Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
She's also highly regarded, and quite normally dressed

Right and even so she is still generally thought of as attractive. Go figure. I don't know about you chaps but while playing the game I was crushing on Alyx.

 Melissia wrote:
That's a bizarre definition of niche there. Usually I hear the term referring to it appealing to a small number of people, rather than "it's not been done much so that makes it niche therefor we shouldn't do much of it".

Well what's your definition then? I'm quoting from someone in the video games industry in the article I posted earlier

 Manchu wrote:
By making fewer games with female leads such games become niche and we can't make niche games because they don't make money so we'd best make less games with female leads so that we can ... wait, oh right, this is circular argument.

This is what is meant by a self-fulfilling prophecy. A publisher believes a game will not do well and funds it accordingly. Surprise, surprise when it sells poorly.

No its called reading the historic data and comparing it with marker research. If there is no market there then developers don't invest more than they are likely to get a return in. If there was a market there, regardless of gender, then the industry would be investing in it. Especially because it is stagnating and being the pioneer in a new market = $

 Melissia wrote:
Gordon Freeman has his flaws-- in terms of "less stereotypical", he's a white anglo-saxon protestant male hero, so... he's still pretty stereotypical in that regard-- but still, he is an interesting character, to be sure.

When did his religion get mentioned? Or is it assumed because of his race?
As he is a silent protagonist for the most part he is as interesting as you project him to be.

And naturally, you focus on the least relevant part of the statement instead of actually discussing the point.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's a bizarre definition of niche there. Usually I hear the term referring to it appealing to a small number of people, rather than "it's not been done much so that makes it niche therefor we shouldn't do much of it".

Well what's your definition then?

Dude... it's... IN.... THE... FETHING.... POST... THAT YOU QUOTED...

 Melissia wrote:
Dude... it's... IN.... THE... FETHING.... POST... THAT YOU QUOTED...

Bah!! Sorry, copy paste gremlins struck

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If there is no market there then developers don't invest more than they are likely to get a return in.

Your assumption is that these investors can and do read the market in a totally detached way, totally uninformed by the prejudices that shape them every day as people. I'm not saying video game executives are never critical thinkers -- but this is a deep issue, as we have been saying. As Monster Rain and others have pointed out, the damsel trope certainly did not begin with Donkey Kong or even King Kong. These are deep seated values that we are not even aware of most of the time. It is fairly obvious that games with female leads can make money. Even games with male leads that have non-objectified female characters can make tons of money. And yet both of these things remain comparatively rare. Not objectifying women does not tank sales.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
When did his religion get mentioned? Or is it assumed because of his race?

The "P" in WASP is a demographic marker not a system of religious beliefs. For example, my own religion is Catholic but I fit into the WASP demographic.

 Manchu wrote:
Your assumption is that these investors can and do read the market in a totally detached way, totally uninformed by the prejudices that shape them every day as people. I'm not saying video game executives are never critical thinkers -- but this is a deep issue, as we have been saying. As Monster Rain and others have pointed out, the damsel trope certainly did not begin with Donkey Kong or even King Kong. These are deep seated values that we are not even aware of most of the time. It is fairly obvious that games with female leads can make money. Even games with male leads that have non-objectified female characters can make tons of money. And yet both of these things remain comparatively rare. Not objectifying women does not tank sales

Yes, games with female leads make money. But not as much as those with male leads, who make 75% more money. How does gender distort that figure? What part of the data used skews the raw numbers?
Do I believe that they look at the numbers, yes. Its their job. They are paid to look at them and see what $ they are likely to get per investment. It doesn't matter what the product it, it doesn't matter about the morals or ethics because they are looking at their bottom line. They are looking for what keeps their shareholders happy, keeps them in the black and keeps the bonuses coming in.
Are there tropes in games, yes like every other media out there. Do I believe that an overused trope used as a driving plot in a storyline is going to effect how much senior management allocate to a project? No.

 Manchu wrote:
The "P" in WASP is a demographic marker not a system of religious beliefs. For example, my own religion is Catholic but I fit into the WASP demographic.

Pretty sure the P part of White Anglo Saxon Protestant stands for Protestant. Unless you have something that confirms Gordon Freeman's religion I haven't seen a single thing that states his beliefs, if any.
**edit**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant

Once again, as usual, you ignore the complaint in order to attack an irrelevant tangent.

 Melissia wrote:
Once again, as usual, you ignore the complaint in order to attack an irrelevant tangent.

