The Dark Knight didn't have a comments section at the end, but I still went to see it. Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish didn't have a set of blank pages in the back to write comments on, but I still read it. Loads of Youtube videos have comments and ratings disabled, because sometimes people just want to use it as a video hosting site rather than a poorly organised mini message board. I believe that an informed and thoughtful critical response to a piece of analysis should be a little more complex than "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," and therefore I don't have any problem with her disabling the likes and dislikes. It's ludicrous to suggest that Sarkeesian is stifling criticism by not allowing comments (on Youtube, of all places - not exactly the hive of complex intellectual thought) when we're talking about them right now and just about every other website or forum related to video games has pages upon pages of discussion related to the videos, more than would ever be allowed in the 500-word limit on Youtube comments. That's without even getting into the torrent of rape and death threats that she received last time the comments were enabled - even with them disabled, people still managed to tear the video down by spamming abuse reports.
But the reasons why "she has comments disabled!?!1!1!" is a poor criticism have already been covered - extensively - elsewhere. The Escapist [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10303-The-Great-Debate] actually did quite a nice, concise explanation. I always find it telling when people are more eager to criticise the things around the video rather than the actual video itself.
Criticism is criticism. It comes in a million different forms and ultimately paints the picture of the general consensus on the piece of work. Movies have centralized review sites (IMDB, RottenTomatoes, etc) where people can quickly check whether the general population was happy with the movie or not, before watching the movie. A Youtube video IS it's own centralized review place (i.e. comments & ratings) because that is the most convenient place for people to leave their feedback. The internet can be full of tons of idiots, but they're still humans with an opinion and that's the general idea. A point which that Critical Miss comic utterly fails to grasp.
BTW Dark Knight was first released in the cinemas, Anita's work is first released on Youtube, one is a full-blown movie and the other is an internet debate in video form. Your comparison was never valid to begin with.
suasartes said:
How do you know if you haven't watched the videos?
That's what it all amounts you. I'm sure you can go on for pages and pages about all the things in the videos that made you decide that you didn't want to watch them, without recognising the logical flaw in that reasoning. But at the end of the day, you haven't seen them, so your opinion on them is meaningless.
I'm sure that won't prevent you from giving it anyway, though. ;-)
Name me one thing you have learned from her videos thus far that anyone with half a brain couldn't have figured out on their own just by playing the games she typically tends to list (FYI I have played quite a few of them myself).
Please, just name me one thing. Then I'll admit her stuff is worth watching.
No. I'm not going to sum up 50 minutes of richly detailed discussion in a single post. Go and watch the video, then decide for yourself if it was worth watching. It's no one else's responsibility to spoonfeed you.
I asked for 1 thing and you have nothing to say. Thought as much.
I guess it's Anita who has to do all the spoonfeeding, what with so many people who haven't been able to figure out basic stuff on their own. You needed Anita to come along and educate you about Damsel In Distress and the Refrigerator tropes? Nothing more than terms given to things that have existed for decades? Well that's too bad.
And don't fool yourself by using words like "richly detailed discussion". There's never any room for discussion with her videos, it's strictly a monologue of her perspectives and nothing more. You want proof, see this thread now and compare it to a thread from ~1 year ago on the same topic. Absolutely has changed in these "discussions".
Absolutely nobody can deny these tropes don't exist, and so the discussions are almost exclusively either about Anita's delivery methods (or quality of research) or the specific games she's talking about.
It's <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#cite_ref-8>the other way around, actually. Nomadic tribes are the most egalitarian, while settled tribes tend to become gender-stratified. "Hunter-gather" by itself doesn't imply anything about the sharing of those tasks, just that they're the main form of subsistence (as opposed to agriculture or trade). The most common social arrangement is men hunting and women gathering, but there are <url=http://books.google.com/books?id=eTPULzP1MZAC&pg=PA120&dq=Gathering+and+Hominid+Adaptation&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Gathering%20and%20Hominid%20Adaptation&f=false>exceptions. And even then, that's only subsistence; the social structure childcare is subject to much wider variance (whether it's primarily women or totally shared, within kin groups or within the whole group, and the like).
Hunter-Gatherer tribes are egalitarian in the sense that it doesn't matter who your dad/mom were, you get the same opportunities in life (assuming you don't starve/get you head kicked in as a child because of who your mom/dad were anyway), but they are *extremely* segregated based on age and gender.
Strange this would be in the religion, and politics area IMO, firstly.
Well, here we go with the problems in your post. Firstly, lets get this out there.
sex·ism
/ˈsekˌsizəm/
Noun
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
You seem to be confusing being actively sexist with making sexist things/decisions/etc. There is a distinction, one being a person is sexist, and the other is they don't consider it sexist consciously, it gets out there, and well. Fisco, scandal, and generally looking bad. The Game industry is looking bad for the most part.
Do you have to be actively sexist to make a sexist decision? I'd say no. Evidence? You say there's no evidence that women don't get treated unfairly in videogames, but I've provided over a half dozen links saying otherwise. I.E. being replaced by a male protagonist in fear of hurting sales. sexist by intent? maybe, but women are still getting shafted.
You have not given any evidence that a male has been replaced by a woman in the same situation. Won't you, or can't you?
But again that's not a sexist decision that's a profit oriented decision. The male protagonist weren't replacing female ones because of their gender but because of the profit they would generate. The gender itself is not the reason, it's the money. there is no prejudice or discrimination based on sex, there is one based on p-r-o-f-i-t.
And this makes sterotyping, having predjudice against, and discriminating against women right HOW NOW? It IS BASED ON SEX as it's targeted at WOMEN over MEN. Link after link after link I've provided showing how it's true, and you've debunked all of none of it. You just ignore it, frankly.
And don't pretend profit is some noble idea here. You're only explaining why the sexism happens, not excusing it. Not making it any better.
See, I've provided links showing how it's targeted at women. I'm only seeing you claim otherwise with nothing to stand on. PROVE me wrong. Until then your excuse falls flat.
Sure, the industry is still male dominated, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that this male dominated sector has made many many many memorable women in it's past that were in leading roles as protagonists. Lara Croft, Jill Valentine, Samus, Chell, Bayonetta, and so forth. They're not incapable of making games with female protagonists be they star of games like Portal where you'd probably never know you were a woman until you used portals to see yourself to Lara Croft who's obviously female.
So like i said, the games exist, there are games giving you what you want. I'm not going on a moral rage because there are more shooters than RTS's and that must mean the industry is discriminating against the players who like RTS's.
Yes, they exist. It's seemingly a miracle any do. And when they do exist I often have to go waaaaaay out of my way to find them as they get next to zero publicity, if any.
RTS is still a strong genre. It's on handhelds, IOS, and android, especially.
We come to a game like Brink. Say what you will about it, but it's a game with enough customization to make "102 quadrillion" characters. But none are women.
Early in the development stages, they cut women out for assorted reasons. Women have small frames, so hitboxes would be messed up... but there's already some pretty scrawny guys in the game as it is. And women come in all shapes, and sizes.
