Jimquisition: The Creepy Cull of Female Protagonists

[Shellsh0cker]

I first became aware of this little fiasco (and, incidentally, of Remember Me's existence) via Monday's episode of Checkpoint, LRR's gaming news show over on PATV. So, first of all: thanks you, news scandal, for alerting me to the existence of a game that looks totally fucking awesome. Got my pre-order in about six hours later.

My reaction to the issue itself, however? I was, well, flabbergasted. Seriously, I thought the industry was over this. Did everybody forget how positive the player reaction was to Femshep getting her own trailer during the advertising cycle for ME3? I'm also pretty sure Tomb Raider has been doing well for over a decade now, and that sure as hell features a female protagonist. It was at this point that I realized that I was already out of AAA titles with female PC's, and I got seriously annoyed. So yeah, this is a problem, and I'm just as frustrated as Jim with the lack of an obvious culprit.

I mean, sure, there are other examples of strong female characters in gaming. But they're all relatively sexless (Chell and Samus, and to some extent Lara Croft as well), not player characters (Alyx and Elizabeth), or their games are relatively low-profile (Jade, Nariko). Or they are player characters, but are marketed as sex objects anyway (Bayonetta, every female fighting game character outside of Super Smash Bros.).

Look, I'm hardly siding with Anita Sarkeesian here. Harmony, that woman is infuriating. But, again, this is a problem, and while I may not know who to glare at, I think the developers are going to have to take the lead on this one. The fastest and best way for this to turn around is people making more games with female leads.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Being a man and preferring to play as one doesn't necessarily bill you as a xenophobe

We aren't talking about preference, we are talking about extreme exclusion... that it doesn't matter how good or amazing a game is, the idea is that a female lead is worse than "not preferable" but "actively avoided". To the point where publishers decree developers categorically cannot have a female lead.

THAT is the problem. The idea that a game like Bioshock Infinite would be irrevocably doomed by having a "Becky DeWitt" rather than "Booker DeWitt" as the lead role.

That's the lie the industry is indulging with.

Games aren't being decided on their inherent artistic merit, and yes, being entertaining is that. It's being decided by out of touch publishers who are trying to design games by numbers. Not scientific numbers, voodoo statistics of BS correlations and blatant uncritical bias.

Be honest, a great game like Bioshock Infinite... would a female lead really have ruined that game?

Of course not. That's not what I was suggesting, either. Just about the only reason that honestly justifies DeWitt being male - and it's a flimsy one, considering which game we're talking about - is historical accuracy. Female Pinkertons weren't exactly a dime a dozen, and I haven't heard of female 7th Cavalry soldiers being forced to cope with Wounded Knee's aftermath.

Beyond those historical tidbits? Nope. No reason for DeWitt not to be female, I'll agree. What I was saying is that unfortunately, some gamers need to be reminded of what you've just tried to mention; which is that extreme exclusion is a talking point, as opposed to personal preference.

Don't forget: the status quo is always comfortable to some. You'll find that some male gamers just aren't comfortable with playing a character of the opposite gender for no really defensible reason. The thought just happens to upset their Dudebro Habits, and Dudebro Habits inform purchases and rentals. Ergo, back to square one, wherein gamers deny themselves unique experiences by *allegedly* going "Aw, yuck, this game has a chick as the main character! I'ma catch the Ghey!"

As I've said in my other post, though, I doubt this kind of gamer actually does exist. Outside of douchecanoes like Aris Baktarians who probably haven't matured outside of the recess yard somewhere deep down, the industry is both being pushed and pushing itself to further the image of the Average Gamer as being a tween or teen who needs to have his burgeoning sense of masculinity flattered.

We both know that's not the case. The stats are pretty clear: female gamers form a sizable market, and the age range has considerably widened. There's always going to be hormonal teens in the mix so the Dudebro-slash-E-Peen-Stroking mentality will always have *some* amount of influence - but I see this changing sooner, rather than later.

I somehow doubt that I'll want to keep playing as a thirtysomething Caucasian male with brown hair and a square jaw, once I'll have turned sixty. Either I'll transitioned outside of the gaming scene altogether, or my tastes in gameplay experiences will have continued to broaden.

