A game can literally be anything. It could be prescripted and or it could not be because in the end everything in the game is scripted.
The Stanely Parable being one of the examples of this.
Is the stanely parable a documentary because it follows a completely set path? Is call of duty less of a game because it is based on historical situations?
We cannot decide what is and what is not a game. That is not up to you to decide.
Its a completely illegitamte fallacy that anyone that argues what is. And what is not a game, does not even know the definition of a Game. A Game is a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules (borders etc) and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
What is a video game? A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen.
This is a broad definition because it has to be broad.
That's kind of claiming a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. If you made Jensen customisable, you'd still get the same story with the same things happening, right up to the "push one of three buttons" ending. The only thing that makes characters like Jensen or Lara specific is designers taking choice away from you instead of leaving multiple options.
What choice? The problem with that idea is that they don't take away any choice except for what your character looks like. In the end all your choices are completely scripted.
Lets say you are playing an action RPG called skyrim.... You are going through and fighting dragons and you customize your character. Your path is completely predetermined from the get go. The only choice you actually have as a player is should I play this game? All the choice you make in that game are scripted to work that way.
There are no choices in games. Everything is prescripted. Everything you do in a game is designed that way.
Crafting a well-rounded narrative that caters to multiple styles of gameplay certainly adds some workload, but ultimately makes for a (subjectively) more compelling experience due to leaving more agency (assuming that we want to play games to have an effect on the world, otherwise we could just watch a movie instead).
True. Thats why David Cage's games are considered some of the worst in history. Because they rely too much on cinematic and not enough gameplay story telling elements.
I disagree here. Certainly you cannot take the pure challenge/problem solving part of the equation. You might want to play game that combine a set story like a movie and some challenging gameplay mechanics, but without wanting your gameplay to influence the story.
I think the problem with that is that is a very old way of thinking. The newer thing right now to do is to have mechanics as metaphor or in addition to the story line. Like how in Spec Ops: The Line you could move your gun around during 'cinematics' sometimes and commit an action.
Games are more or less entertaining because they offer something different than movies. Players interact with games. And no other medium can do that effectively and be visually stimulating.
By taking on those challenges and solving those problems, you become the hero.
Most games are about empowerment. Feeling this power within you that you are the hero of the story. That you are on a grand adventure to save the world.
Or destroy it. (But it doesn't always have to be about empowerment it could be about dis empowerment as well)
Every game makes a decision on what bits are important to "stay true to", and what bits can be discarded.
No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.
Wait just re-read that.
So are you basically implying that games cannot be documentaries? Or Games should not go too far to staying true to the source material?
Melissia wrote:If you're entirely and wholly constrained by historical fact, you will make boring games. No exceptions.
Naah. I think you just have to spend more brainjuice, and I firmly believe the outcome would be more compelling - as far as my own preferences are concerned, anyways. I like realism!
So you'd like a civilization game where you were forced to make the exact same decisions as the historic leader you picked?
In order to have a "historical" game, you must violate history, or not have a game at all.
Wait. So you mean to tell me that Gandhi actually was NOT a blood thirsty, nuke happy tyrant!?
Melissia wrote:No game-- without exception-- stays completely true. If it did, it wouldn't be a game. It would be a documentary.
I thought we're taking this for granted, specifically because it's so obvious.
Except that it is not. "Realistic" is more of a marketing ploy than anything these days, people think it sounds nice, kind of like how stores put $9.99 instead of $10.
Except that it is not. "Realistic" is more of a marketing ploy than anything these days, people think it sounds nice, kind of like how stores put $9.99 instead of $10.
Its more on the line of that they are trying to be more realistic.
The simple fact is that most coding is preventing people from doing things. ITs prevention code, its called stupid proofing. As we the designers are setting up the rules of the world.
So When they say realistic.
It basically means More Realistic than last time.
As most times code is improved to allow for more restrictions on the game as the code becomes more elegant and the engine is willing to handle the rendering of images onto the screen.
Because no, they aren't realistic, or even "more" realistic. They're not even trying, they're just marketing.
I am not disagreeing.
But most games usually say they are realistic because they have something that is realistic. I mean remember Battlefield 3? That entire marketing ploy is that their bullets actually drop. Did they? Yep. Is that a big thing? no. Thats been around for ages.
