Jimquisition: Vertigo

[Pat Hulse]

As for ones that are motivated by trauma I can think of 3 (4 depending on how you count it) from a series where most of the characters are motivated by trauma/revenge.

I was saying I could only think of 3 or 4 women who were motivated by trauma/revenge. One of those is kind of iffy now that I think about it.

When there aren't many playable women with backstories in the first place, it's not surprising to me that you can only think of a few.

Furthermore, anything that tries to explore the pervasiveness, implications, and consequences of reliance on these tropes tends to get blasted and flamed by the gaming community as though it were some kind of threat.

Well it always sounds like the next logical step is "ok what should we do about it, get rid of them?" I mean if you think something is sexist or problematic then surely that means you'd like to see it gone.

Plus if the problem is lack of variety than it's not the problem of the tropes then. If there were lots of action movies about women repelling random aliens/terrorists then all of a sudden Kill Bill wouldn't be problematic any more.

It's not about whether or not I want something "gone". Think of it this way.

I don't much care for first person modern warfare shooters. Occasionally I might find exceptions to this, but as a rule, I don't really like them and regardless of how good one may be, I probably would never enjoy it unless it did something particularly unique or subversive. And it's not just about questions of taste, I have actual objections to the genre that I think justify my general dislike of it. These objections exist no matter what, the difference is just that most people are either fine with them or don't really care about them.

But I don't necessarily want them to stop making modern warfare shooters. Plenty of people like them and there are plenty of other games I can play that aren't modern warfare shooters.

However, if almost every game in the industry was a modern warfare shooter and games that weren't almost never came out, I'd understandably be a little pissed about it.

So yeah, I'll probably always see the Sorceress and the Amazon in "Dragon's Crown" as sexist and there's really nothing anyone can do to change my mind on that. But I'm still fine with the fact that the game exists and that people enjoy it. I won't think less of anyone for doing so unless they do so explicitly because it's offensive, but I know people don't. They just like T&A and side-scrolling beat-em-ups and there's really nothing inherently wrong with that. I just think it's unfair that there aren't a lot of options if you want strong female characters that don't embody those tropes.

Do I think these tropes are negative? Certainly. Would I lose sleep if they were gone overnight? Probably not. Do I need them all gone to feel satisfied that social justice has been served? Nah. I just want people to understand why people are bothered by these portrayals and why it's a problem that the industry doesn't seriously attempt to provide alternatives.

Just because something bothers some people doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Violence bothers a lot of people. But we still use it responsibly. We still offer alternative forms of entertainment that don't include lots of violence. And violence, even offensive levels of violence, can be used to make interesting points, but only if the social context of violence is fully explored and understood.

And I was saying that I don't think most woman protagonists are motivated by trauma. I haven't been convinced.

Perhaps not most female protagonists are motivated by trauma, but I'd say that's because there are already very few female protagonists and the ones that do exist generally aren't interesting enough to have any kind of clear motivation. When a game attempts to actually have an interesting female protagonist, they're either very sexualized/fetishized in their design or they are given a tragic backstory to give her some degree of vulnerability.

Imagine if this were about any other kind of trope or tendency in video games. When people say, "Too many AAA video games rely on cutscenes to tell their stories," people usually reply with, "Well, I do like cutscenes, but yeah, sometimes it can get annoying," and when games like "Half-Life" come out, people praise them for stepping outside the trope and showing how much better it can be without it. We have entire shows ("Unskippable") dedicated to pointing out the stupidity in this trope.

I get where you're trying to go but nobody says that too many cutscenes is problematic or sexist or that it influences anything other than game design. Nobody wants to be the person that says "yes this is sexist but it should stay" unless it was meant to be sexist.

You don't have to say, "Yes, this is sexist but it should stay". What you can instead say is, "Yes, this is sexist, but I still enjoy the game in spite of its flaws," or simply "Yes, I understand that you find this sexist and I understand why you wouldn't like to play it, but I don't necessarily feel the same way." That's really it. That's pretty much all people who criticize this sort of thing are expecting in response. To be listened to and acknowledged. They don't need to convince anyone of anything. They just want it brought up and discussed. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that they get accused of pushing agendas or being ignorant about the medium or having some ulterior motivation. More often than not it's just somebody who feels uncomfortable about a particular aspect of a game or the industry as a whole and wants to voice their criticism of it. That criticism may stem from theories based in certain political movements, but that's just a perspective, not an agenda.