 

[Partezan]

Yea, nooope. He's calling out the guys that are saying they can't play as a female because they don't want to maybe have to play a scenario where the lead has adult times with a male. The majority of the video is him raging against an industry that seems determined to ignore that women are customers and that they deserve more than to be depicted as objects in so many games. He also makes mention that games can't even be arsed to offer the chance for players to create a character that they want. If games went about it like BioWare does, then this wouldn't be such an issue (the marketing part would, though). But the games don't even offer that much. So, in a game like Bioshock, preferences is a non-issue because there's only one option, regardless of the players' desire.

And so what? I fast forward through all the romance scenes in action movies, yes I will watch a romance movie once in a while but in general I care very little for it, do I deserve to be called a creep or be told that I have a problem for it?

In a game you want to loose yourself in the character and if mid game that character gets out some lube and gives his boyfriend and enema so he can slid inside him easier it would throw most people off.

And Im sure there are gay and female games out there, it's just that they are the minority because the market is the minority. If the market was full of women there would be a bunch of female leads and no one would say a word about there being too many female characters, no, it's up to the creators what story and what characters to use and it's up to the people to choose who they play as, full stop.

 

[Grahav]

Can't we talk about drugs or something like that?

 

[theultimateend]

Okay, fuck it!
I always play as a male in character creation RPGs because I like projecting myself into a character.
Next time though, I'm gunna try playing as a woman. MY SENSE OF SELF CAN TAKE IT!

Jim, call me! <3

I occasionally try to play a woman.

100% of the time I'm basically just playing myself but in a woman's body. I end up hitting on the women characters and taking the dude options anytime they come up.

I'm not a clever man. It has nothing to do with trying to be edgy and everything to do with me only being able to roleplay myself.

I'm always a dude, and always nice, I can't choose mean options for shit :/.

 

[Erttheking]

Words

Yes, a lack of representation is oppression. It's an aspect of it. If a group that actively contributes to a industry is only allowed to see themselves depicted in negative lights, they are being told by that industry that they aren't equal to the majority the industry feel beholden too (in this case, hetero males).

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up MLK. And it shows that you ignored part of my initial comment towards you. I specifically said in discussions of oppression, that you need both the civil debaters, and the rabble rousers. So yes, MLK went the path of peace. But way to forget Malcom X and the Black Panthers that push for their people to not just passive wait for whites to see them as humans. The Civil Rights movement was a collection of both extremes pushing against bigotry.

First of all, let's take a quick look at the definition of what it means to oppress. If you just Google it you get a definition right away

Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority.

A lack of female characters doesn't sound like keeping them in subservience and hardship. I agree that this is a problem, but I feel like you're blowing it way out of proportion.

Second, that's debatable. Considering that I have absolutely no idea who Malcom X and the Black Panthers are, I can't really comment on that, but judging by waht Church185 said, he wasn't a very pleasant man, and kinda sounds like all those people who led revolutions in Mexico, only to become dictators themselves. In the end, being no better than the people they were fighting. I'm just saying, there's probably a reason we don't talk about him in school the same way we do MLK. Because MLK is looked at by many as the man who took the high path and got his people the rights he deserved, while Malcom X is probably remembered as some nut job. Just because people like him existed in the civil rights movements, doesn't mean that they were helping.

Third...just read this quote from Amazing Grace.

When people speak of great men, they think of men like Napoleon - men of violence. Rarely do they think of peaceful men. But contrast the reception they will receive when they return home from their battles. Napoleon will arrive in pomp and in power, a man who's achieved the very summit of earthly ambition. And yet his dreams will be haunted by the oppressions of war. William Wilberforce, however, will return to his family, lay his head on his pillow and remember: the slave trade is no more.

Just think about that. It's the high road, and the high road is rarely the easier one.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

snip.

What anime is your avatar from?

OT: I like female protagonists. FF6 and Eternal Darkness which rank up on my list of greatest games have heroines as main characters.

