What problems do gamers have with how women are represented in games?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**nomotog**

So women in games. Kind of a hot button if I ever knew one. One aspect about it is that is is often framed as people outside of gameing coming in and pointing out problems. (It's not always this way, but that is the feeling that seems to pop up most of the time.) Now my idea is to just flip that. We are gammers here, so what problems/eye rolling bits have we noticed that we might like to see addressed?

My kind of pet peeve is the Women=Dex/Magic Men=Str/Con trope. It's not always always present, but it shows up often enough that the exceptions are note worthy. (Fable 2.) It's kind of annoying because if you want to play a female character, your kind of locked into these fineness gameplay styles and game after game that can get annoying. (The fip side of it is that if you like fineness gameplay, you're often pushed into playing women.) This trope just bugs me.

**nomotog**

Melissia wrote:
There is nowhere near enough representation of female playable characters, and in many games (both old and, sadly, new) the ones that exist are shoehorned in to "agility" or "magic" roles, and some games (like Deus Ex) actually remove the option of having them where they had it previously. Most big-name-game protagonists end up being basically skinhead whiteguys with no personality, too, so it's not like there's anything gained by this bizarre practice.

Something that really to bug me when I thought about it is that we really don't have any actually blank slate characters. Like for example it is very hard to think of a single game character that doesn't have a designated gender.

Swastakowey wrote:
I tend to play historical games. If anything, having women shoehorned in annoys me. Like having female Napoleonic Soldiers everywhere for example. Or having female ww2 pilots etc.

At the end of the day, it does little to change the games I play aside from the look and realisticness, but in other games I can think of that I play not based off history I cant think of too many where its a problem.

This is the sticky wicket. Should you include women in a setting were women wouldn't be expected. It's some times gets more sticky when people some times underestimate women's presence in some fields.

LordofHats wrote:
My biggest gripe is the token-ness and predictability of many female characters in a lot of action games. Like that chick from Gears of War. She spent what, like two games as the proverbial "only woman in the galaxy" cause... well cause. She's pretty much only there to remind you women exist and to look pretty.

Kat in DMC, Anya in GoW 1-2, Amy in Sonic (until they got around to adding Rouge, which really, not an improvement), and while there were other women in Dishonored, what exactly is Callista but your sexy secretary? I mean, just about anyone else could have done her job, except they decided there wasn't a mature woman in the game past the first few minutes and just forked her into it.

And as to predictability, well... Kat, basically your secretary. Anya, your secretary. Callista, your secretary. I like Cortanna, but she's still kind of your secretary. These characters could be completely absent and the story wouldn't really miss them (well, someone would have to do Cortana's job, cause Chief really did need someone to handle his appointment book) and I kind of find their presence an insult to my intelligence. Video games are not action movies, the husband isn't going to convince the wife to sit down with him and watch him play some Halo just cause you threw a woman into the story are the closest available vacancy.

Yeah token females who are essentially just your secretary eye candy have kind of gotten old. Bayonetta at least mixed it up

Tokenism is not good, but my worry is that the fear of tokenism is maybe more of a problem then tokenism itself. The solution I like is to include more women who aren't just a token jester, but some people think the solution is to just not include women.

**nomotog**

SneakyMek wrote:
Well there where so called cantinières that where females that had followed regiments to the battlefield,they did however not take part in the battles themselves.

Each French regiment had women authorized to accompany it on campaign. Designated cantinières or vivandières, they wore clothes of at least partly military design. Their official function within the regiment was to sell tobacco and refreshments such as cognac from their carts and care for the wounded. In the latter role, some inevitably ventured into harm's way and became casualties. Marie Tête-du-bois, the cantinière of the 1st Grenadiers of the Guard, was cut in two by a cannonball at Waterloo.

Anyone is of course free to provide facts that proves that there where female soldiers in the front like during Waterloo and during the Russian expedition.

In any case..lets not get too side tracked from the main focus on this thread.

So they were a little like battlefield waiters/merchants. That is actually kind of cool. That could actually be a cool feature to see in a game.

