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.

 Melissia wrote:
And we're not allowed to criticize bad game design?

Well, it is a game designer telling us that we do not get to choose what we want and what we enjoy, but that we should just enjoy what the game designer decide we must enjoy. Compulsory enjoyment or something.

Yeah well if I wanted that I'd go watch a movie. But I'm not watching a movie. I 'm playing a game.

What if...you are playing a David Cage game?
*cue twilight zone theme*

 Asherian Command wrote:
When I say Would it make playing walker as a female walker make the game better?

No.

So, you get to decide for us what is better for us, right?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because if you get down to it, minus physically, men and women think exactly the same. They would do the same stupid actions as each other.

So then, it should not be a problem to do a gender swap. You just said men and women act the same way and are the same, how freaking hard could this be?

 Asherian Command wrote:
But that doesn't mean that if add a character and make them female that it instantly makes the game better.

That is stupid. That is a flawed idea.

Well, there are many stupid people with stupid tastes that would like this change to be made. They are customer. They pay your check, in the end. How about making those peoples happy, since doing so would not make your game any worse? I mean, gender does not matter anyway, it cannot make your game worse, right?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Spec Ops: The Line or any game with a strong character in the center, is a univerisal character

Got to love the idea that a universal character is necessarily a white male .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And we're not allowed to criticize bad game design?

Well, it is a game designer telling us that we do not get to choose what we want and what we enjoy, but that we should just enjoy what the game designer decide we must enjoy. Compulsory enjoyment or something.

Yeah well if I wanted that I'd go watch a movie. But I'm not watching a movie. I 'm playing a game.

Welcome to gaming where the player is given a set task of things they can and cannot do.

You have fallen into the first pit trap of what is known as The Illusion of choice, and the illusion of agency. You may choose only a predetermined set amount of decisions.

This is mostly due to the limits of the game engine. If you think your choices matter in a game. You are soley mistaken.

You lose nothing by the inclusion of a female character option, people who would prefer to play as a female gain.

Why on earth would anyone be against that?

Completely mind boggling.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah well if I wanted that I'd go watch a movie.

That is not even how it works for movie. If for some reason I do not want to see a movie, I will not see it. Even if the movie maker think my reasons for not wanting to see the movie are stupid, I do not care, I will just not go see his or her movie.


Aaaand before the obvious comment that I see coming, the presence of female characters is just one thing in a long, long list of pros and cons for a game, not the sole determining factor. Yeah.

Well yeah. I still think Half Life 2 is great even without the option for a Gorda Freeman, but I think it'd be better with it.

RDR and other "historical" games where you play an extraordinary citizen (rather than a soldier) are perfect candidates to include female PC's. Doing so opens up whole new worlds of exploration and gameplay - allowing the player to experience the kinds of adversity that affected both regular women of the time, as well as the issues that went with trying to work in a "man's world".

In the case of RDR, the back story and main storylines would be almost identical, but now you could experience not just being a stranger going into a hostile bar, but a woman going into a hostile bar trying to accomplish the same goal of, say, getting information out of a suspect while the attitudes of everyone towards your sex impeed (or possibly even help) you...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
When I say Would it make playing walker as a female walker make the game better?

No.

So, you get to decide for us what is better for us, right?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because if you get down to it, minus physically, men and women think exactly the same. They would do the same stupid actions as each other.

So then, it should not be a problem to do a gender swap. You just said men and women act the same way and are the same, how freaking hard could this be?

 Asherian Command wrote:
But that doesn't mean that if add a character and make them female that it instantly makes the game better.

That is stupid. That is a flawed idea.

Well, there are many stupid people with stupid tastes that would like this change to be made. They are customer. They pay your check, in the end. How about making those peoples happy, since doing so would not make your game any worse? I mean, gender does not matter anyway, it cannot make your game worse, right?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Spec Ops: The Line or any game with a strong character in the center, is a univerisal character

Got to love the idea that a universal character is necessarily a white male .

I would like to point to many characters that aren't white male but that would be a waste of time. Outside of the triple A market there are more diversified characters.

It would be useless and more coding and more character modelling and the game would suffer if you added that option in.

You all forget that it takes time and resources to make another gender in the game for a playable thing. Studios have a budget and making character rigs and models is expensive. Its not like adding a new skin to a character. You need a completely different rig. You can't just change the face, it would look completely off.

Games like spec ops would of suffered if they added another gender in. Somewhere someplace the game would of suffered because they put in more time into making a female character.

