I want to play a game about a female crimelord or career criminal.

[V4Viewtiful]

We just discovered a gap in the market here, I'd play a game like that.

I'd play it, too.

Now how do we go about filling that gap? Way I see it, we've got two options:

1) Start our own company, pour our entire life savings into it, raise additional funds through kickstarter, seek corporate investment by convincing boards of tight suites that we deserve millions of dollars to pursue an unproven demographic, learn how to code and program at a very high level and/or spend oodles of money securing the services of in-demand professionals, spend the next 2-3 years dedicating our lives to this one project that may very well fail, and at some point probably sacrifice a goat just to cover our bases.

2) Complain about the industry long and loud enough that someone else will do all the risky heavy lifting for us.

Kind of a no-brainer, right? I mean door number two will actually MAKE us money if we beg hard enough, and there's no such thing as failure when it comes to opinions. Basic game theory says we go Arkeesian.

"May god help us, all!"

Actually an easier way is to just plant the idea in a dude that works for a game studio and hope for the best. I know at least 2.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

I would interested in more games out there that have you/let choose to play as a female career criminal. I would more interested in a bigger verity of types game character in general. Having the same generic type of characters over and over again is kinda boring.

In fact my next planed playthough of fallout new vegas with have be playing a female opportunist who's lacking in morality and has quite notable criminal history.

Spoiler: pointless rambling

She likely would have secondary psychopathy but more research is still need to know different female psychopaths are compared to male ones since supposedly gender make a notable difference from what I read. I will be looking more into that aspect before I finalize my ideas.
then I have to figure how grounded in reality I want this behavior to be.
I feel in order breaking reality while still being grounding in reality, it at least requires some understanding of what your breaking. if Have I no understanding then I am just making shit up, which leads making an inconstant character and a lower quality roleplaying experience

 

[Lightknight]

Not sure how it would be markedly different from male protagonist versions of the same thing, but I have always enjoyed those kinds of games so why not?

I assume many of the already existing games have skin mods you can slap on the character too.

 

[Dalisclock]

Even if it was a generic Evil genius, you'd have a hard time not being dog piled by the media for making a game where you run a terrorist organization with classes tailored to each person's revenge fantasy with their own bonuses.

That kind of thing sailed long ago when paranoia on terrorism and extremists set in. Why do you think Invader Zim was cancelled?

Not to disagree with you, but since we're already talking about the SR games, I'd argue that in SR3, you are effectively a terrorist with good publicity(and energy drink deals to boot). Think about it. Among the myriad things you do are: Blow up the tallest building in the city(optional), raid a military armory and steal said bomb to blow up building, break into a military building to kidnap their spokesman(I kind of which the option to toss him off a roof was available), antagonize the government to much that what is effectively a new branch of the military is deployed to steel-port to stop you, steal a VTOL aircraft to blow up a bunch of their field bases and shoot down their incoming AWACS plane, sink their aircraft carrier command ship, and possibly destroy their other (flying) aircraft carrier if you decide to go for the evil ending. The massive amounts of military grade weaponry the game throws at you suggests this as well(Like you can easily get a tank and go do missions/joyride in it).

In SR2 the most you ever did was kill cops and hurt ULTOR, which is not quite on the same scale as declaring war against the US government. Because the game is so ridiculous and SR doesn't quite get the same exposure as GTA does, nobody really noticed.

Also, Invader Zim was canceled because people are stupid.

 

[SoranMBane]

Well, if you don't mind a text-based browser game, then you can totally roleplay as a female career criminal in Fallen London [http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/]. Just focus on the Shadowy and Dangerous qualities; build up your connections with criminals, devils (by which I mean literal fire-and-brimstone devils, because it's that sort of setting), smugglers, and anarchists; murder, steal and screw people over at every opportunity; and, once you become a Person of Some Importance, you can scrape together your very own criminal gang. The opportunities for mischief and thuggery are really quite involved in this game, and its all open to you whether you're playing a lady, a gentleman, or anything in between.