It's painfully obvious that the characters in the game are cartoonish, so some cartoonish women wouldn't have been impossible.
But when it came down to having quadrillions of character customization combinations, or having some women, they went with 102 quadrillion character customization combinations.
Maybe fixing the hitbox for 102 quadrillion female combinations would have cost too much? Heck from what i read that game was rushed. Again, laziness. They wanted to pump money in asap. The decision wasn't gender-based but profit-based.
Uhm, you've entirely missed the point. They can make women that conform to the size, and shape of the male counterparts easily since appearances are obviously cartoonish. I doubt anyone would care.
No hitbox adjusstments needed for them.
Are you familiar with the gender swapped versions of the Team Fortress cast? Even the heavy has a woman of virtually equal body mass, and she looks stellar!
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=2364
There was even a study.
The Brink developers cut women out from early stages.
And again, you're relying on personal anecdotes. Where'd you read this?
God of War Ascension nixed females from multiplayer since they couldn't be made to look pretty in the rig. Yeeet they have plenty of women in the game. Buff women, too. Oh, and lets not forget the infamous "Bros before Hos" trophy that got renamed after the game released.
Well i'm not in their heads, can't know why or why not they did that. But based on how the industry acts i doubt it was because they hate women and more because they wanted to get the game released asap. Usually devs come up with excuses to justify laziness. And come on, that trophy was obviously meant to be a joke.
A sexist joke is a sexist joke.
Exclusion of women is still exclusion of women. It still falls under the definition of sexism.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck.
Saints Row the Third had an item in character customization called "told her twice" which was a pair of black eyes. It didn't make the final game, thankfully, with that name.
Market? The article about naughty dog having to specefically request female focus testers from a research firm who didn't consider getting any. I'm wondering just how many of these market testers went a similar route and for how long in having focus groups consisting entirely of men with no plans in obtaining the opinions of women?
Practices like this poison gaming.
I can easily speculate that the gaming community, male, and female, has evolved to the point where they can accept a female protagonist.
As long as the female demographic isn't quantitatively significant there is no real reason to shape the games for them. Focus testers are meant to be there to tell the devs what their costumers will think, the more costumers a focus tester is likely to represent the better.
http://www.onlineeducation.net/videogame
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf
The female demographic of players is fast rising, perhaps leading to this topic becoming more and more common.
And until the gaming industry STOPS their practices of targeting women as she who harms profit, topics lke these aren't going to stop, and when women are targeted it's going to become news, and the market is shooting themselves in the foot in not being more welcoming, treating women like a minority until, I dunno, how long? When, exactly, is this going to stop? At what percent of the demographic do women have to reach until the market comes to it's senses? Why isn't this fast rising demographic being tapped into? And when it is, why isn't it being given publicity?
Like I said before, Naughty Dog outted a huge problem in the way research is done for videogames. The very possible chance that researchers don't ask women their opinions in focus groups, poisoning the results. This is RUINING the SCIENCE of marketing in videogames. Poisoning any mathematical involvement in marketing.
If the skyrocketing female demographic gets ignored, I'd say that it'll bite the gaming industry in the ass sooner than later.
It's untapped. When they do try to tap it, it's an almost invisible campaign.
Lack of creativity? Considering a lot of the male protagonist designs out there, I'd say this exists. It's not easy standing out ammongst them. It'd stand out more to have the main character be a woman... what a novel thought considering the competition is less intense. Not the way I'd prefer female protagonists to appear, though, but it's hard to complain when I'd feel more comfortable playing a game.
But at least they're taking up multiple ethnicities for their male protagonists which stands out pretty well, and I can appreciate that.
And without proper market testing we'll never know what truely harms sales.
4) other reasons? Could be there are some of them that are sexist? There's sexist people out there, and I know of no actions preventing them from getting into game development.
And I know of no studies suggesting that isn't why the games we get are what they are. All I have is knowledge that among humanity sexism exists, and the data I aquired, some of which I showed to you in the list of links.
Not all developers are guilty of it, though. DontnoD wanted to make a progressive female protagonist with something of a love life. How much of that we'll see now, I won't know until the 4th of this month. Huzzah for pre-orders.
Bioware is good about being progressive as all getout compared to most with LGBT relationships for both genders of protagonists. Mass Effect has definitely been a highpoint in my gaming life.
See some people do it. They probably believe that being among the few doing it they will reap benefits worth the investment. (but like all niches, this gets saturated very quickly)
You have no idea how much I'd appreciate the niche of female prtoagonist to get oversaturated. I'll take my luimps of games like Amy, and Hydrophobia if there were more AAA titles with female protagonists.
So hanging them all, like with pretty much all groups of persons, is not a good thing. Still, there remains reasons to disrespect the industry, and I certainly will disrespect those facets.
I disagree. I'm entitled to my opinion on the industry. I've evidence to back it up, and no one's debunked it.
Why should I accept the status quo? Why should I accept "profit" as an excuse over the obvious sexism? I'm seeing it become common news. It doesn't matter why it happens, it matters that it falls under the definition of Sexism. It litterally is sexism.
Sexism, last I checked, is wrong.
The case of sexism in the industry -can- be fixed.
Games? Games are a product of developers. Are games sexist? Certainly not all of them, but lets not forget Duke Nukem existed. The games he's been in might not be serious, but a sexist joke is a sexist joke.
The beauty of humor is that it can be anything, sexist, racist, bigoted, exactly because it is humor and not meant to be taking seriously. Taking humor at face value is a good sign you have taken it too far.
Lemme ask this. How often have the roles been reversed where a mother must rescue her child after her husband is killed?
Why does it seem incomprehensible that this event could possibly happen in games?
Seems conspicuos that it's pretty much always the wife in that scenario. To the point that it being the husband is virtually unheard of, if it's ever happened. Is it impossible for a woman to want to avenge her family?
How's that fair to women? They get stereotyped there as commonly being the victim. And stereotyping is part of sexism.
The story itself might not be sexist, but the frequency it crops up may well be!
Uhm, no, you didn't. The trope is sexist. The fact that women are by far, and likely exclusively the victim is sexist.
I guess you wanna split hairs, here?
Agency... lets look at how much agency women get vs the amount of agency males get, and how often.
It's pretty common for a guy to have relationships with women in games that go from plutonic to full blown orgies. Lets try not to overlook that. Kratos is a prime example. Not only did he have a wife he was intimate with providing him with a daughter, the orgy is practically a staple in his games.
Yeah, and who are the majority of protagonsits? Males. Why? because the market is sexist towards women by the very litteral definition of Sexism.
Farcry 3. The male protagonist gets to have sex with Citra in exchange for slitting a woman's throat.
Even in games where women get some agency in that, like Mass effect, and Dragon's age, the guys can, too. If the guys couldn't have a relationship, then imagine that outrage amongst the gamer community!
