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'd disagree. There are, for example, some very realistic flight simulators out there.

 Seaward wrote:

No game is completely realistic, but many games do try to cleave close to it when possible. Some more than others. In the ones that try harder, you'll see more "default" males, because, well, that's what reality tends to reflect.

Sure, but now that you've established that the decision for what realistic features to leave out or put into the game is entirely arbitrary, "it's more realistic this way" no longer serves as an adequate defense or justification. To wit, why is it acceptable for a game to be unrealistic in that it allows you to, say, respawn after you die, but it's a sin to not alienate 51% of the Human population by having women or brown people (in the case of a World War game, for example) be represented in a setting that they historically didn't play a large role in?

I imagine that one possible answer would be that it might piss off sections of the player base, but who cares? The number of people who would outright not play a game because it has female soldiers in a World War 2 setting, for example, would be in the extreme minority I imagine.

Swastakowey wrote:Or having female ww2 pilots etc.

Yeah, those totally did not exist.

If you value historical realism (which I can perfectly understand, I'm kind of the same), how do you think about games' (or even movies') habit of omitting female soldiers where they could be expected? Is this not an act of historical revisionism as well?

SneakyMek wrote:For example like Swastakowey said, it wouldn't make any sense for instance to have female soldiers in a game that takes place during the Napoleonic wars since that wouldn't be historically accurate in that sense.

Sure it would - there were lots of crossdressers. It is their total absence that is the inaccuracy.


On topic, my personal problems with the representation are clear and obvious tendencies regarding:
- unwarranted gender role bias (swordsman <-> archer/mage/thief, not to mention the recurring "damsel in distress" trope)
- visual character design (sexualised bodies and clothing, esp. heels)
- outright omission or "tokenism" (this one also applies to non-White males, though)
- general lack of female protagonists (according to devs, with publishers specifically rejecting titles based solely on this reason)
- a considerable portion of gamers ignoring the above as if it did not exist, or should be considered a normal and healthy symptom of society

 Seaward wrote:
I'd disagree. There are, for example, some very realistic flight simulators out there.

To some definitions of realism yes (I could raise several objections to most of them being "realistic", but that'd just be pedantry). Most of them I'd say suck as games though, and are mostly just useful as learning tools, and even then only if you have the right gaming equipment (analogue joystick, for example).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:Or having female ww2 pilots etc.

Yeah, those totally did not exist.

If you value historical realism (which I can perfectly understand, I'm kind of the same), how do you think about games' (or even movies') habit of omitting female soldiers where they could be expected? Is this not an act of historical revisionism as well?

Amusingly, in this regard, Company of Heroes 2 is more historically accurate than every single WWII simulator ever released that I have heard of. And I've heard of quite a few.

 Melissia wrote:
To some definitions of realism yes (I could raise several objections to most of them being "realistic", but that'd just be pedantry). Most of them I'd say suck as games though, and are mostly just useful as learning tools, and even then only if you have the right gaming equipment (analogue joystick, for example).

I'd say I have more hours flying in the realz, so I'm going to side with my own judgement on what's realistic and what's not when it comes to flight simulators.

And some people want the most realistic experience possible. The Arma series is nowhere near as popular as CoD, for example, but it still has quite a following. And an awful lot of people play it as realistically as they can, too, which involves a lot of walking around and not shooting at stuff. They seem to enjoy it.

That's their prerogative, but that's still not a game I want to buy.

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

 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.

 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.

 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.

 Seaward wrote:
women should be the default

Strawman arguments don't make for polite conversations, Seaward. My preferred suggestion was clearly stated earlier in this thread

 Melissia wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
women should be the default

Strawman arguments don't make for polite conversations, Seaward. My preferred suggestion was clearly stated earlier in this thread

What, flipping a coin? Same argument applies as far as the realism crowd goes.

 Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
women should be the default

Strawman arguments don't make for polite conversations, Seaward. My preferred suggestion was clearly stated earlier in this thread

What, flipping a coin? Same argument applies as far as the realism crowd goes.

The number of people who would be quite happy with roughly equal representation of the genders is much larger than the ultra-realism crowd.

Even if you assume only women would be happy with that situation (Which, as this thread shows, is a false assumption), that's still a much larger group.

 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.

People assume that corporate executives are somehow hyper-rational, which really hasn't ever been a proven thing. A lot of them are quite the opposite, in fact.

