The real significance of female protagonists

[Therumancer]

Snip

Ubisoft had a chance to prove that weren't going to repeat that one mistake with GTA V with its three protagonists, all of whom were male characters.

Sure that was single player and this is coop, but there was an opportunity in both cases to include a playable female character and unfortunately in both cases the developers wasted that opportunity.

Wait a second, GTA V is by Rock Star I thought, to the best of my knowledge Ubisoft has nothing to do with it in order to be repeating anything.

That said, not having a female protagonist, is not a mistake. There is no obligation to create characters of a specific type, it's all up to the creators in what they want to make. It's fine if they choose to create leads who are women, minorities, gays, or whatever, but they don't have to do it, that's what creative freedom is about. Indeed I'm continually surprised at how as a general rule "The Escapist" can be so vehemently against game design by committee and publishers saddling creators with tons of baggage, and then turn around and demand it when it's in the service of political correctness.

It gets well off subject here, but in real world crime syndicates women are looked down on, this includes gangs, organized crime, etc... there have been exceptions but as a general rule they stick out due to being exceptions. As long as Grand Theft Auto keeps up it's intent to be fairly "realistic" it's not likely they are going to have any female leads because the elements they are dealing with (giving missions, etc...) would never deal with a woman. In something like "Saint's Row" the game by it's nature is over the top enough where all realism was ignored, which is why you could get away with a female "boss" and chicks built like models hopping out of clown cars with machine guns. *IF* Grand Theft Auto went back to more of the tone present in "San Andreas" where you might have a jet pack, or go running down the steet in a gimp suit, then yeah... a female character might work, but Rockstar is trying to get more into a pseudo-realistic portrayal of the underworld and low life criminals.

Don't get me wrong, if either Ubisoft or Rock Star want to do a female lead and make it work within the context of the series they are writing in (or start a new one) I'm all for it, if the game is decent I won't mind at all in this case. I just think these arguments are increasingly ridiculous as they come down to the presumption that a game designer does not have the right to create stories specifically for male characters.

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

Ubisoft had a chance to prove that weren't going to repeat that one mistake with GTA V with its three protagonists, all of whom were male characters.

Sure that was single player and this is coop, but there was an opportunity in both cases to include a playable female character and unfortunately in both cases the developers wasted that opportunity.

Wait a second, GTA V is by Rock Star I thought, to the best of my knowledge Ubisoft has nothing to do with it in order to be repeating anything.

That said, not having a female protagonist, is not a mistake. There is no obligation to create characters of a specific type, it's all up to the creators in what they want to make. It's fine if they choose to create leads who are women, minorities, gays, or whatever, but they don't have to do it, that's what creative freedom is about. Indeed I'm continually surprised at how as a general rule "The Escapist" can be so vehemently against game design by committee and publishers saddling creators with tons of baggage, and then turn around and demand it when it's in the service of political correctness.

It gets well off subject here, but in real world crime syndicates women are looked down on, this includes gangs, organized crime, etc... there have been exceptions but as a general rule they stick out due to being exceptions. As long as Grand Theft Auto keeps up it's intent to be fairly "realistic" it's not likely they are going to have any female leads because the elements they are dealing with (giving missions, etc...) would never deal with a woman. In something like "Saint's Row" the game by it's nature is over the top enough where all realism was ignored, which is why you could get away with a female "boss" and chicks built like models hopping out of clown cars with machine guns. *IF* Grand Theft Auto went back to more of the tone present in "San Andreas" where you might have a jet pack, or go running down the steet in a gimp suit, then yeah... a female character might work, but Rockstar is trying to get more into a pseudo-realistic portrayal of the underworld and low life criminals.

Don't get me wrong, if either Ubisoft or Rock Star want to do a female lead and make it work within the context of the series they are writing in (or start a new one) I'm all for it, if the game is decent I won't mind at all in this case. I just think these arguments are increasingly ridiculous as they come down to the presumption that a game designer does not have the right to create stories specifically for male characters.

The developers do have the right to make a story about a male, female, or ambiguous lead.

However, they should also be aware that the videogame industry has accumulated what I call an "opportunity debt" in regards to the inclusion of female playable characters. Every missed opportunity to have a playable female character adds to the debt.

Paying off this debt is difficult as it would involve creating multiple enduring iconic female leads across a time span. But one can avoid adding to the debt by including the option to have a playable female character.

