Support NeoGAF

[Trogdor1123]

There's an article about the gender breakdown in E32018 recently posted online. Only 9 games with only a female protagonist or 8%. Last year was 7% so this doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Doesn't really seem like a big deal when it's put like that.

I think that we are just more sensitive to this stuff now days. Some of it was just kind shoved into the limelight and not really handled in a way to make it feel natural rather than forced.

Honestly, the only one that bothered me was Ellie and gears, even that was minimal and could be great.

 

[Dunki]

There's an article about the gender breakdown in E32018 recently posted online. Only 9 games with only a female protagonist or 8%. Last year was 7% so this doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Are there other sources for this. I do not trust someone who scams people for 35k to start a own discord server. And it it is not like Anita never have lied before. Probably also only counting the press conferences and nothing else. She was also the one who said when the stats were like 65% that its not enough.

 

[Zog]

"Organic" in this context is the coded language of man-children.

What term do you use to refer to immature women?

 

[Dr. Claus]

I am all for the use of female characters, however they need to be well written and feel like their own characters. This is what separates a well told female character like Terra (or Tina) Branford in Final Fantasy VI from literally any female character from 2064: Read Only Memories. Terra is a three-dimensional character. She has her flaws, but she has hopes, dreams, and goals that she accomplishes. She grows as a character over the course of the game, makes mistakes, and learns from them. Meanwhile, 2064 is the exact opposite. They are two dimensional characters that were pushed for the sake of diversity, have little to no defining characteristics outside of filling a checkbox for "trans/gay/female", and are utterly inconsequential to the overall world, narrative, and goal. You could switch them out with literal cardboard cutouts and have about as in-depth of a character as before.

Then you have this inane push for "inclusivity" in games based on history that strive for "historical accuracy/aesthetic". Assassins' Creed Origins and Battlefield V are two of the most recent examples of this idiotic movement that either lies to the audience, outright changes history into a false version, or insults the men and women who served in one of the worst wars in human history.

There are plenty of excellent games within the past few years that have had strong, three dimensional female leads/protagonists. 2B, A2, Kaine, Nia, Phi, Ada, Chloe, Claire, Aloy, and literally anyone from the Atelier franchise as just a few examples. If we keep getting that over the shit that 2064 had spewed, I will be quite happy.

 

[Redshirt]

What term do you use to refer to immature women?

Yetis. Because that's equally relevant.

 

[Zog]

Yetis. Because that's equally relevant.

How many women have you called Yetis?

 

[Redshirt]

How many women have you called Yetis?

3.5

 

[Valdega]

I think it feels fine, for the most part. It's pretty contrived in games with specific historical settings, like BFV and AC: Odyssey. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with it.

 

[e0n]

Are there other sources for this. I do not trust someone who scams people for 35k to start a own discord server. And it it is not like Anita never have lied before. Probably also only counting the press conferences and nothing else. She was also the one who said when the stats were like 65% that its not enough.

Yes, the report is just counting from press conferences where you can only play as a female protagonist. Where are you getting 65% from? If you're getting the option of playing a male character, then obviously you're not forced to play as a specific gender. It is simply pointing out that the number of strictly female-led game announcements were no different from last year.

 

[Dunki]

Yes, the report is just counting from press conferences where you can only play as a female protagonist. Where are you getting 65% from? If you're getting the option of playing a male character, then obviously you're not forced to play as a specific gender. It is simply pointing out that the number of strictly female-led game announcements were no different from last year.

No it is critizing that you are not forced to play as women because of reasons. I think 2014 was a huge year regarding female only charactes and she still complained about it I a just tired of her missinformations, slander and lies.. And I am glad she is almost gone from gaming.

 

[e0n]

No it is critizing that you are not forced to play as women because of reasons. I think 2014 was a huge year regarding female only charactes and she still complained about it I a just tired of her missinformations, slander and lies.. And I am glad she is almost gone from gaming.

I meant that I'm using the report to point that out. The data isn't false. She just wants gender parity in games.

 

[Dunki]

I meant that I'm using the report to point that out. The data isn't false. She just wants gender parity in games.

no she just wants money newesr example the 35k. For a discord channel

 

[Koala Driving a Ferrari]

I am all for the use of female characters, however they need to be well written and feel like their own characters. This is what separates a well told female character like Terra (or Tina) Branford in Final Fantasy VI from literally any female character from 2064: Read Only Memories. Terra is a three-dimensional character. She has her flaws, but she has hopes, dreams, and goals that she accomplishes. She grows as a character over the course of the game, makes mistakes, and learns from them. Meanwhile, 2064 is the exact opposite. They are two dimensional characters that were pushed for the sake of diversity, have little to no defining characteristics outside of filling a checkbox for "trans/gay/female", and are utterly inconsequential to the overall world, narrative, and goal. You could switch them out with literal cardboard cutouts and have about as in-depth of a character as before.