I recently purchased beyond good and evil as well on psn which i still haven't completed. I would have gotten further if it weren't for Disgaea 4

 

[longboardfan]

The Creepy Cull of Female Protagonists

The game industry doesn't want female characters. That is allegedly the message publishers have been sending to developers.

Watch Video

There are times, when I wonder if you even play games Jim. Bioware games and pretty much any game and mmo where you can select your character's gender. And there are more women in games than just that one fighting game with large titty'd women with jiggle physics. Just thought I'd let you know. You seem to have a hard time finding the useful, non-retarded female characters who have roles, a story, and are a part of the plot.

I'd blame market pressures by feminist groups that constantly say that there's nothing that women can do that isn't part of some patriarchal hegemony's plans to suppress females. Strong characters, weak characters, it doesn't seem to matter to them. To them, all women characters are oppressed and evidence of oppression. Companies see this coming from well funded groups and follow the lies hook line and sinker.

I'd also like to blame publishers for further homogenizing the game industry with its 'appeal to a wider audience' approach. We had a lot more good female characters before everything was an action shooter.

 

[Technicka]

First of all, let's take a quick look at the definition of what it means to oppress. If you just Google it you get a definition right away

Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority.

A lack of female characters doesn't sound like keeping them in subservience and hardship. I agree that this is a problem, but I feel like you're blowing it way out of proportion.

And when an industry reinforces an idea that women aren't as valued as men, that isn't aiding with overall oppression? Do you think slavery was the only oppression that blacks endured, where profiling and segregation don't count? Because with such a narrow view of what oppression actually is, it's no small wonder you wouldn't see an issue with how games are still treating women.

Second, that's debatable. Considering that I have absolutely no idea who Malcom X and the Black Panthers are, I can't really comment on that, but judging by waht Church185 said, he wasn't a very pleasant man, and kinda sounds like all those people who led revolutions in Mexico, only to become dictators themselves. In the end, being no better than the people they were fighting. I'm just saying, there's probably a reason we don't talk about him in school the same way we do MLK. Because MLK is looked at by many as the man who took the high path and got his people the rights he deserved, while Malcom X is probably remembered as some nut job. Just because people like him existed in the civil rights movements, doesn't mean that they were helping.

The fact that MLK is the most famous of the civil rights leader isn't a sign of how effective he is/was. It's a sign of how effective, and prevalent, racism still is. Malcolm X promoted self defense. he spoke out against the notion that white America simply making laws was good enough. A quote by him:

?You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress ... No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I am concerned, as long as it is not shown to everyone of our people in this country, it doesn't exist for me.?

He disagreed with MLK on many things, but he respected what he was doing, and respected the non-violent way. He didn't push for blacks to go out and attack whites. He just preached that they should have a healthy distrust of a society that still saw them as little better than animals.

As for the Black Panthers, they played a more middle of the road path. Peaceful protesting, and educating their people was their primary focus, but they weren't afraid to fight back when attacked.

You do yourself a disservice by even mentioning MLK, and not actually having a full grasp of what went on during the Civil Rights Era. Because it was more than just MLK working for equality.

Third...just read this quote from Amazing Grace.

When people speak of great men, they think of men like Napoleon - men of violence. Rarely do they think of peaceful men. But contrast the reception they will receive when they return home from their battles. Napoleon will arrive in pomp and in power, a man who's achieved the very summit of earthly ambition. And yet his dreams will be haunted by the oppressions of war. William Wilberforce, however, will return to his family, lay his head on his pillow and remember: the slave trade is no more.

Just think about that. It's the high road, and the high road is rarely the easier one.

And, again, you're only thinking in extremes. As I said numerous times, both methods of combating bigotry are important to have. Niceness/Civility will eventually meet the roadblock of stubborness of oppressors, whereas unflinching harshness will knock that wall down. The methods work in tandem.

 

[Erttheking]

First of all, let's take a quick look at the definition of what it means to oppress. If you just Google it you get a definition right away

Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority.

A lack of female characters doesn't sound like keeping them in subservience and hardship. I agree that this is a problem, but I feel like you're blowing it way out of proportion.

