Tropes vs. Women Protagonists
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Chairman Miaow said:
- 1. No definitely not,
2. No have a wirey frame and gelled hair isn't very feminine nor is the face particularly rounded/feminine,
3 No there is no ambiguous sexual identity,
4 Last I checked women don't wear some strange half wife beater thing.
5. Not a plant so no
The only 1 you could make a point for is maybe number 2 but since the character doesn't not act feminine just like a twit I don't see. As to most filling it they most certainly do not there is a very limited pool that even remotely comes close to it. Even in FF the series accused of being most guilty of this I struggle to think of protagonists that even come close to this aside from Vaan. Even then I do not think it is a strong case.
The problem I'm seeing in this thread is the constant use of the term "gender neutral." I'm assuming (possibly wrongly), that this mean the game treats you the same regardless of the gender the player chooses. I COMPLETELY disagree with this notion. Not because I don't think men and women should be treated equally (in fact, my ideal world would be a "gender neutral" world), but this would be completely negating the role gender plays in our modern world. I'll accept the concession that maybe it shouldn't matter in RPGs or games where you create a character because there is only so much you can do with the world's reaction to the characters that accounting for every difference in skin color, gender, or sexual preference would add on hours, days, or even weeks onto development.
HOWEVER, in a game with a linear story and established characters, gender should NEVER be disregarded. The developer's decision to have a male or female protagonist should be reflected in the world around the character. For example, a game like Silent Hill (when it was good) or even Tomb Raider, the characters SHOULD treat the character differently because she is a woman. That's just how the world works. BUT, if they decide to not have the world focus on her gender, there should be a reason. A good example is Enslaved: Odyssey to the West. Monkey doesn't seem to really give a shit that Trip is female. They bond, and there are even hints that they have a romantic interest in each other after a while, but he doesn't focus on her gender. And the reason for this is because the world that they are in (on the run from mechs, constantly struggling for survival) doesn't allow for such petty differences. if gender roles were still a hotly contested issue in this world, the human race wouldn't last very long. Necessity overrides the tradition of the past.
IN SHORT: Unless the game world is written otherwise, games with story SHOULD focus on the differences between genders, because this difference is quite important to our human interactions, and to simply disregard this for equality reasons would be to deny the reality that surrounds us. Should women in games be treated better and EQUAL to men? Yes. Should women be treated the SAME as men? No. And I feel the same way about race or sexual preference. To simply just ignore this element of a character and how it might affect their interactions in the world around them would be an incredibly foolish decision.
HOWEVER, in a game with a linear story and established characters, gender should NEVER be disregarded. The developer's decision to have a male or female protagonist should be reflected in the world around the character. For example, a game like Silent Hill (when it was good) or even Tomb Raider, the characters SHOULD treat the character differently because she is a woman. That's just how the world works. BUT, if they decide to not have the world focus on her gender, there should be a reason. A good example is Enslaved: Odyssey to the West. Monkey doesn't seem to really give a shit that Trip is female. They bond, and there are even hints that they have a romantic interest in each other after a while, but he doesn't focus on her gender. And the reason for this is because the world that they are in (on the run from mechs, constantly struggling for survival) doesn't allow for such petty differences. if gender roles were still a hotly contested issue in this world, the human race wouldn't last very long. Necessity overrides the tradition of the past.
IN SHORT: Unless the game world is written otherwise, games with story SHOULD focus on the differences between genders, because this difference is quite important to our human interactions, and to simply disregard this for equality reasons would be to deny the reality that surrounds us. Should women in games be treated better and EQUAL to men? Yes. Should women be treated the SAME as men? No. And I feel the same way about race or sexual preference. To simply just ignore this element of a character and how it might affect their interactions in the world around them would be an incredibly foolish decision.
Okay, see? This is why you need me to write video game stories. Most of my characters that I've created are strong, female leads, who you properly should feel badass while playing, and not because they're bros *brofist*. They simply go against the common Weak Female X trope.
Really, though, I haven't seen Anita's first video. Can't find it. Will look later. Then edit post. But really, though, almost everything can be summed up in a trope. Anita's original intent was to expand the narrow list of tropes that the video game industry is comfortable with. That's it.
So give her a stage. What's the worst that could happen? A bunch of murlocks overreact and ruin it for the rest of us?
Okay, that's pretty bad, and it's been happening. Know what? The best thing to do would be to act mature and give her a chance at this point.
brb watching video. Or not.
Really, though, I haven't seen Anita's first video. Can't find it. Will look later. Then edit post. But really, though, almost everything can be summed up in a trope. Anita's original intent was to expand the narrow list of tropes that the video game industry is comfortable with. That's it.
