Prospective Publishers Wanted a Male-Centric Remember Me

[Proverbial Jon]

I couldn't understand having such a petty mindset that it would have me refuse to buy a game simply because the protagonist was female.

I could write so much about this topic, honestly I could, but I shall remain calm and say quite simply: If given the choice in a game I will always play as a female, if for no other reason than to change things up a bit! I'm fed up with being a capable, butch man all the damn time. Plus, RPGs are more fun that way.

God damn narrow minded publishers.

I'm pretty interested in this game and I'll probably get it anyway, but just the fact that they stuck to their guns on this makes me respect them even more. You fight the power dontnod games!

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

This is the point I keep on making. It's not that gamers don't want female characters, it's that developers seem to think that we don't, or that we won't buy games if they have them.

That's the problem when companies are designed around focus groups and "market research" rather than just trying to make a good game and then selling it. They keep trying to appeal to a statistic rather than actual people.

Yeah there are reasons they think this game won't sell. That market research and focus groups stuff is what tells you whether your game is going to sell or not and if the market is better suited having a game with a male protagonist instead of a female one then tough shit. I don't like it, it's lead to the death of many games, but it's how publishers work. If you want their money then you need to be able to prove it'll sell with research and figures to prove it, not just "people on forums are angry about it so everyone must want to buy it."

To put it simply, these guys know what they're doing. They wouldn't throw away potential money for anything.

Also that 47% stat is complete horse shit. It's not an accurate representation of the sort of audience that gives a flying fuck about any of this stuff. If I'm going to be blunt, that survey lumps the casuals in with us, the people who couldn't care less about the gaming industry, so all it's really good for is toilet paper.

 

[Legion]

This is the point I keep on making. It's not that gamers don't want female characters, it's that developers seem to think that we don't, or that we won't buy games if they have them.

That's the problem when companies are designed around focus groups and "market research" rather than just trying to make a good game and then selling it. They keep trying to appeal to a statistic rather than actual people.

Yeah there are reasons they think this game won't sell. That market research and focus groups stuff is what tells you whether your game is going to sell or not and if the market is better suited having a game with a male protagonist instead of a female one then tough shit. I don't like it, it's lead to the death of many games, but it's how publishers work. If you want their money then you need to be able to prove it'll sell with research and figures to prove it, not just "people on forums are angry about it so everyone must want to buy it."

To put it simply, these guys know what they're doing. They wouldn't throw away potential money for anything.

That explains why the recent Tomb Raider game made over one million sales in the first few days, whereas Medal of Honor Warfighter barely reached half a million a month later. If publishers were that savvy on what people wanted then they wouldn't try and sell crap like that and games with female leads wouldn't be among the best.

I agree that the 47% statistic doesn't really mean much when it includes any and all games. Not because they don't "count as games" but because while 47% of gamers may be female, it would not be accurate to say 47% of COD players are, for example. So as a statistic it does nothing to suggest that the COD developers are missing out on pleasing a large portion of their fans.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

That explains while the recent Tomb Raider game made over one million sales in the first few days, whereas Medal of Honor Warfighter barely reached half a million a month later. If publishers were that savvy on what people wanted then they wouldn't try and sell crap like that and games with female leads wouldn't be among the best.

Pointing out a couple of exceptions doesn't prove me wrong. Tomb Raider is an iconic game and Lara is a video game legend, the sales weren't because she was a girl, they were because she was one of the PS1's pantheon and this was the first game that received real PR and looked good.

Still, even if the sales were because of the character being a woman, you've shot yourself in your own foot because the best selling game of 2013, according to the linked ESA study in the OP, was MW3, in which you play a guy. So by your logic of basing what gamers want entirely off sales, you lose.

 

[Norix596]

Well kudos to them for sticking to their guns - I can't imagine it was easy passing up the opportunity to secure publishers in doing so.

 

[hickwarrior]

snip

*sighs* I keep snipping...

Then tell me how that actually works, because I'm not entirely convinced. I feel like a lot of behavior is muddled and affected by what the culture is.