 

[Netrigan]

I was thinking, if one of the GTAV protagonists had to be female, which one should it be? I don't think it would work for Michael because his entire character can be summed up with "mid-life crisis", and it could theoretically work for Franklin, but what about Trevor? If you didn't change anything about his personality, actions or mannerisms, just made him female, how good would that be?

Trevor, as voiced by Amber Nash (Pam from Archer) would have been awesome. She could even eat all the cocaine.

Although replacing the "haven't we done this Boyz in the Hood knock-off a gazillion times already" Franklin would have been the best choice. He's such a boring waste of space, recycling all the gangsta cliches without an ounce of anything fresh. Michael at least has the comedy of being a putz in his favor. It always felt like I was supposed to be taking Franklin's journey somewhat seriously as he's torn between these two men and must choose one... one represents his future, the other his past... and screw that, here's this option which allows you to choose both and it's way better than either of those two idiotic choices.

 

[Netrigan]

We just discovered a gap in the market here, I'd play a game like that.

I'd play it, too.

Now how do we go about filling that gap? Way I see it, we've got two options:

1) Start our own company, pour our entire life savings into it, raise additional funds through kickstarter, seek corporate investment by convincing boards of tight suites that we deserve millions of dollars to pursue an unproven demographic, learn how to code and program at a very high level and/or spend oodles of money securing the services of in-demand professionals, spend the next 2-3 years dedicating our lives to this one project that may very well fail, and at some point probably sacrifice a goat just to cover our bases.

2) Complain about the industry long and loud enough that someone else will do all the risky heavy lifting for us.

Kind of a no-brainer, right? I mean door number two will actually MAKE us money if we beg hard enough, and there's no such thing as failure when it comes to opinions. Basic game theory says we go Arkeesian.

"May god help us, all!"

Actually an easier way is to just plant the idea in a dude that works for a game studio and hope for the best. I know at least 2.

Amusingly, someone aimed this kind of criticism at some GG folks and their reaction wasn't "of course, I should stop complaining, get off my ass, become a game journalist, and work to make the system better"... nope, it was "keep complaining at them until they do my bidding".

Okay, cheap shot, but so is anyone pulling the old "if you can't do better, shut up" card. Criticism is a time-honored way of letting people know they're screwing up or could be doing better. Assuming you've got reasonable people in charge, they'll listen, because they want to do a better job.

 

[Bruce]

Tomb Raider. Lara Croft (at least up until the remake) is a professional thief specialising in raiding priceless artefacts, often employing violent means to do it.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

sniped

Amusingly, someone aimed this kind of criticism at some GG folks and their reaction wasn't "of course, I should stop complaining, get off my ass, become a game journalist, and work to make the system better"... nope, it was "keep complaining at them until they do my bidding".

Okay, cheap shot, but so is anyone pulling the old "if you can't do better, shut up" card. Criticism is a time-honored way of letting people know they're screwing up or could be doing better. Assuming you've got reasonable people in charge, they'll listen, because they want to do a better job.

Yep that isn't isolated to this situation in the slightest but the truth is at most half the people who complain about any change couldn't possibly do it themselves as not everyone is capable of anything so they look on to those that established that they are.

There's a word for this but I can't recall.

 

[Netrigan]

sniped

Amusingly, someone aimed this kind of criticism at some GG folks and their reaction wasn't "of course, I should stop complaining, get off my ass, become a game journalist, and work to make the system better"... nope, it was "keep complaining at them until they do my bidding".

Okay, cheap shot, but so is anyone pulling the old "if you can't do better, shut up" card. Criticism is a time-honored way of letting people know they're screwing up or could be doing better. Assuming you've got reasonable people in charge, they'll listen, because they want to do a better job.

Yep that isn't isolated to this situation in the slightest but the truth is at most half the people who complain about any change couldn't possibly do it themselves as not everyone is capable of anything so they look on to those that established that they are.