This game unfortunately adds to the debt, and the ones who created this game should be informed of such a shortcoming or how else would they learn to avoid repeating it.

 

[Richard Dubbeld]

I might get crap for trying to defend Ubisoft, or any of the other Devs that don't have playable female role, but what I think might be happening is that even though women are now playing a larger role in creating games most of the people writing and doing art for games are men. So because of this they will naturally or will feel more comfortable making a game about a dude. I think this might be because a guy better understands men than he does women. I know that whenever I am thinking up little short stories in my head I mostly think of my central character being a man because I have a better understanding of how they think. It's unfortunate that there probably are Devs out there who don't like the thought of having people play as their opposite gender but I doubt that in this day and age most of them are opposed to the idea.


It took me almost twenty minutes to write and phrase that because I didn't want to come off as super sexist. I probably failed.

No, you make sense and don't come across as sexist. Most great writing comes from people portraying experiences they've had and I do think one of the easiest ways to get more female lead characters in games is to get more women involved in the development of games. Its only a matter of time; everyday more girls are growing up playing games and showing interest in the games industry.

It is becoming more important to have strong female protagonists, as the demographics show us that almost 50% of people who play AAA titles are female. (I know, citation needed.)

 

[symphonymarie]

Honestly, OF COURSE all developers would ultimately benefit from putting more women in a video game. And also more ethnicities. And also, more diversity in general.
It creates a more compelling experience, in my opinion. I get really sick of games / television / movies where I can't keep my characters straight because they all are riffing on the same basic theme.

 

[Riotguards]

The developers do have the right to make a story about a male, female, or ambiguous lead.

However, they should also be aware that the videogame industry has accumulated what I call an "opportunity debt" in regards to the inclusion of female playable characters. Every missed opportunity to have a playable female character adds to the debt.

Paying off this debt is difficult as it would involve creating multiple enduring iconic female leads across a time span. But one can avoid adding to the debt by including the option to have a playable female character.

This game unfortunately adds to the debt, and the ones who created this game should be informed of such a shortcoming or how else would they learn to avoid repeating it.

oh god please spare us anymore of this "pay the debt or face our wraith!", nobody owes you anything in life so don't expect a golden plate with your name on it at every turn for just being a female

in GTA every male protagonist is a horrible, disgusting evil people, who will kill others without any reason.

lets look at the recent game, michael one of the three protagonist is a horrible dad, a horrible husband and has anger issues

should i grab my pitch fork because it portrays a male as a scumbag at every possible point, short answer no! long answer nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


if they keep portraying males as scumbags they'll keep accumulating debt

Paying off this debt is difficult as it would involve creating multiple enduring iconic male leads across a time span. But one can avoid adding to the debt by including the option to play as a iconic male character

 

[JimB]

From the top of my head, games where you can play as females:

South Park: the Stick of Truth

I haven't played all or even many of the games you listed, but that you could be so wrong about a game that specifically and explicitly goes out of its way to make a plot point of refusing to let you create a female character makes me question the integrity of your list.

Oh god, please spare us anymore of this "Pay the debt or face our wraith!" Nobody owes you anything in life, so don't expect a golden plate with your name on it at every turn for just being a female.

Pogilrup did not say anything about threatening anyone or being owed anything, nor exhorted anyone to grab pitchforks or whatever you were going on about. Please do us all the courtesy of limiting your responses to what Pogilrup actually said rather than what would make it easier for you to dismiss him.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

From the top of my head, games where you can play as females:

South Park: the Stick of Truth

I haven't played all or even many of the games you listed, but that you could be so wrong about a game that specifically and explicitly goes out of its way to make a plot point of refusing to let you create a female character makes me question the integrity of your list.

Sorry. When I put that, I kept thinking of the makeup session the girls give you. I guess you can't. But I assure you, everything else is legitimate.

Oh yea, besides The Wolf Among Us.

 

[Samm09]

Everything in all gaming genres is some form of male phantasy. Even games that have female protagonists on them for the most part. Is that wrong? No. Because when gaming became this mainstream, it was for adult men. Who want those experiences. But I think we've had our fill. Let women become vocal about what they want, and let them graduate as developers so they can start making their side of gaming in a way that interests them. Most likely I'll play a lot of those games. This market is tired, has nothing to show us anymore that is even worth an iota. Time to let women step forward and let's see what kind of games they make. It may just be what this industry needs to wake the hell up from this stupor of self-referencial derivative and cookie cutter titles that flood store shelves and keep the good, original games rare and expensive for the everyday joe's wallet.