And when an industry reinforces an idea that women aren't as valued as men, that isn't aiding with overall oppression? Do you think slavery was the only oppression that blacks endured, where profiling and segregation don't count? Because with such a narrow view of what oppression actually is, it's no small wonder you wouldn't see an issue with how games are still treating women.

Second, that's debatable. Considering that I have absolutely no idea who Malcom X and the Black Panthers are, I can't really comment on that, but judging by waht Church185 said, he wasn't a very pleasant man, and kinda sounds like all those people who led revolutions in Mexico, only to become dictators themselves. In the end, being no better than the people they were fighting. I'm just saying, there's probably a reason we don't talk about him in school the same way we do MLK. Because MLK is looked at by many as the man who took the high path and got his people the rights he deserved, while Malcom X is probably remembered as some nut job. Just because people like him existed in the civil rights movements, doesn't mean that they were helping.

The fact that MLK is the most famous of the civil rights leader isn't a sign of how effective he is/was. It's a sign of how effective, and prevalent, racism still is. Malcolm X promoted self defense. he spoke out against the notion that white America simply making laws was good enough. A quote by him:

?You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress ... No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I am concerned, as long as it is not shown to everyone of our people in this country, it doesn't exist for me.?

He disagreed with MLK on many things, but he respected what he was doing, and respected the non-violent way. He didn't push for blacks to go out and attack whites. He just preached that they should have a healthy distrust of a society that still saw them as little better than animals.

As for the Black Panthers, they played a more middle of the road path. Peaceful protesting, and educating their people was their primary focus, but they weren't afraid to fight back when attacked.

You do yourself a disservice by even mentioning MLK, and not actually having a full grasp of what went on during the Civil Rights Era. Because it was more than just MLK working for equality.

Third...just read this quote from Amazing Grace.

When people speak of great men, they think of men like Napoleon - men of violence. Rarely do they think of peaceful men. But contrast the reception they will receive when they return home from their battles. Napoleon will arrive in pomp and in power, a man who's achieved the very summit of earthly ambition. And yet his dreams will be haunted by the oppressions of war. William Wilberforce, however, will return to his family, lay his head on his pillow and remember: the slave trade is no more.

Just think about that. It's the high road, and the high road is rarely the easier one.

And, again, you're only thinking in extremes. As I said numerous times, both methods of combating bigotry are important to have. Niceness/Civility will eventually meet the roadblock of stubborness of oppressors, whereas unflinching harshness will knock that wall down. The methods work in tandem.

I do see an issue, don't put words in my mouth, but oppression is a very strong word. It's when people don't get payed equally and don't have as much rights, not when an entertainment medium doesn't use them as characters that much. If I think that slavery is the only problem that they faced, then how come my main argument for the peaceful removal of rights was about a man who lived a hundred years after slavery was outlawed.

Yes, I know that he wasn't the only one, but he was the most popular one, and for a good reason. I'm just pointing out that when you bring up a guy and I have no idea who he is, history probably doesn't want to look on him with a very positive light. Especially considering that apparently he was promoting black supremacy, again, being just as bad as the people he was trying to overthrow. Exactly why should we look up to this guy instead of Dr. King? The Black Panthers sound a lot better, but again, they responded when physically attacked...you're not getting physically attacked, or attacked in anyway.

I'm trying to make a point. And the way that you word it, you make it sound like being completely brash and violent is the only way to get anything done. That peaceful protests are pointless and that everyone in America who wants to make gay marriage legal should stop with the peaceful protests and act with as much civility as the WBC. That's what it sounds like when you word it that way anyway.

 

[Do4600]

Mass Effect was Massively (Pun intended) advertised, a high profile game where you can play either gender, and still. Only 18% of players played as a female...

How does playing as femshep really change the game except superficially? What's the difference? You can sex up Garrus? I don't care! I never cared about the romance in Mass Effect, sex honestly has never sold me video games, so giving me a different romance option is "tits on a bull" useless.

Thats rather the point.

The character is exactyly the same no matter what gender you pick, and so very few people picked to play a female.

