Jimquisition: Creative Freedom, Strings Attached

[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.

 

[nuttshell]

30-something white male action hero is boring and insipid because he's default. He requires no intelligence or creativity to write. He requires no thinking whatsoever. In that case, there's no reason NOT to provide a female alternative - it would take exactly one more character model to allow the option, making people happy who want a female while taking nothing from those who don't. Putting Lara Croft and Nathan Drake together in the same game only increases the audience.
But to make the main protagonist something OTHER than the default requires that there be some thought given to the narrative. The story of a female protagonist isn't by necessity better or worse - but it is different. It is not standard. It requires us to leave the default area and explore someplace we may not have before. And that can only be good for the game, and for gaming as a whole.

One character trait doesn't make it automatically good or even thought-through. The question of gender in games is simply a cosmetic question if you don't do anything meaningfull with it. This demand looks to me like this: "Gee, I wish I had a red sword instead of blue." If you want different cosmetics, go for JRPGs, platformers, fighters...hell, even in strategy, you'll find good things that look different to the "norm". It doesn't require thought to put tits on a 3D/2D model. What you do with it, is what's important. Look at Remember Me and how well that female model added to the depth. Look at Tomb Raider and how well we can see Lara's character arcs...yea, great job. I am not saying, these games can't be fun. I am saying, if you want different, it better really be different, or you'll be getting exactly the same package, just wrapped up in a slightly different way.

Nobody who is asking for variety wants the default excluded, in spite of what internet hatemongers say.

There are people who are not simply asking for variety. There are people (some of them, who don't even play games), who want games to only include what they feel is right. There are even people out there, who work towards censoring yours and my entertainment because they think, this will get them a few more views/votes.

But it seems bizarre to me that so many should argue so vehemently that women have no place in the narratives of games, save as something to be saved by or rewarded to the hero at the end of all the action.

If that is really what so many people want, I agree, it is bizarre. There is however, a big demographic, who wants simple, mindless fun. And deep characters and engaging dialogue is not what makes Dynasty Warriors great. If you really want more, you can find it. Old CRPGs, JRPGs, Tales of Xillia just came out, Project Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenerra are coming out next year, Beyond Good & Evil is getting a sequel.

If you just ask for female protagonists and not well done female protagonists, admit, that you are just asking for a red sword instead of a blue one.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

What happened at PAX other than Mighty No. 9?:O

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

Your avatar is Sayaka Miki from Madoka Magica so you know you want one.

Anyway, I believe the idea is that, since there is such a disparity of male leads vs. female leads in the game industry, that the trend itself is suspect as well as the games that fall into it. If a game stars male protagonists only, one often wonder why that might of have chosen. There is a reason that people go with the artistic decision that they do, I don't think it is caused by some quantum randomness.

 

[nuttshell]

I wonder if you're really getting what I'm saying, or if you're just responding to what you think I'm saying.

You know, I start to wonder myself. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter, if CoD (I use that to give the best example of AAA) has a female protagonist, because the game is allready too shallow, to explore the character of a male one. No one says: "Gee, I wish action movies could show me all the different facettes of issues of lesbian women." Riddick happens to have one in there and the critics complain, how Riddick fails to portrait those issues. I pointed you to a few games who do or will probably do many different characters well. I can point you to many other titles if you wish. If GTA V had a female in there, people won't say: "Yay! We sure are happy, we got a female character!", they would complain how poorly she is done, completely oblivious to how every other character in every GTA game is poorly done. There is variety, you are simply looking in the wrong places. 30-something white male action hero isn't boring and insipid because he's the default, he is boring and insipid because he says and does boring and insipid things.

 

[Batou667]

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".

Yeah, Jim has a tendency to take a valid point that could be written on the back of a postage stamp and string it out across an 8-minute video.

In this case, the condensed version could read "Where there is art, there are critics".

 

[nuttshell]

Yeah, see, you're carrying on an argument with a position you've invented for your opposition, instead of actually trying to have a discussion about the topic.

We'll see about that.

Firstly, I said quite clearly that for those games where it doesn't matter who the hero is there's no reason not to give people the option - to which your response is 'there's no point giving people the option because the character doesn't matter' which I simply don't understand. If it changes nothing having the option, why is that a reason to leave the option out and alienate the people who want it?

See, I don't understand why it is so important to have the option. Why and if it is really "alienating". And if that is the case, look no further: tons of MMOs, RPGs with character creation even some older multiplayer shooters do this. I played Tomb Raider and I didn't have a problem.

