Couldn't agree with this post more or possibly have put it more concisely. Well said, indeed. *genuine applause*ThrobbingEgo said:
The opposite of feminism in gaming?
- Thread starter xaszatm
- Start date
Flaming? Really?boots said:
This thread was about giving one's experience about hearing the other side of an argument.
I gave my example, and a majority of the people who replied to my comment disregarded it because I used the word Misandrist towards a user whom before even having an argument with the person has said some pretty delusional and sexist stuff on Kotaku on various articles relating gender stereotypes and sexism in games.
I never said anyone on this thread called me a "Culted Femnist." When have I stated anyone on the Escapist called me that? Please point that to me. Because I certainly can't remember stating that.
Third, this was a long dead argument. Dead for 5 months now. My feelings were never hurt, and to assume such is just as much as a stretch your claiming that I don't know the user I was debating against was a misandrist.
The difference being I am a frequent at Kotaku and I have seen the multitude of comments that particular user writes on various posts. You on the other hand have not seen a single one of this person's posts, and I am giving you a short and condensed version of what is arguably a very long comment thread on Kotaku.
I wouldn't label someone as such, if I didn't know about the person fully.
I'll stop calling the user that.boots said:
However I wasn't here to continue some dead argument. I was here to summarize an argument I had with the other person that relates to the topic of the thread. You tell me to not bring this argument into the thread, yet at the same time demand that I have some sort of proof of this argument, and now criticize my summarization of the argument I had eons ago because I refuse to link to the original source of said argument because I don't want to get said person involved, nor bring back an old argument you said you didn't want on this thread. (Even though I have said a trillion times now that this is a summarization of a long dead debate.)
I'm not asking you to respond to this debate. I'm not asking anyone to make any comment on something that is long since done.
I simply shared my experiences as the thread asked for. Now all of a sudden I'm being called out as someone trying to garner attention for something that's not even current anymore.
All you are mainly focusing on is the label I used on the person I was debating with. Contrary to your belief I did not call her that because of the argument I had with her at the time, but she has a long history of comments accrued on that site relating to gender roles and sexism that are laughable at best, delusional at worst.
Perhaps I should've stated that in the first place.
However if me not saying that anymore will make you happy, than as I said at the top of my comment. Fine. I won't.
Really?Mick P. said:
I could go more technical.
The ¬quest for ¬equality amongst ¬genders
Isn't that basically what I said?Mick P. said:
Inequality is basically oppression, and "Quest" implying agency with the opposite acceptance implying no agency.
Captcha: you the man!
Why yes captcha, I am. I'm glad you decided to stop insulting me.
Eh, even if it was (it's not, ask me and I'd call it "succinct"), better oversimplification than misrepresentation. It's always the latter I see way too much of.wulf3n said:
"The Opposite of feminism in gaming" -- Sexless Robots. Wait, no, my AI has neural nets that can breed, so they do have sex... but they're all equals. Well, no they're not equals or they wouldn't be competing to be the best mutation per generation. Whelp, looks like we can't use Cybernetics to escape this particular rabbit hole. So, I'll chime in.
I wouldn't say it's an opposite view of feminism, but as a Scientist and wielder of rational thought in all things, I feel my side is strongly under represented in these types of discussions.
As a scientist I like facts and evidence. I love graphs that may or may not indicate a correlation. I like cold hard accurate facts and numbers. I like to think rationally, with reasoning based on strong peer reviewed evidence, and I don't like logical fallacies or misleading statements. Sounds good, eh? Everyone can get on board with this, yes? Then why am I so damn under represented? These debates are just like the 'violence in games' debate -- The violence in games debate has been downcast into 'temporarily elevated aggression from games', and research shows no hard link indicating that kids who play more violent games do more violence in life BECAUSE of the games. You can't build tests using actual violence because it would be too invasive, expensive, and/or require subjects to break the law. Similarly, there's no evidence that alleged sexism in games is even causing more sexism to be perceived by the minds of the players. The things pointed out as bad aren't given good reasons as to why they should be labeled such, other than they have shock value and someone decided they want less of them to exist -- Not good reasons to a scientist.