IT is very much the biggest marketing idea ever. Apart from the creators of X game that you liked. (Where like 1 team member worked on that game.)
Asherian Command wrote:What choice? The problem with that idea is that they don't take away any choice except for what your character looks like.
Isn't that a choice, too, though?
As far as my preferences go, my character's appearance can make a huge difference on how much I enjoy a game, or whether I enjoy it at all. Not only does it allow me to avoid boring clichés a dev came up (I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed Mass Effect as much had I been forced to play with the default generic Maleshep), it also allows me to insert bits and pieces of my own ideas into a game. I like being creative, so a game allowing me to "participate" in shaping its experience, even if it just affects my character's looks, is a huge plus for me.
Asherian Command wrote:There are no choices in games. Everything is prescripted. Everything you do in a game is designed that way.
Ehh, that's a pretty broad statement. Sure, a game will only have limited choices, but even a choice between A and B is still a choice.
Besides, personally I consider the illusion of a sandbox more important than its actual construction behind the scenes. I'm playing a game to feel and experience, not to dissect it just to look for its flaws.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Wait. So you mean to tell me that Gandhi actually was NOT a blood thirsty, nuke happy tyrant!?
Obligatory:
Spoiler:
I actually really, really like "what if" scenarios as well, which may seem conflicting with my appreciation of realism and continuity at first glance, but I feel it's instead more like two different menus. I'm only biased towards the "in-betweens" who don't really commit to either accuracy or embracing the deviation but instead go about depicting a setting in a half-assed way. Kind of how I enjoy pizza and ice cream but would never mix the two.
Shameless plug: Elite Dangerous accurately modelling the Milky Way is another huge plus on its list for me. Just knowing I can travel to any star I can see in its space, and that it is a 1:1 representation of what contemporary science knows about our galaxy, lets me appreciate the game more by increasing the factor of "I'm there, this is space".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_mSlz6tpmc
Just because games are run off scripts doesn't mean that they are "prescripted" and thus have no choice in how the player wants to play them. You're presenting a patently ridiculous false dichotomy... again.
Ehh, that's a pretty broad statement. Sure, a game will only have limited choices, but even a choice between A and B is still a choice. Besides, personally I consider the illusion of a sandbox more important than its actual construction behind the scenes. I'm playing a game to feel and experience, not to dissect it just to look for its flaws.
Well I am saying every decision you make is basically already planned out. Its scripted. You are expected to make either choice a or b. so basically.
IF (string player A picks option b) Do Option B Alternate path
The thing about it is I am saying it is completely scripted from the get go. They know which choice you are going to make.
Isn't that a choice, too, though?
As far as my preferences go, my character's appearance can make a huge difference on how much I enjoy a game, or whether I enjoy it at all. Not only does it allow me to avoid boring clichés a dev came up (I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed Mass Effect as much had I been forced to play with the default generic Maleshep), it also allows me to insert bits and pieces of my own ideas into a game. I like being creative, so a game allowing me to "participate" in shaping its experience, even if it just affects my character's looks, is a huge plus for me.
Sort of, and sort of not. Because that still is an illusion of choice. Those are all tools given by the creator. It is supposed to feel like a choice but it is techincally not a choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Just because games are run off scripts doesn't mean that they are "prescripted" and thus have no choice in how the player wants to play them. You're presenting a patently ridiculous false dichotomy... again.
Umm no. Prove to me, that a game does not have any prescripted choices.
Prove to me that is a meaningful choice. That is not prescripted.
If the creator gives you the tools to do something that event is then predesigned or prescripted. It is basically planned out and that is what the creators want to happen. What you do with those tools are actual meaningful choices.
So for example in minecraft. I can decide to either mine or farm. Both are prescripted ideas but that does not mean they are not choices. They are an illusion of choice. They make you think these are meaningful choices. When they are not.
Its a very high level of thinking in game design and is something that I even have a hard time grasping. The entire idea is to give you a sense of agency and this idea that your choices matter. But everything in the game is created to support this feeling.
No prescripted choices that you are forced to take. You can jsut go along and explore if you want. You can become a trader if you want-- big time, or small time. Hell, you can even make a living being a space taxi, working your way up to having a luxury liner. You're in space, there's a universe around you, and the universe reacts to your actions. The "story" doesn't even start unless you explicitly tell it to, and it never HAS to start to play the game to its fullest.
