The Needles: Lose the Dude

[Mathak]

This reminds me of the almost decade-old Jeff Freeman article, "Chicks in Gaming." Gather 'round, youngins, and read what was wrote when the net was young(er).

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/acksep97.html

Good lord...is that satire, or is the guy really such a bitter ahole?

 

[hyperdrachen]

It's not april.

 

[Macgyvercas]

This article confused me. What about Gordon Freeman, Jack (BioShock), Mario, Link, Nathan Drake, Ezio, Altair, Marcus Fenix, Master Chief, et. al?

Or is this satire? I really can't tell. Someone clue me in please.

 

[Dora]

I think when most people think "casual gaming", at least as far as relates to hidden-object games, they do tend to think "chick games". Whether that's true or not, most of these games DO tend to be marketed towards women. Or at least, that's the opinion they're giving. As the article pointed out, men do tend to get shoehorned into "beefcake" roles. Hell, a lot of hidden-object story-centric games will often cram a dude in there SOLELY to get some G-rated romance happening. It kind of makes a lot of hidden-object titles into the gaming equivalent of a Harlequin romance novel.

Man I do not care what Baron Von Moustache and Agnes Featherbottom think of each other. I just want to hunt down some freaking CHERRIES.

To briefly touch on what someone brought up, that "hardcore" games tend to be for dudes, or are at least assumed to be, it really IS the popular opinion. If I tell someone I play games, they immediately think I mean I make dollhouses in The Sims. Which is... admittedly true. (For me The Sims is sort of the gaming equivalent of turning off your higher brain functions for a few to unwind.) But my gaming roster is also made up of titles like Team Fortress 2, Earthbound, Fallout, House of the Dead, Dragon Age, etc. It's just a stereotype, but I'd personally say there are worse stereotypes to get riled up about than someone assuming I play video games with my pinkies in the air and all the gore sliders set to "rainbows".

 

[MomoHime64]

Seriously, this article sucked. When women complain about there not being a female lead in a game, it's usually a game where part of the gaming experience *is* about identifying and "role playing" through the lead. I frankly get bored with games a lot faster (if the writing isn't great) if I have to play the same damn guy over and over in every game. It limits the narrative to playing out a certain way that having a female lead would change. That's why I appreciate games like Mass Effect & Fallout 3 - it lets you play as a female lead with significant points (seducing Tenpenny's man in Megaton into leaving, for example) affected by the gender, and that makes that game richer for me.

Yeah, there's no point in having something like Uncharted 2 for Girls, because the writing in the game made the male lead a character in his own right. We weren't directed to MAKE him our own character, like some games do as part of their appeal. So I wouldn't change that game.

But in certain games where we get to largely define our avatars' personalities, and that is part of the POINT of that game, hell yeah, we want more choice and we want female leads. I'm really disappointed that the next Dragon Age game makes you play a guy, but if the writing is spectacular and the character is developed well, it won't bother me.

Also, part of the way our culture is developed is through narratives. If we don't have bad-ass, non-sexually objectified female leads in some games (SOME not all!), our gaming culture is then defined by the uber-macho narrative of our collective game experiences. No wonder women are still harassed (usually when participating in those games that are defined by uber-macho narratives) - there is no narrative framework in our culture subset for how to define a bad-ass chick who just pwned your ass at Slayer, except to call her a ***** or ask for tits or gtfo. Yeah, the harassers are one in a thousand, but I guarantee you not one of us doesn't think this is a one-off, unheard-of outrageous event. That's because of the narratives that define gaming culture - it creates scripts in our minds that we may not act upon, but which we use to understand certain events. It may not be normal, but it *is* normative behavior.

In the end, I know this was satire, but hell, if you're gonna bring this crap up, at least do it RIGHT and understand what we women are complaining about. I don't want a female avatar in every game, but for certain games, it makes sense to have that option - and oftentimes, we don't get it. And sometimes, it's better for our culture to swap brown-palette marine guy for brown-palette marine gal.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

"They want to say yes, I am trying to solve my mentor's murder and save the world from a diabolical plot by uncovering the ancient and magical treasure of Ra, and I'm doing it with testicles! My hint meter is full, my chromosome is X and by God, I will not rest until my Big Fish Game Club card is full!"