My issue with the video series mentioned in the topic post is that it's heavy on misleading logical leaps, and light on any real facts, numbers, or statistics. Let's start with the title: "Tropes vs Women" -- Whoops. That's a biased framing if I ever heard it. It could be "Tropes AND Women" or "Tropes Involving Women" -- Nope, she's started with the "versus" mentality, and guess what she self selectively noticed? Adversaries. Tropes themselves are heavily subject to confirmation bias. You want to find examples of women being brutalized in games or their "power" taken from them as they're "objectified", then you will find them. If you step on a crack, somewhere in the world a mother's back is breaking.
What is the distribution of these vs other tropes? Yes, the tropes by definition are "reoccurring themes" in the games, but is their occurrence actually increasing or decreasing?! The "Damsel in Distress" videos don't say. They don't have any evidence, just observations of a few occurrences of "tropes", and some speculation as to why they exist and what effects that they MAY cause, but no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims. On only speculation are the conclusions being made about them.
My biggest problem with not just feminists but anyone with an agenda who demands change is that they seldom provide evidence that proves the changes they propose are justified or needed. For example: The rate of violence in general, including against women, has gone down while violent video games (including ones with the villainous tropes) have become more popular. So, the burden should be on the claimant to prove that against the odds, people are doing undesirable things because of events experienced in games. The assumption, or hypothesis if you will, is that these tropes further sexism in the minds of the players. This is not tested or proven; There's no evidence given to support the conclusion that it does; Yet, vast logical leaps are made anyway!
Wheeeeeeeeee.....::splat::
The examples of "tropes" are being portrayed out of context, and framed (biased) in a negative light. The damsels video even implies that killing a character that is horribly infected and begging for death is anything but an altruistic act, and that it constitutes sexism, and leads to more domestic violence in real life... Without even attempting to examine the occurrences of men in the same situation... Captain Keyes! This Post is For You! It's really far beyond a stretch, the claims and mental gymnastics are insulting for any properly trained mind to digest. I expect that even subconsciously many folks' bullshit detectors go off -- The force of rationality is strong in them.
Observation and leaping to multiple conclusions won't cut it. I need evidence at each point. 1. How do we know this is a trope? 2. What is the rate of the trope's occurrence? vs other tropes? vs all games? vs new games? 3. Why is this portrayal seen as bad? 4. Prove that the trope is being interpreted in the way you assume. 5. Prove the trope has a negative effect on humanity. 6. How does it compare to other portrayals like Law and Order: SVU? 7. Is it a "Deadly Cure" What harm may the changes proposed cause in the form of, say, censorship? Will the medicine be worse than the disease?
Instead: Only some examples of vaguely described events have been identified through self selective criteria, their occurrence frequency not representative of a random sampling, and they're trotted out as evidence that women are being "objectified", and the trope is claimed to have a negative effect on players. That's an UNPROVEN hypothesis! Furthermore it's UNTESTABLE (just like violence from games). We'd have to do some damn serious science to objectively define objectification, then study consumers of games to see if they exhibit more or less objectification when more frequently exposed to allegedly objectifying video games. THIS HASN'T BEEN DONE! The number of variables involved means that the study would have to run for generations and invade every aspect of the subject's life -- It's not impossible, but the test itself is worse, IMO, than the purported harm.
I'm opposed to the idea that we're supposed to change our behavior based on unproven hypothesis. No, that's not how science works. You give me cold hard evidence that links domestic violence to women being abused in games, then I'll think about not using that Damsel or Refrigerator trope to cause an emotional response in the players of my games. I may just slap a mature rating on the box instead, I mean, Law and Order Special Victims Unit is on prime time TV. No "Trigger warnings", just viewer discretion. Guess what, The evening news shows flashing police lights almost every night, without "trigger warnings" for folks who have photosensitive epileptic seizures. How insensitive?! No. This is because we expect people with conditions to be mindful of their own conditions and exercise viewer discretion, not because we don't care about them. You shouldn't have to be told you have a disability.