**nomotog**

Swastakowey wrote:
Melissia wrote:
SneakyMek wrote:
Well there where so called cantinières that where females that had followed regiments to the battlefield,they did however not take part in the battles themselves.

Nadezhda Durova served in the Russian cavalry, Anna Anna Lühring served in the Lützow Free Corps, Joanna Żubr served as a soldier for Poland and was the first woman to ever get the Polish equivalent of the Medal of Honor (Virtuti Militari).

We have similar tales in the US Civil War in the same time period, as well as throughout history in general.

SneakyMek wrote:
In any case..lets not get too side tracked from the main focus on this thread.
The desire to claim "no women ever participated in these wars" or "the women who participated don't deserve to be represented" is in fact a part of this thread's focus, since it is a problem that I, a gamer, have with the depiction of women in games

Ok, so some very rare examples. Very rare. Out of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers we have some ish stories of women in combat. They do not, outside of exceptional circumstance, deserve to be represented in most wars, due to their tiny minimal combat presence.

Im sorry if its offensive that people dont want to see women all over the front lines in a Nepolionic setting, when there shouldnt be.

Some exceptional examples, are not evidence for massed female ranks of soldiers. In any war really, even today. Fantasy and sci fi is fine to have such representation, but not history. Unless the story is specifically on the exceptional case of a female soldier.

Some of the bits I have read suggest it's not as rare as people think. There was a essay that involved man eating lamas I might be able to dig up. Basically it was about how our perceptions some times overwrite reality. We assume women didn't fight (or do anything in those times) that we don't even look. Like they found some tombs of warriors and simply neglected to check their gender because they assumed they were all men. After they tested, turned out a lot of them were women.

Edit: found the lama. http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/

The sci-fi thing is actually a interesting thing to being up because I have seen people make arguments that you can't include women in combat even there. The example I am recalling was actually a little silly. They were trying to argue that women couldn't fight because they didn't have the muscle mass, but it was a cyber punk setting so you know all the fighters had most of their body replaced with cybernetics. The argument was not only silly it flew right in the face of the themes of the setting.

**nomotog**

Swastakowey wrote:
nomotog wrote:
SneakyMek wrote:
Well there where so called cantinières that where females that had followed regiments to the battlefield,they did however not take part in the battles themselves.

Each French regiment had women authorized to accompany it on campaign. Designated cantinières or vivandières, they wore clothes of at least partly military design. Their official function within the regiment was to sell tobacco and refreshments such as cognac from their carts and care for the wounded. In the latter role, some inevitably ventured into harm's way and became casualties. Marie Tête-du-bois, the cantinière of the 1st Grenadiers of the Guard, was cut in two by a cannonball at Waterloo.

Anyone is of course free to provide facts that proves that there where female soldiers in the front like during Waterloo and during the Russian expedition.

In any case..lets not get too side tracked from the main focus on this thread.

So they were a little like battlefield waiters/merchants. That is actually kind of cool. That could actually be a cool feature to see in a game.

Camp Followers they're called. They make up huge numbers of armies as they travel between battles etc. Many being families of the soldiers or those looking to profit through trade (of various things) etc.

They are in mount and blade ish which is kind of cool.

In mount and blade they are more magickarp solders. I do kind of like how M&B handles women in a setting that wouldn't really be friendly to women warriors. It lets you be one and then has you face challenges that make sense. (I say makes sense because it's not a real life setting and I am not a history professor. I don't know if it is realistic. It just matched what I expect the setting to be like.) Like how you have to get married to become a vassal. (You know unless you just do what I do were you get fed up with a kings sexism and just take a castle for yourself

)

**nomotog**

Swastakowey wrote:
nomotog wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:
nomotog wrote:
SneakyMek wrote:
Well there where so called cantinières that where females that had followed regiments to the battlefield,they did however not take part in the battles themselves.