There is a lack of female representation argument and there is a poor female representation argument. Both of these arguments are related, yes, but they are not the same.

In a select few games, which almost allways have poor characters. Seriously, did it do Resident Evil 6 any good, to have female playable characters? The plot and characters were important there and they were really poorly done and it blew. These arguments are very closely related, which makes them both important at the same time. For those people who want "representation" but don't care about depth, there are tons of choices. For those, who want depth, regardless of "representation" there are fewer options but they are still there. I will still argue, that it is "presentation" what you mean because "representation" in art, demands a certain depth.

The second argument requires a bit of nuance and a willingness to discuss gender representations and their effects on society, but that's not what I was talking about here. If you'd like to have that discussion, we can, but I'm not going to unless you're willing to come in to it with an open mind - which I find is rarely the case on these forums.

Maybe you can present good and new arguments which I would be willing to listen too. If you would repeat the arguments mostly seen on these forums in the past two months, I'm not interested.

Also, you cannot say how people would react to a female PC in GTA V, and it's disingenuous of you to do so. You're attributing arguments to people who haven't (and indeed can't) make them in order to cast those people in a negative light, and that's an underhanded way to argue. Further, it's based on your misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of their arguments, which makes that whole line of reasoning utterly spurious on top of being inherently shady.

I think, I made an entirely believable prophecy, based on recent events. I know, I can't prove it, however I don't think it makes me any more "shadier" than the critics who spouted "sexism and misogyny!" at The Last of Us.

Thirdly, the reason the 30 something action hero says and does boring things is because he's following such an overused character trope...

There you go. You are now talking about character, not visual aesthetics.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

I think we should focus less on defending the producer's right to create as they wish, as it's implicit (certainly haven't seen any proposed censorship or enforced gender quotas, have we?), and more on defending legitimate criticism and why that should be listened to, even if not agreed with. The conclusion of this video is a bit too much of stalemate for my liking - everyone says wot their feels are and then let the market decide. As we've seen the market is quite happy to perpetuate the status quo as much as change things - vocal criticism, and vocal defense of it, is needed more than the multi-billion dollar companies need their creative heads patted.

 

[captainsavvy]

The train of thought that I've seen some have here that 'men write men best and women write women best' or 'I'm a man and don't understand what it's like to be a woman therefore I cannot do a female character justice' reminds of the George RR Martin quote. He was asked how he writes such strong female characters. His was response was that he just treats them like people.

Maybe it's a simplistic way to look at it, and yes there are differences (both subtle and obvious) in the way men and women are likely to do/react to some things, but actually, if you think about it, are they really always going to behave that differently in the context of the limited roles video game protagonists have? Is a female soldier going to shoot people differently to a man? Is a female warrior going to kill orcs drastically differently?

I think what I'm getting at is everyone makes such a big deal about how different men and women would behave in a video game, that maybe they forget that some things wouldn't actually be that different at all. And that the common behaviours might outweigh the differences.

Or I could be talking bollocks.

 

[nuttshell]

See, already you've shut down the potential for considering a different viewpoint...

Nope. I wrote, I would listen to different viewpoints than the ones allready discussed at very tiresome lengths in the past few months in here.

I haven't been on the forums in the last two months, so I have no idea what arguments have or haven't been made. How am I meant to tell what you consider 'acceptable'?

You could try to use the search function. I will even give you a few keywords: Anita Sarkeesian, sexism, Dragons Crown, Last of Us sexism, mysogyny, violence and vidio games. You can even search for the threads where I posted and you will find plenty of discussion in those threads.

This is the kind of attitude I'm talking about when I say that people aren't willing to keep an open mind. And it really makes me wonder what the point of all this arguing is.

I am keeping an open mind for new things. I find it very tiresome, to repeat old arguments unless I am very keen to work on my argumentative skills.

 

[Look-a-Hill]

Everything on the Jimquisition about women in video games has been very interesting and I've agreed, as I think everyone should have done, with all of it thus far. Any prejudice is not on. But this "well if your game has a man in it I want to be able to ask why it's not a woman" is just an incredibly tedious topic. It's a point that could be made if there is an element of character creation involved. Where you play an empty shell of a character that experiences the goings-on around them. Be it a Dark Souls/COD/Saints Row/whatever. Everyone should have the option to roleplay themselves as a superherosoliderknightwhatever.

