297: The Princess Problem

[Lliae]

There's quite a few proactive princesses out there though. Elika from Prince of Persia is very strong. Farah is the same though she does turn back into the helpless kidnapped princess in PoP 3.

What about the Queen and Princess in King's Quest 7? Both are the only playable characters, are very strong and also the ultimate saviours of the world. The Princess is especially smart and plucky, doing things ranging from wandering (bravely, not stupidly) into a dragon's cave to strike a deal to digging her way out of an exploding volcano!

And consider, for a moment... the stepmothers and sorceresses from fairytales were very often portrayed as evil *because* they had power, while the princess was portrayed as good because she was doing what every good little girl ought to; wait for a man to rescue her. The prince ought to be organising her life, not her wicked stepmother, sheesh! 9_9

These stories were born of an age where strong women were automatically a bad thing, and we still see the carryover in today's games, though things are changing. But there?ll always be a place for the helpless, hapless princess in all mediums of fiction.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well if she could save herself, then it wouldn't be much of a game for us now would it?

That certainly would make sense...

Um...play as the kidnapped princess breaking out of the castle, instead of the hero breaking in? Like The Great Escape only with more expensive clothes and probably a less awesome theme.

King's Quest 3 sort of did that actually. It was a prince instead of a princess, but the first thing you have to do is covertly beat the clock to rescue YOURSELF.

 

[Arbre]

Of course, until GI Jane becomes the cliché...

 

[Swimfan]

Whenever I think of a princess in need, I think about Zelda.
Helping her escape in the final dungeon (oot) made up for all the strains I've been through since she kicked ass opening the gates and finally kicking Ganondorf's sweet little butt.

Great article!

 

[KingCrInuYasha]

All this talk about bad princess clichés and no mention of Elise from Sonic Next Gen?

For all the flak Zelda gets, at least she tries to be competent. From successfully splitting the Triforce of Wisdom and hiding the pieces from Ganon in the first game to buying her people time in Twilight Princess so Link and Midna can save them to pummeling enemies in a suit of armor a la Fullmetal Alchemist in Spirit Tracks. Even Peach gets some moments of competency in some of the RPG spin-offs.

Elise? Completely useless. Just sat there and did nothing to help about 99% of the time and the 1% where she did help drove many a player to madness.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

Zelda is saying SUP.

Seriously the princess problem hasn't been as big as people are portraying it to be these days. Ocarina of Time already made the Princess in a serious ninja and Peach has fought back her fair share of fights.

Yeah, and then literally two minutes after she puts on a dress, she gets kidnapped by Gannondorf.

The Peach example at least gets some credit from the Super Mario Adventures comics in Nintendo power. I've brought this up on no less than three separate occasions on The Escapist, but in those comics, Princess Peach dresses up as Luigi and threatens to suicide-bomb the Koopa Kids.

Well it was Zelda's fault for reveling herself in the open after all, I mean any body with half of brain "i was 13 at the time" could have seen it coming from a mile away.

Now if I have to speak on strong princess... go play disgaea two with my all time favorite character Rozalin.

 

[Ariseishirou]

--snip--

I appreciate your line of reasoning, but I could switch the genders make the exact same statement about the potrayal of male main characters in video games/media, and it would be every bit as true.

The fact is, most men aren't cut out to be super-elite warriors, either. To be sure, even fewer women are due to different physical averages, but let's face it: there are fewer kickass female warrior protagonists in video games than male ones. Far fewer. And far more women than men in video games need to be assisted or rescued. If anything, then, video games are depicting a realistic ratio.

Moreover, how realistic is it for the average man to do the things that, say, your average FPS protagonist does? Most men can't even carry the kit those characters run/jump/backflip in, let alone take on trained soldiers in a hand to hand fight. Should I be worried about my sons growing up to think they can punch out a member of Russian Spetsnaz because Captain Price can?

You might say "well, Captain Price is SAS, of course he can, it's different" - but most female video game characters who fight so do as a profession, or have a reason they're skilled at it, too. A young girl is just as like to understand "Jill Valentine can do that because she's an ex-special forces member of an elite police unit, she's trained to, I probably couldn't" as a young boy is to understand that Price is an elite soldier, capable of things he isn't. Moreover, plenty of male characters with no special training who seem to be capable of the same feats, like Nathan Drake, exist as a counterpoint to your Lara Crofts.