Each French regiment had women authorized to accompany it on campaign. Designated cantinières or vivandières, they wore clothes of at least partly military design. Their official function within the regiment was to sell tobacco and refreshments such as cognac from their carts and care for the wounded. In the latter role, some inevitably ventured into harm's way and became casualties. Marie Tête-du-bois, the cantinière of the 1st Grenadiers of the Guard, was cut in two by a cannonball at Waterloo.

Anyone is of course free to provide facts that proves that there where female soldiers in the front like during Waterloo and during the Russian expedition.

In any case..lets not get too side tracked from the main focus on this thread.

So they were a little like battlefield waiters/merchants. That is actually kind of cool. That could actually be a cool feature to see in a game.

Camp Followers they're called. They make up huge numbers of armies as they travel between battles etc. Many being families of the soldiers or those looking to profit through trade (of various things) etc.

They are in mount and blade ish which is kind of cool.

In mount and blade they are more magickarp solders. I do kind of like how M&B handles women in a setting that wouldn't really be friendly to women warriors. It lets you be one and then has you face challenges that make sense. (I say makes sense because it's not a historical setting and I am not a history professer. I don't know if it is realistic. It just matched what I expect the setting to be like.) Like how you have to get married to become a vassal. (You know unless you just do what I do were you get fed up with a kings sexism and just take a castle for yourself )

I agree, they fit into the setting, while giving you the option to play as one being an exception. Rather than having female warriors all over the place, they are exceptions. Women are still a huge part of the game too.

Although there is a female who enters all the tournaments and always wins when no king is present. I make it my goal to find her outside of the tournament and kill her for good. Although I can never find her.

They even have female rulers. Well after you lead a rebellion that is.

That tournament thing sounds.. odd.

**nomotog**

Swastakowey wrote:
n0t_u wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:
Although there is a female who enters all the tournaments and always wins when no king is present. I make it my goal to find her outside of the tournament and kill her for good. Although I can never find her.

Wait, what.

Does nobody else have this problem?

It happens in all my games.

Sword sisters tend to do well in the tournaments because they are some of the more powerful units. It's just your response to it sounds crazy.

**nomotog**

Seaward wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Melissia wrote:
And one should hardly blame me for saying "please make a game that makes me want to give you my money."

Not at all. Just as you can't blame the developer for ignoring you when there's a massively larger group on the other side saying the same thing, but what they want runs counter to what you want.
The group isn't "massively larger". The ultra-realism crowd is fairly small.

'Tis indeed, but I'd imagine it's quite a bit larger than the "women should be the default for all time periods, settings, occupations" crowd for the genres for which it would matter.

I continue to fail to believe these ultra-greedy anything-for-a-buck megapublishers are deliberately leaving massive amounts of money on the table in the name of sexism. I think the massive amount of money on the table is mythical. I think they think that, too.

The ultra greedy do anything for a buck publishers leave all kinds of money on the table. That is kind of their problem. Like how they don't make survival horror or RTS games because they really can't be bothered to step outside their comfort zone. It's not necessary sexism, it's incompetents.

**nomotog**

Hordini wrote:
nomotog wrote:
Melissia wrote:
There is nowhere near enough representation of female playable characters, and in many games (both old and, sadly, new) the ones that exist are shoehorned in to "agility" or "magic" roles, and some games (like Deus Ex) actually remove the option of having them where they had it previously. Most big-name-game protagonists end up being basically skinhead whiteguys with no personality, too, so it's not like there's anything gained by this bizarre practice.

Something that really to bug me when I thought about it is that we really don't have any actually blank slate characters. Like for example it is very hard to think of a single game character that doesn't have a designated gender.

Diablo III.

Who in Diablo 3? I know you can pick your gender and that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about a character who just has no know gender. Like V from order of the stick. Are they a man, woman, something in between? We don't know.

**nomotog**

daedalus wrote:
nomotog wrote:

Who in Diablo 3? I know you can pick your gender and that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about a character who just has no know gender. Like V from order of the stick. Are they a man, woman, something in between? We don't know.

Okay, Asteroids. What gender is the ship from Asteroids.

