What problems do gamers have with how men are represented in games?

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.

**Wyzilla**

Lynata wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:Well hopefully that at least doesn't lead to murder.
Not the names, but every now and then there are some very messy "incidents" with immigrants. At least it has by now been about two decades since the last block was burned down and the police did nothing but watch whilst the firemen pleaded with them to secure a path so they might be able to help the Africans trapped inside.

Nowadays we just have smaller stuff like individuals being hunted through the streets by a small mob of youngsters or people getting beaten in the subway, and even that only seems to happen once every year or so. I'm sure it's nothing compared to some areas in the US.
It only gets into the major news particularly because it is thankfully a rare occurrence that shakes up the nation every time it happens. It's also a very unpleasant reminder of my home country's past, though, and I consider it to be important proof for why we should not forget history, regardless of how some Germans are sick of hearing about WW2. Arguably, some haven't heard enough yet.

Not that Germany is alone with these (largely economically-based) problems.

Wyzilla wrote:I can't really imagine hatred for the name of somebody though.
Oh, yes, it's not hatred - just stigmatisation and a high likelihood of being disadvantaged.
I'm not sure if this is an apt comparison, but perhaps you could say having the first name of "Kevin" could be compared to growing up in Harlem and having that show up in your CV?

It'd certainly be amusing, but it'd at best just give the officer dragging him in for mischievous activities a bit of a chuckle. Honestly though it'd be a better name then some of the weird stuff that comes out of the Ghetto. Key and Peele did a good skit on it.

**Macok**

Psienesis wrote:
Separate this from, say, the Witcher, where your character, Geralt of Rivia, has a pre-defined, unchangeable appearance. Or the characters in CoD or GoW. Or in the first 2 entries of the Doom franchise (all white, all blonde).

A little nitpick but:
So a game called Witcher that is about a preexisting character Gerald of Rivia should have a hero who is not Gerald of Rivia?

Or is it in a bad taste to create a game about existing white character?

**H.B.M.C.**

Macok wrote:
So a game called Witcher that is about a preexisting character Gerald of Rivia should have a hero who is not Gerald of Rivia?

That's been my point all along. The characters should flow naturally from your story. Making the character a blank slate (almost literally in some cases), only makes them less important to the narrative.

Macok wrote:
Or is it in a bad taste to create a game about existing white character?

Depends who you ask, sadly.

**DarkTraveler777**

text removed.

No need for comments like this.

Reds8n

**CthuluIsSpy**

Psienesis wrote:

Separate this from, say, the Witcher, where your character, Geralt of Rivia, has a pre-defined, unchangeable appearance.

Actually, that's not entirely true.
You may change Geralt's hair style.

**H.B.M.C.**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Actually, that's not entirely true.
You may change Geralt's hair style.

Well that's empowerment and agency right there.

**CthuluIsSpy**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Actually, that's not entirely true.
You may change Geralt's hair style.

Well that's empowerment and agency right there.

Geralt with dreads is totally empowering.
How else is he to moonlight as a medieval reggae performer?

**Lynata**

It's an interesting point, though. If the official Geralt of Riva has one specific hairstyle, why are you allowed to change it in your game?
And if you're allowed to alter his appearance this way, why not alter all the other things as well, such as skin colour (e.g. Zerrikanian) - notably whilst keeping the typical signs of their curse intact? It wouldn't need to have any effect on the story, especially as the PC is already an outsider just by, y'now, being a witcher.

Undoubtedly there are cases where a fixed appearance is necessary, but I find that these would be exceptions rather than the rule. In this case, The Witcher is undermining itself by allowing the player to change some things, but not others.

**flamingkillamajig**

Lynata wrote:

Wyzilla wrote:I can't really imagine hatred for the name of somebody though.
Oh, yes, it's not hatred - just stigmatisation and a high likelihood of being disadvantaged.
I'm not sure if this is an apt comparison, but perhaps you could say having the first name of "Kevin" could be compared to growing up in Harlem and having that show up in your CV?