Then you have this inane push for "inclusivity" in games based on history that strive for "historical accuracy/aesthetic". Assassins' Creed Origins and Battlefield V are two of the most recent examples of this idiotic movement that either lies to the audience, outright changes history into a false version, or insults the men and women who served in one of the worst wars in human history.

There are plenty of excellent games within the past few years that have had strong, three dimensional female leads/protagonists. 2B, A2, Kaine, Nia, Phi, Ada, Chloe, Claire, Aloy, and literally anyone from the Atelier franchise as just a few examples. If we keep getting that over the shit that 2064 had spewed, I will be quite happy.

You perfectly articulated my opinion in a much more concise and coherant fashion than I would have been prepared to compose. Thank you. Also, Terra & FF6 are amazing.

Sadly, I'll be avoiding TLoU 2 now as a result, even though TLoU 1 was in my top five games from last gen.

 

[Darak]

There's an article about the gender breakdown in E32018 recently posted online. Only 9 games with only a female protagonist or 8%. Last year was 7% so this doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Except that going by the article's own data, 68 games (more than half of the games shown) feature or allow you to choose a female protagonist. That's not enough for them, but only because they consider even having the option of a male protagonist to be undesirable and problematic. That's not feminism, that's being a female supremacist and that's not a good way to sell a point to a global audience. They even go as far as saying that 'games featured at E3 are over three times as likely to feature a male player-character' which is blatantly false when you can play as female in 58% of the games.

Even the games that are getting heat for the way they are handling the issue, like Battlefield V or AC:O, are bad apples for them. They are not feminist enough.

There is also another thing to consider: E3 is only a small part of the gaming pie. Men are a bigger part of the console market (it's usually about 60-70% ratio, although accurate data is hard to come by because unsurprisingly a lot of the surveys are bullshit) so it is natural to have more games target them at E3. Advocating for the removal of a male player character option in a platform primarily targeting men is ridiculous.

 

[Helios]

There were plenty of female protagonists that appeared that didn't bother me in the slightest for example Remedy Entertainment's Control. But BFV,AC:O and TLoU seem specifically made to stir up controversy and a lazy way to gain free publicity.

Even the games that are getting heat for the way they are handling the issue, like Battlefield V or AC:O, are bad apples for them. They are not feminist enough

Give them an Inch and they'll take a mile.

 

[Nutsogood]

The title of this thread and the OP's actual points... were they really written by the same person? Title sounds like a thoughtful headline for a discussion but the two points made by OP made me think no way this guy wrote the title. Anyway I've been playing games for a good while, since the SNES days, and the rise of women in games these days to me doesn't feel all that organic. I mean it does a bit but in the west like US, it feels a bit forced recently.

Like others mentioned, Japan always had various female lead characters in some big games throughout their history (I think it comes from them accepting things that is commonly read in their mangas). We had Lara Croft and that's about it... and maybe Jade from Beyond Good and Evil? Or that girl from Fear Effect. There was this one PC FPS game featuring a woman that was a spy like James Bond. Man I've always wanted to play that, heard it was funny and pretty good. I just don't remember much in term of western games that featured women. And that was the 90s. I get why, I grew up in the US, women are still viewed in a certain way but thankfully they have advanced a lot faster than their digital counterparts. But in more recent years I would say some western companies have made more strides. Slow but probably a ton more since the 90s.

These days it seems like certain big companies want to cash in on being popular because they put a woman out in the front. There are differences to me though, one on hand we have a game like The Last of Us Pt. 2 using Ellie as the main character. This has been in the making for quite some time, continued from their first game which had many great female characters. So to put out Ellie in front this time was natural progression for Naughty Dog, organic if you want to say. Things that feel forced is EA putting a woman out in front of their games just to be popular. Battlefield V where it's not really needed, sure options is great I guess. Anthem using the woman to introduce using the mech suit. Or WB making the spider from TLOTR into some sexy diva? I mean most of us know EA is a shit company, but to see them just stick in women out in front with no context is just sad. I'm all for women being in games more, just do it with some reason and style.

The OP's first point, I haven't seen AC Odyssey but yea if it's based on reality and it doesn't look real, does it bother you that much because it's woman? You want it to be done better, anything and almost everything could be better. You sound like you expect things to be perfect for you, and when it's not you want it to be better. If the Assassin Creed series are fun for you, this shouldn't even be an issue. It's a video game, try and have fun playing it. And if seeing something like that ruins your feelings towards it, well you should better yourself. Like Evie, in Syndicate.

The OP's second point... is this even a point? Just sounds like a random ignorant thought from a kid.

 

[DeadmanPhoenix]

But being weaker does not mean you can't fight and kill stronger opponents. Especially not since Ellie is using weapons non-stop. If you think a "weak" woman with a machete fighting for her life is not capable of beating grown men, than you're straight up delusional.

First - calling me delusional is uncalled for. Chill out.

