I appreciate your response. Very thoughtful. I am still in the camp that this specific complaint about e3 and women as exclusive protagonists is not a big deal don't hate me
That's fine. I'm the kind of gamer who only plays the same 10 games over and over again, so it's not like I'm on the list of people who cares tremendously about this. However...it does make me happy to see a noticeable shift in games recently. (And not just with inclusion, but also a return to diverse genres, art styles...etc) I'm actually kind of shocked and proud of what's going on.
It seems like your problem with Skyrim is mostly marketing though. The game is built around your character not having a specific personality or appearance, they can't change that without fundamentally changing what you do in that game. Same with games like Mass Effect, the choices you make are a huge part of it so your character has to be a blank slate to an extent. I agree it's not good that a white male character is the status quo as far as what goes on the box, but the intentions of the developer are a lot more important to me that decisions made by a marketing team.
Completely agree with the section I bolded. I was just saying that I'm never going to personally relate to a character like Shepard regardless of their skin color or gender.
I don't really understand what skin color has to do with relating to someone anyway. Silly example, but if a black person plays Gears of War 3 are they going to think "My wife died tragically, but I can't relate at all to what Dom's going through because he's Hispanic"?
Similarly I've bonded with a lot of people talking about growing up poor regardless of our ethnicities.
Again, I think representation is really important, just think personally that citing people being able to relate to a video game character is a bizarre reason for it.
I have no real "problem" with Skyrim. I adore Bethesda and love roleplaying games with silent protags. I have also played ME1 about 30 times so I'm well aware of the structure of that type of game. I'm just trying to explain why they are not "victories" when talking about this specific topic. They don't have female protags in the same way Dishonored 2 has one, and they are almost exclusively marketed and shown with white males, which yes, is the big problem. So it's absolutely not something I have against the devs. Bethesda is amazing with making their worlds feel diverse. Raiders, bandits, mages, guilds, military and so on all have great diversity with many prominent character of both genders. That's why the default male protags in all their games make me even more annoyed. ;P
I also never think of it as relating more to a character because of skin color or gender. I feel the same whatever I play as in that regard. I just feel better when I see more kinds of people represented in a game, and I feel sad if the only female is the helpless bimbo or something, which happens.
Yikes! That's horrible! While Remember Me was a forgettable game which I certainly don't credit to the protagonist, people LOVED Max in Life is Strange, myself included. Damn, that's a fucking downer
To me the bigger story is that nearly half of games allow you to choose. Compare that to even a few years ago. That's progress. Seems almost petty to focus on the small number of games that don't require you to play as a woman.
Feminist Frequency loses me a bit at times like this. IIRC Anita said last E3 that Dishonored 2 would have been better if they dropped the male option and only had a playable female character, or something along those lines. Choice is good, and I don't see what good it does to get caught up on the idea of having a female-lead-only game to cancel out each male-lead-only game.
I understand it's still crappy that if you do look at games to feature a single, specific character there's a huge discrepancy, but come on. Celebrate the victories.
This always strikes me as really weird. I'm a white male and play a lot of games and I can't think of a single one off the top of my head where i've personally related to the main character.
Who could?
"Oh wow, this dudes triple my size, spent years in prison, and chainsaws people in half while fighting in a war. Awesome, I'm totally in this guy's head."
"Oh nice, this guy is going to save the universe with a ragtag gang of highly trained specialists before sacrificing himself for the greater good, me and him would have a lot to talk about."
"I'm glad this Mario guy is the same gender and ethnicity as me, otherwise I wouldn't be able to relate to what he's going through here."
Granted I think representation is important, but mainly to normalize the idea that different people can do the things you do in games, not only white guys can be heroes, etc. Being able to personally relate to 90% of game characters seems ridiculous no matter who you are.
1. It's not petty to analyze aspects of the industry. That's an extremely silly thing to say.
2. People are celebrating the increased gender options in games. That we are also able to criticize the industry for areas that it fails does not indicate otherwise.
3. Did you perhaps think that as a white man, you don't think about identifying with a protagonist because it's never an issue? If you talk to a lot of non-white guys (and this is obviously not true of all non-white people, even among the age bracket that grew up with it), one of their favorite shows is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This was because they didn't have human ethnicities, and as such could be white, or black, or Hispanic, or whatever you wanted to see them as.
1. It's not petty to analyze aspects of the industry. That's an extremely silly thing to say.
2. People are celebrating the increased gender options in games. That we are also able to criticize the industry for areas that it fails does not indicate otherwise.
3. Did you perhaps think that as a white man, you don't think about identifying with a protagonist because it's never an issue? If you talk to a lot of non-white guys (and this is obviously not true of all non-white people, even among the age bracket that grew up with it), one of their favorite shows is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This was because they didn't have human ethnicities, and as such could be white, or black, or Hispanic, or whatever you wanted to see them as.
I had plenty of white friends growing up who were really into TMNT. It was popular.
As I explained, I don't identify with most, if any, game characters even though I do share a race and gender with many of them. There's a lot more to a person than race and gender, and in my experience it's a lot easier to relate to someone through shared experiences than simply also being a white guy.
As another example I would imagine that a typical 30-something white guy with kids can probably relate to the main character of TellTale's Walking Dead game a lot more than they can to random bald white badass #57.
How many featured exclusively male heroes? Seems like most games allowed both.
Some more interesting analysis shows that there was a 40% drop in new IP, too. But what is "new" seemed to be to be heavily female focused. Like Horizon and ReCore. Probably take a generation to swing out the old franchises and bring in fresher more contemporary stories
How many featured exclusively male heroes? Seems like most games allowed both.
Some more interesting analysis shows that there was a 40% drop in new IP, too. But what is "new" seemed to be to be heavily female focused. Like Horizon and ReCore. Probably take a generation to swing out the old franchises and bring in fresher more contemporary stories
Well, there were 2 that featured exclusively female heroes (Horizon and ReCore were it). There were 24 that featured exclusively male heroes. (And the new IPs were Ever Oasis, Death Stranding, Days gone, Farpoint, Steep, we happy few, and Last Guardian. Not sure about For Honor)
So according to your source, of the new IP, 2 featured exclusively female heroes, 3 allowed both, and 7 had exclusively male heroes.
Well, there were 2 that featured exclusively female heroes (Horizon and ReCore were it). There were 24 that featured exclusively male heroes. (And the new IPs were Ever Oasis, Death Stranding, Days gone, Farpoint, Steep, we happy few, and Last Guardian. Not sure about For Honor)
So according to your source, of the new IP, 2 featured exclusively female heroes, 3 allowed both, and 7 had exclusively male heroes.
In Ever Oasis you can choose the protagonist's gender. And Steep has character creation. For Honor has also the choice for you character to be a woman. So it's down to 5 to 2. Still not the right ratio.
About Last Guardian: This game was announced in 2009. It almost doesn't even feel new anymore. At least for me.
