Violence in games vs Sexism in games?

[asdfen]

I say let creators create then have someone rate that stuff so people who are sensetive are aware that they are getting headshotting snowball pissing boob flashing game.
Personally I will enjoy both a violent game and a game full of sexism as long as its there for a purpose - like good humor or like in sniper elite violence it is a game mechanic and it works. People enjoy different things so let developers carry out their vision. Dont like it? Dont play it. Its that simple.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

At this moment I'm getting convinced that you are trolling. I know you are intelligent. You proved that over several discussions we had on this board. Why are you then equating 40-60 percent of market presence with 40-60 percent of market share in every genre. It's like if you would reason that shoe manufacturers should start selling high heels for men since they are almost 50% of buyers and generate almost 1/3 of cash flow. (these numbers are gross estimations based on really old numbers i learned so long ago I might remember them wrong but they still make the same point)

As I said, there is a lot of games geared towards women. It's not your swollen budget releases rather lower budgeted games. And you should know that. Some 8 months ago we had the same conversation and you pulled up few research papers on gaming public. What is has shown is that almost half of the video game players where female. But they also shown that average female gamer was older than average male gamer by a few years, that the majority of female gamers were middle aged women. And their games of choice are puzzle, hidden object games, light adventure, match 3, life simulators and similar games. Most of those games will not benefit from production values high end driving or shooting game would. Also, with adequate and far cheaper quality alternatives out there, high priced high budgeted game would not sell. Again. it's simple matter of economy.

BTW, I really want to see high budgeted virtual reality hidden object game for Oculus Rift. Now, there that kind of budget could create really mindblowing experience.

As for where my info comes from, I already told you. it's you who directed me towards studies of games market. Remind yourself.

Oh, Life is not fair is not a copout. Not in any way, shape or form. Life does not pat you on the back when you do something good. To get pat on the back you need to do something truly amazing. However life does have a huge stick with which it will beat you mercilessly every time you fail. And there are countless competitiors that will help you fail so that they look like they succeeded. Life offers few carrots but lots of sticks and often invites friends to "sticking" party. Add to that that logic demands going with majority and , if you stick out, you end up in a very very bad place. That is what that sentence means. It also means that place of your birth, your race, your religion, your upbringing, your neighborhood can all give you distinctive advantages or disadvantages without any influence fro your side. And, let me make it clear, poor black lesbian atheist female "from the hood" on social welfare in USA is still far better off than average white heterosexual orthodox christian male in Serbia not to mention Chinese construction worker or Ukrainian sex worker or Zimbabwean black farmer. I hope I made it clear now.

And yes, I call it oversensitivity. People expect life to be a carnival ride. And it can be if you are born under a right set of circumstances, with right genetics and right upbringing. But that covers miserably small portion of humankind. For the rest of us, its struggle for survival where we build every single happy moment ourself, either directly or by doing the same for others and receiving same back. It might be easier for some by circumstances but it's struggle never the less.

What I get from you post is that you have quite a bit of pent up rage in you. And from your last sentence one idea shines, at least to me. And that is that you expect equality of results. And that is worst possible expectation to have. Even if we had true equality of opportunity that would never result in equality of chances and even less in equality of results. Number of factors that goes against that idea being reasonable is simply staggering and overwhelming to contemplate.

As I said all those months ago, if you really feel so discriminated go and gather some developers, raise funds and finance the game you and people who have similar opinion think be made. If it succeeds, publishers will take note. But beware, if it fails, you just dug up deeper hole for your hopes and dreams. It's a risk, but unless someone is willing to take it, nothing will change. EA took wonderful risk at the beginning of PS3/XBOX360 era which resulted in one of my favorite games of all times, Mirrors Edge. But it didn't pay off and they lost top spot in industry. On the other hand Sony refused to pay 50M$ to get exclusivity on Call of Duty Modern Warfare and look what they missed by refusing to risk it. So risks can pay off but you must be prepared to pay the price.

I'm certainly not trolling. I'm also certainly not interested in rolling over and accepting that women will always be second class gamers because nothing will change because a bunch of naysayers defend the practices of the gaming industry. And I'm certainly not just going to roll over, and die just on your say so.
Women won't spend money on something that doesn't make them happy. If they aren't marketed to, they aren't happy, they don't buy. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Moreover, you, yourself admit they're old numbers. Sticking with outdated information is going to do more harm than good. Especially when it doesn't accurately reflect the amount that female gamers have grown. A lot can happen in a few months.

It's a mistake to assume women only like a handful of game genres, and leave it at that. Times change, new generations of gamers are out there, people who've gotten acclimated to gaming, people with better reflexes, and people who want a variety of things besides being relegated to sims, puzzle, farming, and match 3 games.
It's absurd to expect all gamers to stick to a certain, small range of genres. Moreover, expecting all gamers to find one system to play on and leaving it at that is equally absurd.
Women should not be forced to play only on PC only on small indie games only of a few genres, lest they be forced to play games aimed at guys.

"Life's not fair" is the ultimate cop out. It's an attempt to dismiss all gripes, and a jab at the "I win button." If you want to bow out, then bow out, but you've yet to make any compelling argument to make me change my mind on the issue of sexism in the game industry. You're not alone in that, either.

Wow, for all the times you've talked with me, you still say I expect equality? I'm just asking for more than we have now. Not 50/50. Best case scenario, the 50/50 is a long way off.

Considering how long the idea of "make your own game!" (which is another massive cop-out, mind you, and is said with an immense amount of lacking of understanding of a long list of things) has been out, and no doubt hopeful folks have tried, I'd say the industry doesn't really care.
Lets look at, for instance, Minecraft. Minecraft is absurdly popular! It got console ports, too! But who's really trying to compete with this formula outside of an indie level? Safe to say no-one, really, despite the formula being quite worthwhile because it's broughtin an immense amount of cash.
Portal, which was made into something of an AAA game. Popular? Sure. Competition? None really.
The industry doesn't really take advantage of formulas created by the indie world. There's no proving the industry wrong on this route, IMO.
Moreover, the absurd amount of cash your idea will need won't fly well for an indie game maker, and an indie game would need considerable quality to make that sort of impact on the gamers, and the industry and I don't see that happening.