So give her a stage. What's the worst that could happen? A bunch of murlocks overreact and ruin it for the rest of us?
Okay, that's pretty bad, and it's been happening. Know what? The best thing to do would be to act mature and give her a chance at this point.
brb watching video. Or not.
you sir, have not seen enough Bond and it shows. Calling him a heartless mass murder pretty much shows you have only seen trailers.Buretsu said:
Womanizing sure. But if saying woman fall for attractive, smart and powerfull man is sexist you have just lost your touch with reality.
Shamus Young said:
I have to say this whole subject is making me loose a lot of respect for women and the credibility of the idea of equality of the sex's.
Every time some nutjob goes on a spree killing binge and blames heavy metal , play by mail role playing games or currently computer games ive rolled my eyes and claimed that normal people can tell the difference from fantasy and reality and this individual was actually mental and that was the problem not violent lyrics/roleplay/games.
Now we seem to be suggesting there an entire gender that doesnt recognise the difference between the fantasy world of games and reality and if they dont see self images in them they cant relate.
Now as a 40 year old fat long haired , anti social , nerd i personaly have pretty much never seen myself represented in a video games character, women might at least find the litany of low brow dumb meat heads games are populated with attractive to me they have been enemies more often than not. You see the thing for me is the gameplay i like games, if the game is good i dont really give a stuff about the protagonist. this whole argument seems to me to go counter to the idea of women being gamers to. it makes it sound like they all need it to be dress up Barbie.
I completely agree with this arguement. Guys should not feel bad for any panderous or fan service games. they should feel bad that the same is not given to there female compatriots. Thank you sir cutting through sarks bs and getting to the real issue.
The answer to this is simple... Go out to a major city, pick my hometown of Seattle if you want, take about 1000 pictures of different women at random, find the most common clothing style and body shape and pick that.... Then give the character a happy medium persona between, Elizabeth Bennet (strong willed but fairly weak in ability of affect change..... and Daenerys Targaryen...... Strong willed and will melt you with her dragons if you cross her.
Stick her in whatever scenario you please: spy thriller, fantasy epic, modern war shooter.... Pick something.... and you have it a woman that women will identify with because despite being strong and capable she has to deal with stereotypes and overcome them, (lets be honest 90% of women still have to deal with this crap even though they shouldn't) but at the end completes the hero's journey and wins respect and a sense of accomplishment.
Stick her in whatever scenario you please: spy thriller, fantasy epic, modern war shooter.... Pick something.... and you have it a woman that women will identify with because despite being strong and capable she has to deal with stereotypes and overcome them, (lets be honest 90% of women still have to deal with this crap even though they shouldn't) but at the end completes the hero's journey and wins respect and a sense of accomplishment.
If you need to preface your comments with "most of my friends are feminists" to convince others that you are somehow have some authority on what feminists think, you probably don't have such authority. Its like saying "most of my friends care about gay rights". If you were homophobic, your standards for what does and doesn't count as pro gay rights would be lowered, so your friends who proclaim that they are "pro gay rights" might just be saying such to cover up their homophobia.Acrisius said:
You also misunderstand feminism at its core, or you did 4 months ago, and aren't yourself a feminist.
Feminism refers not to promotion of the female gender, but to the behaviors assigned to men and women via the masculine/feminine divide. For example, the cultural belief "A women's place is in the home" assigns women the housework and taking care of the children. Likewise, the cultural belief that men should do the work puts them in danger more often. feminism is the support for the elimination of this divide, and is not "about bringing men down and raising women up" as you call it.Acrisius said:
Also, your pity of people who agree with anything Sarkeesian says is condescending. Stop it. You don't like what she says because you don't agree with feminism, not because she is a radical feminist. While I myself go 50/50 on agreement with what she says, simply because of some fact checking errors and Sarkeesian taking a hard line position in certain gray areas, she isn't as controversial in feminism (and in general) as people make her out to be.
Additionally, for someone who claims that feminists make claims that people are indoctrinated, you sure do a lot of claims of indoctrination yourself.