In fact, young men are more likely than women to be the victims of street violence. As a security professional, you must have seen young men full of themselves try to take on someone they have no physical chance of defeating, fueled either by alcohol or overconfidence. I saw it myself working in bars and hotels as an undergrad, and this was by far more likely to happen to men than women. They bite off more than they can chew, get beaten up, or worse, killed. There've been two young men who died after getting into fights outside my alma mater's dance club in the last year alone. They either took on an opponent they couldn't handle, one who was armed, or one who wasn't alone. The vast majority of men have absolutely no chance of success in these situations.

And yet, how often do we see a male video game protagonist kick a knife out of someone's hand, or even headbutt them while tied up, catch it, and free themselves - or something equally ridiculous? Or take on ten thugs all at once? We watch Nathan Drake and Norman Jayden pound men five stone heavier than them into the ground with their fists, break their holds, and somehow overcome them with pluck, when in reality they would have about as much chance of winning as your average female protagonist taking on a thug five stone heavier than her

So, enough with these Action Boys! They're clearly giving men dangerous ideas about their own physical abilities, and getting them hurt. I've seen it too many times. Why do we praise them and scorn all male characters who seek help from professionals or run away and call the police as wimps? Men who can take on more than one opponent or fight a man bigger than them do exist, but they are just that: EXCEPTIONS. If Action Boys are understood to be a fantasy, that's fine, but what we should be looking for is a middle ground.

 

[Therumancer]

--snip--

I appreciate your line of reasoning, but I could switch the genders make the exact same statement about the potrayal of male main characters in video games/media, and it would be every bit as true.

The fact is, most men aren't cut out to be super-elite warriors, either. To be sure, even fewer women are due to different physical averages, but let's face it: there are fewer kickass female warrior protagonists in video games than male ones. Far fewer. And far more women than men in video games need to be assisted or rescued. If anything, then, video games are depicting a realistic ratio.

Moreover, how realistic is it for the average man to do the things that, say, your average FPS protagonist does? Most men can't even carry the kit those characters run/jump/backflip in, let alone take on trained soldiers in a hand to hand fight. Should I be worried about my sons growing up to think they can punch out a member of Russian Spetsnaz because Captain Price can?

You might say "well, Captain Price is SAS, of course he can, it's different" - but most female video game characters who fight so do as a profession, or have a reason they're skilled at it, too. A young girl is just as like to understand "Jill Valentine can do that because she's an ex-special forces member of an elite police unit, she's trained to, I probably couldn't" as a young boy is to understand that Price is an elite soldier, capable of things he isn't. Moreover, plenty of male characters with no special training who seem to be capable of the same feats, like Nathan Drake, exist as a counterpoint to your Lara Crofts.

In fact, young men are more likely than women to be the victims of street violence. As a security professional, you must have seen young men full of themselves try to take on someone they have no physical chance of defeating, fueled either by alcohol or overconfidence. I saw it myself working in bars and hotels as an undergrad, and this was by far more likely to happen to men than women. They bite off more than they can chew, get beaten up, or worse, killed. There've been two young men who died after getting into fights outside my alma mater's dance club in the last year alone. They either took on an opponent they couldn't handle, one who was armed, or one who wasn't alone. The vast majority of men have absolutely no chance of success in these situations.

And yet, how often do we see a male video game protagonist kick a knife out of someone's hand, or even headbutt them while tied up, catch it, and free themselves - or something equally ridiculous? Or take on ten thugs all at once? We watch Nathan Drake and Norman Jayden pound men five stone heavier than them into the ground with their fists, break their holds, and somehow overcome them with pluck, when in reality they would have about as much chance of winning as your average female protagonist taking on a thug five stone heavier than her

So, enough with these Action Boys! They're clearly giving men dangerous ideas about their own physical abilities, and getting them hurt. I've seen it too many times. Why do we praise them and scorn all male characters who seek help from professionals or run away and call the police as wimps? Men who can take on more than one opponent or fight a man bigger than them do exist, but they are just that: EXCEPTIONS. If Action Boys are understood to be a fantasy, that's fine, but what we should be looking for is a middle ground.

The differance is that these feats are far more in line with what men are potentially capable of, than what women are. It's not so much a matter of "averages" but top physical abillity.

It's like this, you take a guy and a girl train them both to their physical peak and spend an equal time training them in combat skills, and the guy is going to win a fight between them every time, simply because of how men are designed comparitively. No, not every guy is going to be able to punch out a Spetznatz commando, but it's far more likely to find a guy who can do that than a girl.