Well...one of them certainly is. But the women gamers have two of those

You should probably take a look at what is there before you changed it to X chromosome.

 

[mudsoup]

I agree with Wicky 42, the author, Andy, is entertaining us with humor while injecting a stimulant to arouse the thought process.
Excellent writing and a good read!

 

[Andy Chalk]

In the end, I know this was satire, but hell, if you're gonna bring this crap up, at least do it RIGHT and understand what we women are complaining about.

But are women really complaining? I'll be quite honest, it's not something I've heard a lot about. The industry and the audience are obviously male-dominated but among the female gamers I know, and there are a few, I haven't really heard any great outrage over the shortage of female lead characters. Is it really an issue at all?

I think most of the uproar that arose from this, and it's really been quite muted compared to what I was expecting, is a result of the fact that it was Activision allegedly giving the order. The fact that Activision clearly has good reasons to keep on doing what it does apparently isn't relevant; Bobby Kotick is evil, Activision is evil, thus the gender imbalance is evil. But Activision is a business. Its responsibility is to its shareholders, not to social progress. The predominance of "uber-macho narratives" in modern games and the harassment of female gamers that results isn't game culture, that's just culture, period. You want to change games? Change the world.

 

[DTWolfwood]

I do love reading these articles and then reading the comments XD
the fact half the ppl who read it thinks its for realz is way too comical hahaha.

If the game is good and the game is fun why does it matter if the lead is man or woman, and y should a publisher change on something that works? just so they can please a small bitching minority? Ludicrous!

 

[DaOysterboy]

My $0.02: I've read through all these comments, and really I think people either want the point spoon-fed to them, or insist on being offended.

Firstly, regarding Andy's assertion that, yes indeed, core IS for boys and casual IS for girls, I'd have to say that I completely agree. It's the same reason porn is for boys and romance novels are for girls (if I may make so crude an analogy)... many games sell on the basis of player-insert fantasy fulfillment. Between porn and romance novels, neither genre is complex, and each caters very specifically to notions that are most heavily related to by either one gender or the other. Guys enjoy games where you can take a big weapon (or an easily concealed one in some cases) and go kill several thousand of whatever the threatening creature-of-the-day is. This brand of game sells very well among guys for the same reasons that this brand of movie has a "not-for-a-first-date" stigma about it. It speaks to testosterone, and doesn't know any other languages. Likewise, guys are much less likely to relate to games that center around multitasking in a diner, or making the optimal decisions to prepare for your date that evening. We don't have the necessary estrogen. Some may think that the above comment is sexist, which in a certain light probably has some merit, but I think of it as just recognizing that there IS an actual DIFFERENCE between the sexes, and efforts to eliminate or ignore that difference are more futile than resisting the borg. Arguing about gender equality issues within these contexts is as useless as being concerned about how the portrayal of women in porn movies is likely to affect the women who watch them, or the portrayal of men in romance novels is likely to affect the men who read them... they really can only affect the perception of those who partake. It's much more important to debate how porn makes women look TO MEN or how romance novels make men look TO WOMEN. So, in that context I think women DO have a valid argument that many core games cast females as a sidequest with boobs, I think Andy's point is well made to ask if it's really the women complaining that these games aren't for them. When you go out to buy "The Godfather" or "Sleepless in Seattle" you pretty much know what you're getting. Why do the rules need to be different if I'm buying "Grand Theft Auto IV" or "Samantha Swift and the Hidden Roses of Athena"?

