I would love to see a video game story written by a female, not too coloured by genre clichés. What kind of characters would she present? What would their relationships look like? What would the actual gameplay look like? Wouldn't that be exciting?
This is just one example, but the Gabriel Knight games were designed by a female, Jane Jensen. I believe she was also involved in a fair number of other Sierra adventure titles back in the 1990s and is still around (I think Gray Matter was one of hers as well).
tl;dr - It's not about sexism or gender equality...it's about the lack of a natural diversity of protagonists. There is no simple solution, and attacking any creator's choice of gender for their creation is going away from a solution, not towards it. What say you?
This is a very reasonable argument. Kudos. However, here's the stumbling point - at least for me.
We aren't attacking any creators' choices. I'm not - neither is Anita Sarkesian (even if a LOT of people keep pretending that she is).
Those of us who make noise about female protagonist in games - by making videos like Anita or by intentionally purchasing games with female leads on release to help increase their numbers - we aren't trying to attack game designers who create male leads. We're trying to educate developers and publishers alike that games with female protagonists will work as well.
There are any number of reasons for the creative divide you described. Some of those reasons are these:
The Developer had a specific idea in mind.
The Developer has a specific story to tell.
Both of those are artistic reasons for wanting a male lead, and I have no problem with them. In the case of GTA V, (specific story to tell) I'm a little disappointed that they had no female stories to tell, but I respect that the choice was made for artistic reasons.
However, there are other less artistic reasons why a lead might be male.
The Publisher told the Developer that they aren't allowed to have Female Protagonists.
The Developer didn't think about the idea or story beyond mechanics and considered "male protagonist" a default value.
The Developer is making a "reference" to a previous game by making a photocopy of the game's plot, changing a few names and locations, and slapping it on their game. The previous game had a male lead, thus the "reference" has a male lead.
These three reasons are the ones we're objecting to. And even here, we're not attacking developers or trying to force them to change things - we're trying to educate them.
I'm buying games with female protagonists on release to prove to Publishers that games with a female protagonist wills sell.
Anita is making her videos to raise awareness about the literary tropes involved in video games so that Developers see what they're doing. In both example 2 and 3, Developers aren't necessarily thinking about how their games look from the outside. All Anita (and I, and others who like her) want is for Developers to understand what they're doing rather than doing it blindly.
To put it another way, many of us are sick of the "default protagonist" idea - we want the developers to think about their protagonists and decide on what sort of protagonist they want, and not just throw one in because "meh, whatever".
If Developers realize that they can come off as sexist by simply aping old story ideas ad-nausium, then they're more likely to look at their characters and think about what they're writing.
Not only is that likely to increase the number of female (and other minority) protagonists, but make them better written. And when we do get a while male lead, there will be a better reason for the character to be while and male than just "meh" or "because the Publisher said so".
This is why I find many people's reactions to this so absurd - no one is trying to force anyone to do anything. We're trying to change the way people think, to open them up to new ideas, and to encourage better writing in video games. We're not attacking anyone.
Never been bothered by a lack of gender equality or diversification. See here's the problem. When a woman, talks like a man, dresses like a man, acts like a man and does the stuff that guys do...well guess what you stop thinking of that woman as a woman and just classify her as dude. Vasquez from Aliens was the perfect example of this.A woman every bit as tough capable and respected in her job as any of the guys around her, and tell the truth, after about the first 30 mins you forgot that she was a woman. And if you forget that the character is a woman... well then it sort of doesn't matter if she is since the audience will identify her as male.
The inverse is also true. When a male character dresses as a woman, acts like a woman and sounds and talks like a woman news flash, you don't think of them as a dude anymore.
Females must be demonstrably female. and males demonstrably male. Now if a female in a fantasy game wore proper armour, well you wouldn't be able to tell she was female, you'd just have to take the games word that there's a chick in the suit of plate mail and that sort of takes away any impact of the character being female.
Or you could have her talk, or something. Or have her armour be practical but still revealing enough that you can tell there's a woman inside.
Of course there will be some characters where you can't tell whether they are male or female, some faceless soldiers in power-armour, but they'd be genderless, then. And of course there are characters whose gender or sex is totally irrelevant.