The same goes for many games where you can choose to play a female protagonist, hell, I forget what my character even looks like let alone what race or gender they are in Skyrim between changing pieces of armor. Let's face it, most of the time in video games it doesn't matter what the gender of the main character is or lack there of, all that matters is that they kill aliens, or demons or terrorists.

 

[Edguy]

It should be taken into account that a big majority of the people who write, design and direct games are men, and so it is much more natural and easy for them to create a male protagonist than a female.

 

[Technicka]

[snipped

Opression isn't just one thing, though. it's a system. And the system only works when it's reinforced in all aspects of society. If women can't even get a fair shake in entertainment, who can we expect to ge get fair treatment in pay equality? In education? In healthcare? If society can't/won't deal with the small stuff, why would they even bother with the big issues? Simply put, they won't. So the little slights and micro-aggressions (which have been show to adversely effect marginalized groups), get ignored, and the big things just drag on. You don't fix a heavily damaged house from the top down. You have to strengthen the foundation. So games/TV/movies/and the like are a worthwhile fight for women. Gamin is no longer a teenagers field. The age range has widened, and younger and younger people are getting in on the fun. So if we can start with them, and raise a whole new generation of gamers that don't see women in games as simply accessories. Then arguing that they have better parts in movies isn't that much harder, and then fighting to show that women aren't lesser becomes less of a chore. It all adds up.

MLK wasn't the most popular one. Malcom X and the Panthers got as much press coverage as he did. yuou're ignorance of the later two is only a testament to how far from MLK (and Malcom's, and the Panther's) dream we are. Of course a country that still fights tooth and nail to keep white as the group in power wouldn't go out of its way to educate people on who Malcom X was. He didn't play nice. he wasn't trying to make friends. He didn't trust the government (and why should he? They hadn't done anything to warrant it). His so-called black supremacy was for black people to to unite in such a way that white people couldn't oppress them ever again. he wanted equality, but unlike MLK, he wasn't looking to hold hands with whites. Not because he saw them as inferior, but because he didn't see a point in being friendly with a society built off his forefather's blood. Same for the Panthers. They encouraged neighborhoods to ward off police brutality be always moving in groups. They made sure kids in their areas got school supplies and lunches (something many places weren't bothering with in segregated areas). The preached that the the only way to ensure their rights were given, and remained so, was to get into the system; become lawyers and politicians; be the decision makers and policy creators.

Your arguments are ridiculous since you only know of one activist, and what little you do know of the others is hearsay from another person that knows about as little as you. So let's say we lay off of using the Civil Rights Era since there's gaps large enough to fit Asia in with what you don't know on the topic?

I'm trying to make a point. And the way that you word it, you make it sound like being completely brash and violent is the only way to get anything done. That peaceful protests are pointless and that everyone in America who wants to make gay marriage legal should stop with the peaceful protests and act with as much civility as the WBC. That's what it sounds like when you word it that way anyway.

I'm convinced you can't read. Since I keep saying that both peaceful resistance, and aggressive push-back, are needed for lasting change. Just relying on one will never work because not everyone will be effected by kind words or harsh language. Just as some kids can be reasoned with when they act up, others need a swift swat to their bums. And in the end that's what the groups with privilege are: spoilt children.

 

[Erttheking]

[snipped

Opression isn't just one thing, though. it's a system. And the system only works when it's reinforced in all aspects of society. If women can't even get a fair shake in entertainment, who can we expect to ge get fair treatment in pay equality? In education? In healthcare? If society can't/won't deal with the small stuff, why would they even bother with the big issues? Simply put, they won't. So the little slights and micro-aggressions (which have been show to adversely effect marginalized groups), get ignored, and the big things just drag on. You don't fix a heavily damaged house from the top down. You have to strengthen the foundation. So games/TV/movies/and the like are a worthwhile fight for women. Gamin is no longer a teenagers field. The age range has widened, and younger and younger people are getting in on the fun. So if we can start with them, and raise a whole new generation of gamers that don't see women in games as simply accessories. Then arguing that they have better parts in movies isn't that much harder, and then fighting to show that women aren't lesser becomes less of a chore. It all adds up.

