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.

**H.B.M.C.**

I think the gender of your character is often secondary to the game itself. The gender of a protagonists (or a group of protagonists) should flow naturally from the story being told. One should inform the other.

Talizvar wrote:
The better games let you play any class with any sex.

That's a strikingly colossal generalisation. What determines how good a game is is often, y'know, the game itself (gameplay, mechanics, story, music, graphics), not which gender you can choose.

We are altogether too focused on gender when it's one of the least important aspects of games. To quote Amy Henning, the writer on everything from the Legacy of Cain series to the Uncharted series:

"You just write people, honestly. It's not any different. I think that if you're over-focused on the gender, you're probably writing a pretty one-dimensional character. Gender's not that huge of a component of personality, I don't think. At the end of the day, I think our humanity is the bigger component. I try to just write everybody like...genderless in some ways. Which I think is what makes them interesting."

**H.B.M.C.**

Sorry for the confusion, I mean that the story should inform what characters show up. If a female character fits into the story being told, then it should have a female character. If the half-bear/half-falcon blind transexual possessed by the spirit of a Latino war-veteran fits the story... then that is the character that should be there.

**H.B.M.C.**

That's not to say you can't come up with a great character and then write a story around that, but, again, the gender of that "great" character is an aspect of that character, not their reason for being. A character isn't interesting because they're a man or a woman. They're interesting because of their back-story, their attitude, the way they interact with people and so on.

**H.B.M.C.**

Pets? I saw her giving out companions. Someone wanted a... sheep (was it?), another one wanted a wife, and the final one wanted a big cat to play with.

**H.B.M.C.**

nomotog wrote:
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.

It really isn't, because it's not a issue of "female representation". Death threads on the Internet are stupidly common, and like "Go kill yourself IRL" they're basically meaningless and are often given out for the most trivial things. Change features in a game and the dev's get death threats. Kill off a beloved character in a TV show and the writers get death threats. The Internet has made death threats a far easier thing to send. To claim that they're an "issue of female representation in games" is to ignore how common they really are, and how often they're directed at people who aren't women. They're a bad thing in general, and are not inherently related to women in gaming.

**H.B.M.C.**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Do you not agree that female representation in game includes way too much sexualization?

No more or less than any other entertainment industry.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And that there are way, way more damsel in distress than dude in distress?

No more or less than any other entertainment industry.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And that this makes game less appealing to women?

It's not a question that really needs an answer. Most women who play games play social games/mobile games/Facebook games that they find appealing and are keyed to that demographic. The explosion in female gamers comes from this newfound... platform, I guess is the best word for it. People play games that appeal to them, attempting to make games that appeal to everyone is a fool's errand, and demographics are a real thing; not just in games, but in any other entertainment industry. That doesn't mean that stupid things don't happen (eg. Naughy Dog having to fight to get Ellie on the cover of The Last of Us), but I don't think video games sit as some great bastion of anti-female-ness.

**H.B.M.C.**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I think more so than both movie industry and music industry.

Than the music industry? Yikes. I'd say they're worse.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, uh, basically, rather than wanting to discuss the issue, you go all defensive about how your hobby is not-so-bad-the-other-do-worse? You do realize that I play games too, a lot, and pretty much everyone in this thread does to. You do not need to be defensive like that, nobody is going to blame you for playing the same game we also do, and nobody is trying to demonize games. Right?

What's there to discuss? I don't see the gaming industry's treatment of women as having any real difference to other forms of entertainment media. Why single them out as a great evil or, as some people are keen to do, deeply rooted in "misogyny" (a word that gets used far too often) or even the dreaded P-word. As I've said, there are problems in the gaming industry - even gave one such example, and there are more - but they're outliers. Most people playing games just play games. They don't sit there analysing whether the box-art for Divinity shows too much cleavage or whether the Dragon's Crown sorceress' boobs are too big. They just play the game.

**H.B.M.C.**

Slarg232 wrote:
Except CoD. CoD can be demonized.