Mirror's Edge wasn't just a risk because of the female protagonist, it was the experimental style of gameplay which hasn't yet really been revisited because first person parkour isn't as easy as it seems, apparently, nevermind limiting the combative prowess of the player's character, or a combination of both.
You're making the same error the game industry has, and laying the game's failings squarely on the female protagonist, and completely ignoring any other variable. It's this line of thinking that no doubt played a role in getting this topic so popular.

 

[carnex]

If you are not trolling and you are still make same parallels I have to question how you can make those parallels with straight face.

Also, stop putting words into people's mouth, you did that last time also. I never mentioned why the game failed (in my opinion it's combination of lack of focus, fact that the fun in game stopped when running momentum stopped, the sloppy and slow gunplay and horrendous quicktime events). i just wanted to illustrate risk-reward dynamics but the fact that you jumped on that shows that you really see things one way and have difficulty accepting that not everyone fits your mental image.

I agree every person is free to play whatever that person wants. But if market research shows that shooters sell best, males buy shooters the most and there isn't enough demand from other sides guess what you are going to get? More shooters aimed at males. We can argue here till we die, but people who write here have no leverage in industry.

Again, life is not fair is not a cop-out. Don't expect life to serve you anything unless you slide with prevailing ideas and suck up everything sent your way. Unless you force the change, it won't come. Unless you fight for what you want, you have really slim chance of getting it especially if it's not the prevailing wisdom of the age.

Rather meek example is revival of old-style hardcore cRPGs. They are not coming from big publishers. We knew we can't count on them (although Fallout New Vegas was huge pleasant surprise). So we demanded them on mass from people who made them previously. Then we donated money to that. And many of us gave money they really can't afford to give away because we wanted them that much. Results are here. Shadowrun is here. Wasteland 2 is great in beta (even if I have access I refuse to play until i can get final version). many more new classic cRPGs are coming from Kickstarter now. It's good enough for us, and we put money where our mouth was, but first of all we demanded it from the right people.

Many successful indie developers will grow and raise to AAA games. It's that simple. If that studio grew making female oriented games, guess what it will gravitate towards.

I agree that most of big industry is afraid of "female protagonist curse" but you are going about changing that in all the wrong ways.

Oh, I forgot one part

Anyway, as long as no new research papers come up, those are most relevant ones. And they agree with my personal experience. But I'm from Serbia and gaming culture here is weak and PC kills consoles by order of magnitude. People simply cant afford console game prices so even if they get one it piracy all he way. Cheap PC games are only one bought on mass. And even then, when zuma275 and Need for Speed XZY are at the same price most females will go for zuma. Not to mention how little shooters and third person action games get picked up. But this is Serbia and gaming is still not mainstream here.

 

[gargantual]

At this moment I'm getting convinced that you are trolling. I know you are intelligent. You proved that over several discussions we had on this board. Why are you then equating 40-60 percent of market presence with 40-60 percent of market share in every genre. It's like if you would reason that shoe manufacturers should start selling high heels for men since they are almost 50% of buyers and generate almost 1/3 of cash flow. (these numbers are gross estimations based on really old numbers i learned so long ago I might remember them wrong but they still make the same point)

As I said, there is a lot of games geared towards women. It's not your swollen budget releases rather lower budgeted games. And you should know that. Some 8 months ago we had the same conversation and you pulled up few research papers on gaming public. What is has shown is that almost half of the video game players where female. But they also shown that average female gamer was older than average male gamer by a few years, that the majority of female gamers were middle aged women. And their games of choice are puzzle, hidden object games, light adventure, match 3, life simulators and similar games. Most of those games will not benefit from production values high end driving or shooting game would. Also, with adequate and far cheaper quality alternatives out there, high priced high budgeted game would not sell. Again. it's simple matter of economy.

BTW, I really want to see high budgeted virtual reality hidden object game for Oculus Rift. Now, there that kind of budget could create really mindblowing experience.

As for where my info comes from, I already told you. it's you who directed me towards studies of games market. Remind yourself.

Oh, Life is not fair is not a copout. Not in any way, shape or form. Life does not pat you on the back when you do something good. To get pat on the back you need to do something truly amazing. However life does have a huge stick with which it will beat you mercilessly every time you fail. And there are countless competitiors that will help you fail so that they look like they succeeded. Life offers few carrots but lots of sticks and often invites friends to "sticking" party. Add to that that logic demands going with majority and , if you stick out, you end up in a very very bad place. That is what that sentence means. It also means that place of your birth, your race, your religion, your upbringing, your neighborhood can all give you distinctive advantages or disadvantages without any influence fro your side. And, let me make it clear, poor black lesbian atheist female "from the hood" on social welfare in USA is still far better off than average white heterosexual orthodox christian male in Serbia not to mention Chinese construction worker or Ukrainian sex worker or Zimbabwean black farmer. I hope I made it clear now.

And yes, I call it oversensitivity. People expect life to be a carnival ride. And it can be if you are born under a right set of circumstances, with right genetics and right upbringing. But that covers miserably small portion of humankind. For the rest of us, its struggle for survival where we build every single happy moment ourself, either directly or by doing the same for others and receiving same back. It might be easier for some by circumstances but it's struggle never the less.

What I get from you post is that you have quite a bit of pent up rage in you. And from your last sentence one idea shines, at least to me. And that is that you expect equality of results. And that is worst possible expectation to have. Even if we had true equality of opportunity that would never result in equality of chances and even less in equality of results. Number of factors that goes against that idea being reasonable is simply staggering and overwhelming to contemplate.

As I said all those months ago, if you really feel so discriminated go and gather some developers, raise funds and finance the game you and people who have similar opinion think be made. If it succeeds, publishers will take note. But beware, if it fails, you just dug up deeper hole for your hopes and dreams. It's a risk, but unless someone is willing to take it, nothing will change. EA took wonderful risk at the beginning of PS3/XBOX360 era which resulted in one of my favorite games of all times, Mirrors Edge. But it didn't pay off and they lost top spot in industry. On the other hand Sony refused to pay 50M$ to get exclusivity on Call of Duty Modern Warfare and look what they missed by refusing to risk it. So risks can pay off but you must be prepared to pay the price.