But are you seriously saying that if a woman wears trousers or something you suddenly become unable to think of them as female?
I think your ideas of gender-roles might be a bit strict. It's possible for a woman for example have a traditionally masculine job and be good at it, but also enjoy feminine things, and dress in a feminine way when appropriate.
I've said it before in a previous thread: People are asking the wrong question. It's not how can we arbitrarily make video games more equal by incorporating more women into the design process, it's why aren't there more women making video games in the first place.
It's because we have better things to do than try to break into a volatile industry filled with people who just want to extend their childhood (indie games and various exceptions not withstanding) when we can make more money and have more security in another field with the same skills.
Technically, I have the programming skills (but not the resume of course) to get a job in a AAA game industry. But why would I waste my time, effort and income potential to improve something that is just a hobby for me (I only spend about 4-8 hours a week gaming and no not casual games either). The math just doesn't work.
Well the "when appropriate" and "strictness" seems to be coming more often from the concerned about women side.
Practical armor tends to be a non starter, almost nothing is realistic in video games. In gears of war the main guy was heavily armored, but some how, his most important/vulnerable part, his noggin was protected by nothing more than a bandana, because you know, he's just that badass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alFNvT8tiYs
This video seems to have a point on this issue, it seems the only acceptable "feminist" approved heroines these days are hyper desexualized characters like chell or whoever that princess was in "Brave".
I won't argue your position, because while i disagree with it (e.g. i think that Sarkesian is attacking creators choices by linking video game tropes to real world issues and i have seen many people attack a creators choice like with Dragons Crown) i know from experience that such discussions don't lead anywhere as it often comes down to different subjective perceptions of the same information (e.g. the Sarkesian videos). But think about this: if you say "x" and a lot of people hear "y", there seems to be a problem. Of course it could be that everyone else is the problem and your side is perfect, but that doesn't sound right, does it? And even if we assume that the problem are only the people on the other side of the argument, shouldn't the fact that your message is misunderstood be reason enough to try to find a better way to express it? After all, if your goal is to get better female/minority representation, you should try to be effective, which your current way of presenting your message obviously isn't.
I don't know about you but Anita sure is. Calling certain design choices "dangerously irresponsible" sure sounds like critique. I'm getting this impression Anita supporters never actually saw her videos (which would explain a lot).
Those of us who make noise about female protagonist in games - by making videos like Anita or by intentionally purchasing games with female leads on release to help increase their numbers - we aren't trying to attack game designers who create male leads. We're trying to educate developers and publishers alike that games with female protagonists will work as well.
Not really. While buying games with female protagonists sends that message making videos "à la Anita" doesn't. Where did Anita ever educate devs on the workability of games with female protagonists?
If Developers realize that they can come off as sexist by simply aping old story ideas ad-nausium, then they're more likely to look at their characters and think about what they're writing.
Which doesn't mean the quality will actually be any better. Heck technically they could just give the DiD a penis and taaadaaa problem solved. But did games actually gain anything from such a change?
Not only is that likely to increase the number of female (and other minority) protagonists, but make them better written. And when we do get a while male lead, there will be a better reason for the character to be while and male than just "meh" or "because the Publisher said so".
This is why I find many people's reactions to this so absurd - no one is trying to force anyone to do anything. We're trying to change the way people think, to open them up to new ideas, and to encourage better writing in video games. We're not attacking anyone.
The question however is: will it lead to more female leads and that's it or will it also lead to less male leads? Because the latter can be a reasonable reason to object the change. Just like it is reasonable to lobby in favor of female leads it is to lobby in favor of male leads.
Actually Anita is. She's using guilt tactics to push devs into self-censorship. And that's not something i approve of. There is a difference between tarnishing a certain set of ideas (which anita does) and trying to promote a new set of ideas. The former method reminds me of american politics...
I'm curious, though. What exactly would you fix to change the gaming industry's views on female protagonists?