Was cut off from this discussion a bit but still kept track of it because I think this is an important topic, so this will be a megapost with replies to stuff others have already replied to ( lots of appreciation to A Link to the Past, kamineko, Lime, Famassu, Weltall Zero and others <3 ) or to people who may have already left the discussion. Some people may have changed their stance since, so feel free to point that out if you feel like you are one of those people. I cut a few replies out ( mostly points that come up often across different posters / people that didnt stick around ) to keep it a tiny bit shorter. I still feel like sharing my opinions here because this discussion feels personally important to me due to recent happenings in my life. So here; enjoy a bunch of one-sided conversations! ( .w. )
Sorry in advance if it is not appreciated. ( ._. )
Not saying that females should be ignored at all but when the game companies are run by males and the bulk of their customers are males it is not a big surprise they mostly use male characters.
Doesnt this part just go in circles though? Companies perceive their customers to be 90% male, so they develop a game with a male lead and focus test the game with a male focus group and then market it to males which in turn attracts more males to their games. They then say See? Our customers are males! and the cycle continues. Isnt exactly this indicative of a problem?
If that is all you are getting from this then I would advise reading some of the discussion that followed OP. There have been several posts explaining why this is an issue and why people care. This is not about forcing developers to go out of their way to do anything, this is about calling out an ingrained heavy bias towards male-exclusive protagonists. Its about calling out the bizarre notion that protagonists should somehow be straight white men by default and that anything deviating from that is something that should be held to a higher standard / is pandering / is forced upon developers. Again; I would advise you to read some of the posts that have already been made, it might clear some things up and if you have opinions you feel are worth sharing you could jump in and discuss.
How about this both of you are wrong. Devs are normal folks like the rest of us, they are just trying to make the best games possible with the goal of fun/satisfaction without any bugs first and foremost in mind rather than thinking about the imaginary genitals/skin color/sexual orientation a character has on screen.
That is not how game design / development works and even if it did, character design is still part of the creative process. Developers do not just randomly think up characters in a single evening before going to bed; creating a characters is in itself a creative process. Especially so if the character plays any kind of role in a narrative. You think about what you want your character to convey, how to best convey that and why they should convey that. Making a character male is a decision by the designer during this process. Gender, race and to some extent sexuality are most definitely things that come up during this process.
Why does the statistical representation matter so much to some people? I think Horizon Zero Dawn is the most appealing game on the horizon (no pun intended) but the gender of the playable character means absolutely nothing to me.
I don't care that she's female. I wouldn't care if Aloy was a male. Wouldn't care if he/she where black, white, Asian, whatever.
Can't we all just let storytellers tell their stories with the characters they have chosen to create? Why campaign for a certain percentage of a race or gender present across the board just to satisfy some statistical equilibrium? Why does this shit matter and get so much attention?
Why do people care so much + I dont see race / gender / sexuality.. These are all things that have already been explained through earlier posts in this discussion. It would be appreciated that you do not just skim over the OP when coming into threads like this where there is ongoing discussion. Read up on the discussion, reflect on your opinion, and if you feel like you have something to add to the discussion, make a post explaining your stance and join the discussion.
Yup, cuz if someone disagrees with you then they're ignorant. Your debate skills are impeccable!
Who's to say they're not? You quote one example of Last of Us where a female character was almost left off the cover, and you've applied that to the entire industry pretending that every developer is dying to have a female lead but their mean overlord publishers won't let them? I remember when people used to play video games for fun
Your post seemed ignorant because you brought up two already heavily discussed points as your main argument. You chose to not read up on the discussion or at the very least do not seem very self-reflective on your stance in the context of the ongoing discussion. That implies ignorance and being called out on that should be a moment of self-reflection, not snarking back.
This may be true of some people, but it's not true of me. Not seeing color doesn't mean I pretend that everyone is white. Yes, I'm aware that Agent Locke in Halo 5 was a black male - my minds eye didn't pretend he was white. It means I don't keep a running tally of characters in games. I feel like the people upset about this issue keep such a tally, and I imagine them just irate and fuming that the white male category has more tallies present.
Not seeing color is not a good thing; it perpetuates the status quo through implying that race / gender / sexuality does not matter and thus wishing for more representation is somehow bad or wrong or forced. Even if you think that that does not apply to you, not seeing color is ultimately irrelevant in this discussion in the sense that you personally not seeing or caring does not change the fact that there is a lack of representation for certain groups. You not seeing color does not negate it, nor is it an argument against wanting more diverse representation. You seem to be speaking from a position of privilege here ( Yes, I know check your privilege harhar. ). Your last sentence especially shows that you do not understand why people care about this. Again, as with others, I urge you to read through the discussion and at least get some insight in why people care and why your arguments seem to come from a place of ignorance, be it wilful ignorance or not.
Isn't great, but change doesn't happen overnight. The amount of strong female role models, and positive LGBT representation in gaming has had nothing but steadily increase over the last few years, and will obviously continue due to all the support it has gotten, and the amount of people requesting it. I just feel like it would be nice to point that out instead of using an inflated statistic to draw ire out of people. Some positivity once in a while isn't a bad thing is all.
I would say that is immense progress compared to even 5 years ago. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I would have to imagine they were much higher than that.
Sure, weve made some progress. I do not see how that is relevant at all to the ongoing discussion. The problem is still there and it seems that any progress that is currently being made is very, very slow. That there has been some form of progress made over the last few years does not negate that the issue still exists and that representation for non-white-non-male-non-straight protagonists is still abysmally poor. This is still an issue, and the amount of people that come into this thread with dismissive or outright ignorant comments shows that we still have a very long way to go. Diversity issues like this are worth calling out and discussing. I also disagree that these numbers are inflated, as I already touched on in more detail in an earlier post of mine. It would be appreciated if you give that a read and then further explain why you think these numbers are inflated to such a degree that it negatively impacts the integrity of the discussion.
It's why I feel like people get misguided despite good intentions. Like when there was the uproar about the Coen Brothers new film because it didn't feature prominent black Hollywood roles.
I get the criticism of assigning white male as the default and how that needs to culturally change but moreover the real effect is going to come from structural changes. Having female and minority voices in the roles of story creation, directors, producers CEO etc.
That to me is where focus should be. Stuff like this is interesting to give a snapchat of the industry and there is value in that. But you have to take the right lessons and put forth the proper policy. Otherwise you just risk stagnation or just putting a pretty painting over a giant hole in the structure. Which just hides the issues for a little bit or at worse deceives that something is being done when really little is.
It is true that structural changes are needed, but I fail to see how that means that issues like these should not be called out or discussed. If we want things to change, the first step is making our voices heard. If people do not call this stuff out, then it will be perceived as not being an issue at all by many. This in turn potentially slows any occurring progress down to a crawl, which is not what we should want.
I dont feel it portrays it as negative, its just that gender toggles are not a replacement for fully written characters. In games where you can choose your gender, you mostly just play as a genderless / characterless avatar with the gender toggle just changing how you look ( as in; it has no effect on the story ). That is not a replacement for written characters or a solution for the lack of representation.