 Melissia wrote:
The number of people who would be quite happy with roughly equal representation of the genders is much larger than the ultra-realism crowd.

No, it isn't.

What's interesting to me is that you actually do see "roughly equal" or even overrepresentation in certain genres. I'd assume these are the types of games where publishers and developers are aware there's a sizable female player contingent. RPGs especially spring to mind; has there been a western RPG released lately that doesn't allow you to choose your gender? That suggests that types of games where you're not seeing "roughly equal" representation probably don't have much of a discernible female demographic interested in playing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:
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.

Why would they need to make those kinds of games when they can gak out another Call of Duty and guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars?

 Seaward wrote:
RPGs especially spring to mind; has there been a western RPG released lately that doesn't allow you to choose your gender?

I believe so, yes.

I don't buy those kinds of games, so I'd be hard pressed to think of names off the top of my head, but I recall there being several released on steam in the past few years.

 Seaward wrote:
That suggests that types of games where you're not seeing "roughly equal" representation probably don't have much of a discernible female demographic interested in playing them.

Only if you assume that the companies producing those games are being perfectly rational, which is an assumption not easily proven given the past actions of the producers.

 Melissia wrote:
I believe so, yes.

I don't buy those kinds of games, so I'd be hard pressed to think of names off the top of my head, but I recall there being several released on steam in the past few years.

As vague as that is, I'll assume there's been at least one or two a year. Which would make them the exception rather than the rule, so...social agenda achieved in that genre, I guess?

 Seaward wrote:
Only if you assume that the companies producing those games are being perfectly rational, which is an assumption not easily proven given the past actions of the producers.

I assume that multiple competitors looking at the same market and making the same decision about what to avoid has a roughly rational basis, yes.

Is it a western problem? Japanese has lots of games with strong female characters usually in RPG's on the other hand there are all these strange Japanese novel type games, and not to mention lots of just strange games in general, but it seems that here in Japan there are more games with female characters because lot's of girls in Japan play games and no one bats an eye.

And about objectifying women in games, yes it is overly done in the west but in japan there is this whole market of yaoi stuff with guys on guys.

The whole game industry still has that idea that most gamers are males in their puberty, and make games accordingly.

Here's how I perceive the situation. Generally (obviously homosexuality sits outside the scope of this theory) males are attracted to females. When males fantasise about that aspect of their reality, they chose the best, most exciting, path to realising that sexual fantasy. Not many males would fantasise a sexual encounter that resulted in the woman slapping him across the face or belittling him.....no, that's reality, fantasy is escapism. So extrapolating this "logic"..... men have created many entertaining outlets to share and conjour those fantasies, games, movies, porn, books, music...you name it. In every case, access to these mediums is through choice.....so, if you're a male, who doesn't share those fantasies you have the option to forego the "club" or create your own! Simple.

The main problem I see here, is a form of entitlement! People are of the opinion that if someone is going to create a form of entertainment it SHOULD immediately cater for their particular needs?!?! Aside from the sheer impossibility of developers being able to cater for EVERYONES specific tastes, why should they? If the developers make something that really offends the social collective they won't make money.....again, simple! So if these games full of over sexualised female fantasies are so offensive why are they generating so much revenue for their producers?

Finally we come to the main point, should people be able to tell you how to realise your sexual fantasies, and what's right and wrong? I mean, let's be clear here, some people fail to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and those people deserve the full force of society's disdain, but for the majority of people who can make that distinction (talking to males now in particular) is it right that some feminist walks in and wants to carve up your "club" just because she thinks your fantasy woman's breast are to big? Or that the fantasy woman is TOO willing to present you with sexual favours?

In my opinion, with regards to gaming in particular, why don't these feminist groups put their money where their mouth is, start developing their own games? Rather than asking the male dominated games developers to rewrite their ideals, get out there and make your own?!? If those feminists are right, then their games will sell and the misogynistic games, so prevalent today, will fall by the wayside.....of course, this will NEVER happen! Firstly, those feminist critics are only equipped to criticise, they lack the knowledge and ability to create, secondly, sex really does sell! We're not talking about just making a few "racey" games, well, boring....we're talking about rewriting the way, fundamentally, that men view women! Natures very own reproductive code! Good luck with that.

 Seaward wrote:
I assume that multiple competitors looking at the same market and making the same decision about what to avoid has a roughly rational basis, yes.

Why?

