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.

I make flash games (100% of the work except for music) and actively make sure to avoid masculine terms when referring to the player.

It probably doesn't get noticed or appreciated, nor is it something people care much about, but it is something that I like to do.

I'm trying to remember any gender-related comments on my last game... I seem to remember one comment expressing an opinion that I shouldn't have had an NPC killed during one of one of the alternate endings because she was female, and then another one lamenting her death "because she was hot".

Okay, given the lack of any words accompanying those videos (which have been posted about three times already in the thread and I refuse to click play on)...

...your point is that you sat through all 40 minutes and generally are happy to allow a single source of (suffciently passionate) media to act as gospel for your opinion on any given subject?

 scarletsquig wrote:
I make flash games (100% of the work except for music) and actively make sure to avoid masculine terms when referring to the player.

It probably doesn't get noticed or appreciated, nor is it something people care much about, but it is something that I like to do.

I'm trying to remember any gender-related comments on my last game... I seem to remember one comment expressing an opinion that I shouldn't have had an NPC killed during one of one of the alternate endings because she was female, and then another one lamenting her death "because she was hot".

Oh you make games. Can we see?

Sure, here's the one I was talking about above:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/pepperpunk/buccaneer

The game speaks to player in the first person ("you" and "your") so I saw it as vitally important to make sure that there was no text that would be specifically invalid when applied to one gender or the other. Quite tricky if you want to include a romance plot somewhere.

In future, I'm considering writing a game under the assumption that the player is female or a gay male just so I can laugh at the comments.

My opinion on the matter is that yes i agree with much of what bigfoot said in the vids,but also that it is impossible to make a game that is going to make everyone happy.

Okay granted media in general dosent portray women in the best light in majority of times when it comes to games. but also not every game can have female characters in it..for instance a napoleon time based game would not see any women on the field since that wouldn't be an accurate depiction of that time. In witch case you would have to choose between the accuracy of the time period you want to represent or make sure that it's more causal and less accurate and have female soldiers in it..as an example of course.

If a game should be perfect then you would have to have one where you could make a female or male character look in as many different ways as there are various apperances of people in the real world..for instance why should there only be white women in games etc..this debate can go on forever until there is one game that can have all ethnic groups around the world feel represented in it.

In that case, perhaps the main reason that male characters are more prominent in video games is the simple fact that most video games are based around violence and historically men are more violent than women?

 scarletsquig wrote:
In that case, perhaps the main reason that male characters are more prominent in video games is the simple fact that most video games are based around violence and historically men are more violent than women?

Or maybe games are violent because they are based around men.

Really the likely reason we see so many male charterers is because big games and big game publishers cater largely to men.

That might be true but we cant really re write history as it is in that fact so we just have to deal with it..however rather than looking at the problem at hand i think we should focus more on the solution of it instead of looking at all the errors.

Of course i'm not going to defend the way female characters are designed, infact i do think that in terms of designing female characters that they should be designed by well women ..and the men should design the male characters.

Then and only then would we mabey have a good system going in terms of game designing and such but i don't think it would happen anytime soon.

I'll be editting this as I watch it. Just to show off in case my thought processes change as it goes on.

So, my reaction from 0 - 9 minutes is very much a 'so what.' I know she's annoyed about this but I don't see it.

9 minutes, she's starting to make her argument, although I don't really see the problem still.

At 10-11 minutes, when there's talk about the Koopalings, NOW I'm seeing the point. And, it is honestly, a good point. However, I still really don't see the point being predicated (is that the right word?), on the first 8 minutes. It seems a bit correlation implying causation.

So --

you think the point about female characters being lazily written as simply "female" (where "female" = something very limited and sometimes overtly negative) rather than having any other identifying characteristics is good

-- but --

you don't see how that flows from the notion that female characters are often simply derivative of pre-existing male ones?

I don't quite know what I think yet, I'm still watching it.

However, at this precise moment (13:35), I don't really accept the premise that there is a sort of direct link between the two.

Manchu wrote:
So --

you think the point about female characters being lazily written as simply "female" (where "female" = something very limited and sometimes overtly negative) rather than having any other identifying characteristics is good

-- but --

you don't see how that flows from the notion that female characters are often simply derivative of pre-existing male ones?

I think they might have a point. They being who ever you are talking about. Deriving female characters from male characters doesn't automatically turn them into lazily written chick stereotypes. Samus is basically a female derivative of a gernric space marine.