Well, as much as I distance myself away from larger, societal concerns look at it like this:
Games get female protagonists that a woman would dress like in normal life and not be embarassed, somewhat often. These games get commercials, and marketing on par with guy only games. Women join in on gaming. With games getting more and more multiplayer, women will play more with guys, and vice versa. Especially as they stop getting rare, and guys will get used to female gamers. With generations coming up gaming, this will help create a better comradery between the genders.
With the common bond and less bad stigma behind the hobby, videogames can bring people together. People without common interests with locals can find people over the internet, and forge friendships, or greater relationships.
With the popularity of videogames, we have the opportunity for rolemodels. Not necessarily realistic people, but these stories can provide some message, and characters can carry one. Games don't have to be dumb, lowest common denominators. They can be, but they don't all have to be.
As games connect people across the world, or at least an area, it allows avenues of communication.
Of course I could be reaching, here. Still, I can't pretend that there's zero odds that something deeply ingrained into our culture can't do anything to make it better. It's not my major talking point, though.
Maybe you're right in that some thought-provoking games can encourage a change in attitudes. Gradually. But, there's often a limit to how far it might reach. A lot of people are so closed to new experiences that it won't penetrate their skull. And society creates more of these people every day. I'm just a wee bit cynical in that regard, I guess.
Of course, if it makes a difference for the individuals that count, that's good.
And what, approximately, might one of these "AAA" female-oriented games look like?
Well, a lot of social repairs don't happen over night. A lot of it is going to require replacing the old blood with new blood able to appreciate a more egalitarian outlook. And even then the people they work for, or the people that the new blood with, or their underlings have to fall in line.
I recognize it'll take time for any message games have to get through, but those new people being born every day? they'll possibly grow up with these games, and I feel media, especially ones where you communicate with others, can be beneficial. I think once people accept girl gamers at large, people will get along more.
Generally acceptance is awesome as far as one gender accepting the other more.
You ask a good question. I cannot definitively answer it as tastes vary, however as far as female protagonists that dress in normal styles, Tomb raider, and the upcoming Tomb Raider 2.
It could look like Beyond Good and Evil. And hopefully BG&E2 when ever it happens. I hear rumors that it'll be on next gen for the added power.
Remember Me was sort of mediocre as a game, but she's dressed okay, despite having her booty pointed at those looking at the box cover. A sequel will likely be nice, too, if there's always one.
The upcoming Mirror's Edge 2, especially if if follows the style of the previous, and has more polish.
While women might not dress in the styles of the following, they generally have nice representation:
Assassin's Creed Liberation which is getting an HD remake with added content.
Child of Light (also by Ubisoft) looks nice.
Koei's games generally do well in making women with some sex appeal without putting them in swimsuits. Moreover, there's young girls, and older women. None are really + size, but figures, and appearances vary. I don't think there's one form Koei that's a pure female roster, but I love the fact Koei tries to keep adding women to the rosters if it meets the setting.
X-com Enemy Unknown, and the upcoming standalone expansion allow for female soldiers.
Enemy Unknown even has a trophy for using an all female squad.
There's more than a few create a character games out there like Bethesda, and bioware games in general.
Capcom's Monster Hunter series is a pretty fun series. The women in the game are almost flat as boards, but that's okay with me.
GTA Online, the online component to GTA V, will have females in pretty normal clothing from what little I saw, though with the customization I can imagine women dressed in less than common attire to be around.
Saints Row 2, 3, and 4 offer high levels of customization. While you don't -have- to dress like you would in reality, or at all, the option to be a woman is very much there, and it's won a place in my heart.
I'd say WWE'13 and '14 (coming soon) are similar in the depth of customization, but until they remove the match limitations on female wrestlers, and the sort, it's not fully recommended. NOt being able to download 30 15 more female wrestlers, or make 15 more and have a full royal rumble bothers me. <.< At least they're slowly lifting match restrictions, though. If the trend contiinues, wwe 14 might be pretty nice.
CoD: Ghosts will have women in multiplayer as an option. It's a step forward for all the women that enjoy the game, and certainly invites newcomers.
While kind of old, SSX as a series has pretty nice representation of women. Sure you can unlock swimsuits in a snowboarding game, but the women start reasonably dressed for cold weather.
