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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lotet wrote:
My example was supposed to be what I saw as a good example of what I wanted. It led to a generally gender neutral faction but one that wouldn't use women in the most hostile battle front. One where everyone dies a lot. But they are thrown into every other combat situation.

Why would we want that? Women can die too.

And they do, against the Legion, against Raiders, against the player. Just like the men do. Forlorn Hope is the only area where women aren't common.

But me seeing that as a good example was based on something I heard the Extra Credits folks say, something along the lines of rejecting and accepting different gender facets of society instead of going completely to one side and ignoring the other side. So I guess you would have put ladies into Forlorn Hope. Okay, not like it would have made a difference in the game, it was just something I noticed and thought it was interesting that they didn't utterly ignore gender as more than a cosmetic difference.

Is this really a bad example?

For reference, one game I played just recently and which is pretty bad on that regard is Guacamelee. It plays the Damsel in distress trope completely straight, in its most plain form: love interest get kidnapped by the bad guy, saving her is the objective of the game, she has absolutely no character development. While you can play with a female character skin, the whole story is about the male character: you start as him, no choice, and people will still refer to you as Juan and a male no matter what skin you use. The playable female character has just 0 character development, she is introduced as “the guardian of the mask” or something, and then never mentioned ever again in the whole game, iirc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lotet wrote:
Is this really a bad example?

Maybe not, but this is neither something I would parade as a good thing either.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
For reference, one game I played just recently and which is pretty bad on that regard is Guacamelee. It plays the Damsel in distress trope completely straight, in its most plain form: love interest get kidnapped by the bad guy, saving her is the objective of the game, she has absolutely no character development. While you can play with a female character skin, the whole story is about the male character: you start as him, no choice, and people will still refer to you as Juan and a male no matter what skin you use. The playable female character has just 0 character development, she is introduced as “the guardian of the mask” or something, and then never mentioned ever again in the whole game, iirc.

Reference for what? A example of lazy inclusivity?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lotet wrote:
Is this really a bad example?

Maybe not, but this is neither something I would parade as a good thing either.

Then I suppose mooks should have absolutely no reference to their gender then, since if putting women into the highest mortality area is fine then it seems gender should do nothing more for them than change what they look like and their voices.

Oh well, it's not like mooks get any story time anyway. Plus making gender completely unimportant is one of the goals for some people.
Good to know a bit more on what brand of feminism you follow.

 Lotet wrote:
Reference for what?

For lazy use of cliched gendered trope and how they do not make for an interesting story/.

 Lotet wrote:
Then I suppose mooks should have absolutely no reference to their gender then, since if putting women into the highest mortality area is fine then it seems gender should do nothing more for them than change what they look like and their voices.

Yeah. They are mooks. If there is absolutely no reference to their gender in 99% of the case, it is perfectly fine. Why?

Why... what? I've already agreed with you.

Jeeze, before I came to this thread today I was feeling a tiny bit good, now I'm in the negatives. I'm out of here.

I am sorry, did I misunderstood you?

Doesn't Skyrim, another Bethesda game do a complete 50/50 type thing for random NPCs spawning. EG bandits.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Okay let me say. No. I don't want that at all. I want to diversify not make the gamer community more hardcore

Then your interests are in direct conflict with mine, and probably the overwhelming majority of gamers. I have no desire whatsoever to see resources for legitimate, good games diverted into a larger, more casual market.

they shouldn't be that common.

Why?

I would agree. But there are some wrong designs like Ivy from Soul Calibur.

What basis do you have for declaring this to be wrong?

 Kali wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Okay let me say. No. I don't want that at all. I want to diversify not make the gamer community more hardcore

Then your interests are in direct conflict with mine, and probably the overwhelming majority of gamers. I have no desire whatsoever to see resources for legitimate, good games diverted into a larger, more casual market.

they shouldn't be that common.

Why?

I would agree. But there are some wrong designs like Ivy from Soul Calibur.

What basis do you have for declaring this to be wrong?