That's not necessarily a safe assumption.

 Delephont wrote:
The main problem I see here, is a form of entitlement!

I hope the irony here is not lost on you.

 Melissia wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I assume that multiple competitors looking at the same market and making the same decision about what to avoid has a roughly rational basis, yes.

Why?

That's not necessarily a safe assumption.

 Delephont wrote:
The main problem I see here, is a form of entitlement!

I hope the irony here is not lost on you.

Enlightened me.

Delephont wrote:In my opinion, with regards to gaming in particular, why don't these feminist groups put their money where their mouth is, start developing their own games?

Perhaps because the games industry is largely dominated by a few big publishers (whose money is a requirement for funding big titles), and because said publishers have in the past rejected games based solely on the idea that "the hero is a woman, people won't be buying that". Many renowned devs - including the studio responsible for the character in your avatar - have criticised this. So any such ideas, the more "radical" they are, would have to be moved into the segment of indie products, where they obviously have to struggle with much smaller budgets.
In short, I think you seriously underestimate the consequences of women having, based on the social norms at the time, missed out on the pioneering phase of gaming back in the 80s, where it was still possible to shape the nature of this industry by hacking together amazing games in your garage, and actually make a long-lasting name for yourself and your little studio. Effectively "being late to the party" now means they have a much harder time getting their foot in the door of this "boy's club".

Additionally, I suppose it also depends on how you see games as a medium. Are they really just a toy to cater to some base instinct and chemical responses of the human body? Or are they a form of art, and do they join in shaping society, given that they are part of the environment your kids will grow up in? Because if it's the latter, then I'd say that perhaps we as a society should be more careful what sort of values we instil in the next generation, and at least strive for more variety in games rather than dogmatically pushing the same tropes again and again because "sex sells".

 Lynata wrote:
Additionally, I suppose it also depends on how you see games as a medium. Are they really just a toy to cater to some base instinct and chemical responses of the human body? Or are they a form of art, and do they join in shaping society, given that they are part of the environment your kids will grow up in? Because if it's the latter, then I'd say that perhaps we as a society should be more careful what sort of values we instil in the next generation, and at least strive for more variety in games rather than dogmatically pushing the same tropes again and again because "sex sells".

Perhaps with some sort of Hays Code, for example?

 Delephont wrote:
Enlightened me.

You said, in summary, "I'm being catered to, therefor there's no reason other people should also be catered to"-- which is itself pretty entitled. And you said this after saying "the problem is entitlement". This fits a few definitions of the word "irony".

But certainly, I agree, the problem is entitlement.

 Lynata wrote:

Delephont wrote:In my opinion, with regards to gaming in particular, why don't these feminist groups put their money where their mouth is, start developing their own games?

Perhaps because the games industry is largely dominated by a few big publishers (whose money is a requirement for funding big titles), and because said publishers have in the past rejected games based solely on the idea that "the hero is a woman, people won't be buying that". Many renowned devs - including the studio responsible for the character in your avatar - have criticised this. So any such ideas, the more "radical" they are, would have to be moved into the segment of indie products, where they obviously have to struggle with much smaller budgets.
In short, I think you seriously underestimate the consequences of women having, based on the social norms at the time, missed out on the pioneering phase of gaming back in the 80s, where it was still possible to shape the nature of this industry by hacking together amazing games in your garage, and actually make a long-lasting name for yourself and your little studio. Effectively "being late to the party" now means they have a much harder time getting their foot in the door of this "boy's club".

Additionally, I suppose it also depends on how you see games as a medium. Are they really just a toy to cater to some base instinct and chemical responses of the human body? Or are they a form of art, and do they join in shaping society, given that they are part of the environment your kids will grow up in? Because if it's the latter, then I'd say that perhaps we as a society should be more careful what sort of values we instil in the next generation, and at least strive for more variety in games rather than dogmatically pushing the same tropes again and again because "sex sells".

If I was a developer atm I would actually be putting less female characters in. The easiest way to introduce new characters is as enemies and in the current climate as soon as you make many female enemies you are going to be media slammed for encouraging violence against women. It's kind of a catch 22

 Lynata wrote:

Delephont wrote:In my opinion, with regards to gaming in particular, why don't these feminist groups put their money where their mouth is, start developing their own games?