Secondly, the gender role shouldn't particularly matter. If Half-Life's mute, alien-slaying protagonist had been female instead of male, would it make a difference? For my own part, I see Gordon Freeman as the LEAST interesting character in the half-life games because he's really just the hand that holds the gun. I didn't suddenly gain a wider, more accepting take on women gamers or the female population at large when I played as Chelle in Portal. Mute protagonists aside, someone has already mentioned the disconnect between player and character. This goes both ways. Lara Croft isn't really relatable to women. Master chief isn't really relatable to men. And would it really change the entertainment value if Mario suddenly became Maria? I don't know, maybe more guys would be offended if Luigi got kidnapped by a big spikey turtle-dragon every two weeks so Nintendo could regurgitate the "Maria" franchise, but I don't really think I'd care. I'd have to see an iteration or two to know for sure, but to me the idea isn't abhorrently sexist, as some people seem determined to make out the core gaming industry at large to be.

Thirdly, the above paragraph is really a point Activision SHOULD get, but the "lose the chick" comment hints that they don't. They're so entrenched in the notion of "if it sold before it will sell again" that anything BUT wholesale ripping off of other franchises is anathema to their business policy and tactics. Who's up for a game of "spot the logical fallacy"? "If no women were the main protagonist in the top selling games of last year, then it means people won't buy games with female protagonists because of the female protagonist." I think Activision should really be a bit more mature with their business models as a whole. Yeah, I know they denied the comment, but who would really admit to it? They should have a bit more sense.

Lastly,

But these games tend to be shallow, flat and repetitive, built around the outmoded assumption that male gamers just want to shoot people in the face and blow things up.

I couldn't stop laughing.

 

[Naheal]

The Needles: Lose the Dude

Why are lead characters in videogames almost always women?

Read Full Article

Protip: men are identified by the Y sex chromosome (in conjunction with a single x), women have a pair of Xs.

-m

Protip: this man only wishes he were pro, but occasionally gives good advice.

 

[MomoHime64]

But are women really complaining?

I think most of the uproar that arose from this, and it's really been quite muted compared to what I was expecting, is a result of the fact that it was Activision allegedly giving the order. The fact that Activision clearly has good reasons to keep on doing what it does apparently isn't relevant; Bobby Kotick is evil, Activision is evil, thus the gender imbalance is evil. But Activision is a business. Its responsibility is to its shareholders, not to social progress. The predominance of "uber-macho narratives" in modern games and the harassment of female gamers that results isn't game culture, that's just culture, period. You want to change games? Change the world.

The women I know who game, yeah, a lack of female protagonists isn't what we consider a major downfall of the industry, but it's one of those grumbling complaints I hear and sometimes reflect. I compare it to load screens; mostly it's something that isn't bothersome, but it can be improved on - and on some occasions, it creates a jarring game-breaking dissonance with game narrative.

As far as the Activision outcry, it may have brought this subject to the forefront again (because we all like to jump on a good round of Activision bashing), but it's something that's circulated for a while - among the women I know, and the forums I visit, at least. Whatever Activision is doing, I know game publishing and development is often a numbers game, pure and simple. For a publisher like Activision, picking a protagonist for a multi-million dollar franchise will come down to focus groups and safe bets, because there's so much at stake. Even if having a male avatar will sell 3 percent more units, of course they're going to direct the dev team to make a male avatar. But if the games industry as a whole - hell, if any creatively-driven media industry as whole consistently produced only safe bets, the media it produces gets stale - and the consumer moves on.

As far as "uber-macho narratives" - narratives *are* changing the world, and have changed themselves. Since it's often compared with the games industry, let's look at the movie industry. We're not at the point where a movie with a kick-ass female lead won't be marketed or received or talked about as "Holy crap, female empowerment!" - i.e., it's not so much a part of our culture that it's gotten beyond tokenism - but there are certainly marked evolutions in female roles in movies. I'm not saying that movies don't still use normative gender roles, but humans evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys, and we still have monkeys. Male-lead macho movies - and macho games - can co-exist with movies/games that feature a woman in traditionally macho roles. We've moved from Faye Raye's fainting beauty to Sigourney Weaver's asexual Ripley, a role that was written originally for a man (I speak of the first Alien movie - relegating a woman to having immense power when she's got a child to protect is moving, but a slightly sexist slant to viewing how and when women can exercise violence). And once Hollywood had a commercially successful movie with a female protagonist, there were many other characters inspired by or imitating her. It's partly following money, true, but that tends to come across in business meetings as a mumble that consumers aren't turned off by a strong female lead, so it's ok to plunk down investment capital on a major production when the concept has been proven safe.