See, to me, this is how ridiculous it sounds when someone argues this heavily against trying to encourage stepping out of negative tropes regarding women in games.

Negative trope? So is it bad whenever it's used? I don't think it is, I am a fan of God of War after all. I also think there's some interesting stories to be mined out of it.

I'd say that some see cutscenes as a general negative. I'd say that most see unnecessary cutscenes or a general dependence or prevalence on cutscenes would be a general negative.

I don't think you can reasonably argue that it's not a common occurrence and that it tends to make the characters less interesting and the games less fun and that it alienates a respectable number of gamers.

In order:

Common yes (with either gender) most common no.
Less interesting sure (most of the time) but so does most other two sentence motivation (examples include: I'll get rich if I find this treasure, an evil being is invading and I must stop them)
Depends on the game.
Who knows.

No, it's more common for women to just not be included at all.
"I'll get rich if I find this treasure" is far more interesting to me than "I saw my father killed when I was a kid" because it deals with the desires of the character and their agency rather than the things that happened to them. That's another common theme with female protagonists. It's more common for things to happen to them rather than things happening as a result of their agency.
This is true, and again, that's why I'm not calling for an abolition of these tropes, just a better understanding of them so that when they're used, the person using them knows the societal implications surrounding them.
I'd say that the large number of gamers who generally talk about these things and keep bringing them up would know whether or not they feel alienated by them. If these people didn't exist in high numbers, I think Tumblr would be a very different place and Anita Sarkeesian probably wouldn't have enjoyed as much success.

 

[Arfreid]

Hmmm how about Xel'lotath from Eternal Darkness... then again... 'she' and Vertigo have too much in common.

http://eternaldarkness.wikia.com/wiki/Xel%27lotath

She is not player controlled.

Ok, let me try again... Brittany from Pikmin 3 !!!

http://pikmin.wikia.com/wiki/Brittany

She is playable

Even though she has a humanoid shape, I think we can agree that even though the character is pleasant to the eye, her design falls more on the scientist/gourmet approach, also, I get the feeling of normal looking astronaut girl from her more than anything else.

Her motivations are not tied to do the bidding or to look for the approval of any man, the character(s) are on a mission to collect seeds for their homeplanet and also, as a gourmet, she wants to taste as much fruit as possible, also she is probably be the most ruthless of all the characters in the game.


Damn... that was a lot harder than it should have been...

 

[Dragonbums]

-snip-

Everything you present does not support that gender is social constructs, only that we can not test that idea due to constant presence of disruptor (society)

But I will tell you that in 19 century, when nature VS nurture first started (from industrial revolution up to WWI both boys and girls wore white dresses (easily bleached) untill the age of 5-6 (before that they wore whatever parents could get them, often meaning nothing)) and laws weren?t strict there were experiments with gender bending of infants with families removed from society tasked with treating girls like boys and boys like girls. While there were more tomboys and sissies gender bending haven't really worked.

So is there social influence, of course, only it's not fundamental. It might not be dolls and action figures but girls tend to be interested for games with social significance while boys generally go for physical activities and contact sports.

But my initial argument was not gender is purely a social construct.
My argument was that saying it was scientific fact that girls will play with dolls and princesses is horribly faulty.

There is a difference between sex and gender which I think you are getting mixed up here. (Understandable since they are used interchangeably)

Sex is the genetic makeup of a species that determines whether it is male or female.

Whereas gender is how said specific sex acts in society. So for example girls expected to be horse riders in country A as opposed to girls expected to be proficient fishermen in country B. If someone in country A states that girls are naturally more proficient at horse riding due to being expected to know how to ride horses since birth it would be incorrect to attribute that soley to genetics because the expectations of society surrounding them places heavy emphasis on female knowing how to ride horses. That is a social construct.

Being highly sociable does not equate to playing with dolls. Because then the same can apply to boys. There is literally no difference between an action figure and a doll. Action figures was just a term coined to separate the boy dolls from the girl dolls. Both are at the fundamental level plastic (or whatever material) toys that are meant to be played by children. Both boys and girls in essence like to play with "dolls". Now how they go about playing with them can vary. Some will be violent. Some will be careful. Others will probably just chew on it. Chances are, the boys will be more violent than the girls.

