Jimquisition: Creative Freedom, Strings Attached

[DoubleChops]

Ok Jim, I can do that for you. Fantasy Football Gods, Jim says thanks.

 

[Coreless]

Ok so what was the point of this video? I have watched it twice and I still don't see much of a point being made. Its self evident that freedom of speech means the freedom to criticize people and their work. I just don't understand how anyone could think otherwise considering its written into the freaking thing with the word "freedom".

And like others have said, you are free to criticize all you like but people also have the freedom not to listen to you and just because you have a criticism doesn't automatically make it a good one.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

People are fully in their right to ask the question, but as has been summarised in other videos, they shouldn't be attacked for said beliefs.

Hell it's in part why GTA5 is the definition of 'meh' to me. It'll no doubt be very good for what it does, but the lacking of female protagonist doesn't get my hype machine running. Probably why I like Saints Row as much as I did, no matter how much the series deviated from the GTA formula, if there wasn't a female customisation option I probably wouldn't have played it as long.

This attitude pervades into other similar ventures, like Mass Effect, I could play as femshep until the cows came home, but every time I played a dude I seemed to just get bored. Not even Miranda's butt could lure me back.
For added affect to this, two shows coming that I'm most excited for also star female protagonists (Kill la Kill and Legend or Korra respectively).

It's a weird quirk.

 

[bug_of_war]

HA! Science is funny. Anyway.

:0 WHA!?

Of course you, Jim, and whoever else can ask someone/some people to make a game[sub](if you do it in a polite way)[/sub].

And then those people can say no, sure, maybe later, why do you want us to make that game, and pineapple.

What can't be done is demanding them to make a game, and expecting them to make it.

Spoiler: Because...

pineapple.

http://cheezburger.com/7782390016

You can ask, but everyone asks, and ^ is pretty much happens. The quote has yet to be confirmed, but it does seem very likely as something a game designer would say.

 

[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.

The problem is more like every restaurant in the neighborhood cooks nothing but spaghetti, and while it's very good spaghetti, you're going to get tired of it. But the moment you ask the cook to make something other than spaghetti, all of his fans blast you for trying to dictate what he makes, and say that if you don't like it, then go to another restaurant (ignoring the fact that they only cook spaghetti too, natch).

you're right, that is actually a better way to put it. I still stand by however that it'd be far to single out any one restaurant for choosing to serve spaghetti though, since spaghetti is by no means a bad thing. each individual instance is ok, it's the trend that's the problem. Going "X game doesn't have a female protagonist so i'm boycotting it" just makes you sound like you're trying to say that all games need to have playable female characters, which is pretty clearly not what anyone is actually arguing for.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Creative Freedom, Strings Attached

Freedom of expression is not freedom to express without challenge. A game is within its rights to include any content it does, but that content is not sacred.

Watch Video

This episode! I couldnt agree more. I dont think ive ever agreed as much as Im agreeing with jim right now! New favorite episode right here.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

The problem is more like every restaurant in the neighborhood cooks nothing but spaghetti, and while it's very good spaghetti, you're going to get tired of it. But the moment you ask the cook to make something other than spaghetti, all of his fans blast you for trying to dictate what he makes, and say that if you don't like it, then go to another restaurant (ignoring the fact that they only cook spaghetti too, natch).

you're right, that is actually a better way to put it. I still stand by however that it'd be far to single out any one restaurant for choosing to serve spaghetti though, since spaghetti is by no means a bad thing. each individual instance is ok, it's the trend that's the problem. Going "X game doesn't have a female protagonist so i'm boycotting it" just makes you sound like you're trying to say that all games need to have playable female characters, which is pretty clearly not what anyone is actually arguing for.

This fails in that the analogy would have to account for a world in which there is only spaghetti and ziti and the restaurants in question only make one or the other. In such a world, only getting one or the other would be normal and so getting the same one every night from a restaurant or person would be significantly more common. It's not like we have a million different genders like we do food types.