 Compel wrote:
However, at this precise moment (13:35), I don't really accept the premise that there is a sort of direct link between the two.

By all means, please explain why there would not be.

nomotog wrote:
Deriving female characters from male characters doesn't automatically turn them into lazily written chick stereotypes. Samus is basically a female derivative of a gernric space marine.

I don't think you understand how derivative is being used here. The derivative female character is the male character excpet female; just add make up, pink, and/or a bow. It's definitively lazy writing.

Samus is not a derivative female character.

I honestly don't know. I'm not going to pretend I've got fully explained and rational answers about complex issues right now.

So, I'm currently at 16:45 and am also having fairly mixed opinions. The smurfette principle. Yes, fairly ridiculous in The Smurfs, the Megaman example (1 female in 100), is patently ridiculous.

However, when you get down to the 4 man band levels, for example in the Left 4 Dead games it's feeling a bit too touchy to me. At that point, you are either talking 3 and 1, or a 50/50 split, which, while would be the ideal for the future when gaming is a gender neutral hobby, is probably a somewhat unrealistic hope at the moment.

Manchu wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Deriving female characters from male characters doesn't automatically turn them into lazily written chick stereotypes. Samus is basically a female derivative of a gernric space marine.

I don't think you understand how derivative is being used here. The derivative female character is the male character excpet female; just add make up, pink, and/or a bow. It's definitively lazy writing.

Samus is not a derivative female character.

What about Lara croft then? Isn't she just Indianan Jones only with an extra X gene. (Then we have drake who is basically Lara only with a Y). i think the problem isn't that these characters are female versions of other characters, but more that being female is their only characteristic

@compel: As the video explains, the smurfette thing isn't problematic because there is only one female. It's problematic because it portrays being female as non-normative. All the other smurfs have unique identities based on their skills and interests. Smurfette's identity is solely down to her gender.

nomotog wrote:
What about Lara croft then? Isn't she just Indianan Jones only with an extra X gene.

Not as far as I can tell.

nomotog wrote:
i think the problem isn't that these characters are female versions of other characters, but more that being female is their only characteristic

Kind of; it's actually that being female is their only distinctive characteristic. And the sense of "female" drawn to create the distinction is itself at least superficial (just a bow) and sometimes also negative.

Incidentally, I just finished that bit (19:46), when the discussion about Angry Birds came up. And yes, I agree, that whole angry birds thing, does seem rather messed up.

There are a number of things/conclusions I still remain unconvinced of.

For example, Dixie Kong only existing as an agent (was that the term used), for Diddy Kong. However, it seems to me that Diddy Kong also only exists as an agent for ultimately the main character of Donkey Kong.

 Compel wrote:
For example, Dixie Kong only existing as an agent (was that the term used), for Diddy Kong. However, it seems to me that Diddy Kong also only exists as an agent for ultimately the main character of Donkey Kong.

Good observation. Sarkeesian isn't saying other problematic tropes do not exist. Understanding why some tropes are problematic allows us to see how others are also problematic. If Dixie is Diddy with a bow, Diddy is DK with a baseball cap; i.e., Diddy is a problematically superficial portrayal of youth.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YoungerAndHipper

This was just posted on RPS and it sums up my feelings on the whole badly represented female characters thing quite well,or at least some of the 'arguments' against change.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/22/re-that-heroes-of-the-storm-interview/#more-177204. Its probably for the best if you don't read the comments section.....

Incidentally Nathan Grayson is a real gamer.

 Palindrome wrote:
This was just posted on RPS and it sums up my feelings on the whole badly represented female characters thing quite well,or at least some of the 'arguments' against change.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/22/re-that-heroes-of-the-storm-interview/#more-177204. Its probably for the best if you don't read the comments section.....

Incidentally Nathan Grayson is a real gamer.

He is. Among other things.

I remain intensely curious to see someone actually study this issue in the wild and come up with some evidence either way about how such actually sways female gamers.

One of the things I am wondering about, is whether perhaps showing a greater positive message would be better at achieving the outcomes over all, than the 'this is bad, and you should feel bad' (which, we should) message.

I've had the same thoughts about some other similar topics. I mean, I know the reason for it - bad news and outrage sells more papers, but still, in say, religious issues....

I'd rather read more stories about say, an Islamic mosque serves tea and biscuits to English Defence League members, than, well, you know.

For example, I do think that video on the end could have been a bit cheerier about Mass Effect 3.