I'm certainly not trolling. I'm also certainly not interested in rolling over and accepting that women will always be second class gamers because nothing will change because a bunch of naysayers defend the practices of the gaming industry. And I'm certainly not just going to roll over, and die just on your say so.
Women won't spend money on something that doesn't make them happy. If they aren't marketed to, they aren't happy, they don't buy. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Moreover, you, yourself admit they're old numbers. Sticking with outdated information is going to do more harm than good. Especially when it doesn't accurately reflect the amount that female gamers have grown. A lot can happen in a few months.

It's a mistake to assume women only like a handful of game genres, and leave it at that. Times change, new generations of gamers are out there, people who've gotten acclimated to gaming, people with better reflexes, and people who want a variety of things besides being relegated to sims, puzzle, farming, and match 3 games.
It's absurd to expect all gamers to stick to a certain, small range of genres. Moreover, expecting all gamers to find one system to play on and leaving it at that is equally absurd.
Women should not be forced to play only on PC only on small indie games only of a few genres, lest they be forced to play games aimed at guys.

"Life's not fair" is the ultimate cop out. It's an attempt to dismiss all gripes, and a jab at the "I win button." If you want to bow out, then bow out, but you've yet to make any compelling argument to make me change my mind on the issue of sexism in the game industry. You're not alone in that, either.

Wow, for all the times you've talked with me, you still say I expect equality? I'm just asking for more than we have now. Not 50/50. Best case scenario, the 50/50 is a long way off.

Considering how long the idea of "make your own game!" (which is another massive cop-out, mind you, and is said with an immense amount of lacking of understanding of a long list of things) has been out, and no doubt hopeful folks have tried, I'd say the industry doesn't really care.
Lets look at, for instance, Minecraft. Minecraft is absurdly popular! It got console ports, too! But who's really trying to compete with this formula outside of an indie level? Safe to say no-one, really, despite the formula being quite worthwhile because it's broughtin an immense amount of cash.
Portal, which was made into something of an AAA game. Popular? Sure. Competition? None really.
The industry doesn't really take advantage of formulas created by the indie world. There's no proving the industry wrong on this route, IMO.
Moreover, the absurd amount of cash your idea will need won't fly well for an indie game maker, and an indie game would need considerable quality to make that sort of impact on the gamers, and the industry and I don't see that happening.

Mirror's Edge wasn't just a risk because of the female protagonist, it was the experimental style of gameplay which hasn't yet really been revisited because first person parkour isn't as easy as it seems, apparently, nevermind limiting the combative prowess of the player's character, or a combination of both.
You're making the same error the game industry has, and laying the game's failings squarely on the female protagonist, and completely ignoring any other variable. It's this line of thinking that no doubt played a role in getting this topic so popular.

I think carnex does have a point to some degree about changing things, just look at how Bravely Default changed Square Enix perceptions about chasing action-loving western audiences, and made them realize they're better off sticking to their niche and making what they make best. We can all rage here but change like the Tomb Raider reboot has to be realized.

In any genre of art or entertainment, when you hear a groundbreaking musician, filmmaker, comic creator or game dev interview about what inspired their works, they mentioned being able to create something they weren't seeing in their medium. If not for John Romero, John Carmack, Tom Hall & Adrian Carmack, Wolfenstein 3D/Doom and a whole host of FPS wouldnt be where they are now or be viewed as a socially taboo concept within the gaming community. Same as Ed Boon with Mortal Kombat or Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto.

Its not entirely a cop out to say, be active to some degree in the change you want to see. Its more encouraging than forum wars because while criticism is valid, it doesn't make those games of the future. There are side scrollers that are just as relevant as big Cry Engine & Unreal Engine titles in our social media world.

Many laid off devs move from project to project and some stop to gather around with everyday people to push their own. Even Jade Raymond from Ubisoft when interviewed at Pax East said women like everyone else who may not know how to program (C++ and all) should not be discouraged from getting involved, as art and writing are still valid and necessary means of being involved in games creation.

And really the only conspiracy one could allege is that ever since the first XBOX. Microsoft Activision and EA were aggressively trying to corner off the dude-bro market. But as you can see from their awkward campaigns and press events. It amounts to pretty much misunderstanding of gamers varied interests. Because in the 5th-6th gen when Sony was dominant, Sony's goal was beat the competition by being as 'varied' as possible. We got Joanna Dark, Aya Brea, The girls from Fear Effect, Fatal Frame, Heather Mason in Sh3, and if we continued in this direction, I don't think there would be as much criticism of video game sexism.

Sure big business entertainment exploits sex and violence, but only because such consumer curiosity and fantasy brings in the numbers, and those execs are bean counters. Doesn't guarantee the product will be good or socially relevant. but they want ROI and any guarantee that people will be compelled to put down cash.

As for male devs that still choose to present sexual dichotomies in fiction outside of 'the business' I think its nothing more than horniness and fantasy, but certainly not indicative of their opinion of real women, and women sure should feel free to push their own extremes rather than the entire industry feel they need to move away from extremes in games to be safe and unisex or to banish gender polars in creative design to make everyone feel safe. Many are still attracted to differences. Violent games fought hard to maintain some level of social acceptance, with politicians ire still lurking. One need only to look at actual sexists at work like that San Diego mayor Bob Filner harassing his staff, the shameful situation with Steubenville and the town that defended those criminals, or states legislating against women's rights.

Strong context can make any design element thats potentially socially disturbing be grounded. I thought super columbine rpg was waaay too loaded an idea for someone to even make. Now that I understand the dev's intentions, I don't find it as polarizing. Problem is geek culture doesn't have the strongest platform outside of big business entertainment to make what they desire, intellectually or sexually without their IPs being pimped and exploited for commercial purposes.

