Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

[IridescentSky]

Let me just end this all now. I'm making a game. I'll put WHATEVER I want into it. If I feel it should have a white, male protagonist, then that's how it's going to be. Vice versa for female protagonist. Don't tell me I should include/not include what I want for a game that I'M designing. I'm telling a story and I'm not changing characters just because someone else wants to have more female protagonists. DEAL WITH IT. You want a different answer? Go out and make your own game, with your own characters the way you deem fit.

What's your game about? Mine's about racing, but the twist is that it's all mapped out on real UK roads, and there's no arrow on the screen telling you where to go. You have a start destination and an end destination and you literally have to read road signs in-game. You can follow any route you like to the end, but obviously it's a race.

And there's going to be traffic updates getting beamed in (from space or something, maybe using the radio to the player has to use their hearing sense) so you have to think on the fly and quickly turn off (if possible) before you get caught at the back of a snarl-up. And sometimes there'll be two lorries trying to overtake each other, but one is doing 65 mph and the other is doing 66 mph, but between them they're basically screwing up the whole road system, especially if they're also going up a hill.

I think there might be a mini-game involving making sandwiches for the journey, and some sort (I haven't worked out the mechanics of this yet) of dialogue system so you can have terse conversations with your partner, who probably said 'This turn-off' about three metres afters the turn-off in question. The possibilities for the game aren't exactly endless, but I think I could just add more countries as DLC.



I haven't got a name for the game yet.

My other idea for a game is TakingAShitSim. I haven't got many gameplay ideas lined up yet, just reflecting on my real-life experience of taking a shit and thinking about how to translate that to game play. I am planning to bring back joystick waggling though, so constipation may be a gameplay mechanic.

Whether I like/dislike your idea, I'm not going to tell you to change it or not make it. Simply, you'll make it how you want, I'll decide if it's something I'd like to play, then I'll play it and come to my own conclusion of what I thought about the experience.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

TIL taking something seriously enough to give it standard academic critique is the same as "stepping on" something.

 

[QuietlyListening]

Totally fine for you to make the game you want to make. Just remember that it's also totally fine for people to criticize your artistic choices.

Isn't that common sense? Never did I say I'm not expecting people to criticize my artistic choices. But that's exactly what it all boils down to. Other people trying to tell other people how to make something to suit their vision of how they'd make a game. Please, PLEASE, try to counter-argue my point that a maker of a game should be the decisive factor when it comes to making that game.

Explain to me EXACTLY why I should include a female character in my game that I am making, when I don't feel like it. Hell, I'm not, but if I wanted to I could even have tons of female characters with big bouncing breasts or dull and weak in the personality department. Like I said, I'm not, but if I wanted that in my game, what absolute PROOF is there that these women made up of lines of code and artwork actually represent real life women? THEY DON'T. You are an utter imbecile if you get offended by fantasy characters to the point where you demand a creator to create something that is not their own creation by pressured injection.

Art matters. It's a part of culture, and that culture shapes the way we think. It's part of being social.

And yes, ultimately, the designer is the one who calls the shots. I'm just saying that if you decide to make your game where your protagonist is gruff strong white guy saving the world, and if there's a female, she's hot plot-driven love interest, don't be surprised if people criticize your vision as boring and lazy. That's not to say that it's impossible to make something good out of such bland materials; you'll just have to work harder to make an impact.

As for the tons of females with big boobs and no personality, that's part of the diversity argument. It's not that there aren't females at all, but that they're usually poorly written at best, and completely objectified at worst. No one can demand that you don't create such trash, we just think that your creative talent is better than that. I don't know what games you've made, but I hope that to be true.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

TIL taking something seriously enough to give it standard academic critique is the same as "stepping on" something.

Only if the content creator is a great big girl's blouse, and has a sad, flailing fit in the face of criticism.

Otherwise it's business as usual.

 

[Shirokurou]

Oh my god...
Can we just all agree that there is no feminist army marching at video games to destroy them?
Yes, feminists want more diversity.
Yes, diversity is good.
No, this will not kill videogaming.
That's all I have to say.

Anyone who feels offended or concerned about the whole debate probably has problems with the whole idea outside of videogaming. I mean, PETA's been calling video games out on a ton of things, but they don't get death threats.
I say, let the feminists do their thing...equality is a good cause and let gamedevs listen it. This won't immediately make all games "appealing and approved" by everyone and neither will it "nuture" them. The perspective however is one we can examine and work on.

