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.

That's a poor example. There's nothing about needlework that makes it female-inclusive.

The rest of your post is not-sure-if-srs level lulz.

Delephont wrote: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.

But that's the thing. People do enjoy gaming. They do not enjoy certain trends in the industry.

Really, it's like looking at Hollywood and complaining that there's too many damn sequels and remakes lately. Would you brush off this criticism with words like "so go make your own movie" just because you may happen to enjoy sequels and remakes?

Delephont wrote: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!!

Done.
You can craft what you want when it comes to needlework. Nobody is going to stop you! Arguably it becomes more difficult when we get to an industry where you are just a consumer; where you might like to see something happen but do not have the power to create it all on your own.

I also maintain that media - and games are a part of this - have a profound influence on how gender roles and expectations are defined, simply because children grow up in an environment where such media feature prominently, thus affecting what they would consider "normal".

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.

 Lynata wrote:
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.

Doubt it will at all. In the US alone, people spent 20 billion dollars on video games last year. People are screaming at each other in comments sections and on forums, but that'll have about as much impact on the video games industry as the people screaming at each other at Huffington Post and BigGovernment do on politics.

Or, as a confessed social justice activist over at the Guardian put it,

For me, the problem with the gamer community that has aligned around the #gamergate hash tag is that it doesn’t seem to know what it wants or what it fears – or at least, the problem is that what it fears isn’t going to happen. There’s a sense that social justice warriors are going to “ruin games”. But how? This is a tiny subset of writers and developers sharing a left-leaning ideology – they are big on Twitter, but they are not going to convince Activision, EA, Capcom or any other multinational games corporations to stop making games that conflict with their beliefs.

The games industry is a global, multi-billion dollar giant, fuelled by money, not dogma. There will be no social justice revolution – just as the rise of feminist film criticism in the 70s and the explosion of indie cinema in the 80s did not stop Hollywood from making blockbuster sexist action flicks.

Personally my problem is the perpetual sexualization of female characters. This result in very monotonous and usually very bad and ridiculous character design. It has reached the point where boobplate is present even on otherwise very good characters, even though it does not make any sense.
Also lack of representation.

 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.

Honestly, why would anyone ever not like to play a game based on her story? Man in the refrigerator because nazis? Buy tank. Kill nazis. Fix and improve tank. Kill more nazis!

 jreilly89 wrote:
I think you are reading too much into my comment. I would absolutely LOVE a Rambo-esque female protagonist. But guess what, in the 90's they just didn't make them. That, and no one can match Arnold's unique slur/yells

You are kidding, right? Because that guy is not Arnold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1TcnQxV4BE

 jreilly89 wrote:
But in games like say Final Fantasy or Silent Hill, throwing in female side characters just to have them doesn't make sense. Take for example Silent Hill 2. IIRC all of the side characters are female, but they all have great character development and add to the story by being female. They aren't just thrown in for the sake of equality, they are there because they add depth to the narrative and you are genuinely invested in them.

Are you saying that a character must have a reason for being female, or are you saying that you want all character, regardless of gender, to have a great character development? I am with Melissia on the flip coin thing. On a different media, SMBC has been doing basically that for years, with both gender and race. Including when two characters are going to have sex. And it is working extremely well.
Okay, being a one-page joke webcomics mean the characters are not going to have any kind of development altogether, but still, I have troubles understanding what could make gender so important that if you flip it, the story does not work anymore.

 Delephont wrote:
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.

Do you devise your own product? Yeah, I thought so. So, why the hell do you expect others to devise their own products? That seems quite a bit hypocritical.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
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?

There were plenty of “brown people” (assuming North Africans count as “brown”) fighting during WW2. I know, because it is closely related to my country's history, because of the whole colony stuff. Of course, U.S. citizens will likely not have heard about them. But yeah, really, if you are going to have FFF in your WW2 games, you would rather have a bunch of Arabs and/or Black peoples if you want historical accuracy. Of course, if you are only representing the pacific front, or only depicting U.S. forces, it is different, I guess.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That's a poor example. There's nothing about needlework that makes it female-inclusive.