You then have to explain why the restaurant should make ziti when the overwhelming majority of clients prefer spaghetti. While it's a lofty and noble goal to support female leads, the demand isn't that present as far as we can tell. As I said in an earlier post, the 47% female to 53% male ratio in the recent ESA study is terribly off base when considering certain markets like the AAA game market. This study includes iOS gamers and over half the respondants did not plan to buy a single game in the year of the study (2012). So the definition of "gamer" was made significantly broader than the group high budget game companies are selling to. Even then, in the previous big study that was 40% to 60% female/male before iOS was included, 80% of those females had a Wii as their primary gaming console. This meant that the AAA market only saw 9% of that 40% owning a ps3 and 11% owning a 360. Because the ratio is smaller, that means that more than 80% of their actual target market was male. Not only that, but the ratio can skew further if the types of games one gender prefers differs from the other. We already see a significant difference in console preference so why not game type? We don't know and people don't appear to be doing that research (please, someone give me the resources to do this, it'd be extremely interesting to learn what the actual demographics are for AAA tarket markets).

So if 80% of your market is male, why does it make sense to try to reach some kind of equilibrium between protagonist genders? Why does it makes sense to try and have 50% of games having a female lead when your market isn't that way? That is every bit as sexist as any other sexist action that lifts one group up for no other reason than because of their gender. Should it be at least 20% female? Perhaps, that brings me to my next point.

This is a business. Every company that is making a game to sell is going to look at the market and see 80% males in the target range. It is not their job to make the protagonist a female to right some arbitrary statistic. You don't change waist high stockings to have more room for men just because there really are some men who wear them. Your basic stocking is going to take into account your target market and if you want to also cater to the few males who use them then you have to figure something else instead that doesn't make it less comfortable for the women. This is why we have a ton of games now that have completely customiseable protagonists. Each one of those games should be touted as having a female protagonist. Mass Effect, Skyrim, Saints Row, and so many others. Taking all of these into account as well as games that have multiple gender options like Resident Evil did may end up having a higher percentage of the AAA market than we may think where the player can be female.

When there is such a high disparity between target demographics, you don't cater to the needs of the fewer at the cost of the many. You either only cater to the majority or you do something else to make them happy. As such, a female character should only be the main protagonist if it is part of the story. The artistic vision, if you will. But if the gender of the main character isn't stable but they can only have one (for financial or time reasons), then business-wise and customer-wise it makes sense to make it male due to current market conditions. The game in question would require different character modeling and more voice acting resources in addition to rescripting who knows how much. The demand isn't high enough to warrant those resources so just leave it as it should be. I would expect no less if women made up a disproportionately larger market segment of something else I enjoy. If you can't play a game because the main character doesn't have two lady lumps under their shirt then you shouldn't buy the game and should get used to disappointment in life if you're going to be that rigid about it. I don't have a problem playing Lara, I don't have a problem with Chell or any of the other female characters I've played over the years. I do prefer an avatar that resembles me, but I don't particularly care even what species it is. Hell, a humanoid dog character would be out of place in the last of us but I'd have eventually gotten past it.

If a little boy draws a picture of a boy weilding a sword, you don't ask him why like he should have made it a female. It's what he wanted to draw and he wasn't wrong for doing so. The same has been traditionally true of art in every other form of media. This question, while valid, is implying that an artist is doing something wrong by choosing one gender instead of another. That makes the question pointedly sexist itself while accusing the creator of sexism.

 

[nuttshell]

There's two arguments being made in this episode and they're both right.

One, that creators don't need to answer to or be cowed into making what people want them to make due to political correctness and other such demands.

Second, that everyone has the right to criticize others over their words and decisions.

HOW-EVER

There is an undercurrent flowing through this discussion that these questions are somehow important issues and MUST be answered by every game maker who ever makes a game with a male character, that every game must have a choice of genders of their main characters - and it's getting out of control. They could remake a movie about Pinocchio and someone would ridiculously ask "Why not a girl puppet?" And GTA, GTA is a game about criminals. Have you seen the ratios of how many people in jail are men vs women? It's about a 10 to 1 ratio. Stands to believe most people in a story about criminals would be the same. It's not like there's no women in the entire game! Why do we have to bend so far out of reality to accommodate political correctness just because? Sometimes these questions DO deserve flippant responses.