I'm confused here, the fact that in a game where you can be both a man and a woman both can have a relationship seems straight forward. How is that comparable with games where you can only be a man?
Because in games where you're only a woman it's painfully rare you have a relationship.
It's absurd that the best options for a relationship are in games where we have gender choices, and the illusion that gender matters.
I've pointed out that protagonist relationships are far more common with males than with women. It's another chunk of agency men get over over women.
Alright, you talk about damsels in distress. You say they didn't have agency because they were kidnapped, and rendered powerless. But did they have agency before that? I'd say no in most cases. We hardly ever have any time with the damsel before they're kidnapped and thus my point. they never had agency to begin with.
Lets not forget that pretty much no matter what, they do the same thing in every copy of the game every time you play it. Same lines, same motions, same capture scene. I'd say they have no agency. Zero. None. The game kidnapped them and stripped them of agency well before the ingame villain. They get objectified right from the get-go. Used as a plot device, and prevented from ever being anything else but that. Sure they might be important to the game's world, but they are what they are, and nothing more than that.
You don't know their agency because it wasn't shown. But unless you make the assumption she hadn't, and there is reason to unless you hate women and think they don't have any de-facto, she had agency before and after because she's a human being. The story just doesn't show the before and after because most gamers don't give a shit about the before and after.
Tropes are not stereotypes:
a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : figure of speech b : a common or overused theme or device : cliché [/quote]
Fair enough. I'm waiting for you to debunk the sexism stereotype, though.
Are AAA games sexist? The bigger question is do AAA rely on tropes of women?
Yeah, you have a point with the tropes, but you're failing to prove that the "common or overused theme" that victimises women isn't sexist.
Laziness, like profit, is just a cause of the sexism. It does not excuse the sexism.
Ah, Anita. You do realize it's virtually impossible to have knowledge of every last game in existance, right? And to have the time to illustrate every one of them? So she only stated 30 games? That doesn't mean that's all that exist.
No but you can't make a claim on a very small sample of games which was specifically selected because they'd prove what you want to prove. Like I once said: it's like interviewing 1000 KKK members and claiming America is filled with racists based on that. Surely you can see what went wrong there?
Who says her sample was small? She merely gave a brief list.
Steam also includes an indi selection, doesn't it? So things are always changing.
How many of those games did you go through to show no reliance on female oriented tropes? I'm guessing none.
I don't need to. People claim based on a list of 20-30 games that the gaming industry is fucked up. I merely showed that it would merely show that 1.5% of the games use the tropes. All the rest is vast speculation.
Who says she didn't test more than 30 games, again? How many games have you tested to counter her claim? You've shown nothing solid to debunk her. You, yourself, just speculated.
your quick math is poor evidence to the conclusion you reached. It's a tainted answer.
It taints it... in my favor because it means 1991 games is a much too small amount. But the bigger the amount the weaker anita's point. The fact that by being generous i still managed to show how weak her point was tells more about Anita and her followers than me.
You claim she only tested 30 games due to only giving 30 examples? I'm not seeing proof of this. There's no telling how many games she tested.
Are you going to deny that the damsel in distress trope isn't a trope? If it's a trope, why is it a common one that paints women as the victims?
So you're using a personal anecdote saying there's no women that ever talked with you about C&C Red Alert? That's solid proof no woman has ever liked the series, or played it? It's not even remotely proof of that.
Ever consider there's many things that could stand in the way of women not talking to you? Have you ever gone to a forum for that game, and posted what's somewhat commonly posted on game forums "How many women play this game?" and gotten responses? Ya know, do some research like the scientist instead of relying purely on your own experiences? Try to get some of those numbers you appreciate so much?
Oh i'm not saying NO women played RTS's but RTS's are typically dominated by men. And scientific literature explains why: extremely competitive + lack of social interactions = nono for many women. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/hartmann.html
But if C&C would have a bastion of women i would have probably noticed it. Yet despite the female characters not being sexualized it wasn't.
Annnd you're ignoring a good chunk of the equasion. It goes something more like:
archaic gender role + portrayals + violence + lack of social interaction= no no for many women.
In sum, at least four factors can account for the gender gap in computer game playing. Three concern the content typically found in games: archaic gender role portrayals, violence, and lack of social interaction. The fourth factor pertains to the structure of the games' interactive tasks, that is, their competitive elements. However, empirical evidence for the explanatory value of those factors is scarce. Therefore, we report two studies that empirically examine the importance of these factors.
How so? Is Lara being treated with less dignity than let's say Kratos? Oh and before you tell me what i know you will. Female protagonists who didn't make it can't be treated in any way because they never made it into the final version of the game.
Since we're workign with definitions here:
dig·ni·ty
/ˈdignitç/
Noun
1.The state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.
2.A composed or serious manner or style.
When a female character gets cut, or replaced with a guy because there's fear they'll hurt sales that's being sexist. It's not treating them with dignity.
When developers are told playable women can't have straight relationships in a game while they're playable, that's robbing them of dignity.
When a producer tells a developer they can't have a woman on the cover, that's not treating women with dignity.
When you deny a person traits of humanity just because it'd be "weird" then it's not treating them with dignity.
How on earth can I have any sort of debate with you when you refuse the evidence? If you're not going to aknowledge facts, then just don't reply.
[/quote]
Hrm, the topic we're on about is women in videogames.
http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/brink-no-girls-allowed
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/01/god-of-war-ascension-multiplayer/ or http://www.gameinformer.com/games/god_of_war_ascension/b/ps3/archive/2012/04/30/sony-unveils-god-of-war-ascensions-multiplayer.aspx
How are these unrelated? They prove that women over men get targeted for exclusion.
And that capitalism in the gaming industry does what it can to exclude women, and stereotypes them as failures to generate profits, and doesn't support the female protagonist as well as the males. I linked you proof that it happens.
And that behavior leads to sexism. By it's litteral definition, it's sexism. Women are being targeted in these decisions in an expecially negative way.
That the capitalism is afraid to break sexist tropes often enough, and people actively stand in the way of female representation.
Tropes are overused. And that overuse leads to women being very much the victims more often than not. It reeks of sexism, there.
The tropes in games say otherwise. All too common the damsel in distress has no visible ability to do much of anything. Just assumed ones. The kingdom was at peace while she was at rule, but we hardly experience these things. We never see how she ensures this peace.
We don't get to see what Marian can do in double dragon. She hooks up with the brother that saves her, or in the case of 2 players, the brother that beats up the other. Really rude awakening in my childhood. In the remake she's not a whole lot better. She gets in one solid punch as if to get even.
Seriously when the majority of the games show superficial skills women can perform, if that, it's not exactly being respectful of their talents no matter what position they're in.
Now you're just trying to hard. Who in the name of God would like to play a game in which nothing happens just to show that when she was there everything was at peace. The devs simply cut everything non-essential.
And that solid punch actually says enough: it says she's bad ass.
What ramifications? That you're not pleased? I'm sorry i'm not going to make a big deal out of that. And any other ramification has no evidence to support it.
