Excessively Excessive

[RvLeshrac]

While I agree with Yahtzee that the pursuit of excess is the problem ,I don't really see the situation improving either. After all the underlying problem behind this is that the executives don't get what makes a good game, and given that this problem is common to ALL creative industries ( or rather, executives not pushing for quality as they know that that is an unreliable way to make money) I don't see it being fixed any time soon.

I noticed this when taking my game design classes at college that I was learning a lot more of how to make "excessive" animations, graphical tricks, or how to make something look "realistic" than focusing on core mechanics of a game--or how some games are good while others are not so good. I think the major problem here is triple-A games are influenced more by marketing and attempts to "one-up" the competitor in sales.

Activision releases "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" a few years back and it was a massive success. Prior to that, Microsoft released the "Halo" series on their proprietary console, and it was a massive success. This leads to other developers/publishers to think that they need to mimic these games to earn more revenue, instead of focusing on making an interesting game. So they focus on making their "game" more flashy and pretty than the competitors, relying on trailers and "awesome scene quota" numbers to follow so their game could sell well. In turn, this makes them slowly (at least to most gamers' opinions) turn their games into films with less interaction and more emphasis on trying to impress us.

Indie games seem to have similar problems that they want to take a familiar game, but make it "bigger" or flashier, in some cases. Since "Minecraft" was released I have met an instructor at my college that wants to make an FPS, block-building sandbox world similar to "Minecraft" but made in C#/XNA. I'm sure there are some similar indie games that try mimicking "Angry Birds" but make it more flashy. It may only be a matter of time before Activision, EA, or Ubisoft release their "Minecraft" clone.

But all this is completely moot. There's no discussion to be had. Money talks and, right now, money is saying "WE WANT MORE OF THE SAME." That's the *ONLY* point that matters.

 

[Voltano]

But all this is completely moot. There's no discussion to be had. Money talks and, right now, money is saying "WE WANT MORE OF THE SAME." That's the *ONLY* point that matters.

Which explains why we see more and more women being put in bikini outfits, excessive graphical details to facial features that only show up on the camera for 3 seconds, or the plan to make a "horror" based game more broad to get a bigger audience by making it a co-op shooter?

It's a double-edged sword, I guess. On one hand we could point to the publishers/developers for making these insulting, boring, or "non-game-important" features in their game as they think it would sell. Yet we also pay out money to prove these publishers/developers right that we *DO* want the stuff that is insulting, boring, or "non-game-important" features. Several gamers wanted to boycott "Modern Warfare 2" because it was removing Dedicated Servers as a feature for the PC port--yet that still didn't stop that game from selling so well.

You are right that money talks and it tells publishers/developers that we just want the same stuff. But it also tells us that we're not so smart with how to say what we want with our words (i.e. spending our money elsewhere).

 

[him over there]

Yahtzee, I was hoping for this debate to be over so we can start being immature again.

Arbitrary quantification of complex creative ideas. And to think there's a whole website that you linked to that's devoted to the dreamcrushers. It's mindnumbingly stupid. Like TV Tropes level stupid.

DOn't diss the Great, all Powerful God Tv Tropes!

What's it going to do, molest my avatar?

It probably already has.

 

[WoahDan]

But all this is completely moot. There's no discussion to be had. Money talks and, right now, money is saying "WE WANT MORE OF THE SAME." That's the *ONLY* point that matters.

Which explains why we see more and more women being put in bikini outfits, excessive graphical details to facial features that only show up on the camera for 3 seconds, or the plan to make a "horror" based game more broad to get a bigger audience by making it a co-op shooter?

Er, yes actually those things are a direct result of money talking, supply and demand my friend.

The underlying problem behind much of the industry is not that money talks, its that it has too large a microphone. Execs will ALWAYS have influence and will usually use that influence for ill, that's just how the world works. Execs are always going to go after the latest trend, that's the most reliable way for them to make money (remember, whilst quality sells even the best team makes duds from time to time, and the risk of the game being passed up on by fans is ever present) and that fact is not going to change any time soon.

What can and hopefully will change is that hopefully designers will become more willing to say "that's nice but we are going this way instead" gaming needs to realise its a creative medium first and a business second, and those designers who have already realised it need to gain the freedom to act on that realisation.

 

[The Crazy Legs]

[quote="Voltano" post="6.380660.14973151"

...or the plan to make a "horror" based game more broad to get a bigger audience by making it a co-op shooter?[/quote]

*Head desk* Damn it... I was trying to forget about that! No! God damn it! AHH!!!