There's a word for this but I can't recall.

Always have to be careful about mixing and matching people in any movement. Two people have two different opinions isn't any kind of contradiction. There's all sorts of disagreements within any given group.

But I couldn't help myself in pointing out the reaction many people had when their inaction was called into question. They took it as an affront, a way of trying to shut them up.

And that's exactly what it always is.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

"May god help us, all!"

Actually an easier way is to just plant the idea in a dude that works for a game studio and hope for the best. I know at least 2.

That pic got me good. Belly laugh to you, good person!

I was being snarky because there's definitely an undercurrent running through this thread, but I'd honestly love to see games like this one - even if I have limited interest in playing such a game myself. The economic realities of the industry and the market make it very difficult for such things to get made, of course, so you'd need someone with a lot of passion and vision to pull it off. You'd also need someone more interested in making the damn game, at great personal risk, than simply talking about it.

I think this is also the fundamental difference between film and video game criticism at the moment.

When a movie critic says, "this movie sucks, they should have done this", and detractors say, "then make your own movie!", the film critic can counter by saying, "I don't have to make a movie, there are already dozens of good movies I can point to right now that illustrate precisely what I'm talking about."

When a game critic says, "this game sucks, they should have done this", and detractors say, "then make your own damn game!", the game critic generally can't counter by pointing to games that illustrate their point - not if the issue is a gap or absence in the market place. And it doesn't actually fall on any one studio or publisher or person to fill that gap/absence. If you're seeing it, and you want it filled, you should put on your big person pants and get to work.

Amusingly, someone aimed this kind of criticism at some GG folks and their reaction wasn't "of course, I should stop complaining, get off my ass, become a game journalist, and work to make the system better"... nope, it was "keep complaining at them until they do my bidding".

Kind of a false equivalency there. I mean the gaming press really doesn't serve any purpose other than reporting to the gaming community at large. Asking them to "apologize and change" was essentially asking them not to burn the bridge beneath their feet. When that didn't happen, a lot of people started voting with their wallets and turning to alternative sites and sources for information - and those alternatives were already in place. I now read a completely different collection of sites for game news and information.

Okay, cheap shot, but so is anyone pulling the old "if you can't do better, shut up" card. Criticism is a time-honored way of letting people know they're screwing up or could be doing better. Assuming you've got reasonable people in charge, they'll listen, because they want to do a better job.

I think there's a difference between calling out reporters for unethical and dishonest behavior and calling out developers for making the games they want to make instead of the games someone else wants them to make. I also think that catering to different demographics isn't "doing a better job" - it's doing a different job. There's no reason why existing developers need to divert resources from existing markets to placate a handful of vocal critics looking for something different. If that portion of the market is untapped or even nonexistent, and someone thinks it's viable, that someone should be more than happy to go make a game there. Failing that, sure, go ahead and present ideas and hope a game dev someday runs with them. I just hate it when I see people acting like the industry owes them a certain sort of game or message or representation. Buy what you like, skip what you don't, encourage diversity, but push for actual *growth* instead of redistribution.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Always have to be careful about mixing and matching people in any movement. Two people have two different opinions isn't any kind of contradiction. There's all sorts of disagreements within any given group.

But I couldn't help myself in pointing out the reaction many people had when their inaction was called into question. They took it as an affront, a way of trying to shut them up.

And that's exactly what it always is.

Calling out BS is good, too often it doesn't lead to action though (I speak in general).

That pic got me good. Belly laugh to you, good person!

Yeah, I have a talent for that.

I was being snarky because there's definitely an undercurrent running through this thread, but I'd honestly love to see games like this one - even if I have limited interest in playing such a game myself. The economic realities of the industry and the market make it very difficult for such things to get made, of course, so you'd need someone with a lot of passion and vision to pull it off. You'd also need someone more interested in making the damn game, at great personal risk, than simply talking about it.

I think this is also the fundamental difference between film and video game criticism at the moment.