Although I'll give you one thing: guys don't seem to be as into the whole relationship talks as women do, I've noticed.

 

[Metalrocks]

people who woulndt buy a game because of a female protagonist, are simply idiots. the same for people who dont buy a game if it doenst have any kind of MP. absolutely stupid.
i personally prefer playing a female character. we have to many male characters in games. sure, we have bloodrayne, tomb raider, ME series (if you choose to play as a female), mirrors edge, etc, but the rest are mainly male.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

At least the developers stuck to their guns. It's really kind of depressing - both how much influence a publisher's market data can have on the creative direction of the game, and the underlying reasons for that market data existing in the first place.

What needs to happen is games like this and the recent Tomb Raider reboot need to succeed so that publishers can be shown that a female protagonist isn't as much of a liability as their models tell them they are. So it's good that the developers weren't swayed.

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

I went to check the older article that was linked and.. Sleeping dogs could have had a female protagonist? That would have been sweet. I liked the one we got, he was better than most male characters anyway, but it would have been cooler with a female.

I'm glad they didn't back down and change it to a male character. Usually the males are pretty bland, and the female characters tend to be fewer but more interesting. At least to me.

 

[Coreless]

I'll never understand the thinking behind these kinds of decisions because if anything I am even more interested in playing a game with a great female character over one with a male lead. Male characters in games are getting even more boring as time goes on and the market is flooded with them, we definitely need to start seeing more female leads and the new Tomb Raider pretty much shows that this kind of mentality is just dead wrong.

 

[Loonyyy]

This and their attrocious press release about designing the character are making me very uneasy about the developers of this.

"I won't sting you" said the scorpion. They're trying very hard to be seen as some staunch presenters of a female protagonist. I'm not opposed to the protagonist, far from it, but they seem to be trying kind of too hard, and they're all too happy to show they're either ignorant or lying about it.

 

[Candidus]

Snip

I'm wondering if the reason that they don't "name and shame" is because they're just making this story up in an attempt to drum up a few more sales for a game that doesn't really look like it's going to be setting the world on fire.

I don't know. It's plausible, but so is your rather cynical interpretation. Hmmm.

Forgetting the publishers for a moment, I'm kind of annoyed that the developers rationalise their choice with this special qualifier:
"The world we were building was much more about emotion, intimacy, identity, and the way technology would intersect those ... and it just made sense to us that it would be a female character."

It makes me feel like they're making the right choice for the wrong reasons. A female protagonist makes sense in an emotional game about identity and philosophy because...? What, because women are easier to identify with the process of emotional introspection and philosophical thought, and harder to identify with standard explosive action faire? Pardon me while I plug my nose, the bullshit is so strong my eyes are watering.

A female protagonist makes perfect sense in a game about burning a tropical island to ashes and butchering the inhabitants for cash or to make bags that hold more cash. They make sense anywhere, for the very same reason that a male protagonist makes sense anywhere.

I'd like to see the special qualifiers fucking disappear. The fact that someone at their studio felt the need to deliver one demonstrates that they haven't taken a step forward at all.

 

[ThisGuyLikesNoTacos]

I think we need a moratorium on male protagonists for a few years.

No, better still, a moratorium on human protagonists. Seriously, humans are bloody boring.

I call Metal Gear Rising DLC with Wolf as the playable character.

 

[Jamous]

Really good on Dontnod for sticking to their guns. We need more good female protagonists and I'm very glad we didn't lose this one.

 

[Hyper-space]

This is the point I keep on making. It's not that most gamers don't want female characters (although of course there are always some), it's that developers seem to think that we don't, or that we won't buy games if they have them.

That's the problem when companies are designed around focus groups and "market research" rather than just trying to make a good game and then selling it. They keep trying to appeal to a statistic rather than actual people.

To be honest the only part of Remember Me that puts me off is that irritating hologram thing near her neck. The idea of one being there isn't bad, but the design draws the eye to it the entire time it is on screen. That, and the voice acting seems a little lacklustre.