Second - on women fighting for their lives - that's what's actually happening IRL. Women are getting literally raped/robbed and are unable to fight off a single man with shockers, pepper sprays, pocket knives etc. I've been to a couple of streetfights and I realize how difficult it is to fight off a motivated opponent and that the best thing you could do with 2-3 at the same time is to curl up. And that's being a large male too. Btw, machetes and other long weapons are pretty difficult to control, that's why machetes and swords are actually not standard issue military equipment and instead small knives are. Grabbing someone's hand while that person goes for a huge swing is super easy even for an untrained individual and that's basically a reflex. Female grip strength is really subpar and can't be matched, especially when a male has a long lever in a form of a machete blade. Ellie would get disarmed in seconds by a motivated and experienced combatant as I am sure, all the survivors are, just because she's a female with different bone/muscle density.

All of this sounds like pandering in the opposite direction. She needs a strong male sidekick? Can only deceive to succeed? Ridiculous.

Which opposite direction? The real world one? Sorry to break it to you, but women reach success and status through manipulation and charm. That's how the nature works. Even "strong" women like queens etc - they all had hundreds of male advisers, favorites, husband wannabes that would naturally expand their influence. IRL if Ellie could travel in a dangerous post-apocalyptic world with a loyal lapdog of a manservant - she definitely would. There is zero reason not to, but pandering to the third-wave feminist agenda and SJW journalists.

 

[Doom85]

Well, DeadmanPhoenix, by that argument the first game should have ended much differently with Joel and Ellie pushing daises well into their story. I mean, Joel kills hundreds of people, often unassisted by Ellie, before the game is over and just shrugs off stabs and gunshot wounds with a mere bandage. In the final section of the game, he successfully kills dozens of soldiers armed with machine guns and Joel has zero protective clothing of any kind. "Oh, but he used stealth!" Please, realistically a guy holding that much equipment on him would not be able to stealthily maneuver his way around that many soldiers without making a noise and getting surrounded.

But of course, this is all fine apparently. It's only when Ellie begins killing a few people do we suddenly call BS. MAKES TOTAL SENSE. I'm definitely not giving Naughty Dog my money. I expect this game about a mushroom-based infection apocalypse to fully follow the rules of reality!

I also refuse to buy Ghost of Tsushima. Anyone with any knowledge of hand weapon fighting would know those trained soldiers should have had him dead. No swordsman, no matter how skilled, can take on three armed opponents at the exact same time. Instead, conveniently the game has them challenge one at a time which is stupid behavior for trained soldiers. Absolutely unrealistic and thus they won't be receiving my money.

You know, it's almost like there are acceptable breaks from reality in fiction, and when you give far more scrutiny to what is realistic the female characters can do and give less scrutiny to what the male characters can do then people are naturally going to call you out on it. I know, crazy amirite?!

 

[julio_grr]

With regards to the scene before the transition, it felt like full on fanservice. Again, not really bothered by it but if we are venturing opinions on how it was framed here are my thoughts.

First, the whole thing made me think of a scene from the US Office. In this scene Michael has accidentally 'outed' Oscar as being gay. He then tries to prove he is OK with people being gay by assuming it's OK to kiss Oscar and Oscar wants to be kissed by him. Oscar's response is to push him away and make the point that 'why did you assume that I wanted to kiss you - just because I was gay? Have you considered that I don't want to touch you?'. It's quite an awkward scene. The scene can be watched here from 38 seconds if the link doesn't work


And that's all I could think of when watching the scene. You have this seemingly straight girl who will eventually get back together with her on/off boyfriend, who leans in and just starts kissing her lesbian friend - because she can? Or to make her feel a bit better? The same sort of assumption has been made, that because Ellie is a lesbian she will reciprocate any female kiss or be enamoured by it. Which to me just removes the sexuality promotion becase it's being projected onto her at that point.

Furthermore, and I am certainly no expert on this (just speaking from a point of view shaped by a lot of discussions and opinions that are so prevalent these days), but treating sexuality so flippantly would annoy a lot of women who have actually come out. It's almost projecting that to kiss a woman and enjoy it is just a choice rather than a sexuality/attraction thing.

Honestly the whole scene is a mess to me. The framing of it and the delivery. It's not well written or portrayed.

Thanks man you said exactly what I was trying to express in the other thread. Ellie is a great character well developed in part 1 and Left Behind. But the intro scene of this part 2 trailer feels poorly writen as soon as you add the second person needed for a kiss. Gina as you said made little sense.

 

[Future]

Which opposite direction? The real world one? Sorry to break it to you, but women reach success and status through manipulation and charm. That's how the nature works. Even "strong" women like queens etc - they all had hundreds of male advisers, favorites, husband wannabes that would naturally expand their influence. IRL if Ellie could travel in a dangerous post-apocalyptic world with a loyal lapdog of a manservant - she definitely would. There is zero reason not to, but pandering to the third-wave feminist agenda and SJW journalists.