OT: Yep. I was somewhat expecting this sort of EP after Lollipop Chainsaw. I was actually expecting it a little earlier, to be honest.

 

[Itsthefuzz]

Reading comprehension, you don't have it.

Where did I say that not passing the test makes anything a bad movie? Where? I said, very clearly, that the test is broken because it takes nothing but numbers into count and would pass any female characters, even if they were nude prostitutes that spoke of what are their favorite turnips, as long as they didn't talk about men and had names.

Next time, take your time and actually read what is there. Thank you.

Ever try being less hostile when trying to make a point to someone on the internet?

 

[Scow2]

I disagree entirely with Yahtzee's points, and believe he's off on almost all of them. He's seeing a problem where there isn't one.

People are making the "IDIOCRACY IS SO TRUE! [http://xkcd.com/603/]" argument here, which isn't the case. There is absolutely NOTHING new in video game escalation - Character designs no more skimpy/sexualized/overdriven than they've ever been, even if the detail's improved. The plots are just as sensational (THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED BY NINJAS!) and etc. Now that we have better graphical resolution, we do have a bigger ability to present even more bombastic stuff. However, we also get a LOT of tamer stuff. But big stuff is what makes headlines, and it's NOT a trait unique to video games: Comics have been doing it (Infinite Crisis on Infinite Earths?), Movies have been doing it, Anime has been doing it, books have been doing it, and even music's been doing it in its own form (Heard of the "Loudness War"?)

Fighting games generally go for gratuitous sexuality and violence because EVERYTHING about them is gratuitous. Yeah, there are characters like Ivy (Who showed up back in the late 90's - certianly not a new trend)... but the Male Cast gets VERY similar treatment. And on that note, Capcom REALLY needs to add Katt from Breath of Fire II to their fighting game lineups, and not do anything stupid to her character design like give her pants or something. She's even an arena fighter in the game!

 

[Callate]

Huh. A little exaggeration for comic effect aside, that's actually a really interesting and well thought out idea. (Not that that's unusual, Mr. Croshaw, perish the thought.)

As a primarily PC/Wii gamer, I probably don't notice this in quite the same way, but I can't help but think of the obvious parallel with movies. When stuntwork and modelling and real-world pyrotechnics were the order of the day, it was a lot easier to be impressed with action scenes in movies. Now that we're aware that that Ferrari power-sliding across five lanes of traffic as a semi-truck trailer flips inches over its roof was undoubtedly the product of a CGI lab... yawn.

Perversely, I suspect it's the things that don't grab us by the collar and shake us senseless these days that are far more likely to impress. Yes, we can give all the heroines 44-F busts and put them in outfits that make us wonder about how much spirit gum they must employ to maintain a "T" rating, or we can increase the particle counts of the lens-flared explosion that just rocked the brown-and-grey world... But I think in many cases what people find far more resonant is a world that feels vivid and alive, and explorable all the way to a distantly viewed horizon. Or even a level that didn't feel like it was force-marching the player through to the next barely-interactive "ooh-ahhh" set-piece.

 

[Mel Theofficegamergirl]

That's all very well Yahtzee, but how do we change this pattern of behavior?

By being informed consumers and buying games that are worth something.

Is it just me or did Croshaw become a lot less funny and much more cynical? His views have been...well to put it kindly...sketchy at best. (Bechdel Test...really?)

The guy is even less popular here now in terms of views and comments, Jimqusition and MovieBob seem to be way over him here now.

The guy is the only reason I visit this site at all anymore, really. I only check out the other articles and videos when I've nothing better to do. Just sayin'.

 

[Simonism451]

In an attempt for Yahtzee to identify the roots of the issue of feminine portrayal in media and remedy them he just gave us another reason to flip out over the "women" issue.

Counter intuitive or ingenious in demonstrating our ignorance?

You Decide!

EDIT: Also, Hold the phone. Can't the Bechdel test be applied to guys as well?

It can. It will show (I'm pretty sure) that the majority of movies have important male characters who, occasionally, talk to each other about something besides girls.
The majority of movies does not have important female characters who talk to each other about something but boys.
While for individual films that's a-ok, I can't help but feel that there's something missing when EVERY (slight hyperbole there) movie does it.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

We're talking about an activity whose very purpose is escapism and the problem is supposed to be excess?

The guy whose standard complaints about every Wii game in existence always involve graphical power is complaining about excess?