I'll analogise this with interviews when people asked Tupac the same question about 'misogyny in his lyrics', contrasting with songs that focus on women like 'Keep your Head up' 'Brenda's got a Baby' and 'Dear Mama' and same case. The former and using the word '*****' was not reflective of his opinion of women, but of gold-diggers and loose exploitative women that a rising hip hop artist at the time would often encounter in the streets and in social atmospheres, as opposed to grounded women.

 

[carnex]

- snip -

I feel humbled by your eloquence and , outside sexual harassment cases you mention which I know absolutely nothing about thus choosing not to agree or disagree with your conclusions, I agree 100%.

Publishers go with what they see as most profitable. Indies go with experiments. Difference is in price of failure. Also there is a fact that many genres simply don't benefit for insane budgets and awe-strucking production values. It's not that major publishers don't produce those games, it's that they produce them under different labels to avoid diluting brand name and hate that would come from their presence in what is considered indie realm.

Convince them otherwise and you'll get the result you seek. Alternatively help developer who makes game you like grow till they can make high budgeted games. Just don't expect that few, or few thousand posts on forum will change anything.

 

[asdfen]

I've heard this argument a lot, but I'm still very unclear how you can support one thing, but the other thing appears to be wrong.

When people discuss violence in video games, many agree that there is no direct correlation between violence in video games and violence in real life. Therefore, if I were to play a First Person Shooter, I would feel the need to shoot people in real life.

But, when sexism is discussed in games, many say it's not the same thing or "false equivalence". I watch a lot of Bob "Moviebob" Chipman's videos, but I'm still a bit confused. How does one thing lead to another? If I can play an FPS, and not shoot someone based on my experience, then how would playing a sexist video game (Let's say Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum-Laude, which for the record was just a terrible game) make me mistreat women?

I do understand sexism does exist, but I'm still unsure how sexism in the media will cause sexism in real life. Through desensitization?

man this thread is so full of .... and posts off topic

what media does is encourages certain behavior. Same way advertising works. Say something is a certain way enough times and it will become so. It has been proven to work.

regarding poor misrepresented females in video game. Maybe they should be replaced with 300 pound fat chicks(like in real life) or be all you can be army gi janes? May be all games should required to have a pink unicorn instead of cars, flowers instead of trees and all of the story lines be rehash of some romantic crap?

I am for leaving developers the freedom to realize their vision as they see fit however offensive and wrong it may seem to me or anyone else. Let them do what they like no one is forcing the experience on anyone. Its not a required highschool material. They already have to put with enough restrictions from publishers and rating agencies.

Dont like "guy" games go buy/make girl only games that make fun of males. You have that freedom leave developers theirs.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

So what if guys are 60%? 40%, near half's, money is no good? I mean that's almost twice the potential income companies have now.

As has been pointed out that's 40% total not 40% revenue per game. so not every game will have the same consumers interested in it.

I'm not arguing that all games should be made into mass appeal sorts. Some can, sure, but all? No.
I wholeheartedly agree that games should be aimed at women more often instead of aimed for mass appeal.
Sure, not everyone's a customer for everything, but that's hardly an excuse to ignore 40% of customers, is it? Money's money. Why ignore sources of it when they can be cultivated along with existing groups?

Again not every game will have that 40% unless they go mass appeal which could alienate everyone.

Why ignore the 40% ?

Maybe the big budget AAA all eggs in one basket doesn't favour it as the 60% are the target demographic and due to how the market is being run at present there's no room for lower profit titles which would appeal to the 40%. Not saying this is good just that this is probably one of the big reasons for it.

Yeah, that list of yours isn't exactly a rich, diverse, fulfilling library of games, IMO. Even adding the sims, and bejeweled. All gamers need variety, male, and female alike, IMO. It's a safe bet to think so, anyhow, IMO. I mean, I play Style Savvy: Trendsetters, Scribblenauts, and Senran Kagura, for instance. 3 games that are worlds apart. Sometimes I'm in the mood for one over the other, so I enjoy being able to go from Pokemon Y to Pokemon Trozei.
Being away from home, and the more female friendly atmosphere of handhelds impacted my gaming greatly.
I try to squeeze in console gaming when I can, and it's just as diverse in genre, if not more so. I can't say I'm a huge fan of PC gaming, and my phone sucks too much for using that for gaming.

Again, I agree that the industry needs to provide for the variety of gamers instead of making mass appeal games. Mass appeal has it' place, but so does everything else, and all are pretty important, IMO.

The reasons behind the change of developer's vision isn't all that important to me, it's the fact they're being tampered with that does matter. Greater good, agenda, what ever, it's pretty harmful to the gaming industry, IMO. Games need to get back to the near anything goes stuff. Creativity, innovation, etc.

As I said they do need more diversity and then the problem will hopefully sort itself out. The thing is at present it could be said to be more a symptom of the market than an inherent problem.

Of course that split isn't for every game, and t likely never will be for every game, especially because women are treated like second class gamers.
Why would women buy a lot of what's not aimed at them, and at times pretty against them? Like you said, there needs to be games catered to them to help draw them in and feel welcome.

Things won't ever change until there is change as far as getting women involved in gaming. Fighting the change, excusing the status quo, and so forth isn't likely to help do anything but keep games largely dude-bro oriented. Such dude-bro orientation is likely what caused such stagnation in gaming.

I'm not looking at a game by game basis, I'm looking at the big picture. The industry as a whole.

Not every game needs to be AAA billion dollar budget games. At the same time, I'd certainly hope to not be relegated to only playing indie games forever, especially because I'm not a fan of PC gaming. Middle ground games can exist, and do well.

I'm certainly hoping things sort themselves out, too. Once they do, we'll not likely have these topics as frequently. Until it does sort itself out, though, disgruntled gamers will continue talking about this.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

If someone starts acting out their video game fantasies in real life, then both of these are a problem. It's only an issue when you can draw a direct correlation between what one is exposed to in the digital world and their actions in the real world...or the "analogue" world LOL.