Do feminists really want diversity?

Many complain if a game has a male protagonist, therefore, they feel having a male protagonist is a flaw.
Therefore, if they had their ways, they would remove this flaw, in other words, not have male protagonists.
This leads to only female protagonists, that's no more diverse than only male protagonists.

Have you EVER heard anyone say "Oh no, we don't want male protagonists EVER AGAIN" or "AT ALL"?
They really want diversity, but if you dig deeper, they only want and have ever wanted EQUALITY. They just think that the more DIVERSE something is, the more people will see that DIVERSE types of people are EQUAL.
This "they don't want any male protagonists" is exactly the kind of thinking that propagated this mess. Instead of being a discussion on diversity and equality (which in my mind, can't be offensive to anyone outside of radicals) and into a pseudo-discusion of "protect our games from feminists".

Post Scriptum: The only time I heard protest about male characters being added was over a male character being added to Senran Kagura...and that's definitely not a feminist push.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Really? Care to provide any actual sources for that statement. I, as a feminist, have not heard of my tumblr overlords (because I don't give two shits about tumblr. Shitty blog sites are pretty irrelevant) and I frankly don't care for Anita in any sense.

Whoa whoa whoa.

Get in line buddy. He's still working on getting the minority/majority statistics he was talking about a page ago. You can wait for your data just like the rest of us. He only has two hands.

Actually I shouldn't assume...Guerilla, you still have TWO hands, right? You didn't lose one in an industrial accident or anything?

 

[IridescentSky]

False. This is exactly the problem. I am creating something as an individual. I'm putting my very soul into it. I'm making a game that I personally would want to experience. If there is great reception, then that is a positive. There is no way I would let any other person tell me what to have/not have in my creation.

I see you are a proponent of auteur theory.

Perhaps it seems selfish, no? But this is how I feel a game should be made. And when those games are made, you can tell. As a passion, not as a project to create revenue. When it comes to being a passion, you are just that! Extremely passionate about the creation you have made.

Explain to me EXACTLY why I should include a female character in my game that I am making, when I don't feel like it. Hell, I'm not, but if I wanted to I could even have tons of female characters with big bouncing breasts or dull and weak in the personality department. Like I said, I'm not, but if I wanted that in my game, what absolute PROOF is there that these women made up of lines of code and artwork actually represent real life women? THEY DON'T. You are an utter imbecile if you get offended by fantasy characters to the point where you demand a creator to create something that is not their own creation by pressured injection.

"Explain to me EXACTLY why I should change the ending in my game that I am making, when I don't feel like it. Hell, I'm not, but if I wanted to I could even have tons of even worse colour coded endings.
Like I said, I', not, but if I wanted that in my game, what absolute PROOF is there that these terrible endings actually represent real stories? THEY DON'T.
You are *expletive deleted* if you get offended by video game endings to the point where you demand a creator to create something that is not their own creation by pressured injection.

https://www.facebook.com/DemandABetterEndingToMassEffect3

Did you attempt to butcher my post and mangle the words around to fit your own view on why the Mass Effect 3 ending should be changed? Are you looking for my opinion on that? The answer is no, I don't feel they should change it. Add to it? If they so desire, but change what they personally feel is the ending as the creators, NO!

 

[IridescentSky]

Whether I like/dislike your idea, I'm not going to tell you to change it or not make it. Simply, you'll make it how you want, I'll decide if it's something I'd like to play, then I'll play it and come to my own conclusion of what I thought about the experience.

Would it change your opinion if the game was all real-time? I mean so it would take the same amount of time in-game as it would take in real-life? Say ... playing the Edinburgh to Redruth level would mean you were playing for 11 hours I think. Obviously I'd put a pause function in offline mode, but not in online mode (though there will be an option for your character to visit a service station in-game; I could maybe add a cut scene there - you know, walking into the services, taking a leak, grabbing some food - which would give the player the chance to do the same). The ideas are quite literally (figuratively) flowing!

You're confusing my statements. I didn't say I'd play a shit(figuratively and literally) game, just the fact that I'm not going to tell you how to make it.

 

[runequester]

Did you attempt to butcher my post and mangle the words around to fit your own view on why the Mass Effect 3 ending should be changed? Are you looking for my opinion on that? The answer is no, I don't feel they should change it. Add to it? If they so desire, but change what they personally feel is the ending as the creators, NO!

I was curious if you felt the same way about other "gamer crusades" as you do about this issue. It appears you do, so I congratulate you for being consistent in your opinions. That's not a common thing any more.