Quite frankly, I'm sort of aghast that you seem to be throwing your hands up in the air at the concept of holding games up to certain artistic standards, or that it's silly to think they can be a factor in social progress (a major definition of art is reflecting and having the potential to influence our society). Gaming is reaching a market saturation point that will, like any media, have a profound effect on our culture. Funny how cultures change when certain media reaches saturation levels. Wonder what our society would be like if movable type hadn't made books available to the common person and started with the Bible, moving it out of the Catholic Church's control? Or if broadcast channels and the tv's market saturation had avoided taking a gamble on new programming formats, leaving us without a large part of our society's shared experiences? Even something as common as Big Bang theory jokes at a water cooler serve an important social function, in this case serving as a sort of social cohesion - and mass market TV is a way to share a cohesive culture across a vast country. Will games do any less than previous media when it comes to informing us of culture and changing that culture?

So don't tell me to stop griping, or dismiss my point as invalid because games are a reflection of society at large. I know the importance of narrative in society. It's a reflection of society, but it's also a living force that can change society as well. If you want to change society, change the media it ingests. It's one of THE most effective ways to do this - oral history, told through poetry and other performance media, was once all that kept displaced cultures intact. Theater and sports, both forms of entertainment, were a huge part of, say, Greek culture, both reflecting and influencing it. Why do you think we assign certain committee-picked books to children in public schools? It helps inform them of social mores and values. We invest as a society in certain media simply BECAUSE of this effect. Just look at one of the articles here, from Movie Bob - the Movie Nerd Bible, I think it's called. It's part of what I'm talking about - a set of media can inform a group and give it a common language and experience so that they can establish and maintain this certain social group.

In this case, since the media I prefer is mostly games, and games will continue to become gradually more relevant to our society in the foreseeable future -- then I say, if you want to change society, change the games. Not all of them. Just some of them, a few, just where artistically or narratively merited. I respect the slow turn of the industry and its life-force, money, and I respect the fact that tokenism is a step towards normalizing female empowerment. But I still want to power through alien scourges with a beefy neckless male marine on a regular basis. And before you say, "Oh, go be a game designer then," I start classes in 2 weeks. I'm still gonna gripe about this little annoyance of female protagonists till then. It's how we women deal with stress and annoyance - besides committing intergalatic genocide & beating back the zombie invasion in electronic media, I mean.

 

[penthesilea180]

This site continues to amaze me. One of the most thought provoking and varied discussions of gender equality I've come across, and it's on the Escapist. Way to go.

 

[haaxist]

Good read, full of humour, but the underlying message eludes me, to my shame.

"Hardcore" games like Gears of War have male protagoniss, but casual puzzle solvers have female protagonists the vast majority of the time.

Thanks.

I just don't see why it matters, to tell the truth... I find it remarkably easy to play as either a guy or a girl. For instance, I have as much fun playing as Jill Valentine in Resident Evil as I do as Kratos in God of War. Both characters (and games) have different assets that set them apart, but they're both fun.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Vuirneen]

Bruce Beefley, the main character of the Hidden Object game "Gladiators, Guns and Swords ON FIRE AND GOING VERY FAST!" is a man.

That should be enough for you.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I just don't see why it matters, to tell the truth... I find it remarkably easy to play as either a guy or a girl. For instance, I have as much fun playing as Jill Valentine in Resident Evil as I do as Kratos in God of War. Both characters (and games) have different assets that set them apart, but they're both fun.

That's just my opinion.