Unfortunately, sexism in games is no different than sexism in media, film, comics, etc.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I think carnex does have a point to some degree about changing things, just look at how Bravely Default changed Square Enix perceptions about chasing action-loving western audiences, and made them realize they're better off sticking to their niche and making what they make best. We can all rage here but change like the Tomb Raider reboot has to be realized.

In any genre of art or entertainment, when you hear a groundbreaking musician, filmmaker, comic creator or game dev interview about what inspired their works, they mentioned being able to create something they weren't seeing in their medium. If not for John Romero, John Carmack, Tom Hall & Adrian Carmack, Wolfenstein 3D/Doom and a whole host of FPS wouldnt be where they are now or be viewed as a socially taboo concept within the gaming community. Same as Ed Boon with Mortal Kombat or Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto.

Its not entirely a cop out to say, be active to some degree in the change you want to see. Its more encouraging than forum wars because while criticism is valid, it doesn't make those games of the future. There are side scrollers that are just as relevant as big Cry Engine & Unreal Engine titles in our social media world.

Many laid off devs move from project to project and some stop to gather around with everyday people to push their own. Even Jade Raymond from Ubisoft when interviewed at Pax East said women like everyone else who may not know how to program (C++ and all) should not be discouraged from getting involved, as art and writing are still valid and necessary means of being involved in games creation.

And really the only conspiracy one could allege is that ever since the first XBOX. Microsoft Activision and EA were aggressively trying to corner off the dude-bro market. But as you can see from their awkward campaigns and press events. It amounts to pretty much misunderstanding of gamers varied interests. Because in the 5th-6th gen when Sony was dominant, Sony's goal was beat the competition by being as 'varied' as possible. We got Joanna Dark, Aya Brea, The girls from Fear Effect, Fatal Frame, Heather Mason in Sh3, and if we continued in this direction, I don't think there would be as much criticism of video game sexism.

Sure big business entertainment exploits sex and violence, but only because such consumer curiosity and fantasy brings in the numbers, and those execs are bean counters. Doesn't guarantee the product will be good or socially relevant. but they want ROI and any guarantee that people will be compelled to put down cash.

As for male devs that still choose to present sexual dichotomies in fiction outside of 'the business' I think its nothing more than horniness and fantasy, but certainly not indicative of their opinion of real women, and women sure should feel free to push their own extremes rather than the entire industry feel they need to move away from extremes in games to be safe and unisex or to banish gender polars in creative design to make everyone feel safe. Many are still attracted to differences. Violent games fought hard to maintain some level of social acceptance, with politicians ire still lurking. One need only to look at actual sexists at work like that San Diego mayor Bob Filner harassing his staff, the shameful situation with Steubenville and the town that defended those criminals, or states legislating against women's rights.

Strong context can make any design element thats potentially socially disturbing be grounded. I thought super columbine rpg was waaay too loaded an idea for someone to even make. Now that I understand the dev's intentions, I don't find it as polarizing. Problem is geek culture doesn't have the strongest platform outside of big business entertainment to make what they desire, intellectually or sexually without their IPs being pimped and exploited for commercial purposes.

I'll analogise this with interviews when people asked Tupac the same question about 'misogyny in his lyrics', contrasting with songs that focus on women like 'Keep your Head up' 'Brenda's got a Baby' and 'Dear Mama' and same case. The former and using the word '*****' was not reflective of his opinion of women, but of gold-diggers and loose exploitative women that a rising hip hop artist at the time would often encounter in the streets and in social atmospheres, as opposed to grounded women.

I hadn't heard about Bravely Default's impact on gaming, honestly, but it is an enjoyable game.
If Carnex has a point, it wasn't pointy enough to make me change my mind.
I'm kinda ok with the Tomb Raider reboot, lack of puzzle elements aside. I mean puzzles are there, but few are mandatory, and few are deep.

Sure, being active, as active as one feels comfortable, IMO, is important, but deep end stuff like "make your own game" is not practical, or particularly useful, imo. Moreover, such heavy handed suggestions are generally made to people that likely would make a game if they could, but don't for reasons that may well be valid, and generally made by people with no idea what it takes to make a game. It feels like a "Shut up!" tactic more oft than not.
Further, there's the simple fact that making your own game kinda eliminates any mystery, or sense of discovery since you'll likely know the game inside and out by the time it's ready. In fact you'll likely hate the game by the time you're done if what I've learned is true.

Yeah, 5th-6th gen was good about female leads. I agree that if the trends of that era continued, we'd likely not be here talking about this. I wanna say I feel like the trend is coming back, but as fast as the girl power era dried up, I've gotta see to believe towards it lasting.
Quality games are required, imo, to cultivate a new golden age of female leads. Not necessarily stupidly expensive budgeted games, but good ones.

Honestly, sex and violence have their place in the gaming world. I don't have much of anything against them. It'd just be nice if women were more welcome in those fields of gaming. Especially the former since it's a rarity women get to initiate romances/relationships/sex in games, nevermind their own games.

On that note, the sexism probably wouldn't suck as bad -as far as video games go- if there was some actual balance against it, as opposed to it largely being heaped upon women. Some give and take, I'm willing to make. Gimme more assorted female protagonists, and some can be sexed up.
Sexism in general is bad, of course.
I fully get your analogy, but the music scene's far more diverse than gaming which can take the some of the sting out of things. Diversity helps a lot.

I guess, in short, I'm not trying/wanting to eliminate, as opposed to dilute the sexism.
It's like alcohol. Too much, too pure, and it's toxic. Blend it, mix it, distill it differently, and it's less poisonous.
Trying to get rid of alcohol entirely tends to not go well.

 

[gargantual]

I think carnex does have a point to some degree about changing things, just look at how Bravely Default changed Square Enix perceptions about chasing action-loving western audiences, and made them realize they're better off sticking to their niche and making what they make best. We can all rage here but change like the Tomb Raider reboot has to be realized.