No prescripted choices that you are forced to take. You can jsut go along and explore if you want. You can become a trader if you want-- big time, or small time. Hell, you can even make a living being a space taxi, working your way up to having a luxury liner. You're in space, there's a universe around you, and the universe reacts to your actions. The "story" doesn't even start unless you explicitly tell it to, and it never HAS to start to play the game to its fullest.
Still prescripted.
Because A. Option is given to be in a ship.
Ships are all determined by programming.
Choices are given not to follow a set path. Is this a real choice? Or an illusion of choice?
It is an illusion of choice. You are basically following a set path already. The designers created it so you would follow something.
I never said anything about a story. Just prescripted.
All choices are made by the designers on purpose. They are expecting you to do certain things. Very few times do designers give the gamers full reign like giving a player a toolbox to neccessarily make anything they want. I.E. Warcraft world Editor. Or any game that allows you to modify it. And make your own meaningful choices within it.
The Stanely Parable is basically an example of this linearity is a thing no matter where you go you will always be on that line created by the developers and designers.
Asherian Command wrote:Well I am saying every decision you make is basically already planned out. Its scripted. You are expected to make either choice a or b.
And it's still a choice.
When I jump into the air, I know gravity will pull me back down. Does that mean it's scripted? I suppose in some way you could argue that, it just sounds a bit weird. Any environment will have laws and limitations you can't change. What does it even matter whether they exist because of physics, or because a programmer scripted them?
The way you're going on about illusion of choice kind of makes it sound as if our very real life was pre-scripted, too, by established society.
"Option is given to go to school. Schools are all determined by government."
#thisisdeep
Melissia wrote:Except that it is not. "Realistic" is more of a marketing ploy than anything these days, people think it sounds nice, kind of like how stores put $9.99 instead of $10.
Sorry, missed this post earlier ...
I wouldn't compare the two. To me, "realistic" is more like a subgenre. Like "dark fantasy" or "hard sci-fi". You'll always have to weigh and balance realism against gameplay/fun, but you can't deny that different people will have different tendencies as to which ratio they'd prefer.
I'm not denying that some companies might just advertise it like a marketing ploy, but at the same time one shouldn't automatically assume that it's the same everywhere, be it because you can simply start up the game and see how it affects your enjoyment, or because the developers themselves have a history of sharing this preference with the playerbase they are aiming for.
When I jump into the air, I know gravity will pull me back down. Does that mean it's scripted? I suppose in some way you could argue that, it just sounds a bit weird. Any environment will have laws and limitations you can't change. What does it even matter whether they exist because of physics, or because a programmer scripted them?
The way you're going on about illusion of choice kind of makes it sound as if our very real life was pre-scripted, too, by established society.
"Option is given to go to school. Schools are all determined by government."
#thisisdeep
It is an illusion of choice but it is not a true choice that you or I could make in real life.
Every thing is basically scripted to be like that.
And You really can't compare the two as you are still given a choice in life that games you can't. In real life there hundreds of thousands of choices to make saying that it applies to real life is stupidity. A Game will never truly be able to encompose that idea of near infinite possibilities of choice as there is only so much you can do in programming.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: This peculiar kind of "there is no free will" sophistry from you, Ash, isn't really a topic I really want to touch in this thread.
I am not going into that, at all.
I am touching on the illusion of choice in games.
You are given a script of actions to do, you can do it in any order, but that is a choice. An actual choice.
Asherian Command wrote:It is an illusion of choice but it is not a true choice that you or I could make in real life.
What? I can make a choice between a yes or a no every single day.
Asherian Command wrote:And You really can't compare the two as you are still given a choice in life that games you can't. In real life there hundreds of thousands of choices to make saying that it applies to real life is stupidity. A Game will never truly be able to encompose that idea of near infinite possibilities of choice as there is only so much you can do in programming.
So what you're saying is that the amount of choice is the important distinction here? Where do you draw the line, personally? A million choices? A billion?
There's sandbox games out there that leave quite a lot of choices for you, too - I already named one example in one of my previous posts.
Real life does not have "near infinite possibilities of choice" because of limitations based on physics, culture or quite simply the opinion of the person you're talking to. For example, I can choose to continue posting in this thread or leave it be, but I can't choose whether or not you're replying to this.
