Jimquisition: Vertigo

[Sticky]

I've noticed Jim has already taken quite a beating around the internet for this post, so I'm not going to try and dogpile on so I can feel better about myself. I feel I'm above that even if I do disagree with his overall point. But there is another angle people don't really seem to be mentioning that is the underlying foundation for his overall point.

Folks, you can't force creativity onto the author. If you swap the protagonist of any good story or work, the meaning and tone of the entire piece changes and shifts. It's why most protagonists of books and movies are men, it's why most protagonists of stories ever told by humanity are men, it's why most modern media in the west is populated by white people. It's because the author and people writing and creating it are making it with these people in mind mostly because they are the kind of people they interact with and hear stories about. Creativity isn't a button in someone's head that just dispenses new ideas. It comes from the actions and experiences of those around them.

Which is why the idea that we have to meet a quota for every possible combination and type of human in existence so we can adequately be equal is silly. It's a fool's quest to ask that people make more characters of type X or look like Y. The idea itself is anti-creativity. Those characters will arise if new authors and new creators join the fray and insist on making those characters because they themselves are creative/dedicated enough to make a change and influence their medium.

Which is why I wish Jim would tone down the social justice videos. They don't have any actual change and they only result in angry responses and impotent rage like this very thread is experiencing. Which is the opposite of good, it's the opposite of helpful for the issue itself to become so inflammatory that every time it's brought up it results in 10 full pages of moaning and gnashed teeth just for the idea to even be discussed. And it's not the industries fault this happens, Jim, it's the fault of cheerleaders and cameramen on the sidelines who feel that they should be the ones writing the playbooks.

You have a choice every time you make one of these videos to come from a middle ground standpoint and understand exactly why the industry chooses the characters it does and has the storylines that they have. And you rarely take it, Jim. Most of your videos are very much the same unrelenting storm of criticism on the industry or the community. It really only surprises me that you still think that you're going to get another response from it than the nine pages of responses this thread already has along with the numerous flood of bile and vitriol that I'm sure the internet has already sent to you gift-wrapped on Twitter.

 

[Don Incognito]

None of the books women write for women seem to be about action. They're almost always about romance.

Citation needed.

I happen to be married to a woman who writes books for women that are heavy on horror and action.

 

[schrodinger]

wait

Wait

WAIT

[HEADING=2]WAIT A SECOND[/HEADING]

Ok, in Dragon Age: Origins you can play between a team of characters, so they count as a player character correct?
If so, then how about Shale from DA:O?

Shale's not the conventional female beauty, I wouldn't call her back story devastating, she wasn't just fighting for a man; she was fighting for her kingdom, and she's a fun character.

 

[Moth_Monk]

I honestly don't see how getting neurotic over whether a videogame character ticks some checkboxes one has made up is worth anyone's time.

 

[cyrad]

What about characters from League of Legends? Some of the most popular females in that game aren't standard, sexy, or attractive. There's several non-human females. There's Vayne, a hunter who wears a (surprisingly) non-sexualized cat suit. There's the punky brawler Vi. The armored dragoness Shyvana.

There's also a few non-sexualized characters from Skullgirls.

And don't give me crap about them being from games where you can pick your character. Vertigo came from a fighting game. Just how far did you research this?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

If no one has mentioned her, Wynne from the first Dragonage game.

Spoiler: Image

She's an older gal, has some cool moments in the game, has what I consider to be a lot of character.

I agree that this is a silly situation in the games industry, I'd like more female leads and of different types, because I would find it interesting. A fresh perspective on stuff.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I honestly don't know why people care so much about this gender "issue". I don't even think it is an issue. People who claim that it's an issue don't know anything about men or women. They're the ones who think that women are too fragile and pathetic and that men understand them well enough to make good female video game characters. And also, come on. Who makes video games? GEEKS! Who's clueless about women? GEEKS!

Well there have been good female characters before. Not a whole lot, and even less that meet Jims test today and the one he did last time with the "female protagonist with a normal love life". So, it's not like it can't ever be done. It's just that it could be done a little more often.