When a movie critic says, "this movie sucks, they should have done this", and detractors say, "then make your own movie!", the film critic can counter by saying, "I don't have to make a movie, there are already dozens of good movies I can point to right now that illustrate precisely what I'm talking about."

When a game critic says, "this game sucks, they should have done this", and detractors say, "then make your own damn game!", the game critic generally can't counter by pointing to games that illustrate their point - not if the issue is a gap or absence in the market place. And it doesn't actually fall on any one studio or publisher or person to fill that gap/absence. If you're seeing it, and you want it filled, you should put on your big person pants and get to work.

Mind you, it is far easier to support this sort of stuff now, look at Mighty No.9, no real big Mega Man games then the original creator wants to make a clone of his Idea and people support it after years of fans saying they want Mega Man.

Now there is a huge difference in the situation but say if someone where to come around and decide to make this concept in question then we'd witness if people would put their money where there mouth was.

I did a little research on Black film and shows on TV, it was damn near non existent but the community support the few people that wanted to supply that niche to the public through funding and publicity, same thing with regular mainstream films.
During the early film years art communities supported filmographers to experiment, we're more than at that stage in gaming I think.

 

[Netrigan]

I think there's a difference between calling out reporters for unethical and dishonest behavior and calling out developers for making the games they want to make instead of the games someone else wants them to make. I also think that catering to different demographics isn't "doing a better job" - it's doing a different job. There's no reason why existing developers need to divert resources from existing markets to placate a handful of vocal critics looking for something different. If that portion of the market is untapped or even nonexistent, and someone thinks it's viable, that someone should be more than happy to go make a game there. Failing that, sure, go ahead and present ideas and hope a game dev someday runs with them. I just hate it when I see people acting like the industry owes them a certain sort of game or message or representation. Buy what you like, skip what you don't, encourage diversity, but push for actual *growth* instead of redistribution.

I don't see a difference between any two groups complaining about a situation.

Complaining is about letting your voice be heard. It can be a Pro-Democracy Movement in China, it can be about the soap being on the bottom shelf where it's hard for older people to reach. You air the complaint, hopefully someone listens, and hopefully someone makes the situation better if at all possible.

But in virtually any situation you can basically say, "don't like your iPhone 6 bending, then start up your own phone company and make a better phone"... which, BTW, is often how many people start a career in said field, but not something which just anyone can do.

Such as I think the more articulate people in the GG movement should bootstrap their own journalistic niche, as they clearly want to discuss Social Justice issues in a way they don't think current video game journalists are (otherwise they wouldn't be saying SJW so damn often), and simply complaining about that won't make the situation better because there don't appear to be too many game journalists with their political outlook. They don't have a receptive audience for criticisms of these types, so large chunks of their criticisms are falling on deaf ears.

Whereas Sarkeesian is talking to an industry which is making strides in the very issues she covers. She is being heard, she is being responded to, her criticisms are helping shape the direction the game industry is moving. To bring about many of the changes she wants, she merely has to keep talking. The industry wants greater diversity, they want better writing, they want feedback that helps them make better games.

But everyone has the god-given right to complain until their voice is sore... and complain about other people complaining... and complaining about other people complaining about other people complain

 

[Pogilrup]

Is there a way to tell a crime story other than through a GTA clone?

I hypothesize that open world can be very expensive compared to more linear games.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I don't see a difference between any two groups complaining about a situation.

I think this statement is reductive to the point of absurdity.

Complaining is about letting your voice be heard. It can be a Pro-Democracy Movement in China, it can be about the soap being on the bottom shelf where it's hard for older people to reach. You air the complaint, hopefully someone listens, and hopefully someone makes the situation better if at all possible.

I think comparing these things is reductive to the point of absurdity.

But in virtually any situation you can basically say, "don't like your iPhone 6 bending, then start up your own phone company and make a better phone"... which, BTW, is often how many people start a career in said field, but not something which just anyone can do.