It makes sense because unlike in mobile gaming (which is the majority of the gaming market if we count amount of people) most console players are male.
There are the well known exceptions, but sales of console games with female only main character typically sell way worse than the others.
I assume it's because people prefer characters of they same gender because it's easier to identify with them, and most console players are male. So devs make male main characters to sell better.
I would like people posting stuff like this to source their statistics. There is no evidence I have seen that suggests female-led games sell worse because they have female leads. The idea that most game players are male also seems mostly based on assumption at this point rather than hard / current data, as there is plenty of data painting a very different picture ( as has been posted earlier in this thread ). This wouldve been a great thing to put on the bingo card thing as this is something we see come up too often without any sources given to back it up.
This has been addressed multiple times in this discussion. It would be appreciated if you read through some of it to gain a better understanding of why this issue is being discussed. The restrictions used by the source are very reasonable, and even if we were to take those restrictions away the numbers would still be extremely similar. The issue exists and trying to discredit the source of these specific numbers does not change that. Aside from that; again, gender toggle is not a replacement for representation. This has been brought op multiple times in more detail.
Don't get me wrong, I'm part of the minority that actually plays female characters in games I get to choose, but I certainly hope that developers aren't changing their artistic vision to please the masses. If your narrative calls for a specific gender, stick to your guns.
I do not think anyone is shaming developers that want their protagonists to be men for a specific reason. Nobody is shaming Naughty Dog for wanting to tell a story about a father in The Last of Us. People are mostly ok with the all-male party in FFXV as they have stated a desire to tell a story about friendship between boys. Nobody is still complaining about GTA V having an all-male player character selection; they wanted to tell a story specifically about men and that is fine. What people do have an issue with is when the reasons given are disingenuous ( see: Aonumas comments on female link / playable Zelda ) or when there is no real basis for not having representation ( multiplayer modes / some other things ). This discussion specifically is about how we do get a lot of male-centric narratives ( TLOU, FFXV, GTAV, etc, etc. ) but comparatively next to no female-centric narratives. That does not mean that male-centric narratives should go away, or that they are bad; it means that there is a huge gap in representation that is worth calling out. So yeah, artistic vision and all, but that does not mean it should not be called out.
What a fucking stupid statement, all this stuff is to draw up controversy.
"Being a hero is male by default!"
On the fucking study that says 49% can be either gender. And this doesnt even account for the increase minority lead presence at this E3. One day will be at 98% female leads and then maybe people will find something else to complain about.
This and points similar to it have been discussed to death at this point. Gender toggle is not a replacement for representation and the fact that there is minimal progress does not take away the fact that this is indeed still an issue. I think it would help for you to read some of the more detailed posts that were made on this to try and understand why this is an issue that is being discussed instead of dismissing it as fucking stupid, to draw up controversy or complaining. Even if you still disagree in the end, it would be appreciated if you would enter the discussion with a more informed point of view. Also, not to be condescending, but maybe cut down on the fucking a bit. No need to be hostile in your disagreement.
With the way most games are made absolutely not. I rarely relate to any of the characters in any game. I find most protagonist representations lacking depth and/or being just generally irrelevant to the enjoyment of the game. I wouldn't bat an eye if the games were 95% female protagonists or even 100%. I just don't see the big deal. If the story/gameplay are good I could be a creature made of blocks or something.
Let me ask you this differently; do you think it is an issue that whenever there is a game with a female player character / important minority character, there is always a large group of people that either dismiss it entirely as being pandering or feel like those characters should be justified through good writing, while male / non-minority characters do not face this same scrutiny? Do you think it is an issue that we have heard multiple stories of developers having to alter their games in some way because the publisher did not want a female protagonist?
Personally, I prefer to play as a male character if given the choice. Might play as Emily in Dishonored 2 first to see her abilities, but I plan to stick to Corvo on other playthroughs
More power to you! ^w^ I myself plan on doing a playthrough with both ( depending on how different they are ). Ill go Emily first and then Corvo. Loved the first Dishonored and there should be plenty of different ways to play for me to justify multiple playthroughs.
This may also come down to males showing an anti-female bias in their purchases, while female players are used to male gender roles so gender plays a smaller part in their purchase preference. In other words, making the protagonist female might still lose them dollars even if the console ratios were 50/50.
I had plenty of white friends growing up who were really into TMNT. It was popular.
As I explained, I don't identify with most, if any, game characters even though I do share a race and gender with many of them. There's a lot more to a person than race and gender, and in my experience it's a lot easier to relate to someone through shared experiences than simply also being a white guy.
As another example I would imagine that a typical 30-something white guy with kids can probably relate to the main character of TellTale's Walking Dead game a lot more than they can to random bald white badass #57.
To make a side-step from the whole identifying as the player character-point ( I would also like to note that I think relating to and identifying as are two different things ); How do you feel about us getting several games focusing on male characters and things like fatherhood and father-like relations (The Walking Dead, The Last of Us, God of War, Bioshock Infinite ), relationships from a male player perspective ( Uncharted, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor ), bromances ( Gears of War, Call of Duty, FFXV ) and similar things while we are at the same time not ( or very rarely ) seeing stories like that from other perspectives on for example motherhood? What do you think about Guerrilla Games having to face questions on why they chose a female lead for Horizon? Do you think those are things that we should call out and advocate change for?
( The usual general disclaimer here: No, I do not think male-led narratives are bad or should go away, and yes there are some positive examples like Mafia III dealing with racism. The few positive examples are worth celebrating but in no way negate the importance of the issue. If you feel like certain games should be celebrated, you are welcome to make a separate thread about it. )
In Ever Oasis you can choose the protagonist's gender. And Steep has character creation. For Honor has also the choice for you character to be a woman. So it's down to 5 to 2. Still not the right ratio.
About Last Guardian: This game was announced in 2009. It almost doesn't even feel new anymore. At least for me.
Once again; this is something that has been brought up many, many times. Gender toggle / gender choice is not replacement for representation for a whole lot of reasons. That is not to say that it is bad; it is just simply not a replacement for or equivalent to exclusive player characters. I would recommend reading some of the more detailed posts that have been made on this.
At this rate, every game and movie are going to involve one of each gender of every race, religion, and creed. When everything includes everything, everything includes nothing.
This has been addressed multiple times in this discussion. It would be appreciated if you read through some of it to gain a better understanding of why this issue is being discussed. These kinds of slippery slope arguments are built on nothing. How does pointing out that there are severe representation issues somehow lead to a scenario where everything is completely homogenised? This is an irrational line of reasoning based on pretty much nothing.
My previous statement isn't about representation. Are women underutilized as leads? Depends on who you ask, but if the consensus is that they are, then the correct action is to push for change. And none of this "discussing is the first step" nonsense. Equality doesn't require battle as the consumer has much more power than they may believe. Complaining that only 3% of games at E3 had female leads is not evidence that foul play has occurred, it is the result of social norms to this point. So scream from the high heavens that games need more female protagonists if you want, it doesn't change the root issue. The result of yelling is developers creating games to accommodate the loudest voices, not address the issue we hope to improve. It's why we now need trigger warnings in our games.