Because after all, as this episode has taught us, just because you asked a question doesn't make your question above reproach and beyond criticism itself. That's what these game makers are doing with their responses - criticizing your questions as not worth answering.

Wow, a reasonable critical comment allready on page 2. I'm impressed, kudos.

A very nice bookworm said to me once: "Only those completely devoid of fantasy don't want to read books that aren't about themselves."
I'd like to expand on that. Only whiny, narcistic people make a big deal about fantasies that don't tailor their specific interests.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

When it comes down to it, when asking the question "Why can't he be a girl instead" one should really be asking "Do we want a poorly written female lead created by a man, who can never truly understand what it is to be female, and as such never do justice to the concept? Or a male lead, who acts male, is male, and at least is fully believable(if well written, some writers suck either way)."

Sure, some could say that women deserve more of a spotlight as protagonists in gaming, but one of the biggest issues I see, is that women aren't making games... They just aren't, look at the ratio of writers, and developers in the gaming industry, what we need isn't just more female protagonists, but more women in the industry.

Honestly, as a man, I have no idea what it's like to be a woman, I only know what I've observed, which means I couldn't write a deep female protagonist, because I don't fully grasp the inner workings of a woman's mind, I could write a male protagonist with any of a thousand different drives ambitions, reasons for everything, no fuckin' problem.

I don't mean to attempt to speak for all of the other men out there, but I don't think any of us really know how women feel or think the way a woman herself does, it just makes a lot more sense for female writers, to write female characters.

So yeah, to all of you women out there incessantly bitching about inequality, get your asses out there and start producing some good stuff instead of trying to make men do it for you, if you think about it, that's exactly what feminism is about, now make yourselves equal, and act(write for game companies, or make your own games, the indie scene counts too y'know, it doesn't have to be a multimillion dollar "AAA" title.).

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

You don't know that. Either of those things. Maybe nobody on the writing team wanted to write a female playable character, maybe the ones that did didn't have a good character or a good story in mind.

**facepalm**

While it is technically true that I don't know for certain that no one at Rockstar had any ideas for a female lead, I find that idea extremely unlikely. And, if that is the case, then Rockstar has a lot fewer creative minds than I imagined.

As to the other - you're going to tell me what is or is not "interesting"? Personally, I'd just like to see what Rockstar came up with - just them stepping out of their comfort zone would have been interesting all on its own, even if the result wasn't great.

I mean hey nothing's stopping you from getting the game and still asking them to make a game with a woman in it. Not every suggestion needs a threat of a loss $60 (or whatever cut of that Rockstar makes) to be valid. Just seems weird that that's a dealbreaker unless it's a "I wasn't terribly interested in the game to begin with but a female hero would've been just enough to make me want it" kind of thing.

First off, since it is my money, I can use it in any way I want. Plenty of people withhold their money from companies that use DRM no principle. Why is this less valid of a reason? I want to see more female protagonists in games - so when two similar games come out, and one gives me the option of a female protagonist while the other does not, then why shouldn't I give my money to the company that provides me with what I want and withhold it from the company that does not?

Secondly, I never said it was a dealbreaker. Catherine has a male protagonist, but it also has a unique subject matter and gameplay style that isn't available anywhere else. Furthermore, it has a good story and the male-ness of the main character is intrinsic to that story.

However, most games - wait, no, you're Mr. Exact Terminology and if I'm even slightly Hyperbolic, you will ask for proof that my numbers are accurate - MANY games don't have stories that rely on gender in any way. People ***** about "women who act like men" in games, but honestly I don't see many men acting like "men" either. I see "generic blank slate" acting like "generic blank slate" in many games.

One of the reason that the Saints Row series works is because nothing in you average crime game is actually particularly male-centric. Likewise, your typical sci-fi action-rpg title (ie Mass Effect, but I can name several other sci-fi shooters where you could change the gender of the lead and no one would notice). "Being badass" is not a male trait - and it is often the only trait that video game protagonists are given.