The suit just makes me uncomfortable (On Ivy)

I think I align with many peoples opinions. We want more people and different types of people.

I think they should be uncommon mostly due to the fact they might help the viewership of games.

Kali doesn't want more people to buy games, however, so I don't think they would agree with that. The video game industry of course wants more people to buy games though, so I don't think that Kali's ideas are even close to being in line with the reality on the ground.

 Kali wrote:
Then your interests are in direct conflict with mine, and probably the overwhelming majority of gamers.

I think you are mistaken here. I highly doubt you are representative of the interest of the majority of gamer. I also think you are wrong to believe there is a fixed pool of game development resources and that a bigger market will just mean having to same the share amount of resources on more games, diluting it.

Kali really doesn't have much faith in capitalism it seems.

 Melissia wrote:
Kali really doesn't have much faith in capitalism it seems.

It's chicken and egg I guess, but is the lack of female AAA protagonists a result of underwhelming spending by the female demographic, or is the female demographic spending less because of the lack of AAA female protagonists?

This won't be scientific AT ALL but:
http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-of-2013-revealed-4265929/

I've gone through and categorized gender of player character/s
Both genders: 35
Males: 51
Females: 2
N/a: 12 (due to being a car, robot, or smurf)

The two female character only games are Tomb Raider (6th best selling) and Beyond: Two Souls (78th best selling)

So, are female leads only 2% of the 100 best selling because of the chicken, or the egg?

I personally have no idea, but bloody hell, 2%. I have all the time in the world for you now Melissia, the combined 'both genders' and 'females' figure might be 37%, but games with gender select don't always have the most interesting protagonists, Saint's Row being the exception.

I think I just got a taste of why you're so passionate about this.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
N/a: 12 (due to being a car, robot, or smurf)

Smurff are male, except for the smurfette, and whatever-her-name-is, the ginger one.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Kali really doesn't have much faith in capitalism it seems.

It's chicken and egg I guess, but is the lack of female AAA protagonists a result of underwhelming spending by the female demographic, or is the female demographic spending less because of the lack of AAA female protagonists?

This won't be scientific AT ALL but:
http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-of-2013-revealed-4265929/

I've gone through and categorized gender of player character/s
Both genders: 35
Males: 51
Females: 2
N/a: 12 (due to being a car, robot, or smurf)

The two female character only games are Tomb Raider (6th best selling) and Beyond: Two Souls (78th best selling)

So, are female leads only 2% of the 100 best selling because of the chicken, or the egg?

I personally have no idea, but bloody hell, 2%. I have all the time in the world for you now Melissia, the combined 'both genders' and 'females' figure might be 37%, but games with gender select don't always have the most interesting protagonists, Saint's Row being the exception.

I think I just got a taste of why you're so passionate about this.

This is why people get wound up about women in video games. That 2% right there. On its own it wouldn't be as bad as it is, if the male figure was so low, and the 'both genders' was higher - then everyone would be represented and no-one would mind. Its the 2%, compared to the 51%.

Also, genuine congratulations. You came to an argument with a belief, did research and altered your belief accordingly. This may be a first for Dakka, or indeed the internet.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Smurff are male, except for the smurfette, and whatever-her-name-is, the ginger one.

It was a joke, you gingerist

Besides, "they're all male, except the ones that are female" isn't going to sway a jury

I was also thinking about making Batman a separate category

The thing is, Smurfette's "personality" was "hey look at me I'm female". It's lazy writing, the same kind of writing that leads to characters whose personality is "hey look at me I'm black!".

... while I doubt I'll convince anyone by saying this, but the problem with Smurfette type principles is basically this:

Guy characters are treated as individuals, since to the writers, whom are usually male, think of guys as individuals whom are not reflective of the whole group. However, the woman character, whom is often the only female character in these kinds of things (or at least the only one with a speaking part) is required to represent all women, resulting in a bland, generic character.