That counts. My thought is more why doesn't it happen more often. There are a lot of games, particularly FPS, that have a character who is meant to be you and they have very low characterization. They often don't even have a real name, just a code or nick name. They almost always have a gender though. I think you could just level these self insert characters genderless.

**nomotog**

Seaward wrote:
AdeptSister wrote:
Maybe. But more and more games and media are not being made for just Americans. Starcraft (unless you don't include RTS as strategy) extremely popular in South Korea. Or LoL. Heck look at the demographic for fighting games. If EVO is representative of the American fighting game demographic, it is changing.

I would say almost no games are being made exclusively for Americans anymore, if they ever were.

But as we discussed in the recently-locked thread regarding Smite's representation of Chinese gods, the demand out of the Asian market isn't for more representation, it's for more blonde Caucasian sex kittens.

You always want to be a little weary when you assume what companies are doing is what people want. They don't always sync up.

**nomotog**

You know I would like to see some of the excuse for bad armor used logically to make a character. Like your a wizard, you have magic so you don't have to wear armor. Heck you can wear what ever you want because your the bloody wizard. How would someone dress if they could dress however they wanted.

**nomotog**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, uh, she gives some woman as a pet to some soldier to cheer him up, and your conclusion is “Gods don't think much of mortals”? That is an interesting one. I also fail to see you reasoning about creating. I mean, even if bypassing normal procreation, you were to create a clone, or any other kind of sentient, living being, would you consider him/her/it an object because of it?

I wonder if it is too much of a leap to try and compare that attitude to the attitude that players have about NPCs in video games. Yep. Tottaly.

The idea of objectification takes on a whole different element when your talking about objects doesn't it? Then you get how NPCs in a video game kind of tap dance along the line of objects and people. You have some NPCs that are basically tools of the player. (See AC2) Then you have some NPCs with agency of their own. (See most video game enemies.) Anyone ever think about that at all?

**nomotog**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wonder if it is too much of a leap to try and compare that attitude to the attitude that players have about NPCs in video games. Yep. Tottaly.

The soldiers and the woman are both NPC, but their treatments are… quite different .

When will people learn how to properly chop up quotes.

I wonder if that is a thing. Like if female NPCs are done differently then male NPCs. Ya it's likley a thing, but I'll pose it as a question because I can't answer it yet.

**nomotog**

You know. We aren't really talking about Sarkensian or feminist in this thread. This isn't about what they think. It's about what you/we think.

**nomotog**

You know, when I made this thread. I was mostly thinking we would be talking about games and not really get into the death threat stuff. That was kind of silly, but also very irresponsible. (It was wrong.) The death threat issue is actually a very big problem sounding the issues of female representation in games and wanting to avoid that problem is a problem in itself.

The perplexing thing is that one would imagine at the very least we should be able to agree that death threats are bad. Because you know death threats, but I don't know if we really all agree. (That is we as in everyone else. You in this thread are cool.) With this new flare up of hate, I am seeing more passive support of it. I have seen my steam friends list find excuses to excuse the abuse and that bothers me. Even I was thinking that this thread might be a good way to talk about the games issue without tackling this issue of abuse and that bothers me too.

Is anyone else bothered by this?

**nomotog**

Seaward wrote:
nomotog wrote:
You know, when I made this thread. I was mostly thinking we would be talking about games and not really get into the death threat stuff. That was kind of silly, but also very irresponsible. (It was wrong.) The death threat issue is actually a very big problem sounding the issues of female representation in games and wanting to avoid that problem is a problem in itself.

The perplexing thing is that one would imagine at the very least we should be able to agree that death threats are bad. Because you know death threats, but I don't know if we really do all agree. (That is we as in everyone else. You in this thread are cool ) With this new flare up of hate, I am seeing more passive support of it. I have seen my steam friends list find excuses to excuse the abuse and that bothers me. Even I was thinking that this thread might be a good way to talk about the games issue without tackling this issue of abuse and that bothers me too.