The rest of your post is not-sure-if-srs level lulz.

Same with video games! Anyone can play those games and make of them what they will. Contrary to popular belief, being offended is a choice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Personally my problem is the perpetual sexualization of female characters. This result in very monotonous and usually very bad and ridiculous character design. It has reached the point where boobplate is present even on otherwise very good characters, even though it does not make any sense.
Also lack of representation.

 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.

Honestly, why would anyone ever not like to play a game based on her story? Man in the refrigerator because nazis? Buy tank. Kill nazis. Fix and improve tank. Kill more nazis!

 jreilly89 wrote:
I think you are reading too much into my comment. I would absolutely LOVE a Rambo-esque female protagonist. But guess what, in the 90's they just didn't make them. That, and no one can match Arnold's unique slur/yells

You are kidding, right? Because that guy is not Arnold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1TcnQxV4BE

 jreilly89 wrote:
But in games like say Final Fantasy or Silent Hill, throwing in female side characters just to have them doesn't make sense. Take for example Silent Hill 2. IIRC all of the side characters are female, but they all have great character development and add to the story by being female. They aren't just thrown in for the sake of equality, they are there because they add depth to the narrative and you are genuinely invested in them.

Are you saying that a character must have a reason for being female, or are you saying that you want all character, regardless of gender, to have a great character development? I am with Melissia on the flip coin thing. On a different media, SMBC has been doing basically that for years, with both gender and race. Including when two characters are going to have sex. And it is working extremely well.
Okay, being a one-page joke webcomics mean the characters are not going to have any kind of development altogether, but still, I have troubles understanding what could make gender so important that if you flip it, the story does not work anymore.

 Delephont wrote:
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.

Do you devise your own product? Yeah, I thought so. So, why the hell do you expect others to devise their own products? That seems quite a bit hypocritical.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
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?

There were plenty of “brown people” (assuming North Africans count as “brown”) fighting during WW2. I know, because it is closely related to my country's history, because of the whole colony stuff. Of course, U.S. citizens will likely not have heard about them. But yeah, really, if you are going to have FFF in your WW2 games, you would rather have a bunch of Arabs and/or Black peoples if you want historical accuracy. Of course, if you are only representing the pacific front, or only depicting U.S. forces, it is different, I guess

You clearly haven't understood anything that I wrote.

 Delephont wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That's a poor example. There's nothing about needlework that makes it female-inclusive.

The rest of your post is not-sure-if-srs level lulz.

Same with video games! Anyone can play those games and make of them what they will. Contrary to popular belief, being offended is a choice!

I am offended that you would suggest such a thing!

 Lynata wrote:

Delephont wrote: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.

But that's the thing. People do enjoy gaming. They do not enjoy certain trends in the industry.

Really, it's like looking at Hollywood and complaining that there's too many damn sequels and remakes lately. Would you brush off this criticism with words like "so go make your own movie" just because you may happen to enjoy sequels and remakes?

Delephont wrote: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!!

Done.
You can craft what you want when it comes to needlework. Nobody is going to stop you! Arguably it becomes more difficult when we get to an industry where you are just a consumer; where you might like to see something happen but do not have the power to create it all on your own.

I also maintain that media - and games are a part of this - have a profound influence on how gender roles and expectations are defined, simply because children grow up in an environment where such media feature prominently, thus affecting what they would consider "normal".

Actually, with regards to the Hollywood example, yes, I would say don't watch them. If the entire movie industry was sequels only, and this offended you, I would suggest that movies is not the hobby for you, try something else.

The thing that seems to be missing in this exchange is, what about the people who DO want over sexualised women in their games? Are they entitled to less rights than you? A few posts back you advocated that these games be relegated to a niche sub sert of gaming as opposed to being the mainstream......well, why can't that be the rule of thumb for feminist friendly games? Are we not advocating the same thing from different perspectives?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Delephont wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That's a poor example. There's nothing about needlework that makes it female-inclusive.

The rest of your post is not-sure-if-srs level lulz.

