Devs Had to Demand Female Focus Testers for The Last of Us

[RatherDashing89]

I'm glad Naughty Dog is exposing this outdated thinking in the games industry. Except it won't do anything except make people upset with the industry in general if they don't start naming names. I doubt every marketing firm is like this--let's hear which one decided to shoot themselves in the foot this way. At least in this case it makes sense that they can't name names because they are still in a business relationship with the firm. But when ND revealed that publishers turned them down left and right because of the female character? Why not tell us who? What good does it do to know that "a lot of publishers did it" without knowing which ones? If they would tell us which ones, those publishers would then have a chance to explain themselves, and if they can't, we would have a chance to show them how outdated their thinking is by not buying their male-dominated game. Without specifics, this is just aimless negativity.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Next thing Naughty Dog will be announcing through their PR department will be that a member of their development team successfully preformed the Heimlich Maneuver to save a female play-tester from choking. As the CEO of a major publisher stood back watched, while smoking a cigar made entirely out of rolled up hundred dollar bills and gold dust.

At this stage the bullshit is getting a little thick.

Ah yeah the bullshit of acknowledging that female gamers actually exist. Such terrible bullshit.

Are you so desperate to believe in Naughty Dog's narrative that you're willing to be spoon fed mouthful by mouthful such a patently obvious PR campaign for their upcoming game?

That was a rhetorical question by the way, we both know the answer.

 

[nignonymous]

It's times like this I'm glad that I mostly play Japanese and Eastern European games.

Those are two regions that are completely immune to asinine gender politics.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Here's the thing. Even if ND is just "keeping up appearances", they're doing it right. Even if this didn't actually happen, it shows that they understand that it's how people would want them to react if this situation were to occur.

And if they know what stance the consumer wants them to take on stuff that doesn't even cost them any more money, they'd have to be idiots not to take that stance.

 

[LadyRhian]

Ugh. As a female gamer who worked doing video game reviews (and who now works under NDA for a video game company), have you *seen* the games made by male developers "especially for women"? They are DIRE is what they are. No conflict, no action, just sort of wandering around until something happens. Boring doesn't even begin to cover it. And there was a "Diary" type game that would allow teens to write in a secret, "locked" diary... files which could be read by anybody with a word processing program. Sincerely... would any guy buy a program whose entire raison d'être is "It's your secret magical diary!"

 

[MpSai]

Next thing Naughty Dog will be announcing through their PR department will be that a member of their development team successfully preformed the Heimlich Maneuver to save a female play-tester from choking. As the CEO of a major publisher stood back watched, while smoking a cigar made entirely out of rolled up hundred dollar bills and gold dust.

At this stage the bullshit is getting a little thick.

Ah yeah the bullshit of acknowledging that female gamers actually exist. Such terrible bullshit.

Are you so desperate to believe in Naughty Dog's narrative that you're willing to be spoon fed mouthful by mouthful such a patently obvious PR campaign for their upcoming game?

That was a rhetorical question by the way, we both know the answer.

Because the only reason a video game company would even think of their female audience, or potential female audience is for PR. Right? This couldn't possibly have been a genuine concern. You sound pretty paranoid there dude.

 

[UberPubert]

Funny you mention that, because Bioshock Infinite seems to have been just as popular with the female gaming audience. And there have been some pretty significant changes to Elizabeth between the 2011 demo and the final release. She no longer has distractingly large cleavage, she's no longer weepy and simpering, and she no longer behaves like an abused spouse (no really that was the original plan, she'd act like a battered housewife toward Songbird and exhibit Stockholm Syndrome. Early on she was also going to be mute.)

But that wasn't what people were outraged over. They wouldn't stop going on about the cover, and while Irrational has been thoughtful enough to provide alternatives the cover remains the same. And so, if it is still popular with the female gaming audience, and does sell well and receive critical acclaim, the message being sent to publishers is that the public outcry centered on minor aesthetic changes can be happily ignored, so why listen to their input at all when most of it is superficial and non-indicative of game sales?

Booker went through some changes too, from that demo I get the feeling there was a very stereotypical contrast between them, Elizabeth was "caring" and tearful, Booker was grr tough guy. But Booker in his final form is more curious, more laid back, and even rather funny at times. Making them more well-rounded characters makes them more real, and they clearly have both been appealing to both genders.

The demo was just that, an early demonstration of a work in progress. They couldn't be more well-rounded because their time was so limited; you just can't get to know a character as a living human being within the span of a few minutes (especially when most of it is spent actually showing off the environment and combat/power mechanics). The characters have evolved now into something more and better, but can we definitively say they're that much different solely because of the input of a few female focus testers?