MLK wasn't the most popular one. Malcom X and the Panthers got as much press coverage as he did. yuou're ignorance of the later two is only a testament to how far from MLK (and Malcom's, and the Panther's) dream we are. Of course a country that still fights tooth and nail to keep white as the group in power wouldn't go out of its way to educate people on who Malcom X was. He didn't play nice. he wasn't trying to make friends. He didn't trust the government (and why should he? They hadn't done anything to warrant it). His so-called black supremacy was for black people to to unite in such a way that white people couldn't oppress them ever again. he wanted equality, but unlike MLK, he wasn't looking to hold hands with whites. Not because he saw them as inferior, but because he didn't see a point in being friendly with a society built off his forefather's blood. Same for the Panthers. They encouraged neighborhoods to ward off police brutality be always moving in groups. They made sure kids in their areas got school supplies and lunches (something many places weren't bothering with in segregated areas). The preached that the the only way to ensure their rights were given, and remained so, was to get into the system; become lawyers and politicians; be the decision makers and policy creators.

Your arguments are ridiculous since you only know of one activist, and what little you do know of the others is hearsay from another person that knows about as little as you. So let's say we lay off of using the Civil Rights Era since there's gaps large enough to fit Asia in with what you don't know on the topic?

I'm trying to make a point. And the way that you word it, you make it sound like being completely brash and violent is the only way to get anything done. That peaceful protests are pointless and that everyone in America who wants to make gay marriage legal should stop with the peaceful protests and act with as much civility as the WBC. That's what it sounds like when you word it that way anyway.

I'm convinced you can't read. Since I keep saying that both peaceful resistance, and aggressive push-back, are needed for lasting change. Just relying on one will never work because not everyone will be effected by kind words or harsh language. Just as some kids can be reasoned with when they act up, others need a swift swat to their bums. And in the end that's what the groups with privilege are: spoilt children.

You're saying that if women can't get equal amounts of characters in video games, then attempting to get them equal pay and rights? If history has shown anything, the civil rights and feminist movement didn't start small, they started big. They didn't go after more spots on television, they went for the right to vote, and they have the right to vote now. They still don't have equal representation in media, but they're making progress in the major fields like education and pay. You start with the big stuff before moving onto the little stuff, it's a trickle down effect.

I'm pointing out that history seems to be pointing towards peaceful...

....was that called for? Was that really called for? You know, I'm getting tired of this argument pretty quickly. You're insulting my intelligence, my nationality and flat out saying I can't read. Why should I put up with this and keep up with the debate? I shouldn't, it's the same reason that I get tired of all the sexism debates, because sooner or later it ends up flying into this territory. I haven't insulted you once in this whole debate, yet you can't extend the same common courtesy to me?

I'm done. Goodbye.

 

[Technicka]

Before voting women fought for the right to be in schools, to be able to keep their maiden names, to wear pants (an arguably minor thing, yes?). And people are able to fight on multiple fronts against oppression. you keep simplifying it as an A -> B -> C situation. Whereas I have been saying that the little things are the gears that keep the big things going. And when the big fights are at a standstill, or regressing (sure women can vote, but we're having agency over our bodies slowly taken away again, and access to adequate healthcare being disputed). So now it's time to start disrupting the little things to shake it up. Again the idea is to attack from multiple sides.

History is written by those in power/the victor. Like I said, those in power aren't going to discuss (and make a hero) out of a man that preaches distrust towards those in power. And it's hardly in favor of the peaceful. Open a US History book and you'll see great chunks of it dedicated to the Revolutionary War. As in, the war were colonists used violence to combat oppression. And one. So there goes the argument that peace is the sure-fire way. And the very government that MLK preached civility towards had no qualms with seeing to his assassination. So, like I said, peace will only get you so far.

