Jimquisition: Creative Freedom, Strings Attached

[RedmistSM]

What a pleasant episode. I didn't know which way you would go on this "issue", and I'm happy you decided there wasn't much of one besides both sides being open to the other doing exactly what they want, like the Puppeteer dev said. Was afraid it would turn into "every game should have a gender option" or something. Like a game can only be inclusive by having a character creator and the ability to romance every npc so open world games and Bioware rpgs are the only things you can play.

That game looks astounding, by the way. I hadn't seen it in motion before. I'm happy those guys weren't told what to do. That kind of freedom can go either way, but certainly looks like it turned out great this time.

Okay, let me give my two cents: There is nothing wrong deciding to go with a male character instead of a female character. Take a film like Glengary Glen Ross. The story and themes are such that replacing any of the characters with a woman would fundamentally change them. The film is inheritely about masculinity, and replacing an actor with an actress would have changed the movies chemistry.

That said, a developer should be able to articulate why they made the character selections they did. It shouldn't be a thoughtless choice, and if they act defensively when the question is presented, it's only going to invite more criticism. That's because avoiding the discussion is seen as evidence that you don't have a good reason for the choice you made, fairly or not.

These conversations are not going away. I thinks folks would be satisfied if Rockstar came forward with why they went with male-only PCs. They don't even have to spoil anything, just say 'given the story we want to tell, we feel that a female lead wouldn't be appropriate. Once the game is released we'd be happy to discuss this further.' Attempting to bury conversation with the broad brush of 'censorship' will only embolden the other side to continue to press the issue.

I don't think they need a reason other than that's what they want to do. The reason for designing a character the way it is can be any little thing, like giving one a mustache and overalls so that his sprite would look better, or because they thought an open red coat over a bare upper body looked stylish. In GTA they probably have a good reason. I'm not a big Rockstar player, but I hear they are influenced by certain movies and presumably made protagonists that reflect, rip off or or somewhat imitate the types of characters seen in those movies. But even if their reason was that they just felt like it, that doesn't make them bad guys for not having more variety or including minorities and females. You can read into "We just felt like it" what you want I suppose, but thinking "could this character be a girl?" at every turn is not a requirement for being a good person and a good designer. It's fair to call them out on it if you feel they are doing a poor job, but they are under no obligation to have a reason to follow their heart or feel bad about themselves.

 

[Goliath100]

Now I have two questions for you, and answer them separately. Do you think that Link is a male, and do you think that Harry Potter is a male, and say why for each.

In non-playable media they are both male, and playable media, they are both genderless (in objective terms, because it changes after the player's gender).

So you aren't transphobic: Than, would it not be wrong to reference a trans person by physical sex, instead of psychological gender?

 

[chronobreak]

snip

Are you transphobic or a troll? Physical traits don't define gender.

Not everyone buys into that.

 

[Depulcator]

As long as the game is good, I don't care what my gender is. And as for the whole "I'm not buying it" crowd. I'm buying the new GTA, so one of your non purchases is nullified good day!

 

[Lilani]

In non-playable media they are both male, and playable media, they are both genderless (in objective terms, because it changes after the player's gender).

So you aren't transphobic: Than, would it not be wrong to reference a trans person by physical sex, instead of psychological gender?

You never answered my question a couple of posts ago: have you played the Half-Life games.

Because in gameplay, all signs point to Gordon identifying as a male. At the beginning of HL1 you go to his locker in the male locker room. Everybody identifies him as a male. If Gordon psychologically feels differently about his gender-identity, he has given no other indication. No doubt he had to apply to get into Black Mesa, and if he wanted to be referred to something other than male that was his chance. If Gordon Freeman is transgendered, then all evidence at this point points to the contrary. I think a person should be called whatever gender they identify themselves as. Gordon has thus far identified himself as a male, and so that is how I will also identify him.

And why doesn't a person's gender in the cutscenes transfer to gameplay? Why are they suddenly genderless when gameplay starts, and then have a gender during cutscenes, and then it's gone again when gameplay starts again. That doesn't make sense. It's the same character, same experiences. And what about a game like Half-Life or Dear Esther or Amnesia: The Dark Descent, where gameplay and cutscenes are one in the same?

 

[Yuuki]

Every time a developer is criticized/questioned for the gender of their protagonist(s) (assuming the decision was made without any pressure from the publisher), the "argument" should ideally play out as below:

Developer: My protagonist is a [X gender].
Critic: Why not [Y gender]? I have the right to ask this question.
Developer: Yes you do. The answer is that it's my decision. It's how I have crafted my game & story as the creator.
Critic: Alright. I'm not buying your game because there's no [Y gender] protagonist. It's my decision.
Developer: I'm OK with that. Have a pleasant day.
Critic: I'm OK with you being OK with that. Goodbye.