I am honestly quite confused by this stance ( and the variations of it that have already been discussed ). It does not ‘depend on who you ask’, there is a statistically observable huge gap in representation. What do you suggest people do? Discussing the topic is apparently in itself the issue to you, which I find puzzling. Equality absolutely does require discussion and ‘yelling’. Gay marriage legalisation in the US did not happen through inaction, nor did any number of other pushes for equality. Though I am confused as to what you are referring to with that in this discussion specifically… I do not think people here are ‘yelling at developers / publishers’ to make them do stuff; we are discussing the easily provable point that female representation is abysmal and through that discussion want to make people more aware of this - and yes that indeed does include those ‘in charge’. The percentages we are discussing are absolutely indicative of a problem ( not sure why you use the term ‘foul play’ here? ). That problem being caused by existing assumptions / existing constructs might be true, but in no way does that somehow negate the problem or make it so that it should not be discussed. It is precisely the reason why it should be discussed. Changes don’t happen through everyone staying silent and waiting it out.
Your fear seems to be that developers will simply ‘shove in’ characters ( which has also been discussed here numerous times ) to please the loudest voices and that will be that. I say that completely ignores reality. There may be developers / publishers who might see it that way, but as representation grows ( either through genuine interest or this cynical ‘crowdpleasing’ ) and it is - for example - proven that a female player character does not meaningfully negatively impact sales, more and more developers / publishers will start taking things seriously and more and more of them will start hiring female writers. Loud voices might initially lead to ‘false’ change, but through ‘false’ change usually comes some form of real change. Though in general I already disagree with your assessment of how discussion on the issue will be reacted to anyway.
I don’t really get what you mean by mentioning trigger warnings, nor do I see the relevance of it to the discussion. Could you maybe explain?
Firstly, the root issue I am talking about is unequal representation of women in media. This is the real issue I am seeing.
Second, the ESRB is also not the trigger warning I am talking about. This is the result of people yelling:
Third, relax. If you and I saw eye to eye on this subject, neither of us would learn anything from this discussion. If you want to take it easy, I'm willing to hear your side of things. But if you continue to take everything I say defensively without a thought about what motivates me to that opinion, well you can finish with someone else.
Firstly: Yes, that is what we are discussing. And… ? What is the issue with calling it out?
Second: You seem to have just quoted a Steampage. And… ? What is the context?
Third: I don’t think there was anything overly harsh / defensive. Your stance on things and your post explaining that stance are just fairly confusing, especially because it is unclear how some of the things you say relate to the discussion at hand. Perhaps if you explained it more thoroughly?
Again, the trigger warning itself isn't the issue, it's the fact that it's becoming a requirement in order to satiate those who feel wrong is being done. The problem that led to this need however, remains unaddressed. It's like people complaining that the branch is rotten, and to make them happy, we cut it. Ignoring that the rot starts at the root and will continue to grow.
And the reason I tell you to relax is that you are coming off as bitter. Not once did you care what my reasoning was as you were to busy giving me a response on an opinion you may not yet fully understand. I don't care for you answers to my opinions, I was interested in the opinions of others here.
What are you talking about? What requirement? Satiate whom? What game is that Steam page from? Is this a trend that has taken over the majority of Steam pages? Give us context. Complaining the branch is rotten? Cut the branch? Ignore the roots? I feel like you are discussing something completely separate here. Maybe it would help to read some of the discussion that has been going on? It really feels like you are referring to some other discussion going on somewhere else and projecting that on this thread.
Again; it would help if you explained your position a bit better. Your stance is confusing and most of it does not seem based on anything, and it seems like you are unwilling to give context for some things, instead choosing to call others defensive at the first sign of questions / criticism.
You don't think that focusing on a result of an issue could be detrimental to addressing the actual problem? If women are truly underutilized, I think the focus should be on understanding why that is case and focus on changing that? Not that I have a horse in this race, but I certainly wouldn't want to see an influx of female lead roles only because people are complaining about it. It should happen because whatever held them back to begin with has been resolved.
This may seem a grandiose solution, I'm just wary due to the times change has been made solely to satiate consumer for the sake of profit.
I'm criticizing you because these questions you want me to answer are misconstrued versions of what I am actually trying to say and it's far from appreciated. Just the same, this conversation could have been in a more productive place if you simply asked "why" instead of "so you're saying x is y because of z? You crazy."
Still thoroughly confused here. Are you trying to that the issue is not an ‘issue’ because it is the result of something? Are you implying that you think we are not discussing the issue in that context? And again, there is no ‘if’ here; they are. Look at the statistics. It feels like you are completely missing the point of the discussion and are doing a poor effort to explain your stance. And you did not put forth a ‘solution’, you just made some vague statement that we should attack it ‘at the roots’ or not at all because it would somehow be bad. Maybe I’m getting it all wrong here, but a more thorough explanation would be appreciated.
And you really need to back off here I think. Your stance and explanation are confusing and thus there are going to be assumptions and questions. That is not being ‘defensive’, that is trying to understand.
This is one of the central points of discussion, I do not get why you seem to think that bringing this up somehow means that the discussion is invalid or barking up the wrong tree… Take a step back, read through the discussion that has taken place and explain your stance. It would help a lot I think and I would love to have a discussion with you.
There, megapost done. Please continue as normal. <w<
I hate articles that try to paint a bad picture no matter what. 52 % of those new games have a female player character. Just three years ago we were at what, 5 %? Instead of congratulating the industry for getting their shit together we get pieces like "only 3 % are eclusively female". Boo hoo.
I hate articles that try to paint a bad picture no matter what. 52 % of those new games have a female player character. Just three years ago we were at what, 5 %? Instead of congratulating the industry for getting their shit together we get pieces like "only 3 % are eclusively female". Boo hoo.
Things could still improve a ton, but nearly 50% offering a choice is still huge compared to a decade ago. Ideally, anything that wasnt super story focused (like Uncharted) would give you a choice.
This may also come down to males showing an anti-female bias in their purchases, while female players are used to male gender roles so gender plays a smaller part in their purchase preference. In other words, making the protagonist female might still lose them dollars even if the console ratios were 50/50.
That's precisely the argument publishers are making for not greenlighting female-led games indeed. Unsurprisingly, like the argument before it ("hardly any women play console games!"), it seems to be again based in myth and guessing. As a matter of fact, the only data I've found about it (shouldn't this be a far more researched topic?), points to precisely the opposite:
According to her findings, 70% of girls and 78% of boys said it does not matter what gender the lead character is. Indeed, the lasting popularity of characters like Lara Croft, Samus Aran and Bayonetta should perhaps have hinted in this direction. And yet female protagonists remain in a minority.
