j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
What exactly are we losing here? This is what I don't understand about industry defenders. What exactly would we lose by having more female characters as leads. Do you think games would be less fun if you had to play as a woman? Because if so, then I find it awfully sad that you'd judge the quality of a game based on the genitalia of the main character, rather than the merits of the gameplay.
Two fold answer here... (somewhat devils advocate)
...from a publishers standpoint; money. Challenging the status quo is a risky business venture and not one that the vast majority of executives are going to gamble on. It's also the reason that most creative projects don't see the light of day. Niche markets don't work as an economic model for success; you want to target as many demographics as possible to maximize profit margins.
That argument isn't so much in regard to actual loss, but potential loss. And when you talk to any publishers, it's all about potential. Maximizing potential profit, minimizing potential losses. While true investments always come with an element of risk, there is a limit to any investment. If the safe money says to do something a certain way; those that control the money will want to listen to the stats.
There's also negative press, which at this point, can be argued to both harm and support games. Press is press, whether negative or positive. But in the world of political advocacy, and a consumer base that complains about EVERYTHING; minimizing political controversy is also the safest rout to take. Which means the less they deal with the political, the better it is for the bottom line. This is why we've seen companies change certain things about their game to appear more PC; because they are trying to protect their interests.
Also considering the saturation of media, analysts tend to take a look at the bigger picture to; how does cross media affect sales and market trends? One obvious example; block buster action flicks make more money than chick flicks. And most chick flicks have what most consider to be the stereotypical "empowered female" lead (good career, rocking body, great life, etc). What's strange, is that action flicks starring females don't make as much money as those staring men.
One *can* and *should* certainly make the argument that women are still the primary consumers of material goods (at least in the US) and most marketing does involve them to some degree; with the few exceptions where women are not the target demographic. In this case, movies and video games are still primarily consume by men. So that plays into the market focus. You aren't going to walk into a 24 Hour Fitness to sell ice cream (you still might make some money, but it's not your target demographic).
Even crowd funding supports that certain projects are going to get more appealing to the community than others. So we can't even hold the publishers accountable for that. On the plus side, it does support that a more neutral (or gender encompassing) take seems to be the best way to go (if you can successfully manage it). But does that mean it will be met with the same level of success as the status quo? Will it be able to survive the communities discussion and potential backlash that something wasn't handled "correctly"?
This of course, only applied to games that actually deal with gender in some fashion whether through the narrative of the story or through a characters interaction with the environment. What's quite strange, is that in many successful games, gender has nothing to do with it (such as Tetris or Angry Birds), which seems to support the notion that simply *not* having anything to do with gender is a safe bet. (Not to mention games with a striking similarity sans gender switch that were successful when the protagonist was male, but a failure when they were female)
What most of that boils down to is that we may or may not have anything to lose depending on how one looks at it, but what exactly do we stand to gain? And how can you prove it when the evidence doesn't?
...from a philosophical standpoint; is an arbitrary change worth the effort? Say you wrote a narrative which a man is the protagonist. Within the framework of the story, it never occurred to you as the writer that the characters gender ever made the slightest difference, nor was ever a mention in the game. Essentially his being male had nothing to do with the story, so him suddenly being female would make no difference to the story. I would pose two questions to you...
First; what difference does it make then if the character is male or female if it has no impact on the story whatsoever?
Second; how would you respond to criticism that altering the gender of the person creates fundamental differences in audience perception to the character within the framework of the story?
One example, an interaction of the primary character with their father. The same narrative, same emotional reactions, same cinematic, same everything, the only change being that the character is either the fathers son, or the fathers daughter...
Character: I had to do something terrible that I'll have to live with the rest of my life.
Father: I know it's hard, but you'll get through this. You have so much courage in your heart.
Character: I know. It was the right thing to do; you taught me that.
Father: You have no idea how proud I am of you right now.
Character: I love you dad.
Father: I love you too *character*.
...the biological or gender identity of the character has *nothing* to do with their interaction (from an authors perspective at least), yet I would wager a safe bet that the audience reactions change dramatically dependent upon both the genders of the audience, and the specific gender of the character. Does the scene lose or gain anything if you have a specific gender for the character? Is that going to positively or negatively impact your bottom line when it comes to sales? How can you determine the community will think the same way?
Having said all of this (My personal position here...), I am not against male or female characters, nor how they are represented when compared directly to the game and narrative they find themselves in (I like establishing contextual relevance first before comparing it against a larger picture). I just don't buy that certain representations are *better* for the industry when their is a distinct lack of evidence that supports it and the changes suggest a purely arbitrary preference. And given that it remains purely speculative and arbitrary in nature, I welcome those who wish to test it to assume the risk themselves; and not simply require others do it on their behalf (considering we are taking about people's livelihoods here).