Also, there are female geeks/nerds/dorks. Who also help to make games. <.<

Also, why is diversity important? I'll let several hundred CoD clones answer that.

SO diversity is important because it stops people making games that sell?

Not really. Most "COD clones" haven't had a very great history of sales. Not saying that some don't do well, but they do try to go and compete with COD. And they can't beat COD at being COD, because COD is already the best at being COD.
COD COD COD.

As for why we should have a bit more diversity? Well, it opens up more possibilities for stories in games, and that means more chances for interesting games.

Why have less when we can have more?

 

[Pat Hulse]

It is commonly-accepted "conventional wisdom" that games with female protagonists don't sell, or at least they don't sell as well as they would with male protagonists. It is also commonly-accepted "conventional wisdom" that action films with female protagonists don't sell. This was often justified by citing films such as "Elektra", "Catwoman", or "The Brave One", all ignoring the fact that these films were all terrible. Then "Hunger Games" came out, a genre action film starring a female protagonist that is not overtly sexualized, and it broke box office records.

What is your point? There's a lot of films with male protagonists that did badly and some that were very profitable. You haven't proven anything by selecting one successful film and claiming that the success was solely due to the female protagonist, rather than the story or the marketing. To figure out which gender is better in certain films you have to compare sales from a range of films of this genre, not just cherry pick the ones you like the best.

First of all, it's difficult to cherry pick when there are only about a dozen cherries, and second, my point wasn't to show that a female protagonist was the reason "Hunger Games" was a success (although that certainly could be argued) but rather that having a female protagonist was considered the reason these films failed even though the more logical and likely reason they failed was because they were bad and audiences could tell they were bad.

Similarly, I'm sure people arguing that female protagonists don't sell would bring up "Beyond Good and Evil", despite the fact that Ubisoft (who hadn't yet become particularly prominent) was focusing most of its marketing efforts on their "Prince of Persia" title, which had both name recognition and a unique and compelling gameplay mechanic.

They may also bring up "Remember Me", which got mixed-to-negative reviews, and "Mirror's Edge", which generally got negative reviews and was very experimental with the first-person platforming. Meanwhile, the new "Tomb Raider" had the best sales in the franchise since the 90's perhaps because, I dunno, it was a good game? It might not have gotten reviews as high as say "Uncharted", but for a series that had been critically panned for years to pull off a turnaround like it did is not particularly common.

What is your point? Yes there are good and bad games involving female characters, however what publishers are concerned about are how many sales will these make before people realise they're bad. If games with male protagonists get more pre-orders or day one sales then from a publishers perspective they're more profitable.

Also Laura Croft became popular because she had was one of the first female protagonists in a video game and had big breasts. Seriously a programmer accidentally increased her bust by 150% and his boss realised that if she had big breasts they wouldn't need as much marketing.

And you're fine with the fact that game developers are more interested in selling you shit and hoping you won't realize it before it's too late? Wow, what am I thinking complaining about that?

And if Lara Croft became popular purely because of her sex appeal, why did she wane in popularity until her most recent outing where the developers toned down her sexualization and focused on story and solid gameplay? That may have been her biggest selling point in the 90's but we are not the same industry as we were back then.

The fact of the matter is, because of this "conventional wisdom", there are very few recent cases that actually support it.

Evidence doesn't have to be recent to be valid. A long history of games with female protagonists being less profitable than their male counterparts indicates that this trend is likely to continue.

I would love to see this evidence. Get cracking.

No one makes female protagonists because female protagonists don't sell, and on the rare occasion that one surfaces and the game doesn't sell well, it is attributed to the fact that there is a female protagonist. It's confirmation bias, pure and simple. Plenty of games with male protagonists fail, but because there are also games with male protagonists that succeed, no one assumes that's the reason games with male protagonists fail. However, because there are so few games with female protagonists and so few of those games are any good, it is difficult to accurately gauge what kind of impact female characters have on video game sales.