Care to elaborate?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yes, games with female leads make money. But not as much as those with male leads, who make 75% more money.

Because they aren't invested in as much; because they constantly reject any games that would have a female lead because they have a female lead; because they try to strong-arm developers in to forcing their lead characters to be white anglo-saxon protestant males without exception.

When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down, OF COURSE they won't sell as well.

Yeah, I don't think any response I can give here will suffice. I mean. even the Wiki article DreadClaw posted explains why he is wrong. *shrug*

 Melissia wrote:
Because they aren't invested in as much; because they constantly reject any games that would have a female lead because they have a female lead; because they try to strong-arm developers in to forcing their lead characters to be white anglo-saxon protestant males without exception.

When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down, OF COURSE they won't sell as well.

They are paid to look at them and see what $ they are likely to get per investment. It doesn't matter what the product it, it doesn't matter about the morals or ethics because they are looking at their bottom line. They are looking for what keeps their shareholders happy, keeps them in the black and keeps the bonuses coming in.
Are there tropes in games, yes like every other media out there. Do I believe that an overused trope used as a driving plot in a storyline is going to effect how much senior management allocate to a project? No.

You are attempting to make it sound as though they do not market games with female leads as often as male leads because they are woman. They don't. Its because they don't sell to begin with and when the market changes that will too.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Yeah, I don't think any response I can give here will suffice. I mean. even the Wiki article DreadClaw posted explains why he is wrong. *shrug*

My apologies, I hadn't read the last section. I'm only used to hearing it as a derogatory term (usually when my wife is talking about the South )

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
They are paid to look at them and see what $ they are likely to get per investment.

Stop assuming supreme competence.

Stop assuming that these people are extremely logical and rational robots.

These are human beings. Flawed human beings, like everyone else. Human beings in an industry that has a ton of cultural baggage. Human beings with imperfect information and imperfect motives and imperfect ideas on how to obtain their goals. But in the end, merely human.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
They are paid to look at them and see what $ they are likely to get per investment.

Stop assuming supreme competence.

Stop assuming that these people are extremely logical and rational robots.

These are human beings. Flawed human beings, like everyone else. Human beings in an industry that has a ton of cultural baggage. Human beings with imperfect information and imperfect motives and imperfect ideas on how to obtain their goals. But in the end, merely human.

Stop assuming malice
Stop assuming that people are incapable of personal feelings/issues aside
Stop assuming incompetence

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Stop assuming malice

It's been established for something along the lines of twenty four pages that we are not talking about intentional malice.

When there is a demonstrable market, no cogent argument of market risk, and still no movement on the market, incompetence is not a terrible conclusion.

Also, for the four hundred thousandth time, malice is not assumed.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Stop assuming malice

It's been established for something along the lines of twenty four pages that we are not talking about intentional malice.

Bold. The step before all caps Sorry but when you say things like "When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down" it sounds like you are talking about intentional malice
And no objection to the others I mentioned? As Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Sorry but when you say things like "When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down" it sounds like you are talking about intentional malice

It's been established over and over and over and over and over again that this assumption on your part is wrong.

As for the rest, no, my not responding doesn't make you right. It just means that I find this conversation with you tiring-- you do not appear to pay attention to your own words and sources, never mind everyone else's.

I know, my misreading the WASP wikilink has ruined the other 501 posts I've made

Well, good sharing this discussion with you in this thread.

 Manchu wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Having a female lead does not make a game "niche."

Until you have data to back that up it will continue to seem like you're stating an opinion as fact.

The data exists whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Google is your friend.

This is quality. The data is out there, go find it. Right back at you for my assertions regarding video game marketing. Look how constructive this is.

Regarding the link you posted, I stand by my original hypothesis. While it was an interesting look at video game publishing, I didn't see the misogynistic heart of darkness of the industry.

 Manchu wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
This from the guy throwing around the term "straw man"?

Seriously? Given your behavior ITT, I thought Strawman was your middle name. Either that or Dodger. As near as I can assume, since you insist on trollishly posting one liner gems like the one I just quoted instead of transparent reasoning, you seem to argue that female characters are objectified in video games and otherwise marginalized simply because female characters are in a sense beyond all problematic gender stereotypes and prejudices simply worth less than male characters. That argument assumes that the people responsible for measuring that value are above the cultural and political issues of gender. .

The first few sentences of that made little sense to me. To respond to what I could understand:

Not above, but driven by motives (ie greed) that may supersede personal values.