Perhaps because the games industry is largely dominated by a few big publishers (whose money is a requirement for funding big titles), and because said publishers have in the past rejected games based solely on the idea that "the hero is a woman, people won't be buying that". Many renowned devs - including the studio responsible for the character in your avatar - have criticised this. So any such ideas, the more "radical" they are, would have to be moved into the segment of indie products, where they obviously have to struggle with much smaller budgets.
In short, I think you seriously underestimate the consequences of women having, based on the social norms at the time, missed out on the pioneering phase of gaming back in the 80s, where it was still possible to shape the nature of this industry by hacking together amazing games in your garage, and actually make a long-lasting name for yourself and your little studio. Effectively "being late to the party" now means they have a much harder time getting their foot in the door of this "boy's club".

Additionally, I suppose it also depends on how you see games as a medium. Are they really just a toy to cater to some base instinct and chemical responses of the human body? Or are they a form of art, and do they join in shaping society, given that they are part of the environment your kids will grow up in? Because if it's the latter, then I'd say that perhaps we as a society should be more careful what sort of values we instil in the next generation, and at least strive for more variety in games rather than dogmatically pushing the same tropes again and again because "sex sells".

I think you raise some excellent points! In particular, the " boys club"! This is exactly what it is. However, it's not a club we all HAVE to subscribe to is it? Here's a couple of (non sex based) examples. I like certain types of video games, these games are not represented on, say, the Wii.....so, I don't own a Wii, I don't follow Wii development....it's simply not on my radar. I guess I could petition for change, get a big movement going, but, I realise that my "desires" are not the be all end all of society opinion, so I'd rather move on and find something I do enjoy, rather than ruin it for those who are content. I could give a similar example of Football, I hate it, so, does that mean Football should be banned, never shown on TV again? So women missed the opening stages of the "boys club".....what's stopping women from creating something else entirely? Has society devolved so much that video games are THE ONLY mode of human entertainment? The " boys club" had to grow from nothing, is there a suggestion that women are incapable of creating something, anything, according to their own fantasies and needs? I mean, in theory, something created to fulfil female needs specifically would absolutely succeed based on the fact that EVERY female would support it.....surely?

With regards to concerned parenting; having my daughter / son play male oriented games is really the least of my many worries. Online porn, child grooming, the looming war in the Ukraine, Police brutality, religious extremism, bullying and rampant commercialisation and others are all vying for top spots unfortunately long before female objectification in video games gets a consideration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Delephont wrote:
Enlightened me.

You said, in summary, "I'm being catered to, therefor there's no reason other people should also be catered to"-- which is itself pretty entitled. And you said this after saying "the problem is entitlement". This fits a few definitions of the word "irony".

But certainly, I agree, the problem is entitlement.

Well, I would agree with your point.....if it were accurate.

Here's a revised summary:

I'm being catered for by accident (I'm male, enjoying a male devised product), I realise others are not catered for, also by accident (females, not enjoying a male devised product). I can see that those not catered for, could be catered for (females), if they devised their own product rather than constantly telling me the product I enjoy (as a male) is wrong.

Seaward wrote:Perhaps with some sort of Hays Code, for example?

Ideally, I'd rather see a shift in attitude. Censorship, even if it is intended to serve a honourable goal, will only serve to rile up the masses and deepen the rift between already firmly entrenched groups of gamers. Also, personally I wouldn't say that there is something wrong with sexist games per se - but rather their prevalence. They should (depending on the contents of the specific title) either use that sexism as a background element of their setting/story where appropriate, or be a niche product catering to specific tastes of a hopefully not-too-large group of people - not what feels like an accepted standard representative of what "the gamers" as a whole want to see.

Perhaps I am a bit too naive/idealistic there. But either way, that is what I would consider the "step forward". The push to change the industry, however, has to come from the consumers and affiliated media. It won't happen by itself, or at least not nearly as fast.
Unfortunately, the consumers are currently split and engaged in a flamewar of "social justice warriors" and "feminazis" versus the "white guy defence force", to use the buzzwords people like to throw around, and I'm not sure how exactly the industry will react to this, if at all.

Bullockist wrote:If I was a developer atm I would actually be putting less female characters in. The easiest way to introduce new characters is as enemies and in the current climate as soon as you make many female enemies you are going to be media slammed for encouraging violence against women. It's kind of a catch 22

There's a point to this theory, as I've seen some criticism which I would deem unwarranted. On the larger scope, however, I see the opposite. Simply offering a gender choice for the player character is a fairly easy statement to make and one that will be hard to attack - and whereas some recent western RPGs have generated negative feedback for the lack of this option, other games gain positive feedback for the specific inclusion.