(and no, I don't think the endings should be changed, for the record, it's just the most obvious example in the last few years)

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Perhaps it seems selfish, no? But this is how I feel a game should be made. And when those games are made, you can tell. As a passion, not as a project to create revenue. When it comes to being a passion, you are just that! Extremely passionate about the creation you have made.

That's fine, I don't really have an iron in the fire one way or the other, I just wanted to confirm.

A while back I made a post regarding Vince Gilligan and auteur theory. Let me try find the bloody quote again...

Here we go...

It was so not only because Breaking Bad was arguably the best show on TV, but because its creator and showrunner, Vince Gilligan, was known as a good man to work for ? someone who managed to balance the vision and microscopic control of the most autocratic showrunner with the open and supportive spirit of the most relaxed. He was a firm believer in collaboration.

"The worst thing the French ever gave us is the auteur theory," he said flatly. "It's a load of horseshit. You don't make a movie by yourself, you certainly don't make a TV show by yourself. You invest people in their work. You make people feel comfortable in their jobs; you keep people talking."

In his room, he said, all writers were equal, an approach that he insisted had less to do with being a Pollyanna than with pure, selfish practicality. "There's nothing more powerful to a showrunner than a truly invested writer," he said. "That writer will fight the good fight."

Interested what you think about that. For the record, I'm not saying "Vince Gilligan is right, mwahahaha!" or anything. Just curious what you think of his perspective on the issue. Most if not all of the people who responded to my thread pooped on auteur theory right along with him, so I'd be interested to hear a proponent of it weigh in.

 

[Jesterscup]

False. This is exactly the problem. I am creating something as an individual. I'm putting my very soul into it. I'm making a game that I personally would want to experience. If there is great reception, then that is a positive. There is no way I would let any other person tell me what to have/not have in my creation. If you don't like it, I really don't care. Just don't play it or buy it. Or call it a piece of shit on a gaming forum, it's all the same.

Yes and there is no expectation upon you to change you're idea, whatever it is, no matter what I , the girl next door, or anyone else thinks for it...

One of the crucial points here, is that on large games ( AAA ) that these things are often done in groups / teams, with no single person directing the whole thing, yes there will be bosses, but there is a design team, an art team a story team etc. Often what happens is that standard writing concepts are re-used and re-used over and over, by teams of mostly white men. without other voices bringing concepts to the table then these tropes keep on coming out, because, well why not, if no-one says 'thats wrong' or lazy or whatever.

I would never argue for censorship, or limitations on artistic expression, just a bit of awareness. If you listen to all the arguments and decide that the Damsel in distress, or woman in fridge tropes, then you can you have a right to, its considered artistic expression, no matter what anyone thinks. But doing so in ignorance, and doing it over and over and over.

And Yes Saarkiesian's videos on those tropes are flawed, but they are recognised tropes in feminist theory, recognised in other forms of media and there are many many examples in games, thats why I chose them.

Thats a point, has anyone considered that her videos are not critiques of games, but of tropes that happen to be in games, at that point 'gamers' stop being the market and the market becomes students of feminist thinking/theory... yes there would still be some flaws, but as many?

 

[Guerilla]

As for rest you'll just make me repeat myself. The movement's main voices, at least on the internet, are these sites.

Really? Care to provide any actual sources for that statement. I, as a feminist, have not heard of my tumblr overlords (because I don't give two shits about tumblr. Shitty blog sites are pretty irrelevant) and I frankly don't care for Anita in any sense.

Go on then, tell us which feminist sites are more popular than the ones I mentioned. I'm waiting.

 

[IridescentSky]

Perhaps it seems selfish, no? But this is how I feel a game should be made. And when those games are made, you can tell. As a passion, not as a project to create revenue. When it comes to being a passion, you are just that! Extremely passionate about the creation you have made.

That's fine, I don't really have an iron in the fire one way or the other, I just wanted to confirm.

A while back I made a post regarding Vince Gilligan and auteur theory. Let me try find the bloody quote again...

Here we go...

It was so not only because Breaking Bad was arguably the best show on TV, but because its creator and showrunner, Vince Gilligan, was known as a good man to work for ? someone who managed to balance the vision and microscopic control of the most autocratic showrunner with the open and supportive spirit of the most relaxed. He was a firm believer in collaboration.

