What problems do gamers have with how men 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.

**LordofHats**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
A bunch of copy pasted stock characters aren't memorable by definition. Maybe memorable stories, or games, but the character themselves is forgettable.

Think of Scruffy McWhiteDude as Keanu Reeves. Yeah, sometimes he's in a decent movie. But really, was the Matrix good because Keanu Reeves was in it? No. Keanu Reeves was pretty bland in the Matrix and we only remember that movie because most of the rest of it was pretty good. Even portraying the awesome John Constantine, Keanu Reeves managed to be unbelievably bland (and that movie really need a good actor in the lead role to save it too ).

Scruffy McWhiteDude is Keanu Reeves. Forgettable, uninspiring, and generally the person you hire for the job when you got no one else.

What if Scruffy McWhiteDude is played by John Wayne?

John Wayne has personality. He can't play Scruffy McWhiteDude

**Melissia**

Asherian Command wrote:
I disagree. You can always have a good character regardless of race or gender.

I said "there have been so many scruffy white guy action heroes that they just blend together and leave me thinking they're just going to suck and be samey again". Not "scruffy white guy action heroes can't be good characters".

This is not a complicated, hard-to-comprehend difference.

**CthuluIsSpy**

LordofHats wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
A bunch of copy pasted stock characters aren't memorable by definition. Maybe memorable stories, or games, but the character themselves is forgettable.

Think of Scruffy McWhiteDude as Keanu Reeves. Yeah, sometimes he's in a decent movie. But really, was the Matrix good because Keanu Reeves was in it? No. Keanu Reeves was pretty bland in the Matrix and we only remember that movie because most of the rest of it was pretty good. Even portraying the awesome John Constantine, Keanu Reeves managed to be unbelievably bland (and that movie really need a good actor in the lead role to save it too ).

Scruffy McWhiteDude is Keanu Reeves. Forgettable, uninspiring, and generally the person you hire for the job when you got no one else.

What if Scruffy McWhiteDude is played by John Wayne?

John Wayne has personality. He can't play Scruffy McWhiteDude

Lies. John Wayne can play anything, provided that character is the good guy.

I can't think of a film where Wayne was the villain, or an overall despicable character.

Even Clint Eastwood played a bad guy at one point, in The Beguiled.

**LordofHats**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Lies. John Wayne can play anything, provided that character is the good guy.
I can't think of a film where Wayne was the villain, or an overall despicable character.

That's because the Duke had class

But then again, he turned down being in The Dirty Dozen to make The Green Berets, so I guess no one is perfect

**Asherian Command**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
A bunch of copy pasted stock characters aren't memorable by definition. Maybe memorable stories, or games, but the character themselves is forgettable.

Think of Scruffy McWhiteDude as Keanu Reeves. Yeah, sometimes he's in a decent movie. But really, was the Matrix good because Keanu Reeves was in it? No. Keanu Reeves was pretty bland in the Matrix and we only remember that movie because most of the rest of it was pretty good. Even portraying the awesome John Constantine, Keanu Reeves managed to be unbelievably bland (and that movie really need a good actor in the lead role to save it too ).

Scruffy McWhiteDude is Keanu Reeves. Forgettable, uninspiring, and generally the person you hire for the job when you got no one else.

What if Scruffy McWhiteDude is played by John Wayne?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Well, when you've seen a thousand scruffy white boy action heroes already, it does feel like any future one won't be any different.

I disagree. You can always have a good character regardless of race or gender.

We have yet to see a gunslinger that is charitable, but wrathful. Easily angered but is doing the right thing. Basically a robin hood character. So far we have only had 1 character fit under this category. And that's Garret from the ORIGINAL Thief Games.

I think we need better characters overall and more diversity.

Personally as a writer I think its easy. But a developer would tell me otherwise.

Like Rooster Cogburn? I wouldn't mind a game with a Rooster Cogburn sort of character.