Same with video games! Anyone can play those games and make of them what they will. Contrary to popular belief, being offended is a choice!

I am offended that you would suggest such a thing!

And I'm at once gladdened that your exercising your choice to be offended, but I'm now offended that you're offended by my suggestion that to be offended is a choice.......now what?

 Delephont wrote:
You clearly haven't understood anything that I wrote.

Oh, I did not? Is your idea that women has a group should start designing video games? Did you happen to have missed the whole multi-billion dollar game industry stuff? There is no need for that. If there are enough people wanting more female characters, and less sexualized ones, and if they manage to get that message across to that big industry that, like every billion-dollar industry, cares first and foremost about getting money, it will be enough. Hence the people calling for more female characters, and less sexualized one.
That is realistic. What you propose is naive, and as Melissia put out, self-entitled. You are trying to make it look like you deserve to be catered to because of the work other people did. How damn entitled is that?

Delephont wrote:Actually, with regards to the Hollywood example, yes, I would say don't watch them. If the entire movie industry was sequels only, and this offended you, I would suggest that movies is not the hobby for you, try something else.

What you are advocating here is stagnation. There was a time when people were offended by the amount of sex and sexualisation you are currently enjoying, too. Arguably, times have changed, and they will change again, as there is a growing demand for greater variety in games.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like this idea of greater variety and inclusion and would prefer to have the industry cater to your own preferences as much as possible - but it is the same process of evolution that allowed you to enjoy these preferences in the first place.

Delephont wrote:The thing that seems to be missing in this exchange is, what about the people who DO want over sexualised women in their games? Are they entitled to less rights than you? A few posts back you advocated that these games be relegated to a niche sub sert of gaming as opposed to being the mainstream......well, why can't that be the rule of thumb for feminist friendly games? Are we not advocating the same thing from different perspectives?

I don't believe so, because those games currently do not even occupy a niche as they are largely simply not being made, due to the aforementioned issues of developers refusing funding or otherwise push against a growing demand from both the consumers as well as designers.

Also, as I mentioned before, I believe in games also having an educational role in society. Segregating products promoting equality into a niche, in favour of those that promote sexism and racism, just seems like something a civilisation should not do. At least not when it truly wishes to achieve an egalitarian state some time.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Delephont wrote:
You clearly haven't understood anything that I wrote.

Oh, I did not? Is your idea that women has a group should start designing video games? Did you happen to have missed the whole multi-billion dollar game industry stuff? There is no need for that. If there are enough people wanting more female characters, and less sexualized ones, and if they manage to get that message across to that big industry that, like every billion-dollar industry, cares first and foremost about getting money, it will be enough. Hence the people calling for more female characters, and less sexualized one.
That is realistic. What you propose is naive, and as Melissia put out, self-entitled. You are trying to make it look like you deserve to be catered to because of the work other people did. How damn entitled is that?

Hey, if the video games industry actually does change because [BECAUSE] of market forces, then fine! If the majority of gamers want an end to over sexualised females and more female leads, then again, who can complain? The minority status would have been reset, and I would be saying to those guys (or girls), if you want objectified women in your games go and make those games yourself.....or pick a different hobby.

I'm not saying I deserve a damn thing, if I haven't earned it through my own work! I'll buy a game, and either it ticks my box or it doesn't BUT I'm not sitting at home demanding that developers make a game that suits my sensibilities, I can exercise my human right to chose what "entertainment" I expose myself to.........if someone else's hard work hits a positive note with me, I acknowledge that it's an accident rather than by design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Delephont wrote:Actually, with regards to the Hollywood example, yes, I would say don't watch them. If the entire movie industry was sequels only, and this offended you, I would suggest that movies is not the hobby for you, try something else.

What you are advocating here is stagnation. There was a time when people were offended by the amount of sex and sexualisation you are currently enjoying, too. Arguably, times have changed, and they will change again, as there is a growing demand for greater variety in games.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like this idea of greater variety and inclusion and would prefer to have the industry cater to your own preferences as much as possible - but it is the same process of evolution that allowed you to enjoy these preferences in the first place.