Yikes! That's horrible! While Remember Me was a forgettable game which I certainly don't credit to the protagonist, people LOVED Max in Life is Strange, myself included. Damn, that's a fucking downer
Let me ask you a question, a small thought exercise. You, like many people, didn't know about this. Let's think for a second of a world where the opposite was true, i.e. your stated fear, that a character is rejected by a publisher because he's male (I can hardly type that without laughing out loud, honestly, but bear with me there). What are, do you think, the chances you wouldn't have heard of that case either, in a world where GamerGate exists?
Was cut off from this discussion a bit but still kept track of it because I think this is an important topic, so this will be a megapost with replies to stuff others have already replied to ( lots of appreciation to A Link to the Past, kamineko, Lime, Famassu, Weltall Zero and others <3 ) or to people who may have already left the discussion. Some people may have changed their stance since, so feel free to point that out if you feel like you are one of those people. I cut a few replies out ( mostly points that come up often across different posters / people that didn’t stick around ) to keep it a tiny bit shorter. I still feel like sharing my opinions here because this discussion feels personally important to me due to recent happenings in my life. So here; enjoy a bunch of one-sided conversations! ( .w. )
Holy moly! To say you have the patience of a saint is an exercise in understatement; I would have had an annurysm less than 1/10 through replying to all that. Hopefully some of them will actually read some of that and be educated, even if the two replies directly below obviously haven't done either.
That's. Awesome. I'm going to save the fuck out of that link for reposting. Do you guys think we could make a 4x4 one? I have a few ideas of my own (might be terrible, don't feel the obligation to add any).
- Women only play mobile games.
- "White Knight".
- Even women don't care.
- Political correctness is ruining this country.
- Remember when minorities didn't speak up so loudly?
- I haven't bothered to check the data, but surely...
- Artistic vision integrity (this is perhaps the saddest one in view of the above Dontnod article).
Once again; this is something that has been brought up many, many times. Gender toggle / gender choice is not replacement for representation for a whole lot of reasons. That is not to say that it is bad; it is just simply not a replacement for or equivalent to exclusive player characters. I would recommend reading some of the more detailed posts that have been made on this.
Still under that Ever Oasis and Steep wouldn't count for me as exclusive male. During the treehouse life gameplay presentation of Ever Oasis they showed off a dungeon run with two allies you can play and control as well. One was female and they mentioned there will be more such wanderers who will join your group during time.
And Steep is gonna be a game with blank slate characters as far as we know. Everything focus about gameplay. The character will be all about customization and expressing yourself. When we talk about new IP which features exclusivity male, I wouldn't count them in.
There are not comparable with Death Stranding, Horizon, ReCore, Days gone when it comes to representation. It's just that what I meant.
Thanks for that long post, Llyrwenne. Too bad that you put so much effort into it and people will still just ignore it and continue to post insensitive defenses of the status quo.
That's. Awesome. I'm going to save the fuck out of that link for reposting. Do you guys think we could make a 4x4 one? I have a few ideas of my own (might be terrible, don't feel the obligation to add any).
- Women only play mobile games.
- "White Knight".
- Even women don't care.
- Political correctness is ruining this country.
- Remember when minorities didn't speak up so loudly?
- I haven't bothered to check the data, but surely...
- Artistic vision integrity (this is perhaps the saddest one in view of the above Dontnod article).
Needs the following referenced in future update
-Historical accuracy
-Artistic integrity
-Can't relate to female/minority main character
-Would hurts sales
I had plenty of white friends growing up who were really into TMNT. It was popular.
As I explained, I don't identify with most, if any, game characters even though I do share a race and gender with many of them. There's a lot more to a person than race and gender, and in my experience it's a lot easier to relate to someone through shared experiences than simply also being a white guy.
As another example I would imagine that a typical 30-something white guy with kids can probably relate to the main character of TellTale's Walking Dead game a lot more than they can to random bald white badass #57.
...I didn't say that only non-white kids enjoyed TMNT lol. But I guess thanks for showing just how capable you are of dodging the point entirely. Kids do benefit from having non-white characters, and your inability to appreciate that simply is not relevant to me.
I hate articles that try to paint a bad picture no matter what. 52 % of those new games have a female player character. Just three years ago we were at what, 5 %? Instead of congratulating the industry for getting their shit together we get pieces like "only 3 % are eclusively female". Boo hoo.
Sorry that every article written about the game industry isn't written for the sake of giving said industry a handjob. Seriously, it's pretty hilarious to see people complain about how shitty game journalism is, but then go on to complain about articles like these and how the writers aren't congratulating the industry. There are plenty of articles that talk about the increased choice for women in the industry, why the hell would I want one of the only articles that talks about this specific issue to go away?
Holy moly! To say you have the patience of a saint is an exercise in understatement; I would have had an annurysm less than 1/10 through replying to all that. Hopefully some of them will actually read some of that and be educated, even if the two replies directly below obviously haven't done either.
Now now, I just got back from a three-day ban for hurling an obviously not ok insult at someone in this very thread. I'd say 'patience of a saint' might maybe be a tiny bit overstated. >w>
That's. Awesome. I'm going to save the fuck out of that link for reposting. Do you guys think we could make a 4x4 one? I have a few ideas of my own (might be terrible, don't feel the obligation to add any).
- Women only play mobile games.
- "White Knight".
- Even women don't care.
- Political correctness is ruining this country.
- Remember when minorities didn't speak up so loudly?
- I haven't bothered to check the data, but surely...
- Artistic vision integrity (this is perhaps the saddest one in view of the above Dontnod article).
Thanks for that long post, Llyrwenne. Too bad that you put so much effort into it and people will still just ignore it and continue to post insensitive defenses of the status quo.
Don't forget "why don't you just go make your own?"
Needs the following referenced in future update
-Historical accuracy
-Artistic integrity
-Can't relate to female/minority main character
-Would hurts sales
Still under that Ever Oasis and Steep wouldn't count for me as exclusive male. During the treehouse life gameplay presentation of Ever Oasis they showed off a dungeon run with two allies you can play and control as well. One was female and they mentioned there will be more such wanderers who will join your group during time.
And Steep is gonna be a game with blank slate characters as far as we know. Everything focus about gameplay. The character will be all about customization and expressing yourself. When we talk about new IP which features exclusivity male, I wouldn't count them in.
There are not comparable with Death Stranding, Horizon, ReCore, Days gone when it comes to representation. It's just that what I meant.
To make a side-step from the whole ‘identifying as the player character’-point ( I would also like to note that I think ‘relating to’ and ‘identifying as’ are two different things ); How do you feel about us getting several games focusing on male characters and things like fatherhood and father-like relations (The Walking Dead, The Last of Us, God of War, Bioshock Infinite ), relationships from a male player perspective ( Uncharted, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor ), ‘bromances’ ( Gears of War, Call of Duty, FFXV ) and similar things while we are at the same time not ( or very rarely ) seeing stories like that from other perspectives on for example motherhood? What do you think about Guerrilla Games having to face questions on ‘why’ they chose a female lead for Horizon? Do you think those are things that we should call out and advocate change for?