 Manchu wrote:
What you identified as a strawman argument is simply my criticism of that assumption. If it truly wasn't your assumption then how about actually posting complete thoughts rather than snipes?.

For the former, I can only say that I wonder if you're saying it with a straight face. As for the latter, how many sentences should I use to express ideas to cross the "snipe" threshold?

 Manchu wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
This isn't a defense of publishers, either. It's to correct the assertion that their decisions are based on misogynistic cultural influence.

That is a defense.

How so? It doesn't attempt to keep them from criticism, it only attempts to make that criticism accurate. Whether or not the criticism is valid is another discussion entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Sorry but when you say things like "When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down" it sounds like you are talking about intentional malice

Hold the phone...

You think that the fact that someone uses the word "intentionally" means that they are implying "intent"?

lollerskates!

In order to keep a tally of my positions held in this thread:

Being mean to Ms. Sarkeesian is bad.
Using the fact that a bunch of mouthbreathers were mean to her on the internet to somehow shield her from criticism is lame.
The use of tropes and cliches in entertainment are pervasive, including the one in the thread title. I disagree with the notion that this reflects a cultural hatred of women. Also, if one believes that these things in a game reinforce a mindset or system of values, it is reasonable to ask if other themes or features in games are similarly influential.
Thinking critically is good.
Video game marketing disparities aren't proof positive of institutionalized misogyny.

Using the fact that a bunch of mouthbreathers were mean to her on the internet to somehow shield her from criticism is lame.

No one is doing that. You're just claiming we are as an excuse to shield yourself from the fact that your criticism is entirely without substance.

 Melissia wrote:

Using the fact that a bunch of mouthbreathers were mean to her on the internet to somehow shield her from criticism is lame.

No one is doing that.

There are examples as early as four pages into this thread.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Using the fact that a bunch of mouthbreathers were mean to her on the internet to somehow shield her from criticism is lame.

No one is doing that.

There are examples as early as four pages into this thread.

No, there aren't.

Claiming that people who are actively criticizing Sarkesian are saying that Sarkesian cannot be criticized because some people who criticize her are donkey-caves is, to describe it in a single word, insane, and completely contradicts the actual facts of the matter. This discussion has already been had, and your side lost because it is not based off of any logical concepts but rather off of an entirely illogical form of argument-- the strawman.

And I think your side is based on an extremist, delusional worldview that defies the most basic laws of economics.

Are we done?

 Monster Rain wrote:
And I think your side is based on an extremist

Your idea that a worldview summarized as "people should be treated with respect regardless of gender" can only ever be espoused by not only just extremists, but only delusional extremists, just goes to show how biased and out of touch with both reality your arguments actually are.

Your lack of understanding of economics is also well known, but that's not really relevant here.

Here's a somewhat relevant stat from Mass Effect 3.

82% of players played as Male Shepard. 18% of players played as female Shepard.

According to their own words, a large number of those players just went with the first option given to them-- which was the default generic white bald military dude. That's not a specific choice being made.

By contrast, Zoey was voted most popular character amongst Left 4 Dead players-- a game series which had a roster of six men and two women amongst its playable characters. They CHOSE her out of the others, instead of just going with whatever the game handed them.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Sorry but when you say things like "When the producers constantly make decisions to try to marginalize female leads, to try to intentionally shut down games with female leads, and minimize the funding to those that don't get shut down" it sounds like you are talking about intentional malice

Hold the phone...

You think that the fact that someone uses the word "intentionally" means that they are implying "intent"?

lollerskates!

I know, imagine relying on the natural meaning of the words used

I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.

You are only claiming such because you are desperately grasping at straws to try to discredit what I have said-- since you do not exactly have much of a point otherwise.

 Melissia wrote:
According to their own words, a large number of those players just went with the first option given to them-- which was the default generic white bald military dude. That's not a specific choice being made.

Can I ask were you got that from?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
According to their own words, a large number of those players just went with the first option given to them-- which was the default generic white bald military dude. That's not a specific choice being made.

Can I ask were you got that from?

It was an old rock paper shotgun episode. Something like 15% or so of players just chose the default male character. Although I recall the comments section amusingly pointing out that the percentage points of that poll didn't add up to 100%, so apparently another five percent never made it past the customization screen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Checking back, I see actually several polls on the matter, not all of which agree on the specific numbers (for example, one of them stated that 53% of players picked Soldier while another one said only 48% did, and yet another one said 65% did), so I'm going to have to see about finding the actual information from Bioware.