Anyone who thinks this is cool, it's not anymore and this fatigue I'm feeling is because these publishers got greedy and obsessed with the lowest common denominator.

Unless women step in, I, as a gamer, am out.

 

[Eve Charm]

OT: Yes, it would be good PR for a large company like Ubisoft to have a female protagonist, and it may even lead to other companies doing the same. However, having said that Ubisoft have the right to make the game the way they want to make it, and if they don't want to put more money into the project and potentially have to delay the game then they shouldn't have to.

Keep fighting for games with female protagonists and what not, however don't chew on a game for not having a female protagonist.

Ya ubisoft didn't JUST make the hd remake of another recent assassin creed starting A Black female protagonist... IT's the never ending Circle here, You want to Scream and moan about assassin's creed, go buy assassin's creed liberation. If a pretty decent game can't get by with 2 releases, one a 20 dollar budget remake appealing to the " I want diversity in my games" crowd fails -Hardcore- like duke nukem and Aliens CM sold more, Expect the White males to stay around. If your not going to pay 20 dollars for one, you sure as hell aren't going to pay 60 dollars for one in their eyes.

End note I don't really see how the color or gender of the fake character I'm jumping up and around killing people with make the came more compelling or not one way or the other.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

snip

Add:
Drakengard 3: http://drakengardgame.com/
Atelier Rorona Plus: http://www.tecmokoeiamerica.com/games/162/ATELIER-RORONA-PLUS%3A-THE-ALCHEMIST-OF-ARLAND/
Mugen Souls Z: http://nisamerica.com/games/mugenz/
Battle Princess of Arcadias: http://nisamerica.com/games/arcadias/
Hyperdimension Neptunia: Producing Perfection: http://nisamerica.com/games/neptunia_pp/
Deception 4: Bloodties: http://www.tecmokoeiamerica.com/deception4/main.html


Vault is ignoring anything less than AAA because they interfere with the carefully woven (but poorly spelled - seriously there's no way she's a writer with spelling/ grammar like that, but I digress) fiction she's created within herself. This produces what is known as a cognitive dissonance. The best way for her to eliminate that, is to move the goalposts.

If anything, krazykid is correct - purchase more games with female protagonists (who cares from what segment of the industry) and the AAA part of the industry will eventually take notice. As it stands, in the minds of many AAA devs, the sales just don't justify the resource expenditures. The onus is on the consumer to prove them wrong with their wallets.

But that's all I have to say about that as I usually avoid gender topics like the plague.

Yea, I hate it when they do that ( Those games don't count because they are made by indies or are made by Japanese developers/ have customizable aspects) You wanted games were you can play as females. I listed them, now go buy them, or quit bitching. The more you buy, the higher chance that developers will consider females as protagonist ( Though hopefully not because they feel like they need too. I'd rather they just make the character they wanted to make.)

 

[Therumancer]

[

The developers do have the right to make a story about a male, female, or ambiguous lead.

However, they should also be aware that the videogame industry has accumulated what I call an "opportunity debt" in regards to the inclusion of female playable characters. Every missed opportunity to have a playable female character adds to the debt.

Paying off this debt is difficult as it would involve creating multiple enduring iconic female leads across a time span. But one can avoid adding to the debt by including the option to have a playable female character.

This game unfortunately adds to the debt, and the ones who created this game should be informed of such a shortcoming or how else would they learn to avoid repeating it.

To put it bluntly, I find that patently ridiculous as it assumes a duty by creators to be politically correct, and that if someone has an idea that involves a male character they should by definition feel guilty or in "debt" for not having created a female instead. What's more saying that some kind of committee should balance this and force the issue is half the problem with game design right now, you get crap when creators are not given the freedom to do what they want. I find it kind of absurd to see people who argue about corporations leaving creators alone, take the opposite attitude when it comes to issues of political correctness.