( The usual general disclaimer here: No, I do not think male-led narratives are bad or should go away, and yes there are some positive examples like Mafia III dealing with racism. The few positive examples are worth celebrating but in no way negate the importance of the issue. If you feel like certain games should be celebrated, you are welcome to make a separate thread about it. )
Most of those things would be great in a perfect world. And I don't see an issue with pointing out facts or advocating for change, but I think the sad reality is a lot of the themes you're suggesting just aren't financially viable.
Games have the same problem as the movie industry. AAA games are so expensive to make that publishers are very risk-averse. There's more interesting stuff in the indie space but it's less visible.
I'd be interested in playing a game like the new God of War with a female lead that explores motherhood, but I don't blame Sony for being reluctant to bet millions of dollars that there's a large group of people who feel the same.
Things do seem to be improving. Things like Battlefield One and Horizon's protagonists are encouraging. But realistically due to the cost of games there's some themes that will never be displayed on an e3 stage due to the makeup of the audience.
...I didn't say that only non-white kids enjoyed TMNT lol. But I guess thanks for showing just how capable you are of dodging the point entirely. Kids do benefit from having non-white characters, and your inability to appreciate that simply is not relevant to me.
Wasn't trying to dodge anything. I'm just saying it was a very popular show among all kids. I totally agree that kids benefit from media with non-white characters. TMNT seems like a odd show to single out to me. I've had multiple black friends tell me they saw certain characters like Piccolo from Dragon Ball as black, but I've never heard that about TMNT.
And it's hard to dodge a point when you don't have one. "A lot of black kids liked the show, but obviously not all, I'm not saying that, and lol white kids enjoyed it lol." It's almost as if all you're saying is that all kids liked a really popular kids show.
Anyway, I'm not really interested in arguing over ninja turtles. I've said several times in this thread, in posts you've quoted, that I think representation is really important. Not sure what your deal is or why you'd insinuate I don't find it important.
The post will still be true after they do, assuming they hadn't already.
Granted, the percentage of female-led games only increases to about 8% if you exclude the either and N/A games, with male-led games making up the other 92%. Still, the facts support the post.
In Ever Oasis you can choose the protagonist's gender. And Steep has character creation. For Honor has also the choice for you character to be a woman. So it's down to 5 to 2. Still not the right ratio.
About Last Guardian: This game was announced in 2009. It almost doesn't even feel new anymore. At least for me.
They'll notice the context for that bit of data and that there being more games that have female characters as options doesn't change that there's still a big disparity between games that exclusively feature playable female characters and ones that exclusively have male ones.
Most of those things would be great in a perfect world. And I don't see an issue with pointing out facts or advocating for change, but I think the sad reality is a lot of the themes you're suggesting just aren't financially viable.
Games have the same problem as the movie industry. AAA games are so expensive to make that publishers are very risk-averse. There's more interesting stuff in the indie space but it's less visible.
I'd be interested in playing a game like the new God of War with a female lead that explores motherhood, but I don't blame Sony for being reluctant to bet millions of dollars that there's a large group of people who feel the same.
Things do seem to be improving. Things like Battlefield One and Horizon's protagonists are encouraging. But realistically due to the cost of games there's some themes that will never be displayed on an e3 stage due to the makeup of the audience.
The point that it isn't financially viable / risky / not what people want has been brought up multiple times and I've yet to see anyone back those claims up with recent research / statistics. At this point it feels like a lot of the perceived 'risk' is based on assumptions rather than research. I don't really get what you mean by the themes 'I brought up'; I only really named motherhood.
Specifically bringing up That Dragon, Cancer seems odd to me; it is a non-traditional indie game on a very heavy topic ( terminal illness ) which had virtually no marketing / marketing budget and was initially intended as a timed exclusive for the Ouya. I don't think it is a particularly productive line of reasoning to go from that to 'AAA games with female protagonists are financially risky.'. I think you may be looking into the 'motherhood' theme a bit too deeply here as you seem to think that it inherently would have to be a very heavy and serious game.
Wasn't trying to dodge anything. I'm just saying it was a very popular show among all kids. I totally agree that kids benefit from media with non-white characters. TMNT seems like a odd show to single out to me. I've had multiple black friends tell me they saw certain characters like Piccolo from Dragon Ball as black, but I've never heard that about TMNT.
And it's hard to dodge a point when you don't have one. "A lot of black kids liked the show, but obviously not all, I'm not saying that, and lol white kids enjoyed it lol." It's almost as if all you're saying is that all kids liked a really popular kids show.
Anyway, I'm not really interested in arguing over ninja turtles. I've said several times in this thread, in posts you've quoted, that I think representation is really important. Not sure what your deal is or why you'd insinuate I don't find it important.
Your ability (or lack thereof) to understand someone's point is not indicative of the point not existing. The point was that a fair number of non-white kids looked to TMNT and shows with characters that lack human ethnicities because there was a serious lack of shows that featured people of their representation. My point is that you're trying to make the fact that you don't identify with people based on their looks as if that is somehow a counter to the fact that many people do. No one is telling you that you need to identify with Doomguy, but people are absolutely looking at you weird when you treat the idea of not identifying with people because of the fact that they have a strange role (space marine, superhero, or whatever), because children have ALWAYS done that. People want to be Superman and Indiana Jones because he's awesome, and whether they know it or not, the fact that they're white men does have an impact upon white kids. All scientific evidence suggests that a lack of quality representation has an impact on self-image for non-white groups for instance, so why would you even question the idea that representation matters for that reason?
And since you didn't reply to this, what value is there to not having an article that talks about something no one else is really talking about, and why should we want yet another article that celebrates the industry's progress? I mean, weren't we complaining about how games journalism was sucky, and now when it wants to put designers' feet to the coals, we're complaining about how unfair it is to focus on this one aspect and not praise them for another?
I dont feel it portrays it as negative, its just that gender toggles are not a replacement for fully written characters. In games where you can choose your gender, you mostly just play as a genderless / characterless avatar with the gender toggle just changing how you look ( as in; it has no effect on the story ). That is not a replacement for written characters or a solution for the lack of representation.
How many games with starting males are actually "written characters" that couldn't be replaced with a woman?
I feel like most of the characters, even if you can't choose their gender, are avatars that could easily be swapped for the other gender (include race and sexuality here as well) since they don't tell "a man's story".
I'm quoting someone from the first page (sorry I just copy pasted)
An exclusively female character means that the narrative of the game is a woman's story.
This is what I mean. I guess Metroid is not a "woman's" story then? (only played till Prime)
If Samus was a man the narrative would've stayed the same, right?
I don't feel Horizon is telling a "woman's" story either. But a "hero/avatar/our" story.
And please don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean but I thought this was worth posting.
The point that it isn't financially viable / risky / not what people want has been brought up multiple times and I've yet to see anyone back those claims up with recent research / statistics. At this point it feels like a lot of the perceived 'risk' is based on assumptions rather than research. I don't really get what you mean by the themes 'I brought up'; I only really named motherhood.