But again, the other person I was arguing with tried to claim that it is genetically hardwired for girls to play with dolls. Which is why me and a few other posters called him/her out on it.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

I pointed out that female chimps act the same way and asked who was influencing them. In other words I showed that you were full of shit.

Read the above post.
Also humans are not chimps.

You may want to take a look at Number 1 and 2:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19388_6-things-you-wont-believe-animals-do-just-like-us_p2.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_18766_5-creepy-ways-animal-societies-are-organizing.html

Also a chimp and a young child are mentally the same.

Humans aren't some magical creature that more intelligence than all animals throughout their entire life.

I'm going to just leave this quote right here and let you think about that for a while.

So i take you never heard of Arthur Schopenhauer:
"As a consequence of his monistic philosophy, Schopenhauer was very concerned about the welfare of animals. For him, all individual animals, including humans, are essentially the same, being phenomenal manifestations of the one underlying Will. The word "will" designated, for him, force, power, impulse, energy, and desire; it is the closest word we have that can signify both the real essence of all external things and also our own direct, inner experience. Since everything is basically Will, then humans and animals are fundamentally the same and can recognize themselves in each other. For this reason, he claimed that a good person would have sympathy for animals, who are our fellow sufferers."


Arthur was unique among philosophers because he saw human intellect as no better or different to the instinct of animals.
""Rationality" is sustained only for briefs periods of time, while the will perpetually drives us"

Then perhaps ponder why your dog is too stupid to realize that the object it's chasing is it's own tail.

Ponder why humans in Group A tear down posters of Group B(an act of censorship) and then proceed to claim that preventing them from tearing down posters constitutes an act of censorship against them. Too stupid to realize they are doing the very thing they are protesting against? they must be dogs, right?

"These people believe that preventing them from doing censorship is doing censorship against them... (dumbfound silence) Up is Down. Black is White. Inside is Outside. Left is Right. And Censorship equals Free Speech."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LogicBomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jz63_lGuSE

Wait, which species is supposed to be the stupid again?

 

[doomed89]

Just thought I'd put the characters I mention that fit his description.

Playable originally written character
Not conventionally attractive/overally sexualized
Unique motivation not for a man or generic motive

1. Now Faith is the first one who comes to mind from Mirror's Edge the only one where she even kinda hits a snag is the attractive one but she has flat tits and ass and well in my mind excluding faith would be asking for a flat out ugly character when faith has to be athletic.

2. Wynne from dragon age origins came to mind too, she's old so not hot, she's playable abeit a more supporting role in a role playing game still playable and she has a unique motivation although it isn't a very interesting one, she hates being in the tower, she hates it any excuse to get out of the tower she takes.

3. Dollface from twisted metal, playable main character in new one, she's wearing a dollmask which I'm sure some people are into but not traditional attractive.

She is a narcissistic, obsessive, and violent woman seeking to become a famous supermodel; to this end, she is willing to do anything, including sabotage and murder of her competition. One day she gets in a car accident, damaging her face. A doctor manages to restore her face except for a tiny scar, which Krysta's vain and paranoid mind interprets as a hideous wound. Irrationally accusing the doctor of working with her competition, she kills him by cutting off his head with a hacksaw.

I'd call that a unique motivation as well.

4? Alice from alice returns and the original also came to mind not hot, doesn't rely on man, unique motivation although I'm not entirely sure if she counts as an originally written character, since it's loosely based on wonderland.

So yeah I found 3 maybe 4 why can he only find one?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

April Ryan from The Longest Journey and Dreamfall?

She looks perfectly ordinary, a slip of a thing (a physical aesthetic that strongly denotes a character on a slim budget and thus starving their way through university, rather than some aesthetic choice for attractiveness) that dresses in cheap chic in the time-honoured tradition of hungry, poor students everywhere. She stars in the game. And although she has male friends who help her, ultimately it's she who has to come up with all the plans, figure things out, and somehow come out on top.

In Dreamfall she dresses in thick leather garbs. Has a pallid, emaciated face. She has bulked in weight somewhat, giving her a more sturdy, rugged, battle-wearied presence. She has visibly aged, being a 28 year old she no longer has that teenage youthful exuberance or even a healthy skin tone. With grey streaked flesh denoting poor circulation from periodic exposure to the elements.

April Ryan is a character that is... everyone. I wish they kept the cosmetic-less look of the original April Ryan, but when you get down to it her outfit, style, intellect and barbed wit give her the weight of a more asexualized character. A point more poignant that in much of Dreamfall the Azadi believe 'Raven' during the rebellion is actually male, until April introduces herself.