Firstly you're assuming that all failures are equal. There's a big difference between failing to make enough money to recover your development costs and failing to make as much profit as you wanted.

And?

Secondly if some games with a male protagonists fail, while other succeed then there's no evidence that the male protagonists is the main cause of the failure. By contrast if all the games with female protagonists do badly then it's possible that the female protagonist is to blame because it's a common theme between all these games.

Very easy to make this generalization when I can count the number of modern AAA titles with female protagonists on my hands.

Thirdly it's possible to consult with players about that they want in a game. If they generally say they'd rather play as a man than a woman then this means that a female protagonist is less popular than a male one.

Publishers tend to seek out people they assume are gamers based on "conventional wisdom". The truth is that "gamers" have broadened a great deal and just because female gamers aren't being polled as much for market research doesn't mean they don't exist or buy games.

Fourthly as I already stated it's possible to compare things such as pre-orders and day one sales to see whether games with male or female protagonists are the most popular. This eliminates any bias caused by a game being bad because at this point no one will know it's bad.

Again, when there are very few quality titles with female protagonists, this is a difficult distinction to make.

Your statement that women are less inclined to be brave or heroic than men would make me laugh if I weren't afraid you were being serious. I'm just going to err on the side of "you were talking out of your ass" and not dignify it with a response.

In other words you're too much of a mangina to admit that women don't want what you want them to want. Care to explain why women don't write stories about heroic or brave women. Why is it that characters like Buffy or Laura Croft are only written by men?

Um, because you're wrong? A woman wrote "Hunger Games" and women popularized it. Some of the most prominent genre authors today are women and women overwhelmingly outnumber men in terms of readership. If you're looking for recommendations of popular action-adventure fiction written by women about brave women primarily read by women, I'd be happy to give you a long list if you'd like one. Also, "mangina"? Seriously? What, are you fourteen?

Trying to make an argument for something is not the same as forcing anybody to adopt a particular creative vision. More often than not, it's less a question of whether or not someone "wants" to make a character a man or if they are simply making them a man because that's considered the "default". By making the argument for more female characters, it helps creators ask the question of why they make a character male and whether or not they've even considered making the character female. I'd argue that a lot of them haven't, either because it just never occurred to them (people are inclined to make characters by drawing from characters they are already familiar with, which are predominantly male) or because they buy into the "conventional wisdom" that "male is default" and making a character a woman is tantamount to "taking a risk" or "making a statement".

Developers should be free to make the game they want and you have no right to tell them how to make their game. The developers aren't idiots who just randomly make characters but do put some a lot of thought into each of the main character and how they effect the story. They don't need someone constantly shouting at them "needs more females, needs more females".

If you want a game with more female characters then make it yourself.

You realize this argument can be applied to literally any criticism of anything, right?

More to the point, if a developer WANTS to have a female protagonist but executives are shooting them down due to the "conventional wisdom", being able to cite a large number of people demanding that kind of representation in games is probably a very helpful thing to have. If people who want better representation don't ask for it, people who want to include it in their games will never be able to convince the marketing department that there's an audience for it.

The "conventional wisdom" is supported by sales data and numerous examples from other mediums (TV, books, movies, etc). You do realise that publishers spend large amounts of money every year to determine what will sell and what won't.

You've also ignored that developers can by-pass publishers using kick-starter or Steam if they feel that their idea isn't getting enough support.

Kickstarter is great for small titles, but even the most successful Kickstarters have budgets that pale in comparison to your standard AAA budget. Also, if you're not an established name, you tend to have less success in Kickstarter than a Tim Schafer or a Keiji Inafune.

Also, if publishers are so good at knowing what will sell, why is something like Kickstarter even needed or for that matter successful? If a Kickstarted project is incredibly successful and went to Kickstarter specifically because publishers passed on the idea, wouldn't that indicate that traditional publishers are working from incorrect or incomplete data? Shouldn't every Kickstarter for a game that publishers passed on fail if publishers are so good at knowing what people will buy?