Simple. No colossal flamewar arguments needed.

 

[Goliath100]

You never answered my question a couple of posts ago: have you played the Half-Life games.

Because in gameplay, all signs point to Gordon identifying as a male. At the beginning of HL1 you go to his locker in the male locker room. Everybody identifies him as a male. If Gordon psychologically feels differently about his gender-identity, he has given no other indication. No doubt he had to apply to get into Black Mesa, and if he wanted to be referred to something other than male that was his chance. If Gordon Freeman is transgendered, then all evidence at this point points to the contrary. I think a person should be called whatever gender they identify themselves as. Gordon has thus far identified himself as a male, and so that is how I will also identify him.

And why doesn't a person's gender in the cutscenes transfer to gameplay? Why are they suddenly genderless when gameplay starts, and then have a gender during cutscenes, and then it's gone again when gameplay starts again. That doesn't make sense. It's the same character, same experiences. And what about a game like Half-Life or Dear Esther or Amnesia: The Dark Descent, where gameplay and cutscenes are one in the same?

1) I have played Half-Life 2, but this is not relevant and will be considered a red herring if you bring it up again.
2) Stereotypical behavior is not needed for someone to be trans.
3) This is only a thing because of that fact that the player is part of the playable character. It can be a full character in their own right, but this is till a thing because of the player.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

If only things were that simple and people didn't divulge into colossal shitfest arguments.

Developer: My protagonist is a male.
Critic: Why? Why not female? I have the right to ask this question.
Developer: Yes you do. The answer is that it's my decision. It's how I have crafted my game & story as the creator.
Critic: Alright. I'm not buying your game because there's no female protagonist. It's my decision.
Developer: I'm OK with that. Have a pleasant day.
Critic: I'm OK with you being OK with that. Goodbye.

End of story.

But isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE? The developer said that anybody is free to not buy his game if they don't like that aspect of it.

This is why we should thank God for you Jim. You spelled it all out. Create what you want, but realize you still may have to defend it - and that people can 'vote' for or against you with their wallets.

Did he?

Was I the only one who actually read what this developer SAID? Because to me... he didn't mention freedom of speech, or lack of right to criticise him, or anything else along those lines.

Seriously, I don't get this. It seems like everybody is arguing over a "strawman" that Jim's put up here. And look, I'm a Jimquisition fan, but I just do not get this. At all. This is an interesting debate to have, but it's not relevant to anything the developer is quoted as having said!

 

[Dajmin]

Am I the only one who thinks that the reason the vast majority of games have male leads is simply because the majority of writers are male and you write what you know?

If that's the case then yes, it does also put forward an argument for getting in more female writers (I think Rihanna Pratchett has done pretty well on the games she's been involved with so far and I really enjoyed Heavenly Sword). That said, if you then go intentionally looking for a FEMALE writer instead of just a GOOD writer, to either fill up the numbers or to try and target a particular demographic, isn't that exactly the wrong thing to be doing? Trolls will be inferring that my comment means that all female writers are bad and that's blatantly not the case - I'd rather have a good female writer over a bad (or mediocre) male one. But likewise I'd rather have a good male one over a bad (or mediocre) female one.

So I guess my question is this: is dropping a token character in there (race/gender/sexuality/eye colour) not actually more offensive than just missing them out because the story is fine without them?

 

[chronobreak]

Am I the only one who thinks that the reason the vast majority of games have male leads is simply because the majority of writers are male and you write what you know?

If that's the case then yes, it does also put forward an argument for getting in more female writers (I think Rihanna Pratchett has done pretty well on the games she's been involved with so far and I really enjoyed Heavenly Sword). That said, if you then go intentionally looking for a FEMALE writer instead of just a GOOD writer, to either fill up the numbers or to try and target a particular demographic, isn't that exactly the wrong thing to be doing? Trolls will be inferring that my comment means that all female writers are bad and that's blatantly not the case - I'd rather have a good female writer over a bad (or mediocre) male one. But likewise I'd rather have a good male one over a bad (or mediocre) female one.

So I guess my question is this: is dropping a token character in there (race/gender/sexuality/eye colour) not actually more offensive than just missing them out because the story is fine without them?

