Are mainstream devs deliberately discouraging women from gaming?

[Dfskelleton]

Take War and Death from Darksiders for some current generation examples. They both possess very attractive male traits. Their faces, their eyes, their hair, their muscles, their height and weight and so forth.

Ladies.

Heh. I like how it says "basic" armor. I thought basic usually referred to the base, or lowest level. I must say I'm wondering what the "advanced" armor looks like.
OT: I don't think they're trying to discourage anyone, I just think that they're under the assumption that their primary audience consists mainly of males.

 

[Phasmal]

If this is not necessarily your personal outlook, then I apologize for assuming, but I have come across one to many fellow gamers who do.

I think we may have to agree to disagree, because I disagree that doing something means you are that thing. (As in, I think its possible to do sexist things without being a sexist).

Offence is taken, not given. Intent only matters to the people doing the action, nobody else can know your intent.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I recognise and sympathise with the original poster's frustration that more Action-RPGs don't do more to include the women who do enjoy them but not so much as to decree that henceforth all male player characters should be rendered down into boring, bland standardised unisex player wish-fulfillment vehicles.

Apart from the unisex part, they already are.

Any game with a central protagonist that the player does not get to name or choose the appearance of, who ends up being as interesting and engaging as a square plank of reconstituted plywood is simply suffering from a case of poor writing.

The difference is simple.

When character creation is left up to the player then every reasonable option that can be afforded should be implemented. There are a lot of good game design reasons to do this, but I think it should come down to simple human decency. The game developer is essentially leaving a section of the game constructed but unassembled because for some genres it just simply easier and more profitable to do it that way. The least they can do is make sure you've got as many choices as possible to pick from.

When game developers pre-generate a character for their audience then it is up to them to create a character and a game's worth of interactions that that character will have with the rest of the game that is compelling enough for gamers to care about.

Take the examples that the OP mentioned..

Assassin's Creed.

Miles Desmond might be in all of the Assasin's Creed games, but he he clearly is not the protagonist in any of them. He instead serves as a loose framing device to explore the stories of his far more interesting ancestors, Altaïr and Ezio respectively. Satisfactorily having Miles experience and deal with the memories of a maternal ancestor might dangerously flesh him out as a character, when his only purpose in any of the games is to act as the connective tissue that binds the franchise together.

It could be done I suppose, and it could be done well. Just not by Ubisoft. I just don't think they have the capacity to take it to that level and not make a complete ham of it.

The Witcher.

A solid textbook example of a company taking complete ownership of the character that the player will be guiding through the game, presenting all the choices that you get to make as choices that said character might or might not do. Role-playing game?

No, the Witcher games are instead Geralt of Rivia simulators. That might be a deal breaker for some people, but I draw the line between myself and people who then go on to say that I can't have Witcher gamers because they don't 'enjoy' them.

Kingdoms of Amalur.

As tempting as it would be to cajole someone for not wanting to play the 'icky' lesbian, I will write this down to the fact that 38 Studios was founded by a baseball pitcher, they're a small company and they've just released their very first game.

Cut them some slack.

 

[RyuujinZERO]

I am now female Commander Shepard, and this is my least favourite thread on the Escapist.

*Goes back to watching Cortez and Kaidan making out on the security feed*



(How about that for stereotype reversal )

 

[The Random One]

It's not deliberate. Gaming culture in general is very insular and it tends to refuse anyone it doesn't recognize as 'one of us', and since the first steps in gaming culture were given by white straight male nerds, you can't join unless you dance their tune. It's not that they actively discourage black lesbian female hipsters from joining, but they immediately identify them as outsiders unless they drape themselves heavily in the culture, which means they're less likely to appeal to other black, lesbian etc. people.

Mainstream developers are not focused on broadening audiences, only on what sells, and are trapped on a loop of 'women/old people/OWS protesters/whatever don't buy games, so we won't worry whether they'll enjoy the games we're making'. It seems disingenious to attribute this to deliberate misanthropy as opposed to mere shortsightedness.

 

[guitarsniper]

Go play Mirror's Edge. Oh, what's that, you wanted to play a male character? NOPE. Oh, what's that, you want your female characters hypersexualized and with certain bodily...conditions...that would keep them from doing some of the athletic things they're supposedly capable of doing? Again, NOPE.

 

[hex000]

firstly I don't think any company mainstream or otherwise would actively discourage any group from playing it lost revenue and all that however I do think videogames are generally created with a male audience in mind which can make them a bit misogynist ( I hate spelling that word) although it's a rather confusing issue on the one hand for videogames to grow as a medium they need to represent all sections of society but on the other hand maybe some game writers are making wot would appear to be sexist design choices not with malicious intent but simply because they think it works in the context of the story there telling there are quite a few exceptions to that scenario for instance Ivy from Soul calibre can any soul calibre fans tell me whether or not there's a reason for her to wear that ridiculous armour other than the obvious?

 

[Darkmantle]

I largely agree with the sentiment, but something about the opening post and subsequent arguments leave a bad taste in my mouth.

It's a little hard to place for me, but I think it might be the idea that this gender imbalance is institutionalized and widely supported. And maybe I'm just naive but I really don't think it is.

It's hard to explain right now :/

 

[Twilight_guy]

No more so then game are intentionally trying to be racist. Developers mean well, but prejudice is sort of ingrained into many parts of our society and developers are kind of oblivious to certain things. Personally, I think if gender isn't important to the protagonist then deciding on gender should be done with the flip of a coin. Then again I know people who would claim I'm a horrible person for thinking gender is binary.

 

[TehCookie]

Ohh a games and sexism thread! Time for me to take gaming back a few years!

Spoiler: I demand manservice!

Alright so my usual examples of Dante's Lucifer scene or Solid Snake's ass would have worked better but that picture cracks me up.