As The Escapist pointed out, there has been an increased interest by women in gaming, and there are more women involved in the industry. As a result we'll eventually see more women involved in the creative process, and probably more female characters as a result. However, one has to remember that the realities of having the option to have a choice of protagonist across the gender lines isn't likely to change. After all, in certain kinds of games, a lot more is
involved than just re-skinning a model, and it effectively doubles the work load for a lot of the game, which in turn increases the cost and complications of producing the game. Some creators just aren't going to want to write for both genders or feel comfortable doing it, which also means your going to see solo leads, just more women involved in them given time.

Of course then again things aren't as unbalanced as many people seem to think, it's just that people love to complain when something high profile comes along to give them an audience. Take a look at various adventure games, hidden object mysteries, and similar things (which cumulatively make a lot of money) you'll notice that in a lot of them you play as a girl, and no option is given to change that, and in the case of a hidden object games there isn't even a model shown, so it's a simple matter of changing flavor text. The big difference is that you don't get as much attention by complaining about that as you do by complaining about how there aren't any female models in the upcoming "Assassin's Creed" which the politically correct feel entitled to largely because there was a game with a playable female lead (and of course nobody complains that you didn't have an option to replace Aveline with a dude in Liberation... ).

That said, I don't think we have much room for discussion. This is largely an "out of context problem" your whole idea of "debt" is something I fundamentally disagree with, and since it's the foundation of your argument (which works for you) and your not going to convince me that this is right, there is likely going to be no resolution.

I won't argue the point, but a big part of it is that when you get into ideas of "social debt" and apply it on a larger scale you wind up with some rather problematic situations, especially when people have different opinions on where it should have begun accumulating. You see the concept show up in white vs. black race arguments all the time, usually until someone points out that human civilization began with the fertile crescent, and whites remained barbarians for thousands upon thousand of years while dark skinned people through The Middle East and Africa built empires, and enslaved the lighter skinned peoples. As time went on the power balance shifted towards the dusky/olive skinned mediterrenean peoples who dealt with the likes of Egypt as another world power, before eventually surpassing it. Whites didn't really come into power until after the fall of Rome and the passage of The Dark Ages, White civilization is actually VERY new globally speaking, and our "empires" are basically babies. The USA for example is only a little over two centuries old, it's entire foundation to the present day wouldn't even account for one major "period" of an empire like Egypt. If one wants to argue debt logically you can't equate a scant few decades (or centuries if you count Europe) of slavery as equivalent for thousands of years of slavery and oppression... now I won't have this argument here (it's not on subject, and it can be a long and involved one, and I'm mostly just demonstrating the point) but it's important to understand that as a fundamental concept this whole idea goes into some weird places when you start applying it beyond the most limited contexts.

 

[JimB]

Sorry. When I put that, I kept thinking of the makeup session the girls give you. I guess you can't.

Thank you, SUPA FRANKY. I am completely unused to seeing people admit to, apologize for, and correct errors in these kinds of discussions, so much so that I'm actually a little stumped as to how to respond to this. I guess let me just compliment you sincerely on having done well just now.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Sorry. When I put that, I kept thinking of the makeup session the girls give you. I guess you can't.

Thank you, SUPA FRANKY. I am completely unused to seeing people admit to, apologize for, and correct errors in these kinds of discussions, so much so that I'm actually a little stumped as to how to respond to this. I guess let me just compliment you sincerely on having done well just now.

No prob. I'm not a dickhead. I'm not afraid to admit when I mess up.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Snip

Snap

The reason people generally don't include Japanese games in these discussions about a lack of female protagonists is that Japan, while they have little problem with having female protagonists, have their own problems, namely fanservice and their rabid obsession with it. Two separate issues with two separate discussions. For indies, it's a matter of scale. You can't just throw those wanting diversity some scraps and give those who "don't care" or want only men all the time all the big, shiny, expensive, popular games and say it's equal. Customizable protagonists, they just count as customizable protagonists. Sure if enough effort's put in there might be some actual difference between what you choose, but even then it's balanced out by always having the (always advertized at the expense of every other option) white male protagonist as a safe option for those scared of ever having to be anything different.

As for the rest, I suppose that before you ever complain about anything you make a point to go out and spend hundreds of dollars to give yourself the right to criticize and complain. It'd be a shame if the only people who had to buy a bunch of mediocre game

s were those who had a problem with the industries lack of female protagonists and not those who have a problem with DRM, or always-online, or tacked-on multiplayer, or yearly sequels, or any other grievance that's ever been had.