That's the real problem. If you want more female characters, more gay characters, whatever, you need those groups to be equally represented in the creative (and financial) process. Nobody should be surprised men are writing for men. In most cases, it isn't like those groups are being purposefully excluded.

 

[Makabriel]

You never answered my question a couple of posts ago: have you played the Half-Life games.

Because in gameplay, all signs point to Gordon identifying as a male. At the beginning of HL1 you go to his locker in the male locker room. Everybody identifies him as a male. If Gordon psychologically feels differently about his gender-identity, he has given no other indication. No doubt he had to apply to get into Black Mesa, and if he wanted to be referred to something other than male that was his chance. If Gordon Freeman is transgendered, then all evidence at this point points to the contrary. I think a person should be called whatever gender they identify themselves as. Gordon has thus far identified himself as a male, and so that is how I will also identify him.

And why doesn't a person's gender in the cutscenes transfer to gameplay? Why are they suddenly genderless when gameplay starts, and then have a gender during cutscenes, and then it's gone again when gameplay starts again. That doesn't make sense. It's the same character, same experiences. And what about a game like Half-Life or Dear Esther or Amnesia: The Dark Descent, where gameplay and cutscenes are one in the same?

1) I have played Half-Life 2, but this is not relevant and will be considered a red herring if you bring it up again.
2) Stereotypical behavior is not needed for someone to be trans.
3) This is only a thing because of that fact that the player is part of the playable character. It can be a full character in their own right, but this is till a thing because of the player.

So what is the purpose of pushing your agenda on this topic? Because that's all you are doing. Plenty of people have given plenty of rational explanation as to why Gordon Freeman is Male. Period. You are trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Freeman

I know I'm leaving myself wide open for this one, but there is the Wikki entry for the history and the background of the Half Life character of Gordon Freeman. None of what you are saying plays into his character what so ever. You want him to be a Trans, that's fine and up to you, but it's not Canon. That is not the character that is portrayed in the game.

 

[Yuuki]

What Jim said at 4:35...
"...it's a perfectly valid / important question and it deserves more than the anger and flippancy expressed by Moore in his answer, it deserves more than the usual peanut-gallery response..."

Anger, flippancy, peanut-gallery response by Moore? Sorry but...what the fuck?

This is what Moore said:
"Why do we want girls to play girls and why do we want boys to play boys? So I should, as a game creator, start pandering to public opinion? I think we should be making what we want to make, and if somebody is upset by that then please don't buy the product."

I see no anger and flippancy there, he has politely told people that if they are upset by his story/character decisions then they are free not to buy his product, and that he shouldn't have change his protagonists' gender just because some people want him to.
Considering that there would have been quite a few people jumping onto the annoying question-asking bandwagon of "omg why not a female lead? Games need more female leads, why don't you have one? Are you sexist? Discriminatory?" etc etc, Moore gave a very calm and polite answer to the people asking those sorts of questions.
They should be more than satisfied with that response.

I have no idea why Jim picked on Moore in his video about creative/expressive freedom. Moore did NOT say anything about people not having the right to ask those questions. Read his quote again: "...then please don't buy the product." That's all. There was no anger/flippancy.
If he had said "shut up, stop asking these questions and go away" then Jim would've had a point.

But isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE? The developer said that anybody is free to not buy his game if they don't like that aspect of it.

Ya, it's why I said that if only things always went that way then it would be a very quick & painless discussion regarding the protagonists' gender in videogames.

Edited my post for clarity.

 

[wulf3n]

I'm not sure what the point of this episode was.

I think it's about "Developers can choose to do whatever they want but have to be willing to deal with the criticism of their choice"

I thought that was pretty obvious, and wasn't aware it was an issue.

But that door swings both ways, i see a lot of people criticize then get upset when other criticise their criticism.

 

[Fiairflair]

I agree completely with Jim's views on this one. The only thing I would add is that discussion and debate are intrinsically valuable too.

Creative, interesting games, made freely, are good.
Reason and free thought about games are good too.

 

[Goliath100]

So what is the purpose of pushing your agenda on this topic? Because that's all you are doing. Plenty of people have given plenty of rational explanation as to why Gordon Freeman is Male. Period. You are trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Freeman

I know I'm leaving myself wide open for this one, but there is the Wikki entry for the history and the background of the Half Life character of Gordon Freeman. None of what you are saying plays into his character what so ever. You want him to be a Trans, that's fine and up to you, but it's not Canon. That is not the character that is portrayed in the game.