In any genre of art or entertainment, when you hear a groundbreaking musician, filmmaker, comic creator or game dev interview about what inspired their works, they mentioned being able to create something they weren't seeing in their medium. If not for John Romero, John Carmack, Tom Hall & Adrian Carmack, Wolfenstein 3D/Doom and a whole host of FPS wouldnt be where they are now or be viewed as a socially taboo concept within the gaming community. Same as Ed Boon with Mortal Kombat or Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto.

Its not entirely a cop out to say, be active to some degree in the change you want to see. Its more encouraging than forum wars because while criticism is valid, it doesn't make those games of the future. There are side scrollers that are just as relevant as big Cry Engine & Unreal Engine titles in our social media world.

Many laid off devs move from project to project and some stop to gather around with everyday people to push their own. Even Jade Raymond from Ubisoft when interviewed at Pax East said women like everyone else who may not know how to program (C++ and all) should not be discouraged from getting involved, as art and writing are still valid and necessary means of being involved in games creation.

And really the only conspiracy one could allege is that ever since the first XBOX. Microsoft Activision and EA were aggressively trying to corner off the dude-bro market. But as you can see from their awkward campaigns and press events. It amounts to pretty much misunderstanding of gamers varied interests. Because in the 5th-6th gen when Sony was dominant, Sony's goal was beat the competition by being as 'varied' as possible. We got Joanna Dark, Aya Brea, The girls from Fear Effect, Fatal Frame, Heather Mason in Sh3, and if we continued in this direction, I don't think there would be as much criticism of video game sexism.

Sure big business entertainment exploits sex and violence, but only because such consumer curiosity and fantasy brings in the numbers, and those execs are bean counters. Doesn't guarantee the product will be good or socially relevant. but they want ROI and any guarantee that people will be compelled to put down cash.

As for male devs that still choose to present sexual dichotomies in fiction outside of 'the business' I think its nothing more than horniness and fantasy, but certainly not indicative of their opinion of real women, and women sure should feel free to push their own extremes rather than the entire industry feel they need to move away from extremes in games to be safe and unisex or to banish gender polars in creative design to make everyone feel safe. Many are still attracted to differences. Violent games fought hard to maintain some level of social acceptance, with politicians ire still lurking. One need only to look at actual sexists at work like that San Diego mayor Bob Filner harassing his staff, the shameful situation with Steubenville and the town that defended those criminals, or states legislating against women's rights.

Strong context can make any design element thats potentially socially disturbing be grounded. I thought super columbine rpg was waaay too loaded an idea for someone to even make. Now that I understand the dev's intentions, I don't find it as polarizing. Problem is geek culture doesn't have the strongest platform outside of big business entertainment to make what they desire, intellectually or sexually without their IPs being pimped and exploited for commercial purposes.

I'll analogise this with interviews when people asked Tupac the same question about 'misogyny in his lyrics', contrasting with songs that focus on women like 'Keep your Head up' 'Brenda's got a Baby' and 'Dear Mama' and same case. The former and using the word '*****' was not reflective of his opinion of women, but of gold-diggers and loose exploitative women that a rising hip hop artist at the time would often encounter in the streets and in social atmospheres, as opposed to grounded women.

I hadn't heard about Bravely Default's impact on gaming, honestly, but it is an enjoyable game.
If Carnex has a point, it wasn't pointy enough to make me change my mind.
I'm kinda ok with the Tomb Raider reboot, lack of puzzle elements aside. I mean puzzles are there, but few are mandatory, and few are deep.

Sure, being active, as active as one feels comfortable, IMO, is important, but deep end stuff like "make your own game" is not practical, or particularly useful, imo. Moreover, such heavy handed suggestions are generally made to people that likely would make a game if they could, but don't for reasons that may well be valid, and generally made by people with no idea what it takes to make a game. It feels like a "Shut up!" tactic more oft than not.
Further, there's the simple fact that making your own game kinda eliminates any mystery, or sense of discovery since you'll likely know the game inside and out by the time it's ready. In fact you'll likely hate the game by the time you're done if what I've learned is true.

Yeah, 5th-6th gen was good about female leads. I agree that if the trends of that era continued, we'd likely not be here talking about this. I wanna say I feel like the trend is coming back, but as fast as the girl power era dried up, I've gotta see to believe towards it lasting.
Quality games are required, imo, to cultivate a new golden age of female leads. Not necessarily stupidly expensive budgeted games, but good ones.

Honestly, sex and violence have their place in the gaming world. I don't have much of anything against them. It'd just be nice if women were more welcome in those fields of gaming. Especially the former since it's a rarity women get to initiate romances/relationships/sex in games, nevermind their own games.

On that note, the sexism probably wouldn't suck as bad -as far as video games go- if there was some actual balance against it, as opposed to it largely being heaped upon women. Some give and take, I'm willing to make. Gimme more assorted female protagonists, and some can be sexed up.
Sexism in general is bad, of course.
I fully get your analogy, but the music scene's far more diverse than gaming which can take the some of the sting out of things. Diversity helps a lot.

I guess, in short, I'm not trying/wanting to eliminate, as opposed to dilute the sexism.
It's like alcohol. Too much, too pure, and it's toxic. Blend it, mix it, distill it differently, and it's less poisonous.
Trying to get rid of alcohol entirely tends to not go well.

I agree with the sentiment of balancing it out and give more avatars that people can comfortably project upon, and improving the 'sexual' or 'romantic' facets in games on intimate and mutually acceptable levels. Because peoples appearance speaks to some degree about their values. No one likes feeling singled out through a token avatar thats alone in a lion's den.

I'm even for narrative single player action games, going with the character switching of GTAV and Fuse so that players can walk a mile in different shoes and appreciate the interests and struggles of different people like cable TV dramas such as Shameless and The Sopranos do.

I guess I hold different views about what devs should do represent social change and integration, and what they should be 'allowed' to do. Or write what they know best. The world they make really determines it. Is the goal to be wild and campy and parody, is it to be serious and treat gender and race seriously, or is it in Kojima territory where the campy is embedded in symbolism.

