The New York Times Criticizes The Last of Us for Having a Male Protagonist

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm saying that I doubt that they do just assume anything. Doesn't everyone do market research? Which seems alot like the opposite of being happy to just assume that something is true.

It's not to say that a game couldn't subvert the industry norms and be successful(good ideas often come from out on the fringe). It's to say that the people getting indignant about these companies not gambling should get over themselves. If there was truly as big of an untapped market as a lot of people are claiming, somebody would stroll in and clean up.

I don't understand how people can in good-conscience be talking about what these companies should do without knowing what they're talking about.

Honestly man, I'm just giving my opinion. My opinion is that I'd like to see a more varied scene in terms of videogame protagonists. I never wanted to say that I have the truth or that I know perfectly well what is going on in the heads of others.

However, coming myself from a (still limited experience) "media" background, I can say that at least in my experience, determining a target audience for a project often goes together with a lot of conjecture and what is perceived as "common sense" not always with academic research, you'd take years to get anything off the ground then. The problem with common sense, is that it can also drive you into cliché territory if you don't open yourself up for new ideas enough.

Finally, I don't want to kick your legs here mate, but you haven't exactly provided any evidence yourself to show that games with burly white male protagonists are so much more popular. The reasoning of "all those people can't be wrong" is a weak argument at best.

Hmmmm.

The popularity of games with white-male-protagonists who kill people is pretty self evident. Have a look at some top sellers lists if you doubt it. It's everything else that has either under-performed or arguably not been well tested on the market, which is shitty but is probably genuine cause for trepidation if you're in the biz.

"There's not much diversity in games and that sucks" I can be right on board with. It's the cavalier attitude to the situation that makes me roll my eyes.

Not even meaning to single you out exactly, you seem cool enough... you just said something (that you seem to admit) was a bit careless and it inspired me to say something.

No harm, no foul...?

Hugs and kisses

Panda.

 

[Xanadu84]

The current state of sexism in Video Games can be summarized thusly.

Games trend INCREADIBLY strongly towards ONLY allowing a perspective that is desirable for men, and frequently at the expense of women. The exceptions are rare at absolute best, and usually have rather extreme qualifiers.

Games NEED to have a mix of perspectives that include desirable for men, desirable for women, neutral for both and simply strong in a universal way, and have a minority of games that are appealing to one gender at the expense of another to fill the silly escapism niche, but have that type of game be infrequent and pandering to both genders/

About 50% of gamers (PROBABLY GROSSLY INACCURATE MEASUREMENT HERE) see a 99%/1% split, and conclude that since there are still 2 sides, they must be equal. Because you know, one Alyx Vance=100 games where females are required to wear dental floss while the male character shows how manly he is.

About 30% of gamers sense this inequal split, and assume that this means that they have to criticize anything skewed towards males, untill the ratio evens out. Because solving the problems in a more realistic way is hard.

The rest see the problem, and see the culture running around in circles while getting nowhere, any try to figure out how to criticize a bad trend without unfairly criticizing an individual game.

Ultimately, that's the problem with this review. How to point out that it is a shame that the game had an opportunity to be a better game for females without implying that being for males is bad. How to express this opinion without looking like a "Part of the PC Police" [god I hate the term, 'PC'}) if your criticism happens to be a little off. And how to do all of this around the inherently complex narrative devices that arise around game narratives. I don't entirely AGREE with this review, but I also think that he makes fair points that can be made by a person who is not a feminazi straw man.

 

[Ryotknife]

considering that elle is a child, I really don't see this as a legitimate complaint. Many people don't like to see violence against children, even in a fictional setting. Invincible children in Skyrim, the reaction to the Dead Island trailer, the child zombie in The Walking Dead (the only time killing a zombie carries such emotional impact), etc etc.

Now, Bioshock Infinite would be a different story. There are games out there where he would have a point, but I don't feel like this is one of them.

Considering the quality of writing nowadays in games, people should consider themselves lucky to HAVE well-written characters of ANY kind.

 

[TomPreston]

It's creepy because:

1. It implies that women aren't important enough or are somehow detrimental to the sales of a game. By your logic of "what marketing tells us" the latest Tomb Raider should've had a man on the cover.

It has nothing to do with importance, I would have thought my comparison with coke would have made that clear "black" is not more important than "grey" either. The latest tomb raider shouldn't because the protagonist was a female and showing the protagonist on the box is congruent with the content. You see it's like putting a soldier on the box of a shooter would probably attract costumers but doing the same on Sim City's box would probably raise more confusion than anything else. What you want is a box art which is congruent with the content and attracts the attention of potential buyers in a positive way.
And "are somehow detrimental to sales", yes, so what? You won't see men in banana hammocks in a car show either. So what?