I will say this, though, while I appreciate gender option for character customization, nothing says female oriented as a female only playable character game that's well put together, and decently known.
Of course that's not saying I have anything against the upcoming Bayonetta 2, or games of the sort, but it's not really the best foot forward for games, IMO. Still, these games have every right to exist.
I'm certainly not wanting to imply I'm trying to cencor games. Quite the opposite, I have a strong feeling developers would make a variety of female protagonists if allowed to.
I won't argue your position, because while i disagree with it (e.g. i think that Sarkesian is attacking creators choices by linking video game tropes to real world issues and i have seen many people attack a creators choice like with Dragons Crown) i know from experience that such discussions don't lead anywhere as it often comes down to different subjective perceptions of the same information (e.g. the Sarkesian videos). But think about this: if you say "x" and a lot of people hear "y", there seems to be a problem.
Actually, the explanation for that is over-reaction and guilt. When Anita (or anyone) says that "this trope is sexist" - that is a criticism of the trope. It is NOT a criticism of the writer who uses the trope (although we would like people to use the trope less), nor is it a criticism of a player who enjoys the game that contained the trope.
Anita herself points out that she enjoyed many games that contained sexist tropes. Not because of the trope, but because the game itself was good.
Thus, when people like Anita point out that a trope is sexist, she's doing so to call attention to that fact in the hopes that some developers choose to not use it for that reason. We'll get back to that below.
generals3 said:
I don't know about you but Anita sure is. Calling certain design choices "dangerously irresponsible" sure sounds like critique. I'm getting this impression Anita supporters never actually saw her videos (which would explain a lot).
I've seen all her videos from the new series, and several of her older ones.
And, I never said she wasn't critiquing them. That is exactly what she's doing. However, a critique is not an attack. If so, then Yahtzee has been "attacking" video games for years.
The point of a critique, to paraphrase Yahtzee, is to point out where something can be improved upon. Yahtzee has been pointing out that motion controls are terrible for years, in an attempt to get game developers to stop using them. Anita is pointing out that certain tropes are sexist, in an attempt to get game developers to stop using them.
No one thinks that Yahtzee is saying that game developers are bad people because they keep crowbaring in motion controls. Yahtzee even throws in actual insults - calling those developers idiots or suggesting that they are monkeys (or worse).
Anita is just saying "Look, this is what you're saying. Do you mean to be saying that? Well, maybe think about what your game implies next time you make one."
Anita is a Critic. Like Yahtzee. Well, okay, not like Yahtzee - she isn't particularly funny and doesn't use crude drawings of herself.
generals3 said:
Actually Anita is. She's using guilt tactics to push devs into self-censorship. And that's not something i approve of. There is a difference between tarnishing a certain set of ideas (which anita does) and trying to promote a new set of ideas. The former method reminds me of american politics...
She's trying to push devs to consider what their games are saying and not blindly repeat tropes of the past.
She's not using guilt for that - she's using literary analysis (and feminist theory). She's not inducing guilt - she's critiquing art.
She has never - ever - said that using a sexist trope makes you a sexist. She'd just like people to think about what they're doing. To consider why they're using the tropes they do rather than using them without thinking.
In fact, Anita has gone out of her way to point out that the people using these sexist tropes are not sexist people, and that the most likely reason for many of these tropes is the fact that they have been used often in the past. People are being sexist not out of hate, but out of habit and because they don't realize how some people see these tropes that they're using.
By pointing out how some people can be put-off by these tropes, she hopes that game developers - good people who are not themselves sexist - will watch her videos and go "oh, shit, I had no idea!" and consider their game scripts more carefully in the future and choose not to use those tropes again.
Much the same way Yahtzee hopes that some game developers will watch his show and go "oh, shit, I had no idea that motion controls suck! I should stop putting motion controls in my games!"
Anita isn't attacking anyone - she's trying to convince them to pause and think about the plot elements they use and make an informed choice about them.
You used the word guilt before. When I watch Anita's videos, I don't see attempts to cause guilt (outside a few built into the feminist theory she's referencing - which is not her fault, but a fault in that particular field), I see a passionate person trying to get people to reconsider their actions.