Yes. also john wayne ehhh . I don't know

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

LordofHats wrote:
Scruffy McWhiteDude

Well, stop using “racial slurs”, it offends people around here. I know it does not sound like a racial slur, unlike, say, “babtou” (that is what would be used in French, no idea what would be used in US or UK), but hey, what do I know…

**LordofHats**

Not even sure how that's racist; He's white, usually Irish or PennDutch in depiction, and Scruffy. It's a rather ingenious identifier

Same reason I call generic Black characters Attitude Brown, because they're usually not that black, and they always have attitude

(I also call them Dies First)

**Melissia**

Dies First is pretty accurate.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

The latest CAD sillies seem relevant to the subject at hand:
http://www.cad-comic.com/sillies/20141109/

**Asherian Command**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The latest CAD sillies seem relevant to the subject at hand:
http://www.cad-comic.com/sillies/20141109/

PIST
Assassins creed is a medicore game.

The only reason why it is doing well is because of its marketing.

As is Call of Duty.

**Melissia**

Just like Starcraft or World of Warcraft, too-- mediocre games that have good marketing. But the fact is, they're popular, trend-setting games, and those games changing will make the industry standard change little by little, so they're something to be concerned with.

**Asherian Command**

Melissia wrote:
Just like Starcraft or World of Warcraft, too-- mediocre games that have good marketing. But the fact is, they're popular, trend-setting games, and those games changing will make the industry standard change little by little, so they're something to be concerned with.

Errr.. No. Blizzard games are extremely complicated. I mean hearthstone is their biggest money maker. All of their games even in the industry are considered even better.

They do things that take most programmers MONTHS to do. They also have more complicated models than most others. That and they also have pretty great writing. They are always consistent. Hence why they are so popular.

**Melissia**

Asherian Command wrote:
Blizzard games are extremely complicated

Doesn't make them good.

**Asherian Command**

Melissia wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Blizzard games are extremely complicated
Doesn't make them good.

To you they don't. They know how to code, model, and write stories, and in my opinion those are the biggest three things you really need.

**carlos13th**

Starcraft an excellent game.

**Melissia**

Asherian Command wrote:
They know how to [...] write stories

They should choose to do it, if they know how to.

And your list is laughably incomplete, showing your lack of knowledge of game design. You need more than just modeling, coding, and storytelling to make a good game, especially if it's more than just a five dollar indie game.

**mattyrm**

Melissia wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Blizzard games are extremely complicated
Doesn't make them good.

Yeah I think Im on the fence here.. I mean, I play Starcraft and I used to love Wow, but I don't think they are great, I think they are just well sold. Its like anything over here, market it well and it sells.

Look at Micheal Bay, Tyler Perry, and the fething Cheesecake Factory.

I actually played SC2 for a few hours today cos I haven't had it installed for about 2 years and I forgot how fething corny the dialogue is, plus the fact almost everything they seem to make is ripped off of something else in popular culture. I thought they were fnastastic in my teens but twenty years later I just cant understand how they have been so successful.

Probably because just like so many other American companys, they can get away with blatantly stealing gak because we live in such an insular and elitist country that rarely looks outwards and almost never concedes that maybe other people can actually teach us anything. I remember Tarantio said something along the same lines when he was releasing all of those "Tarantio Presents" movies because people wouldn't watch them if they knew he had nothing to do with them and they were made entirely in China or Japan.

I still find their games polished and pretty well made, but a love affair that started with WC2 is most definitely over.

Well.. once I kill rescue Kerrigan anyway... its been a few years!

**Compel**

I'm going to be a bit disparaging of an art here but. It is 3am and I can't sleep.

I would have though that the programming for Blizzard games was one of the least complicated parts of them. It would seem to me that 90% of it would just be sticking what is effectively large statline into an array. I don't think either WOW or SC2 go into the insane detail that Total War claim they did, by individually calculating the trajectories of every bullet and round etc. Instead its a simple % chance DPS calculation that games have been doing since MUD.

No, I imagine the complexity and real skill comes from people deciding the values that go into the arrays, many of whom, I imagine, might not have any direct keyboard to code involvement. Instead I can seem them handing lists of requirements to the 'code monkeys' to implement.

But then, that might just be my experience in enterprise Software talking and maybe Blizzard work in a completely different way.

**VorpalBunny74**

I didn't think Starcraft 2 was all it could be. It didn't have that addictiveness of the first one, at least for me it didn't.

But I have to confess I might be biased due to the frustration of jumping through multiplayer hoops to reach a singleplayer campaign.