Delephont wrote:The thing that seems to be missing in this exchange is, what about the people who DO want over sexualised women in their games? Are they entitled to less rights than you? A few posts back you advocated that these games be relegated to a niche sub sert of gaming as opposed to being the mainstream......well, why can't that be the rule of thumb for feminist friendly games? Are we not advocating the same thing from different perspectives?

I don't believe so, because those games currently do not even occupy a niche as they are largely simply not being made, due to the aforementioned issues of developers refusing funding or otherwise push against a growing demand from both the consumers as well as designers.

Also, as I mentioned before, I believe in games also having an educational role in society. Segregating products promoting equality into a niche, in favour of those that promote sexism and racism, just seems like something a civilisation should not do. At least not when it truly wishes to achieve an egalitarian state some time.

OK, fair points! Stagnation is really a state where (in this case) the market is demanding change, but that change is being suppressed! As I responded above, if the majority of gamers want an end to female objectification, then it should happen! However, how will that change take place? If the almighty dollar is driving the industry, simply talking about change while filling their bank accounts really sends a weak message!

Let's go back to my response to the Hollywood example. So, you take my advice, and stop watching those remakes and sequels! Immediately, you stop feeding the machine....now, let's say the majority of movie goers feel like you, and they take my advice.....two things happen, firstly the industry is forced to consider change, secondly, you will bring and end to the industry in its current incarnation, thereby setting the scene for something new to evolve to replace it! And let's face it, what would be lost if the movie industry (in this example) ceased to be? It wasn't meeting the needs of the market anyway, so it might as well die.

This, however, presupposes, that others do in fact agree....and, enough others to form a majority! Going back to gaming, is this the case? Do the majority of gamers want an end to female objectification? That is the real question here!

Delephont wrote:OK, fair points! Stagnation is really a state where (in this case) the market is demanding change, but that change is being suppressed! As I responded above, if the majority of gamers want an end to female objectification, then it should happen! However, how will that change take place? If the almighty dollar is driving the industry, simply talking about change while filling their bank accounts really sends a weak message!

Not really. Talking about it and raising a ruckus feeds into market analysis. Developers and publishers alike need the media to promote their products, and the past has clearly shown that they do consider it serious enough to attempt to explain their positions, and react to accusations of sexism etc. In some cases, things were even changed. So, talking about it serves the double purpose of raising awareness towards other gamers, as well as telling the publishers what at least a part of their (potential) costumer base would want to see/buy.

All change starts with talking.

Delephont wrote:Going back to gaming, is this the case? Do the majority of gamers want an end to female objectification? That is the real question here!

And one I would not know the answer to. On one hand, the number of consumers who would want more gender-related variety just for variety's sake or because it appeals to their preferences is probably relatively small (albeit rising constantly, already suggesting it is only a matter of time). But on the other, I could see a large portion of gamers who do not actually care about those preferences, yet would still support this change based on their opinion of this medium as a whole, in that it, as a form of art, is capable of so much more and does not deserve to be held back by an industry focused on the lowest common denominator and "established wisdom". Because the concept of games with female protagonists not selling seems to be about as controversial as the publishers' insistence that space games would not sell. The kickstarters of Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen should have clearly demonstrated otherwise.

Well just to be clear, I agree, debate is essential to let others know they're not alone in their thinking! So, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be "talk"..... however, I don't think that talking about change WHILST simultaneously continuing to purchase / financially support the games you profess to find offensive sends a strong message. Eventually, it will come down to a decision to buy or reject!

 Delephont wrote:
Hey, if the video games industry actually does change because [BECAUSE] of market forces, then fine!

I do not think anything else could make it change.

 Delephont wrote:
However, how will that change take place? If the almighty dollar is driving the industry, simply talking about change while filling their bank accounts really sends a weak message!

By making it an advantage to have better female representation. Of course one is not going to base his or her purchase only on that on factor, but it will be one. But this is not enough, because if you do not make it clear that this was one of your factor, the people making the decisions about game might not understand it. Hence why it is also important to speak about it.
Similarly, if a game has a Linux version, I am much more likely to buy it. It is not even activism, it is just that it is much more convenient to me. But here, it is quite easy at least for the makers of this game to notice that I downloaded only the Linux version while for female character representation… unless I talk about it, it is pretty easy to miss it.

nomotog wrote:
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.