Again, we face limitations to our freedom in any environment, what does it matter whether they're the result of programming or the laws of nature etc? I care for a certain agency in a game, it's as simple as that. Enjoyment of a game is based entirely on individual perception - meaning what choices are limited in what way. Not why they are limited (or not).
On the subject of defined characters... I was originally going to post this as an extra bit on my last one, but I decided against it, as it turned messy/rambley. - So my apologies if that happens again.
I've been playing Dragon Age 2 again recently. And, when you think about it. You've got near enough total, complete control on Hawke's appearance, gender, choice of abilities, tone of voice.
But, basically, Hawke is a very well defined character. - That was part of the complaints about the game.
Hawke is always Hawke. Hawke has a mother, Hawke has a brother and sister. They have an uncle who is a jerky jerkface, they come from a noble family etc.
There's all this, well, character definition that makes a very established character. And, yet. The players have complete customisation about so many other things, most of which have quite negligible effects on the game (again, another one of the complaints).
So, if a character can have all this personal customisation, that does help players feel a bit closer to the gameplay and still be a well defined character, I posit an argument that many games that are NOT designed to be an RPG, could do much the same.
Asherian Command wrote:It is an illusion of choice but it is not a true choice that you or I could make in real life.
What? I can make a choice between a yes or a no every single day.
No. Read it again.
A real meaningful choice.
Asherian Command wrote:And You really can't compare the two as you are still given a choice in life that games you can't. In real life there hundreds of thousands of choices to make saying that it applies to real life is stupidity. A Game will never truly be able to encompose that idea of near infinite possibilities of choice as there is only so much you can do in programming.
So what you're saying is that the amount of choice is the important distinction here? Where do you draw the line, personally? A million choices? A billion?
There's sandbox games out there that leave quite a lot of choices for you, too - I already named one example in one of my previous posts.
Real life does not have "near infinite possibilities of choice" because of limitations based on physics, culture or quite simply the opinion of the person you're talking to. For example, I can choose to continue posting in this thread or leave it be, but I can't choose whether or not you're replying to this.
Again, we face limitations to our freedom in any environment, what does it matter whether they're the result of programming or the laws of nature etc? I care for a certain agency in a game, it's as simple as that. Enjoyment of a game is based entirely on individual perception - meaning what choices are limited in what way. Not why they are limited (or not).
Agency and choice go hand in hand. In a game no matter what i do I will always get a to b.
In real life I could go to b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and so and so forth. Games you are limited by the programming.
In a conversation if I phrase the sentence. "Lets eat grandma!" That would raise eyebrows. but if I said. "Lets eat, Grandma!"
A simple phrase could change someones entire opinion on you and then a dominio effect is started.
In games they do not have this full dominio effect or butterfly effect. Where a single medicore decision leads to terrible consequences later down the line.
Games do not have meaningful true choices.
No matter what you do in that game it is created to do that.
The Designers sit down and think of. Okay what can we let our players do. And then they set up restrictions in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: On the subject of defined characters... I was originally going to post this as an extra bit on my last one, but I decided against it, as it turned messy/rambley. - So my apologies if that happens again.
I've been playing Dragon Age 2 again recently. And, when you think about it. You've got near enough total, complete control on Hawke's appearance, gender, choice of abilities, tone of voice.
But, basically, Hawke is a very well defined character. - That was part of the complaints about the game.
Hawke is always Hawke. Hawke has a mother, Hawke has a brother and sister. They have an uncle who is a jerky jerkface, they come from a noble family etc.
There's all this, well, character definition that makes a very established character. And, yet. The players have complete customisation about so many other things, most of which have quite negligible effects on the game (again, another one of the complaints).
So, if a character can have all this personal customisation, that does help players feel a bit closer to the gameplay and still be a well defined character, I posit an argument that many games that are NOT designed to be an RPG, could do much the same.
Hmm Interesting. Then why are final fantasy games so popular?
Maybe it is the promise of choice that skews peoples reasoning.
See, the issue with "realistic" is that it can be seen as an excuse for arbitrary limitations in the game. Note, there is nothing wrong with arbitrary limitations: a game could not function otherwise. But, the problem is when it is used to defend a stylistic choice: Like only having the option to be a white male soldier in the Civil war game. The designer made that decision because that is the narrative they wished to tell. They wished to have the game from that perspective. Which is fine. But it darn well gets annoying when they defend that choice by saying it was "realistic." No, it was the game you wanted to make.