I'm asiding. My point is, no, a male protagonist is not a deal breaker. However, if the protagonist's male-ness is simply a default setting, then that is a point against a game. And I make an active effort to support games with female protagonists.

 

[nuttshell]

...then Rockstar has a lot fewer creative minds than I imagined.

Your imagination clearly has no boundaries.

 

[Mahoshonen]

Ok so what was the point of this video? I have watched it twice and I still don't see much of a point being made. Its self evident that freedom of speech means the freedom to criticize people and their work. I just don't understand how anyone could think otherwise considering its written into the freaking thing with the word "freedom".

And like others have said, you are free to criticize all you like but people also have the freedom not to listen to you and just because you have a criticism doesn't automatically make it a good one.

I guess the point is that, as amazing as it may seem, there are people that don't understand this connection.

And deciding not to listen doesn't close the conversation. The critics are looking for a response, and silence does nothing except validate the criticism. And yet, it not's necessary to bow to criticism to satisfy the critics. Just the previous GTA, changing the gender of Niko Belic would require major changes in the game's story to keep it at the same level of quality. The same applies to Red Dead Redemption-you'd have to do massive changes to make a compelling story with a female lead. I haven't paid attention to the hype, but I'm willing to give Rockstar the benefit of the doubt here. But the question ought to be addressed. Ignoring the question is simply disrespectful.

...then Rockstar has a lot fewer creative minds than I imagined.

Your imagination clearly has no boundaries.

Nice edit. You should work for the National Enquierer.

 

[Fyffer]

Honestly why does it matter to you? It's pretty obvious that these aren't blank slate characters so why be hung up about it?

Because I want to see more stories about women.

Note, in my post, I said "I'm sure someone there would have liked to write something like that" (paraphrased from memory) - the point of that was that I'd like to see what sort of story they'd have written about a female protagonist. It would have been interesting.

You don't know that. Either of those things. Maybe nobody on the writing team wanted to write a female playable character, maybe the ones that did didn't have a good character or a good story in mind.

I mean hey nothing's stopping you from getting the game and still asking them to make a game with a woman in it. Not every suggestion needs a threat of a loss $60 (or whatever cut of that Rockstar makes) to be valid. Just seems weird that that's a dealbreaker unless it's a "I wasn't terribly interested in the game to begin with but a female hero would've been just enough to make me want it" kind of thing.

Actually, there is something stopping people from buying the game and asking as well. Money speaks louder than most other forms of communication to these people and buying the game says to them "I want to see more of this." Which clearly isn't the case here.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

This is the reason why I like Jim... he stated his facts about the developer being able to make whatever he/she wants but 'however', they also can be criticized for their own work if questioned.

It was a very fair, agreeable, and well presented argument which I shall admire and take note of whenever possible. Great video plus you should only have a female protagonist if it fits the story of the game (or if you can customize your character to be anything.)

My objection to this is that Jim suggests that the developer can't take criticism. Well, I don't know if the developer can take criticism or not, but there's nothing in what Jim quotes from the developer to suggest that he can't. That's what I call a "strawman" argument.

I was quoted rather quickly lol.

To be honest, I am a bit confused by your statement. Jim noted that developers must be prepared to be questioned if they go through with what they created and if they can't back up their reasons... the public shall criticize them. Also not being able to take criticism isn't a good thing because one cannot improve.

For example i'm an artist so if I do not accept criticism, I will never get any better and imagine how good I could get if I don't rid people's opinions. However, some criticisms are nit picks and the developer has to decide which ones are important and which ones are just people venting about something though everyone should give respect to those who give criticism regardless.

I do agree with everything you say... I just don't see how it's relevant to what the developer actually said here.

The developer didn't say that everybody had to agree with him.

He didn't say that nobody had any right to criticise him.

There's nothing in anything quoted from him that even implies either point.

He DID say that he wouldn't compromise his creative vision to, as he put it, "pander" to any specific group. He said that if people didn't like his creative vision, they were free not to buy his games.

All of which seems perfectly fair to me.