It's bigger than me. There's a great deal of people that aren't pleased, if that isn't obvious. And that sentiment is only going to grow because that's about all it has done. It's practically exploded.
Self-rightiously declaring you're a scientist, and a game developer, claiming to be one of the people I must convince like it matters to me, and relyting on faulty science to claim you're right.
Must be why you're irritating?
When did i claim that i'm a scientist? When did i claim i'm a developer? I'm sorry that i follow the innocent until proven guilty mantra and don't jump on the hate-train.
You're right, and I apologize about accusing you of claiming you were a developer and/or scientist.
Still, that doesn't really exuse the rest of it, though.
That and you can't accept any evidence, don't research, provide no evidence, have virtually zero empathy, rely solely on numbers twisted to your own means, rely solely on personal anecdotes dismissing other's personal anecddotes (sometimes in the same breath), and a long line of other reasons.
I accept evidence. I just don't apply it to irrelevant points. I'm not sure if it was in this topic but i've provided a scientific research about game preferences among men and women. Have no empathy? I'm sorry but I don't know you and there are gamers complaining all the time, can't go start feeling sorry for all of them.
I wouldn't expect empathy on an individual level, towards a group? Why not? Why can't you feel empathy for the group that is the people who want more females as protagonists, and allowing them more agency when faced with the facts that they're being targeted negatively?
uhm... The people saying a female cannot be the protagonist are denying the opportunity for them to be produced, and robbing me of the opportunity to play as them. So you're wrong.
Every denied female protagonist is denying me a game with one.
Well that's some hefty feeling of entitlement. I'm sorry you're being denied of being given games which you find optimal. Welcome to everyone's world. The market doesn't owe you anything. It gives what it wants to give, mostly to make profit, and either you like it or don't. The market is making no moral mistake by not giving you everything you want.
I'd say you've got a far better chance of being given an optimal game than I have. Of course you'd be aloof to my wants, nevermind the wants of a lot of people on this community because you get the games you want, or at the least, have a larger chance of it.
I wouldn't be here talking about this if the industry didn't practice sexism backed by what ever reasons you want to give. Nor would the other people complaining about the sexist market.
The problem exists. People talk about it because it exists.
To start I wanted to say I really enjoy your posts and the passion you bring to your arguments even when I at times disagree with some of your points. Just getting that out there to start.
If an enthusiastic author of romance novels goes to their publisher with a really nifty idea for a new series of novels featuring male leads being swept off their feet by smouldering, rich, glamorous, mysterious, and sexy women and the publisher says "no" is that a sexist decision or a business one?
I'd argue 95% of the time it's a business one. Not necessarily a well-informed decision, but a business decision regardless.
The publisher is most likely thinking "that might be a nice idea but our market is traditionally female and the times we've tried to entice men in the past have been less than successful; and while to be progressive is a nice ideal it's not at present a sound expenditure of funds."
See: it's a distinction that /really/ matters. It matters not because of wide social attitudes or any big picture ideology or even if what the publisher thinks is an accurate reflection of the market; that will take care of itself. Someone will step in to fill a void that has been identified and make games to sell. And while women may not /feel/ like an identified market at the moment, trust me developers have heard women want more female-inclusive games. The triple A market will be the last to change, but that can of worms has been opened.
It matters because deciding it's sexism makes you, personally, believe there's a world of people out there who - either consciously or unconsciously - disrespect you because of your gender. And that narrative that you write inside your head hurts /you/ more than anyone else. It affects both how you see the world and how willing you are to trust others.
While I understand (as a gay male gamer who has been playing games for almost 40 years, believe me, I really do understand) how it feels to look at gaming and not see 'yourself' there, and how much that sucks, I won't turn around and call that 'homophobia' because they're excluding LGBTQ people, nor will I call it 'sexist' because it excludes women most of the time.
I will call it crappy for me personally because I lose out. I will call it a reflection of the way gaming developed historically. (As I said to you before: like it or not, gaming was exclusively male for a very long time.) And I'll even go so far as to call it a reflection of our social values in some ways. (I don't do patriarchy theory.)
Mostly, I'd call it human, and marketing; evil really is banal.
What I won't do is to vilify game developers (Note: not saying you are doing this.) They really are people just like all of us doing their best and trying to get by. I'd say the bulk of them tend to be pretty liberal as individuals. They work in a medium that is in flux right now and were raised with all the same social values as we were. Corporations, however, are conservative bureaucracies and almost always lag behind actual social changes. Capitalism is risk averse when large sums of investor money are involved, just look at movies or comics and the endless re-hashes there. (And those mediums have been around a lot longer than video gaming.)
I am not saying that you need to be quiet, or stop demanding change, or be nice, or change your tone. I think you're an important part of the conversation, just like everyone else in this thread.
I'm just saying that when I read these threads there seems to be an almost automatic imputation of the worst possible motives to the gaming industry, the people who work in it, and the people who are posting arguments here, and everyone personalizes everything ("denying me a game with one.") While I'd be the last to declare that there aren't sexist/racist/homophobic people in the world, I don't think they're nearly as common as they're made out to be.
tldr; Be careful of the stories you tell yourself, they really do matter. In the end, we can only really change ourselves.
No. I'm not going to sum up 50 minutes of richly detailed discussion in a single post. Go and watch the video, then decide for yourself if it was worth watching. It's no one else's responsibility to spoonfeed you.
I asked for 1 thing and you have nothing to say. Thought as much.
I guess it's Anita who has to do all the spoonfeeding, what with so many people who haven't been able to figure out basic stuff on their own. You needed Anita to come along and educate you about Damsel In Distress and the Refrigerator tropes? Nothing more than terms given to things that have existed for decades? Well that's too bad.
And don't fool yourself by using words like "richly detailed discussion". There's never any room for discussion with her videos, it's strictly a monologue of her perspectives and nothing more. You want proof, see this thread now and compare it to a thread from ~1 year ago on the same topic. Absolutely has changed in these "discussions".
Absolutely nobody can deny these tropes don't exist, and so the discussions are almost exclusively either about Anita's delivery methods (or quality of research) or the specific games she's talking about.
I hate to but in but Suasartes is correct. There is useless criticism, and there is good criticism. At the moment your criticism of Anita's videos fall under the useless category. Just like what Sua said, you cannot have a complex and accurate discussion with anyone about her recent videos because you yourself stated that you didn't bother to watch them. It's irrelevant how obvious the videos are, or how wrong she is. You didn't bother to watch them. Therefore you can't really have an appropriate discussion about what she said.
All of the criticisms you pointed out are things that many people who have not watched the videos have said "It's just pointing the obvious" and "She disabled comments"
For the first one, if she is pointing the obvious in her new videos, why not pick out a subject from that video and go more in depth? You cant? Well that's because you didn't watch the video. As for the second one- she disabled comments. So what? How does this progress this thread in any meaningful way. It's a useless critique of her stuff. In fact, it has nothing to do with her content, and as Sua said there has never been any form of intelligence in YouTube comments, so why bother? Why care? She cannot disable comments on other websites like this one can she? So why even make that a point against her?