Near the end of the Damsel videos, a statistic is trotted out: The number of females killed per day and abused per second. Violence against women is claimed to be a pandemic, and implies strong action be taken ASAP. However, It's a misleading statement! A logical fallacy. A trick for weak minds. You're meant to be appalled by the volume of victims, and think action is warranted but are given no context that proves this is true. Is this rate going up or down over time? How do the female victim rates stack up to the male victim rates? There is no comparison made, we're not given enough facts to make a decision as to whether the rate is good or bad.
The numbers are not linked to the tropes at all. They're mentioned as a punch in the gut to employ the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association. Women are killed and maimed, that's bad, games that have killing and maiming of women in them are thus bad too. These petty mind tricks don't work on a Jedi, it's down right INSULTING to even try. It would be like someone trying to openly deceive me. I will not fall for the trap, but some folks that have less careful brains may fall for the trap, as intended!
How could anyone smugly deliver such blatant brain damaging statements, and want to put it into curriculums to spread the mind-rot, unless they were severely ignorant?! (Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.) When you do give the statistics some context you'll find they're not nearly as appalling when you factor in men's deaths too. Feminist Frequency isn't the only data point among groups who uses such fallacies. M.A.D.D. Anti-Videogame Violence groups, anti-gun lobbies, Politicians, pro-censorship folks, etc. They throw out big numbers to scare you, but give the statistics no relative context. In my experience it's because the numbers don't actually have any teeth.
So, the counter argument you should put forth when someone demands a change is simple: Provide Rigorous Proof The Change Is Needed! The burden is on whomever makes the claims to back them up with science and facts. We shouldn't jump at shadows just because someone claims the windmill is a dragon. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary Evidence.
I wouldn't say it's an opposite view of feminism, but as a Scientist and wielder of rational thought in all things, I feel my side is strongly under represented in these types of discussions.
As a scientist I like facts and evidence. I love graphs that may or may not indicate a correlation. I like cold hard accurate facts and numbers. I like to think rationally, with reasoning based on strong peer reviewed evidence, and I don't like logical fallacies or misleading statements. Sounds good, eh? Everyone can get on board with this, yes? Then why am I so damn under represented? These debates are just like the 'violence in games' debate -- The violence in games debate has been downcast into 'temporarily elevated aggression from games', and research shows no hard link indicating that kids who play more violent games do more violence in life BECAUSE of the games. You can't build tests using actual violence because it would be too invasive, expensive, and/or require subjects to break the law. Similarly, there's no evidence that alleged sexism in games is even causing more sexism to be perceived by the minds of the players. The things pointed out as bad aren't given good reasons as to why they should be labeled such, other than they have shock value and someone decided they want less of them to exist -- Not good reasons to a scientist.
My issue with the video series mentioned in the topic post is that it's heavy on misleading logical leaps, and light on any real facts, numbers, or statistics. Let's start with the title: "Tropes vs Women" -- Whoops. That's a biased framing if I ever heard it. It could be "Tropes AND Women" or "Tropes Involving Women" -- Nope, she's started with the "versus" mentality, and guess what she self selectively noticed? Adversaries. Tropes themselves are heavily subject to confirmation bias. You want to find examples of women being brutalized in games or their "power" taken from them as they're "objectified", then you will find them. If you step on a crack, somewhere in the world a mother's back is breaking.
What is the distribution of these vs other tropes? Yes, the tropes by definition are "reoccurring themes" in the games, but is their occurrence actually increasing or decreasing?! The "Damsel in Distress" videos don't say. They don't have any evidence, just observations of a few occurrences of "tropes", and some speculation as to why they exist and what effects that they MAY cause, but no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims. On only speculation are the conclusions being made about them.
My biggest problem with not just feminists but anyone with an agenda who demands change is that they seldom provide evidence that proves the changes they propose are justified or needed. For example: The rate of violence in general, including against women, has gone down while violent video games (including ones with the villainous tropes) have become more popular. So, the burden should be on the claimant to prove that against the odds, people are doing undesirable things because of events experienced in games. The assumption, or hypothesis if you will, is that these tropes further sexism in the minds of the players. This is not tested or proven; There's no evidence given to support the conclusion that it does; Yet, vast logical leaps are made anyway!