This strikes me as a Physician Heal Thyself moment both for Yahtzee and for gaming websites. Maybe if gaming websites were a little less likely to promote the crap out of Russian Boob Mercenaries VI every time they get an advertising check and judged games on their content rather than by how many advertising dollars went into the game/whether the game had the best graphics on the market, more gamers might be inclined to give the indies a better shake.

 

[weirdee]

The Bechdel test is such a broken system that I can't even begin to understand why people insist on bringing it up.

It essentially is counter-productive to the entire cause. Instead of looking at the female characters in movies as what they are (are they strong, determined, important, etc), and reduces them to, well, numbers. Like cattle.

Are there two of them, do they converse about something other than a man? Huh? That's it? What if there are two women who have a talk about a lovely pair of shoes. Wow, that sure is better than having a talk about a man.

By their logic, off the of my head, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, a movie populated with incredibly strong female characters and performances, fails to pass this test because all the female characters who interact with each other discuss the main comatose character, who is a man in one way or the other.

Ugh, such a stupid system.

Not passing the Bechel Test doesn't mean it's a bad movie, it means it's male centric. That's like calling the Witcher 2 a bad game because it's misogynistic of Geralt to have casual sex with multiple women. In real life I'm pretty sure women talk about shoes, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that (unless that's ALL they talk about).

Reading comprehension, you don't have it.

Where did I say that not passing the test makes anything a bad movie? Where? I said, very clearly, that the test is broken because it takes nothing but numbers into count and would pass any female characters, even if they were nude prostitutes that spoke of what are their favorite turnips, as long as they didn't talk about men and had names.

Next time, take your time and actually read what is there. Thank you.

I would watch that movie just to see if they could actually string together a passable movie without relying on the spectacle of nude prostitutes.

Of course, should this actually exist, it would both destroy our human perceptions of reality and be another herald of the apocalypse.

 

[Katya Topolkaraeva]

Um... ok but here's the thing about the Bechdel Test. And this is coming from a woman btw. Let's see... what percentage of time am i (as a woman) around another women, and there are no men around, and the topic of conversation is not men. Sometimes. Usually, then the topic of conversation is about stuff (ie, clothing, shoes, purses, body image, exc) or gossip about other females, usually unfriendly gossip. How often is the topic of conversation something even remotely intellectual or geeky (again, when there's no men around) VERY VERY RARELY. And this is with me as part of the conversation and trying like hell to steer it away from men and shoes, so i can only imagine what it is normally like with more willing female participants. My point being this: women who hang out with other woman generally spend a lot of time talking about things that would make "feminists" cringe. Women who have intelligent things to say generally tend to prefer male company.

 

[weirdee]

Just because he referred to a broken measuring system doesn't mean his underlying point is wrong guys.

While I agree with Yahtzee that the pursuit of excess is the problem ,I don't really see the situation improving either. After all the underlying problem behind this is that the executives don't get what makes a good game, and given that this problem is common to ALL creative industries ( or rather, executives not pushing for quality as they know that that is an unreliable way to make money) I don't see it being fixed any time soon.

The best chance would probably be if a couple of crowd-sourced games become crossover hits in close succession.

Nope. If anything, crowdsourcing is almost like college: mostly funded by the people and whatever governmental funding they can get, and the end results taken to be abused by the corporations with none of the risks. If anything, they're probably hoping for the next big thing to come up so that they can then mercilessly steal the idea for their own profit and then run that idea into the ground for all they can get. Liked grassroots product A? Then try our product B! Because we have a ton of money, countless slaves who work for us just because they wanted a shot at making it in the industry, and an excellent, highly paid legal team, our product has all the bluster behind it of an aircraft carrier facing down a gunboat.

The main issue with sending any kind of strong signal to a desperate big company is that they tend to latch onto the most irrelevant or easily understood aspects pertaining to the successes they observe (like being on facebook, or trying to outfad or outnumber the latest skinner box, or being the most gritty and heavy hitting men with guns in the neighborhood, most of which places ridiculous emphasis on graphical fidelity while ignoring aesthetics), and then make that the driving force behind most of their business plan until the next thing comes along. They'll gladly march to the beat of whatever random concept they perceive as the most popular and pretend to get it on the surface, but they will never truly understand what it means, and will continue to use the idea as their all purpose tool regardless of context until it is ruined or they get bored with it and move on.

I wouldn't rely on those types of entities to get anything done in the long term. They're glorified game factories who just churn out what they think will sell, and as long as people keep giving them money, it won't matter if it's a phoned in, by the numbers bullet spree, or a game that pretends to have depth while leading customers on a wild goose chase for the content they desire, but significantly cheaper to make because they never intend to give it to them.