To start I wanted to say I really enjoy your posts and the passion you bring to your arguments even when I at times disagree with some of your points. Just getting that out there to start.
If an enthusiastic author of romance novels goes to their publisher with a really nifty idea for a new series of novels featuring male leads being swept off their feet by smouldering, rich, glamorous, mysterious, and sexy women and the publisher says "no" is that a sexist decision or a business one?
I'd argue 95% of the time it's a business one. Not necessarily a well-informed decision, but a business decision regardless.
The publisher is most likely thinking "that might be a nice idea but our market is traditionally female and the times we've tried to entice men in the past have been less than successful; and while to be progressive is a nice ideal it's not at present a sound expenditure of funds."
See: it's a distinction that /really/ matters. It matters not because of wide social attitudes or any big picture ideology or even if what the publisher thinks is an accurate reflection of the market; that will take care of itself. Someone will step in to fill a void that has been identified and make games to sell. And while women may not /feel/ like an identified market at the moment, trust me developers have heard women want more female-inclusive games. The triple A market will be the last to change, but that can of worms has been opened.
It matters because deciding it's sexism makes you, personally, believe there's a world of people out there who - either consciously or unconsciously - disrespect you because of your gender. And that narrative that you write inside your head hurts /you/ more than anyone else. It affects both how you see the world and how willing you are to trust others.
While I understand (as a gay male gamer who has been playing games for almost 40 years, believe me, I really do understand) how it feels to look at gaming and not see 'yourself' there, and how much that sucks, I won't turn around and call that 'homophobia' because they're excluding LGBTQ people, nor will I call it 'sexist' because it excludes women most of the time.
I will call it crappy for me personally because I lose out. I will call it a reflection of the way gaming developed historically. (As I said to you before: like it or not, gaming was exclusively male for a very long time.) And I'll even go so far as to call it a reflection of our social values in some ways. (I don't do patriarchy theory.)
Mostly, I'd call it human, and marketing; evil really is banal.
What I won't do is to vilify game developers (Note: not saying you are doing this.) They really are people just like all of us doing their best and trying to get by. I'd say the bulk of them tend to be pretty liberal as individuals. They work in a medium that is in flux right now and were raised with all the same social values as we were. Corporations, however, are conservative bureaucracies and almost always lag behind actual social changes. Capitalism is risk averse when large sums of investor money are involved, just look at movies or comics and the endless re-hashes there. (And those mediums have been around a lot longer than video gaming.)
I am not saying that you need to be quiet, or stop demanding change, or be nice, or change your tone. I think you're an important part of the conversation, just like everyone else in this thread.
I'm just saying that when I read these threads there seems to be an almost automatic imputation of the worst possible motives to the gaming industry, the people who work in it, and the people who are posting arguments here, and everyone personalizes everything ("denying me a game with one.") While I'd be the last to declare that there aren't sexist/racist/homophobic people in the world, I don't think they're nearly as common as they're made out to be.
tldr; Be careful of the stories you tell yourself, they really do matter. In the end, we can only really change ourselves.
I appreciate your appreciation for my passion, even if you don't agree. :3
I want to ask you if it's right to say no just because the protagonist is a male. Defending sexism, homophobia, and so forth with marketing doesn't make it any better. It just gives the people maintaining the status quo power. An excuse to fall back on every last time we bring the problem up until we say "enough is enough," and speak out against the problem, and not let them use that excuse.
If no one tries to break the stagnation of the market geared against females protagonists in gaming, males pov romance novels, etc. then things will stay the same for far longer.
If we don't fight, if we accept the status quo, if we don't tell the world that it's not fine the way it is, how will it ever change?
And believe me, I understand your pain, too. Not only am I a female gamer, but I'm also lesbian. I have a significant other who's more fed up with the dearth of female protagonists than I am. We both scour the internet looking for games we can play with female protagonists that catch our interest.
I'd love it immensely if the LGBTQ got more representation in videogames as they're vastly underserved, and I'd relish the ability to play as a female lesbian even more than just being a female.
My significant other also has a similar mindset.
It's just that this topic isn't about the LGBTQ community that I don't talk about it. Honestly, I don't even know where to begin on it. I mean that situation seems so much worse, especially with videogames, and the immature people in this society aren't helping as they freely treat it like being part of the LGBTQ community is a bad thing.
I am extremely thankful that there's -any- game companies serving the LGBTQ community! I'm hoping the service grows, and spreads. Heck, I'm amazed several high profile games even allow for it like Mass effect, fallout New Vegas, and Skyrim, not that skyrim relationships are much of a relationship. Or that guys really get a choice of other guys... *Sigh*
It's not that there are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. people out there, it's that they get power over the media, and their views reflect in the media they allow.
I'm not really out to villify people in specefic. I'm really villifying entities, such as the gaming industry as a whole. I understand that it's not all people in the industry that are the root of it, and I have a massive amount of respect for those people.
The entity that is the gaming industry has facets to it, and I can respect some of them while not respecting others.
I hate to but in but Suasartes is correct. There is useless criticism, and there is good criticism. At the moment your criticism of Anita's videos fall under the useless category. Just like what Sua said, you cannot have a complex and accurate discussion with anyone about her recent videos because you yourself stated that you didn't bother to watch them. It's irrelevant how obvious the videos are, or how wrong she is. You didn't bother to watch them. Therefore you can't really have an appropriate discussion about what she said.
All of the criticisms you pointed out are things that many people who have not watched the videos have said "It's just pointing the obvious" and "She disabled comments"
I hate to but in but Suasartes is correct. There is useless criticism, and there is good criticism. At the moment your criticism of Anita's videos fall under the useless category. Just like what Sua said, you cannot have a complex and accurate discussion with anyone about her recent videos because you yourself stated that you didn't bother to watch them. It's irrelevant how obvious the videos are, or how wrong she is. You didn't bother to watch them. Therefore you can't really have an appropriate discussion about what she said.
All of the criticisms you pointed out are things that many people who have not watched the videos have said "It's just pointing the obvious" and "She disabled comments".
Hi there. I've seen her videos and am with Yuuki on this. Are my opinions valid now? Or are they still invalid because I happen to share the same views as someone judged the videos before watching (but srsly @Yuuki, watch the videos).
Dragonbums said:
For the first one, if she is pointing the obvious in her new videos, why not pick out a subject from that video and go more in depth? You cant? Well that's because you didn't watch the video. As for the second one- she disabled comments. So what? How does this progress this thread in any meaningful way. It's a useless critique of her stuff. In fact, it has nothing to do with her content, and as Sua said there has never been any form of intelligence in YouTube comments, so why bother? Why care? She cannot disable comments on other websites like this one can she? So why even make that a point against her?