It's a hot topic for sure, far more than it needs to be as one or both sides always resorts to some base form of douchebaggery. Outside sources commenting on the status quo of characters in gaming is the same as those who don't watch sports but feel the need to comment on the way a particular team or set of teams plays; it's nonsense and ends up being one more way for those people to gain popularity by saying some sort of controversial crap concerning a topic in which they know nothing.

All in all, I think things have gotten far better than where they were. The only female character I ever saw growing up in my video games was Lara Croft, and let's face it, she was eye candy. Badass. But eye candy nonetheless. The thing is, very few bother to see the progress that's actually been made. Everyone is very keen on commenting on how women are objectified and treated as second class in video games; but no one comments on the spotlight a lot of different games have shown on their female characters.

I think it's easier overall to see a man as a hero, I guess. I don't really care who I'm playing honestly. I tend to identify more with male characters because I'm a guy, but at the same time there are games I won't play unless I can play as a woman. *Shrug* Give it time I guess.

Delephont wrote:Well just to be clear, I agree, debate is essential to let others know they're not alone in their thinking! So, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be "talk"..... however, I don't think that talking about change WHILST simultaneously continuing to purchase / financially support the games you profess to find offensive sends a strong message. Eventually, it will come down to a decision to buy or reject!

Oh, absolutely.

Personally, the way women (or men, too) are portrayed in a game is something that factors into my purchase decisions. Not as the sole decisive factor, but one of many on a list of "checkboxes" concerning what I'm looking for in a game, together with an interesting story, a cool setting, a proper interface and contols, support for mods and multiplayer, or sufficiently immersive visuals and audio, and many more. So, for example, I do not simply refuse to buy a game solely because it may not offer gender selection during character creation if the game is otherwise too awesome to miss out on, such as with Deus Ex HR. Yet at the same time, I have in the past both purchased games (Remember Me) or refused to purchase them (The Witcher) because of this and similar factors, as the vast majority of games happen to be less of a "must-have" in my eyes and/or have the sexualisation aspect be more "extreme", making these questions more important.

So, one factor out of several. It's like how I'd love to buy Might & Magic X, but won't, because uPlay. I'm sure we all have a mental checklist of the things we are looking for in games, and our own individual thresholds of when a purchase can still be justified, and when not. I also got Sleeping Dogs mainly because even though the protagonist is male, he is an Asian for a change, and the game takes place in Hong Kong.

Variety ftw.

 Lynata wrote:


Variety ftw.

/thread

 Delephont wrote:
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.

So men don't have to work for it-- you can just sit there and expect games to be made for you, no effort involved-- but you expect women to have to put out a ton of effort even as women are continually ignored by the big name producers, in order to have something catered to us?

That's really entitled still. You think you should have special privileges that other people shouldn't have, by nature of something which you born with and did not work to get.

At least, that is how you have been expressing yourself. Do you understand where this is coming from? I'm not asking to be treated differently, I'm asking to be treated the same as you are-- to get games I'd like to spend my hard-earned money on. Oftentimes, those games simply don't materialize, and without me speaking out, they probably never will. And when women DO make games, they aren't given the same level of attention by producers a when men do it, anyway, so your request just doesn't work.

 Frankenberry wrote:
The thing is, very few bother to see the progress that's actually been made. Everyone is very keen on commenting on how women are objectified and treated as second class in video games; but no one comments on the spotlight a lot of different games have shown on their female characters.

Oh, I see the progress, but we still haven't gotten far enough. Video games did not raise me to accept partial victories

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 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.

"Hey my name is samus Aran and take offense to that."




I mean games really need more female counterparts. I mean right now what is defined as mature? Guns, violence, sex and death.

What is really mature?

Apart from being 'dark'.

I know some dark games, that are well and truly dark.