The last statistics (that came out along side that 40-whatever-% of gamers are female info) were quite surprising for CoD. It was only around 80% male for that game, so a high percentage of female gamers for that game. Of course most of the other games (Battlefield, DOTA/LOL, etc.) were high 90's for male gamers, whereas the surge of female games come from things like Farmville and Candy Crush. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but it does show more than ever the whole point about demographics.

**H.B.M.C.**

Smacks wrote:
One of the things the bugs me about this issue is that even having a moderate point of view, often gets you labeled as some kind of 'white knight', or political correctness crusader: making a big deal out of nothing.

One of the things that bugs me about this issue is that if you disagree with those crying out "misogyny" or "patriarchy" for even half a second often gets you labelled as some kind of woman hating rape culture-supporting MRA supporter, often for when you don't make a big deal out of everything.

**H.B.M.C.**

What's wrong with women being enemies in a game, exactly?

**H.B.M.C.**

I remember that game. Never played it though, but did see write-ups in gaming magazines (remember them?) back in the day.

**H.B.M.C.**

Stop posturing Mel. He posted the video. Your unwillingness to watch it (and joining in in attacking the creator rather than his points) just shows how unwilling you are to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

And to swing us back:

**H.B.M.C.**

Melissia wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Stop posturing Mel.
If you believe there is something of value from the video-- or from the laughably irrelevant gif you just posted-- surely, you can make that argument yourself.

If you are incapable of doing so, then obviously there is nothing of value in them to begin with.

This isn't posturing. It is simply me deciding that posts consisting of "here respond to this" and then lazily linking a video or a gif of an incoherent, self-congratulatory rant in lieu of an argument... just aren't worth my time.

Ever heard of the concept of debating in bad faith?

**H.B.M.C.**

Melissia wrote:
Yes, being able to customize the protagonist would make the game better.

Not it wouldn't, and I'm sick of hearing gak like that. Story informs character. The story is about John Marston and everything that happened to him, in his past, in his present, and in the future of his son. It is not about "Blank Genderless Canvass #332".

**H.B.M.C.**

Yeah, a proper RPG. Where you can play as a true Scotsman.

**H.B.M.C.**

Tangentially related, but worth posting I think:

Total Biscuit wrote:Perhaps one of the reasons why sites dont get taken seriously when they attempt to inject gender politics into articles about games, particularly reviews, is that their arguments are often provably false. This is a quote from the Verges article, which it claims is a "1000 hour review" of DOTA2.

"One of the artefacts of the game being designed by young males is in its presentation. Female characters tend to perform clichéd support roles while dressing in form-fitting costumes that seem to have shrunken in the wash. Most egregious for me is the case of Crystal Maiden, whose death animation involves a momentary glimpse of the character stripped down to her underwear. Maybe that’s an homage to Metroid, where a similar fate would befall Samus Aran, but it’s an unnecessary sexualization of a character that is made worse by its association with her death."

Now the facts. First lets address that female characters "tend to perform cliched support roles". Firstly this is factually wrong. Here is a list of the 17 female heroes in DOTA2 and their roles, as defined by DOTA2s own website:

Legion commander - Melee carry
Drow Ranger - Ranged Carry
Mirana - Carry, Nuker, Disabler
Vengeful Spirit - Support, Initiator
Templar Assassin - Ranged, carry
Luna - Ranged, carry, nuker
Siren - Melee, carry, disabler, pusher
Phantom Assassin - Melee, carry
Broodmother - Pusher, carry
Spectre - Melee, carry
Medusa - Ranged, carry
Crystal Maiden - Support, nuker
Windranger - Support, disabler, nuker
Lina - Nuker, disabler, support
Enchanter - Support, Jungler
Queen of Pain - Nuker, carry
Death Prophet - Pusher, Nuker

This "tendency" to play cliched support roles is a total of 5 out of 17 heroes. Indeed there are far more male supports than there are female (but there are also far more male heroes in the game than female so that's to be expected). Indeed female heroes represent some of the most powerful carries in the game and are frequent top tier picks. In my personal opinion, the way that this statement is written is meant to imply that a support is somehow a weaker or lesser role than that of a carry, which is complete nonsense. Supports are vital and hold some of the most powerful abilities in the game that are crucial for getting ganks and changing the face of a team-fight. Maybe in other games the support was relegated to the role of healer and ward courier but in DOTA2, a game with very few actual healing abilities, supports have an array of powerful disables and extremely high damage nukes. Maybe I'm just reading too much into that sentence but it seems to be based on ignorance and factual inaccuracies. Now this statement.