Games have always been willing to tweak "realism" to accommodate story lines and game play. It's just frustrating when it comes to certain things (race and gender), that is a line that is not crossed. Just admit it is arbitrary.
AdeptSister wrote: See, the issue with "realistic" is that it can be seen as an excuse for arbitrary limitations in the game. Note, there is nothing wrong with arbitrary limitations: a game could not function otherwise. But, the problem is when it is used to defend a stylistic choice: Like only having the option to be a white male soldier in the Civil war game. The designer made that decision because that is the narrative they wished to tell. They wished to have the game from that perspective. Which is fine. But it darn well gets annoying when they defend that choice by saying it was "realistic." No, it was the game you wanted to make.
Games have always been willing to tweak "realism" to accommodate story lines and game play. It's just frustrating when it comes to certain things (race and gender), that is a line that is not crossed. Just admit it is arbitrary.
You assume a failure in reading comprehension where I merely disagree with your personal opinion.
I can make both unimportant as well as meaningful choices both in real life as well as in games. You'll have to elaborate.
And please, use words - just throwing random videos you liked at peoples' heads is rather lazy.
Asherian Command wrote:Agency and choice go hand in hand. In a game no matter what i do I will always get a to b.
In real life I could go to b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and so and so forth. Games you are limited by the programming.
In Elite I can go to b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and so forth as well, because that game presents me with a 1:1 replica of all planetary bodies in the galaxy and leaves me with the choice of what I make of it.
Yes, in a game you will always have limits based by programming. Just like in real life you'll have other limits based on the laws of nature or your current standing in society as defined by a plethora of factors. So what?
Asherian Command wrote:Games do not have meaningful true choices.
I'm not sure what you played. A lot of mine do.
Are you sure you're not just automatically applying your personal definition of what a "meaningful choice" is on other people?
Asherian Command wrote:Maybe it is the promise of choice that skews peoples reasoning.
In your words: "read it again".
"Enjoyment of a game is based entirely on individual perception - meaning what choices are limited in what way. Not why they are limited (or not)." -- Lynata, 2014
AdeptSister wrote:But it darn well gets annoying when they defend that choice by saying it was "realistic." No, it was the game you wanted to make.
Isn't that ... the same thing?
I'd never accuse a developer of being "arbitrary" just because the game they wanted to make happened to be a realistic game with a certain theme. In historically inspired games, the two go hand in hand, as established settings - be them historical or fictional - evoke expectations that makers and consumers will gravitate to. Would you want a 40k game with female Space Marines?
The bigger problem is developers using a skewed sense of realism, such as the makers of War of the Roses claiming that female characters would be unrealistic based on flawed popular knowledge, or fail to acknowledge that quite often you can perfectly preserve realism and expand scope beyond the narrow confine of "defaults". For example, it'd be perfectly possible to make a Civil war game with a white female or a black male soldier, if the devs would just be willing to work the consequences of such a design decision into the final product.
tl;dr: Yes, it comes down to what exactly they want to make, but to assume that realism is always a cop-out might be a tad unfair, when the alternative would have been to not make that game at all, or the character becoming so unique that him or her being special should override what the game was initially all about (with the extreme of possibly turning a mindless FPS action game into a piece of interactive social commentary).
The War of The Roses thing is interesting as, from what I can see, they are the same people who did Mount&Blade: Warband.
In M&B:Warband, they had an interesting and different approach. - I'm not going to say it was a 'good' approach, I'll leave that up to yourselves.
However, playing a female character in M&B was in many ways, the game's equivalent of a 'Hard Mode' - a female character had a significantly harder time in any of the RPG elements of the game, it was more difficult for rulers to trust you, they were less inclined to grant you castles or titles, etc.
It leads to the question of, how sexist was the game in doing this, or was it making a comment on sexism?
Compel wrote:The War of The Roses thing is interesting as, from what I can see, they are the same people who did Mount&Blade: Warband.
Naah. Mount & Blade is from the Turkish studio Taleworlds, War of the Roses from Swedish studio Fatshark. They both just had the same publisher (for Warband, anyways; the first Mount & Blade was published independently) and one was obviously inspired by the other.
Compel wrote:It leads to the question of, how sexist was the game in doing this, or was it making a comment on sexism?