I'll also refer you to this other Jimquisition episode on the fallacy of market research in the modern gaming industry: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7405-Damn-Fine-Coffee

 

[Stammer]

I'd introduced a friend of mine to League of Legends. This friend frequently brings up issues similar to those that dear Mr. Sterling brings up, whether or not he's ever discussed the exact issue. This one in particular hit home, as this friend of mine had asked me how many female characters in League weren't sexualized.

The male characters in League of Legends range anywhere from attractive to grizzled or unattractive. You've got demons from the Void or mutants from the Shadow Isles. But when it comes to females, I could find exactly one: Anivia, who happens to be a bird, but still has an exceptionally sexualized voice. I could argue that champions such as Leona or Kayle are less sexualized, but even they have genuinely pretty faces and character skeletons. However, the game's developer Riot has stated that they are going to be pulling out the daughter of one of the game's characters, and she is going to be fully-mutated into a Void creature, so we'll see.

And on a complete other note, would anyone mind replying (or even PM'ing me) an answer to the following?
I've been watching Jimquisition pretty much since its inception and I've never quite gotten the "shrimp" joke. What's the significance of the shrimp picture(s) that he uses in most of his videos?

 

[Imp_Emissary]

If no one has mentioned her, Wynne from the first Dragonage game.

Spoiler: Image

She's an older gal, has some cool moments in the game, has what I consider to be a lot of character.

I agree that this is a silly situation in the games industry, I'd like more female leads and of different types, because I would find it interesting. A fresh perspective on stuff.

I do love Wynne.

Spoiler: Spoiler warning!

It's a damn shame we won't be seeing her ever again in the games.

That said Shamus young can point out why she doesn't quite fit for Jims list.
Still a great character though.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/stolen-pixels/6848-Stolen-Pixels-148-Dragon-Aged

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

...sorry Jim, I just couldn't get past you saying that female characters must or are only allowed to be this or that, like there's some kind of rule system in place (and that the characters are somehow less priviledged than male characters despite neither having wants or being able to change from how they were created). Personally when I'm involved in a creative endeavour involving female characters, I tend towards making my characters more attractive. I'm not doing it for anyone. There's no reason for it. It's just another thing they have going for them. Of course in the large publisher-controlled parts of the industry, they won't let devs do anything else for dubious and simplistic marketing reasons. But that isn't set in stone for all games developed.

 

[otakon17]

Does anyone else remember when Samus Aran was a 6 foot 200lbs. bounty hunter in a kick ass mech suit that everyone was surprised to learn was actually a kick ass blonde woman and not that goddamn thing in Other M? Only me? Dammit oh well, I'll always know Samus as that, not that pony tailed cheerleader in Brawl or that "I need permission" simpering thing in Other M.

Frankly I agree with those who bring up Amaterasu. Sure she's a very pretty character design (But then the whole game is a very pretty character design) but I don't think she really counts as "Traditionally attractive".

And DAMN good point, I forgot all about Ammy. Though she's really neither he nor her as much as she's just a deity to be honest.

Also, Jim the HELL happened to your eyes man?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

If no one has mentioned her, Wynne from the first Dragonage game.

Spoiler: Image

She's an older gal, has some cool moments in the game, has what I consider to be a lot of character.

I agree that this is a silly situation in the games industry, I'd like more female leads and of different types, because I would find it interesting. A fresh perspective on stuff.

I do love Wynne.

Spoiler: Spoiler warning!

It's a damn shame we won't be seeing her ever again in the games.

That said Shamus young can point out why she doesn't quite fit for Jims list.
Still a great character though.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/stolen-pixels/6848-Stolen-Pixels-148-Dragon-Aged

I never got that "armor" set. Always had her in robes etc, I did really like her though and you got to play as her if you wanted, same with any of the characters. That's something Liked about the game in general.