Crystal-Maze wrote:
This is why people get wound up about women in video games. That 2% right there. On its own it wouldn't be as bad as it is, if the male figure was so low, and the 'both genders' was higher - then everyone would be represented and no-one would mind. Its the 2%, compared to the 51%.

Also, genuine congratulations. You came to an argument with a belief, did research and altered your belief accordingly. This may be a first for Dakka, or indeed the internet.

Thank you. I was a bit surprised by the 2%. It doesn’t really matter if the cause is “Publishers are buggers” or “Females aren’t buying enough AAA games” or whatever.

Also this is embarrassing, but the joke about Batman before. . . Batman as a separate category is 2%. If you don't count Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes, which would pop it up to 3%.

Batman, as a protagonist, is featured the same amount (or more) as distinct female protagonists in total for the top selling games of 2013.

Sigh.

Actually there is enough batman games that makes me really sad.

Or characters wanting to be batman O.O

I think any game with a female antagonist that you are playing as. Is like a gem in a pool. I have yet to see one XD.

Or a male character that is an antagonist that you are playing as- (Spec Ops The Line.)

 Asherian Command wrote:
Actually there is enough batman games that makes me really sad.

Or characters wanting to be batman O.O

I think any game with a female antagonist that you are playing as. Is like a gem in a pool. I have yet to see one XD.

Or a male character that is an antagonist that you are playing as- (Spec Ops The Line.)

My mistake - sometimes I use the word protagonist instead of the words player character

Asherian Command wrote:[It] just makes me uncomfortable (On Ivy)

I think that's the only reason at all to demand that the visual portrayal of women in games be changed.

I think I align with many peoples opinions. We want more people and different types of people.

There's an insidious implication behind that desire, though, which is that you change the nature of the market and its products to suit these new people. Simply adding to the existing community does no harm, but this notion that current styles are "unacceptable" is destructive.

I think they should be uncommon mostly due to the fact they might help the viewership of games.

Case in point.

Melissia wrote: The video game industry of course wants more people to buy games though, so I don't think that Kali's ideas are even close to being in line with the reality on the ground.

I think that the industry is sufficiently capable of performing a calculus of their own interests. In the first place, most if not all developers and publishers are motivated by more than simply profit, as they also wish to realize creative visions. Second, the fact that they consider the status quo profitable, to the point that even sustained lobbying for reform has caused little change, indicates that, at the very least, they don't see change as being desirable on a financial level.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I think you are mistaken here. I highly doubt you are representative of the interest of the majority of gamer.

I'm representing the status quo in many respects, which I think is quite representative of most gamers.

I also think you are wrong to believe there is a fixed pool of game development resources and that a bigger market will just mean having to same the share amount of resources on more games, diluting it.

Resources doesn't just mean money. It also means skilled labor, time, marketing, social capital, etc. Many of these resources are finite or fixed, and the introduction of new "mainstream" trends necessarily pushes current successes to the periphery.

Melissia wrote:Kali really doesn't have much faith in capitalism it seems.

I really don't, at all. I hardly trust the market, let alone such a corrupt scheme for utilizing it.

 Melissia wrote:
The thing is, Smurfette's "personality" was "hey look at me I'm female". It's lazy writing, the same kind of writing that leads to characters whose personality is "hey look at me I'm black!".

Smurfs were meant to be one dimensional, weren't they? Brainy smurf, grouchy smurf. . . carries a mirror smurf? etc.

Although reliable sources (wikepedia ) say Smurfette may have been introduced

to end speculation arguing that the Smurfs were gay

or because

the networks were more likely trying to pander to young girls than trying to defuse gay rumors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smurfette

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:
This is why people get wound up about women in video games. That 2% right there. On its own it wouldn't be as bad as it is, if the male figure was so low, and the 'both genders' was higher - then everyone would be represented and no-one would mind. Its the 2%, compared to the 51%.

Also, genuine congratulations. You came to an argument with a belief, did research and altered your belief accordingly. This may be a first for Dakka, or indeed the internet.