Interesting that you said my first name of all names. I actually used to think kevin was more of a nerd's name and seeing what i like that wouldn't be too far off.

Also sometimes there are weird coincidences. Have you never met 3 people with the same first name and each was somebody you didn't like. It's kind of a curiosity.

**carlos13th**

Lynata wrote:
It's an interesting point, though. If the official Geralt of Riva has one specific hairstyle, why are you allowed to change it in your game?
And if you're allowed to alter his appearance this way, why not alter all the other things as well, such as skin colour (e.g. Zerrikanian) - notably whilst keeping the typical signs of their curse intact? It wouldn't need to have any effect on the story, especially as the PC is already an outsider just by, y'now, being a witcher.

Undoubtedly there are cases where a fixed appearance is necessary, but I find that these would be exceptions rather than the rule. In this case, The Witcher is undermining itself by allowing the player to change some things, but not others.

Because a man can change his hair but not his face. Same thing with clothing.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Lynata wrote:
It's an interesting point, though. If the official Geralt of Riva has one specific hairstyle, why are you allowed to change it in your game?
And if you're allowed to alter his appearance this way, why not alter all the other things as well, such as skin colour (e.g. Zerrikanian) - notably whilst keeping the typical signs of their curse intact? It wouldn't need to have any effect on the story, especially as the PC is already an outsider just by, y'now, being a witcher.

Undoubtedly there are cases where a fixed appearance is necessary, but I find that these would be exceptions rather than the rule. In this case, The Witcher is undermining itself by allowing the player to change some things, but not others.

I would argue that changing one's hair style is vastly different from changing one's race / gender.

I can give myself a mohawk and not many would care. If I change my gender or skin pigmentation, then that would cause quite a stir; I imagine the first reaction of most of my acquaintances would be "who the feth are you, and how do you know where I live?!"

Geralt is an established character; he has physical traits that make him recognizable. His hair isn't really one of them.
Also, he is known as the "White Wolf"

**blood_ravens_marine**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Once we have ONE truly successful gem of a game with a female, or really minority character, we'll see more pop up. And I mean, successful on the COD level, because as we've seen with Tomb Raider, she didn't really spawn a huge offspring of other female lead games.

Isn't that setting the bar just a *tad* high? After all, the Tomb Raider franchise is still one of the highest-grossing video game series of all time, but still has only a third of COD's sales. Even the Halo franchise has not sold as many units as the COD franchise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
...and the cast of COD is more Whitey McWhiteBoy.

I suppose I should have elaborated some, I don't necessarily mean success on the same monetary level as CoD. As you point out, Tomb Raider is a serious video game Icon. But, as games with multiplayer, like CoD are the "thing" now, we sort of do need a COD killer type of game with a good female lead character.... I cant tell you how happy I'd be if Half Life 3 didn't feature Gordon Freeman, but rather the niece you meet in HL2 (I forget her name), but is still a badass with a crowbar and serious sci-fi guns.

The marine you play as in CoD4 is black. He's the guy on the cover of the game. You can even see his wrists in fps mode occasionally and they are certainly darker than white.

**mattyrm**

Sorry I've only just noticed this thread.... are there ANY problems with how men are represented in games?

I mean, I say this as a man, and I've never heard anybody whinging about it.

Exactly what am I supposed to be bothered about? Can anybody summarize?

**Melissia**

There are, but they are mostly (though not entirely) to do with race, trans*men, and gay men-- or, to be more precise, any man whom doesn't live up to the grizzled, stubby-chinned straight white guy that makes the "standard" video game protagonsit.

**Wyzilla**

Melissia wrote:
There are, but they are mostly (though not entirely) to do with race, trans*men, and gay men-- or, to be more precise, any man whom doesn't live up to the grizzled, stubby-chinned straight white guy that makes the "standard" video game protagonsit.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more. Videogames are about making money, not catering to every single minority- which in fact would actually probably draw in less money.