Now it may be that the developer feels that a political point was made, specifically regarding gender politics, that he personally didn't want to "get into". His use of the word "pander" might imply this (although even that feels like a stretch). Again, I cannot for the life of me see how that equates to "shutting down critical opinion" in any way, shape or form.

As an artist, it's up to you to decide what you do. It's not up to you to decide how people react to that art. That's fine, that's the relationship an artist has with somebody who appreciates art. Neither party has an indelible "right" to dictate how the other party handles their side of the relationship.

Basically, I think that in this case, Jim's made a big deal of something that didn't really need a big deal made of it, and in the process has mis-represented the game designer's meaning.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

It may not have been interesting, it may have just been flat.

It MAY have been flat. Or it might not have been. And now we'll never know.

My point is that, having seen some of the other things Rockstar has produced, I have faith that it would have been something other than flat. It might not have been great - or even good - but it would have been interesting (if not in and of itself, then just to see what sort of weirdness they came up with).

I have faith that they could have done something with a female character because they have done very well in other character focused games like L.A. Noir. Furthermore, I understand that GTA 4 had a fairly indepth plot - and the plot of GTA 5 looks to be similarly depthful. I might well pick up GTA 5 once it's on sale for 20 bucks or so (I said I wouldn't buy it at release (which is the only time publishers care about), but I might check it out later if I can get it cheap).

I respect the writers at Rockstar - which is why I'm sure they could have come up with something interesting. So yeah, maybe they just liked these three stories better. Or maybe the higher-ups said "no female protagonists because research" and the writers are just saying they had no ideas for female leads. In the current creative climate, there's no way to tell which happened.

But, again, I digress. The point is, I know Rockstar has good writers. I'd love to see them do a female-focused story-heavy game. It makes me sad that they won't - and it means that there are other games I'd rather support at release.

I resent that, I'm not as bad as the others here.

True.

However, you did just pull one of those in the previous post, and I was kinda annoyed about it, so I snapped at you. For taking out general forum frustration on you, I am sorry. But you did give me the opportunity to do so, so I'm only a little sorry.

Anyway I see your point about Catherine/blank-slates etc. Thanks for explaining it.

No problem. I was kinda getting off topic, but I get the feeling lately that, if I don't explain the root of my opinions, then I'll end up arguing over surface issues that are the result of underlying issues.

 

[Vegosiux]

So wait, who are we allowed to criticize and who aren't we allowed to criticize...

That's a bit of a trick question. Because, I do not understand what's being asked here. Do we, by "allowed to criticize" mean "allowed to express our opinion (and have it criticized in return by the dissenters)", or do we mean "allowed to criticize with impunity, without negative feedback".

In other words, why do we feel that "being allowed to criticize" should mean "not allowing our criticism to be criticized" and however many more layers we get to.

Bottom line is, these debates usually go like this: Someone makes a fuss, then those disagreeing make a fuss about the first fuss being made, then those in support of the first fuss go "How dare you make a fuss over the fuss we made! Are you trying to oppress us!?" and it all devolved into name-calling and straw men galore from then on.

This should not be about who is allowed to criticize what. This should be about who is obligated to treat even dissenting opinion with at least a shred of respect without kicking up a fuss over it, no matter which rank in the order of fuss hierarchy it is (fuss, counter-fuss, counter-counter-fuss...).

"Freedom of expression is not freedom from criticism" is a double-edged sword. It doesn't mean "I can criticize whatever I want and then demean the dissenters." It means your own criticism isn't free from criticism and you shouldn't be acting like it is. You shouldn't act like your criticism deserves a less adverse response than whatever you're criticizing. Because if you do that, you're being dishonest.

 

[hexFrank202]

Okay, this is the one branch of the equality-in-games discussion I'm not sick to raving lunacy of, and in fact--possibly because I'm a student game designer--actually quite enjoy. So yay!

Here are some things to think about:

Obviously, someone can play a character of the opposite gender, and still project them self into it. For example, one theoretically possible justification for all GTA avatars being male is if you were to say that the entire appeal of GTA comes from feeling like Scarface.