However, I do see why you'd think guilt. A lot of anti-game groups use arguments about how violent games make you violent. That is, obviously, bullshit. However, a lot of gamers get it into their head that any criticism of games is inherently a criticism of gamers.
Anita has stated that she does not believe that game devs are being intentionally sexist (and that her videos are meant to show them what they're doing so that they have the option to use other literary techniques). However, the fact that she's said that some aspects of popular games are sexist have a lot of gamers thinking that she's calling gamers sexist. She isn't - she's specifically said that she doesn't think that - but that doesn't stop a lot of gamers (particularly those who have watched part of none of her videos and only heard about them) from thinking that her statement that certain tropes are sexist are her calling them sexists. Also, the fact that certain members of Second Wave Feminism have said loopy things about how all men everywhere are sexist - and that many people tend to lump all feminists together even though we're multiple distinct groups - hasn't helped with this either.
I've gotten a bit long here. The point is, her critique is built around literary criticism - she's critiquing a piece of art and suggesting that perhaps Devs think about what they're writing a little more. She is a critic - nothing more or less.
Women are being excluded from the industry based on the games the industry is producing. Not ALL women, just most of them, which is why allhuman-friendly games like The Sims sell so well to women. So well that despite being a truly great series many men don't play The Sims due to insecurity.
Noone is saying the games industry should stop making games where the player is a rampaging murderer. But when 80% of games feature the player as a sociopath who views the world around him as being filled with monsters or enemy soldiers in need of death in order to "save the world", this has a massive negative impact on the appeal of games to the majority of women as well as many men who are uncomfortable with playing a sociopath, especially with the frequency encouraged by the industry.
Tunnel Vision, tunnel vision... There is a brickton of games which don't involve going on rampages. Sports Games, Simulations, Puzzle Games, City/Empire builders (like Caesar, Civilization, etc.), random "lol" games like angry birds, and so on. Off course if you decide to pretend the AAA gaming industry = the whole gaming industry than yeah you're probably right.
While 80% of the mainstream games industry has killing as a primary form of gameplay (including games featured civilized killing like Caesar and Civilization), 50% of Newgrounds games (few of which make any money) have killing as a primary form of gameplay. The mainstream games industry greatly influences the rest of the industry, including indies.
generals3 said:
And what is this nonsense about insecurity leading to men not playing The Sims? Studies have shown men are very into competitiveness and violence in VG's, something the Sims does not offer. Trying to pass off preferences as "insecurity" is just a really bad attempt at putting your own tastes on a high pedestal.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If 80% of books featured killing as the primary plot device, studies would show that readers would be into killing in books. How could we expect the studies to show otherwise?
The industry itself is an influential force. By making games about killing, it encourages players to favor games about killing over other games. If 80% of books were about killing, it would encourage readers to enjoy books about killing which they could call "normal books" over any other type of book which they would dismiss as "weird books".
Consider an analogy between superhero comic books (in other words, normal, accepted comic books by readers) versus non-superhero comic books (strange, odd, often non-accepted comic books). The dominate ideology of a medium matters in *creating* preference, not merely in reflecting existing preference.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying games (or books) about killing. Dark Souls is great. Doom is great. Deus Ex is great. Any number of other games featuring killing as a primary form of gameplay are great. The problem is that when the industry is super-dominated by killing games it ensures that creativity and innovation are severely hindered, that game designers are put in a box from which they can't escape prior to ever designing their game, and to return to the original purpose of this thread that many women and many men who wish to experience a variety of gameplay have a scant selection of options, especially in the mainstream industry, from which to choose.
Games featuring killing have so dominated gaming culture for so many years that it's not even possible to have a serious unbiased discussion about them - gamers treat such criticism as if it's criticizing gaming itself.
I've said it before in a previous thread: People are asking the wrong question. It's not how can we arbitrarily make video games more equal by incorporating more women into the design process, it's why aren't there more women making video games in the first place.
It's because we have better things to do than try to break into a volatile industry filled with people who just want to extend their childhood (indie games and various exceptions not withstanding) when we can make more money and have more security in another field with the same skills.