Clearly, us feminists are misinformed and pitiable for believing in something you don't agree with, and when us feminists claim that women are misinformed by society and pitiable for disagreeing with something we believe in, a claim we do not make without good evidence except as a point against the irritating "My girlfriend agrees with me on my beliefs, so I must be pro women's rights!1!" point that makes us rely on points that are quite difficult to explain without calling them the "Uncle Tom"s of women's rights, we are wrong to do so.Acrisius said:
On why many don't accept feminism, and why feminism gets push back, and why some women don't accept feminism: Feminism is a hard truth to swallow. For women, it involves accepting that you have at some point or other been harmed intentionally or unintentionally by people, male or female, due to your gender for problems unlikely to be solved because they remain ingrained in our culture, stains left behind from when women got the vote and feminist progress stopped. This stands in contrast to continuing as you are, not requiring you to acknowledge that you have been harmed for your gender, making you not feel like a victim. Likewise, if you are male, it involves acknowledging that your actions may at some point or another, harmed women or contributed to harm of women intentionally or unintentionally. Acknowledging both the harm one has received intentionally or unintentionally for your gender and the harm one has contributed to or caused intentionally or unintentionally to others for their gender are not required by society. A person can easily surround themselves with people who agree with them on this issue, or people who feel no need to challenge the harm others give and receive for their gender, and never need to either care or discuss such issues. The absence of requirement to change and the negative feelings accepting such truths induce push people away from feminism in absence of clear, concise 100% certainty of the existence of a problem with an obvious solution, whether it be bills to vote against or laws to pass, as awareness of the existence of a problem in absence of a clear solution remains so unpleasant to acknowledge that we struggle to even look for solutions to problems.
I would have to slightly disagree with you there. I think that a female character can be sexually stimulating to the male demographic and still powerful and empowering. Besides that, her intelligence and fighting skill combined is something that made me add her to my very small list of female characters I like.Toriver said:
Here is the thing Shamus, a key point that pretty much torpedos everything those who want to "examine" this issue instantly and irrevocably, and is also why people have reacted to Anita on this level:
Men and Women aren't that differant and they want pretty much the same things. Yes, those strong female characters might titillate men, but then again girls want to be attractive to men (or each other if that's actually their thing) the same way that men want to be attractive to girls.
In fantasy both genders reach towards a physical ideal, portray their characters in what amount to fairly outlandish outifts at times, and have them doing over the top things.
We sit here and point to games like Lollipop Chainsaw, Bayonetta, Lara Croft, and others and say "well yeah, they are strong characters, but they also appeal to men so they don't count, especially given some of the attached innuendos", but your not considering that those characters are EXACTLY the kinds of characters most women will create for themselves, or for products aimed at women. Seriously, look at artwork produced by female fantasy artists, or actually read fantasy novels directed at women, and you will notice there are absolutly zero differances except maybe tonally in how the story is told. In the end you have some gorgeous babe (whether she sees herself that way or not) dressed in a way only a few people could pull off, kicking massive amounts of butt. Anita Blake, Rachel Morgan, Dante Valentine, and other popular female protaganists created by female writers for a primarily female audience (even if it has crossed over) make the point 100% better than I ever could, and pretty much demonstrate that there is no issue here at all.
Heck, if the above point doesn't do it for you, take the time to read some abyssmal fan fiction written by teenage girls, and then tell me what your literal "Mary Sue" resembles. A big hint, it's going to probably nail at least a dozen or more of those "tropes" being complained about. Not because of women being conditions, but because it's how things are. It's also exactly the same thing you see with the he-men of fantasy.
Like it or not the bottom line is simple. Those who complain about tropes, or support people like Anita, are generally nerds who have no luck with girls at all, or happen to be in a relationship with a domineering woman (whether they admit it or not). The idea is that by taking an ignorant "anti-exploitation" angle they effectively make themselves more sympathetic, and thus more attractive to female attention... or pretty much please the woman they are with by making an over the top demonstration of how their attention doesn't wander.
Now there are exceptions to the above (no need to rant if you, or anyone else reading this happens to be one of them) which amount to someone simply being wrong without the underlying motive. That's still the general gist of things though, and why it's a non-issue.
Anita got attacked, and I think it came from BOTH genders (women are even more vicious than guys when it comes to things like rape threats, a point most people tend to overlook, I wouldn't be surprised if someof the most intense threats came from girls acting anonymously or in male guise), because what she's doing is basically a threat to fantasy in general, especially if she was to acheive the platform she was after (which sadly she did). The concern being her, and the deprived nerds she's catering to for attention and a pedestel creating a voice that might actually convince publishers that there is some validity to
what she's saying. The last thing we need is the perception that users want more political correctness in gaming, when it's already wrecking things, games aren't quite the avenue of free expession that they should be, and tend to walk a fine line of staying out of taboo territory unless it's only "taboo" in the sense that it's a recent avenue of attack for the political correctness brigade.
Men and Women aren't that differant and they want pretty much the same things. Yes, those strong female characters might titillate men, but then again girls want to be attractive to men (or each other if that's actually their thing) the same way that men want to be attractive to girls.
In fantasy both genders reach towards a physical ideal, portray their characters in what amount to fairly outlandish outifts at times, and have them doing over the top things.