Now, fantasy being fantasy you do wind up with female characters who CAN do all the stuff guys can, but it's far more of a leap when it comes to suspension of disbelief.

The whole "dangerous ideas" bit is a matter of politics and the downside of the feminist movement. See, a lot of women are increasingly being conditioned to think they can do everything a guy can, and to see those fantasy portrayals as real possibilities. Taken into the street this means that you wind up with situations with girls who decide they can fight off guys who try and mug or rape them for example. Girls who think "well, I'm in good shape, have had some fighting lessons, and should be able to handle this guy because I see it in fantasy and everyone tells me I can" while there are exceptions that usually ends very badly because guys are simply more powerful and all those comments about maximum levels also mean that guys with relatively trivial effort (or sometimes none at all) can physically exceed a level that could taken women a lot of work to reach.

As someone who has worked security for world class casinos in the past, I will say that I've seen the results of this mentality first hand, it's not pretty. It might not be politic but I'm of the opinion that women need to be taught in self defense to run away and seek help, not to try and take some guy out.

This is also one of the big reasons why I'm not a big fan of creating seperate standards for women in jobs like the police, of certain types of security. If a woman happens to meet the physical requirements that's fine, but they shouldn't expect any special treatment, including allowances for having to work 3x harder to maintain that level of performance in many cases. After all at the end of the day some dude intent on sliding your face accross the concrete isn't concerned about being politically correct. Not to mention that a lot of it revolves around the proper style of professional intimidation. See police officers, security professionals, and other similar kinds of guys don't want incidents to happen, hey want to prevent them from happening. The sign of doing your job well is when nothing apparently ever happens, which is why especially with things like casino security there is always the temptation to want to cut the department as being "pointless due to nothing happening" leading to the eternal cycle of "exciting times" when you become understaffed and things become noticible, followed by an increase in security luv, followed by more cuts due to the quiet from people who never learn (I was at this for 10 years). The point is though that you need to be able to control situations, see if some drunk takes a swing at you during an alcohol shut off or whatever you've failed to do your job, you need to be able to pacify a situation just by being there without ever saying "step out of line and I'll break your thumbs" or even implying it for a large number of legal and business related reasons (ie nobody wants to spend money in a place where they fear they are being watched by thugs, and of course with actual police there are numerous PR issues). Some women can do that, but honestly most can't. To be entirely fair though in my old job I probably wouldn't have wanted most "action babes" even if they could really do that working with me in Casino security because the whole "babe" part would have been the problem. Some 5' 2" 110lbs kung-fu mistress who can KO Chuck Norris in .5 seconds is a liability in a job when if you do it right you never have to display that abillity, and nobody who is really POed tends to listen to someone they think they can punt 50 yards, especially when they are wired up enough to think they are King Kong.

In the end we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. In the end my basic attitude is that men are women are differant, and that is why a dual standard exists. The problem is that the dual standard seems like it's wrong, especially when viewed in the context of overwrought first world western morality, until you actually see examples of why it exists. Being sheltered tends to lead to a lot of opinions that make sense on paper but don't work in the real world. A problem with the western first world is a lot of people who are sheltered wind up thinking themselves quite worldly for some reason.

Overall there aren't many people who get to see "this is why things are the way they are" in quite the way I have, and I think that's the problem with discussions like this.

In a more practical sense when it comes to why you have situations where girls need to be rescued so often compartitively... well that's usually only from physical danger. In cases where the danger exists politically or socially or whatever it's fairly co-ed. When it comes to physical danger... well, even a lot of Tomboys should probably ask themselves how many times they have needed a guy to help them move something heavy, reach something they couldn't or perform similar physical feats. I don't think many people keep track of it, but if you stop to think about the number of times a guy steps up for a girl just as a matter of routine it can be fairly eye opening. The whole "rescueing a damsel from a dragon" thing simply makes for a more exciting story than "getting something heavy off of a high shelf" though on a basic level it's very similar.

 

[Ariseishirou]

--snip--

--snip--

--snip--

I get what you mean, and I see your point, but in my working career I've seen the damaging effects of men who've been led to believe they're much more physically capable than they are far more often than women - e.g. the two young men killed because they thought they could take on multiple adversaries at one time, or an opponent with a weapon. Our media, video games included, shows men doing this - and far more men doing this - than it does women.