Technically, I have the programming skills (but not the resume of course) to get a job in a AAA game industry. But why would I waste my time, effort and income potential to improve something that is just a hobby for me (I only spend about 4-8 hours a week gaming and no not casual games either). The math just doesn't work.
Yea even indie games are questionable. How many are there that really make money? I'm sure people name ones like mine craft or fez or super meatboy, but that's just a top 10 type of list, what do most devs make?
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/DavidGalindo/20130306/187977/How_much_do_indie_PC_devs_make_anyways_Part_IV.php
This is just one guys sad tale.
I'm sure a huge number just lose a massive amount of money. Just think about it, how many NBA players are there? ~450 because there are 30 teams. Yet we tend to tell kids trying to get into professional sports that its a long shot. Now imagine trying to get into that financially viable top 10 slot of independent gaming...
As I said before lots of the time the people claiming to be concerned for women, don't seem to have their best interests at heart lol.
I really don't care. I really don't. Who cares if a game has sexy women? Who cares if the game has sexy men? Who cares if the game is a big meaty shooter about men being men and tough tough sexy women? Who cares if a game follows the journey of two nameless, genderless beings as they head toward the heavens?
As long as the game is good fun, that is all I care about in a game.
From what many would say, I am one of the people who cause this problem.
People like you are not the problem...not at all. Tolerance, even apathy, is not the problem. There are actually two types of people who raise the issue...
First, there are the social defenders, those who feel that certain character types are over- or under-represented, and who demand some level of equality. But while you can crusade for equality in real-world scenarios (like denial of education), you have no right to try enforce equality or even diversity on the output of creative content.
Second, there are the 'victims' of a lack of representation. Is it too much to ask for a black gamer to have a black lead character? For a Muslim gamer to have a lead character who practices Islam (and isn't a terrorist)? For a gay gamer to have a lead character who prefers the same sex (and isn't some inferior weakling)?
Often people with outlier traits (ie: not the common gender/race/religion/sexual persuasion) are tolerated (because you're a bigot if you don't tolerate them, and no one wants to be labelled a bigot), but not accepted. A case of "you can exist, do what you want, in your world - but you are not welcome in my world". Outlier gamers feel the same thing: "you can play our games, but people like you are not welcome in the worlds we create" - tolerated, not accepted. It is a type of discrimination, but not one that is easily solved.
While 80% of the mainstream games industry has killing as a primary form of gameplay (including games featured civilized killing like Caesar and Civilization), 50% of Newgrounds games (few of which make any money) have killing as a primary form of gameplay. The mainstream games industry greatly influences the rest of the industry, including indies.
Saying violence is the primary form of gameplay in games like Civ or Caesar is an exaggeration. In both games the non-violent game mechanics are much more prominent. Total War would for instance be an example of a civ game with killing as a primary game feature.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If 80% of books featured killing as the primary plot device, studies would show that readers would be into killing in books. How could we expect the studies to show otherwise?
The industry itself is an influential force. By making games about killing, it encourages players to favor games about killing over other games. If 80% of books were about killing, it would encourage readers to enjoy books about killing which they could call "normal books" over any other type of book which they would dismiss as "weird books".
But think about it, what makes more sense: that devs made violent VG's because that's where the money is at or that that is where the money is at because devs made violent VG's?
There's nothing wrong with enjoying games (or books) about killing. Dark Souls is great. Doom is great. Deus Ex is great. Any number of other games featuring killing as a primary form of gameplay are great. The problem is that when the industry is super-dominated by killing games it ensures that creativity and innovation are severely hindered, that game designers are put in a box from which they can't escape prior to ever designing their game, and to return to the original purpose of this thread that many women and many men who wish to experience a variety of gameplay have a scant selection of options, especially in the mainstream industry, from which to choose.
Games featuring killing have so dominated gaming culture for so many years that it's not even possible to have a serious unbiased discussion about them - gamers treat such criticism as if it's criticizing gaming itself.