Wheeeeeeeeee.....::splat::
The examples of "tropes" are being portrayed out of context, and framed (biased) in a negative light. The damsels video even implies that killing a character that is horribly infected and begging for death is anything but an altruistic act, and that it constitutes sexism, and leads to more domestic violence in real life... Without even attempting to examine the occurrences of men in the same situation... Captain Keyes! This Post is For You! It's really far beyond a stretch, the claims and mental gymnastics are insulting for any properly trained mind to digest. I expect that even subconsciously many folks' bullshit detectors go off -- The force of rationality is strong in them.
Observation and leaping to multiple conclusions won't cut it. I need evidence at each point. 1. How do we know this is a trope? 2. What is the rate of the trope's occurrence? vs other tropes? vs all games? vs new games? 3. Why is this portrayal seen as bad? 4. Prove that the trope is being interpreted in the way you assume. 5. Prove the trope has a negative effect on humanity. 6. How does it compare to other portrayals like Law and Order: SVU? 7. Is it a "Deadly Cure" What harm may the changes proposed cause in the form of, say, censorship? Will the medicine be worse than the disease?
Instead: Only some examples of vaguely described events have been identified through self selective criteria, their occurrence frequency not representative of a random sampling, and they're trotted out as evidence that women are being "objectified", and the trope is claimed to have a negative effect on players. That's an UNPROVEN hypothesis! Furthermore it's UNTESTABLE (just like violence from games). We'd have to do some damn serious science to objectively define objectification, then study consumers of games to see if they exhibit more or less objectification when more frequently exposed to allegedly objectifying video games. THIS HASN'T BEEN DONE! The number of variables involved means that the study would have to run for generations and invade every aspect of the subject's life -- It's not impossible, but the test itself is worse, IMO, than the purported harm.
I'm opposed to the idea that we're supposed to change our behavior based on unproven hypothesis. No, that's not how science works. You give me cold hard evidence that links domestic violence to women being abused in games, then I'll think about not using that Damsel or Refrigerator trope to cause an emotional response in the players of my games. I may just slap a mature rating on the box instead, I mean, Law and Order Special Victims Unit is on prime time TV. No "Trigger warnings", just viewer discretion. Guess what, The evening news shows flashing police lights almost every night, without "trigger warnings" for folks who have photosensitive epileptic seizures. How insensitive?! No. This is because we expect people with conditions to be mindful of their own conditions and exercise viewer discretion, not because we don't care about them. You shouldn't have to be told you have a disability.
Near the end of the Damsel videos, a statistic is trotted out: The number of females killed per day and abused per second. Violence against women is claimed to be a pandemic, and implies strong action be taken ASAP. However, It's a misleading statement! A logical fallacy. A trick for weak minds. You're meant to be appalled by the volume of victims, and think action is warranted but are given no context that proves this is true. Is this rate going up or down over time? How do the female victim rates stack up to the male victim rates? There is no comparison made, we're not given enough facts to make a decision as to whether the rate is good or bad.
The numbers are not linked to the tropes at all. They're mentioned as a punch in the gut to employ the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association. Women are killed and maimed, that's bad, games that have killing and maiming of women in them are thus bad too. These petty mind tricks don't work on a Jedi, it's down right INSULTING to even try. It would be like someone trying to openly deceive me. I will not fall for the trap, but some folks that have less careful brains may fall for the trap, as intended!
How could anyone smugly deliver such blatant brain damaging statements, and want to put it into curriculums to spread the mind-rot, unless they were severely ignorant?! (Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.) When you do give the statistics some context you'll find they're not nearly as appalling when you factor in men's deaths too. Feminist Frequency isn't the only data point among groups who uses such fallacies. M.A.D.D. Anti-Videogame Violence groups, anti-gun lobbies, Politicians, pro-censorship folks, etc. They throw out big numbers to scare you, but give the statistics no relative context. In my experience it's because the numbers don't actually have any teeth.
So, the counter argument you should put forth when someone demands a change is simple: Provide Rigorous Proof The Change Is Needed! The burden is on whomever makes the claims to back them up with science and facts. We shouldn't jump at shadows just because someone claims the windmill is a dragon. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary Evidence.