Now, Scarface was a man, and many of the things he did and ways he acted were things that were in a distinct male-centric fashion. There are famous female gangsters--both fictional and real--but their persona; their aesthetics, are always a little different than--again--Scarface.

And so, if you wanted to make a game where you can pretend to be Scarface, being male could (theoretically) be a required attribute.

Yeah that's all I got.

 

[hexFrank202]

Well since I accidentally double-posted, I better come up with more to say. *ahem*

The game I'm working on right now has an adult male protagonist. A dad and husband, in fact. And I'm doing that because one of my starting themes for the game was "to feel like a dad, fighting for your family", and I've since written the story around this theme, to the point that making anyone else the protagonist wouldn't make sense.

There's my answer! Oh, but if the game gets some attention, I plan on making a little expansion-pack side story thingy, about a third party hero who secretly helps the main family escape from danger, without them even knowing about it; and I so far plan on making this character female, because I guess that would better complement the drama, and fit better in with her place in the story.

Soooo yeah. I think this is how all 'what gender should this character be?' discussions should go.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I am wont to appreciate games like Skyrim more than Alice; generic characters rather than specifically written. There seems to me to be a bit of a divide, where some games with female leads really focus on them being female and their trials and tribulations as such, as opposed to others where nothing besides pronouns in the dialogue change. Of note in the former category: Are these portrayals realistic?

 

[ShadowHamster]

There's two arguments being made in this episode and they're both right.

One, that creators don't need to answer to or be cowed into making what people want them to make due to political correctness and other such demands.

Second, that everyone has the right to criticize others over their words and decisions.

HOW-EVER

There is an undercurrent flowing through this discussion that these questions are somehow important issues and MUST be answered by every game maker who ever makes a game with a male character, that every game must have a choice of genders of their main characters - and it's getting out of control. They could remake a movie about Pinocchio and someone would ridiculously ask "Why not a girl puppet?" And GTA, GTA is a game about criminals. Have you seen the ratios of how many people in jail are men vs women? It's about a 10 to 1 ratio. Stands to believe most people in a story about criminals would be the same. It's not like there's no women in the entire game! Why do we have to bend so far out of reality to accommodate political correctness just because? Sometimes these questions DO deserve flippant responses.

Because after all, as this episode has taught us, just because you asked a question doesn't make your question above reproach and beyond criticism itself. That's what these game makers are doing with their responses - criticizing your questions as not worth answering.

Wow, a reasonable critical comment allready on page 2. I'm impressed, kudos.

A very nice bookworm said to me once: "Only those completely devoid of fantasy don't want to read books that aren't about themselves."
I'd like to expand on that. Only whiny, narcistic people make a big deal about fantasies that don't tailor their specific interests.

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.

The problem is more like every restaurant in the neighborhood cooks nothing but spaghetti, and while it's very good spaghetti, you're going to get tired of it. But the moment you ask the cook to make something other than spaghetti, all of his fans blast you for trying to dictate what he makes, and say that if you don't like it, then go to another restaurant (ignoring the fact that they only cook spaghetti too, natch).

you're right, that is actually a better way to put it. I still stand by however that it'd be far to single out any one restaurant for choosing to serve spaghetti though, since spaghetti is by no means a bad thing. each individual instance is ok, it's the trend that's the problem. Going "X game doesn't have a female protagonist so i'm boycotting it" just makes you sound like you're trying to say that all games need to have playable female characters, which is pretty clearly not what anyone is actually arguing for.

This fails in that the analogy would have to account for a world in which there is only spaghetti and ziti and the restaurants in question only make one or the other. In such a world, only getting one or the other would be normal and so getting the same one every night from a restaurant or person would be significantly more common. It's not like we have a million different genders like we do food types.