She is also one of the few female characters that display feminine psychology over physical attributes. In short; she seems real when you interact with the world.

 

[Lissa-QUON]

I think people are taking Jim's argument too literally. Like the Bechdel Test this I think this is less a Law of Requirement and more of a "something to keep in mind."
Hell I'm a woman, feminist nerd sort, and some of my favorite movies are stupid sexist things that couldn't even begin to pass the Bechdel test if they tried or cared to. This doesn't make me love these movies less. But I am not saying all movies should be like them.

Being aware of something's flaws doesn't mean you can't still enjoy or love it. But being aware of something's flaws or short comings helps creativity and media as a whole. Creators from a creative standpoint are unwilling to change if they get no criticism and just keep receiving ass pats.

Jim's list of requirements is pretty long but it does make a few good points. The videogame industry doesn't have a lot of female characters that are playable - with more agency than "lost little girl" or "needs a man" - not designed specifically for eye candy - and are allowed to have a depth of character that allows them to be a villian or anti hero.

Our media as a whole has a tendency to not let female characters be rude, crude, disgusting, or criminal. Or when we do we toss in a lot of fan service T&A to balance it out. She's not a murderer, she's a Black Widow. She's not a con artist she's a Honey Trap.

We are told women can't be comedians, women can't be funny, women can't fight. Women are the virgin, the whore, the mother, the daughter, the femme fatale. Women can't be angry messes who just want to punch things because we are having a bad day. Narrative wise we are dragged into the events, because we aren't allowed the agency to go out and do something ourselves. A female character doesn't get to go robbing banks just cause she wants the money, a female character isn't allowed to go joy riding in stolen vehicles with a baseball bat in hand. We have to be dragged and kicked in the dirt to fight back. We have to be given a "do this or you die" alternative.

We don't need that kind of reasonableness in a thread like this! Only petty squabbling about logical fallacies you barely understand are allowed in the thread. Also, it should go without saying that your perspective as a woman has no value in a discussion about women's experiences. Not sure why you even mentioned it.

Now, if we can resume arguing against things we know nothing about, please.


/s

Of course - how silly of me.
I'll just go back to the kitchen and make sandwiches. /s

 

[Dragonbums]

We don't need that kind of reasonableness in a thread like this! Only petty squabbling about logical fallacies you barely understand are allowed in the thread. Also, it should go without saying that your perspective as a woman has no value in a discussion about women's experiences. Not sure why you even mentioned it.

Now, if we can resume arguing against things we know nothing about, please.


/s

You just gloriously summed up the recent discussions on this thread beautifully.

Now excuse me while I go cope with the fact that I'm a genetic anomaly.

 

[Dragonbums]

-snip-

Don't hold out on hope though. Remember, Nintendo is notorious for always attracting the female demographic as one of the big three.
The one thing that all Nintendo games have in common is that they are fun. They aren't trying to be edgy, cool, violent for violence sakes, or deep.
They are just there to be fun. The same can be said for a good lot of the mobile games on the market. They are simply fun.

Just like how many videogames were back in the day.

Let's not also discount the fact many a male Escapist user (and gamers on other sites) have stated many times that they got their girlfriend into gaming with games like Skyrim (or Elder Scrolls in general.), Mass Effect, WoW, and other similar titles.

These are pretty "male centric" games, yet they seem to also have more of a stick on female players as well.

It's not that their needs to be a market shift. It's just that game devs other than Nintendo and indies need to start pumping out more fun for fun sakes games.

However considering how everyone is too wound up in the deep plot phase of videogames, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[allizzwell]

Minor problem: the West isn't white (even if people would love to think so),while only around 2% of the population in Japan can be seen as "non asian".Asian games aren't missrepresenting their countries when they don't inculde "non asian" characters,that's just how the demographics are.When a Game made in the USA or Europe only includes white characters,then they forget an important part of their population.

In the UK 8% of the population isn't white. In most northern and Eastern European countries less than 1% of the population isn't white. So Europe is white and most games in Europe that only include white characters aren't missing an important part of their population. You shouldn't assume that every Western country has the same racial mix as the USA (63.7% white European, 12.2% black, 8.7% white Hispanic/Latino, 6% other Hispanic, and 4.7% Asian).