I think the idea I take the most issue with is the idea that men simply can't write or decide on what makes a good female character without a living woman there to tell them. That the feminine mystique just cannot be captured by the limited male spectrum of ideas and is simply out of their grasp. I don't believe that anymore than I believe women can't write male characters, but I keep being told that they're quantifiably richer thanks to a woman's - any woman's - input on the matter.

 

[HalfTangible]

...

And there are feminists that think Zelda and Princess Peach are the problems with gaming.

*slow clap for naughty dog* Kudos, ND. I may buy your game just on principle now.

 

[Rossmallo]

It makes mae sad that we're so happy about this.

Doing unbiased focus testing should be the norm. Not the exception.

 

[Meatspinner]

Talking about "relics of the past" that need to go away. Why are we still so concerned about the box art?

 

[MpSai]

But that wasn't what people were outraged over. They wouldn't stop going on about the cover, and while Irrational has been thoughtful enough to provide alternatives the cover remains the same. And so, if it is still popular with the female gaming audience, and does sell well and receive critical acclaim, the message being sent to publishers is that the public outcry centered on minor aesthetic changes can be happily ignored, so why listen to their input at all when most of it is superficial and non-indicative of game sales?

It still sends kind of a crappy message that to sell even really good and unique games the cover HAS to have a single guy with a gun on it, because the dudebros like COD and now conventional "wisdom" tells us this is the only imagery men will respond to.

They couldn't be more well-rounded because their time was so limited; you just can't get to know a character as a living human being within the span of a few minutes (especially when most of it is spent actually showing off the environment and combat/power mechanics). The characters have evolved now into something more and better, but can we definitively say they're that much different solely because of the input of a few female focus testers?

I didn't say that, I said there are marked differences and Elizabeth has resonated with both male and female gamers I think all the more because of them. Imagine if she instead spent the majority of the game crying and acting like a battered housewife. Would she be considered a good character? Or would people feel it re-enforces the idea that women are helpless, cry all the time, and need a man to protect them?

I think the idea I take the most issue with is the idea that men simply can't write or decide on what makes a good female character without a living woman there to tell them. That the feminine mystique just cannot be captured by the limited male spectrum of ideas and is simply out of their grasp. I don't believe that anymore than I believe women can't write male characters, but I keep being told that they're quantifiably richer thanks to a woman's - any woman's - input on the matter.

The "female mystique" is exactly the problem. Some writers seem to think women necessarily have to be written vastly differently from male characters (and I just say "writers" because don't think for a second women aren't capable of sexist or misogynistic portrayals of women. Just look at Twilight), so they think about the things they associate with what "woman" is and sadly many of them have a limited mental library, just settling on limiting stereotypes: "pink" "boobs" "sexy" "damsel" "love interest" "mom" etc. And having a female perspective is not a bad thing in a team effort. In fact, the lead writer of Dragon Age 3 expressed the benefit in action in a recent blog: http://dgaider.tumblr.com/post/36214913229/the-female-perspective-in-game-development

 

[UberPubert]

I didn't say that, I said there are marked differences and Elizabeth has resonated with both male and female gamers I think all the more because of them. Imagine if she instead spent the majority of the game crying and acting like a battered housewife. Would she be considered a good character? Or would people feel it re-enforces the idea that women are helpless, cry all the time, and need a man to protect them?

I don't think most people would or should formulate their world views based on characters in fiction but even if they did I also don't believe that means we should exclude negatively portraying members of the female sex. Why can't Elizabeth be a battered housewife in need of protection? What if she became a truly pitiable character the player felt empathy for? Why does she have to stand as a strong role model for women everywhere instead of just as a tragic figure? The Elizabeth we got was arguably better suited to her task, but there's nothing wrong with the one that might have been.

The "female mystique" is exactly the problem. Some writers seem to think women necessarily have to be written vastly differently from male characters (and I just say "writers" because don't think for a second women aren't capable of sexist or misogynistic portrayals of women. Just look at Twilight), so they think about the things they associate with what "woman" is and sadly many of them have a limited mental library, just settling on limiting stereotypes: "pink" "boobs" "sexy" "damsel" "love interest" "mom" etc. And having a female perspective is not a bad thing in a team effort. In fact, the lead writer of Dragon Age 3 expressed the benefit in action in a recent blog: http://dgaider.tumblr.com/post/36214913229/the-female-perspective-in-game-development

Most men also aren't writers, and the ones that are aren't being _____ist when they associate women with their known stereotypes, they're just being unimaginative or simplifying it for the audience's sake, and the same thing applies to male characters. But stereotypes and tropes exist for a reason: People find them easily identifiable and can relate to them (there's nothing wrong with liking pink, having boobs, being sexy, etc.) it only becomes a problem when the audience looks beyond this surface level stereotype and finds there's not much else there, and that's still not _____ist, it's just lazy/bad writing or shallow characters. No amount of audience input can make up for a lack of effort or talent, barring outright displeasure at what's being provided and a refusal to look past it.