But what's wrong with violence dominating the industry? You're making the huge assumption that is not the equilibrium. If violent VG's is where the money is at than violence will dominate. And I think there's a big difference between VG's featuring killing and games featuring it as a primary form of gameplay. A shooter, RTS or fighting game has killing as a primary feature but a game like Civilization doesn't.
Actually Anita is. She's using guilt tactics to push devs into self-censorship. And that's not something i approve of. There is a difference between tarnishing a certain set of ideas (which anita does) and trying to promote a new set of ideas. The former method reminds me of american politics...
She's trying to push devs to consider what their games are saying and not blindly repeat tropes of the past.
She's not using guilt for that - she's using literary analysis (and feminist theory). She's not inducing guilt - she's critiquing art.
She has never - ever - said that using a sexist trope makes you a sexist. She'd just like people to think about what they're doing. To consider why they're using the tropes they do rather than using them without thinking.
In fact, Anita has gone out of her way to point out that the people using these sexist tropes are not sexist people, and that the most likely reason for many of these tropes is the fact that they have been used often in the past. People are being sexist not out of hate, but out of habit and because they don't realize how some people see these tropes that they're using.
By pointing out how some people can be put-off by these tropes, she hopes that game developers - good people who are not themselves sexist - will watch her videos and go "oh, shit, I had no idea!" and consider their game scripts more carefully in the future and choose not to use those tropes again.
Much the same way Yahtzee hopes that some game developers will watch his show and go "oh, shit, I had no idea that motion controls suck! I should stop putting motion controls in my games!"
Anita isn't attacking anyone - she's trying to convince them to pause and think about the plot elements they use and make an informed choice about them.
You used the word guilt before. When I watch Anita's videos, I don't see attempts to cause guilt (outside a few built into the feminist theory she's referencing - which is not her fault, but a fault in that particular field), I see a passionate person trying to get people to reconsider their actions.
However, I do see why you'd think guilt. A lot of anti-game groups use arguments about how violent games make you violent. That is, obviously, bullshit. However, a lot of gamers get it into their head that any criticism of games is inherently a criticism of gamers.
Anita has stated that she does not believe that game devs are being intentionally sexist (and that her videos are meant to show them what they're doing so that they have the option to use other literary techniques). However, the fact that she's said that some aspects of popular games are sexist have a lot of gamers thinking that she's calling gamers sexist. She isn't - she's specifically said that she doesn't think that - but that doesn't stop a lot of gamers (particularly those who have watched part of none of her videos and only heard about them) from thinking that her statement that certain tropes are sexist are her calling them sexists. Also, the fact that certain members of Second Wave Feminism have said loopy things about how all men everywhere are sexist - and that many people tend to lump all feminists together even though we're multiple distinct groups - hasn't helped with this either.
I've gotten a bit long here. The point is, her critique is built around literary criticism - she's critiquing a piece of art and suggesting that perhaps Devs think about what they're writing a little more. She is a critic - nothing more or less.
Her judgement of devs is quite irrelevant to whether or not she's using guilt tactics.
Let's say I told you every time you posted a puppy dies. I'm not saying you like to kill puppies but I would be trying to use guilt for you to stop posting. Because if you'd continue posting you'd come off as a prick who doesn't care about the death of puppies. The same holds true with Anita. She said the DiD trope reinforces sexist attitudes in RL and that tropes like the Euthanized damsel is "dangerously irresponsible". She ain't saying the devs are sexist but if they were to see her video and still make those games they would be. Why? Because they're basically saying "I know my games hurt women in RL but screw it!". The only way for a dev to come off well is by changing his design choices.
Now this wouldn't be so bad if at least there was evidence for what she claims. Unfortunately there isn't. She gave 0 citations and i looked for it on google scholar and I couldn't find any study proving the DiD trope reinforced paternalistic attitudes or the Euthanized damsel made domestic violence more prominent. (the latter one is also quite close to the case people like Jack Thompson are making and I find it funny people still think it's somehow weird there is an objection towards Anita's message while they'll agree the case people like Jack Thompson make is crap)
Regardless, the issue at hand exists despite semantic arguments: for whatever reason (and there are a lot of them), people want more women in games. Attempting to dispute one makes little difference to the sum of the point.