Hate to break to you, but you are generalizing. Sure some women do that. But some women make it on there own without some loyal strong man servant by their side. There can be many reasons not to if the character at that moment has no ability to trust anyone, went rogue to accomplish a task... just like if a man or any person needs to do anything alone. Even in this trailer you see her talking to a dude and that there are multiple people around her. But you can easily think of scenarios where she might end up alone

But the fact that you immediately start calling out feminism agenda and SJWs means that I know where your head is already at. Why are you even bringing that up dude do you think I’m a feminist or SJW? Based on simply saying it’s possible for a woman to succeed alone without a male advisor and may not need to deceive to succeed? Even though we’ve already seen Ellie do this in Last of Us one when she find herself on the run and eventually kills the leader before Joel finds her? Come on man

 

[Future]

Thanks man you said exactly what I was trying to express in the other thread. Ellie is a great character well developed in part 1 and Left Behind. But the intro scene of this part 2 trailer feels poorly writen as soon as you add the second person needed for a kiss. Gina as you said made little sense.

Druckman directly addressed this. Supposed to get you thinking about what changed Ellie to bring out the hate. One second she is a normal awkward girl. Next she is a hateful cold blooded killer. What caused the transition? Did something happen to Gina? You go for extreme happiness (safety, love, culminating in a kiss) to extreme danger and brutality (murdering to survive, culiminating in chopping a guys head off)

 

[julio_grr]

Druckman directly addressed this.

No he did not. His answer is again centered around Ellie. Ellie's feelings. What about Gina's feelings in this intro scene? What makes her switch from Jesse to Ellie? What's with the kiss in front of everybody? She is making the move, not Ellie. See DeadmanPhoenix's long description.

 

[julio_grr]

women reach success and status through manipulation and charm.

I think we should move forward and stop thinking like that. There are plenty of examples that proves you wrong.

 

[Future]

No he did not. His answer is again centered around Ellie. Ellie's feelings. What about Gina's feelings in this intro scene? What makes her switch from Jesse to Ellie? What's with the kiss in front of everybody? She is making the move, not Ellie. See DeadmanPhoenix's long description.

You think in a trailer they are gonna explain all this? You think a storyteller like naughty dog wouldn’t in the full game?

You are supposed to ask those questions and make some guesses yourself. It’s the point of trailer like this, they leave things unanswered. I’m pretty sure druckman said something like that in the interview as well

I also don’t know what the significance is of Ellie making moves or not. She was caught in an unexpected scenario which was awkward but also happy and great. I read that long post and still don’t understand what you are getting at

 

[LucidFeuer]

I think we should move forward and stop thinking like that. There are plenty of examples that proves you wrong.

Under what pretext should we stop scrutinising what's happening and deny science or sociology? We actually have to think about why so many people portray women in general as manipulative, maybe it's because a large proportion are, maybe it's not even voluntary but either socially or biologically conditioned, and maybe the only condition for equality is to stop accepting that the same way we've stopped accepting lots male attitude towards women...

It's kind of the lost cause given the damages beyond repair SJWs have done in the past years and the huge counter-effect and rejection upcoming, but in the future, it is important to address head firsts the arguments that most people believe, which does not make them right, but could be partly...

 

[Psykodad]

Was it? I may have overlooked it but it didn't seem like that good of a DLC. For me, Joel was the main thing that made TLoU shine and the DLC didn't feature him, instead focusing on Ellie's friendship which was okay-ish. It also had severely less gameplay than the original game, which already had problems with scripted walking sequences and "puzzles".

The purpose of Left Behind was to deepen Ellie's character.

First - calling me delusional is uncalled for. Chill out.

Second - on women fighting for their lives - that's what's actually happening IRL. Women are getting literally raped/robbed and are unable to fight off a single man with shockers, pepper sprays, pocket knives etc. I've been to a couple of streetfights and I realize how difficult it is to fight off a motivated opponent and that the best thing you could do with 2-3 at the same time is to curl up. And that's being a large male too. Btw, machetes and other long weapons are pretty difficult to control, that's why machetes and swords are actually not standard issue military equipment and instead small knives are. Grabbing someone's hand while that person goes for a huge swing is super easy even for an untrained individual and that's basically a reflex. Female grip strength is really subpar and can't be matched, especially when a male has a long lever in a form of a machete blade. Ellie would get disarmed in seconds by a motivated and experienced combatant as I am sure, all the survivors are, just because she's a female with different bone/muscle density.

Okay, I take back the "delusional" part. My bad.

On Ellie taking on adult men, they're all regular Joes and Janes and a cut with machete is a cut.
I know a couple of women that could easily whoop the ass of at least 50% of the average male gamer, barehanded, so it really isn't far-fetched if a female could be a good fighter in a world where it's pure survival, especially armed.

Besides that, it's a game. While their goal is to deliver a believable game and story, at rhe ens of the day it's a game.
If you really want to get all technical, no game in existence makes sense, not even where you have a Joel killing enemy after enemy (like stated before).
The best example would be the one where he fell down on that iron stave that penetrated his body. He got a couple of stitches from Ellie and suddenly he's able to go on a violent rescue-mission without much hinder from his wound?
Sometimes you need to not take things too seriously, not even when games intend to be realistic.
Because if you want true realism in games, they end up being not fun.

Edit:
No idea where that first quote came from, buy I'll just leave it there.