It also reminds me of when Katherine Heigl poked at the film Knocked Up in retrospect being a blatant dichotomy of the men being lovable and goofy, and the women being uptight and catty. In the real world we know people have more layers than that, but for what Judd Apatow was trying to accomplish, he could only worry so much about balancing it out for realism. His aim was just to be funny, emotional, deep but funny.

Diversity definitely needs to improve but the foundations are being laid in modern entertainment as we speak. Devs still should have the freedom to go wild and be as positive and forward thinking or as hardcore and divisive as they want with characters, even if they're dare say it...trolling. People will get mad but it happens. Because the context of the world they make has to be considered, and at some point these avatars are empty dummies that they can't be afraid to burn, endanger or smash for the story's sake. Regardless I believe the market will ultimately balance for female representation in the future.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I agree with the sentiment of balancing it out and give more avatars that people can comfortably project upon, and improving the 'sexual' or 'romantic' facets in games on intimate and mutually acceptable levels. Because peoples appearance speaks to some degree about their values. No one likes feeling singled out through a token avatar thats alone in a lion's den.

I'm even for narrative single player action games, going with the character switching of GTAV and Fuse so that players can walk a mile in different shoes and appreciate the interests and struggles of different people like cable TV dramas such as Shameless and The Sopranos do.

I guess I hold different views about what devs should do represent social change and integration, and what they should be 'allowed' to do. Or write what they know best. The world they make really determines it. Is the goal to be wild and campy and parody, is it to be serious and treat gender and race seriously, or is it in Kojima territory where the campy is embedded in symbolism.

It also reminds me of when Katherine Heigl poked at the film Knocked Up in retrospect being a blatant dichotomy of the men being lovable and goofy, and the women being uptight and catty. In the real world we know people have more layers than that, but for what Judd Apatow was trying to accomplish, he could only worry so much about balancing it out for realism. His aim was just to be funny, emotional, deep but funny.

Diversity definitely needs to improve but the foundations are being laid in modern entertainment as we speak. Devs still should have the freedom to go wild and be as positive and forward thinking or as hardcore and divisive as they want with characters, even if they're dare say it...trolling. People will get mad but it happens. Because the context of the world they make has to be considered, and at some point these avatars are empty dummies that they can't be afraid to burn, endanger or smash for the story's sake. Regardless I believe the market will ultimately balance for female representation in the future.

We're in agreement on your first 2 paragraphs.

Yeah, a media production, case by case, has limited ability to tell a story, especially a movie. Videogames, too.

I'm not sure what's different about the views you have on what the devs should do. I think they should be free to do what they want to do. They don't really have to write what they know best, or make a world that makes sense, imo. They should have the freedom to make what they want. The problem is, they don't, especially when it comes to female protagonists, and their love lives.
I don't know what would be made if developers had unbridled freedom, but I'd like to think that more women would be protagonists in games.

I'm in agreement with your last paragraph.

 

[gargantual]

I agree with the sentiment of balancing it out and give more avatars that people can comfortably project upon, and improving the 'sexual' or 'romantic' facets in games on intimate and mutually acceptable levels. Because peoples appearance speaks to some degree about their values. No one likes feeling singled out through a token avatar thats alone in a lion's den.

I'm even for narrative single player action games, going with the character switching of GTAV and Fuse so that players can walk a mile in different shoes and appreciate the interests and struggles of different people like cable TV dramas such as Shameless and The Sopranos do.

I guess I hold different views about what devs should do represent social change and integration, and what they should be 'allowed' to do. Or write what they know best. The world they make really determines it. Is the goal to be wild and campy and parody, is it to be serious and treat gender and race seriously, or is it in Kojima territory where the campy is embedded in symbolism.

It also reminds me of when Katherine Heigl poked at the film Knocked Up in retrospect being a blatant dichotomy of the men being lovable and goofy, and the women being uptight and catty. In the real world we know people have more layers than that, but for what Judd Apatow was trying to accomplish, he could only worry so much about balancing it out for realism. His aim was just to be funny, emotional, deep but funny.

Diversity definitely needs to improve but the foundations are being laid in modern entertainment as we speak. Devs still should have the freedom to go wild and be as positive and forward thinking or as hardcore and divisive as they want with characters, even if they're dare say it...trolling. People will get mad but it happens. Because the context of the world they make has to be considered, and at some point these avatars are empty dummies that they can't be afraid to burn, endanger or smash for the story's sake. Regardless I believe the market will ultimately balance for female representation in the future.

We're in agreement on your first 2 paragraphs.

Yeah, a media production, case by case, has limited ability to tell a story, especially a movie. Videogames, too.

I'm not sure what's different about the views you have on what the devs should do. I think they should be free to do what they want to do. They don't really have to write what they know best, or make a world that makes sense, imo. They should have the freedom to make what they want. The problem is, they don't, especially when it comes to female protagonists, and their love lives.
I don't know what would be made if developers had unbridled freedom, but I'd like to think that more women would be protagonists in games.

I'm in agreement with your last paragraph.

Oh ok. The part where you might've been confused on was just echoing the last paragraph. What they should do is be a little more diverse and in-depth with character representation. What they should be allowed to do is whatever the hell they want for better or for worse. So that much is in agreement. I wouldn't want guys to create characters for the sake of ticking boxes and shoehorning people they cant depict well just to serve as a foil is all.

 

[carnex]

If Carnex has a point, it wasn't pointy enough to make me change my mind.

I never attempted to change your mind. I attempted to present you with fact why things are how they are now. In my opinion your goal is not wrong, but your starting premise and how you wanted to go about it certainly is. You gave a bunch of false of half true data and went from there. It's really not a good way to pave a road to success.

Maybe, if you read my posts again with this in mind you might draw different conclusions.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

If Carnex has a point, it wasn't pointy enough to make me change my mind.

I never attempted to change your mind. I attempted to present you with fact why things are how they are now. In my opinion your goal is not wrong, but your starting premise and how you wanted to go about it certainly is. You gave a bunch of false of half true data and went from there. It's really not a good way to pave a road to success.

Maybe, if you read my posts again with this in mind you might draw different conclusions.