Yeah,no.I'm pretty sure I know my continent and my country enough to know that there's a level between white and color, that classifying demographics by people's skin color isn't very legal.What far right website did you got those stats from?
Your argument,like most of your arguments is a logic fallcy (what happend to west and south?If people in Japan don't want to be considered as white,why the bleaching creme and the plastic surgery?).Next you're going to try and convince people that being a white,heterosexual guy means being part of a global majority.

I agree with this post for the most part.
Only issue I take is with this part.

If people in Japan don't want to be considered as white,why the bleaching creme

It's not so much being considered white, but a cultural thing. The paler you are, means the richer you are. Since rich people don't go outside for manual labor, that means that they are financially well off and a more desired potential partner. Which manifests in what it is today.

That was the case centuries ago.Since the 60,rich people have a tan to show that they can afford a trip to St Tropez (that's where the term Jet Set comes from) and spend their days sunbathing on the beach because they have enough money and don't need to work.It's really more of a racist issue,since photoshop is often used for "whitewashing" people with darker skin.

Beyonce in real life and Beyonce for a L'Oréal ad campaign:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6xakgAWQK1qa9dfj.jpg

Gabby Sidibe in real life and Gabby Sidibe on an Elle cover:
http://www.beautyredefined.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gabourey-sidibe-photoshop-450-thumb-450x300-764251.jpg

And when you have a light skin tone,this is what they'll do to you:
Nicole Kidman in real life: http://filmsplusmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Nicole-Kidman7.jpg
and after a photoshoot: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/celebdatabase/nicolekidman/nicole_kidman1_300_400.jpg

It's the old idea that "white and european" (but not too white) is better than any other skin color or look people could have.And it's not only in Japan or the West,in other parts of the world,the most common platsic surgeries are still surgeries with the purpose of looking more "european".

 

[Lightknight]

1. Now Faith is the first one who comes to mind from Mirror's Edge the only one where she even kinda hits a snag is the attractive one but she has flat tits and ass and well in my mind excluding faith would be asking for a flat out ugly character when faith has to be athletic.

Let's not forget that she has a plain face, especially for the upcoming Mirrors Edge 2. I've posted it a few times in this thread and she's not even wearing makeup. It's flat and not particularly feminine. For her to be ruled out, Jim's criteria has to actively rule out the plain faced too and demand specifically ugly. His criteria was attractive which is... a wide and subjective range. I loved mirrors edge but don't consider her attractive. Even the male characters that are usually ugly have something that makes them desireable to play as. Usually huge rippling muscle. Even the Heavy Rain example has a range of other playable protagonists including a female whose attractiveness shifts in the game from plain to attractive.

This has been beaten to death and is now just annoying.

I just want to say that I find it remarkably apt that your avatar is that of a horse and this is your first or second post here. Good show, sir or madame. Though I disagree with the rest of your points. Developers may produce personally vindicating/desireable work on their own but in large AAA companies with a team of developers it's mostly about creating a brand that meets the needs of the consumer market they face. Aka, turns the most profit by filling a need. So women haven't traditionally been hot-brainless characters in games because developers are horny nerds (a stereotypical and even sexist claim against developers for you to make, fyi), they've been that way because it sells games to the hugely male consumer market. The power of money, my friend, nothing less and nothing more.

Lately, we've seen developers take a route of making the characters more realistic and giving them legitimate roles in games. I think they've been generally rewarded for that by having a story that is richer with characters that stick with you. Even the classic and still loved protector/hero role becomes more meaningful with characters that you actually care about protecting/saving. Take The Last of Us. Ellie is a little cute but not beautiful and has scars, is dressed realistically, has realistic and even small proportions, and, spoiler, you play as her at some points (how, when, why and for how long I'll leave unsaid) which makes her a playable protagonist. She's also generally portrayed as a daughter character and so even the narrative makes you feel protective of her and not attracted to her. They spent the entire game crafting her character and that game is still selling a ton. It's currently the 14th best selling item in Video Games of 2013 so far. Second best selling video game (if you group the ps3 and 360 copies together as one game) so far.