We sit here and point to games like Lollipop Chainsaw, Bayonetta, Lara Croft, and others and say "well yeah, they are strong characters, but they also appeal to men so they don't count, especially given some of the attached innuendos", but your not considering that those characters are EXACTLY the kinds of characters most women will create for themselves, or for products aimed at women. Seriously, look at artwork produced by female fantasy artists, or actually read fantasy novels directed at women, and you will notice there are absolutly zero differances except maybe tonally in how the story is told. In the end you have some gorgeous babe (whether she sees herself that way or not) dressed in a way only a few people could pull off, kicking massive amounts of butt. Anita Blake, Rachel Morgan, Dante Valentine, and other popular female protaganists created by female writers for a primarily female audience (even if it has crossed over) make the point 100% better than I ever could, and pretty much demonstrate that there is no issue here at all.
Heck, if the above point doesn't do it for you, take the time to read some abyssmal fan fiction written by teenage girls, and then tell me what your literal "Mary Sue" resembles. A big hint, it's going to probably nail at least a dozen or more of those "tropes" being complained about. Not because of women being conditions, but because it's how things are. It's also exactly the same thing you see with the he-men of fantasy.
Like it or not the bottom line is simple. Those who complain about tropes, or support people like Anita, are generally nerds who have no luck with girls at all, or happen to be in a relationship with a domineering woman (whether they admit it or not). The idea is that by taking an ignorant "anti-exploitation" angle they effectively make themselves more sympathetic, and thus more attractive to female attention... or pretty much please the woman they are with by making an over the top demonstration of how their attention doesn't wander.
Now there are exceptions to the above (no need to rant if you, or anyone else reading this happens to be one of them) which amount to someone simply being wrong without the underlying motive. That's still the general gist of things though, and why it's a non-issue.
Anita got attacked, and I think it came from BOTH genders (women are even more vicious than guys when it comes to things like rape threats, a point most people tend to overlook, I wouldn't be surprised if someof the most intense threats came from girls acting anonymously or in male guise), because what she's doing is basically a threat to fantasy in general, especially if she was to acheive the platform she was after (which sadly she did). The concern being her, and the deprived nerds she's catering to for attention and a pedestel creating a voice that might actually convince publishers that there is some validity to
what she's saying. The last thing we need is the perception that users want more political correctness in gaming, when it's already wrecking things, games aren't quite the avenue of free expession that they should be, and tend to walk a fine line of staying out of taboo territory unless it's only "taboo" in the sense that it's a recent avenue of attack for the political correctness brigade.
Uuugh, this again? What am I doing, reading all of these perspectives? I know I always get a headache from it. Let me explain this, hopefully I can answer my own question...
I feel like most of this debate seems to be about changing other's perspectives, which would be fine if it's a non-issue, like tenmar said. 'No, I am right and you are wrong!' Maybe I'm just generalizing, but I'm getting frustrated by people wording everything in a way that kind of sounds accusing. And yes, I'm pointing the fingers at you guys.
Let me just reiterate what other posters might have already said: Just throw gender out of the window. There might be gender specific issues we deal with, but first let us create female characters that aren't meant to be sexualized. And make them characters first and foremost.
Really, the question should be how we can change this behavior in society. I think that's a tough one and I'm not sure how we can do it. We can only do it in baby steps and it will probably take multiple decades before we can reach equality in all media.
PS: Ugh, at least that feels a little better to get that off my chest.
I feel like most of this debate seems to be about changing other's perspectives, which would be fine if it's a non-issue, like tenmar said. 'No, I am right and you are wrong!' Maybe I'm just generalizing, but I'm getting frustrated by people wording everything in a way that kind of sounds accusing. And yes, I'm pointing the fingers at you guys.
Let me just reiterate what other posters might have already said: Just throw gender out of the window. There might be gender specific issues we deal with, but first let us create female characters that aren't meant to be sexualized. And make them characters first and foremost.
Really, the question should be how we can change this behavior in society. I think that's a tough one and I'm not sure how we can do it. We can only do it in baby steps and it will probably take multiple decades before we can reach equality in all media.
PS: Ugh, at least that feels a little better to get that off my chest.
@Therumancer: I was moderately with up until you started generalizing and putting down the people complaining. You did say there are exceptions, but it still struck as pretty ignorant of you.