 

[julio_grr]

You think in a trailer they are gonna explain all this? You think a storyteller like naughty dog wouldn’t in the full game?

You are supposed to ask those questions and make some guesses yourself. It’s the point of trailer like this, they leave things unanswered. I’m pretty sure druckman said something like that in the interview as well

I also don’t know what the significance is of Ellie making moves or not. She was caught in an unexpected scenario which was awkward but also happy and great. I read that long post and still don’t understand what you are getting at

Oh I'm pretty sure the final game will deliver a deep and great story. But for me the kiss at the end of this trailer seemed forced through poorly written teenage romance.
Anyway I think we are diverging from the real topic of this thread so I'm probably gonna stop there.

 

[julio_grr]

Under what pretext should we stop scrutinising what's happening and deny science or sociology?

I never said we should stop deny science or whatever. But there are many examples of women succeeding with pure skills only so I don't see the point of saying something like

women reach success and status through manipulation and charm.

without any kind of nuance whatsoever.

 

[KevinKeene]

.

The OP's second point... is this even a point? Just sounds like a random ignorant thought from a kid.

I didn't feel like paying you attention after you chose to insult me instead of just commenting on the topic, but this one bugs me:

Why does my thought experiment make me sound like a 'random ignorant kid'? I'm insiting on asking that, because today Naughty Dog confirmed you'll only play as Ellie in TloU2 - which means despite the game featuring female enemies, you won't get to kill them as a make character.

Which is exactly the point I wanted to make with 2). If equality is wished for, then women can't just demand the hero-roles and require specific setups where male heroes don't encounter female grunts.

 

[julio_grr]

Apparently I'm not allowed to edit so I'll add this:

We actually have to think about why so many people portray women in general as manipulative, maybe it's because a large proportion are, maybe it's not even voluntary but either socially or biologically conditioned, and maybe the only condition for equality is to stop accepting that the same way we've stopped accepting lots male attitude towards women...

I totally agree with this part of your post. This would benefit everybody if this could change. What DeadmanPhoenix said should never be said like it's written in stone.

 

[OldBoyGamer]

This is a very interesting debate. There are so many layers and specific parts to take into aomccount it's difficult to come up with one argument to rule them all.

For my part - I'm no offended by female or male protagonists being portrayed in ways that I'm not accustomed or can relate to.

A petite young girl kicking the shut out of 6 foot muscle bound men? My question is - how does it play?

I try to not link the shitness of a game with the gender of the MC. If a game has shit characters (looking at you HZD), I blame the writers. If the story or plot points are a bland or rubbish or flawed, I don't look to the MC as what went wrong - I blame the writers.

HZD was a good game IMO but had a lot of flaws when it came to character building, story development, world creation and plot lines. For me, none of those flaws were as a result of the MC being female. All of them were a result of the dev's not getting it right.

I think what I'm reading here is about tolerance. Not if each other etc. I mean an internal tolerance line where an individual is willing to accept one unrealistic thing as being fine, but another unrealistic thing as being not fine. Your tolerance for these things vary wildly from person to person.

I think in general, it's to do with building a universe where certain things are valid and not breaking the belief in that universe with something that feels invalid.

If a little girl gets beaten up at school by another little girl, yet she goes on in the next scene to beat up 20 adult beefy men. Then you have to justify why? Was she holding back against the girl bully? Did something change between the two fights? If you don't justify those two opposite actions, that's when problems occwr I think.

 

[LucidFeuer]

Apparently I'm not allowed to edit so I'll add this:

I totally agree with this part of your post. This would benefit everybody if this could change. What DeadmanPhoenix said should never be said like it's written in stone.

Well DeadmanPhoenix made a broad sexist generality. There is no wrong in generalities as long as they don't target individuals nor groups, but attitudes or caracters which can be found in significant occurrences in certain people or groups.

This is absolutely and still statistically true, in fact may have gotten worse these past years because of feminism, that amongst women, there's a general attitude which tends to be influenced in more or less high degree, depending on money or success of a man, while the opposite is not true (however men will have a tendency to be influence by looks). That doesn't mean it's natural or biological, and therefor intrinsequally linked to being born a woman, but rather growing-up a woman in this society.

It's also true that to various degrees, women have a tendency to change attitudes depending on their interests and leverage it in order to achieve or get undue compensations, but that's more of general social attitude in interpersonal relationship, and not so blunt in careers or pursue of interests, which is DeadmanPhoenix's comment is "broad" as in biased.

 

[julio_grr]

There is no wrong in generalities as long as they don't target individuals nor groups, but attitudes or caracters which can be found in significant occurrences in certain people or groups.

I don't understand this sentence since he specifically targetted a group (women)

This is absolutely and still statistically true

And what is it based on? Feelings? Then sorry, but I don't have the same feeling (I leave in France, this may explain that). Studies? Then I'll wait for the link to the study that explains that "women reach success and status through manipulation and charm." That should be fun read.