According to Amazon anyways [http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2013/videogames]. Which is a decent market indicator. That's with it only being available on one console too. So as AAA developers see this benefit them they'll do more of it. But even with her basically plain and made unattractive by your role of guardian/father figure over her, she isn't ugly and I don't think there's a demand for it either. What people should be made at isn't even necessarily sexually attractive nature of female characters. That happens in all forms of media and women even do it to themselves. If they're willing to undergo a knife to have larger breasts in real life then playing as a perky attractive character isn't necessarily a negative. Women don't slap on a skintight spandex sportsbra/shorts combo to go running in public wihtout some kind of knowledge that they're showing off their body. What people should be upset about is poorly or negatively written female characters who are inept or defined as sexual objects. So what if a female has attractive features? That doesn't matter, women try to look attractive all over the world and if we start getting offended by that happening in media too then we're just kidding ourselves. But a poorly written and incapable character defined by nothing other than their body? That's wrong. That's the heart of what we've been complaining about. My wife personally has a problem with the chainmail bikini scenario. The idea of a woman who dresses completely inappropriately for a task she knows she's about to accomplish is just silly. I mean, it happens in real life, lord knows there's been enough city-girl meets farm-life reality TV shows. But it still smacks of impracticality of the woman even if unintentional. So you can only go so far with clothing before the choice of dress also writes an unflattering characteristic of the girl's planning/personality.

2012 gaming statistics

Let's assume that the total population of gamers in 2010 was 100. This is for easy math and since we're working with percentages this will scale just fine.

There was a 40/60 (male/female) ratio. 80% of females owned a wii as their primary console. (that's 32 out of every 40 female gamers). 9% owned a ps3 and 11% owned a 360 for a combined 8 out of every 40 female gamers or 8 female x60/ps3 gamers out of every 100 gamers.

Now, males also owned Wiis as their primary consoles but at half the rate. So it wouldn't be fair to say it's 8 females out of 100 gamers. You have to drop off the male Wii primary console owners too. 41% of males owned a Wii (24.6 out of every 60). 21% owned a ps3 (12.6 out of every 60). 38% owned a 360 (22.8 out of every 60). That means 35.4 out of every 60 male gamers owned one of those consoles.

The new total demographic of the AAA consoles of ps3/360 is a total of 43.4.

The 8 women in that number equals 18.4% of the total AAA consumer market for both consoles combined.
The 35.4 men in that number equals 81.6% of the total AAA consumer market for both consoles combined.

This doesn't even touch on which games each gender prefers. I mean, in movies guys have action and horror movies moreso than females. What if guys have FPS titles more than women in gaming? That'd really change the dynamics of the customer base.

ESA report:http://www.theesa.com/about/ESA_2010_Annual_Report.pdf
Not wanting to go to Kotaku:http://www.onlineeducation.net/videogame

I actually used Kotaku as the reference because the onlineeducation site had some serious downtime a few months back whereas Kotaku's page is just a picture of that exact image. Just FYI.

If anyone reads those numbers and has any questions about my methodology or exact math work (mostly basic division with rounding to the tenth spot), feel free to ask as the quoted work is mine.

Honestly it would seem that if the AAA publishers want the female demographic they need to go to either nintendo, because 80% of female gamers at the ESA report on 2010 held the wii as their main console, or seek the social and mobile market, otherwise they're stuck with male demographic. This in the US of course. I know the east particularly Japan, some of their games can hit a even split which would otherwise be mostly male in the US. Like Final Fantasy 14 reborn being near a even split while in the US/EU male dominated. I brought that up because not all markets as we know aren't the same in different regions.

Yeah I don't see much change in the game industry, unless there is a market shift. So here's to the next generation of gaming being the same.

It's important to note that social gamers on mobile or free to play games are not necessarily consumers. For example, I play Angry Birds. I do not buy angry birds. I did play farmville at one point, I did not spend a dime. Their hope is that enough people will pay money for certain actions to make them a huge ROI.

The AAA market and the casual/social market aren't exactly overlapping. The casual market doesn't generally pay $60 for a game. EA is actively pursuing this group and we'll see if there's enough overlap to turn a decent profit but that also relies on EA producing a product they want. For example, their last "free to play" required you to buy the game and then had free to play elements which basically made them the worst kind of evil. Casual gaming as a whole also has the problem of not typically being something you can throw in the system and playing with little to know background. We'll see if the two areas can be merged, but I expect the attempt will only succeed in weakening the nature of the AAA to the point that it wouldn't be really considered AAA if it goes that route. It could create a clarification of categories of AAA. Such as casual AAA vs traditional AAA.

