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.

It's not about size it's about what the sample is of and if there is a difference between players who hook their game up to the internet and players who don't.

Yeah, but we what possible difference could there be in that regard? It' be like if I said "75% of Americans like America" (based on data collected via phone calls) and someone said "well what about people with no phone?" At this point internet is so prevalent and internet connections so common, there's absolutely no reason to believe we'd get a significant difference in the outcome by including non-internet using players so long as the original sample size was sufficiently large.

 LordofHats wrote:

It's not about size it's about what the sample is of and if there is a difference between players who hook their game up to the internet and players who don't.

Yeah, but we what possible difference could there be in that regard? It' be like if I said "75% of Americans like America" (based on data collected via phone calls) and someone said "well what about people with no phone?" At this point internet is so prevalent and internet connections so common, there's absolutely no reason to believe we'd get a significant difference in the outcome by including non-internet using players so long as the original sample size was sufficiently large.

See that is like the thing. The internet is not as prevalent as people think. We only have something like 80 penetration and it is far less when you count high speed internet needed to play online games. Their are places that don't really have internet. The last numbers I looked at showed like only 1/3 of players had connected their Xbox online.

I guess it dose make more sense that I am wrong though.

nomotog wrote:
The last numbers I looked at showed like only 1/3 of players had connected their Xbox online.

That number is literally from 2006 (seriously, it's from 2006). That was back in the age when everyone thought XBox Live was a terrible idea bound to fail.



For every 2 XBoxes sold, there is 1 XBox live member. (and let us all laugh at the Kinect again hahahahahaha).

And that's just XBL. Like I said before, the PC virtually forces you to play ME with an internet connection. High speed internet is indeed not as common as people might think, but a lot of these connections don't require high speed. Basic dial up cuts it and I doubt there are many people in the western world with 0 internet connectivity.

There's really just no reason to question the numbers on that front unless we consider there to be some massive behavioral difference between people who connect their XBox online and those who don't, which is kind of a far fetched grasping at strays assumption to be making. EDIT: Especially when there are far more apparent bias' in the data, namely that it is based on save games, not players, and ManShep being the default at character creation.

 Lynata wrote:
No idea about the two bonus characters, though - neither that game's website nor the wikis say much about them.

Where did you get that those were bonus characters? The website says exactly as much about them as they do about the other two. The only different here is the order in which they are listed, and the fact they are not on the header.

In Valdis Story there are four different characters to choose from: Wyatt, a warrior who strongly opposes both sides of the Goddess War, Reina, a gifted fighter raised in an Alagathian monastery, Gilda, the trickster demon or Vladyn, a gunman whose body was used as a prison for souls. […]
The development of Valdis Story originally started out in 2007 as a test project and a base for learning game programming. Since then the original game was never completed but you can still play the old game [link that does not work at all]here.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Where did you get that those were bonus characters?

The game's development history. The other two characters were DLC and not included with the first release, which is why only Wyatt and Reina are on the homepage's header (as I assume the homepage was around before Gilda and Vladyn). And again, Wyatt stands out as being the only character mentioned on the website's main page.

[edit] Probably best to add one of the random sources just in case you wanted to check for yourself: http://endlessfluff.com/forum/index.php?topic=200.0

So I saw this in a different thread, but I thought this would be a better thread to kind of poke the issue.

 MWHistorian wrote:
What I don't want is an enviroment where a creator has to go through a politically correct checklist of races, genders and sexual preferences just to write a story.
There's a difference between trying to put more emphasis on minorities and such and forcing/shaming people that write about non-minorities.
I'm a writer and the same debate is going on in the literary world. Writers tend to write what they know and often when they try to write from a different perspective, it comes out inaccurate or unconvincing.
They want more women in games? Get more women making games.
I refuse to be told what to write though. If my character's a white male protestant, I'm not going to apologize.
(Says the guy that wrote a history book about powerful women.)

Would a checklist or quota system be a big problem? Is it different then how things really work now? Do people actually think people are asking for something like this?