Your opinion sucks. Jill Valentine could never properly make a sammich. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuz4IB6Pbc] And no female has ever made anything as awesome as that video. Or Resident Evil. Or God of War.

Because when you're creating awesome shit, you don't have time to post unfunny versions of DURRR I DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR OBVIOUS SATIRE DURRR or YOU OFFENDED MY PRECIOUS SNOWFLAKE SEEEeeeeEEELF!

How about this, oh various entitled she-and-occasionally-he-bitches: Cave Story was made by ONE MAN. With a family and a second job to support that family. Now, if ONE WOMAN can make a game as awesome as that, or better yet, if ONE WOMAN has made this game and has in fact been ignored due to sexism, then I'll consider your pettifogging concerns valid, rather
than the desperate attention-seeking of girls who no doubt failed in the both the job and the sexual market and are desperately trying to blame their problems on the nearest hapless male who'll listen to their whining.

And if you can't find this game, then take a cue from Eva Mendez and make sex tape. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEsNFOOXChI]

Huh? How does this, in any way, address the post you quoted? It's like you're having a completely different conversation.

 

[Andy Chalk]

The women I know who game, yeah, a lack of female protagonists isn't what we consider a major downfall of the industry, but it's one of those grumbling complaints I hear and sometimes reflect. I compare it to load screens; mostly it's something that isn't bothersome, but it can be improved on - and on some occasions, it creates a jarring game-breaking dissonance with game narrative.

I'm not a big fan of line-by-line quoting but I want to mention before I forget that I asked a female core gamer about this and she said something very similar: She'd love to see more female protagonists but their shortage isn't something that she's losing sleep over. So it's not an urgent concern but obviously there's a very real and shared desire for more prominent roles for women.

It's partly following money, true, but that tends to come across in business meetings as a mumble that consumers aren't turned off by a strong female lead, so it's ok to plunk down investment capital on a major production when the concept has been proven safe.

I'd disagree with you there and say it's entirely following the money. At least for companies like Activision. You can look to smaller, independent developers and maybe expect a more diverse range of gender roles, but corporate heavyweights are extremely unlikely to roll the dice on something like that. It's creatively bankrupt, sure, but that's the nature of the vast majority of the game industry - and the movie industry, too. It's profits and shareholders, and if that means churning out Modern Warfare clones and annual Madden iterations, so be it. A billion dollars - a billion dollars! - in quarterly revenue can't be all wrong.

Quite frankly, I'm sort of aghast that you seem to be throwing your hands up in the air at the concept of holding games up to certain artistic standards, or that it's silly to think they can be a factor in social progress (a major definition of art is reflecting and having the potential to influence our society).

I've done no such thing. The original article was a reaction to a number of things triggered by the "lose the chick" story, in particular the mask of surprise that some people assumed at the shocking revelation that Activision would mandate protagonist genders in major game releases, and the apparent belief that the company is somehow responsible for leading the drive toward gender equality. You may not like the prevalence of "gender normative roles" in videogames but it's hard to argue that it hasn't been a hugely profitable strategy. That's where Acti's responsibility begins and ends. I'm absolutely in favour of greater diversity in games, and I don't think your complaint is invalid. I just don't think that Activision or anyone else is under any kind of mandate to make them simply because it's the enlightened thing to do.

It's great that you start classes in two weeks. Go make a great game, break the mould and set new benchmarks. I'll buy a copy when you do. Prove to the industry once and for all that chicks can carry games and maybe you'll see a shift toward a more inclusive world. But I think it'll be a tough slog: You say you can change the world by changing games; I think you have to change the world in order to change games.

I'm also disappointed that you referenced Big Bang Theory. Why does everyone think that show is so funny? It's rancidly idiotic.

 

[manythings]

Well if we're going to play this game there are a very specific set of reasons why militaries are predominately male and the higher up you go into the likes of commandoes and spec ops the more the percentile tips away from women.