Thank you. I was a bit surprised by the 2%. It doesn’t really matter if the cause is “Publishers are buggers” or “Females aren’t buying enough AAA games” or whatever.

Also this is embarrassing, but the joke about Batman before. . . Batman as a separate category is 2%. If you don't count Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes, which would pop it up to 3%.

Batman, as a protagonist, is featured the same amount (or more) as distinct female protagonists in total for the top selling games of 2013.

Sigh.

You have to count Lego batman. I mean he is in the name and on the cover. That is just shameful. Women make up over 50% of the population but only 2% of video game protagonists. (At least among the top 100.)

One of the great things about having multiple women characters is that it allows a variety of personalities. With only one, they represent all women in the world (like Melissa stated.)

Kali, I think it comes down if the status quo is the best idea. The issues people are mentioning are actively offending possible customers and just feeds into all these negative stereotypes about gamers. Is the titillation really that critical to gaming?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Kali wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Okay let me say. No. I don't want that at all. I want to diversify not make the gamer community more hardcore

Then your interests are in direct conflict with mine, and probably the overwhelming majority of gamers. I have no desire whatsoever to see resources for legitimate, good games diverted into a larger, more casual market.

they shouldn't be that common.

Why?

I would agree. But there are some wrong designs like Ivy from Soul Calibur.

What basis do you have for declaring this to be wrong?

The suit just makes me uncomfortable (On Ivy)

I think I align with many peoples opinions. We want more people and different types of people.

I think they should be uncommon mostly due to the fact they might help the viewership of games.

I'll have to hop in on this opinion. Somebody mentioned Dragon's Crown. Honestly while I think it's aesthetic design is interesting, I rally could only ever play the elf and wizard. Also kinda the fighter (his proportions just creep the hell out of me). The rest just kinda offed me with themselves existing. eeesh.

Anyways, late to respond but as per the problem? From a technical standpoint whilst gamers is actually very heavy with females. I think reports even lifting over half of them being females. If you don't mind this... I would like to point out that this data does technically use games on phone apps and facebook, etc. That's rather rude of me to say because it gets into the whole entire YOU ARE NOT GAMERS! argument but I'd argue there is some difference between people that lean heavily on playing phone games from the good ones, to the bad ones, to the go in each day press a few. The catch with games is they kinda all have sinks. Heck, I've seen some gamers that just play the Call of Duty games and that's it. Some only play League of Legends and that's about it or just play WoW. So, from a completely technical standpoint I'd like to argue that a lot of the AAA demographics are still white males that are usually teenagers or young adults. Now then... lemme just take a second to hop off this platform...

As per personal opinion, I'd like to see females improved in representation. Now somebody like Seerkesian? Yeah I'll say hers are stupid but that's because of a whole laundry load of bs she does including manipulating facts from Hitman Absolution to dragging around bodies in FALLOUT or pointing to counter-examples in the games but then waving them aside as eh but it doesn't matter. In the grand scheme though? I'd like it improved. I'm fine with the whole family killed, rescue wife/girlfriend/daughter/son story. I'm fine with the damsel in distress scenario. Are they lazy? Honestly? Yes but I don't think it's something I can just drop a game for especially considering that fact that game stories are usually pretty bad to begin with and stand up more for their mechanics . But seriously, more mooks that are females, more interesting and in depth female characters. More female protagonists. I'm completely up for it. Hell, if the gaming industry really tries I'd love to see characters improved at large because when you get down to it they are usually just murderhobos running around slaughtering people

As per whether it should be endorsed, why not? Maybe not as the main character to start with but improving them as background characters in general? Step it up, improve characters in general. Damsel in distress? They bust out while you try to save them, maybe help you along the way. Do more, get out of spamming tropes and cliches, have some fun playing with things and making memorable characters, or a story that's actually cohesive. Sticking to status quo? Sure, you can stick with that or we could improve writing in games in general. Make females better in games? Bang characters improved, make characters in general better and more intriguing? Bang even more interesting. Really, there isn't a drawback to it. It's not like having girls in games is gonna flip people off. The only possibility of that (that I can think of) is mooks that are females and shooting them up which, considering the popularity of games like NV, 3, and even Skyrim, I don't think is quite that extreme nor is it anything significant enough for people to care about. So really, what's the drawback with expanding it? What's the negative quality?