At your Japanese comment, fanservice tends to go both ways. Preety stacked women for the men, and muscular preety boys for the girls, or for people who like that sort of thing. I mean for every fanservice game, there is usually a male equivalent ( just look up popular otome games)

At your indy comment, indies are not "scraps". Didn't you see the massive focus indie games had during Sony and Microsoft's press conference? Indies make or break consoles lately. Just look at Minecraft, Terraria, and the millions they've sold. How everyone and their grandmother is raving about " No Man's Sky."

At your Customizable comment, but you also have the option to play as a female, which is what most people want. Options. I don't see how they don't count. Think they don't have personality? Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Various MMOS would like to have a word with you.

All I'm saying if you want to play as females, then they're are games where you can. Just because Call of Duty 89 sold 5 trillion copies doesn't mean that those games don't exist or are somehow less quantifiable.

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

Tell me who exactly on this website has stated that he or she hopes that upper management would enforce better representation of the sexes?

Also, you seem to honestly think that it is more likely for developers would be forced by short sight upper management to include female protagonists than it is for the developers to willingly want to experiment with such a character.

 

[Therumancer]

Snip

Tell me who exactly on this website has stated that he or she hopes that upper management would enforce better representation of the sexes?

Also, you seem to honestly think that it is more likely for developers would be forced by short sight upper management to include female protagonists than it is for the developers to willingly want to experiment with such a character.

Your the one who is going on about "opportunity debt" and a good part of this discussion revolves around how Ubisoft as a company did something wrong by not having a female protagonist option in the next game. Obviously the creators didn't want to make one, as they do not when they don't do it anywhere else. For this problem to be solved someone has to pretty much force creators to do it even if they don't want to. Given that a company is being held accountable here (Ubisoft) and is being blamed, you are thus saying they should do something about it, and that means the company forcing it's creators to create female characters even when their ideas don't include them.

You just said quite a bit justifying this entitlement by claiming a debt is owed, and that it's a slight every time someone doesn't give you what you think should be done.

At the end of the day, if you don't think Ubisoft should be doing something about it, then why blame them? If you think they should be doing something about it, then you are saying they, as a publisher, should be regulating what the creators are doing. There is no two ways around it. You either stifle creativity by demanding that anything that is greenlit include certain elements (women, minorities, etc...), or you don't, and let the creators do what they want to, and if it happens to include (or not include) those elements so be it.

You obviously don't like my point, but it's a pretty valid one, saying you want creators to have the freedom to do what they want, but you want companies to force political correctness through is contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. My basic attitude is there is no "social debt" owed to anyone based on things that happened decades or centuries ago, when it comes to an issue like this you need to give creators the freedom to do what they want to do, and hope with time creativity goes in the social directions you want. More women coming into the game industry due to the increasing interest in games, will mean some of those women surviving the creator's shark tank eventually, becoming creators and writers themselves, and then you will probably see more female protagonists in games. Not that there is quite the drought people seem to think there is, as I pointed out female protagonists have a very high rate of representation in hidden object and adventure games which are generas a lot of women gravitate towards, and seem to
do the designing for. For example, I think there are over 15 titles in the Nancy Drew mystery game series alone, there is a female protagonist (a long running one as well) and someone must be playing them, and not many games last to get 15 bloody installments. Yet in these discussions people conveniently forget about this kind of thing as well. In a current sense it can be argued that even if you believe in "social debt" it's not all that deep to begin with... and really, you don't see many Nancy Drew games where you have the option to play as a dude instead (which can also be said for most female-protagonist lead hidden object, mystery, and adventure games for that matter).

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

You still think that a developer can't have a change of heart of some sort simply by listening to the reactions and reading the news.

You still think that a developer must be forced into including more diverse playable characters. Even if that is the case, you think that it would immediately doom the game because it would somehow gravely cripple the team's enthusiasm for the project instead of hoping that the game would able succeed the despite the changes from the initial concept.

Look I hope that Ubisoft Montreal would take the lessons of this incident to heart, and plan much more carefully and wisely when it comes time to begin their next project. I am not so pessimistic as to think Ubisoft proper would mandate that all of its subsidiary development companies feature female protagonists for 80% of their upcoming projects, and I am definitely not so pessimistic as to think it would immediately ruin the games that were produced under such conditions.