(I Have no Mouth and I must scream, which features a female character)

There are so many problems I have with the games industry. Whenever we try to be dark and moody, we lose sight of what truly is adult. I often sit down and read books, and figure out what I would classify as 'adult'

Because most attempts currently to be adult, have only backfired.

 Frankenberry wrote:
All in all, I think things have gotten far better than where they were. The only female character I ever saw growing up in my video games was Lara Croft, and let's face it, she was eye candy. Badass. But eye candy nonetheless. The thing is, very few bother to see the progress that's actually been made. Everyone is very keen on commenting on how women are objectified and treated as second class in video games; but no one comments on the spotlight a lot of different games have shown on their female characters.

Okay, Samus Aran and Elaine Marley (in Monkey Island 2) versus LoL and Smite. I am not sure I agree with you. Partly, maybe, but it is far from black and white.

 Melissia wrote:

 Delephont wrote:
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.

So men don't have to work for it-- you can just sit there and expect games to be made for you, no effort involved-- but you expect women to have to put out a ton of effort even as women are continually ignored by the big name producers, in order to have something catered to us?

That's really entitled still. You think you should have special privileges that other people shouldn't have, by nature of something which you born with and did not work to get.

At least, that is how you have been expressing yourself. Do you understand where this is coming from? I'm not asking to be treated differently, I'm asking to be treated the same as you are-- to get games I'd like to spend my hard-earned money on. Oftentimes, those games simply don't materialize, and without me speaking out, they probably never will. And when women DO make games, they aren't given the same level of attention by producers a when men do it, anyway, so your request just doesn't work.

Melissa you have the exact same choises as everybody else. You buy and play the same games as everybody else.

The reason why women don't get attention from publishers is because women make gakky mobile games. Nobody is interested in gakky mobile games.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Delephont wrote:
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.

So men don't have to work for it-- you can just sit there and expect games to be made for you, no effort involved-- but you expect women to have to put out a ton of effort even as women are continually ignored by the big name producers, in order to have something catered to us?

That's really entitled still. You think you should have special privileges that other people shouldn't have, by nature of something which you born with and did not work to get.

At least, that is how you have been expressing yourself. Do you understand where this is coming from? I'm not asking to be treated differently, I'm asking to be treated the same as you are-- to get games I'd like to spend my hard-earned money on. Oftentimes, those games simply don't materialize, and without me speaking out, they probably never will. And when women DO make games, they aren't given the same level of attention by producers a when men do it, anyway, so your request just doesn't work.

Melissa you have the exact same choises as everybody else. You buy and play the same games as everybody else.

The reason why women don't get attention from publishers is because women make gakky mobile games. Nobody is interested in gakky mobile games.

The door is to your left.

That is completely and utterly sexist of a comment.

I suggest you take back your entire argument as it is completely flawed in its logic and delivery.

WE do not say that in the industry.

The fact you say that about a million dollar making industry is appaling.

Do you know what game makes the most money per a year other than World of Warcraft?

Candy Crush. And guess what.... The most used device is a mobile phone. They make over 1.6 Billion Dollars per a year.

 illuknisaa wrote:
Melissa you have the exact same choises as everybody else. You buy and play the same games as everybody else.

She do not have games that cater to her interests as much as you do.

 illuknisaa wrote:
The reason why women don't get attention from publishers is because women make gakky mobile games. Nobody is interested in gakky mobile games.

This is false.

He's also apparently ill informed. Gakky mobile games are making lots of money

And as to my thoughts, yeah. I actually would prefer that if you're just going to throw someone in for tokenism, I'd rather they not be there at all. At least then the devs are being real with the fact they don't give a damn instead of hiding behind the "no no we're not prejudiced, look see there's a girl right here! With huge titties."

I'll take honest prejudice (Well, I suppose it could also result from piss poor writing ) over dishonest tokenism thank you

Oh course, the natural improvement is to make game's with decent characters. It's kind of hard to have a well rounded character who just stares and grunts while loading his shot gun and waiting for the next mob to show up. Kind of gotta have relationships (and no not just romantic ones) and that alone would be a massive improvement. I didn't like Halo 4 too much, but it offered one major improvement; Master Chief felt like a real human being in that armor rather than a robot programmed to shoot off one liners, and to me that happened because his relationship with Cortana gave him significantly more depth than he'd had in previous games (and likewise for Cortana). That relationship made the character's human rather than flat stand ins for the plot.