While some people have asked for it, I don't think the issue has ever really been "does your piece of fiction pass the X test for being a non-prejudiced person." Those tests are useful, but really only when examining a whole culture, not faults in a specific piece. One of the things that has continually confused the debate is the need to point out examples of bias in culture, and people assuming that the example being pointed out is itself a specific attack on a specific work.

Example: In and off itself, there's nothing wrong with a piece failing the Bechdel Test. Even works that portray women positively can fail the Bechdel Test. But it does raise questions about underlying assumptions in society when 90-95% of everything fails the Bechdel Test.

I think someone saying "here's a checklist of things you have to do or your a racist" is intolerant in itself (indeed, I'd say it's just as bad as racism). These debates often come off this way and it confuses people (and it doesn't help that there are idiots who actually make that demand), but at it's core I don't think that's really what advocates want.

EDIT: Now some things are quite egregious. Twilight has been rightly pointed out as terrible when it comes to the portrayal of men and women, and it really is, so much so that specific attacks can be leveled against it justifiably. But I think taking Mario and calling Shigeru Miyamoto a sexist pig for constantly putting Princess Peach in distress is going too far.

Well said. A writer shouldn't be forced to write something they don't want, as I feel it would affect the quality of the piece. Plus it'd be less fun for them, and even though it's their job it is my idealistic belief that profession and enthusiasm should be combined whenever possible, especially where creative processes are concerned.

On the other hand, it must be okay to question certain persistent patterns from individual creators or entities. In most cases the result of such an analysis would probably be quite harmless and perhaps even lead to a bit of self-reflection on part of the author ("why do you always write X?" - "it's the first thing that came to mind, maybe I should mix it up a bit in the future"), but as various critical comments from game developers have shown, there are cases where the aforementioned checklists do exist in the industry. It's just that they do not favour other genders or ethnicities, but the white heterosexual male.

Personally, I'm split on the subject of quotas. On one hand, I dislike the concept on the basis of undermining free spirit, but on the other I am beginning to believe that it'd be the only way to actually cause the industry to evolve - because said quotas would affect the social perception of coming generations, to a point where these quotas might some day no longer be necessary because everyone has come to accept relative equality.

We only got to this situation because someone installed a checklist for social roles many centuries ago in the first place, so it may well require artificial guidance to break out of this vicious cycle.

The 'soft' quota type thing seems to do quite well in industry, as far as I'm aware. Like the 'must interview at least one woman for a high ranking job' requirement. - They aren't required to hire her but from what I remember reading, the act of having an interview gives a massive bump to the numbers of women that are eventually given the job.


As for the Mass Effect 3 statistic, I imagine it came from consoles not having unticked the 'sent anonymous usage data to Electronic Arts' setting in the Options menu.

For what it's worth, this is where the statistic came from:


"Of players that finished ME3." - Admittedly, that leaves questions about how many did it multiple times, which ones counted, etc.

 Lynata wrote:
[edit] Probably best to add one of the random sources just in case you wanted to check for yourself: http://endlessfluff.com/forum/index.php?topic=200.0

No, I trust you, I was just under the impression you were using sources outside of the current official website. And it is now confirmed .

nomotog wrote:
Would a checklist or quota system be a big problem?

A per-game quota would be stupid. What we need is a change of mentality, not games with token minorities.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Considerable sections of the population watch fairly-violent sports.

More violent than Sumo fighting?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
That seems to be more of an exception rather than the rule, though.

Well, no. Most manga/anime I have heard about included violence. Japanese movies are often quite violent. At least those I hear about anyway. On par with other movies, on average. With the occasional very very violent movie.

Haven't checked this thread in a while so many pages to go through, but i have to address this.

Sumo is not a violent sport, boxing is more violent and mma is even more violent, you may not use fists in sumo, the injuries are mostly because of the fall of the dojo and because sumo wrestlers are heavy as twisted leg becomes a huge injury because a lot weight is put on them when they fall.

This is generalizing to such agree, so French movies are all porn because of all the nudity? Yes Japan has some violent movies, but most of them are not.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Sumo is not a violent sport, boxing is more violent and mma is even more violent

I was not comparing Sumo to boxing or MMA. I was comparing it to the supposedly violent soccer, football, basketball, baseball…
I am not sure MMA is more popular in western countries than in Japan.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
This is generalizing to such agree, so French movies are all porn because of all the nudity? Yes Japan has some violent movies, but most of them are not.