 

[Tripolygon]

*Moderation Note: There are many obstacles to surpass in the journey to progress: unfair discrimination and it's many faces is an ever present one. But no other obstacle is bigger than hate. And hate even on the basis of a just cause can be as terrible as any other kind.


Lol at some people in this thread. Organic?

Let me try and unpack this word SOME of you have latched unto as excuse for your narrow minded bigoted view of women.

Nothing happens organically in our society. Even god damn food does not grow organically anymore than animals raising themselves for slaughter, otherwise we will all starve to death waiting for food to grow. Well some of you will. We artificially grow foods, raise animals, cook, engineer seeds that withstand harsh conditions and resist pests.

If history has taught us anything, waiting for things to occur organically or happen naturally has never worked. The world we live in has been and is inherently sexist. Women didn't have the right to vote, they didn't ORGANICALLY gain the right to vote, they fucking fought for it alongside some men. Other men fought against it as is evident by this contrived attempt by some of you to diminish the abilities of women being as capable as men, even some women fought against it, shocking i know. Some women around the world still suffer from oppressive patriarchal societies, like just fucking weeks ago there was news everywhere about the first woman being allowed to get a fucking drivers licence in Saudi Arabia.

Some of you need to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that inclusion, diversity and representation will increasingly become the norm because guess what? Companies have recognized that, that shit sells. Yes it is a positive thing but it also benefits these companies financially so of course they will do it. You as a consumer have the right to refuse to spend your money but guess what, there are many more people willing to spend their money for it. For every one of you who says i wont buy Battlefield because it dared to include women in an INORGANIC UNREALISTIC fashion, there are many more women who are happy being represented in that game and are willing to pay for it.

Speaking of WW2, you think women didn't want to enlist to fight for their country? It was men who refused women the right to fight because they are supposedly biologically "inferior" to men. Those same women who were refused jobs in factories years before were the ones who had to join the work force to fill the roles that men left. And yes many women played key roles in the war. Other countries allowed women to physically engage in the war as well. Oh Ellie is taking down huge men unrealistically, umm no shit, its a video game. I would like to see some of you take down a huge man better yet i would like to see some of you take down a huge woman.

Unto TLOU Part 2 kiss that seems to grind some of your gears. That scene did not happen organically, that scene was conceived by a writer, those characters were modeled by people, the characters were brought to life by actors and animators, in short it was made by people, a diverse group of people. Some gay, straight, men, women, black, white, from different countries of origin. Nothing naturally happens in any piece of media and entertainment, Mario didn't organically occur and gain the ability to jump on goombas. I think the word you are looking for is that, that kiss made you UNCOMFORTABLE because as a society we have for a long time seen same sex relationships as taboo and gross.

Yea i saw some people say if that scene was of a boy and a girl they would have still found it inorganic. I call bullshit, that's your bullshit rationalization for your bigoted outlook on same sex relationships. Yes i said it, you are bigoted, you may think you are not but you are and that's ok (not really) just don't pretend to be anything else. The scene was brilliantly acted, it was not contrived, it looks like any good acted scene between two teenagers in love. I'll be honest here and i hope some of you will be honest with yourselves as well. Seeing two men kissing in movies, tv, and real life grosses me out, not the case for women. One reason is partly because i am not physically attracted to men, and another is because i grew up believing that same sex relationships were a taboo and gross.

But to put your mind at ease, there is NO rise of female characters, there were more men represented in games at E3 than women, just like it was last year and the year before that. The default has been men for so long that seeing more women makes you feel like men are being replaced which is not true, women are just being added. Grow the fuck up people. Having gay people and women represented in gaming is not an SJW agenda to take away your precious games and representation, it is sign of our ever evolving world and society which seeks to be more inclusive and accepting of our many differences represented in our various forms of entertainment and also companies realizing that they can make money doing it, because people love seeing themselves represented. Women make up more than half of our population, women play games as much as men so of fucking course they ought to be represented in the medium they spend their money in.

 

[InterMusketeer]

...women play games as much as men so of fucking course they ought to be represented in the medium they spend their money in.

I get the feeling you desperately want this to be true but... It really does not seem to be so.

In this report, you can find the results from a survey Nintendo did last year to find out who's buying and playing Switch.

Here is some information on who is purchasing Nintendo Switch. [...] As you can see, purchases are primarily made by male consumers in their 20s and early 30s.

Yes, a whopping 86% of Switch players in the US is male. Only 11% is female. And this is the Switch we're talking about, the most flexible and easy to use dedicated gaming console on the planet, with a line-up of games that has universal appeal. And yet, men are buying this machine nearly 8 times as often as women.

A similar survey was done a few years back for Wii U, and the results were very similar. It just does not seem like women play on dedicated game systems all that much.

 

[Tripolygon]

I get the feeling you desperately want this to be true but... It really does not seem to be so.

In this report, you can find the results from a survey Nintendo did last year to find out who's buying and playing Switch.


Yes, a whopping 86% of Switch players in the US is male. Only 11% is female. And this is the Switch we're talking about, the most flexible and easy to use dedicated gaming console on the planet, with a line-up of games that has universal appeal. And yet, men are buying this machine nearly 8 times as often as women.