 LordofHats wrote:
And as to my thoughts, yeah. I actually would prefer that if you're just going to throw someone in for tokenism, I'd rather they not be there at all.

Or better, rather than include a brand new character, just select randomly half of your cast and gender-swap them. Bang! Instant female character generation .

 LordofHats wrote:
Oh course, the natural improvement is to make game's with decent characters. It's kind of hard to have a well rounded character who just stares and grunts while loading his shot gun and waiting for the next mob to show up.

Not all games need developed character. Old-school FPS had their charm too. Seriously, some more Serious Sam or Painkiller title could be awesome.

 LordofHats wrote:
He's also apparently ill informed. Gakky mobile games are making lots of money

And as to my thoughts, yeah. I actually would prefer that if you're just going to throw someone in for tokenism, I'd rather they not be there at all. At least then the devs are being real with the fact they don't give a damn instead of hiding behind the "no no we're not prejudiced, look see there's a girl right here! With huge titties."

I'll take honest prejudice over dishonest tokenism thank you

Oh course, the natural improvement is to make game's with decent characters. It's kind of hard to have a well rounded character who just stares and grunts while loading his shot gun and waiting for the next mob to show up. Kind of gotta have relationships (and no not just romantic ones) and that alone would be a massive improvement. I didn't like Halo 4 too much, but it offered one major improvement; Master Chief felt like a real human being in that armor rather than a robot programmed to shoot off one liners, and to me that happened because his relationship with Cortana gave him significantly more depth than he'd had in previous games (and likewise for Cortana). That relationship made the character's human rather than flat stand ins for the plot.

Agreed. I mean friendships in gaming and family relationships have yet to be explored in the medium. I mean it would be quite awesome to see a sister have to save her brother. Where she is the badass, and he the damsel. I mean it wouldn't be that hard to create a character like that.

And she meets creatures on the way that she forms a friendship with.

Throughout the entire game she would only make friends, and no romantic interests. I mean she might be attracted to some people, but she won't throw away everything for them.

I find it vastly interesting that the most notable game that I can think of a simple relationship is.... Well Shadow of the Colossus. Its a relationship between boyfriend and girlfriend. But the girlfriend doesn't do anything. We know nothing about her, except she's pretty and they guy is willing to go from heaven to hell to save her. That is an interesting relationship as it tells volumes about the characters themselves. She is not a damsel in distress, in fact she's dead. She's gone, but the character has not lost himself to remorse and pain. (or this might be his pain and remorse coming out and desperation to find a way to save his girl)

That is something I rarely see in games. Genuine relationships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
And as to my thoughts, yeah. I actually would prefer that if you're just going to throw someone in for tokenism, I'd rather they not be there at all.

Or better, rather than include a brand new character, just select randomly half of your cast and gender-swap them. Bang! Instant female character generation .

 LordofHats wrote:
Oh course, the natural improvement is to make game's with decent characters. It's kind of hard to have a well rounded character who just stares and grunts while loading his shot gun and waiting for the next mob to show up.

Not all games need developed character. Old-school FPS had their charm too. Seriously, some more Serious Sam or Painkiller title could be awesome.

Or more half life titles.

I mean gordon freeman rarely talks, for all we know he is a transgender male. Who only knows sign language.

LordofHats wrote:And as to my thoughts, yeah. I actually would prefer that if you're just going to throw someone in for tokenism, I'd rather they not be there at all. At least then the devs are being real with the fact they don't give a damn instead of hiding behind the "no no we're not prejudiced, look see there's a girl right here! With huge titties."
I'll take honest prejudice over dishonest tokenism thank you

Hmmh. As I was pondering this earlier when the issue of tokenism came up, I thought I'd still prefer the token. But you make a convincing argument, as far as I'm concerned.
Of course this not only applies to women, but also non-White male characters.