Is anyone else bothered by this?

I'm bothered by people who shriek in horror and outrage in one case and shrug their shoulders in indifference in another based simply on who got threatened or did the threatening.

I'm not particularly bothered by the seeming epidemic of threats though, no. They're far older than the internet when it comes to responding to controversial opinions. They shouldn't exist, but they do, and they're not going away, so ginning up a rending of garments and cursing of the gods response when it's politically advantageous to do so doesn't make much of an impression on me.

Shouldn't this bother you though? When did we get so accepting that this is just how it is? Is it too much to ask that people be upset. Maybe some rending of garments is called for .

**nomotog**

Squigsquasher wrote:
For what it's worth, whenever I play a game with a character creation system I usually play as a girl.

With regards to the "Women always seem to be the agility or magic classes" I don't think it's sexist per se. Sexual dimorphism is a real thing after all- generally speaking, men tend to have more upper body strength than women, whilst women tend to have greater reflexes and better development in certain cognitive areas than men. Obviously this isn't an ironclad rule, but it is worth bearing in mind. So whilst I agree that women shouldn't be shoehorned into the "fragile speedster" and "mage" stereotypes all the time, it does have some basis in reality. I'd still love to see more women with greatswords though.

I'd personally like to see more transgender characters in games- preferably just as members of the cast in your average fun game, rather than the centre of some artsy indie bs where everything is about that character being dysphoric. I'd argue that the need to make a big deal of a character being female or transgender or homosexual or whatever is almost as damaging as them not being present at all. Guilty Gear did it right- Bridget actually being a guy is something that's only rarely brought up, the few times it is mentioned being for good-natured humour. Same with Poison of Final Fight fame- she's a badass fighter who just so happens to be a transsexual.

You know it's not so much that it is sexist. It just really grinds on you after awhile.

I would love to see some transsexual characters too. Though maybe make it a little bit of a deal.

**nomotog**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It is a rough approximate. Why does it matter?

By rough approximate I take it you mean, you made it up, just like:

This whole damsel in distress trope having any negative effect, it is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.

The idea that the way women are represented in games, makes them not want to play games. It's wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. It is a Myth. It has no facts to back it up, No studies, Nothing. It's an opinion that has no merit what so ever.

It doesn't need negative effects. It's Cliché and sexist. That is enough of a reason to dislike it

**nomotog**

One of my pondering is that by not including women enemies it is objectifying to female characters? It's because enemies have the most power and agency of any NPC. They get to directly oppose the player. They aren't simply there to be acted on, they get to act. Not letting women be enemies, means they are pushed into less active roles.

**nomotog**

Asherian Command wrote:
nomotog wrote:
One of my pondering is that by not including women enemies it is objectifying to female characters? It's because enemies have the most power and agency of any NPC. They get to directly oppose the player. They aren't simply there to be acted on, they get to act. Not letting women be enemies, means they are pushed into less active roles.

Wouldn't the same be said about men then?

If you make it both sexes I don't think it really matters. Its a skin. Its an NPC. You fight them. Showing both genders can be evil, that is not really objectifying the female sex at all. That is just making a new skin.

Its not the thought behind it.

I am confused on what you are saying, or what you think I was saying.

**nomotog**

Asherian Command wrote:
nomotog wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
nomotog wrote:
One of my pondering is that by not including women enemies it is objectifying to female characters? It's because enemies have the most power and agency of any NPC. They get to directly oppose the player. They aren't simply there to be acted on, they get to act. Not letting women be enemies, means they are pushed into less active roles.

Wouldn't the same be said about men then?

If you make it both sexes I don't think it really matters. Its a skin. Its an NPC. You fight them. Showing both genders can be evil, that is not really objectifying the female sex at all. That is just making a new skin.

Its not the thought behind it.

I am confused on what you are saying, or what you think I was saying.

OH I thought you were making the argument that if we put a female character that we shoot at in a game it would be in someway objectifying. Sorry my fault its midnight here. I probably need to sleep.