"Most egregious for me is the case of Crystal Maiden, whose death animation involves a momentary glimpse of the character stripped down to her underwear. Maybe that’s an homage to Metroid, where a similar fate would befall Samus Aran, but it’s an unnecessary sexualization of a character that is made worse by its association with her death."

This is proveably false. It is not a deliberate implementation and is in fact an old bug, causing parts of the characters modular outfit (characters in DOTA wear items individually, which allows for visual customisation, rather than having complete "skins" like other games) to not display correctly. This Youtube video demonstrates the issue - link - you will notice her hair also disappears and she is rendered for a fraction of a second as bald. This also used to (and perhaps still?) happens with Lina every now and again. If this is the authors definition of "her underwear" then you're going to have to forgive me if I don't think that's much of an issue, since we don't live in the 1800s anymore. That's her underwear? That's three times more clothes than I'm wearing right now.

This sort of thing is why I also have problems with Anita Sarkessians videos. When she factually misrepresents games like Hitman by claiming the game is inviting you to violate the bodies of dead women, where in reality the game mechanically punishes you for doing so and the poses are simply a result of the rather dodgy havok physics engine implementation, you're gong to have to forgive me if I disagree with phrases such as "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality".

Trying to have this discussion while basing your assertions on factual inaccuracies only succeeds in muddying the waters. You weaken your own argument with such logical leaps which are based on extremely shaky ground. Perhaps we should just stick to the facts and build our arguments from there, rather than coming up with our agenda and conclusions in advance and working backwards to try and prove our point, which will invariably lead to some cognitive and confirmation bias, cherry-picking and at worst, flagrant misrepresentation.

You can do better Verge.

**H.B.M.C.**

And how do they affect people?

**H.B.M.C.**

"... people sometimes say, oh, you write good female characters. You just write people, honestly. It's not any different. I think that if you're over-focused on the gender, you're probably writing a pretty one-dimensional character. Gender's not that huge of a component of personality, I don't think. At the end of the day, I think our humanity is a bigger component." - Amy Hennig, games developer.

**H.B.M.C.**

Personally I'm quite tired of being told I'm a racist misogynist because I like video games.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Well I guess that makes you the self appointed expert on the subject...

It's like the good man said:

"We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our 'betters'." - Buzzsaw

**H.B.M.C.**

iddqd was god mode. And if you put idkfa as a cheat into Mechwarrior 2 you instantly ejected from your 'Mech and got the message "This ain't Doom!".

And thus ends another edition of 3am trivia with HBMC.

**H.B.M.C.**

Useless, the lot of you. The only two interesting attempts I've ever heard were:

Half-Bear Man-Child
Horny Bitches Making Cheese

It stands for Half Brother of Marneus Calgar, and a modicum of searching would have found you that answer.

**H.B.M.C.**

I'd just call that good storytelling. They made you identify with the character and put you into his shoes with his morality (or lack thereof). You suspended your disbelief to the point where you took actions that made sense for the character, even if they wouldn't make sense for you.

**H.B.M.C.**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Lotet wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Are you being facetious or obtuse?
I'm not sure, I've looked up the 2 definitions and I don't feel either is appropriate to describe what I'm being. Hmm, I suppose if I can't figure it out that would make it Obtuse then.

As in, are you:
a. making a joke about me saying what something means, and then saying that thing itself has no meaning.
or
b. not understanding a very simple matter.

Given you had to explain, what do you think the answer is?

**H.B.M.C.**

Asherian Command wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
That is like saying “movies are a sub-culture”.

Movies are a sub culture.

BAAHAHAH!

Sorry, that really made my day. Thanks Ash.