In my interpretation, if the game were truly sexist, it'd just have not allowed female fighters in any way or presented them as weaker. Implementing them as an option with social reservations, however, was just a way to replicate the "medieval theme", as the setting may be fictional but is obviously inspired by the real world (with the various factions corresponding to historically existing nations). At least that's how I felt about it.
A difference between "a game being sexist" and "a setting being sexist", if you will.
So I may love the talk about historical accuracy and it's place in games. We have been off topic from basically page 2. That might say something, but I don't know what.
I guess it means gamers don't have that many problems with men in video games, other than the average-height-white-bloke-with-short-brown-hair design that's become the company standard.
You post this In the same post as the two EC videos that deal with choice in games.
Really?
I mean REALLY?
*sigh*
I'd thought you were just using 'Illusion of Choice' without knowing what it meant, not that you completely misunderstood it.
'Illusion of Choice' is where you are given different options that lead to the same outcomes. When the outcomes are different, even if they are pre-designed to follow from those options, it is not 'Illusion of Choice'.
When people say "realism is a good thing" and "sexism is realistic", they're also saying "sexism is a good thing".
I know I'm going to get hatemail for that but meh, reality sucks in many ways. It shouldn't be damn hard for people to admit that realism in videogames can and does also suck in many ways, too.
Melissia wrote:When people say "realism is a good thing" and "sexism is realistic", they're also saying "sexism is a good thing".
In some cases, sexism, as well as racism and other -isms in fictional backgrounds of games, movies and novels can indeed be a good thing, if for example it serves to sensitivise and educate the player as a form of social commentary, or as a plot device for a player character fighting against oppression.
Examples could be Bioshock featuring criticism on organised religion, or Dragon Age city elves tackling minority segregation. Off the top of my head, I can't remember a video game that tackled sexism in a similarly obvious way, but it's the same approach and the same potential. It just takes a studio brave (or crazy) enough to dare creating such a product, and given the current evolution of gaming in general I have a feeling this is just a matter of time.
Speaking of Dragon Age, I recall the writers once saying that when designing Thedas, they took existing historical inspiration and gave it a different spin, with the legend of Andraste being sparked by the thought of "what if Jesus has been a woman".
From something I've written on the FFG forums a few days ago in regards to sexism in the Imperium:
"Thematically, I do not consider sexism, racism or religious intolerance (etc) wrong, as long as they are inserted with a modicum of care and somewhat counter-balanced by related elements and thus do not come off like some wackjob's creepy personal fantasy. Used correctly, they serve to support the tone of a grimdark, dystopian atmosphere. And with 40k, the balancing aspect is that you'll have Imperial worlds that can be an oppressive patriarchy, or an oppressive matriarchy, or anything in-between up to perfect equality. "The Imperium" isn't sexist - it just has member worlds that are. And since everyone is given their own space, nobody should feel offended."
You post this In the same post as the two EC videos that deal with choice in games.
Really?
I mean REALLY?
*sigh*
I'd thought you were just using 'Illusion of Choice' without knowing what it meant, not that you completely misunderstood it.
'Illusion of Choice' is where you are given different options that lead to the same outcomes. When the outcomes are different, even if they are pre-designed to follow from those options, it is not 'Illusion of Choice'.
Illusion of Choice - the illusion of there being other choices available to you the player. It is a design choice. Agency and choice are both in games. But illusion of choice is commonly used to get the player to pick an alternate path but you are pushed back onto the main road.
Watch the video again.
Choice is basically meaningless because you will always get the same storyline.
(unless otherwise noted)
I am saying everything in the game is designed to make you feel like the things you are picking up are meaningful and new and different.
I use slippery slope! Sturgeon's Law claims that 90% of everything is crap. 90% of all games are crap+90% of people's ideas are crap = to the same equation for every other field including books and movies. This leads us to the acclamation that due to the fact that there are too many bad things in the world, we must destroy all entertainment and people. That or we must ascend from our pathetic human nature to harmonize with our world or we must ascend by way of technology past our pathetic meatbags. All purity must be destroyed 
”. Well, that is not the worst discrimination she had to face because, huh, she kind of was discriminated by the state for being a woman quite a bit until she left Iran, but you get what I mean, right? Just to say, that is not something I would only say about white European people.
. Pretty easy to do.