But the fact of the matter is that the economics don't support the theory. A lot of people want nice cars; but they don't want to pay for them. When the market shifts in favor of this, determined *solely* by the consumers, the industry will automatically shift accordingly.
Sadly I've seen a few good games, with varied characters, fail simply because there was no consumer support for the project. It irks me when people blame the industry for not giving them what they want when they refuse to support the industry in doing so.
Regardless, the issue at hand exists despite semantic arguments: for whatever reason (and there are a lot of them), people want more women in games. Attempting to dispute one makes little difference to the sum of the point.
But the fact of the matter is that the economics don't support the theory. A lot of people want nice cars; but they don't want to pay for them. When the market shifts in favor of this, determined *solely* by the consumers, the industry will automatically shift accordingly.
Sadly I've seen a few good games, with varied characters, fail simply because there was no consumer support for the project. It irks me when people blame the industry for not giving them what they want when they refuse to support the industry in doing so.
It's not a matter of them failing because they had a female protagonist but that they don't seem to succeed any more than any other game by having them.
We are not equal. Men are stronger and faster in general, women are softer and kinder in general, and they also happen to have a more acute sense of taste which makes them great in the kitchen. Intelligence is more of a cultivated thing so in that respect we are equally thoughtless when we are born.
Unfortunately, some things about games make people feel like they aren't allowed to have fun. They have to take someone else's idea of fun and make do with that instead.
These people feel left out. They want to have fun too. So they ask - 'hey, can we get some fun too please?'
And the overwhelming response seems to be - 'No! How dare you ask for some of your own fun. All the fun is ours, if you don't like what we do with it then too bad' - or 'No! You don't deserve to have fun! You haven't passed all the fun tests that show you're really invested in having fun like we are (even though we didn't take any of those tests either, and kinda make them up as we go)'
And then when someone says 'Hey, you're being really stingy with the fun. There's no reason not to share.' The response tends to be 'How dare you call us stingy! You're just hating on us for no reason, cause you have a stupid agenda. You should just shut up and deal with it.'
If your suggesting that I said anything like that you ignored the rest of my post.
I rarely see anyone be so selfish about the games that are made I mean do people do the fake geek girl thing seriously except for 4chan anymore? because I have never actually seen it for my self it may happen I'm just not sure.
But apart from that I have never seen people say "hey there can't be games that you like" most responses I have seen "I like the way games are" (granted most are assholes when saying this). But let's say someone says "can we get some fun" what the fuck am I supposed to do say "sure" then what? even if every gamer was okay with that person getting the game they want that isn't going to magically manifest a game for them (that would be pretty cool though) what if developers just don't want to make that persons game what if the audience is too small to justify the creation of the game financially or too small to get a good budget?
Regardless, the issue at hand exists despite semantic arguments: for whatever reason (and there are a lot of them), people want more women in games. Attempting to dispute one makes little difference to the sum of the point.
But the fact of the matter is that the economics don't support the theory. A lot of people want nice cars; but they don't want to pay for them. When the market shifts in favor of this, determined *solely* by the consumers, the industry will automatically shift accordingly.
Sadly I've seen a few good games, with varied characters, fail simply because there was no consumer support for the project. It irks me when people blame the industry for not giving them what they want when they refuse to support the industry in doing so.
It's not a matter of them failing because they had a female protagonist but that they don't seem to succeed any more than any other game by having them.
That's a *huge* part of it. You can take like games and do a sales comparison for them. Say for example, God of War & Heavenly Sword. Even just comparing the 1st God of War, and it beat Heavenly Sword by 2.35m copies.
But the question is still a valid on; did they fail *because* they had female protagonists? And honestly I don't know if that was the sole reason, or mere one contributing factor. But I will say that if you want to get funding for a game you have two options; publishers or crowd funding. Publishers want proof of concept for investment, and rarely take chances. Crowd funding is a long hot at best, and you begin to see just how cheap supporters really are.
The point though is that the raw data doesn't indicate a economic drive for the change, merely a social one. When more people actually throw money at the issue we might see some headway.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