Statistics back me up on this, too: men are far more likely to be the victims of street violence than women are.

This meshes with what I've observed working in hotels and bars, too. If a woman gets into an altercation with a man she can't handle, there's a far better chance she'll rethink it or call for help, be it a boyfriend or security personnel, than a man who gets into an altercation with a man he can't handle. The physical averages being what they are, of course, said man might have more of a chance than the woman, but the end result is the same: they still can't handle it. What's more, the man will feel emasculated if he backs down or asks for help, so he's far less likely to do so.

The results aren't pretty.

Which is why I think lecturing women about fantasies that when taken seriously might get them into trouble is pointless when we show fantasies that if taken seriously will get men into trouble 24/7.

You might say only a tiny percentage of women might hack it to become physical fighters, but a similarly tiny - or even smaller percentage - of men could be Captain Price. Only 2% of an already miniscule elite minority make SAS selection. In the end the result is the same: people overestimate their fighting abilities based on what they see in the media. And from what I've seen personally, and what our crime data shows, men are actually more likely to overestimate themselves than women. So if anyone needs "the talk" about unrealistic fantasies, regardless of innate physical differences, it's actually men.

But since your response was largely reiterating the points you made in the previous post, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Or ultimately decide that both men and women who take fantasy too seriously are morons. There's that.

 

[LadyMint]

Princess Peach made herself a lot more likeable to me way back when they made Mario RPG for the SNES. If memory serves me, that was her first show of being something other than a doormat. You had her as a playable character and she would wield her frying pan/parasol with a fierceness. Which may seem sexist but in all honesty I thought it was in line with the rest of the game's humor.

Personally, I was annoyed by Ninja Zelda in Ocarina of Time. She wasn't really the badass that everyone seems to say she was; she gave you songs to learn, then finally got kidnapped. Smash Bros. has given her some skills but that's a detraction from the series. Between her and Peach, she continues to be the one Princess of the two with the least likeable personality, IMHO. Not only does she constantly wait to be rescued, but she steals some of your thunder during the final battles of Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. If they ever do make a game where you get to Ninja-sneak around as her, maybe I'll respect her then, but whenever I play Link I care more for the general public of Hyrule and not the weak princess in her castle. But to me, Legend of Zelda games are more about saving the entirety of Hyrule.

I guess it's not hard to tell by now that I like Princess Peach a lot more than Princess Zelda. The Mario series has prettymuch acknowledged ridiculous nature of the "princess in a castle" gimmick and done some humorous and interesting things with it from time to time, which I respect. And I did like Zelda a lot when she was the plucky pirate captain. What a huge disappointment when she turned into the frail, flowery version of herself in Wind Waker.

 

[Therumancer]

--snip--

--snip--

--snip--

I get what you mean, and I see your point, but in my working career I've seen the damaging effects of men who've been led to believe they're much more physically capable than they are far more often than women - e.g. the two young men killed because they thought they could take on multiple adversaries at one time, or an opponent with a weapon. Our media, video games included, shows men doing this - and far more men doing this - than it does women.

Statistics back me up on this, too: men are far more likely to be the victims of street violence than women are.

This meshes with what I've observed working in hotels and bars, too. If a woman gets into an altercation with a man she can't handle, there's a far better chance she'll rethink it or call for help, be it a boyfriend or security personnel, than a man who gets into an altercation with a man he can't handle. The physical averages being what they are, of course, said man might have more of a chance than the woman, but the end result is the same: they still can't handle it. What's more, the man will feel emasculated if he backs down or asks for help, so he's far less likely to do so.

The results aren't pretty.

Which is why I think lecturing women about fantasies that when taken seriously might get them into trouble is pointless when we show fantasies that if taken seriously will get men into trouble 24/7.

You might say only a tiny percentage of women might hack it to become physical fighters, but a similarly tiny - or even smaller percentage - of men could be Captain Price. Only 2% of an already miniscule elite minority make SAS selection. In the end the result is the same: people overestimate their fighting abilities based on what they see in the media. And from what I've seen personally, and what our crime data shows, men are actually more likely to overestimate themselves than women. So if anyone needs "the talk" about unrealistic fantasies, regardless of innate physical differences, it's actually men.

But since your response was largely reiterating the points you made in the previous post, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Or ultimately decide that both men and women who take fantasy too seriously are morons. There's that.