A similar survey was done a few years back for Wii U, and the results were very similar. It just does not seem like women play on dedicated game systems all that much.

Yes lets post surveys and statistics.
http://www.theesa.com/about-esa/essential-facts-computer-video-game-industry/

Neilsen

From Nintendo's briefings you posted.

 

[Darak]

Keep in mind surveys like that one considers mobile phones as gaming devices. That is why the average age for the female video game player is higher, as companies like King target women in their 40s, for example.

Most of the criticism about female presence in videogames is all about AAA games in console, though, which is a predominantly male market.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Yes lets post surveys and statistics.
http://www.theesa.com/about-esa/essential-facts-computer-video-game-industry/

Neilsen

Neither of those links disprove my claim that women aren't playing on dedicated games machines as much as men. In fact, the Neilsen survey actually supports it, as men are shown to spend much more time overall playing games on their consoles.

 

[Tripolygon]

Neither of those links disprove my claim that women aren't playing on dedicated games machines as much as men. In fact, the Neilsen survey actually supports it, as men are shown to spend much more time overall playing games on their consoles.

Oh now we are moving the goal post to consoles. I don't recall specifying consoles in my post you quoted. I said women game as much as men. I know the goal post always gets moved to smartphone games don't count but smartphone games rake in billions every year.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Oh now we are moving the goal post to consoles. I don't recall specifying consoles in my post you quoted. I said women game as much as men. I know the goal post always gets moved to smartphone games don't count but smartphone games rake in billions every year.

You're right. I'm the one who talked about dedicated gaming consoles. In my first reply to you. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully.

And it is exactly as D Darak said. The push for representation and diversity in video games is focused on the big budget titles. That's why it's important to know what kind of games women play and on which platforms. If Dice is alienating male customers by forgoing historical authenticity for their WW2 game to appeal to women who may not even be interested in the game in the first place, that choice wouldn't make much sense.

 

[Leonard Washington]

How does it feel?

Fake, contrived and forced like it is and as anyone who isn’t delusional can easily see as it’s all just pandering to a small but vocal contingent of internet moaners that will find something else to whine about in a few months times.

 

[Tripolygon]

You're right. I'm the one who talked about dedicated gaming consoles. In my first reply to you. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully.

And it is exactly as D Darak said. The push for representation and diversity in video games is focused on the big budget titles. That's why it's important to know what kind of games women play and on which platforms. If Dice is alienating male customers by forgoing historical authenticity for their WW2 game to appeal to women who may not even be interested in the game in the first place, that choice wouldn't make much sense.

Get your facts straight, I don't have any respect for bullshit or bigoted nonsense. Dice is not alienating male customers, they are alienating BIGOTED MALES and FEMALES who do not want to buy their games because they included females. Battlefield is not and has never been historically authentic. They straight up said

“Either accept it,” Patrick Soderlund says, “or don’t buy the game.”

Guess what? Majority of men and women are fine with it.

Edit: Whichever MOD who posted this to my post needs to explain what hate they saw in my post. My post is heated yes but i did not post anything hateful. You need to point out the hate in my post so i can learn from it and edit it out because that is not my intention.

*Moderation Note: There are many obstacles to surpass in the journey to progress: unfair discrimination and it's many faces is an ever present one. But no other obstacle is bigger than hate. And hate even on the basis of a just cause can be as terrible as any other kind.

Just so we are clear, i do not believe in fighting extreme hate with kindness or turning the other cheek when someone slaps you. I do however see the need for peaceful protests and measured response when it is called for. Thank you.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Get your facts straight

What facts? I said IF. You know, a hypothetical.

Dice is not alienating male customers, they are alienating BIGOTED MALES and FEMALES who do not want to buy their games because they included females.

You don't have to be a bigot to be uninterested in their version of WW2.

Battlefield is not and has never been historically authentic.

You're wrong.

Guess what? Majority of men and women are fine with it.

I assume you have some way to back up this statement? Currently the Battlefield V trailer has more dislikes than likes on Youtube.

 

[Redshirt]

Currently the Battlefield V trailer has more dislikes than likes on Youtube.

It does, but of course the people who are bothered by this are way more motivated than those who aren't.

 

[Big4reel]

I don`t think there is anything wrong with female main characters, if they are actually likable.

Ellie looks like an unlikable edgy teenager and that romance scene was dumb with that '' Do I smell bad'' quote, I don`t think that`s good writing. Gears I can`t really say but the game just doesn`t interest me. New wolfenstein looks awful and I don`t know why the devs thought anyone would wanna play as anyone other than BJ.

Part of me thinks these decisions were just made for a political statement, but I shouldn`t think everything is political. So we`ll see if these characters and games are good or not when they come out. I will just vote with my wallet.

 

[Tripolygon]

What facts? I said IF. You know, a hypothetical.

The fact that you are saying just men are being alienated. They are not hypothetically alienating just males. They are literally alienating both males and females who do not want to buy their game because they added women. I literally quoted EA’s chief creative officer who straight up said accept it or don't buy our games.