 Palindrome wrote:
This was just posted on RPS and it sums up my feelings on the whole badly represented female characters thing quite well,or at least some of the 'arguments' against change.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/22/re-that-heroes-of-the-storm-interview/#more-177204. Its probably for the best if you don't read the comments section.....

Incidentally Nathan Grayson is a real gamer.

Telling me not to read something is exactly how you get me to read it, so I went to the comments section ... annnd Well if your tourer logic long enough it will say anything.

 Seaward wrote:

I remain intensely curious to see someone actually study this issue in the wild and come up with some evidence either way about how such actually sways female gamers.

What annoys me about this is not the depiction of specific characters but the fact that nearly all female characters are designed along very similar lines. In short I am tired of it and to me it is a sign of (mainstream) gamings immaturity as a creative medium. If it makes sense for a particular character to wear a skimpy little chainmail outfit then thats fine, if its simply a reason to titilate teenaged boys then its tiresome.

I am also tired of identikit male characters as well but there tends to be at least some variety when it comes to male protagonists and, as a little bonus, they tend to wear more clothes and semi sensible armour.

Basically I want variation and interesting characters in my games rather than 2 dimensional parodies (unless they are good ones).

The issue of making games more attractive to women is important but its not as important as making more immersive games, at least to me.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

I remain intensely curious to see someone actually study this issue in the wild and come up with some evidence either way about how such actually sways female gamers.

What annoys me about this is not the depiction of specific characters but the fact that nearly all female characters are designed along very similar lines. In short I am tired of it and to me it is a sign of (mainstream) gamings immaturity as a creative medium. If it makes sense for a particular character to wear a skimpy little chainmail outfit then thats fine, if its simply a reason to titilate teenaged boys then its tiresome.

I am also tired of identikit male characters as well but there tends to be at least some variety when it comes to male protagonists and, as a little bonus, they tend to wear more clothes and semi sensible armour.

Basically I want variation and interesting characters in my games rather than 2 dimensional parodies (unless they are good ones).

The issue of making games more attractive to women is important but its not as important as making more immersive games, at least to me.

By the accounts posted on some sites that..."speak enthusiastically" about this issue quite frequently, women make up 50% of the gaming market today. The suggestion that games need to work harder to draw in women falls a little flat to me in the face of actual parity like that.

Unless we're making the argument that every game needs to appeal to women, in which case, I don't agree. Every game's not designed with the goal of appealing to me, or even more broadly speaking to men.

 Palindrome wrote:
This was just posted on RPS and it sums up my feelings on the whole badly represented female characters thing quite well,or at least some of the 'arguments' against change.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/22/re-that-heroes-of-the-storm-interview/#more-177204. Its probably for the best if you don't read the comments section.....

Incidentally Nathan Grayson is a real gamer.

Read it, it's pretty horrible when he stopped giving an interview and tried to start lecturing someone who was there just to talk about his game.

Par for the Course with Nathan, his articles make me prefer PC gamers objective stance rather then the emotional kneejerk that he puts out.

Almost seems like he went to try and get offended in order to have something to once again, create an article to gain RPS alotta clicks.

Who said this was about appealing to women?

nomotog wrote:
Who said this was about appealing to women?

Well, Palindrome, for one, when he said, "The issue of making games more attractive to women is important."

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Read it, it's pretty horrible when he stopped giving an interview and tried to start lecturing someone who was there just to talk about his game.

If only that's what actually happened.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/22/blizzard-on-heroes-of-the-storm-female-designs-in-mobas/

The original interview.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

Well, Palindrome, for one, when he said, "The issue of making games more attractive to women is important."

I was responding to you, so its all your fault

 Palindrome wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Read it, it's pretty horrible when he stopped giving an interview and tried to start lecturing someone who was there just to talk about his game.

If only that's what actually happened.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/22/blizzard-on-heroes-of-the-storm-female-designs-in-mobas/

The original interview.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

Well, Palindrome, for one, when he said, "The issue of making games more attractive to women is important."

I was responding to you, so its all your fault

RPS: I have to add, though, that comics might not be the best point of reference for this sort of thing. I mean, it’s a medium that’s notorious – often in a not-good way – for sexing up female characters and putting them in some fairly gross situations.

Browder: We’re not running for President. We’re not sending a message. No one should look to our game for that.

RPS: But it’s not even about a message. The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn’t everyone feel empowered? That’s what it’s about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.

That is when you stop trying to be the interviewer, and start acting the interviewee when he stopped asking questions, he broke his professionalism on the subject and started lecturing.

I read this before, and yes it is what happened.