 

[wulf3n]

Also, if publishers are so good at knowing what will sell, why is something like Kickstarter even needed or for that matter successful? If a Kickstarted project is incredibly successful and went to Kickstarter specifically because publishers passed on the idea, wouldn't that indicate that traditional publishers are working from incorrect or incomplete data? Shouldn't every Kickstarter for a game that publishers passed on fail if publishers are so good at knowing what people will buy?

Success in kickstarter isn't the same as success from a Publishers perspective.

Looking at one of the most successful video game kickstarter projects, the Double Fine Adventure, we see there were 87,142 backers. In contrast Square-Enix were disappointed because Tomb Raider didn't sell 6 million in its first month.

So a successful kickstarter isn't really demonstrating incorrect data from the Publishers perspective.

 

[Banzaiman]

I don't think I can take much more of this stuff being thrown around before my skull collapses in on itself and snuffs out my brain.

Mine has already...

OT: I'm behind Jim on the demand for more playable female protagonists - preferably morally gray or even a villain, because they tend to be more interesting - that don't rely on a man or trauma as their personal drive. Whether that attracts more female gamers or not I don't know (fingers crossed it does, because Hey! more people to talk to), but I do know that I want a character like that. Because hey, it's females + villains, it has to radiate badass.

The only thing I'm unsure about is the 'not conventionally attractive' thing. Don't get me wrong, variety is great and all, but... why? Most men probably won't like it, a lot of women probably won't like it, if both demographics probably won't like it it just seems like a bad idea. Yay for variety, but still.

 

[Looming_Shadows]

jim looks like a splicer

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

It's a little strange how this thread has developed. I do agree with Jim and many other critics in that there does need to be more diversity, less objectification, and an increased focus within the industry on inclusion of female gamers and further developing their agency.

What I find a unsettling though, is that for every cool, unique, not-traditionally sexy/objectified character suggested from other commenters, there is a host of reasons as to why these characters are disqualified. These reasons, all together, eliminate the alternate choices principally because they don't meet the criteria set out in Jim's innitial argument. Which is where I think there could be some issue taken. The criteria of the innitial argument, is so stringent, and arguably, so unrealistic, that I'm not at all surprised only a dinosaur from the 90's can meet them.

I would postulate that it is objectification on the opposite end of of the spectrum. Look at the comments suggesting alternate choices of female characters and look at the responses again. Amy is cool, but not mean enough. Lucca is tough, but she's still too cute. Character X isn't cute, but her motivations are too traditional. Character Y is a beast but her commanding officer is a man.

See what's happening? The logic of the argument is collapsing on itself and creating a new set of impossible to meet standards by which an audience of young men - I presume that is what most of us are in this forum - are once again judging women.

Saying, "Nah - she's too pretty, she's too nice, she listens to her bf too much, etc." is just as objectifying as saying "She's not pretty enough, she's too indpendent, she's too mean".

We are still engaged in the act of objectifying and that objectification is self-defeating if our goal is diversity, inclusion, and agency. The discussion that ultimately needs to happen is how does the industry move forward in developing characters with respect to females in mind. When there are female protogagonists in a given game it would behoove a developer to wonder if the character is pandering, unrealistic, over-sexualized, etc. And even then, female characters like this can in - the right contexts - contribute something profound to a story and even agency. It all depends on how the developer handles it.

In the end, I think the operative word in considering developement of female protagonists and inclusion of female gamers is simply, "RESPECT". Respect the character, respect the content of the story and the world in which it is set, respect the audience. I don't mean tread lightly, or avoid taking risks - in fact, quite the contrary - all art forms can engage, provoke, even intentionally enrage, all while respecting story, character, and audience. If a developer has this concept in mind, regardless of looks, personality, motivation, or any other trait, the character that results will - I would garantee it - potentially be interesting, and enjoyable for both men and women.

But it often takes an extreme stance - an argument whose logic intentionally borders on the ridiculous, to encourage us into dialogue on an issue. I see the principle in Jim's argument; and while I can see the flaw in the logic of it, I also see the necessity in making it, and applaud it for encouraging our continued dialogue.