**Lynata**

... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then, when today we are getting bombarded by so much colourful advertisement and PR spins that, in combination with an awakened perception of how sick this world really is, few things manage to enthuse us as they did back then when we were a lot more innocent and wide-eyed. Not to mention cultural phenomena such as this interesting thing here suggesting a trend in reception that, by means such as this forum, cascades through the entire web.

VorpalBunny74 wrote:But I have to confess I might be biased due to the frustration of jumping through multiplayer hoops to reach a singleplayer campaign.

Uh...?

Does this help? https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/running-starcraft-ii-in-offline-mode

mattyrm wrote:I actually played SC2 for a few hours today cos I haven't had it installed for about 2 years and I forgot how fething corny the dialogue is, plus the fact almost everything they seem to make is ripped off of something else in popular culture.

I appreciate the irony in this being posted on a Warhammer board.

**Asherian Command**

Melissia wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
They know how to [...] write stories
They should choose to do it, if they know how to.

And your list is laughably incomplete, showing your lack of knowledge of game design. You need more than just modeling, coding, and storytelling to make a good game, especially if it's more than just a five dollar indie game.

Modeling - Creation of objects within the game, including background objects and many others

coding - including most programmings

Storytelling - the ability to tell a story

Those are three major bits that you should look at a game for. They are staples of game design. there are many others but I will not rate for everything. I look at those three mostly. Because they are the most important.

I would have though that the programming for Blizzard games was one of the least complicated parts of them.

Well. A lot of things they are doing in their games are even beyond many programmers. Their programming is actually more complicated.

Say what you will about blizzard but they know how to appeal to a mass market.

You may not personally like them but there are sure hell a lot of people that do.

... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then, when today we are getting bombarded by so much colourful advertisement and PR spins that, in combination with an awakened perception of how sick this world really is, few things manage to enthuse us as they did back then when we were a lot more innocent and wide-eyed. Not to mention cultural phenomena such as this interesting thing here suggesting a trend in reception that, by means such as this forum, cascades through the entire web.

Basically.

I can play new games without any problems. Games are getting better most usually people have memoribillia that games were oh so much better back then. When they weren't they were simple, but that didn't make it better. If you play older games and compare them to newer games, older games are only better because of memorbillia. There are some cases where that is not true.

**VorpalBunny74**

Lynata wrote:
... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then, when today we are getting bombarded by so much colourful advertisement and PR spins that, in combination with an awakened perception of how sick this world really is, few things manage to enthuse us as they did back then when we were a lot more innocent and wide-eyed. Not to mention cultural phenomena such as this interesting thing here suggesting a trend in reception that, by means such as this forum, cascades through the entire web.

VorpalBunny74 wrote:But I have to confess I might be biased due to the frustration of jumping through multiplayer hoops to reach a singleplayer campaign.
Uh...?

Does this help? https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/running-starcraft-ii-in-offline-mode

Cheers for the link, but I played throught the campaign ages ago. Haven't played Heart of the Swarm yet because of an error when trying to install. Ha ha!

But I agree rose tinted glasses might be in effect for some games, particularly sequels.

**Melissia**

Lynata wrote:
... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then

Nah, Total Annihilation was better.

**Compel**

Asherian Command wrote:

I would have though that the programming for Blizzard games was one of the least complicated parts of them.

Well. A lot of things they are doing in their games are even beyond many programmers. Their programming is actually more complicated.

Say what you will about blizzard but they know how to appeal to a mass market.

You may not personally like them but there are sure hell a lot of people that do.

You've stated the programming is more complicated twice now, without stating any reason why. The next two statements seem particularly random and beside the point as well. I never said they didn't have mass appeal. What I said was, I'm not convinced its down to the the guys who write the code.

In any case, going back to thinking about characters. The thought comes to me, is that in the grand scheme of things, there just aren't that many games released every year. Its probably related to that '80% of everything is rubbish' idea. So many books, TV shows and films in general are released every year that you can spend your entire year just looking at the best 20% of novels and be unaware of the rubbish 80% of them. Even with films, though there are significantly less released, there's usually still one or two 'hidden gems' amongst the major film releases.

Games, if you only count games that the general gaming public are aware of. You could argue that storywise things like 'The Walking Dead' could take up the full allotment of 'not rubbish'.