The white male representation happens quite a bit in games and its a sad sad thing. Hence why I was pissed when it turns out master chief is a white guy. I always saw him as an African.

There are very limiting options that go into a game.

Its like adding multiplayer into a game. Its a useful extra. But who really cares, its multiplayer. Multiplayer is not the no.1 thing people look for anymore, they look for gameplay and mechanics.

And that is the issue when you make the male as the default that you don't want to change. If it doesn't matter, then just randomized the gender of background NPCs. We already do that for race is some games.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I would like to point to many characters that aren't white male but that would be a waste of time.

Yeah, there are many animals/monsters too!

 Asherian Command wrote:
It would be useless and more coding and more character modelling and the game would suffer if you added that option in.

So then, just make female the only choice. See, no more coding or character modeling required, and surely nobody will be angry that it is a female character because gender do not matter at all?

 Asherian Command wrote:
The white male representation happens quite a bit in games and its a sad sad thing. Hence why I was pissed when it turns out master chief is a white guy. I always saw him as an African.

So, you do agree that this is a thing. Because your first sentence seemed to imply this was an outdated myth.

 AdeptSister wrote:
And that is the issue when you make the male as the default that you don't want to change. If it doesn't matter, then just randomized the gender of background NPCs. We already do that for race is some games.

Yes and no. It matters on what is the message in the game.

You could be a female lead and could be leading a massacre.

Does it make a big difference that your female, no not really, your still doing a horrible. horrible thing.

Whether your male or female doesn't really matter, its the message that I take from the game, more than the character i play.

There should be inclusion of both genders, but that doesn't make the message better or worse.

Or the game for that matter better because you added a gender or a new race.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I would like to point to many characters that aren't white male but that would be a waste of time.

Yeah, there are many animals/monsters too!

 Asherian Command wrote:
It would be useless and more coding and more character modelling and the game would suffer if you added that option in.

So then, just make female the only choice. See, no more coding or character modeling required, and surely nobody will be angry that it is a female character because gender do not matter at all?

 Asherian Command wrote:
The white male representation happens quite a bit in games and its a sad sad thing. Hence why I was pissed when it turns out master chief is a white guy. I always saw him as an African.

So, you do agree that this is a thing. Because your first sentence seemed to imply this was an outdated myth.

But what does that add to the game apart from a new gender to play?

Does that really make the game a better more entertaining game.

Does it give you something we can all enjoy?

A game designers job is to cater to a large audience. Not to a single group of people.

I don't think gender should be that important of a thing. But I don't buy games based on what gender I play as.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Whether your male or female doesn't really matter, its the message that I take from the game, more than the character i play.

You told us a billion time already what matter to you. Can you look outside of your own self for a second and care to learn what matter to other people? Or can you not understand how they could dare have other opinions, interests and feelings that yours?

 Asherian Command wrote:
But what does that add to the game apart from a new gender to play?

Why do you care? You said it doesn't matter to you, so clearly it shouldn't bother you.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Whether your male or female doesn't really matter, its the message that I take from the game, more than the character i play.

You told us a billion time already what matter to you. Can you look outside of your own self for a second and care to learn what matter to other people? Or can you not understand how they could dare have other opinions, interests and feelings that yours?

Oh I am listening,

But I define games as an art form.

Just because you have certain things that you want, doesn't mean everyone wants it as well. And I saying that it doesn't add anything to the game other playing as a new gender. You guys can say my opinion is wrong, but you can't say what is best . Because at the end of the day it is the designer who makes the choices or the publisher.

I really don't care what gender we play, but it doesn't mean that it makes a better game.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But what does that add to the game apart from a new gender to play?

Why do you care? You said it doesn't matter to you, so clearly it shouldn't bother you.

Because what does it add? Apart from a new gender? Thats nothing new or exiciting it doesn't change gameplay or mechanics. Its just a visual feature. Its just a look or appearance of a character. Who cares. Its just resources used at the wrong place. You either go both which is a lot of resources, or you go with a single gender which is less time investment and money.

 Da Boss wrote:
You lose nothing by the inclusion of a female character option, people who would prefer to play as a female gain.

Why on earth would anyone be against that?

Completely mind boggling.

Adding a female protagonist isn't as easy as you imagine. In the case of RDR, the in-game problems have already been explained. Furthermore, it adds a metric ton of additional programming. How would that be justified? I sincerely doubt that the addition of a female protagonist in a genre that is largely dominated by by male players who prefer to play male characters would justify the immense plus of developing effort. Far from it.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Does that really make the game a better more entertaining game.