And yes, I'm calling your reading comprehension into question. When I've repeatedly said one thing, and continue to ignore half of it to insist I said something else. The only logical solution is that you're missing something. Unless you mean to tell me that you're deliberately ignoring the other half of what I was saying in regards to civility and aggression in order to continue harping on this idea that I was advocating for a violence-only approach. I call your intelligence into question because you bring up a figure from a point in history that you know very little about. Why would you even do that? That'd be like me bringing up Gandhi. Sure I know about him, but I know little else of Indian history, especially during that period..and it'd be a foolish thing to try and come from a place of substantial knowledge on that area. because for all I know, you could be a major in Indian history, or have a wealth of facts on British Imperialism. In any 'debate' you stick with what you know full stop. Anything else, you leave to others that know it. Which is why I didn't jump in when posters were talking sales numbers and percentages.

And this hasn't really been much of a debate, let's be real. You've been tone policing the entire time, which of itself is insulting. And now you're angry because I refuse to placate your demands of flowery speech.

 

[DjinnFor]

*snip*.

You're just strawmanning everything I say by blowing it completely out of proportion or context. I understand you have an emotional connection to the topic but that's no excuse for flipping out.

But you, a guy, just can't handle the idea of playing a chick. It just short circuits your mind, and ruins the game for you.

Short circuits my mind? Ruins the game for me? Uh, no.

I clearly had no trouble playing Tomb Raider despite acknowledging that the emotional impact of one of the scenes was completely absent for me.

Do you not see how this defense is little more than a backhanded insult to your own mental capacities? Straight white dudes can't get over a potential scene where the female lead kisses a dude.

I said the emotional connection isn't as strong and the scene isn't as immersive, not that people have trouble "getting over it". Regardless of what you think it ruins the impact of the story.

But women have done it for decades. LGBTQ folk have done it for decades. People of colour have done it for decades. We can do it, and you can't.

You can feel empathy for the impersonal because your tendencies to the contrary been trained out of you over an extended period of time, you mean? Isn't that exactly what I said needed to happen?

Not my fault I'm only human, though, and haven't had the same decade long training opportunity as you. Still doesn't justify publishers voluntarily taking a loss funding an AAA IP with a female lead designed to appeal to females and not males.

In any case, I seriously doubt you actually have the level of empathy you claim you have.

Is that really something to brag about?

What the fuck did you read? Because it sure as hell wasn't my post if you got the impression I was bragging.

 

[TheLion]

I arrived at this thread approximately 17 hours after original posting of the video. There is currently 423 posts.

In 17 hours.

What I find sad is that a flame war RIVALING THAT ON GUNS, RELIGION, AND JUSTIFICATION FOR WARS, is still going on and still strong. On a subject that is essentially the same if you replaced word "Female" with "Black person" (I refuse to use African-American because it discriminates against Black Europeans, there found a PC way to end the use of the term African-American). That is right anyone saying that there is no sexism in games is the same as saying, Jim Crow Laws were not racist.


I agree with Jim 100% this time. This does not happen often, usually I agree with him about 70-80% (usually disagreeing on the solution or the severity of the problem). But in this case, he may be understating the problem a bit.

As much as I hate to be off topic, you seem to be under the impression that African-American is a substitute for "Black", in that it's just another means of denoting race. The term references people of the who are descended from African slaves of the USA only; it's more about history and geography than phenotype. Similar terms for other nations and regions are Afro-Brazilian, Afro-Brit, and Afro-Caribbean. In the case of African migrants, terms like Nigerian-American, or even Igbo-American, would be more accurate in the same way we would use Irish-American, Italian-American, or Chinese-American.

Not that there's anything politically incorrect with "Black person", it's just very vague and risks alluding to a global racial monolith that doesn't exist. There are about one billion Black persons living in dozens of countries with vastly different cultural identities and histories, as such we have very different experiences with race and racism.

EDIT: "African-American" is a mouthful, so no one is going to berate you for not using it, well, no one with any sympathy for human tongues.

 

[Fiairflair]

Yes but it can't possibly be the "To degrade or demote a person to the status of a mere object" in games where for one they literally ARE objects in the game world, they literally are polygon models. Everything the game designer does turns them from objects into characters, it's not like you are starting with human actors or models and turning them into objects by contrived treatment. If you try to be too ambitious giving them AI controlled agency you risk turning them back into objects when the AI breaks and you can so clearly see it's a wind-up-mechanoid, running around mindlessly in circles... only playing voice recordings of real people.