You don't have to be a bigot to be uninterested in their version of WW2.

Of course not but anyone who does so on the count of women being represented sure is. Majority of men fought in the war but a minority of women did too.

You're wrong.

No battlefield to my knowledge has been truly authentic to the war they are portraying. In fact having a bunch of people running around in a map shooting each other by nature is not authentic to how war plays out. They are authentic superficially because they use some guns and weapons modeled after the real ones etc. They market their games as authentic but we all know that's marketing speak.

I assume you have some way to back up this statement? Currently the Battlefield V trailer has more dislikes than likes on Youtube.

Vocal minority mate, we will see when the game launches. Same type of vocal monitory who are disliking TLOU 2 gameplay video. These games will release and sell millions just like their previous titles.


Mod edit: warning attached to wrong post. Was in reference to preceding posts and tone towards other users (BOR)

 

[InterMusketeer]

The fact that you are saying just men are being alienated.

I never said that. I focused on men as a group because they're the primary audience for this type of game.

I literally quoted EA’s chief creative officer who straight up said accept it or don't buy our games.

I don't understand what that has to do with anything. EA and Dice can make whatever game they like and their stance is understandable. Ultimately, the market will decide if they agree with their decision.

Of course not but anyone who does so on the count of women being represented sure is. Majority of men fought in the war but a minority of women did too.

Everyone has a point where they can no longer suspend their disbelief. I'm personally not interested in their fantasy version of WW2. Their inaccurate representation of women as common frontline soldiers is part of that.

They market their games as authentic but we all know that's marketing speak.

They market it as being authentic because that's what the customer wants. That's the sole reason (some) people were excited to have the new game set during WW2. Now authenticity is suddenly thrown out the window because some guy in the development team couldn't expain to his daughter what the difference between Fortnite, and a cinematic shooter set in a historical setting, is.

Vocal minority mate, we will see when the game launches.

Yes, we'll see how it plays out, and I expect most of the ones who're critical of the game now, will buy the game when it releases anyway. But who knows, maybe we've got another Battlefront II on our hands.

 

[magnumpy]

I suppose an issue is the fact that video games aren't real. as the graphics get more and more realistic there isn't a corresponding connection between the realism of the graphics/physics/presentation of a video game and anything in actual reality. in a sense the more realistic a game is paradoxically the more unrealistic they become. they are after all only games @_@

 

[TheShadowLord]

I am all for the use of female characters, however they need to be well written and feel like their own characters.

I am not I can see this reason as there plenty of male characters that aren't very well written. So I am interested to see your reason.
ar?

 

[Nutsogood]

I didn't feel like paying you attention after you chose to insult me instead of just commenting on the topic, but this one bugs me:

Why does my thought experiment make me sound like a 'random ignorant kid'? I'm insiting on asking that, because today Naughty Dog confirmed you'll only play as Ellie in TloU2 - which means despite the game featuring female enemies, you won't get to kill them as a make character.

Which is exactly the point I wanted to make with 2). If equality is wished for, then women can't just demand the hero-roles and require specific setups where male heroes don't encounter female grunts.

Sorry that's just how I felt when I read it. I mean it's just not a realistic question or point to ask if you are old enough to know anything about the regular world. You wrote:

2.) I wonder what would happen if a developer made a game where you play a man and all enemies are women which you brutally kill during game progression.

You wonder for whatever reason, that's fine, but if you are old enough you should know the answer to your own question. Brutality and violence is accepted in US but still, there has to be context for it. Why would you wonder about something that most normal developers would never do? Will this game be developed in a way that you have such a great story and reason for brutally killing and murdering women? And all of the enemies happen to be only women? Yea this is gonna fly off the shelves everyone, hype is off the train. Too bad teens and kids can't buy it, it'll have to be rated M. The kids will play it somehow anyway, but the real demographic for this will be catered to all those men 18-70 that want to brutally kill women only. Share holders have never heard an idea so raw and new, everyone is going to want to put money into this. Right?

Or maybe you think something like this will make so much noise and sell enough to make back money? Not sure why you wouldn't know the answers to these things if you weren't a kid. Takes a few seconds of common sense to answer your own point or question. But then again kids don't know. And I get why they wouldn't know or care. That doesn't make them not ignorant. It's sounds insulting but it just means you didn't know. I put in the random in there because I thought this kid must be high or something and he's just probably asking without thinking. So, random ignorant kid. Anyway I hope you are satisfied with the answer.

And I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Where was equality mentioned in the OT? And why would women demand hero-roles? And the rest of it hurts my eyes reading it. I think your idea of equality in women is pretty short sighted. If it's wished for, women should strive to get it. And they have been, you just might be too young to realize how far they have come. I'm not a woman, and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. But I am sure most women don't give a flying fuck about being a star in a video game, that type of equality is decided by most the men that run the gaming industry. And when the men decide yea let's put a woman out in front, make her look hot and baddass, that probably translates to you as women's equality.