Not that I'm against better characters and pushing the medium forward, but sometimes I just want to show what's it's like on the other side. Not to mention some girls like eyecandy too, and I will call insecure if you can't handle an attractive guy in a game.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

I'm just sick of girls being typecast as either the damsel in distress or the wholly useless sidekick.

There have been a few exceptions to the rule - take Bayonetta, as one example - but they tend to be oversexualized when they could've stuck to just being badass. :c

 

[deathzero021]

i think it's just society as a whole. the majority of movies have male heroes or main characters, and female characters are usually only support for the guy, or eye-candy for the audience, or just for a cheap romance scene to gain the female audience. games turn out the same way most the time. i do think it's unfair but i'm not sure if games are going to be the first to lead this movement because it's part of everything in this society. we're still a mostly male-lead society (here in America) and only recently in the past couple decades have we been improving this. hopefully in the future things WILL be more balanced and fair in both media and society.

 

[ckam]

That Amular thing you mentioned, it sounds intriguing... Yes...

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I really need to play that game again.....

 

[Double A]

I'm fairly certain most devs are guys (or at the very least, most of the higher ups), and working with what you know is easier than the alternative.

 

[Seniqwa]

I thought it was funny... I looked at the title and essentially felt "color me intrigued"... because I hadn't seen such. Then I looked at the titles mentioned.

Assassins Creed 3
The Witcher
Kingdoms of Amalur
Risen 2

I haven't even considered playing one of those games. The Witcher quite specifically because of the reputation for childish misogyny (some of the rest of it sounds passable, but I'm not into having an RPG throw sex at me like that), but the others... couldn't stand the game mechanics of the first title, one that screams Generic Fantasy Game #972,875,051... and... a pirate game I haven't heard of. Huh.

I guess I'm a gaming hippie, only paying attention to progressive (or gender-neutral) titles.

I kind of feel the same way. Not quite sure why but for about a year now I've played, with the exception of Deus Ex, only female characters in every game I've played - and I play a lot of video games. I won't deny the existence of developers favouring the male audience in the creation of their games, but I also think that a lot of people on here are ignoring the fact/existence of the veritable cornucopia of video games out there that provide both gender options, or even solely female protagonists... Maybe this dynamic is just more available on the PC than on the console, I don't know.

 

[Kahunaburger]

whilst they SHOULD have more of a role in the games being produced i don't always think its sexism, think of how many games are based on swords and sandals fantasy, even the "fantasy" ones are loosely based around the medi evil society where women were treated worse and wouldn't be the adventuring types.

The fact that you attack amular which actually had a fairly good character gender ratio shows that you are incapable of understanding that these things take time, baby steps as it were.

Ultimately any games set in humanities past will have less female presence due to our history, nothing to really complain about there. Hell i'd even extend that to modern military shooters where most women may be able to join various armies you will more often see them in support rather than front line roles. Thats just art reflecting reality.

You want good female characters go play space marine, or enslaved, or mirrors edge, hell even gears of war had two fairly interesting new female characters in the third installment. Progress is being made. Its not going to be instant, you have to give it time.

I think the problem is that video games set in a medieval history have less of a female presence than actual history, because they make the assumption that marginalized=weak.

 

[Tono Makt]

I don't see it as active discouragement, but a more practical situation: Gamers are mostly male, and games cost millions of dollars to make. Game producers can't afford to take the risks that are inherent with making a game that is appealing to female gamers since there is a distressing amount of male gamers who would actively destroy word-of-mouth advertising about a game. And word of mouth advertising is perhaps the most effective form of advertising out there; if Yahtzee says "This game is shiate." and your best bud tells you "Dude this game is the shiate, man! It's so fun!", who is going to influence you more?

It's a situation that will resolve itself in the next generation or so, but until then we're going to have to put up with games that think that female characters have to be 18 year old DD+'s wearing a bikini and be characterized as nymphomaniac bisexuals. It sucks and is absurdly stupid, but those games sell. And that's the bottom line.

 

[Kahunaburger]

History for the most part didn't treat women well (yes certain tribes and small civilisations may of), now im not enough of a historian to completely deny they had any role, but its not hard for me to believe that they would be as sidelined as they are shown to be. That doesn't at all seem like a stretch.

Again im all for equality but a game has to fit its setting. It'd be like complaining about how sexist that northern guy was in the latest game of throne, yes its massively sexist but its true to source.

Hell the only 2 big female leaders in history i can think of right now are boudicca and cleopatra (spelling is wrong on both, im too lazy to find the right spelling) up until the late 18th century of course when feminist rights became a big thing(why isn't this movement given more media presence, very few films or tv shows and now games :S i reckon there would be some great stories there)

Bolded: the root of the problem.

To start with, you may have heard of Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria. You know, the reasons that, respectively, we named certain periods the Elizabethan period and the Victorian period. They're examples of individuals who, despite being women in sexist societies, exercised a great deal of power.

But, you might ask, what about historical societies that were even more sexist than Elizabethan/Victorian England?

Take ancient Egypt, where it was considerably less common to have female rulers exercising formal power. One of the most successful pharaohs was Hatshepsut, demonstrating that sufficiently smart and political individuals tend to make their own exceptions. You also historically see women exercising considerable political power even when denied formal power - Sak K'uk' was what we would consider a queen regent during her son's (Pacal, later Pacal the Great) childhood, but continued to exercise considerable de facto power over their city-state even after passing on formal leadership to her son as he came of age.

So the upshot of all this is, yes, women do play a major role even in societies that marginalize them. As you would suspect, them being 50%+ of the population and all.

 

[Chunga the Great]

.....

How about we stop arguing and ask for better characters in general?

Maybe?

Possibly?

It's always got to be "Us or Them" with these forums.