I think it's more to do with seeing what people in general think of her work and seeing some kind of general consensus. If you browse the countless forums currently discussing this, you'll never see a clear picture whether people are saying "yay" or "nay" overall. Statistics are something that interest me, I like seeing the big picture. While comments do tend to be fairly useless, what was her reason for disabling ratings? Hmm? Or are those useless too now?
As for "in depth", there's really no point because there is no depth to begin with. It's exactly as countless other people have said, the entire purpose of this project is to (and I quote) "examine the tropes, plot devices and patterns most commonly associated with women in gaming". And the next 20 minutes are spent doing EXACTLY that, going through all the games where females were used as a plot device in some form or the other.
At no point does she attempt to acknowledge what PROPORTION of games use these tropes or just how widespread their use actually is (thousands of games have been created between 1980-2013), that matter is avoided completely. She is relying on listing games back-to-back and hoping people will automatically assume that most (or the [/u]majority) of all games are using those tropes, that is the general message I'm getting from her. It's baseless without concrete data and she doesn't have it...or she does, and not wanting to reveal it).
Then in the last 5 mins she attempts to draw a link (no matter how subtle/vague) between real-life violence/brutality against women and what has happened to women in the games she has listed.
What more in-depth discussion did you want? A game-by-game assessment?
Anita is more or less spot-on with her analysis of games and pattern recognition. But she's stating the goddamn obvious, it's called pattern recognition for a good freaking reason - because it IS pattern reconignition.
I'm personally learning nothing new from these videos other than finding out about some games I haven't played where these tropes are used (and if I had played those games I'd already know!). Her message of "these tropes exist, look, look!" is falling completely flat on me, because I know they exist. And I know why they exist. And I have no problems with the reason behind their existence and the fact they exist.
Anita has attempted to MAKE me care by hinting at the fact that real life brutality may be linked to video games, and I when I heard that I simply filed her in the same category as those who believe that first person shooters are linked to real-life gun crime. Now I care even less and am even less likely to believe this is an actual "issue".
Anita has attempted to MAKE me care by hinting at the fact that real life brutality may be linked to video games, and I when I heard that I simply filed her in the same category as those who believe that first person shooters are linked to real-life gun crime. Now I care even less and am even less likely to believe this is an actual "issue".
Engaging with these games is not going to magically transform players into raging sexists. We typically don?t have a monkey-see monkey-do, direct cause and effect relationship with the media we consume. Cultural influence works in much more subtle and complicated ways, however media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions.
So when developers exploit sensationalized images of brutalized, mutilated and victimized women over and over and over again it tends to reinforce the dominant gender paradigm which casts men as aggressive and commanding and frames women as subordinate and dependent.
"Engaging with these games is not going to magically transform players into raging sexists." - More obvious shit.
"Cultural influence works in much more subtle and complicated ways, however media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions." - and cultural attitudes and opinions have an EQUALLY powerful cultivation helping to shape media narratives. Forget about that quite easily, don't we? Media doesn't exist in a goddamn void, it thrives and adapts based on what sells.
"So when developers exploit sensationalized images of brutalized, mutilated and victimized women over and over and over again..." - How often? In what proportions compared to games which DON'T use women like that? Numbers, please.
"...it tends to reinforce the dominant gender paradigm which casts men as aggressive and commanding and frames women as subordinate and dependent" - Another attempt at tying gaming narrative to real life attitudes against women. Not buying it, sorry.
But you just said - in your last post - that she was arguing that playing violent or sexist games makes people violent and sexist. Like Yuuki, you accuse her of saying one thing when in fact she said the precise opposite. It makes me wonder how much attention you were paying, if you did watch the video.
and cultural attitudes and opinions have an EQUALLY powerful cultivation helping to shape media narratives. Forget about that quite easily, don't we? Media doesn't exist in a goddamn void
She literally said this as well. How could you possibly have missed it? She says "Games don?t exist in a vacuum." That's almost word-for-word the exact same thing that you're arguing, and you're criticizing her for not saying it, when she did say it.
She certainly made less of an effort to describe the opposite.
suasartes said:
Look, it's obvious that, for whatever reason, you despise Anita Sarkeesian and I think that this is what's making it difficult for you to actually listen to what she's saying. I think this is true of quite a few people in this thread - Yuuki, for example, decided that the video series was terrible without even bothering to watch it. It's pretty difficult to have discussions with people who A) either haven't watched or clearly haven't actually paid attention to the video being discussed and B) are, for some reason, absolutely furious at the person who made it.
Gah I spent too much time editing my last post, snipped it and put it below.
I'm not really part of A) (seen the video) B) (did my best to pay attention to her droning) C) (don't hate her, hating someone so insignificant seems like a waste of energy lol)
All I'm getting at is this (to quote Yahtzee): All games are about realizing a fantasy. Whether it be the fantasy of driving cars very fast, the fantasy of being a world-saving hero, or the fantasy of becoming the best at randomly mashing buttons.
Consumer demand has proven time and again that the fantasy which uses female characters as a plot device (or to raise the stakes, or as an end goal/reward) is one that is still WORKS - especially if the writers do a proper job of it with deep and interesting characters (and it has been done). It's a fairly easily-sold fantasy to a huge chunk of gamers, always has been and mostly likely always will have a market in the future to come.
There are countless forms of narratives in play in all forms of media, of course there are some which are going to be more common than others. It's because people love those kinds of stories - otherwise said stories wouldn't be common in the first place, would they?
Is it really that much of a surprise to anyone that in a form of media based heavily around player interaction (i.e. games), is where tropes like Damsel In Distress truly shine? Who wouda' thunk it?
Obvious, obvious, obvious.
It doesn't matter that she's sugar-coated her statements with words like "subtle" and "complicated". Yes, the link between media narratives and cultural attitudes are subtle and complicated indeed. It's also another way of saying that Anita has no fucking concrete data to back up her claims (because no such data exists yet), and the rest of her video is so much hot air stating the obvious.
I have learned nothing, and neither has anyone else unless they've had their head stuck in the sand for the last few decades. We've seen the exact same stories/plot devices in fantasy novels and countless movies, video games are only in the media spotlight because they are at the forefront of interactive entertainment.
I repeat - there will always, ALWAYS be a market for the fantasy of rescuing/saving a damsel in distress and saving the world.
I'll end on this note: 1) Currently in videogames the market for using female characters as a plot device is of a higher proportion compared to other media narratives (but no concrete numbers provided yet).
2) Narrative in gaming is not as rich and varied as narrative in books/movies and could use some work.
There, I'll give Anita and her supporters that much. Good enough I hope?
Because Anita might as well just make videos saying "the following games have poor stories and shallow characters, aaaaand here we go" about 20 times per episode, that's all she's doing now.
- Again, your definition of sexism is wrong. For instance if a boss refuses a woman who isn't qualified enough for a job but accepts a man who is qualified according to you that would be sexism because the decision happens to favor a person of one sex over a person of the other. That's not what sexism is about, sexism is defined by the end-goal. If the end-goal is gender-neutral than it's not sexism. Seeking profit is gender neutral, it's all about the money. The fact that the profit seeking goal involves favoring male protagonists doesn't make the decision sexist.