You then have to explain why the restaurant should make ziti when the overwhelming majority of clients prefer spaghetti. While it's a lofty and noble goal to support female leads, the demand isn't that present as far as we can tell. As I said in an earlier post, the 47% female to 53% male ratio in the recent ESA study is terribly off base when considering certain markets like the AAA game market. This study includes iOS gamers and over half the respondants did not plan to buy a single game in the year of the study (2012). So the definition of "gamer" was made significantly broader than the group high budget game companies are selling to. Even then, in the previous big study that was 40% to 60% female/male before iOS was included, 80% of those females had a Wii as their primary gaming console. This meant that the AAA market only saw 9% of that 40% owning a ps3 and 11% owning a 360. Because the ratio is smaller, that means that more than 80% of their actual target market was male. Not only that, but the ratio can skew further if the types of games one gender prefers differs from the other. We already see a significant difference in console preference so why not game type? We don't know and people don't appear to be doing that research (please, someone give me the resources to do this, it'd be extremely interesting to learn what the actual demographics are for AAA tarket markets).

So if 80% of your market is male, why does it make sense to try to reach some kind of equilibrium between protagonist genders? Why does it makes sense to try and have 50% of games having a female lead when your market isn't that way? That is every bit as sexist as any other sexist action that lifts one group up for no other reason than because of their gender. Should it be at least 20% female? Perhaps, that brings me to my next point.

This is a business. Every company that is making a game to sell is going to look at the market and see 80% males in the target range. It is not their job to make the protagonist a female to right some arbitrary statistic. You don't change waist high stockings to have more room for men just because there really are some men who wear them. Your basic stocking is going to take into account your target market and if you want to also cater to the few males who use them then you have to figure something else instead that doesn't make it less comfortable for the women. This is why we have a ton of games now that have completely customiseable protagonists. Each one of those games should be touted as having a female protagonist. Mass Effect, Skyrim, Saints Row, and so many others. Taking all of these into account as well as games that have multiple gender options like Resident Evil did may end up having a higher percentage of the AAA market than we may think where the player can be female.

When there is such a high disparity between target demographics, you don't cater to the needs of the fewer at the cost of the many. You either only cater to the majority or you do something else to make them happy. As such, a female character should only be the main protagonist if it is part of the story. The artistic vision, if you will. But if the gender of the main character isn't stable but they can only have one (for financial or time reasons), then business-wise and customer-wise it makes sense to make it male due to current market conditions. The game in question would require different character modeling and more voice acting resources in addition to rescripting who knows how much. The demand isn't high enough to warrant those resources so just leave it as it should be. I would expect no less if women made up a disproportionately larger market segment of something else I enjoy. If you can't play a game because the main character doesn't have two lady lumps under their shirt then you shouldn't buy the game and should get used to disappointment in life if you're going to be that rigid about it. I don't have a problem playing Lara, I don't have a problem with Chell or any of the other female characters I've played over the years. I do prefer an avatar that resembles me, but I don't particularly care even what species it is. Hell, a humanoid dog character would be out of place in the last of us but I'd have eventually gotten past it.

If a little boy draws a picture of a boy weilding a sword, you don't ask him why like he should have made it a female. It's what he wanted to draw and he wasn't wrong for doing so. The same has been traditionally true of art in every other form of media. This question, while valid, is implying that an artist is doing something wrong by choosing one gender instead of another. That makes the question pointedly sexist itself while accusing the creator of sexism.

But no one is saying it's wrong. We are asking why aren't more stories being made where it matters that the protagonist is being Female, and not more of the same old cliches. This is the part I don't get, the people on the "more females please" side, as far as I've seen, have not been harsh about it. They ask questions, and plead a case. It's not boycotts down the line, and it's not "I can't buy this" but, "I'd be more inclined to try this". That diversification though? Good thing, adds creativity, adds exploration, adds experience. These are the things that have elevated Video Games to a larger and larger place in the global arena. The numbers of people who play video games only rises, and it will eventually be the main use of a place. Interactive storytelling is storytelling, just like movies, just like books, and if we don't drop this bend and do new things, then we never will try it.

The message isn't "I don't like that you don't do this" but "I would like to try something like this and be included in the discussion". The problem is that the term sexist is a negative term, maybe something else should be used? Sexism technically only means favoritism of one or the other, and it can lead to negative things, but in and of itself that is what it means. Your post doesn't argue that the field isn't sexist, it agrees that it is, and says get over it. It doesn't bother to go "what would a game with a female protagonist do different? How would that change the story?"