But making a point of it all the time is just not necessary. This argument is never (or at least I've never heard it mentioned) brought up in regards to film or books. I've never heard anyone say "well why isn't Jason Bourne a girl?". No one cares that Harry Potter is a boy, and plenty of girls were able to identify with that character and world. The same way I'm sure boys can enjoy the adventure of that lass in Pan's Labyrinth.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be more variety in games, and the majority of characters, particularly lead ones are male, but that really just goes back to the other issues regarding women that have been mentioned in this series.

Yes, people are well in their rights to ask why a character isn't this or that, and maybe it could do some good in opening up opportunities for games to feature more female characters (that's actually a much better point than anything Jim bothered to mention*) but it just reeks of desperately wanting to seem overtly conscientious and progressive.

*It was super hard to conclude this post whilst maintaining the critical approach of the sentiment when I've pretty much just destroyed my own argument. Though I suppose there are other ways to make the point without being a tedious bore about it.

 

[Shuu]

To throw a wrench into this...

It's impossible for a playble character (when playable) to have a gender other than the players. The player is part of the playable character, and the physical absolutes that defines the genders are impossible to measure on virtual character. Than logic follows that what the player identify as defines the gender of the playable character.

Edit: What I'm saying is that if Half-Life 2 is played by someone identifying as female, Gordon Freeman is female in that case. If played by someone idenifying as male, Gordon is male.

Respectfully, I think that's a crock of shit. What you are saying is true of somebody who projects themself onto the characters they play, but not everybody does that, even in games where they get to make their own character. For those such games, I usually choose a female character, even though I am a man and very much identify as one. Because I don't see the player as myself, I see them as a new character, and I am telling the story of them, or simply playing somebody else' story of them, or anywhere in between depending on how much creativity the game in question affords the player.
You can't say that a woman can't play as a dude without imagining them as a woman any more than you can suggest that a female writer can't write male characters without imagining them as women.

 

[Goliath100]

You can't say that a woman can't play as a dude without imagining them as a woman any more than you can suggest that a female writer can't write male characters without imagining them as women.

I gonna take personal blame for this, because clearly it wasn't explained very well. Because, like everyone else, you have proved you didn't get it.
Principle 1: You are not a gender, you identify as one.
Principle 2: The player is part of the avatar (playable character), which is an undeniable quirk of the medium. If you want to deny it, start a new game on your favorite action game and tell me how long you get without any input from a player.
The player is identifying FOR the avatar, subconsciously.

 

[Nergui]

Everything on the Jimquisition about women in video games has been very interesting and I've agreed, as I think everyone should have done, with all of it thus far. Any prejudice is not on. But this "well if your game has a man in it I want to be able to ask why it's not a woman" is just an incredibly tedious topic. It's a point that could be made if there is an element of character creation involved. Where you play an empty shell of a character that experiences the goings-on around them. Be it a Dark Souls/COD/Saints Row/whatever. Everyone should have the option to roleplay themselves as a superherosoliderknightwhatever.

But making a point of it all the time is just not necessary. This argument is never (or at least I've never heard it mentioned) brought up in regards to film or books. I've never heard anyone say "well why isn't Jason Bourne a girl?". No one cares that Harry Potter is a boy, and plenty of girls were able to identify with that character and world. The same way I'm sure boys can enjoy the adventure of that lass in Pan's Labyrinth.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be more variety in games, and the majority of characters, particularly lead ones are male, but that really just goes back to the other issues regarding women that have been mentioned in this series.

Yes, people are well in their rights to ask why a character isn't this or that, and maybe it could do some good in opening up opportunities for games to feature more female characters (that's actually a much better point than anything Jim bothered to mention*) but it just reeks of desperately wanting to seem overtly conscientious and progressive.

*It was super hard to conclude this post whilst maintaining the critical approach of the sentiment when I've pretty much just destroyed my own argument. Though I suppose there are other ways to make the point without being a tedious bore about it.

It may be a tedious subject, for you, but the subject's source doesn't change thus it stays relevant given that all too many games have a white male as the only character option. There is a big difference between 'watching a movie' and 'playing a game'. That being the former is passive and the latter being interactive. "You are watching Jason Bourne" is an intrinsically different experience to "You are playing as Jason Bourne".

Those same women you reference if given the option in a Harry Potter game would probably want to play as Hermione. "You are playing as Hermione Granger" if written well doesn't devalue "You are playing as Harry Potter".