Ah, but if we are to continue this I will point out that this is a military in the future.
There is very little reason to not have more women in tougher combat roles.
It is Sci Fi after all, if we can travel through space and colonize it why can there not be gender equality in the military?
In fact, it seems like the second will come before the first.

Since women can typically and consistently out perform men in physical professions? Women can withstand twice the pain a man can before it starts reducing performance? Women can do a lot of things but physical professions will be male dominant. It's a function of how we are made and have evolved. I'm not saying women can't achieve but it is usually with more time, training and resources expended for the same results. When the military looks at training cost will determine what happens.

 

[MomoHime64]

I'm not a big fan of line-by-line quoting but I want to mention before I forget that I asked a female core gamer about this and she said something very similar: She'd love to see more female protagonists but their shortage isn't something that she's losing sleep over. So it's not an urgent concern but obviously there's a very real and shared desire for more prominent roles for women.

It's partly following money, true, but that tends to come across in business meetings as a mumble that consumers aren't turned off by a strong female lead, so it's ok to plunk down investment capital on a major production when the concept has been proven safe.

I'd disagree with you there and say it's entirely following the money.

Quite frankly, I'm sort of aghast that you seem to be throwing your hands up in the air at the concept of holding games up to certain artistic standards, or that it's silly to think they can be a factor in social progress (a major definition of art is reflecting and having the potential to influence our society).

I've done no such thing.

You say you can change the world by changing games; I think you have to change the world in order to change games.

I'm also disappointed that you referenced Big Bang Theory. Why does everyone think that show is so funny? It's rancidly idiotic.

I'll be brief - thanks for reading and responding to what was, for me, a quick write, but probably a long read. I do appreciate it, and I'm glad you asked a female core gamer and got some more input on this issue, and your responses are well thought out and make me think more about my stance on the issue.

I agree, as far as Activision goes, money is entirely the issue. I'm not going to challenge your stance, or their methods - they have the financial leeway to piss off their customer base, so, it's not like I *can* argue with a proven system. However, I don't think this industry would support only Activision's business model. And fortunately, it doesn't have to. The more technologically savvy gamers become, and as more game-making technology advances, the more I see games being made that are about more than the bottom line, where a game can be made that can take risks that might cost them a percentage of market share, but ultimately (hopefully) make a better game. That being said, I don't think it's wise to ever ignore the purpose of a game company is to make money - but sometimes, it's not mutually exclusive to make a profitable game AND one that defies conventional game design.

Of course, just like the movie industry, the majority of media produced are going to be committee-selected focus-group-tested mass-market games hoping to get as much return on the investment as possible. This isn't a bad thing - but the industry as a whole shouldn't be tuned to specifically change an avatar's gender if it would damage the gaming narrative. (Or nationality, or race, or age, etc.) Sometimes, the unusual choice is the right choice - and right now, the unusual choice is having a female avatar. It shouldn't be in every game, but it ought to be in more.

And sorry if I read your tone wrong (damn emotionless internet), but when you wrote "The predominance of "uber-macho narratives" in modern games and the harassment of female gamers that results isn't game culture, that's just culture, period. You want to change games? Change the world" -- it seemed rather defeatist, like "Well the world sucks, so don't bother fixing what you can." And if you think games can't change the world - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. As far as Big Bang Theory - it is literally what was just being discussed over the cube wall. I could have just as easily said "The Office" or "UFC". My idea of funny is begins and ends with parrots pining for the fjords and the Ministry of Silly Walks, with an exception made for Simon Pegg.

Thank you very, very much for the congratulations on school - it's been difficult finding a way to pay for it, but if I wind up in a career instead of a place that pays me bad money to shuffle paper, I'll consider it worth the cost. And thanks again for taking the time to respond - I've enjoyed the discussion.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Giant snip

Just thought I'd pop in to say I quite enjoyed the discussion going on here. I'd add more, but I don't feel like I've much more to contribute; I'd probably just repeat what you said in a shallower way. It's always nice to see a new user tackle things so thoroughly anyway, I'm sure you'll be a fine poster.