My guess would be the reason people take the opposite side of not being bastards towards female protagonists, and women in general would be the desire to maintain the status quo of guys being in the majority of protagonist roles for better or worse.
Maybe there's some genuine hate for women?
Maybe they're extremely optimistic in that game companies aren't against women for what ever reason?
One reason I've seen was "I don't want to see women arbitrarily placed in the role of the protagonist, and stifle the artistic views of the developer." Unfortunately they seem ignorant of the fact that it's already happening with female protagonists who're getting rejected based on gender.
I can understand not wanting to play as a woman since I don't like playing as a guy in games, but a lot of games come out in the span of the year that already conform to the status quo of male only protagonists.
Maybe there's some genuine hate for women?
Maybe they're extremely optimistic in that game companies aren't against women for what ever reason?
One reason I've seen was "I don't want to see women arbitrarily placed in the role of the protagonist, and stifle the artistic views of the developer." Unfortunately they seem ignorant of the fact that it's already happening with female protagonists who're getting rejected based on gender.
I can understand not wanting to play as a woman since I don't like playing as a guy in games, but a lot of games come out in the span of the year that already conform to the status quo of male only protagonists.
Are we seeing the same thread postsMick P. said:
I don't remember talking about any of this.
I merely suggested that the opposite of an Active Ideology is an inactive counter-Ideology, where's all this talk of bigotry and standing up for ones self coming from?
First off. You've done the framing bias thing here: You've framed any opponents as "being bastards towards female protagonists" instead of simply against applying feminism to gaming? Even the name "feminism" is framing bias. Is there a "masculinism"? Why isn't it called Masculinism? Why is a purported gender equal ideology labeled with such strong feminine phasing? Perhaps if you drop the assumption that everyone wants to be bastards to female protagonists then you'll be more mentally prepared to make discussions instead of accusations.Rebel_Raven said:
To be clear, I make games and seek to provide equal representations of women in games -- I grew up playing Metroid and Jill of the Jungle, which was also a fine game by Epic (Mega)Games (where the strong amazonian female protagonist saved the prince). Perhaps the "status quo" you mention doesn't exist? Perhaps the decisions are based on actual marketing research? I'm just sayin', there could be many more explanations. Further: Is there evidence that feminism, should be favored over equality? (see, that's framing)
You've demonized the opposing side of the argument as being the wrong one, failing to consider if there are any non-anti-female counter points. This sort of argument for feminism is detrimental -- It's biased and deceptive, and thus wrong.
Maybe there isn't any genuine hate for women? Maybe the effects are caused by other forces? There's a lot of maybes. You're only trotting out negative ones that further your presumptions of misogyny.
Who said this? Or is it a strawman? Perhaps it's not based on gender but market research? I've taken lots of surveys. Box art designs for things like Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. I saw 3 box designs, answered a dozen questions about them, in the end only one of them was chosen for pubilc release -- Not the one I picked. The same sort of thing happens in games: Market research testing. I'm all for equality, but I'm not foolish enough to pass judgment based on out of context statements.
We'll need to do a bit of research, so that we're not operating on guess work as to why this is. The research hasn't been done. There's no hard proof that an anti-female protagonist agenda is being perpetrated by anyone -- That could be what the public wants. The public gets what they want when it comes to entertainment. I'd throw my money into more equal representation for females in high powered governmental and corporate positions, then again, I guess that's sexist, since females can be sexist too, right? Kickstarter is a thing. This is a problem with an available solution. We need only pump funds into female protagonist staring games -- If we show the demand, it will be met. I don't think the industry is nearly as sexist as you think as to actually turn down legitimate demand for product simply to ensure there are no female protagonists. We have no evidence to support either claim. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, and all that.
You know, Sarkeesian was able to yoink up $150K in a kickstarter for a series about female representation in video games already exist. Maybe -- just maybe -- she could apply those same kickstarter fundraising skills towards building and funding an indie game company staffed by women, that designs and writes games primarily for female gamers, rather than simply criticize work already done by a male-dominated industry.Rebel_Raven said:
I know this is a bit tangential but I'll say it anyways.