 

[Therumancer]

It sometimes bugs me how bad the leftward side of the gaming community gets played here.

For staters, let me point out that this is Naughty Dog here, these are the guys who got on the map by doing the game "Keef The Thief". A humor RPG which isn't exactly high on the female empowerment or political correctness scale
and includes easter eggs where you literally run into "Laurie, The Naughty Dog secretary!". When looking at something like this you have to consider the source. They mostly produce irreverant titles like this, or (to a lesser extent) uncharted, or anthromorphic things like "Crash Bandicoot" or whatever. "The Last Of Us" is actually something of a departure from their usual, somewhat irreverant style.

Basically what Naughty Dog is doing here is looking at the way the non-issue of "women in gaming" is getting people riled up, and how so many people think there is an issue here when there isn't one. Trolls like Anita Sarkessian being catapulted from minor lib-troll, to mega-troll overnight by riding these waves of complete BS, I mean she alone collected a ton of money from misguided left wingers she riled up, which she promised to produce new "higher quality" feminist videos with, before apparently pocketing it and producing a few new vidoes just like her old ones, lulzing all the way to the bank pretty much. They doubtlessly realized that this is something they could try and use for marketing purposes, especially seeing as they are now releasing a "serious" game and might want to see if they can get some "issue" cred, by going after an easily exploited non-issue. By dropping the news that they had to "insist on a female focus group" they are basically criticizing the game industry, giving a nod/rallying cry to misguided left wingers who think there is an issue here to begin with, and grabbing a fistfull of press all with one smooth move where all they had to do was point a finger and make a claim which on examination doesn't even make a whole lot of sense. I mean if what they are saying is true it's more a sign that their marketing firm doing the testing was being lazy the first time, rather than any kind of great crusade on the part of Naughty Dog.

Of course, just by argueing this, we're kind of buying into it.

See, Naughty Dog is after press, and trying to create a specific issue they can tie to this game. They are garnering interest, and maybe convincing a few women they specifically care along the way. It's paticularly transparent when you look at who Naughty Dog is, their body of work, and heck even the title they chose for themselves after they gave up on being JAM software.

Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with trying to grab some press, but let's not treat this like anything more than that. It's not like this is a genuine issue, or an attempt by a company to address it. Especially seeing as of all companies out there THIS is not the company you'd expect to get legitimatly invested in an issue like this, it's pretty much anti-thetical to the entire "Naughty Dog Attitude" they established up until this point.

Of course then again I guess part of the point is that most people gaming right now don't have the perspective or memory to remember "Keef The Thief" and that these are the same guys.

Oh and speaking of which, they could probably do worse than to try "Keef" again, it was actually pretty funny for it's time.

I mean really think about this "Naughty Dog Entertainment: Champions Of Feminism" it sounds like the title of a porn parody.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Next thing Naughty Dog will be announcing through their PR department will be that a member of their development team successfully preformed the Heimlich Maneuver to save a female play-tester from choking. As the CEO of a major publisher stood back watched, while smoking a cigar made entirely out of rolled up hundred dollar bills and gold dust.

At this stage the bullshit is getting a little thick.

Ah yeah the bullshit of acknowledging that female gamers actually exist. Such terrible bullshit.

Are you so desperate to believe in Naughty Dog's narrative that you're willing to be spoon fed mouthful by mouthful such a patently obvious PR campaign for their upcoming game?

That was a rhetorical question by the way, we both know the answer.

Because the only reason a video game company would even think of their female audience, or potential female audience is for PR. Right? This couldn't possibly have been a genuine concern. You sound pretty paranoid there dude.

I would rather be accused of being a dour, paranoid pessimist than a grown women(?) who still needs to believe in fairy tales woven from whole cloth. The people in charge over there at Naughty Dog might indeed have genuine concerns about attracting a female audience, but their PR department took that ball, ran with it and is selling the living shit out of that narrative.

To the point that to anyone with a bit of perspective, it's getting a little on the nose.

What I want to know most about their upcoming game is how Naughty Dog is going to manage to make a game that seems to be based primarily around an escort mechanic not completely suck.