I see two key differences here.

The first difference: mechanics versus content. Criticizing a phone for faulty design is like criticizing a game for faulty mechanics. The artistic expression of the game maker, which is comprised of things like character, plot, diversity, representation, etc., is a far more subjective point than any discussion revolving around game mechanics. Comparing the iPhone 6 complaints of mechanical failure to the "media"'s complaints about representation and diversity doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The second difference: we already have phones that don't bend. We've witnessed first-hand the viability of extremely similar products that do not share the obvious design flaws of iPhone 6+. We can criticize this product while pointing to other, similar, far superior products and saying, "why didn't you do it like that?". When you see a game that has a cliched themes and worn-out gameplay, and you criticize it for not doing something new and mostly unseen in gaming, what can you point to? The problem with this line of thinking is that you are presupposing the success of certain ideas without hard evidence to back it up - and investors need that evidence.

Such as I think the more articulate people in the GG movement should bootstrap their own journalistic niche, as they clearly want to discuss Social Justice issues in a way they don't think current video game journalists are (otherwise they wouldn't be saying SJW so damn often), and simply complaining about that won't make the situation better because there don't appear to be too many game journalists with their political outlook. They don't have a receptive audience for criticisms of these types, so large chunks of their criticisms are falling on deaf ears.

There's a whitelist. There are people doing right by games journalism, and they are seeing surges of traffic and support. They are also being held up as valid counterpoints to the previous status quo, which is what makes the criticism valid in the first place. We're not inventing journalistic integrity and intellectual honesty. These things already exist. We're criticizing a group of sites and authors for failing to uphold these ideals, and we're taking our clicks, views, and money elsewhere.

Whereas Sarkeesian is talking to an industry which is making strides in the very issues she covers. She is being heard, she is being responded to, her criticisms are helping shape the direction the game industry is moving. To bring about many of the changes she wants, she merely has to keep talking. The industry wants greater diversity, they want better writing, they want feedback that helps them make better games.

She is being heard and she is being responded to, but those responses are being ignored, drown out, or censored. She is helping shape the direction of the industry according to her wants and her ideology, and what form are those changes taking? The establishment of new studios and companies to pump big dollars into new markets and demographics? The growth of the enthusiast and AAA industry into the waiting arms of untapped markets? Or is it just the repeated shaming of existing devs and their existing practices and their existing customer bases, all of which have fuck all to do with outsiders who don't even like or play games? Anita is poisoning the discourse with misrepresentations and half-truths (or outright lies), and the fact that she's reaching so many people and influencing so many conversations doesn't make her impact healthy or honest. It just means she's a good promoter and a skilled charlatan.

But everyone has the god-given right to complain until their voice is sore... and complain about other people complaining... and complaining about other people complaining about other people complain

100% agree. I'd add that people who can support their complaints and arguments with accurate real-world examples, and who can understand the realities of the environment from all angles, should be signal boosted and respected - while those who complain with little evidence or make little rational sense should be largely ignored.

TLDR: I reject relativism. All opinions are not created equal, and pretending otherwise is intellectually lazy/dishonest.

 

[Netrigan]

I don't see a difference between any two groups complaining about a situation.

I think this statement is reductive to the point of absurdity.

Complaining is about letting your voice be heard. It can be a Pro-Democracy Movement in China, it can be about the soap being on the bottom shelf where it's hard for older people to reach. You air the complaint, hopefully someone listens, and hopefully someone makes the situation better if at all possible.

I think comparing these things is reductive to the point of absurdity.

But in virtually any situation you can basically say, "don't like your iPhone 6 bending, then start up your own phone company and make a better phone"... which, BTW, is often how many people start a career in said field, but not something which just anyone can do.

I see two key differences here.