While I wouldn't go as far as saying I'm an anti feminist, I can fully understand those that do.
Being a middle class white male from the western world, I'm the most privilidged demographic when it comes to race or sex, and while im not of the financial elite, I don't have any problems regarding it either.
That said, its pretty fucking tiring hearing that all the time. How good I have it, and how I should feel bad for opressing the other gender, and the other races. How I should fight for their views because if I dont, I'm upholding tyranny. After a while, I just can't bring myself to give a shit anymore about racism or sexism. I'm going to have to concentrate on my own 1st world problems, because nobody else is going to give a fuck about those.
I know the constant guilttrip isn't exactly comparable to the societal problems towards women and minorities, but I'm sure there are bigger people than me to fight for your cause.
While I wouldn't go as far as saying I'm an anti feminist, I can fully understand those that do.
Being a middle class white male from the western world, I'm the most privilidged demographic when it comes to race or sex, and while im not of the financial elite, I don't have any problems regarding it either.
That said, its pretty fucking tiring hearing that all the time. How good I have it, and how I should feel bad for opressing the other gender, and the other races. How I should fight for their views because if I dont, I'm upholding tyranny. After a while, I just can't bring myself to give a shit anymore about racism or sexism. I'm going to have to concentrate on my own 1st world problems, because nobody else is going to give a fuck about those.
I know the constant guilttrip isn't exactly comparable to the societal problems towards women and minorities, but I'm sure there are bigger people than me to fight for your cause.
Why is there no masculinism? Remind me when a culture was so much in favor of women being in power, in charge, and otherwise dominant that men had to fight for their rights, like voting?VortexCortex said:
Or when men were lawfully subject to wearing heavy metal masks that demonized them as witches just for talking, and being belligerent to their spouses?
I wonder how many men were burned at the stake for witchcraft?
Or the last time a male protagonist in a game was changed to a female because a male protagonist wouldn't sell?
There's no known reason to be against female protagonsits to me. Excuses are just that. Excuses. I honestly find it hard to stomache people who defend the status quo, and the status quo itself. I admit that much.
The problems men and women face in the gaming industry are not equal. Women have a lot more ground to cover to get to that equality, IMO.
Escapist's own Jim Sterling touches a lot on my gripes with the gaming industry.
The problem with marketing research is one that makes me have to take a cleansing breath.
Games with female only protagonists get far far less marketing than games with male protagonists.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
So those games with female only protagonists don't get much publicity so peopel don't really know about them, so they are more likely to pass them up.
It's a self defeating cycle. A self-fulling prophecy. Female protagonists don't sell well because of less marketing, they get less marketing, they don't sell well because of getting less smarketing, and so on, and so on.
Also, didn't you catch that Naughty Dog had to request females for their focus test groups?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
How can you be scientific if you don't consider as many possibilities as possible? The group providing the focus testers didn't seem to mind getting skewed results in having all male opinions.
How many focus groups consisted of all men with no indication of the desires of women? How many were really ethnically diverse? There's no tellign how many times this sort of thing flew under the radar.
This coupled with the request towards Naughty Dog to take the young girl off the cover of Last of us really grinds my gears.
Like I said, producers are kaboshing female protagonists (Black Lotus, Dinosaur Planet, and very nearly Remember Me), their presence on game covers (Bioshock Infinite, and very nearly The Last of us), and so forth. I'd love to hear of an instance where things like this happens to a male protagonist. If it happens commonly then there might a case that things are equal there.
Marketing? Misogyny? I don't care why. It happens. It shouldn't happen. It's a problem, and it won't stop being talked about until it goes away.
So you've never seen someone troll a woman just because she was a woman in a game? I have. Getting singled out for harassment isn't cool. I say gettign singled out because I didn't see any text denoting the troll was harassing anyone else, and all of a suddden they're after me, and/or the women I'm talking to?
Oh, and the examples from the gaming industry that I've touched on in my reply.
Also, http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/women-use-twitter-expose-video-game-industry-sexism-1C7283842
But that could easily apply in nearly any medium, and I have no reason to think it doesn't hpapen in other mediums.
I've seen many people mention this on youtube, and threads discussing matters like this. I can't call them out in good conscious, and odds are it's not welcome on the boards anyhow.