- The trope is not sexist... unless you would argue the only way to have a non-sexist story is by having a victim and hero of the same sex.
- The fact that they're cut by the publishers or higher ups merely proves the point: they're damn convinced it won't lead to profit. Hence why it's all capitalistic and not sexist. The discrimination isn't based on gender but profit.
- http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/06/03/96-percent-of-eve-online-players-are-male/. See EVE online doesn't treat women badly (heck there is no story campaign to speak of so there are no women to mistreat) and the female avatars aren't sexualized (well you can choose to give them big breasts and just a sleeveless shirt but you can also give them a military shirt like for men for example). And yet only 4% of the players are women. This is why the whole argument "half of the planet are women" or "47% of the gamers are women" is totally irrelevant. Because neither of these argument say anything about the interests of women in a specific genre. (So now I don't even have to rely on my anecdotal experience in C&C to make my point and can prove it with hard evidence instead)
And other sources i found interesting: http://www.casualnews.com/the-demographics-of-social-games-surprise-or-not/
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/11/why-mobile-game-developers-are-on-the-cusp-of-a-golden-age
- I never said she "only" tested 30 games but she only shown around 30. She made the absurd claim based on showing that, that the tropes are over-used in the whole industry. I made some simple math based on a sample which was too small (which favors her point) to prove that her statement was a bit exaggerated. She's the on making the claim that X based on Y evidence. I used her Y evidence to prove it doesn't lead to conclusion X. That's debunking right there.
- Again, your definition of sexism is wrong. For instance if a boss refuses a woman who isn't qualified enough for a job but accepts a man who is qualified according to you that would be sexism because the decision happens to favor a person of one sex over a person of the other. That's not what sexism is about, sexism is defined by the end-goal. If the end-goal is gender-neutral than it's not sexism. Seeking profit is gender neutral, it's all about the money. The fact that the profit seeking goal involves favoring male protagonists doesn't make the decision sexist.
- The trope is not sexist... unless you would argue the only way to have a non-sexist story is by having a victim and hero of the same sex.
- The fact that they're cut by the publishers or higher ups merely proves the point: they're damn convinced it won't lead to profit. Hence why it's all capitalistic and not sexist. The discrimination isn't based on gender but profit.
- http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/06/03/96-percent-of-eve-online-players-are-male/. See EVE online doesn't treat women badly (heck there is no story campaign to speak of so there are no women to mistreat) and the female avatars aren't sexualized (well you can choose to give them big breasts and just a sleeveless shirt but you can also give them a military shirt like for men for example). And yet only 4% of the players are women. This is why the whole argument "half of the planet are women" or "47% of the gamers are women" is totally irrelevant. Because neither of these argument say anything about the interests of women in a specific genre. (So now I don't even have to rely on my anecdotal experience in C&C to make my point and can prove it with hard evidence instead)
And other sources i found interesting: http://www.casualnews.com/the-demographics-of-social-games-surprise-or-not/
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/11/why-mobile-game-developers-are-on-the-cusp-of-a-golden-age
- I never said she "only" tested 30 games but she only shown around 30. She made the absurd claim based on showing that, that the tropes are over-used in the whole industry. I made some simple math based on a sample which was too small (which favors her point) to prove that her statement was a bit exaggerated. She's the on making the claim that X based on Y evidence. I used her Y evidence to prove it doesn't lead to conclusion X. That's debunking right there.
My defintion of Sexism is fine. Lemme break it down.
Women are getting stereotyped as to hurting sales. They end up discriminated against by producers. It's not about qualifications. Even if it WAS the women are "underpayed" for the -same- job.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
They don't get the marketing. They just DON'T.
And they're using Faith as an example. She at least got a handful of commercial shows. Lara got a few. I'd say faith was the best case scenario for more recent female protagonists.
Nilin? I haven't seen a single one for Remember Me. They make a fancy trailer, sure enough, but what good is it if practically no one sees it?
AGAIN, there's thousands and thousands of games. Steam alone is nearly 2 thousand! It'd take an absurdly long time to take every example of where the trope happens, and break it down, even as briefly as she dwells on them.
She only took the time to show 30. If she did show every example, and I'm not sure she could buy them all even with $150,000, she'd likely have bored everyone to the point they can't watch her, even if they liked the way she presented things.
Hell, she even explains why she doesn't list them all at 12:24 in damseld in distress part 1! "Through out the 80s and 90s the trope became so prevalent that it'd be nearly impossible to mention them all. There are litterally hundreds of examples showing up in platformers, side scrolling beatem'ups, first person shooters, and role playing games alike."
You're awfully obsessed with Anita, too.
Ever consider Jimquisition to help illustrate the BS women deal with in the gaming industry? Expanding research beyond Anita as I have?
If the trope isn't sexist, why is it called "damsel in distress?" Why does it happen to even the most capable women who cannot escape their captivity while the usually male protagonist not only rescues her, but sometimes gets captured himself, and manages to escape succeding where the damsel can't?
Further, she mentions the -pattern- in which the trope gets used. It's a trope for a reason thanks to heavy usage. It's built upon the stereotype that the damsel is so easy to put into put in distress, and in games it often is.
12:53 of Damsels in distress part 1: She says that not all of the games that that use the trope are sexist, or have no value. That said, I can take it that she says the trope itself is not sexist in it's entirity, but the heavy use of the trope just might be.
So %95 of one game being Eve Online is played by males? A game that's been dubbed "Everyone Vs Everyone?" Where trolling, and griefing get encouraged? Where there have been a number of incidents of this at Jita?
A game where you don't even really ever see your character, as opposed to the ship(s) they own?
Really?
The second link shows, what -1- console game? And that console game is about as as Dudebro as it gets with practically zero female representation, and it's a long running series on top of that? Filled with some of the most hostile people in in all of videogaming that'll prey on a woman because of her gender? It's the immature little pukes that drive me away from games like that more than anything. I don't want to deal with that community of people. I don't care if some people are okay in it, there's enough bad people to turn me off.
Also
Berry compared those demographics to those of the famous core gaming title ?Call of Duty?, which expectedly has a male audience of over 90%. I don?t really know, how necessary a comparison to Call of Duty is, because this is a title created with a specific audience ? male teens and young male adults ? whereas social games are not really developed to only address girls and young women. From the style of the games and their general gameplay, they are targeted at a much wider audience, which is somehow the key to program a successful casual game.
Even the person writing the article is doubtful of the findings. Very interesting!
The third is purely Mobile? 2 operating systems?
And
Younger women tend to play more brain/quiz games, management and simulation and match/bubble puzzle games (like Candy Crush, No. 1 grossing in both Android and iOS currently).
Wow, a game that appeals, but is not necessarily marketed to young women is number one grossing game? Doesn't that mean it's making the most money? I think it does! Another very interesting part!