"The worst thing the French ever gave us is the auteur theory," he said flatly. "It's a load of horseshit. You don't make a movie by yourself, you certainly don't make a TV show by yourself. You invest people in their work. You make people feel comfortable in their jobs; you keep people talking."

In his room, he said, all writers were equal, an approach that he insisted had less to do with being a Pollyanna than with pure, selfish practicality. "There's nothing more powerful to a showrunner than a truly invested writer," he said. "That writer will fight the good fight."

Interested what you think about that. For the record, I'm not saying "Vince Gilligan is right, mwahahaha!" or anything. Just curious what you think of his perspective on the issue. Most if not all of the people who responded to my thread pooped on auteur theory right along with him, so I'd be interested to hear a proponent of it weigh in.

I can't subscribe to auteur theory. Or ANY theory wholly and religiously for that matter. However, I can subscribe to the fact that I'm making my own game through my own vision and I don't want anyone else to have a say in it. If I were to be making a game in a setting with other people, chances are we may have our own unique ways and thoughts, but one end goal in mind. I can collaborate, but somewhere near the beginning, an idea was conceived by a single individual and then built upon later by their peers. So what Vince is saying is of course true to what he is making, but a game CAN realistically be made by a single individual these days. Example: Axiom Verge

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm really close to going to another Escapist-vacation. As in: Leaving this site for a few weeks. It is not bearable to read shit like above. Sometimes you get those people to realise that they use certain individuals to voice sweeping generalisations about feminism (like I had one today) but in most cases I have to shake my head and just look at my list of all the shit that particular gaming figures / smaller communities did and ask myself if they would get defensive if I'd use those examples, with direct quotes, to paint gamers as sexist, racist, homophobic and even pretty defensive about it.

No, I hear you. I used to be vehemently opposed to the idea of gender oriented topics getting shuffled off to a separate sub forum but now I think I'd greatly approve of it. This community has proven time and time again it can't have reasonable, non-polarized discussion on the issue, and the toxicity in some of the threads is off the charts. The Zoe Quinn fiasco just seems to have pulled in an entire new generation of people here to talk about this and ONLY this, and in the most inflammatory terms possible.

Is draining.

But this is for another topic.

I'm rather of the opinion that the more derailed this thread gets the better for everyone, so by all means, have at it.

I can't subscribe to auteur theory. Or ANY theory wholly and religiously for that matter. However, I can subscribe to the fact that I'm making my own game through my own vision and I don't want anyone else to have a say in it. If I were to be making a game in a setting with other people, chances are we may have our own unique ways and thoughts, but one end goal in mind. I can collaborate, but somewhere near the beginning, an idea was conceived by a single individual and then built upon later by their peers. So what Vince is saying is of course true to what he is making, but a game CAN realistically be made by a single individual these days. Example: Axiom Verge

Fair enough.

Generally speaking I think creators have the right to invoke authorial fiat any time they want to. By the same token, I think they need to accept that such a maneuver might be very bad for business. The need to balance one's desire to keep "The Vision" sacrosanct and appeal to a large enough audience to actually subside off the proceeds from one's efforts must be a constant struggle for people in the industry.

 

[QuietlyListening]

I think it's good though. Just to have positive voices out there can change the climate. And who knows, perhaps someone, somewhere, angrily typing at their keyboard will stop and think, "Wait. What am I thinking?"

 

[Muspelheim]

Let me just end this all now. I'm making a game. I'll put WHATEVER I want into it. If I feel it should have a white, male protagonist, then that's how it's going to be. Vice versa for female protagonist. Don't tell me I should include/not include what I want for a game that I'M designing. I'm telling a story and I'm not changing characters just because someone else wants to have more female protagonists. DEAL WITH IT. You want a different answer? Go out and make your own game, with your own characters the way you deem fit.

But the thing is, people WILL tell you how you should design your game, in the shape of critique. There will always be someone who wants something changed, and they will say so. It's how it works. People will tell you what they'd like to see, and then it's all in your own hands.

Of course, you can entirely disreguard any kind of player input or forum blurb, but a middle ground would be best. Keeping an open ear to what people suggest without letting go of the rudder.

False. This is exactly the problem. I am creating something as an individual. I'm putting my very soul into it. I'm making a game that I personally would want to experience. If there is great reception, then that is a positive. There is no way I would let any other person tell me what to have/not have in my creation. If you don't like it, I really don't care. Just don't play it or buy it. Or call it a piece of shit on a gaming forum, it's all the same.