It makes me think how much different movies and games would be if the writers would roll dice for such things, instead of defaulting to the same archetype again and again. And what effect this might have on the populace, over generations.

LordofHats wrote:I didn't like Halo 4 too much, but it offered one major improvement; Master Chief felt like a real human being in that armor rather than a robot programmed to shoot off one liners, and to me that happened because his relationship with Cortana gave him significantly more depth than he'd had in previous games (and likewise for Cortana). That relationship made the character's human rather than flat stand ins for the plot.

Though the first thing that springs to mind when the name "Cortana" pops up is how she was made less of a Avina-style AI and more of a glowy naked angel (right up to the belly-button) with each game, in terms of visuals. I get that this was very likely done so that the (male) gamer would look at her and think "damn, I'd tap that", but it is a bit sad that the writers thought this was necessary, rather than focusing on her voice and character.

It's like with EDI in ME3. Don't get me wrong, I love Mass Effect, but when they took what started as a simple voice and turned it into a sexbot, I cringed a little. It's just so ... juvenile. Heavy-handed.

 Melissia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Like anything you see of a "group" that has been or feels repressed or messed with in general "over adjustment" can occur and suddenly the shoe is on the other foot and the opposite group is now at a disadvantage.

Unless they go to physically count the number of characters and such, many people initially "feel" like a game or TV show is female-dominated when it's actually 50/50, and that there is equal representation when there are actually far more men than women.
As a result, a lot of the complaints about this particular line of thinking tend to not really have any basis in reality. I actually remember on this forum someone having a debate about whether or not a game was egalitarian vs female-dominated, where people ended up literally counting the number of characters of either gender... and it ended up fifty-fifty. Then the people who said it was female-dominated queasily began to argue "well, it certainly FELT female-dominated, I bet they got more screen time"...

Yes, agreed that when used to a certain "standard" when it shifts, it will seem wrong at first, I can understand your point.
When someone falls back on "feelings" arguments, it is hard to make them be wrong: it is their feelings, problem is it opens them up to personal attacks.
I personally like to try to give everyone a fair shake, it is these discussions that help examine the question: am I blind to some "unfair" behaviors of mine.
I would be careful about dismissing how others feel vs. "reality", objective evidence of fairness is a good start but those feelings of unfairness (or entitlement) need to be addressed.

At some point I have to form an opinion, make a decision and not be triple guessing myself or it makes for a sad human being: one can only handle so much analysis-paralysis.

Melissia: I have seen many of your discussions and you have had quite a few people take some hard runs at you, you give about as good as you get but with a alot more logic:
What would you suggest a person who genuinely is trying to be fair to do, say in regards to the fair treatment of women?
I have a suspicion the answers will vary with each person's experiences.

"Do to others as you would have them do to you." is my position until proven otherwise.

My suggestion is, if you aren't sure what to do in terms of fairness, one neutral, unbiased position is simple: When writing characters, write the character first, then flip a coin to determine if they're male or female after the character has been written.

This removes human judgment from the equation entirely, allowing you to say "look, we tried an unbiased, fair system for determining a character's gender" and then just focus on writing good characters instead. It's not perfect by any means, but it is gender-blind, and that's better than just assuming male as default by a long shot.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Not all games need developed character.

Didn't say developed. Said rounded (there is actually a difference, not being rude mind you). Careful ambiguity is one the great lost arts of modern characters.

In a very twisted way, the best example of a 'rounded character' that is not a 'developed character' is Alucard from Hellsing. Very little of the story is actually spent developing him at all (actually, pretty much none of the story is), but the story gives us a man who at first appears sadistic, arrogant, and unapologetic about anything he does. Story goes on, and the facade is torn away, revealing a broken man who loathes himself and desperately seeks a worthy death. The Hidden Depths behind that character are shocking when revealed, rounding him out greatly while giving him no real development at all; Alucard at the end of Hellsing, is essential the same person he was at the beginning, more or less.

I'm not necessarily asking every game to be a masterpiece of story telling, merely wishing they weren't so damned lazy.