Have you missed the “on par”? Also, not sure why you think there is much nudity in French movies. Is it because I keep posting that Kirikou trailer?

My point is not that Japan is especially violent. It is that Japan is on par with European countries in term of violence.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:My point is not that Japan is especially violent. It is that Japan is on par with European countries in term of violence.

In regards to movies, games etc made in Europe, or including American products featured/sold in Europe? Because those are pretty much dominating the market, as opposed to "native" productions. At least in Germany, Ireland and the UK.

 Lynata wrote:
In regards to movies, games etc made in Europe, or including American products featured/sold in Europe?

Can go either way, would not change much. Beside, the U.S. are basically European: most of them descend from European settlers and they were never in their history cut of from constant cultural exchange with Europe, so as far as I can tell they are Europeans living abroad . Only sizable population with non-European roots are the “Afro-American”, but slavers broke their culture away, and they have basically built a new one now. Latinos, as the name imply, are also descendant of European settlers .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
In regards to movies, games etc made in Europe, or including American products featured/sold in Europe?

Can go either way, would not change much. Beside, the U.S. are basically European: most of them descend from European settlers and they were never in their history cut of from constant cultural exchange with Europe, so as far as I can tell they are Europeans living abroad . Only sizable population with non-European roots are the “Afro-American”, but slavers broke their culture away, and they have basically built a new one now. Latinos, as the name imply, are also descendant of European settlers .

That is too much of a stretch. American culture is not basically European. Since its inception, it has diverted enough due to the mixtures of cultures. Americans are considered Western, but act sufficiently different than Europe with different sensibilities (The importance of the gun, Individualism, the belief that "anyone can succeed with hard work"). Also non-European descendants have had a serious influence of America culture.

I'm still struggling with the fact that you believe that American football is not a violent sport. It really is. It thrives on violence.

Back on topic, from the Gamer gate threads, people seem to concerned that asking for a greater representation of women in gaming will lead to "censorship" (which I believe that the term is being used incorrectly) . I don't understand that argument because we already accept companies limiting game development in different ways. Most AAA games limit your ability to kill children (mostly by ensuring you can't run into them). Why is that acceptable than giving more female representation.?

Regarding gamergate: What they're really asking for is that feminists ourselves get censored, really. Basically drawing lines in the sand on what it's "okay" to criticize games and gaming for-- and anyone who crosses that line deserves to get harassed and "doxxed" and threatened.

Back on topic, from the Gamer gate threads, people seem to concerned that asking for a greater representation of women in gaming will lead to "censorship" (which I believe that the term is being used incorrectly) . I don't understand that argument because we already accept companies limiting game development in different ways. Most AAA games limit your ability to kill children (mostly by ensuring you can't run into them). Why is that acceptable than giving more female representation.?

Perosnally I think it is not really censorship, more on the lines of ignorance.

People often forget that there are many sides to this debate.

I say let the game designers choose, as more and more girls get interested in game design the more female characters we will begin to see.

AS currently there are not many women in head positions.

The more women that come into the industry the more change that will happen.

But I think those who see games like Skull Girls as sexists because of what the characters wear is just dumb. AS simple research will tell you that the artist who made them was a female.

These types of ideas that sprout out saying censorship! When someone uses a gender or race that you think is over represented.

It is necessarily a bad thing but it will change with time.

And it slowly has been.

Ignoring the progress of games in general is just stupid.

I mean one of my favorite games stars a criminal and a child.

And it has the best relationship we could ever have. A relationship between a father and his adopted daughter. Who is trying to protect her from horrors of the world.

This isn't disempowerment for women has Antia puts it. But this is empowerment as the girl learns from her adoptive father and takes those challenges on. Alone.

And might I add these characters are african americans?

Does it really matter what gender or what race they are in the end?

No. Because they left an impact on me.

And those characters are not designed by the player. You may choose what path they take but they will always get some result for either better or for worse.

Regarding gamergate: What they're really asking for is that feminists ourselves get censored, really. Basically drawing lines in the sand on what it's "okay" to criticize games and gaming for-- and anyone who crosses that line deserves to get harassed and "doxxed" and threatened.