Giving a suggestion the time of day is not the same thing as being told what you must and mustn't include. It is not an insult to your creative vision nor a pollutant of the same. It's just critique that a developer is free to use or ignore entirely. Both methods work rather well. I'm not in disagreement with the main thesis, not at all. The developer or artist is the one in charge and have the final say. A developer is always allowed to say no. I'm just saying that outside influence isn't always meaningless bleating or a corrupting force.

 

[shrekfan246]

Whether I like/dislike your idea, I'm not going to tell you to change it or not make it. Simply, you'll make it how you want, I'll decide if it's something I'd like to play, then I'll play it and come to my own conclusion of what I thought about the experience.

Would it change your opinion if the game was all real-time? I mean so it would take the same amount of time in-game as it would take in real-life? Say ... playing the Edinburgh to Redruth level would mean you were playing for 11 hours I think. Obviously I'd put a pause function in offline mode, but not in online mode (though there will be an option for your character to visit a service station in-game; I could maybe add a cut scene there - you know, walking into the services, taking a leak, grabbing some food - which would give the player the chance to do the same). The ideas are quite literally (figuratively) flowing!

You're confusing my statements. I didn't say I'd play a shit(figuratively and literally) game, just the fact that I'm not going to tell you how to make it.

Nobody is telling you how to make your game. At least not here.

The nature of criticism allows creators to gauge the current climate and adjust their own creations accordingly. Or to bowl ahead with no regards for outside influence whatsoever, either way.

People who are going to write you off for not having female characters rather than based on the quality of the characters themselves aren't people you really need to worry about. Everyone else, however, you would be prudent to keep your mind open toward. Nobody ever got famous by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge criticism (at least, not in the way they wanted to be famous).

Now, you probably will get browbeaten by people who dislike what you're making for the stupidest reasons. It will happen, it always has, it unfortunately likely always will because people are irrational, angry, emotional, and impulsive, and when presented with the anonymity of the internet that gets magnified tenfold. But those are the types of people who aren't going to be happy with what you do no matter what you do. You don't have to appease them, they're (most of the time) not your audience.

So yeah, make your game that has only male characters. But if it comes out and people start saying that the characters were a bit bland and boring, and it maybe would've spiced things up a bit to have the perspective of a woman mixed in there at some point, maybe keep that in mind when you move on to your next project. It's all well and good to have a story you want to tell, but you have to remember that not all stories are going to be things other people want to see/hear/read.

 

[Guerilla]

Go on then, tell us the feminist sites that are more popular than the ones I mentioned. I'm waiting.

No. This is not how that works. You made the claim, you do the work.

What exactly do you want me to do, find a study that doesn't exist about these things to prove it? It's an educated opinion but since you disagree with it you must have a list of sites that are more popular than the ones I mentioned.

When there aren't studies or scientific proof about specific stuff people solve their difference of opinion using their own proof. So, I'm waiting.

 

[San Martin]

Would it change your opinion if the game was all real-time? I mean so it would take the same amount of time in-game as it would take in real-life? Say ... playing the Edinburgh to Redruth level would mean you were playing for 11 hours I think. Obviously I'd put a pause function in offline mode, but not in online mode (though there will be an option for your character to visit a service station in-game; I could maybe add a cut scene there - you know, walking into the services, taking a leak, grabbing some food - which would give the player the chance to do the same). The ideas are quite literally (figuratively) flowing!

Would you consider including a minigame in which you drive around the M25 in heavy traffic for four hours? You could have a sanity meter and everything.

Sorry, I think I just told you what to include in your game, which, so we're told, is a deadly sin.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

What exactly do you want me to do, find a study that doesn't exist about these things to prove it? It's an educated opinion but since you disagree with it you must have a list of sites that are more popular than the ones I mentioned.

When there aren't studies or scientific proof about specific stuff people solve their difference of opinion using their own proof. So, I'm waiting.

You've used the term straw man at least once in this thread, so I *know* you're a proponent of rational argumentation that is free from fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

You made the claim. You support the claim. It's not up to anyone else to disprove it.

My support? Just a bloody google search on the word "feminism". Aside from FeministFrequency, which one could argue is on top due to all the controversy surrounding it (I could use the Anita threads on the Escapist alone as an example as to how the site gets a lot of traffic from people disagreeing with her), none of the sources you mention get on the first two pages.

I believe Google searches are tailored to the individual. Feminist Frequency isn't anywhere on my first two pages. My #1 hit is the Wikipedia page.