Anyway, I generally agree with the main point, though I'm not sold on the political correctness thing (spend a while on the Escher Girl's tmblr and you get an idea that there is a certain gender bias to depictions, to the point where some artists don't even realize they're doing it.) Also, I don't think the similar way men and women portray male and female characters in their work invalidates the discussion. For one, you have the potential to discuss the reasons why they do this (cultural, psychological, and so on) and whether working to change it would be good for new, and potentially better, stories and characters. I would say that part of your argument works to answer the posed questions, though I imagine there's a fair bit of variability in how both men and women have shown they respond. After all, there's making an attractive women, and then there's floor length hair and pendulous breasts in skimpy outfits as one runs cross country and stabs large creatures, yet still being helpless when a bad man holds your arms behind your back. At some point you notice things getting a bit ridiculous.
I'd say a lot of it comes down to context and perception. Good reason for those clothes/strength/body shape/helplessness? You can get away with a lot if it doesn't clash too much. Who wondered excruciatingly why Gordon Freeman was the only young scientist in Half Life and why he could reliably use all those weapons as well, or better, than the trained military. There were pretty well established gameplay formats and cultural stereotypes of scientists for those questions, but take some of Fallout 3's story. Man or woman, at some point, regardless of your skills, you are rendered helpless by a flash grenade for several minutes, and you can do nothing to survive "deadly" radiation for 30 seconds no matter what protections you take. In all games, those sorts of uncontrollable context clashes can really grate.
Likewise, perceptions come in based on who you are, or, for example, when you play game after game after game where this formerly competent person becomes helpless, or every single female seems to be useless in helping themselves. Particularly in games, where you're more connected to the characters, you can build and carry a lot of perceptions through the games and some can get tiring. I'm more Otacon than Snake, but I get really tired of the useless wimpy nerd characters. I don't want to have games constantly making fun of someone that is fairly similar to me. I don't care if I see it once in a while. People are different and there are tons of them. Of course a game will feature some that are similar to me, or anyone else, but if that useless character that I had a lot in common with showed up in a third, half, or more of the games I wanted to play, then that would get old fast.
Anyway, I generally agree with the main point, though I'm not sold on the political correctness thing (spend a while on the Escher Girl's tmblr and you get an idea that there is a certain gender bias to depictions, to the point where some artists don't even realize they're doing it.) Also, I don't think the similar way men and women portray male and female characters in their work invalidates the discussion. For one, you have the potential to discuss the reasons why they do this (cultural, psychological, and so on) and whether working to change it would be good for new, and potentially better, stories and characters. I would say that part of your argument works to answer the posed questions, though I imagine there's a fair bit of variability in how both men and women have shown they respond. After all, there's making an attractive women, and then there's floor length hair and pendulous breasts in skimpy outfits as one runs cross country and stabs large creatures, yet still being helpless when a bad man holds your arms behind your back. At some point you notice things getting a bit ridiculous.
I'd say a lot of it comes down to context and perception. Good reason for those clothes/strength/body shape/helplessness? You can get away with a lot if it doesn't clash too much. Who wondered excruciatingly why Gordon Freeman was the only young scientist in Half Life and why he could reliably use all those weapons as well, or better, than the trained military. There were pretty well established gameplay formats and cultural stereotypes of scientists for those questions, but take some of Fallout 3's story. Man or woman, at some point, regardless of your skills, you are rendered helpless by a flash grenade for several minutes, and you can do nothing to survive "deadly" radiation for 30 seconds no matter what protections you take. In all games, those sorts of uncontrollable context clashes can really grate.
Likewise, perceptions come in based on who you are, or, for example, when you play game after game after game where this formerly competent person becomes helpless, or every single female seems to be useless in helping themselves. Particularly in games, where you're more connected to the characters, you can build and carry a lot of perceptions through the games and some can get tiring. I'm more Otacon than Snake, but I get really tired of the useless wimpy nerd characters. I don't want to have games constantly making fun of someone that is fairly similar to me. I don't care if I see it once in a while. People are different and there are tons of them. Of course a game will feature some that are similar to me, or anyone else, but if that useless character that I had a lot in common with showed up in a third, half, or more of the games I wanted to play, then that would get old fast.
Well, it's not quite Shamus, nor is this thread quite the right place to discuss it, but http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=9145Acrisius said:Also thisGoaThief said:
Well at least there is half the protagonist of the Resident Evil seriw who allow us to play strong independent femelle character that are not just a pair of ass and tits.... Not that they are without flaw... But still way better than what most Triple A franchise offer... And they are doing since the 90's
http://images.wikia.com/residentevil/images/a/a9/Jill_Valentine_B.S.A.A..jpg
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/2218/221067-claireredfield1_lg.jpg
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5822/residentevil5conceptart.png
http://images.wikia.com/residentevil/images/a/a9/Jill_Valentine_B.S.A.A..jpg
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/2218/221067-claireredfield1_lg.jpg
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5822/residentevil5conceptart.png