It's OK. Communication is hard. I think I sound like some kind of nut when I say that, but it's true.

**nomotog**

Melissia wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's wrong with women being enemies in a game, exactly?
I'd kind of like an answer to this, too, myself.

I mean gak, the Knives of Artemis ripped players apart in CoH/V....

I could see ways for it to be a problem. Like if you only had female enemies or the only women in your game were enemies and then you characterized poorly. Like if there was a game that wanted you to kill women because the game called them sluts. Actually there is a awkward level in dishonored were you are assassinating a women because she is dating the villain and that is about it. Your never told anything she dose wrong. (You actually don't have to assassinate her, you can drug her and then give her over to a man who looks and acts like a stalker...)

**nomotog**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
nomotog wrote:
Melissia wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's wrong with women being enemies in a game, exactly?
I'd kind of like an answer to this, too, myself.

I mean gak, the Knives of Artemis ripped players apart in CoH/V....

I could see ways for it to be a problem. Like if you only had female enemies or the only women in your game were enemies and then you characterized poorly. Like if there was a game that wanted you to kill women because the game called them sluts. Actually there is a awkward level in dishonored were you are assassinating a women because she is dating the villain and that is about it. Your never told anything she dose wrong. (You actually don't have to assassinate her, you can drug her and then give her over to a man who looks and acts like a stalker...)

She's financing his army. That's why she was a target.
Not to mention that she was

Spoiler:

part of the plot to assassinate the empress

http://dishonored.wikia.com/wiki/Lady_Boyle

They do actually tell you why she's a target. There's a briefing before each mission.

I don't recall any of that being talked about in the briefing, so I went and looked again. It's there. I guess I must have missed it the first time. (I also forgot that was the level with the peeking thing.)

**nomotog**

Slarg232 wrote:
Lynata wrote:
illuknisaa wrote:Why do you call sexy negative?
It's not negative if you just deliver it with a bit of taste and awareness instead of going all-out in order to appeal to people's junk more than their brains. The original Lara Croft was sexy. Gradually increasing her boobs, shortening her clothes, and having her pose in seductive positions more suitable to an issue of Playboy, however, turns the character from a heroine into a pin-up girl. And that's objectification.

While I will admit I don't care either way for Lara (Only game of hers I've really enjoyed was the last one), the idea of sexualization/objectification isn't inherently bad (Look at Duke Nukem) taken in moderation. The real problem with the industry is that the moderation doesn't exist, and the idea of sexualization/objectification is woefully one sided.

Is sexualization permanently linked to objectification?

**nomotog**

The night elves get a little better in the expansion. It adds another female hero unit and they are melee too.

**nomotog**

Asherian Command wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have absolutely no idea if you are being sarcastic or not .

If you can see their nipples its a pretty good sign you didn't make your characters correctly.

Wait what? Is that sarcastic?

**nomotog**

Asherian Command wrote:

Look at the designs O.o

They have no nipples. Unless I am looking at the wrong ones. They are skimpy designs, but no nipples.

**nomotog**

Asherian Command wrote:
nomotog wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:

Look at the designs O.o

They have no nipples. Unless I am looking at the wrong ones. They are skimpy designs, but no nipples.

http://www.heroesofnewerth.com/intro#page4

I am not talking about the wc3 one. Just check it out. Look at

The ice lady looking one/energy one.

Oh star nipples. They say there is no accounting for taste. I liked that design more then the others. They have a kind of neat unearthly look. Though ya they might actually look better without star nipples.

**nomotog**

Sexy distraction is a trope I don't know if I have seen done right. It's another one of the sexy outfit excuses. If you were really trying to dress in a way to distract people, what would you do? My idea tassels, bright colors. There are weapons that were made to be distracting and what they did was put brightly colored strings and tassels on them to distract the eye by movement.

Another thought is maybe catwoman has a fetish. Like she gets exhibitionist thrill from sneaking around in sexy clothes. It's just a thought though. If it was an aspect of her character, you would want it to be addressed and talked about.