 AdeptSister wrote:
One of the great things about having multiple women characters is that it allows a variety of personalities. With only one, they represent all women in the world (like Melissa stated.)

I don't believe that's true at all. Rarely is there only a single female character in a game, and even rarer still would the developer intend or the player take away that that character is supposed to be representative of all women.

Kali, I think it comes down if the status quo is the best idea. The issues people are mentioning are actively offending possible customers and just feeds into all these negative stereotypes about gamers. Is the titillation really that critical to gaming?

As I've said before, it's not about "defending titillation," (frankly I disagree that this is the way most women in games are portrayed) it's a matter of lacking a rational basis to critique that element. Simply stating that it makes you uncomfortable and that because of that you're not interested in it does not warrant reform.

OK, so the crux of your argument is that it people's offense to the sexualization of women in games is that since you don't see it as problem, it is not a problem? Do you realize the issue with that?

Because, it sounds like that is why you are saying it is irrational. There have been many people stating why people took offense and gave reasoned logical arguments. I'm not sure what else are you looking for.

As for examples, we can cite the Dragon's Crown, the commonality of the combat bikini, and the majority of the work of Team Ninja. There are many other examples on this very thread.

 AdeptSister wrote:
OK, so the crux of your argument is that it people's offense to the sexualization of women in games is that since you don't see it as problem, it is not a problem? Do you realize the issue with that?

Because, it sounds like that is why you are saying it is irrational. There have been many people stating why people took offense and gave reasoned logical arguments. I'm not sure what else are you looking for.

As for examples, we can cite the Dragon's Crown, the commonality of the combat bikini, and the majority of the work of Team Ninja. There are many other examples on this very thread.

Is it wrong if the only thing I can think about when people mention Team Ninja is how horrendous Other M was?

May it forever mar their name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kali wrote:
I hardly trust the market, let alone such a corrupt scheme for utilizing it.

... corrupt?

What the hell? Ain't nothing "corrupt" about asking companies to provide a product I want to buy, and asserting "corruption" just because your tastes are different is frankly hypocritical.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
It was a joke, you gingerist

I am not gingerist, it is just that had I described a smurf by “The one with the blue skin, a big nose and a white phrygian cap”, that would not have helped !

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Besides, "they're all male, except the ones that are female" isn't going to sway a jury

I do not know whether or not that is going to sway a jury, but that sure means you can determine the characters gender.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Batman, as a protagonist, is featured the same amount (or more) as distinct female protagonists in total for the top selling games of 2013.

But all those long lists of female video game characters that have been posted here and in the GG thread, would that means they are actually not an accurate description of the situation?

 Kali wrote:
I'm representing the status quo in many respects, which I think is quite representative of most gamers.

You are representing the status quo? What does that even mean?
I am pretty sure most gamers do not have a problem with more people playing as it means more money for game developers and more social recognition for gaming.

 Kali wrote:
Resources doesn't just mean money. It also means skilled labor, time, marketing, social capital, etc. Many of these resources are finite or fixed

All of those are pretty extensible in many regards. Skilled labor just require more people wishing to learn and train on this specific kind of job, time is just not an issue, …

But then again, if any game that feature female characters wearing non-sexualized clothes is automatically something that you are not interested in playing, I can see how you would not benefit from it.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The thing is, Smurfette's "personality" was "hey look at me I'm female". It's lazy writing, the same kind of writing that leads to characters whose personality is "hey look at me I'm black!".

Smurfs were meant to be one dimensional, weren't they? Brainy smurf, grouchy smurf. . . carries a mirror smurf? etc.

Yes, this is a perfect example of male being the default and female being something special about a character. This needs to go.