More entertaining to you, no. You made it abundantly clear. To other people, yes it would.
Have you even tried to ask them why? And I mean, not as a rhetorical question. I mean, have you tried to understand why they would get more enjoyment from the game rather than telling them that you know what would be more entertaining to them?

 Asherian Command wrote:
A game designers job is to cater to a large audience. Not to a single group of people.

There is a saying I have seen about software. Not games, software in general. It says that if you remove every feature that is used by less than 10% of people, then 3 out of 4 people that use your software will loose a feature that they use. Please think about it for a moment.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I don't think gender should be that important of a thing. But I don't buy games based on what gender I play as.

So, you can cater to some people while not making the experience worse for anyone else. Why not do that?

After seeing all the arguing I wish they would just make every game with a female lead, it ties in well with my love of stoicism.

I have always argued against reverse-racism and reverse sexism and the "reverse" anything they love to crow on about on Fox News because none of it seems to touch me as a confident white male. The power of the state was never against me, whenever an ill-tempered lesbian rubgy player throws insults and occasionally punches (happened to me at least three times in the thuggish town of my youth) at me, or a black or asian guy throws a racial slur in my direction I could always laugh it off, It didnt touch me for more than a fleeting moment, and I would regale my friends of the tale and we all would laugh about it. I fully concede it is not so easy a thing to deal with if you are a woman or a minority.

So, I would happily deal with playing every single game ever made as a woman if it would stop televangelist style, shrewd, yet morally bereft businesswomen from taking money off good hearted but ill-informed feminists!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Does that really make the game a better more entertaining game.

More entertaining to you, no. You made it abundantly clear. To other people, yes it would.
Have you even tried to ask them why? And I mean, not as a rhetorical question. I mean, have you tried to understand why they would get more enjoyment from the game rather than telling them that you know what would be more entertaining to them?

 Asherian Command wrote:
A game designers job is to cater to a large audience. Not to a single group of people.

There is a saying I have seen about software. Not games, software in general. It says that if you remove every feature that is used by less than 10% of people, then 3 out of 4 people that use your software will loose a feature that they use. Please think about it for a moment.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I don't think gender should be that important of a thing. But I don't buy games based on what gender I play as.

So, you can cater to some people while not making the experience worse for anyone else. Why not do that?

How does that make it a better game though?

I keep asking you this but you keep saying it adds a female character.

All your logic can be summed up as.

If I add a playable Female Character the game is instantly a better, more entertaining game.


What? How? How does that do that? That sounds like magic. It doesn't work like that.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Who cares.

Are you seriously asking this question?

I've made 8476 posts in the video game forum (including this one). At least two thirds of them have been me advocating for the inclusion of women.

Stop asking "who cares", because you already know my fething answer to that.

 Da Boss wrote:
You lose nothing by the inclusion of a female character option, people who would prefer to play as a female gain.

Why on earth would anyone be against that?

Completely mind boggling.

It depends on the setting. Does it make sense in the setting for the player character to be a man / woman?

For example, say there is a game where the main character is an Amazon. Would it make sense for the player character to be a man in a warrior society dominated by women?
Likewise, would it be possible to play as a woman legionary in a game about Imperial Rome, keeping in mind that Rome was a horribly patriarchal society?
What if the game is about a specific character, either real or fictional, or one who is adapted from another source? Would it be fine to determine Samus's gender? Or to make Ichabod Crane a woman?

If the setting or the source of inspiration does allow for the possibility of either gender, then yes, if possible there should be an option upon game start / character creation, provided it does not raise too many inconsistencies.
That does not mean that all games must have this option.

On the grand scheme of things, your singular opinion is worth nothing. If there is a large group asking for a specific change, people might listen, but singular opinions are voices in the wind.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Who cares.

Are you seriously asking this question?

I've made 8476 posts in the video game forum (including this one). At least two thirds of them have been me advocating for the inclusion of women.

Stop asking "who cares", because you already know my fething answer to that.

I am fine with adding female representation.

But it is stupid to say.

A game becomes better when you put a female into the game.

It didn't make destiny or diablo 3 or several other games better because they had female characters. It didn't make the mechanics better, it just added a different appearance.

Do not confuse me for saying that I don't think there shouldn't be more women in games.