2. It ignores reality where women do make up a sizable chunk of the gaming sphere right now. Women only make up 50% of the entire planet's gender after all... it's creepy that women aren't featured more equally in entertainment both men and women enjoy. The excuse "women don't play or want these sorts of games" is inherently flawed as well because developers and marketing don't TRY so how would they KNOW? It's the whole "we've always done it this way therefor there's no need to change" mentality that plagues ALL backwards thinking.

And let me use your own logic against you: Is it that men don't like lipstick because companies don't try to sell lipstick to men? Or maybe... just maybe it's the other way around?

If you ever heard of "market research" you'd know your entire second point is most likely moot. Unless you assume the entire marketing departments of companies like EA and Activision haven't even had a marketing 101 course and have their heads stuck in their asses?

3. Marketing statistics are often skewed and inaccurate. For example, with this very game Naughty Dog had to fight to have a woman featured on the cover. They suggested a focus test group to do EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. Only problem? They never even considered the CONCEPT of having WOMEN in the focus test group. Naughty Dog had to force them to include women in the focus group. Even if you have to begrudgingly admit it, you have to agree that that's kinda messed up. Not including women in a focus test group to see if having a woman on the cover of a game is alright... that's messed up. It's almost like they were trying to find data to prove their theory.

And Naughty dog thus showed why devs shouldn't do marketing. Your focus group should represent your main target segments. You ain't going to have 90y old people in a focus group about Call Of Duty either.

The problem with market research is that it shouldn't be your sole basis for why you do everything in your games. Naughty Dog felt that including the female character was important to their game and they had to FIGHT to put her on the cover because "market research" told them that doing so would hurt their profits. Thus far it looks like that initial "research" was not founded because even with a female character front and center on the cover of the box it's doing remarkably well.

Of course your focus group should include the people you're trying to target (it would be stupid to try and poll what 90 year old men think of something like Call of Duty, like you said), but that's also kinda self fulfilling. If your target demographic is only young men, and you only include young men in your focus test group, then you're not gonna get a perspective other than that of young men. Everyone else's voice is being ignored, and while it's reasonable to assume there's no need to have other voices, at the same time it's not gonna provide you with a wider broader perspective that sampling from all ages, genders, and demographics would.

That's why Naughty Dog had to insist so hard on having women included in the discussion. They wanted a broader sampling pool to give them less skewed results. The focus group firm didn't even consider the possibility of including women in the group. I don't see how you can't see why that's a problem. When a company is saying "we want a woman on the cover" and they're being told "you can't do that because all the date we've collected from teenage men says no" then something is severely wrong there.

 

[In Search of Username]

While it would be nice for there to be more female protagonists in video games, you can't use that as an argument against this being a good game. There not being enough females in gaming does not mean that any games without female protagonists can't be great.

 

[McMarbles]

He's right, but about the wrong game.

 

[Mann Holloway]

I read this article and was just looking for a place to voice my opinion as the NYT did not have a comments section. As I'm all for women having a more prominent roles in gaming, In a game that is supposed to be pseudo realistic I don't think playing as a 14 year old girl in a violent post apocalyptic world would be too convincing.

 

[Funyahns]

If the 14 year old girl was a 14 year old boy, would it be alright if he was playable and fighting? Would you expect a 14 year old boy to help in fighting, while expecting the girl not too?

 

[Reeve]

Oh FFS, can people stop trying to tell writers to turn their work into propaganda? >.>

 

[Funyahns]

I read this article and was just looking for a place to voice my opinion as the NYT did not have a comments section. As I'm all for women having a more prominent roles in gaming, In a game that is supposed to be pseudo realistic I don't think playing as a 14 year old girl in a violent post apocalyptic world would be too convincing.

Why? Do you think if there is ever a post apocalyptic world there will be no young women around?

 

[Andy Farren]

Do you remember when people use to play video games and make their own mind up?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 

[Snazzymathematics]

How about we actually talk about sexism in games (Like publishers not backing a game because you play as a female) instead of saying that "this game is sexist because you play as a male." or "This woman died in a game, therefore sexist." Please? I want some actual debate, something to actually discuss about, instead of someone saying inane bullshit hoping to make gamers mad so they can get more page views and earn more money.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

Joel might be the protagonist but Ellie's the real star, and you even get to play as her a couple of times.

 

[Funyahns]

How about we actually talk about sexism in games (Like publishers not backing a game because you play as a female) instead of saying that "this game is sexist because you play as a male." or "This woman died in a game, therefore sexist." Please? I want some actual debate, something to actually discuss about, instead of someone saying inane bullshit hoping to make gamers mad so they can get more page views and earn more money.

You are right. I am guessing it is not a sexist game, without playing it. But, I see some sexist attitudes in some places. Like the one person I quoted earlier, saying that playing as a 14 year old girl in a violent world wouldn't be realistic. That is a pretty sexist opinion right there, which I am sure he didn't mean it to seem like. But, the world would still have women in it. And guess what? Not all of them would be following a guy around relying on his help at all times.