I think gamers are fine with criticism. Its just as long as that criticism can be criticized and editted to become better.

Antia has great points but then she loses her sight half way through her argument.

She needs to remember there is good. And you can't just snap your fingers and have it happen.

Gradual change is the best way to do this.

If you ignore the larger porition of games that have strong central females, and just ignore it and classify it as damsel in distress you are taking away from the character.

Because characters are tools, they are tools of the writer to garner viewership and entertainment.

If we do not have someone be captured it gets quite boring.

It is the moment of weakness that add to the character.

Why does James Bond get captured in every movie he is in?

Because he needs to be shown that he is human that he does make mistakes. (especially in the latest film series)

If it doesn't matter, then let me choose.

Claiming "it doesn't matter therefor it should be male" is nonsense.

 Melissia wrote:
If it doesn't matter, then let me choose.

Claiming "it doesn't matter therefor it should be male" is nonsense.

Yes but you can't!

You can change defined roles in certain ways it demeans the character.

I am tired of that argument it is stupid. I do not want you to pick your male or female.

Sometimes you are the way you are.

And that is real life. And you have to deal with it.'


I am saying we see past those things as a gamer. WE stop seeing this person as a female or colored we see them as a human being.

Something incredibly lacking in games.

We need defined characters to make the game better. Having these defined characters, brings the whole experience back towards the viewer.

I also think it's kind of silly to say "more women in the industry" will fix this. Designers do not have the authority to make whatever design decision they want, something people just don't seem to get about collective projects like video games. Most games are not made by one person who can do as they please. Look at Last of Us and Remember Me. Would the companies that tried to block Ellie and (whoever Remember Me woman was I forget her name) behave differently if a woman had been the head designer of those games?

That's kind of silly. How many women are in the industry is irrelevant, as this isn't an issue with specific people involved, but an issue with industry wide practices. Even women often commit the errors that feminists like to point out in mass media. Go read a romance novel by a woman, let me know how many times the female lead needs to be saved by her dashing hero. Chances are at least once, maybe even twice.

Saying "more women in the industry" will fix this isn't just wrong on its face, it's a complete cop out.

So fething what if I can't choose things about myself in real life? This isn't real life, this is a game, therefor that objection is irrelvant. Simply by choosing to buy and play one game over a different one, I'm choosing what I want to play. And I sure as hell don't want to play a game where the writers have your attitude.

The argument isn't terrible. If it doesn't matter like you keep saying, then I suggest you (collectively, the game development industry) stop always forcing male characters, and let us (the players) pick, because clearly we're more creative than you are.

 LordofHats wrote:
I also think it's kind of silly to say "more women in the industry" will fix this. Designers do not have the authority to make whatever design decision they want, something people just don't seem to get about collective projects like video games. Most games are not made by one person who can do as they please. Look at Last of Us and Remember Me. Would the companies that tried to block Ellie and (whoever Remember Me woman was I forget her name) behave differently if a woman had been the head designer of those games?

That's kind of silly. How many women are in the industry is irrelevant, as this isn't an issue with specific people involved, but an issue with industry wide practices. Even women often commit the errors that feminists like to point out in mass media. Go read a romance novel by a woman, let me know how many times the female lead needs to be saved by her dashing hero. Chances are at least once, maybe even twice.

Saying "more women in the industry" will fix this isn't just wrong on its face, it's a complete cop out.

Women who are informed about gaming and are in major publishing groups will probably change this.


The more equality spread into the industry the better the industry will become.

So fething what if I can't choose things about myself in real life? This isn't real life, this is a game, therefor that objection is irrelvant. Simply by choosing to buy and play one game over a different one, I'm choosing what I want to play. And I sure as hell don't want to play a game where the writers have your attitude.

The argument isn't terrible. If it doesn't matter like you keep saying, then I suggest you (collectively, the game development industry) stop always forcing male characters, and let us (the players) pick, because clearly we're more creative than you are.

I am saying they should give you a choose in the following way. 1. They make games with females, or they make games with a male protoganist.