 

[Dragonbums]

Minor problem: the West isn't white (even if people would love to think so),while only around 2% of the population in Japan can be seen as "non asian".Asian games aren't missrepresenting their countries when they don't inculde "non asian" characters,that's just how the demographics are.When a Game made in the USA or Europe only includes white characters,then they forget an important part of their population.

In the UK 8% of the population isn't white. In most northern and Eastern European countries less than 1% of the population isn't white. So Europe is white and most games in Europe that only include white characters aren't missing an important part of their population. You shouldn't assume that every Western country has the same racial mix as the USA (63.7% white European, 12.2% black, 8.7% white Hispanic/Latino, 6% other Hispanic, and 4.7% Asian).

Yeah,no.I'm pretty sure I know my continent and my country enough to know that there's a level between white and color, that classifying demographics by people's skin color isn't very legal.What far right website did you got those stats from?
Your argument,like most of your arguments is a logic fallcy (what happend to west and south?If people in Japan don't want to be considered as white,why the bleaching creme and the plastic surgery?).Next you're going to try and convince people that being a white,heterosexual guy means being part of a global majority.

I agree with this post for the most part.
Only issue I take is with this part.

If people in Japan don't want to be considered as white,why the bleaching creme

It's not so much being considered white, but a cultural thing. The paler you are, means the richer you are. Since rich people don't go outside for manual labor, that means that they are financially well off and a more desired potential partner. Which manifests in what it is today.

That was the case centuries ago.Since the 60,rich people have a tan to show that they can afford a trip to St Tropez (that's where the term Jet Set comes from) and spend their days sunbathing on the beach because they have enough money and don't need to work.It's really more of a racist issue,since photoshop is often used for "whitewashing" people with darker skin.

Beyonce in real life and Beyonce for a L'Oréal ad campaign:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6xakgAWQK1qa9dfj.jpg

Gabby Sidibe in real life and Gabby Sidibe on an Elle cover:
http://www.beautyredefined.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gabourey-sidibe-photoshop-450-thumb-450x300-764251.jpg

And when you have a light skin tone,this is what they'll do to you:
Nicole Kidman in real life: http://filmsplusmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Nicole-Kidman7.jpg
and after a photoshoot: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/celebdatabase/nicolekidman/nicole_kidman1_300_400.jpg

It's the old idea that "white and european" (but not too white) is better than any other skin color or look people could have.And it's not only in Japan or the West,in other parts of the world,the most common platsic surgeries are still surgeries with the purpose of looking more "european".

Oh no. I'm very aware of that. (being black myself and all.)

Of course, thanks for clearing that up.
I guess I should kind of no better. But no one else ever said otherwise.

 

[Lightknight]

That was the case centuries ago.Since the 60,rich people have a tan to show that they can afford a trip to St Tropez (that's where the term Jet Set comes from) and spend their days sunbathing on the beach because they have enough money and don't need to work.It's really more of a racist issue,since photoshop is often used for "whitewashing" people with darker skin.

While this absolutely is something people do, please keep in mind that skin color is not some stable thing. Sun exposure can drastically change the complexity of individuals of any race. There are many other images of a lighter skinned Beyonce and the difference may be more tanning than you'd think. Though the picture you presented was clearly lighter than normal. For some reason, people seem to think that black people don't tan or aren't affected by the sun at all. I'm not sure where they get that.

 

[Arrogancy]

I think Maria Theresa is worth a mention, I mean I get that she'd be overlooked when compared to protagonists from games where the story and character development is central. But compared to Jim's conclusion of a dinosaur, whose not in any way visually female, I think she wins hands down. Even if she's based on a real world person she's undoubtedly a developer created character, she's not conventionally attractive and she definitely has unique motivations that aren't just about hardship or doing something for a man ( on the contrary, her special ability is about making a man do something for her ).

I get why she wasn't chosen as she's a real person. But all the same I think she'd have been the better choice whilst still proving the overall point, by virtue of being taken straight from the pages of world history whilst actually being a human woman instead of a dinosaur.

She's not a playable protagonist, which was one of the major criteria. The personalities at the head of the Civ empires are just that, personalities, not characters. You don't play as them you play through them, if you catch my meaning.

 

[Hagi]

She's not a playable protagonist, which was one of the major criteria. The personalities at the head of the Civ empires are just that, personalities, not characters. You don't play as them you play through them, if you catch my meaning.

You also play through most protagonists, with them being basically just a skin for your player model during actual gameplay and you get to watch them externally through cutscenes.