 

[General Vagueness]

I like this. I mean, not the fact they had to specifically request testing with female gamers to make it happen, but I like that they did make that request.

 

[MagunBFP]

Where did it say that?

the idea of polling female gamers was nowhere on the table.

My big surprise during this process is that the research group wasn't planning on focus-testing female gamers - it's something we had to specifically request.

Neither of those comments say anything about exclusion. They both say there was no specific plan to test female gamers, not that there was a specific plan to not test female gamers. Its kinda like saying there was no specific plan to test with males aged 31 wearing glasses... that doesn't mean if a 31 year old guy with glasses was part of the test group he'd be turned away. ND pushed to specifically make females a quota to be filled.

We are obviously reading the article very differently. To me that says the marketing firm didn't even think of involving woman gamers in the market research, either as part of a mixed group or separately, until Naughty Dog requested it. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

Well let me elaborate on my point and lets see if we can't reach a consensus.

If the quote had been... "the idea of polling bronies was nowhere on the table" would that mean that bronies would have been actively excluded? or how about "the idea of polling high school kids was nowhere on the table" would they have been excluded? How about if they were just breaking their plans into age groups and income demographics so the quote might have been "the idea of polling male gamers was nowhere on the table"?

I'm not going to say that you're wrong because there's just not enough information in the article to say that there was an active attitude of exclusion intended, the only information we've been given is that there was no specific plan to test a certain number of women until ND insisted that there was.

 

[MpSai]

What I want to know most about their upcoming game is how Naughty Dog is going to manage to make a game that seems to be based primarily around an escort mechanic not completely suck.

Bioshock Infinite managed it. In spades.

For staters, let me point out that this is Naughty Dog here, these are the guys who got on the map by doing the game "Keef The Thief". A humor RPG which isn't exactly high on the female empowerment or political correctness scale

Imagine, a game from 24 years ago wasn't very progressive.

Basically what Naughty Dog is doing here is looking at the way the non-issue of "women in gaming" is getting people riled up, and how so many people think there is an issue here when there isn't one.

It would be nice if you'd elaborate as to why you believe it to be a "non-issue" in the first place.

I don't think most people would or should formulate their world views based on characters in fiction but even if they did I also don't believe that means we should exclude negatively portraying members of the female sex. Why can't Elizabeth be a battered housewife in need of protection? What if she became a truly pitiable character the player felt empathy for? Why does she have to stand as a strong role model for women everywhere instead of just as a tragic figure? The Elizabeth we got was arguably better suited to her task, but there's nothing wrong with the one that might have been.

A character like that could work, if handled well, but let's face it game writing right now isn't exactly as sophisticated as it has the potential to be. And how annoying would gamers find her if all she did was cry and go running back to her captors? Lastly, we just so often see 1-dimensional, stereotypical women in gaming, it's nice to see game writers, you know, actually putting in thought and effort?

Most men also aren't writers,

I'm saying even male writers do this.

and the ones that are aren't being _____ist when they associate women with their known stereotypes, they're just being unimaginative or simplifying it for the audience's sake

I think a huge barrier in this discussion is when someone points out a sexist/racist/etc. theme, character, or writing in a game, some people automatically jump to the conclusion that the person pointing it out is saying there's malicious intent or a purposeful agenda behind it. I hardly think most people seek out a sexist theme in their writing. It by and large happens inadvertently, but it does tend to happen because of laziness, thoughtlessness, and an author's own prejudices, which they might not even be aware they have generally because they're so ingrained in their culture, seeping in. Identifying and discussing these things is just that.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

What I want to know most about their upcoming game is how Naughty Dog is going to manage to make a game that seems to be based primarily around an escort mechanic not completely suck.

Bioshock Infinite managed it. In spades.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with either Naughty Dog or their game. If I were to draw a comparison between Irrational Games and Naughty Dog it would be to point out that so far Naughty Dog has concentrated more on shooting their mouths off about sexism than showing gaming "journalists" that they're developing a high quality gaming experience.

Irrational Games made sure that anyone who was interested in playing their game that they wouldn't be chained to your industry standard bullet cushion NPC companion.

 

[MpSai]

If I were to draw a comparison between Irrational Games and Naughty Dog it would be to point out that so far Naughty Dog has concentrated more on shooting their mouths off about sexism than showing gaming "journalists" that they're developing a high quality gaming experience.

Care to explain why in your world saying "Hey this PR firm was only going to focus test on men, we had to ask them not to do that, this type of thing could be problematic for the industry" is "shooting their mouths off"? Escapist also just posted one of their developer diaries, I'm unclear as to why you think this one small article means they haven't been demonstrating what the game will be like for the last year or so.