You used simple math based off of what she shown. 30 games. Yet your examples are links that point out roughly 13 games (less than half the number you say doesn't build a case) in specefic. And you're berating Anita for only showing 30? REALLY?
Have a field day with the "simple math" of 13 games comparing to the near 2,000 on Steam.
That's not debunking at all. You're not really making a case, even by your own standards.
Because I do want the game to be amazing. I want it to recieve lots of attention, and be worth that attention. I would not be happy if I made it just for me, and only I and a few dozen other people ever played it, or only a few people gave it good reviews and that was it. It would not be to gamble with it dieing in obscurity.
It would not be for the love of the effort, and medium rather it would be for turning the tide against the people that say a female protagonist would not be profitable from small scale indies to activision, and rockstar.
That said I do not believe I have the right motives to even be making a game at all.
Further, my PC is a mid-range laptop, and I only say mid range because windows gave it a 4.1 rating. A laptop that is currently down for repairs. This post, my previous post, and my near future posts are being made with my ps3s web browser.
I have nothing solid on my own part to offer confidence in anyone that would fund me. I do not have a clear vision on the game I would make and that would be the most important thing of all.
That is why I am hoping that the people that have the job of making games, and producing them will do their jobs and make games with female protagonists with more frequency, effort, and general support towards being successful.
It's easy to say Just do it, but it is easier said than done.
With how common it is, I have to hope that "make your own game" will not be the newest copout against people wanting the industry adding more female protagonists to the game. I think it would be detrimental to indie developers in general as the notion would get a bad rap from it being used against people as a weapon.
I had no intention of using making the game thing sound like a weapon, just seemed curious at to why not as everyone has a book, movie or game idea, but i get it a little more now, I wouldn't say your motives are wrong, just ineffectual in the context of what you want to achieve, most games are made to push a story rather than an agenda or a sex or that's at least what i take from games but i don't look too deep into things, i didn't really get the feeling of "Men are great, look at men do things better!" while playing gears of war, but is there such a thing as a non interchangeable character? I cant think of any game protagonist where you could not swap the gender roles and have the exact same story, or tv show or anything, apart from say a birth scene (unless its in the future or aliens) i don't see what one sex brings to the table that the other cannot, the ability to relate to one or the other sure but everything else is interchangeable to me.
As i see it actions are actions, goals are goals and gender and sex doesn't really make any difference to that, there are well written characters but they are still interchangeable, you could swap marcus's character sprite and voice and it really would not have made any difference, i really don't like the whole its just a man with tits excuse as i know women that act that way and vice verca, Sure i'm bored of the majority of male leads and i would like to see an even split, i just don't think much would change otherwise..
Because I do want the game to be amazing. I want it to recieve lots of attention, and be worth that attention. I would not be happy if I made it just for me, and only I and a few dozen other people ever played it, or only a few people gave it good reviews and that was it. It would not be to gamble with it dieing in obscurity.
It would not be for the love of the effort, and medium rather it would be for turning the tide against the people that say a female protagonist would not be profitable from small scale indies to activision, and rockstar.
That said I do not believe I have the right motives to even be making a game at all.
Further, my PC is a mid-range laptop, and I only say mid range because windows gave it a 4.1 rating. A laptop that is currently down for repairs. This post, my previous post, and my near future posts are being made with my ps3s web browser.
I have nothing solid on my own part to offer confidence in anyone that would fund me. I do not have a clear vision on the game I would make and that would be the most important thing of all.
That is why I am hoping that the people that have the job of making games, and producing them will do their jobs and make games with female protagonists with more frequency, effort, and general support towards being successful.
It's easy to say Just do it, but it is easier said than done.
With how common it is, I have to hope that "make your own game" will not be the newest copout against people wanting the industry adding more female protagonists to the game. I think it would be detrimental to indie developers in general as the notion would get a bad rap from it being used against people as a weapon.
I had no intention of using making the game thing sound like a weapon, just seemed curious at to why not as everyone has a book, movie or game idea, but i get it a little more now, I wouldn't say your motives are wrong, just ineffectual in the context of what you want to achieve, most games are made to push a story rather than an agenda or a sex or that's at least what i take from games but i don't look too deep into things, i didn't really get the feeling of "Men are great, look at men do things better!" while playing gears of war, but is there such a thing as a non interchangeable character? I cant think of any game protagonist where you could not swap the gender roles and have the exact same story, or tv show or anything, apart from say a birth scene (unless its in the future or aliens) i don't see what one sex brings to the table that the other cannot, the ability to relate to one or the other sure but everything else is interchangeable to me.
As i see it actions are actions, goals are goals and gender and sex doesn't really make any difference to that, there are well written characters but they are still interchangeable, you could swap marcus's character sprite and voice and it really would not have made any difference, i really don't like the whole its just a man with tits excuse as i know women that act that way and vice verca, Sure i'm bored of the majority of male leads and i would like to see an even split, i just don't think much would change otherwise..
Alright, I'll take you at your word for in not wanting to use it as a weapon.
The point is a game I'd make wouldn't likely meet my goals, so it wouldn't have the drive, the love, the passion behind it that I'd want.
The biggest reason I mentioned a non-interchangeable character is because I don't want to run into what DontnoD, and other developers did, and be told to make my female protagonist a male.
But you're right in it not being really possible. Not unless the character spends time pregnant, I guess.
It wasn't really due to any role the person has that the other gender can't do as well.
I agree, infact, that in the world of videogames there's really no reason a woman, or a man can't do things on equal grounds.
I don't mind games like Skyrim, or Oblivion where gender doesn't really matter, or even Mass effect if you discount the romance options, you get treated the same, guy or girl.
I enjoy the heck out of Way of the Samurai series which allows you to change the appearance of the main character, a male samurai, into a teenaged girl, an old woman, or pretty much any NPC in the game, and then some thanks to the unusual accessory system it has. Even text doesn't change at all in the game no matter what your appearance is.
I've played Lost Planet 2 with the "femme fatales" faction in story mode. The script, the voice acting, and so forth doesn't change at all as female character models are used in place of the male ones.
That's just a few examples.
You're right. Women can act like guys, and vice versa.
I can see where the whole "man with tits" excuse stems from, though. I wouldn't mind a game where the story treats a woman as a woman. It's difficult to explain well, though. At least at present. I'll likely end up suddenly getting a grasp later though. X(
I wholly agree on being tired of the typical male leads.
A 50/50 split in protagonists might need to be eased into, though. Even I'm not that optimistic.
More representation, and the game industry not telling people to make a female protagonist to a guy, or denying her agency would be a nice thing. Creative freedom as far as genders, and the life of the protagonist goes would be nice.
And I'm not exactly against more overly sexual fanart. But that's just me.
How about the term "bad guy". Does the term "bad girl" even exist in the same context? Killing 1000 bad guys on your course through a game is never even thought to be sexist but you can bet your ass that if you were killing 1000 bad girls the shit would fly.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