I think the hero fantasy of building up the player is pathetic, I think it is overdone.

it is a cliche.

I want us to move away from that, but not get rid of it entirely.

We should seek balance. Not more of one thing over another.

Because that will bring up more problems in the long run.

This is not a sexist argument in that if you bring something up there will always be a consequence what that is. I don't know. But it will happen. There is no such thing as a decision without risk.

And choosing to have only games where you can only choose between both genders will stifle the market. It will make the market worse.

Advancements would stop and story telling would be hindered by this.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think gamers are fine with criticism.

Because you haven't been paying attention.

Gamers have reacted violently to criticism of both specific games and games in general.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think gamers are fine with criticism.

Because you haven't been paying attention.

Gamers have reacted violently to criticism of both specific games and games in general.

Do not generalize when insulting a group of people.

A small minority group of gamers yes.

But the majority. No.

It's also "more women in the industry" means that you are putting the onus on those women to solve those issues, which is not fair. That they have to not only make a great game, but also have to solve societies ills. That is a lot of pressure. Why don't other designers work on going out of their comfort zone? Sure, failures can happen, but hopefully one learns from the experience. If they are open to criticism.

Zack Snyder made the flawed movie "Sucker Punch" (Basically "I went to my happy place: the movie") a few years ago. While it had a lot of issues (Google Scott Mendelson and his defense of movie, it basically covers my feelings on the film), he tried something different and make a statement. Which the majority of critics missed.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Women who are informed about gaming and are in major publishing groups will probably change this.

And the basis for this is?

America has a fairly even split for men and women. Making up about half the population doesn't seem to have had that profound of an effect in the struggle for equality (if anything it probably makes the struggle harder because it's much easier for the problems to be ignored than in a smaller minority). Maybe it makes it a little better, but assuming that adding a few more innies to the party will just make these problems go away is wishful thinking founded on assumptions based in wishful thinking.

It's not that simple.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Do not generalize when insulting a group of people.

No insult was given.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Women who are informed about gaming and are in major publishing groups will probably change this.

And the basis for this is?

America has a fairly even split for men and women. Making up about half the population doesn't seem to have had that profound of an effect in the struggle for equality (if anything it probably makes the struggle harder because it's much easier for the problems to be ignored than in a smaller minority). Maybe it makes it a little better, but assuming that adding a few more innies to the party will just make these problems go away is wishful thinking founded on assumptions based in wishful thinking.

It's not that simple.

It would if they were in positions of power

the more women in higher seats of authority. The better off the games industry will be. (As long as they are educated about games and not trying to actively destroy gaming)

 Asherian Command wrote:


It would if they were in positions of power

Yes I hear having black guys in police stations and paper pushing jobs and the White House has just solved all of the equality problems blacks face in the US. Good thing they got those positions of power so they could just snap their fingers and make all the problems go away eh?

 Melissia wrote:
Regarding gamergate: What they're really asking for is that feminists ourselves get censored, really. Basically drawing lines in the sand on what it's "okay" to criticize games and gaming for-- and anyone who crosses that line deserves to get harassed and "doxxed" and threatened.

It's a painful thing to watch, but it doesn't look like it's just the gamergate side. BOTH sides appear to be screaming about things in sweeping generalizations and absolutes while stamping huge "YOU'RE WRONG AND A BAD PERSON" stamps on each other the moment there is any dissent. They (the feminist/industry/whatever label you want to use for them) even ate their own RE: that one feminist who actually did say that it wasn't a big deal.

I mean, I stopped listening in to the whole thing when it became TMZ for gamers, so I'm not sure I'm currently well informed, but there was rampant silencing of people even tangentially talking about gamergate on a user basis on major social media sites.

Combined all this with the weird and ever-present SJW angle (different than feminists because feminists can be rational) who want to be the Mary Whitehouse/Tipper Gore of the gaming industry and freak out about a vampire sucking the blood of a woman in a video game because she decides that's too much like real life assault, and calls for the company to self-censor the scene.

I've been dwelling on a line of thought that's been slowly forming in my head though. It's generally been regarded that the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, and that people have been progressively getting more tolerant of each other. I'm not sure either of these things are true.