Well it comes down to calculated risks. Men are intended to be able to take violence and can in theory do things like this, of course the attackers are usually men too, and feel the same way. The point is that it's far more possible of a guy pulling off some of these situations that are misjudged, and such things have a happy ending far more often than they do when women engage in the same kind of behavior.

This comes back to my point about men and women being differant and how they can't be judged by the same standards no matter what political correctness tells us. In cases like combat against other guys it's a differance between a risk that may or may not pay off and simple misguided stupidity of ignorance.

See, if some guy my size (I'm 6' 1" 250lbs, yes I'm obese nowadays) comes out of nowhere and attacks, I have a chance of bringing him down. That could go wrong, but I have a reasonable shot at it. A girl is unlikely to be anywhere near that size and weight to begin with and even if they are aren't put together the same way, even with a degree of superior combat training they are likely to wind up in a bad way because it takes more than a slight edge of training to overcome the physical differances (it takes a massive differance in training and development usually, and god forbid the guy put in as much practice if he's a physical predator).

Now granted I used to get paid for stepping in front of people, which is right up there with the simple job description of holding a uniform upright, and professionally taking the blame for things that go wrong, so perhaps in my specific case it's not exactly fair, but I think it stands up pretty well. The bottom line is that fighting has an entirely differant level of risk for the respective genders.

 

[Ariseishirou]

--snip--

--snip--

--snip--

I get what you mean, and I see your point, but in my working career I've seen the damaging effects of men who've been led to believe they're much more physically capable than they are far more often than women - e.g. the two young men killed because they thought they could take on multiple adversaries at one time, or an opponent with a weapon. Our media, video games included, shows men doing this - and far more men doing this - than it does women.

Statistics back me up on this, too: men are far more likely to be the victims of street violence than women are.

This meshes with what I've observed working in hotels and bars, too. If a woman gets into an altercation with a man she can't handle, there's a far better chance she'll rethink it or call for help, be it a boyfriend or security personnel, than a man who gets into an altercation with a man he can't handle. The physical averages being what they are, of course, said man might have more of a chance than the woman, but the end result is the same: they still can't handle it. What's more, the man will feel emasculated if he backs down or asks for help, so he's far less likely to do so.

The results aren't pretty.

Which is why I think lecturing women about fantasies that when taken seriously might get them into trouble is pointless when we show fantasies that if taken seriously will get men into trouble 24/7.

You might say only a tiny percentage of women might hack it to become physical fighters, but a similarly tiny - or even smaller percentage - of men could be Captain Price. Only 2% of an already miniscule elite minority make SAS selection. In the end the result is the same: people overestimate their fighting abilities based on what they see in the media. And from what I've seen personally, and what our crime data shows, men are actually more likely to overestimate themselves than women. So if anyone needs "the talk" about unrealistic fantasies, regardless of innate physical differences, it's actually men.

But since your response was largely reiterating the points you made in the previous post, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Or ultimately decide that both men and women who take fantasy too seriously are morons. There's that.

Well it comes down to calculated risks. Men are intended to be able to take violence and can in theory do things like this, of course the attackers are usually men too, and feel the same way. The point is that it's far more possible of a guy pulling off some of these situations that are misjudged, and such things have a happy ending far more often than they do when women engage in the same kind of behavior.

This comes back to my point about men and women being differant and how they can't be judged by the same standards no matter what political correctness tells us. In cases like combat against other guys it's a differance between a risk that may or may not pay off and simple misguided stupidity of ignorance.

See, if some guy my size (I'm 6' 1" 250lbs, yes I'm obese nowadays) comes out of nowhere and attacks, I have a chance of bringing him down. That could go wrong, but I have a reasonable shot at it. A girl is unlikely to be anywhere near that size and weight to begin with and even if they are aren't put together the same way, even with a degree of superior combat training they are likely to wind up in a bad way because it takes more than a slight edge of training to overcome the physical differances (it takes a massive differance in training and development usually, and god forbid the guy put in as much practice if he's a physical predator).

Now granted I used to get paid for stepping in front of people, which is right up there with the simple job description of holding a uniform upright, and professionally taking the blame for things that go wrong, so perhaps in my specific case it's not exactly fair, but I think it stands up pretty well. The bottom line is that fighting has an entirely differant level of risk for the respective genders.

And yet, the ones who end up biting off more than they can chew far more often are men. Statistically, it's the truth. They're far more likely to engage in, and lose, physical altercations.

