Jimquisition: Creative Freedom, Strings Attached

[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?"

 

[nuttshell]

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.

But there are people who say it's wrong and knowingly insult creators of whatever wrong thing they created. I, for one, am not concerned about you and the other people, that do have reasonable arguments and stay civil (allthough if you just look past the AAA, you will get what you want and there are also a few games in work that deserve to have your attention: Project Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenerra).

That says quite a bit about those people who fight tooth and nail to preserve the white, 30-something male standard that predominates gaming heroes nowadays, doesn't it?

Of course. If that's what they want, they fall under the definition. Stupid is everywhere.

It's also wrong. There IS a demand. Just look at how many times this topic comes up as a point of discussion.

The demand just isn't that important. It doesn't matter, if your game has a boy or a girl in it, as long as it's good or a shooter/sports game and has good marketing. I had high hopes in "Remember Me" but it wasn't really that good but still fine and it didn't sell well. I had high hopes in Bioshock: Infinite but it wasn't really that good but still fine and it sold well. If it's just the gender of the protagonist, you're clearly asking too little. A switch in gender isn't going to magically make the game good.

 

[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.

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.

What conversation? So because you want an answer to what I feel is a silly question in the first place, means that they have to give you an answer or its disrespect...how ridiculous lol. Why do they have to justify their choice of protagonist at all? Are you trying to imply that they have to have women in the game and that if they don't they committing some kind offense? Its totally absurd. It doesn't matter if they can or can't create an acceptable female protagonist the fact is that they haven't and they don't owe you one. They have the freedom to create whatever the hell they want with or without your consent. Ignoring the question might not be the answer but I would indeed call it an irrelevant one. My problem with answering such questions is you are basically giving its loaded context legitimacy in that there is a problem with Rockstar for not having a female lead, or that games can't be good or made without a strong female character.

 

[Number-14]

Most games are about male protagonists because most developers are male.

You know that's not an excuse of why there's so many male protagonist and few female ones.Here's a shining example, you know the manga Full Metal Alchemist? The manga and anime starring two brothers? Yeah all that was written and drawn by a woman.

You don't have to be a woman to write a strong female protagonist you just have to be a good writer.

 

[PotatoeMan]

The correct answer would have been puppets are androgynous.

 

[Second World]

I often think of rebuttal as "customer service." Basically, "Ok, I'm open to everything you say" and then don't bother with any of the changes.

"My service doesn't feel feminine enough!" "We appreciate your concern about femininity with our service and will certainly keep it in mind for future services."

Then, there is no continued attempts to bother you and they don't try to start a flame war since they understand that you understand their viewpoint, and you can move on. Never to bother with the subject again.


Why doesn't GTA star a Kangaroo that's also an atheist rock star? Is there some issue with animals committing controversial crimes and living a controversial life-style? This repetition of older male protagonists has watered down the whole "violent character" to one general category, and when can I play a GTA game solely as a middle school girl? Are they trying to say gang violence can't involve kids nowadays? How silly.

"I understand your concern about characters in GTA not being a controversial age, gender, or species. We'll certainly keep your suggestions in mind as we move forward."

Issue averted!

 

[LAGG]

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).

So the gender of the player's avatar is to games what the main dish is to a meal?
It'd be a more fitting analogy if every restaurant makes whatever food they want but they all only have round plates.

 

[Undeadpool]

Question gender politics in games: WHY DON'T YOU RESPECT ARTISTIC VISION?!?!?!

Dislike the ending of Mass Effect 3: CHANGE THIS SO I LIKE IT BETTER!!!

I like how people go to the automatic extreme of "pandering" and "censorship," then PROJECT that onto others UNTIL it's something they ACTUALLY care about.