That gets you into the games that are all upfront violence though. Instead of using other forms of game play it always comes back to violence. Which I have nothing against, its just that there are other ways to do things. Manipulation, trickery, sabotage and subterfuge are ways you could handle being a 14 year old girl in a violent world.

I am a 30 year old male, I would not be good in an ultra violent post apoc setting. So just being an adult male does not mean automatically having the skills and the stomach for absolute violence.

 

[generals3]

The problem with market research is that it shouldn't be your sole basis for why you do everything in your games. Naughty Dog felt that including the female character was important to their game and they had to FIGHT to put her on the cover because "market research" told them that doing so would hurt their profits. Thus far it looks like that initial "research" was not founded because even with a female character front and center on the cover of the box it's doing remarkably well.

But you see, the box is pure marketing. What is on the box doesn't affect the content of the game itself now does it? And whether or not it does well doesn't prove a lot actually. The only way to prove it was a good choice would be comparing the sales of the same game with a box art without the woman on the box.

But hey, they felt like fighting for it and got it, good for them i guess. But I can totally understand the publishers, who are all about the money, not being in favor of it because of $$$.

Of course your focus group should include the people you're trying to target (it would be stupid to try and poll what 90 year old men think of something like Call of Duty, like you said), but that's also kinda self fulfilling. If your target demographic is only young men, and you only include young men in your focus test group, then you're not gonna get a perspective other than that of young men. Everyone else's voice is being ignored, and while it's reasonable to assume there's no need to have other voices, at the same time it's not gonna provide you with a wider broader perspective that sampling from all ages, genders, and demographics would.

But what would be the use of the broader perspective? You can't please everyone and trying to do so is a great way to displease everyone.

And the idea it's self fulfilling is just a silly notion which popped up to justify making an issue out of a non-issue. You don't see people argue romantic novels are read by women just because they are aimed at them, same for lipstick and so on.

Men and women happen to have different tastes and the purpose of good marketing is to ensure that those who want what you have to sell know that they want it.

That's why Naughty Dog had to insist so hard on having women included in the discussion. They wanted a broader sampling pool to give them less skewed results. The focus group firm didn't even consider the possibility of including women in the group. I don't see how you can't see why that's a problem. When a company is saying "we want a woman on the cover" and they're being told "you can't do that because all the date we've collected from teenage men says no" then something is severely wrong there.

And that just shows that they don't really know what they're doing. And the fact the firm didn't even consider that possibility doesn't show any problem, just knowledge of the market. Surely it wouldn't be a problem if I didn't even consider adding a man in a focus group supposed to determine the best bottle design for the new Channel 985768. I may be totally missing on all the men who may want to buy women's perfume but come on...

"and they're being told "you can't do that because all the date we've collected from teenage men says no" then something is severely wrong there."

What's wrong with good marketing? Do you hate making money?

 

[generals3]

How about we actually talk about sexism in games (Like publishers not backing a game because you play as a female)

What's wrong with not backing something that you believe won't sell? Do you also hate making money? Would you back a company trying to target lipstick towards men or would you tell them to target women instead?

 

[Andy Farren]

I thought I was playing TLoU, until my friend pointed out I was just playing Ico with the curtains shut.

 

[Funyahns]

How about we actually talk about sexism in games (Like publishers not backing a game because you play as a female)

What's wrong with not backing something that you believe won't sell? Do you also hate making money? Would you back a company trying to target lipstick towards men or would you tell them to target women instead?

Games do sell too women though. Lipstick for men is not the same thing as a video game for a woman. That is a terrible comparison. Its not a problem to market certain games for mainly men. Its a problem when the market thinks it can't sell anything to women. There is proof of female leads having success already. You should panel different types of people and hear more results. If you only test a certain group then you are ruining your own surveys

 

[generals3]

Its not a problem to market certain games for mainly men. Its a problem when the market thinks it can't sell anything to women.

But that's a blatant lie. Have you seen the marketing of games like the Wii Fit? It's obvious they believe they can sell to women. And do you know why? Because that genre of game does sell more to women.

The market however rightfully doesn't think violent games sell as well to women as they do to men.

There is proof of female leads having success already.

Which proves.... ? The big question is not "Can a game with a female protagonist work" it's "Will game X sell more if the protagonist is a woman or man?". Every game created is an attempt at making money so every time the publishers will ask themselves the latter question.

You should panel different types of people and hear more results. If you only test a certain group then you are ruining your own surveys

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you have determined that your target market are men than having a focus group comprising only of men to ask what they think of the box art makes perfect sense. It's actually the only sound thing to do marketing wise. Who cares about the opinion of someone representing a demographic which is VERY unlikely to buy your product anyway?