So I think what we can extrapolate from that fact is that most women are already keenly aware of the differences in physical averages between men and women, and tend to avoid physical confrontations with men as a result. There will, of course, always be foolish people of either gender - but the numbers show us that the overwhelming majority of people who get into fights they can't handle are men.

So yeah, I think they should stop showing women doing physically improbable things, like kicking the ass of a man twice her size, the day they stop showing men doing physically improbable things, like taking on a man twice his size. Or five men. Or a man with a weapon.

In fact, going by the numbers, we should probably cut down on the latter fantasy first. If we're going to start policing fantasy for the sake of idiots, it would protect more people in the long run.

 

[Therumancer]

And yet, the ones who end up biting off more than they can chew far more often are men. Statistically, it's the truth. They're far more likely to engage in, and lose, physical altercations.

So I think what we can extrapolate from that fact is that most women are already keenly aware of the differences in physical averages between men and women, and tend to avoid physical confrontations with men as a result. There will, of course, always be foolish people of either gender - but the numbers show us that the overwhelming majority of people who get into fights they can't handle are men.

So yeah, I think they should stop showing women doing physically improbable things, like kicking the ass of a man twice her size, the day they stop showing men doing physically improbable things, like taking on a man twice his size. Or five men. Or a man with a weapon.

In fact, going by the numbers, we should probably cut down on the latter fantasy first. If we're going to start policing fantasy for the sake of idiots, it would protect more people in the long run.

Statistics are a joke when your trying to make a point. For example here when two guys fight you can claim the loser always bit off more than they could chew, thus proving the point.

I understand why your argueing, but the bottom line is that what might be stupid and improbable for a guy is even more unlikely for a girl. Fair or not despite the odds the unreality of the situation is safer for guys, even if fighting an assailant is never safe (and someone who attacks another person usually does so from a position of confidence to begin with).

Your basically argueing that there shouldn't be a dual standard, in my case, as I've said to begin with, I feel that the same logic cannot be fairly applied to both genders here, and in a lot of other cases as well. Men and women are differant, and as such differant rules and standards need to exist. A lot of the most ridiculous problems and arguements occur by trying to insist that the same rules can apply to everyone when they can't.

 

[Ariseishirou]

And yet, the ones who end up biting off more than they can chew far more often are men. Statistically, it's the truth. They're far more likely to engage in, and lose, physical altercations.

So I think what we can extrapolate from that fact is that most women are already keenly aware of the differences in physical averages between men and women, and tend to avoid physical confrontations with men as a result. There will, of course, always be foolish people of either gender - but the numbers show us that the overwhelming majority of people who get into fights they can't handle are men.

So yeah, I think they should stop showing women doing physically improbable things, like kicking the ass of a man twice her size, the day they stop showing men doing physically improbable things, like taking on a man twice his size. Or five men. Or a man with a weapon.

In fact, going by the numbers, we should probably cut down on the latter fantasy first. If we're going to start policing fantasy for the sake of idiots, it would protect more people in the long run.

I understand why your argueing, but the bottom line is that what might be stupid and improbable for a guy is even more unlikely for a girl.

Annnnnnd there are already far, far fewer kickass female characters in video games than kickass male characters - in other words, the state of video games at present already reflects the difference in statistical averages. By your own argument, absolutely nothing needs to change. So why even bother bringing it up? It's no less realistic than many of the things we see men do in video games, like backflip onto rockets or punch out Spetsnaz.

Ultimately, if you're going to start policing fantasy, you could start with men taking on opponents twice their size, or multiple opponents at the same time, or opponents with a weapon, for being every bit as unrealistic as a woman taking on a much larger and stronger opponent.

So yeah, a) what you claim (i.e. women are less likely on average to be capable of beating a large number of people in a physical fight) is already being represented in video games.

b) The problem that you claim this is causing (i.e. people overestimating their own abilities in combat) actually applies more to men than women.

c) If we were to try to solve problem b) by policing unrealistic fantasy, we'd actually be better off (i.e. potentially help the greatest number of people, assuming that policing fantasy actually would stop them from overestimating themselves in combat) ceasing all unrealistic depictions of male combat prowess in video games.

And, uh, well, okay. Sounds a bit misandrous - I think it's fine for men to have unrealistic and escapist power fantasies, even if it misleads some idiots into getting hurt - but if that's what you want to fight for, I can't stop you.