Why do some of you have a hard time getting that this is a phenomenon within games? It's a byproduct of games being interactive. There is no getting around this (with exception of character that their status as "playable" is debatable). I have seen non arguments agains the consept, only misunderstanding of how it works.

 

[Makabriel]

So what is the purpose of pushing your agenda on this topic? Because that's all you are doing. Plenty of people have given plenty of rational explanation as to why Gordon Freeman is Male. Period. You are trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Freeman

I know I'm leaving myself wide open for this one, but there is the Wikki entry for the history and the background of the Half Life character of Gordon Freeman. None of what you are saying plays into his character what so ever. You want him to be a Trans, that's fine and up to you, but it's not Canon. That is not the character that is portrayed in the game.

Why do some of you have a hard time getting that this is a phenomenon within games? It's a byproduct of games being interactive. There is no getting around this (with exception of character that their status as "playable" is debatable). I have seen non arguments agains the consept, only misunderstanding of how it works.

I have no problem understanding your concept. You want the character you are playing in a game in which -you- design the avatar to be Trans/Gay/Bi whatever, that's up to you. You want to imagine that Gordon, or Max Payne, or Nathan Drake is a Trans, that's also up to you. But what you can't do is tell us that is what the character is, when it isn't.

 

[Goliath100]

I have no problem understanding your concept. You want the character you are playing in a game in which -you- design the avatar to be Trans/Gay/Bi whatever, that's up to you. You want to imagine that Gordon, or Max Payne, or Nathan Drake is a Trans, that's also up to you. But what you can't do is tell us that is what the character is, when it isn't.

You don't get it. The fact that you are using the line "...you want..." proves you really don't get it.

 

[Dragonbums]

After PAX and what happened there, I think we can all agree that this needed to be said.

The Puppeteer game or the "review" of the 2DS?

More than likely, Dickwolves 2: The Dickwolvening.

Although I've heard there was something else going on at PAX of controversial merit, Jim already referenced Mike Krahulik in his last Rhymedown spectacular.

Nah.
I think that probably may be it. Kotaku did an article piece in regards to the whole Dickwolves meme being taken down from Penny Arcade after enough fans bitched at them about it.

 

[Sutter Cane]

Why should a game be criticised or scrutinised simply because it doesn't have a female protagonist?

Why shouldn't it?

because there's nothing inherently wrong with telling a story about a guy. The problem with there not being enough good female playable characters in games is an issue because it's a trend, not because having a male protagonist is bad. I mean if I end up staying with someone who cooks spaghetti for dinner every night for 2 weeks, i'd almost certainly get sick of it, but that doesn't mean that choosing to make spaghetti for your evening meal is a bad choice. Criticizing a game for simply choosing to have a male protagonist is basically like criticizing a different friend's cooking skills simply because he chose to make spaghetti in the previous scenario.

 

[Dragonbums]

What Jim said at 4:35...
"...it's a perfectly valid / important question and it deserves more than the anger and flippancy expressed by Moore in his answer, it deserves more than the usual peanut-gallery response..."

Anger, flippancy, peanut-gallery response by Moore? Sorry but...what the fuck?

This is what Moore said:
"Why do we want girls to play girls and why do we want boys to play boys? So I should, as a game creator, start pandering to public opinion? I think we should be making what we want to make, and if somebody is upset by that then please don't buy the product."

I see no anger and flippancy there, he has politely told people that if they are upset by his story/character decisions then they are free not to buy his product, and that he shouldn't have change his protagonists' gender just because some people want him to.
Considering that there would have been quite a few people jumping onto the annoying question-asking bandwagon of "omg why not a female lead? Games need more female leads, why don't you have one? Are you sexist? Discriminatory?" etc etc, Moore gave a very calm and polite answer to the people asking those sorts of questions.
They should be more than satisfied with that response.

I have no idea why Jim picked on Moore in his video about creative/expressive freedom. Moore did NOT say anything about people not having the right to ask those questions. Read his quote again: "...then please don't buy the product." That's all. There was no goddamn anger/flippancy.
If he had said "shut up, stop asking these questions and go away" then Jim would've had a point.

But isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE? The developer said that anybody is free to not buy his game if they don't like that aspect of it.

Ya, it's why I said that if only things always went that way then it would be a very quick & painless discussion regarding the protagonists' gender in videogames.

Edited my post for clarity.

I don't think anyone was asking for him to change the gender of the protagonist though. I believe that due to circumstances with the story that enables said puppet to be anything, why didn't he give the option for a female character. If what I'm understanding is correct.