Specifically bringing up That Dragon, Cancer seems odd to me; it is a non-traditional indie game on a very heavy topic ( terminal illness ) which had virtually no marketing / marketing budget and was initially intended as a timed exclusive for the Ouya. I don't think it is a particularly productive line of reasoning to go from that to 'AAA games with female protagonists are financially risky.'. I think you may be looking into the 'motherhood' theme a bit too deeply here as you seem to think that it inherently would have to be a very heavy and serious game.
I don't think there's been enough games with minority leads to produce anything statistically significant, sadly. We could go back and forth all day with anecdotes. I'd be willing to bet that some EA executives are looking Mirror's Edge sales and partially blaming it on the main character and non-violent gameplay even though you could make the same case that it wasn't marketed.
But you're right, any remark about potential sales is conjecture. We do have plenty of data on past sales however, which is what executives at publishers use to make business decisions, and the best selling games tend to violent and male-led. Change "risk" to "perceived risk" if it feels more accurate, but the reality is that if publishers thought there was a massive audience for something like a motherhood story, it'd be made.
I used That Dragon Cancer as an example because it's story can be related to by a much larger portion of the population than any given gender or ethnicity and it still struggled to find an audience. Presumably something that spoke directly to women would appeal to fewer people. Also IIRC it was actually covered quite a bit in mainstream press for a game, especially an indie game. I'm pretty sure I remember reading about it in the New York Times and New Yorker, which is impressive for a game with such a small team. I don't see what the fact that it was initially an Ouya exclusive has to do with anything. But like I said, picking apart each other's anecdotes is a waste of time.
When I mentioned "themes" it was in response to you using "fatherhood and father-like relations (The Walking Dead, The Last of Us, God of War, Bioshock Infinite ), relationships from a male player perspective ( Uncharted, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor ), ‘bromances’ ( Gears of War, Call of Duty, FFXV ) and similar things" as examples. Seems like more than motherhood to me. Maybe I misunderstand.
Your ability (or lack thereof) to understand someone's point is not indicative of the point not existing. The point was that a fair number of non-white kids looked to TMNT and shows with characters that lack human ethnicities because there was a serious lack of shows that featured people of their representation. My point is that you're trying to make the fact that you don't identify with people based on their looks as if that is somehow a counter to the fact that many people do. No one is telling you that you need to identify with Doomguy, but people are absolutely looking at you weird when you treat the idea of not identifying with people because of the fact that they have a strange role (space marine, superhero, or whatever), because children have ALWAYS done that. People want to be Superman and Indiana Jones because he's awesome, and whether they know it or not, the fact that they're white men does have an impact upon white kids. All scientific evidence suggests that a lack of quality representation has an impact on self-image for non-white groups for instance, so why would you even question the idea that representation matters for that reason?
And since you didn't reply to this, what value is there to not having an article that talks about something no one else is really talking about, and why should we want yet another article that celebrates the industry's progress? I mean, weren't we complaining about how games journalism was sucky, and now when it wants to put designers' feet to the coals, we're complaining about how unfair it is to focus on this one aspect and not praise them for another?
Well sure, kids may identify with super heroes and game characters and things, but I'm not a kid. Most people who play games are not kids. Most adults I know do not want to be Superman or Indiana Jones. If people are bringing up being able to relate to game protagonists for the sake of kids than more power to them. I just think it's weird when I see people speak as though adult women and people of color are clamoring for a space marine whose life experience they wish to relate to but they can't because he's a white man. Seems ridiculous to me. But providing diverse role models for children is one of, if the most, important reasons for advocating diversity in media.
As to your second point, maybe you disagree, but I think it's important to take the realities of AAA game creation into account before holding anyone's "feet to the coals."
If I advocated for improved automobile safety for years and saw seatbelts, airbags, and rear cameras become standard, I think at some point it's fine to change the tone of the advocacy from "many lives are being needlessly lost" to "There's still room for improvement, but look how far we've come" instead of roasting car manufacturers over why blind spot monitoring isn't a universal feature.
I also think it's important to bear in mind that these are specifically games shown at e3 keynotes. They're the most expensive games being produced, and will be produced the most conservatively. The fact that we still have games like Horizon and that you can choose your gender in half of them is a big deal.
So to answer your question, there's nothing "wrong" with the article. But as someone who has played games for decades seeing that half of these games allow to play as whoever you want and seeing AAA games starring women like Horizon is exciting and heartening to see. Personally my initial reaction isn't to start a fire and look for feet to scorch.
How many games with starting males are actually "written characters" that couldn't be replaced with a woman?
I feel like most of the characters, even if you can't choose their gender, are avatars that could easily be swapped for the other gender (include race and sexuality here as well) since they don't tell "a man's story".
I'm quoting someone from the first page (sorry I just copy pasted)
This is what I mean. I guess Metroid is not a "woman's" story then? (only played till Prime)
If Samus was a man the narrative would've stayed the same, right?
I don't feel Horizon is telling a "woman's" story either. But a "hero/avatar/our" story.
And please don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean but I thought this was worth posting.
I was wondering while browsing through the thread whether Feminist Frequency would consider the new Star Wars a woman-led movie since it spends equal (probably more) screen time on male characters despite having a female lead.
It's totally true that most game characters in general have nothing gender-specific about them. I could see more publishers going the AC: Syndicate route of having a male and female character you choose between, it would be easy to implement in most games.
The very notion that we should ignore problems in the industry because the industry did something good besides the thing it did bad is a notion that is inherently damaging to the credibility of the industry. To really emphasize just how poor your argument is to justify why this article should not be allowed to exist, no self-respecting automobile activist would choose to overlook an issue in the auto industry because the auto industry has gotten better. The literal main reason why the auto industry is getting better is BECAUSE they don't do that. The reason why 52% of games let you play as a woman is, first and foremost, that we DIDN'T pamper game designers. And frankly, the argument you're making is the one people make every single time something like this comes up. People were pulling the "I don't care who I play as" argument for character creation tools, and people were complaining about people being negative about the industry. It's always the same song and dance.
If we did that, if we peppered criticism with praise all the time, it would be admittance - admittance that our industry isn't valuable. It's a pretty shit industry if there's a legitimate claim that journalists should be "nicer" or "fairer" (which in this case seems to mean "stop reporting inconvenient facts about the industry"). The only reason we've come as far as we have is because of journalism that isn't afraid to be mean, that doesn't feel the need to delegitimize their work by making sure the designers' feelings aren't hurt. These designers didn't progress as far as they did because they came to a realization on their own, they did so because their was a vocal market that was upset with how the industry was being handled. No business will fix what isn't broken (to them anyway), so what value is there to the industry to under-report on figures like these? Because it would hurt their feelings? I'm sorry, but I'd sooner have better games with better representation than to spare the feelings of game designers who aren't doing a good enough job.
Fair enough. Just to clarify, I never said anything should be ignored.
We agree that representation is important. No use arguing over the one of an article.
Can't relate to that last post though. I buy games I think look fun. I don't consider myself a part of the game industry. To back to the car analogy I own a car and it's important to me that it's safe, but I've never considered for a second how the car industry is perceived by anyone.