I did read them. I basically got "Games are for guys, deal with it" in general, which is one root of the problem. "Games are for guys" means women get a passing, if any thought. This leads to alienation, which leads to irritation, which leads to where we are now, talking about the fact the industry largely ignores women.
The "games are for guys" mentality needs to -die-. Games should be for everyone, and there should be a welcoming amount of games made for a lot of people on all platforms, and developers should have the freedom to make them.

The suggestions you offered was largely to make my own game, or go play browser based/indie/Smartphone games. I broke down why making one's own game is a poor suggestion, and considering variety is my bread and butter, being relegated to a small chunk of gaming is fairly insulting.

 

[carnex]

I did read them. I basically got "Games are for guys, deal with it" in general, which is one root of the problem. "Games are for guys" means women get a passing, if any thought. This leads to alienation, which leads to irritation, which leads to where we are now, talking about the fact the industry largely ignores women.
The "games are for guys" mentality needs to -die-. Games should be for everyone, and there should be a welcoming amount of games made for a lot of people on all platforms, and developers should have the freedom to make them.

The suggestions you offered was largely to make my own game, or go play browser based/indie/Smartphone games. I broke down why making one's own game is a poor suggestion, and considering variety is my bread and butter, being relegated to a small chunk of gaming is fairly insulting.

Just to repeat myself one last time. You must make thighs like that true. They wont happen all by themselves unless publishers see it as smart business strategy. Just wishing it wont make it come to be. Hard work and putting money where your mouth is might but even that is not assured. If you don't put in time and money and don't find others willing to do the same for the same goal, well, tough luck, you are not going to get what you want.

Well we obviously have a bad case of miscommunication here. To bad it ended like that. Type ya some other time.

 

[Something Amyss]

Uh... I brought this up because you said "Would women rant if you took all the hot guys off of romance covers?"

Okay, so you're completely ignoring the context of my posts and why I was talking about it. You're instead acting like I brought it up out of the blue. One wonders why you're even addressing me, then, if you're not going to actually deal with me in context.

And I said no, and guys probably wouldn't rant if you took all the hot chicks off of video game covers, rather than the game itself.

Which is bull, all things considered. We should already know better. Which is part of the point.

But women probably would if you took all the hot guys out of the books themselves, which I feel is more comparable to taking all the sexualized women out of video games

Which is a false premise, since the guys in the books don't always (or even necessarily) match the covers. This, again, is one of the points I've been making. And also part of why it's pointless to try and address these things in a vacuum.

I'm not sure why you're talking to me about cover representation, because I dismissed that analogy and substituted one I thought was better.

Looks more like it was a substitution of convenience.

Okay, first of all, you've obviously read very few romance novels if you think it's mostly erotica and objectification. You've definitely read very few romance novels if you think that's why people read them.

And you undercut your own argument.

Wait, wait wait. Uh... so, in the first comment, you claim that of course women would feel uncomfortable, because every time men invade a women-centered medium, it gets turned over to them. But then in the second comment, you claim that men don't invade women-centered media because they think such girly things are "beneath" them?

It's not even a contradiction. I'm not sure where you're confused. Men get brow-beaten for entering a "woman's" profession or hobby unless they do it en masse and claim it as their own.

What? What's your basis for the first comment, then? Hell, what's your basis for either comment?

Reality?

Maybe men don't invade women-centered media because they're simply aren't enough of them that enjoy such things, for there to be a noticeable influx of men? Or maybe men don't invade women-centered media, but women invade men-centered media, because feminism has taught women it's alright, even admirable, to pioneer male-dominated territory, but men have nothing encouraging them to do the same? All these have just as much validity as the one you posited, considering how the sources for all of them were pulled out of the arguer's ass.

Yes, absolutely. They have equal weight if you ignore the way men are treated if they are stay-at-home parents, or secretaries, or "stewardesses" even to this day. If you ignore the reality, then they are both absolteuly equal and valid theories.

Except you're the only one pulling things from asses here. You're coming up with hypotheses that don't take int account the real world. You might as well say "because ponies" when you make these justifications.

And really, how do you explain things like MLP: Friendship is Magic? That's a clear example of men - grown men at that - moving into a space intended for little girls.

Six years trying to recapture that show's popularity has led to a failure. You're arguing from exception. And still, you utterly fail because those same men ***** and moan that a show aimed at little girls doesn't take them into account first. Hell, we've got people on here who do exactly that!

Are you seriously trying to make my point for me? Not only is it an exception overall, but men had a fit that it wasn't targeting them more, and bronies get called girls, faggots, and all sorts of other "slurs" for being bronies. Hell, In the last week I've seen three different YouTube personalities coming to the defense of bronies for the exact reasons I've given.

And again, this is the difference between your "theories" and mine. Theories have predictive power. Mine predicts a set of behaviours and responses that are born out by the reactions people have to grown men liking a girl's cartoon. Hostility and namecalling, as well as harassment. Hell, it even predicts that they will demand it cater to them. You bring up an example that, despite being a superficial exception to another statement, fits to a tee.

Now, how many other girls shows can you name with a strong male fanbase, let alone adult male. I'd be honestly surprised if you could name one without Google (The average number from people I've asked this is just slightly above 0). I'd be even more surprised if you could name one that defied every single criteria I've listed. I can do the former, but not the latter,

If men thought girly things were beneath them, bronies wouldn't exist at all.

Actually, the fact that they have to paint themselves as a distinct subculture and defend themselves should tell you the exact opposite of what you're pretending is the truth. Bronies are the equivalent of "bowties are cool." And while I loves me a man rocking a bowtie, a fez, and a big blue box, it doesn't make it a valid fashion statement.

But since they do exist, by your claims, MLP should've turned into a testosterone-fueled gore fest. But it's not.

And bronies have had a fit about it. It's not hard to find people complaining that they took the "for little girls" direction instead of pleasing them.

Well, not the gore-fest, but you made that up out of whole cloth.

It sounds like you just made that up.

Yes, unless you actually look at it, or think about it, or have any real experience with the phenomena.

Then again, you probably shouldn't be talking about making things up. You're kind of, you know...Doing that.