So I think Jim is taking kind of a cheap shot at the AI comrade in Last of Us, it's not going to behave exactly like a fully fleshed out person... because really, it isn't.

Again, this term is inherently problematic for how it was coined in criticism of media like Film and print ads, it is subverted to the point of losing all significance in games as an art form from how integral the player's agency is in the story acting through the player-character, as an essential design element. It doesn't take account of subjectivity, the importance of player input in the narrative mode.

The "remote control toy" model for player-character in games was outdated when it was introduced and it's always been known to be without basis. People don't say "ahh, my character model died/got-hit/fell-off" they almost always say "aaah, I died/got-hit/fell-off". The term "avatar" for such characters is deliberate, drawing from the concept from Hinduism as a kind of "incarnation" of the player, how they transcend worlds from the real world to the virtual.

There are some games where the players are so detached it's like the "remote control toy" model but that's considered a failure of immersion in design.

The only form of "Sexual objectification" that is relevant is in the sense of how a game might have female characters who can only be defined by their how they are the objects of perspective in sexual terms, because of their sex.

The form of sexual objectification relevant is a game having female characters who are poorly established and so able to be appreciated on the basis of their looks and sexuality only.

Player input is undeniably conducive to objectification. However, it is worth noting that a great deal of the narrative in RPGs takes place in the mind of the player. In other character driven games the character usually exists (in part) beyond the control of the player; there are cut-scenes and dialog which the player does not choose. When playing character driven games I don?t consider my character an embodiment myself in any way. I play out the narrative much as I would a gamebook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebook) but I suspect I am in the minority there.

To establish for game characters an original position of being objects is to overestimate the differences between games and other representations of life. In a game world characters are not merely pixels. Games are representations of reality; they are often surreal or fantastic but they always have some semblance of real life. This is true of films, novels, and even drawings. How you come to that representation is irrelevant; an end product that contains a woman either sexually objectifies her or it doesn't.

 

[Nickolai77]

Interesting video Jim, you've come a long way since your first video on the Escapist and got so much better.

I agree that there's an issue here with the lack of female protagonists in games but i think it's a fairly straightforward answer as to why that's the case. The majority of the audience are male, and the majority of the developers are also male. The gaming industry is all about men making games to entertain other men, and publishers are simply interested in selling a game that will maximally appeal to the widest audience with the least amount of risk. It's also why the majority of male protagonists are white and American, because that's their largest customer segment. It all comes down which games the most likely to give you the biggest profits. Hooray for capitalism!

As a gamer i personally don't have any problem whatsoever with playing a female character, sometimes i do it in games like Saints Row just to shake things up a bit, and it's always nice on the eyes to play an attractive female character if you're playing 3rd person. For me playing a female character is like playing as a female-alter ego of yourself in a virtual world. Generally i'd opt my alter-ego to be male because i'm male myself, but playing female spices things up a bit for me. It's good to have a bit of variety.

As for wherever my female avatar having sex or romance with a guy would make me uncomfortable- it depends very much on how it's done. 3rd person romance wouldn't bother me, but i may well feel jealous if if i like the female character enough. 1st person romance through the eyes of a heterosexual female would feel odd to me because- whilst i respect such relationships i can't relate to them on a emotional level. The one thing that would make me uncomfortable i suppose is female/male sex done from a female perspective. I shouldn't need to justify why that would make me feel unconfortable as a heterosexual male, but if it's done from a 3rd person perspective then it doesn't bother me.

I suppose the point is that for heterosexual female romances where a male's roleplaying a female character, you've got be quite careful how you craft it to minimise jealousy and making the male hetero gamer feel uncomfortable. It's possible, but you've got to bear in mind that when you start writing in a female romance focused on a male character, the game quickly becomes a female fantasy rather than a fantasy which equally appeals to both genders, and that makes me less likely to buy it. I don't think Jim appreciates the psychological complexities underlying this and just assumes that if it makes you feel uncomfortable then OMG YOUR A HOMOPHOBE!