The ESA says that 47% of ALL gamers are women, but that doesn't necessarily mean the demographic that specific publishers want to cater to is populated by females. The term "all gamers" means everyone, including people who just play facebook/mobile games.

While I don't doubt that there are female gamers that play "hardcore" games, if the market research shows that they are in the minority in some specific demographic and that having a female main character could lessen the appeal of the game to the majority, market logic would dictate that they steer clear of anything that could potentially jeopardize the product's sales. It might not be a fair system, but its all about catering to the majority of the people who would actually buy your game.

 

[hentropy]

snip

This is where the conversation gets into bad territory. Men and women are vastly different from each other. To deny that is just completely wrong. It's demeaning to men and women. If you can't acknowledge that simple fact, then you can't understand anything I have been talking about. This is exactly what psychologist talk about about when they say that the need to define men and women as the same and exactly equal in all measures prevents any meaningful understanding of the opposite genders in both real life and good story telling. You are so anxious to make this whole thing about how equal we all have to be at everything that you homogenize the sexes and that is what creates bad, uninteresting and characters that lack diversity. It would have been OK if Samus had some female motivation, but they turned her into the most needy character in the story. That is what broke the character, not giving her female traits, but destroying the gender neutral traits and strength by defining the female traits as her main features and motivations.

"According to my assessment...": You don't understand my assessment, you never will because you don't understand the simple fundamental differences between men and women besides their basic appearance. Men and women are driven differently, that is basic stuff. I never said driven by what's between our legs, but you choose to interpret it that way simply because you have to try and make them the same because that is the only way they can be seen as equal. Some of the differences of men and women are biology (testosterone vs estrogen), social (raised differently depending on gender) and outright physical (I'm far stronger, have thicker bones and denser muscle mass than any of my female counterparts). I'm not saying that I am better or that man is better, no one is, I'm just acknowledging they are not the same. They are not equal in a given situation. And that is what informs decisions and interpretation of the world, and why men and women are very different creatures.

"Waaaah you don't understand me" is the last refuge of people with no argument. You didn't even mention of the points I pointed out, just went on a standard pseudo-sexist rant about how sex is so important and how men and women are so different.

Here's the thing: I agree with that. Men and women are different beyond their mere physicality. But here's the kicker, and it seems to be the thing you can't even fathom: PEOPLE are different. Put a hundred people in the same room and chances are they will have very different life experiences that inform who they are. Biology? People have very different biological makeups from person to person as well, we are not stock models born with the same exact amount of hormones, and our brains and bodies don't react the same ways to those hormones. Physical? There are plenty of women who work out who are stronger than men who don't work out, men have a higher capacity for it, but like everything it comes down to the individual and the individual choice. Men and women don't grow up in uniform social environments either, it varies wildly depending on what culture you grow up in, a poor southern rural girl in the US vs. an upper-class inner-city girl growing up in London. And that doesn't even speak to individual households and the differences in what they might teach, the southern rural girl might have two mommies and be taught very liberal social values, where as the upper class London girl might have been taught very conservative social values in comparison.

If I'm writing a character, simply using generalities regarding gender is the worst thing I can do, there a so many more meaningful variables someone can use to build a realistic and and believable character who can bring something to story I'm telling. Especially in fantasy or sci-fi worlds, who knows what the differences in culture might be, how different it is to live in this fictional world. All of these things have to be taken in to account, and gender seems relatively small in comparison. Again, I never once said it was irrelevant or that the sexes were "equal", only that it is one of the many many things that make up a human, who are intrinsically unequal.

 

[Quellist]

Sad really, i think most publishers are only interested in a female protagonist that looks like she's ready for sex (Bayonetta, Ayumi from X-Blades etc). Its even sadder because Nilin looks like she has been somewhat sexed up already and i imagine that might have been some kind of compromise to get the game published at all.

I guess lowest common denomenator (in this case short attention span teens eager for 'teh bewbs') wins the day as far as publishers are concerned