Just look at movies. Sure, getting an Oscar is nice, but quite often those films that qualify for them are just murdered at the box office by other movies like Transformers.

**Lotet**

Wyzilla wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more.

Could you try to avoid making a strawman next time you make an argument?

**nomotog**

It may have been a rhetorical straw man, but I kept thinking that sounds like it would sell well in japan. Not every game needs to be CoD.

**mattyrm**

Hey considering shagging takes a backseat on 99% of games I think they have feth all to worry about either!

I know way more tall stubbly good looking muscular gay guys than straight ones.

**Wyzilla**

Lotet wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a gay, lanky, transgender, meek protagonist in the next Call of Duty would instead kill the franchise, not make it sell more.
Could you try to avoid making a strawman next time you make an argument?

Well that's what some people are arguing for, correct? Just slapping in a minority figure doesn't somehow change the quality of a game- it's just pandering and may even hurt the sales of the game. As with any minority representation, you should come up for a reason for them to be in the game. Or better yet, just make a legitimately good game.

But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.

**Lotet**

Wyzilla wrote:
Well that's what some people are arguing for, correct?

All those traits in one character in a CoD game? No, I don't think anyone asked for that, which is why I called it a strawman, a ridiculous representation of what is actually being said to make the targeted argument look foolish.

Wyzilla wrote:
Just slapping in a minority figure doesn't somehow change the quality of a game- it's just pandering and may even hurt the sales of the game. As with any minority representation, you should come up for a reason for them to be in the game.

Yes yes, straight while male is the default and everyone else is relegated to only exist when the story calls for it. A character shouldn't be fat, black or gay unless there's a good reason.

Wyzilla wrote:
Or better yet, just make a legitimately good game.

You make it sound like making good games with such characters is more difficult than making good games without them, even though you just said it won't change the quality of the game.

Wyzilla wrote:
But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.

And I argue that a homosexual, Mexican whatever can be a buff space marine, I don't see the problem here. I think every man in the world being a 500 pound hulk of muscle is more unrealistic. For people to take getting shot in the face with little more than a headache to be more unrealistic. For one man to take down hundreds of trained soldiers to be more unrealistic. But apparently for you, for that guy to prefer getting a dicking is something that crosses the line. Or that being 60 pounds lighter than an athlete means they're incapable of taking down a regiment on their own but the athlete can.

What is up with your strange skewed vision of realism and representation?

**carlos13th**

You have to remember that muscles and hetrosexuality deflect bullets...apparently.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Wyzilla wrote:
But arguing for something other then a buff soldier or a buff space marine in a science fiction or modern shooter (or games like it) is pointless and actually drifting a away from realism and immersion.

Tell this to Quake III, the science fiction shooter that gave us Xearo:

Oorb:

and Lucy:

Okay, that game was not really high in realism, but seriously, pretending only the overused doomguy clone is interesting? That is ridiculous.

**CthuluIsSpy**

How does Oorb carry a gun?

**Melissia**

Gun's on his back like a turret.

Also, Wyzilla, you're really reaching with that strawman, to the point where it's borderline homophobia.

**carlos13th**

Lets be honest almost COD main character could have been gay for all we know as its not like they have relationships in the game. Except Mason who had a child.

**nomotog**

carlos13th wrote:
Lets be honest almost COD main character could have been gay for all we know as its not like they have relationships in the game. Except Mason who had a child.

Gay people can have kids.

**Melissia**

Many do, in fact.

**SirSertile**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
My problems, are the "typical" issues.... In a fantasy/ sword type game, why does the bad guy always wear black armor, and have long black hair pulled into a pony tail?

Why can't good guys wear black armor or pony tails?

Also, good guys always use pistols or an assault rifle while all bad guys use ak-47s
This is a horrible issue.
Also, bad guys are usually bigger if they actually have significance (i.e. bosses)

**CthuluIsSpy**

But the ak-47 is an assault rifle

**Melissia**

It's technically a brick that shoots bullets.