I think there should be. But it does not change the game or make it a better or universal game for people to play. Because at the end of the day, I don't think the average gamer will give two gaks what gender they are playing.

If they play a female character thats great, a male character thats great.

But saying that just because you have a female character in a game, so that instantly makes the game better, is just bonkers crazy, and shows ignorance in the subject.

Adding a female character into a game, is better for the community. But not for the game.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I am fine with adding female representation.

I call BS. You're not fine with it. You are only fine with "assume male as default and then only add women when there's a compelling reason to do so". You've constantly argued against inclusion of female characters, and I'm not gonna just let it slide that you try to act like you aren't doing so.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I am fine with adding female representation.

I call BS. You're not fine with it. You are only fine with "assume male as default and then only add women when there's a compelling reason to do so".

Oh my god. Please for the love of.....

I write stories. And 3/4's of them the main character is female.

So do not tell me, I am not fine with it. I have a very long list of female characters I have written. But if I put a male character into that role it doesn't change much.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But I define games as an art form.

As much as music or movies.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Just because you have certain things that you want, doesn't mean everyone wants it as well.

But if people do not want the opposite, and it costs nothing to do it the way we want, then this is a net benefit for no cost, right? Why would you not do that?

 Asherian Command wrote:
You guys can say my opinion is wrong, but you can't say what is best . Because at the end of the day it is the designer who makes the choices or the publisher.

And it is the customer that will buy or not buy it. Hence the publisher will pressure the designer to cater to the customer. Hence you will complain about how you are forced to include female character. But remember, those people that force you to include them, they are the one paying your salary ultimately.

 Asherian Command wrote:
You either go both which is a lot of resources, or you go with a single gender which is less time investment and money.

Go with a single gender and make it female then!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But I define games as an art form.

As much as music or movies.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Just because you have certain things that you want, doesn't mean everyone wants it as well.

But if people do not want the opposite, and it costs nothing to do it the way we want, then this is a net benefit for no cost, right? Why would you not do that?

 Asherian Command wrote:
You guys can say my opinion is wrong, but you can't say what is best . Because at the end of the day it is the designer who makes the choices or the publisher.

And it is the customer that will buy or not buy it. Hence the publisher will pressure the designer to cater to the customer. Hence you will complain about how you are forced to include female character. But remember, those people that force you to include them, they are the one paying your salary ultimately.

 Asherian Command wrote:
You either go both which is a lot of resources, or you go with a single gender which is less time investment and money.

Go with a single gender and make it female then!

Thats fine, but saying changing the gender of the character adds to the game and makes it better is a flawed statement.

 Asherian Command wrote:
So do not tell me, I am not fine with it.

You have spent this entire thread arguing against the inclusion of women, and arguing FOR the assumption of men as the default and women only being included if there's some special reason for the character to not be male. That's all you've been doing.

That's all you're STILL doing.

Your experiences as a writer are irrelevant to what you've been arguing for in this thread-- which is that the only reason women should be included is if there's a compelling narrative reason-- otherwise, have a man in the role instead, there's no reason, according to your argument, to justify including a man in the story, because men are default.

If you want to back off of this position and admit you were wrong, go ahead. But you're not going to get away with simply claiming you never took that position to begin with.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
You lose nothing by the inclusion of a female character option, people who would prefer to play as a female gain.

Why on earth would anyone be against that?

Completely mind boggling.

It depends on the setting. Does it make sense in the setting for the player character to be a man / woman?

For example, say there is a game where the main character is an Amazon. Would it make sense for the player character to be a man in a warrior society dominated by women?
Likewise, would it be possible to play as a woman legionary in a game about Imperial Rome, keeping in mind that Rome was a horribly patriarchal society?
What if the game is about a specific character, either real or fictional, or one who is adapted from another source? Would it be fine to determine Samus's gender? Or to make Ichabod Crane a woman?

If the setting or the source of inspiration does allow for the possibility of either gender, then yes, if possible there should be an option upon game start / character creation, provided it does not raise too many inconsistencies.
That does not mean that all games must have this option.

What does it bother you if a single player game has male and female options? If you think the female option is stupid, don't choose it. It's not included for you.

As to the dev costs, I am sceptical that it is a "ton of extra programming time". I'm pretty sure any game that already includes female NPCs could use the same or similar models for a PC. It might cost a bit, sure, but it would be worth it to start making back some of the ridiculous gender skew in games. There are way bigger money sinks in AAA games right now than an extra skin for the protagonist.