On the other hand, the futures bright. Traditionally, people weren't aware of the semi-indie games like TWD. Now they're getting more well known as it becomes easier for people to become aware of these games with actual good stories and characters (including introducing more diverse male protagonists). At this point, in the not too distant future, I think big publishers will be galvanised into making unique stories and characters a higher priority.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

mattyrm wrote:
Probably because just like so many other American companys, they can get away with blatantly stealing gak because we live in such an insular and elitist country that rarely looks outwards and almost never concedes that maybe other people can actually teach us anything.

Hollywood has the very same disease as Bollywood. And it is called “remake”. I wonder if it is because Indians and U.S. citizens have the same disease that makes them unable to enjoy foreign movies before they are put through some terrible, terrible blender to “americanize” or “indianize” them, or if this is just an assumption from the industry (or if that is the case everywhere in the world but only Hollywood and Bollywood have enough money to do the remakes), but this is very, very lame.

**Ashiraya**

Melissia wrote:
Lynata wrote:
... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then
Nah, Total Annihilation was better.

I've tried Total Annihilation and I was not impressed. What was supposed to be good with it?

If you excuse the little trail off topic.

**Melissia**

Ashiraya wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Lynata wrote:
... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then
Nah, Total Annihilation was better.

I've tried Total Annihilation and I was not impressed. What was supposed to be good with it?

If you excuse the little trail off topic.

For one, it was the first RTS game that tracked actual movement of projectiles over a 3d terrain; it had a much vaster scale than any non-space RTS up to that point; was even easier than starcraft to modify and totally convert in to new games; it had air units that were more than just blimps hovering in the sky (a rarity even to this day; starcraft 2 still hasn't managed it); it had a classic and epic sci-fi backstory; It had true line of sight, with 3d calculations on what provided sight to what; it had deeply customizable AI for individual or groups of units (something which wasn't abnormal back then, but which the 'craft series always lacked); its "flow" economy made the game make much more sense than the standard economies of RTS games, its expansion was perfect and expanded the story and gameplay dramatically; it was the first RTS which had purely water maps, etc etc etc.

I could rant for a while about it, but it's easier to say what it lacks, rather than what was good about it-- and that would be that it lacks defined characters and it lacks an attack-move option. And that was about it really, compared to other games of its time period.

**Chongara**

Melissia wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Lynata wrote:
... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then
Nah, Total Annihilation was better.

I've tried Total Annihilation and I was not impressed. What was supposed to be good with it?

If you excuse the little trail off topic.
For one, it was the first RTS game that tracked actual movement of projectiles over a 3d terrain; it had a much vaster scale than any non-space RTS up to that point; was even easier than starcraft to modify and totally convert in to new games; it had air units that were more than just blimps hovering in the sky (a rarity even to this day; starcraft 2 still hasn't managed it); it had a classic and epic sci-fi backstory; It had true line of sight, with 3d calculations on what provided sight to what; it had deeply customizable AI for individual or groups of units (something which wasn't abnormal back then, but which the 'craft series always lacked); its "flow" economy made the game make much more sense than the standard economies of RTS games, its expansion was perfect and expanded the story and gameplay dramatically; it was the first RTS which had purely water maps, etc etc etc.

I could rant for a while about it, but it's easier to say what it lacks, rather than what was good about it-- and that would be that it lacks defined characters and it lacks an attack-move option. And that was about it really, compared to other games of its time period.

This all sounds rather neat from a technical perspective and like it could do a far bit for immersion and depth with good execution. On the other hand it sounds like a total nightmare when it comes to accessibility, consistency and clear mechanics.

Like opaque calculations for TloS are certainly cool, but they'd be a bear for anyone looking to master a system or follow the actions of a game in progress. The Starcraft games execute on those points very successfully (as do things like MOBAs), which I think really accounts for both their broad audience and acceptance as spectator sports of sorts.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Well, just wait until you get to see the list of available units. Just to give you a small idea, here is some Wikipedia excerpt:

Cavedog released The Core Contingency a year after the release of Total Annihilation. It features 25 new missions as well as 75 new units. It continues the story after the ending of the Arm campaign. The expansion also comes with the Total Annihilation editor, which allows users to create maps and missions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Managed to find a list:
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Total_Annihilation/Units

Spoiler:

**Melissia**

And that doesn't count free DLC units.