She's a playable protagonist every bit as much as Vertigo is. You can select her from a whole roster of possible options to represent you in-game and you get some flavor text to explain her motivations and backstory.

If you're going to disqualify Maria Theresa on those grounds then you should disqualify Vertigo as well.

As I said, I can understand not counting her on the basis of her not being invented by the developers. But she is a protagonist every bit as much as the characters from a fighting game.

 

[Arrogancy]

She's not a playable protagonist, which was one of the major criteria. The personalities at the head of the Civ empires are just that, personalities, not characters. You don't play as them you play through them, if you catch my meaning.

You also play through most protagonists, with them being basically just a skin for your player model during actual gameplay and you get to watch them externally through cutscenes.

She's a playable protagonist every bit as much as Vertigo is. You can select her from a whole roster of possible options to represent you in-game and you get some flavor text to explain her motivations and backstory.

If you're going to disqualify Maria Theresa on those grounds then you should disqualify Vertigo as well.

As I said, I can understand not counting her on the basis of her not being invented by the developers. But she is a protagonist every bit as much as the characters from a fighting game.

Alright, let me articulate the difference: You directly control Vertigo and the other characters thus far listed in this thread, you do not directly control Maria. She is just a portrait that symbolizes a civilization, not really a driving force within that civilization, at least as far as the game is concerned. She may as well not exist for the vast majority of the time because the focus isn't on Maria as a character and her actions, but rather about the civilization which you, the player, manage, not you, Maria acting as player proxy. That's the difference, and why I don't think Maria is a valid protagonist.

 

[Dragonbums]

That was the case centuries ago.Since the 60,rich people have a tan to show that they can afford a trip to St Tropez (that's where the term Jet Set comes from) and spend their days sunbathing on the beach because they have enough money and don't need to work.It's really more of a racist issue,since photoshop is often used for "whitewashing" people with darker skin.

While this absolutely is something people do, please keep in mind that skin color is not some stable thing. Sun exposure can drastically change the complexity of individuals of any race. There are many other images of a lighter skinned Beyonce and the difference may be more tanning than you'd think. Though the picture you presented was clearly lighter than normal. For some reason, people seem to think that black people don't tan or aren't affected by the sun at all. I'm not sure where they get that.

Probably has more to do with the fact that chocolate or dark chocolate black people are more or less "common".

At first glance, especially if one is not a stickler for details, It always appears that we don't tan at all no matter what the weather is.

However if we were to remove our clothing, you can see a very discernible shade difference between what is usually covered up by fabrics.

Of course even then, the difference is a bit hard to see. Especially in winter and fall seasons.

 

[Hagi]

Alright, let me articulate the difference: You directly control Vertigo and the other characters thus far listed in this thread, you do not directly control Maria. She is just a portrait that symbolizes a civilization, not really a driving force within that civilization, at least as far as the game is concerned. She may as well not exist for the vast majority of the time because the focus isn't on Maria as a character and her actions, but rather about the civilization which you, the player, manage, not you, Maria acting as player proxy. That's the difference, and why I don't think Maria is a valid protagonist.

You do directly control Maria. You are Maria. Why do you think the entire introduction speech talks about Maria in the second person? Why the special power she grants is available at all times and not only in the ages she actually was alive?

Oh great queen, bold and dignified, the time has come for you to rise and guide your kingdom once again. Can you return your people to the height of prosperity and splendor? Will you build a civilization that will stand the test of time?

Both of them are 2D drawings that represent your character. Both of them are protagonists.

 

[Lightknight]

Probably has more to do with the fact that chocolate or dark chocolate black people are more or less "common".

At first glance, especially if one is not a stickler for details, It always appears that we don't tan at all no matter what the weather is.

However if we were to remove our clothing, you can see a very discernible shade difference between what is usually covered up by fabrics.

Of course even then, the difference is a bit hard to see. Especially in winter and fall seasons.

I only recently learned that people aren't necessarily aware that everyone tans.

It's still surprising though. I mean, I figured this out in elementary school with my best friend being black. Back from spring break and he's multiple shades darker? Easy to see. But you'd think people would at least have black coworkers they'd see tanning even if not close friends. Maybe people really aren't that observant? Like you said, it's less noticeable if people are naturally in the darker complexion range so perhaps that's why as it is a more common range?

 

[Look-a-Hill]

She's probably been mentioned but Chell ticks pretty much every box.