But as for the case that female protagonists are getting the short end of the stick?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7044-The-Creepy-Cull-of-Female-Protagonists
Anita points out an instance in
http://youtu.be/X6p5AZp7r_Q
The game couldn't have a second character choice in the old female protagonist?
Annd
http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/
"Sleeping Dogs, in its later stages developed at United Front Games and eventually published by Square-Enix, originally began life at Activision as "Black Lotus", an open-world crime game with a female protagonist. However, under the belief that their predominantly male target audience would not play such a game starring a woman, management demanded that the protagonist be replaced with a man, and further tied the previously-unrelated game into the True Crime franchise."
That's just a few examples.
Sure not all of it is first hand, but some is, and if you don't want to believe that, then why even debate?
Do I care why this happens? No, bluntly. It doesn't seem to happen to male protagonists, so the female gender is being singled out. It's "sexism" to treat one gender diffirently, for better or worse, and the game industry is guilty of it.
Go ahead, and do some research. There's lots of threads ont he escapist where there's guys expressing an indiffirence towards female protagonsits so long as the game is good, guys proclaiming they don't want to be women, and pretty much a large gamut of opinions. Topics of female equality are somewhat common on game forums.
I made a few examples earlier in. There's definitely something causing the female presence in games to get stamped out, or diminished in importance. If it's not an anti-female conspiracy, well, it's still something seriously messed up.
So who's kickstarting desireable games with female protagonists? As much as I love seeing a female protagonist, if they're in a game I don't like, I won't buy it. Mirror's Edge, I love to death, but it's a bit niche, and I have this weird fear of heights that can even manifest in videogames. Doesn't mean it was bad, or anything. Just not for me.
And a game like that would have to generate millions in profit or else it won't matter, will it? If it's not super profitable it'll be overlooked by producers since they're largely the root of the "Female protagonsits won't sell!" excuse.
And that, IMO is something of a problem with indy approaches. It's not so much just having a female protagonist. The game has to be good, too, or else it'll not sell well anyhow. And it has to generate some profit.
Unless you're proposing a blind investment in a game with a female protagonsit until someone picks it up sorta like contracting? I'd say that'd still cost several million. Look at Double fine's kickstarter. They hit their goal, but they're finding they're still going over budget.
Some battles against inequity can be won faster, and easier than others so they get focus. Like water, going the path of least resistance. Hence some considerable focus of women in videogames.
Lets not discount the good that te seemingly one sided fight for female equality can bring.
Better writing for women might lead to better writing for men.
Women being depicted as meathead violence junkies of idealization could help with that happening to guys.
Becoming more open to shooting women might just lead to more female repersentation in the massive amount of men getting mowed down.
So forth. In essense spread the burden.
Of course it's speculation.
Of course women can be sexist. Women are humans, too. That said, it's only natural they'd want some better representation in videogames thanks to the crowd of dudebros oversaturating the market, and not getting marketed to. People like better representation. African American slaves didn't want to be slaves, women wanted to vote, women wanted to be allowed on the front lines of combat. Sure videogame representation isn't in the same calibur of inequity, but it's still an inequity.
I dare say that she has living expenses, travel expenses, research expenses, and so forth getting in the way. And i don't think 150k minus that is enough to start a gaming studio.Eacaraxe said:
But like you said, she could start a separate kickstarter for it.
Why not email her, and suggest that to her if you hadn't? She might be down for that, and she has the potential fame to get the attention. Also try nto to be belligerent about it.
Still, if I had the money, it's pretty much what I'd do. I'd start a studio making something of love letters to girl gamers and they'd be, hopefully, good games, too. Then it'd be a matter to get a producer. If that proves to be too difficult,I'd love to have the money to buy them off.
I wouldn't demand it be all women. Male input can be just as valueable as a woman's. I'd put it more 50/50, and multi-ethnic. Ideally diplomacy would settle issues.
But something like that shouldn't get the rest of the gaming industry off the hook.
I don't quite know why, but for some reason, these posts reminded me of this video.SeanSeanston said:
<youtube=TpNk4X7CI4U>