And if the value of games is determined by the people writing about them than yes, it's a pretty shit industry indeed.
It also underscores what an incredible job the games industry has done in creating soldiers out of their consumers who irrationally defend the status quo and publishers from criticism, thereby ensuring that power hierarchies remain stable.
Well sure, kids may identify with super heroes and game characters and things, but I'm not a kid. Most people who play games are not kids. Most adults I know do not want to be Superman or Indiana Jones. If people are bringing up being able to relate to game protagonists for the sake of kids than more power to them. I just think it's weird when I see people speak as though adult women and people of color are clamoring for a space marine whose life experience they wish to relate to but they can't because he's a white man. Seems ridiculous to me. But providing diverse role models for children is one of, if the most, important reasons for advocating diversity in media.
I'm sure there are plenty of adults who are truly neutral or kind of ambivalent. But I think we can also agree there are adults that exist who have strong feelings for or against the existence of people unlike themselves featured in the media.
There are people who exist in this world...right now, who believe that in order to feel good about themselves, others must suffer or live in obscurity. Saying how we are all aware, at least unconsciously, that we will eventually die (hopefully from old age) we place our dreams into the idea that we will be remembered in some form. Either through our words, our image, our contributions or our other works. If you set out to make sure certain types of people cannot be remembered or shouldn't be remembered...what exactly are you doing?
You're saying certain people don't deserve to be remembered....even though that's like a major life goal that most people share. When people set out to do that, they're doing it for a very specific reason that is very ego-driven. They can't find the meaning they need in their own lives so they have to make sure those who they feel are less important don't have any exposure to being liked or remembered.
The teeny bits of representation counter-act that. It is a way of saying "Hey...people like this exist too and like to do things." This can unfortunately infuriate people who don't feel as though other forms of humanity matter...but I mean...c'mon.
A part of our differences of opinion is that there are very, very few people currently writing about games that I would consider journalists.
Also, again to clarify, I was seeing this story as something that was shared and presented to people, to the community. If you view it as being aimed directly at the people designing game characters, fair enough.
And I still don't see the harm in including a "look how far we've come" aspect into a story like this. You act like there's this black-and-white decision between letting corporations off the hook and holding their feet to the flames. All I ever said was the headline seemed pessimistic seeing as how far we've come in representation and you're claiming I think the problems that still exist should be completely ignored.
Sorry...I wasn't referring to you, just people in general. You sort of asked why adults would care...and I tried to answer it. We care because we want to find indications that it's okay for us to exist and do things too. It's a validation thing. And there are people in the world who refuse to validate the existence of people unlike themselves. Soo...that's the conflict, I guess. ¯\_(ツ_/¯
I think the general aim to to keep the diversity thing going until it becomes non-controversial/non-political. It should be second nature, our society is very multicultural and globalized...you know?
Sorry...I wasn't referring to you, just people in general. You sort of asked why adults would care...and I tried to answer it. We care because we want to find indications that it's okay for us to exist and do things too. It's a validation thing. And there are people in the world who refuse to validate the existence of people unlike themselves. Soo...that's the conflict, I guess. ¯\_(ツ_/¯
I think the general aim to to keep the diversity thing going until it becomes non-controversial/non-political. It should be second nature, our society is very multicultural and globalized...you know?
I completely agree with you about the long-term goal being diverse characters being common enough that it's not a standout thing. Thought it was weird if that comment was directed at me.
The reason why games journalism is so weak is because we ask so many concessions of it. Ignoring the fact that the content sourced singled out Dishonored 2 and ME:A as positive examples (the source being Feminist Frequency, so perhaps you should have been a little more thoughtful of complaining about Femfreq earlier), THIS is journalism. We don't see journalists in the auto industry pulling punches, so why would someone who thinks poorly of games journalism want to perpetuate weak journalism?
The reason why games journalism is so weak is because we ask so many concessions of it. Ignoring the fact that the content sourced singled out Dishonored 2 and ME:A as positive examples (the source being Feminist Frequency, so perhaps you should have been a little more thoughtful of complaining about Femfreq earlier), THIS is journalism. We don't see journalists in the auto industry pulling punches, so why would someone who thinks poorly of games journalism want to perpetuate weak journalism?
We don't? One of (the?) most popular television series is Top Gear, which is basically the auto equivalent of a site like IGN. And I can't even think of a single person I consider an automobile journalist, let alone one that hold manufacturers accountable for anything. In fact I spend about zero time thinking about cars other than my own or the car industry in general in any given year. I assume most people have roughly similar relationships with the car industry. Does that make it a shit industry?
The reason the enthusiast press can be frustrating is they still depend largely on the companies they cover for funding. Not sure who you're counting as "we" but I can't think of any concessions I've personally asked of the auto industry.
I'm not a scholar of Feminist Frequency's output, but I do recall them, or at least Anita, claiming that Dishonored would be improved by dropping Corvo as a playable character. Not complaining, just disagreeing, and I'm not sure why pointing out something they said is unthoughtful.
Anyway, like I said before I'm not sure what you're getting out of this when we both clearly agree on the important aspects of this thread, i.e. that better representation for non-white, non-male people in media is important. Consumer opinion and games like Horizon and Battlefield selling well will do far, far more to achieve that anything any games writer is doing.
1. The auto industry WOULD be pretty shit if there were people telling those who write about vehicles that they are being too analytical or critical, or should be looking at other things.
2. I pointed out your complaint about Femfreq because what you say the article should have done is explicitly done by Femfreq in the source of the article.
3. And we're arguing because you are trying to downplay the value of an article that a lot of people clearly put value in. The article shouldn't be some big handjob for the industry, and thankfully isn't.
1. The auto industry WOULD be pretty shit if there were people telling those who write about vehicles that they are being too analytical or critical, or should be looking at other things.
2. I pointed out your complaint about Femfreq because what you say the article should have done is explicitly done by Femfreq in the source of the article.
3. And we're arguing because you are trying to downplay the value of an article that a lot of people clearly put value in. The article shouldn't be some big handjob for the industry, and thankfully isn't.
When you complained that it didn't give enough credit to the accomplishments of the industry, and that we should be celebrating the industry's achievements more (which operates on the idea that this article takes away from the articles that do celebrate its achievements).
When you complained that it didn't give enough credit to the accomplishments of the industry, and that we should be celebrating the industry's achievements more (which operates on the idea that this article takes away from the articles that do celebrate its achievements).
Mmmkay. Sorry you took it that way but I didn't mean to say that the article wasn't valuable. I wouldn't take the time to discuss an article I thought wasn't valuable.
All I said was I would have spun it differently. That's all. If I worked at FF and was responsible for publishing this data, I would have gone with a different headline.
Personally I don't see why that merits accusing me of devaluing it and contributing to the shittening of the industry. Once again you seem to have a very black and white view of things. Corporations need to be constantly harangued about what they're doing wrong, but the outlets who do the watch-dogging are apparently beyond reproach.
don't hate me