As for the usage as enemies, I'd say it really depends on how exactly you design them. If you don't use sexualised clothing or otherwise set them apart from male enemies, any criticism that the game might still attract on this front will be negligible and easily drowned by rational dismissal. At least I do not recall any game getting trashed by the media because of a reasonable and un-objectified inclusion of female characters - do you have any examples, or was your comment more regarding a potential fear of the studios rather than fact?

Delephont wrote:So women missed the opening stages of the "boys club".....what's stopping women from creating something else entirely? Has society devolved so much that video games are THE ONLY mode of human entertainment?

If your solution for the current issue is that women should just drop gaming entirely and do something else, I'll have to politely disagree. As a society, we should strive for more inclusion, not segregation. Otherwise equality will forever be impossible.
Really, that argument is awfully close to making Black people sit in the back of the bus, because hey, they don't have to sit elsewhere right? And why would women need a right to vote? They can say what's going on in the kitchen!

I'm fairly sure that this is not what you were trying to express, but you have to admit that it's the same dangerous path.

 Bullockist wrote:


If I was a developer atm I would actually be putting less female characters in. The easiest way to introduce new characters is as enemies and in the current climate as soon as you make many female enemies you are going to be media slammed for encouraging violence against women. It's kind of a catch 22

I dunno, punching Talia's all-female henchmen in Batman: Arkham City seemed entirely decent to me.

Though I still have a few gripes with that game (Catwoman's boobwindow for example) despite its otherwise excellent quality.

That said, could some of you guys explain to me why, in the history of gaming, I have never seen a female character of this type beyond the one I created myself?



I mean, sure, it's a stereotypically male role, but surely there could be at least a few?

'Behemoth' armour is surely not reserved for men?

Right?

Right?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, punching Talia's all-female henchmen in Batman: Arkham City seemed entirely decent to me.

Though I still have a few gripes with that game (Catwoman's boobwindow for example) despite its otherwise excellent quality.

That said, could some of you guys explain to me why, in the history of gaming, I have never seen a female character of this type beyond the one I created myself?

Spoiler:

I mean, sure, it's a stereotypically male role, but surely there could be at least a few?

'Behemoth' armour is surely not reserved for men?

Right?

Right?

Because it's not sexy and as a young male I want my women to look sexy.

I being a collective I, and while that's not a justification, it's the explanation. The video game industry is convinced that women don't play video games, and sex is a powerful marketing tool.

Personally? I'd never put that armor on my female characters because- hey, it's just not very flattering, But I think such an appearance should absolutely be an available option in games for people who desire it, when applicable. Who is anyone to say that people shouldn't be allowed to dress their characters in srs business armor.

 Lynata wrote:

Delephont wrote:So women missed the opening stages of the "boys club".....what's stopping women from creating something else entirely? Has society devolved so much that video games are THE ONLY mode of human entertainment?

If your solution for the current issue is that women should just drop gaming entirely and do something else, I'll have to politely disagree. As a society, we should strive for more inclusion, not segregation. Otherwise equality will forever be impossible.
Really, that argument is awfully close to making Black people sit in the back of the bus, because hey, they don't have to sit elsewhere right? And why would women need a right to vote? They can say what's going on in the kitchen!

I'm fairly sure that this is not what you were trying to express, but you have to admit that it's the same dangerous path.

Massively different and unrelated points! I can't even imagine how an intelligent person, as you appear to be, arrives at this point!

What you're talking about are basic human rights violations, on the one hand segregation due to a persons colour and the removal of a persons right to participate in social determination based on gender?!?! I never even hinted at this!

OK, so I'm saying, computer games are there for everyone to enjoy, its a thing! If certain people don't like them, for whatever reason, find something they do enjoy, rather than demanding that it be changed to suit their needs. No removal of rights or segregation!?!

Let's take needle work as a hobby, well, I'm a male, it doesn't cater for my needs, I demand more breast and female sexualisation, change it NOW!! See how ridiculous that statement is, and yet, that's what I hear when the feminist start to bang the drum about computer games! Perhaps men missed the boat when the "girls club" got underway with creating knitting / needle work as a "thing"...... Oh well, never mind, boys created video gaming instead.......and balance was restored!