 

[Sir Broccoli]

I had to google weetabix. It looks kind of disgusting.

 

[srpilha]

Women who have intelligent things to say generally tend to prefer male company.

please, PLEASE, keep your absolutely unfounded generalizations to yourself. good grief.


OnTopic: Thanks Yahtzee for a very good text, and thanks to the ones that have been discussing and arguing in a reasonable fashion. No thanks to those who are just being thick. Yes, you.

 

[ms_sunlight]

Reading comprehension, you don't have it.

Where did I say that not passing the test makes anything a bad movie? Where? I said, very clearly, that the test is broken because it takes nothing but numbers into count and would pass any female characters, even if they were nude prostitutes that spoke of what are their favorite turnips, as long as they didn't talk about men and had names.

Next time, take your time and actually read what is there. Thank you.

That's like saying a spanner is inherently broken because it doesn't cook pasta. By saying this, you show that you fundamentally fail to understand the concept.

The Bechdel Test doesn't measure anything, except that when applied to many films it shows a worrying trend. Failing the test doesn't mean a film is a bad film, or that it's anti-feminist. Passing the test doesn't mean a film's not horribly sexist. It's not about how good a film is at portraying women at all; it's about their non-existence as characters other than as adjuncts to men.

Try applying the "Reverse Bechdel Test" to films - do two named male characters talk to each other about something other than a woman or women? You'll find it incredibly difficult to find a film that fails it; of those, most will be ones that are set all-female environments (e.g. convents), or have very few characters at all, perhaps only one or two - in other words, highly unusual.

We don't use the Bechdel Test to evaluate individual movies (or whatever medium) - we use it to evaluate the total output. We can't even begin to think about how good the representation of women is when there's actually little or no representation.

 

[Scow2]

Yahtzee too you? What the frak, is Escapist going to become nothing more than feminist&gay-rights hole? I'm not treating my lady like shit, so fuck off already with all that lecturing.

Right, let's go and make a Godfather remake where women will have an equal role in the mafia. And also let's make that 'best' mandatory and ban movies which won't pass it. Because everything has to be equal every time everywhere. Great.

Yahtzee has always been an ignorant hipster cynic who thinks he needs to save gaming from itself, and seeing trends where there are actually statics. His reviews are amusing. His opinions are painfully ignorant.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

The Bechdel Test was a joke.

It was a one-off joke in a joke-a-day webcomic.

As a joke, it was fairly clever, observant and entertaining, but it is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a good measurement of anything (note that no character in that comic strip said anything about what it tests for).

Please stop beating this dead horse. You are like if the people who quote "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" believed they were contributing to meaningful discourse on culture.

At least the people who run that website keep a fairly extensive list of what it doesn't say about a film. If only the rest of the people who use it would follow suit.

 

[Voltano]

The underlying problem behind much of the industry is not that money talks, its that it has too large a microphone...

True, but I don't think of this as a bad thing--just knee-jerk reaction on what would sell. If a developer thinks that their game would sell well if they include more and bigger tits in their game than the competitor's game, then they would do this.

But that logic implies there can only be one thing that could make a game sell well (i.e. the quantity and size of tits), with no consideration of other ways of making money. The MMORPG history is a good example of this where several publishers try stepping into WoW's territory and failing badly. Yet several South Korean and even Western MMORPGs are making the transition to "free-to-play" models, which allows them to earn money an entirely different way than what Blizzard started with. Several of them are being advertised right now on Steam and doing pretty well.

I believe Feminists could make a similar argument with their situation: If you want to make games toward heterosexual teenage males that get their ego stroked, then fine--but you are losing out on the potential sales of making games toward heterosexual teenage females that get their ego stroked. I know the "Twilight" series is bad, but there is a good market for it. Executives not seeing this is being blind and dumb.

What can and hopefully will change is that hopefully designers will become more willing to say "that's nice but we are going this way instead" gaming needs to realise its a creative medium first and a business second, and those designers who have already realised it need to gain the freedom to act on that realisation.

I'll disagree with you that games are a creative medium first and a business second, as I believe they are both. Developers don't make these games out of the goodness of their heart, and publishers don't just toss out money for these games to be nice. Indie developers like Spiderweb Entertainment don't sacrifice time with friends and family 40+ hours a week to make awesome games for us--its their job. They want to be paid for it, and we are expected to give compensation by telling them its a great game by opening our wallets.