The first difference: mechanics versus content. Criticizing a phone for faulty design is like criticizing a game for faulty mechanics. The artistic expression of the game maker, which is comprised of things like character, plot, diversity, representation, etc., is a far more subjective point than any discussion revolving around game mechanics. Comparing the iPhone 6 complaints of mechanical failure to the "media"'s complaints about representation and diversity doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The second difference: we already have phones that don't bend. We've witnessed first-hand the viability of extremely similar products that do not share the obvious design flaws of iPhone 6+. We can criticize this product while pointing to other, similar, far superior products and saying, "why didn't you do it like that?". When you see a game that has a cliched themes and worn-out gameplay, and you criticize it for not doing something new and mostly unseen in gaming, what can you point to? The problem with this line of thinking is that you are presupposing the success of certain ideas without hard evidence to back it up - and investors need that evidence.

Such as I think the more articulate people in the GG movement should bootstrap their own journalistic niche, as they clearly want to discuss Social Justice issues in a way they don't think current video game journalists are (otherwise they wouldn't be saying SJW so damn often), and simply complaining about that won't make the situation better because there don't appear to be too many game journalists with their political outlook. They don't have a receptive audience for criticisms of these types, so large chunks of their criticisms are falling on deaf ears.

There's a whitelist. There are people doing right by games journalism, and they are seeing surges of traffic and support. They are also being held up as valid counterpoints to the previous status quo, which is what makes the criticism valid in the first place. We're not inventing journalistic integrity and intellectual honesty. These things already exist. We're criticizing a group of sites and authors for failing to uphold these ideals, and we're taking our clicks, views, and money elsewhere.

Whereas Sarkeesian is talking to an industry which is making strides in the very issues she covers. She is being heard, she is being responded to, her criticisms are helping shape the direction the game industry is moving. To bring about many of the changes she wants, she merely has to keep talking. The industry wants greater diversity, they want better writing, they want feedback that helps them make better games.

She is being heard and she is being responded to, but those responses are being ignored, drown out, or censored. She is helping shape the direction of the industry according to her wants and her ideology, and what form are those changes taking? The establishment of new studios and companies to pump big dollars into new markets and demographics? The growth of the enthusiast and AAA industry into the waiting arms of untapped markets? Or is it just the repeated shaming of existing devs and their existing practices and their existing customer bases, all of which have fuck all to do with outsiders who don't even like or play games? Anita is poisoning the discourse with misrepresentations and half-truths (or outright lies), and the fact that she's reaching so many people and influencing so many conversations doesn't make her impact healthy or honest. It just means she's a good promoter and a skilled charlatan.

But everyone has the god-given right to complain until their voice is sore... and complain about other people complaining... and complaining about other people complaining about other people complain

100% agree. I'd add that people who can support their complaints and arguments with accurate real-world examples, and who can understand the realities of the environment from all angles, should be signal boosted and respected - while those who complain with little evidence or make little rational sense should be largely ignored.

TLDR: I reject relativism. All opinions are not created equal, and pretending otherwise is intellectually lazy/dishonest.

Well, you seem to be under the delusion that I'm trying to equate all these things.

You may call it reductive, but the underlying principle is pretty much the same in either case. You see something you don't like, you air your criticism, the point of the criticism is to get someone in a position of power to respond to your complaint. From the smallest most asinine complaint to the most important thing ever, complaining is a way of attempting to fix a perceived problem.

In every case, it's possible for someone to work their way up through the system and change it from within. In fact, many a career has been started by people who said, "fuck this, I could make a better electric razor than this." But whenever someone tells someone else to do that, they're telling them to shut up.

EDIT: My last line deleted as it was totally uncalled for.

 

[TheArcaneThinker]

BloodRayne is the one you all are looking for.

 

[Rayce Archer]

I want a game where you're a Ma Barker type character. You start off as a penniless twentysomething washerwoman who decides "fuck this" and goes on a tommy-gun-wielding rampage through depression-era America. As the game progresses, you assemble a literal and figurative family of fellow criminals who you can send on missions for you throughout the persistent game world. Along the way you'd clash with the fledgling FBI as well as analogs to famous male crime lords.