Support NeoGAF

[Doctor Avatar]

They should just make every game with a character creater......that would solve all these issues.

And also prevent lead characters being unique characters, prevent them from becoming iconic like Nathan Drake or Lara Croft. I don't think limiting creative freedom by forcing all games to have blank slate lead characters is even close to being a good idea.

Character creators work in many games, they do not work in all games. In fact they would actively make many games worse. I do not want to make my games actively worse to solve these issues.

If Max in Life is Strange could be any sex, race, gender, sexuality, able-bodiedness etc with a character creator the game would be a lesser one. She simply wouldn't be Max, instead some amorphous non-character play thing for the player. No thanks.

 

[redcrayon]

While we're talking 'fantasies' in games, I think there are plenty of other popular ones aside from the 'male power' ones.

RPGs often offer the fantasy of both freedom (to travel, to choose a way of life etc) and to defy convention (to break laws [whether they are just or not], to ignore social boundaries, to defy expectations of you), both of which are just as attractive in terms of an engaging piece of entertainment for everyone as offering an avatar that is a particularly powerful male one.

 

[Monocle]

Does this count?

I mean, why not? Bayonetta spends pretty much her entire first game punching patriarchal symbols in the face and subverting misogynistic tropes in fiction with maximum gusto.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

Does this count?

I can definitely say that Bayonetta is a very big debated game series among game related feminists and in general female gamers. Some women do feel like it is a power fantasy because you are playing a game where the main character is a very powerful witch in complete control over her sexuality and gender fighting patriarchal figures and symbols.

 

[UncleSporky]

I mean, why not? Bayonetta spends pretty much her entire first game punching patriarchal symbols in the face and subverting misogynistic tropes in fiction with maximum gusto.

However, it's possible that in spite of not being a powerful male that players would look up to as idealized, something they want to be...instead the player fantasy is to control a woman's every move, make her act onscreen to their every whim. Just another form of male fantasy.

 

[shark sandwich]

I truly believe that Trump's election was in large part a result of a backlash against this "progressive" attitude. You can't go around screaming "racist!" "sexist!" "homophobic!" "transphobic!" "misogynist!" "you're a RICH WHITE MALE!!!" etc and expect to change people's minds. All you will succeed in doing is furthering the divide.

It's insane. This obsession with dividing and subdividing people into different identities, identifying the ones that have "privilege", and then using that as a club to take them down a few notches. The intellectually lazy tactic of using accusations of racism/sexism to shame and silence your opponents.

So. . . I dunno. She does have a point. But maybe she could tell us what other power fantasies she would like to see, what games she thinks did things right, give us her positive vision of what a better gaming culture looks like. Instead she's just complaining and pointing out perceived flaws. This isn't going to convince anybody who isn't already firmly aligned with ideologically.

Also, pretty much all young males (and most older ones) fantasize about gaining power, being surrounded by beautiful women who want to bang them, dominating their opponents, winning, etc. This stuff lends itself very well to video games and there will always be a market for it. No amount of complaining is going to change that.

 

[Aters]

In hindsight, maybe she just need to play Drakengard 3.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I truly believe that Trump's election was in large part a result of a backlash against this "progressive" attitude. You can't go around screaming "racist!" "sexist!" "homophobic!" "transphobic!" "misogynist!" "you're a RICH WHITE MALE!!!" etc and expect to change people's minds. All you will succeed in doing is furthering the divide.

It's insane. This obsession with dividing and subdividing people into different identities, identifying the ones that have "privilege", and then using that as a club to take them down a few notches. The intellectually lazy tactic of using accusations of racism/sexism to shame and silence your opponents.

So. . . I dunno. She does have a point. But maybe she could tell us what other power fantasies she would like to see, what games she thinks did things right, give us her positive vision of what a better gaming culture looks like. Instead she's just complaining and pointing out perceived flaws. This isn't going to convince anybody who isn't already firmly aligned with ideologically.

Also, pretty much all young males (and most older ones) fantasize about gaining power, being surrounded by beautiful women who want to bang them, dominating their opponents, winning, etc. This stuff lends itself very well to video games and there will always be a market for it. No amount of complaining is going to change that.

I disagree. Being more decent to each other is inevitable, because it's obviously the smart thing to do. Some people want to be assholes, but that's not the majority and that's not the future.

Trump didn't win the popular vote, and I don't believe the reason he won can be attributed to assholes backlashing against progress. That's a part of it, but the real issue is right wing opinion news telling rural, under-educated people that they are actually the smart people and it's the college educated elites that have it all wrong. It's Fox News, Limbaugh et al telling ignorant people that their ignorance is a virtue and that their ignorance represents 'real America'.

 

[PSqueak]

I am not saying that Hearthstone is the most violent game, but the concept of game is that you attack each other. They submitted the game to ESRB with the Fantasy Violence descriptor. The main mechanic and concept of Heartstone is violence. Your criteria for violence would fall into ultra-violence. When I was a kid First Blood (Rambo 1) was considered a violent movie.

This is interesting, because Hearthstone is a card game, yes violence is part of the mechanics, but it's more an abstraction of the concept of violence, in the same way Chess is an abstraction of the concept of war, do chess sets come with warnings about violent content? Does Magic the Gathering? Yugioh? Vanguard? Risk?

Where do we paint the line of where the abstraction of violence counts as violent content? Im sure Dungeons & Dragons hand books must have violent content warning.

To be fair, Overwatch has a big character roster and those've always been diverse in games (fighters and other arena MP FPSes come to mind first), I would imagine it's a different proposition altogether for the marketing dept/execs if developers wanted to have a minority character as the only protagonist in a game.

This is a good point, but on the other hand, out of all playable characters in Team Fortress 2, only one isn't Caucasian for sure and another one is a mystery cause we don't even know their race or gender. It's hard to rail against it tho since all characters are from different countries, but still is mostly white guys.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

I truly believe that Trump's election was in large part a result of a backlash against this "progressive" attitude. You can't go around screaming "racist!" "sexist!" "homophobic!" "transphobic!" "misogynist!" "you're a RICH WHITE MALE!!!" etc and expect to change people's minds. All you will succeed in doing is furthering the divide.

It's insane. This obsession with dividing and subdividing people into different identities, identifying the ones that have "privilege", and then using that as a club to take them down a few notches. The intellectually lazy tactic of using accusations of racism/sexism to shame and silence your opponents.

I think that you're not really understanding the conversation, to be honest. There's not an obsession with subdividing people into different identities because society has already done that for ages. I've known that I was a black male (and what expectations that I have placed on me from birth because of that) since I was a little kid. Progressives didn't inform me of this - I learned by observing the way society treated people who looked like me.

What Ms. Alexander is talking about is, at the very least, giving people with identities like mine that have been foisted upon me from birth more attention. You might say that we're all human, but that's not how society works here in real life. More characters with problems that I might have specific to my identity is great! I can feel like games understand me. More characters with problems that I don't have is fine, too! I can learn more about the issues that people of other identities might be dealing with. Like, as a black dude, I know everything about white people, what they think, and what they care about because that's just part and parcel of living in Western society. I don't have a problem with this. Why do so many people have a problem with having to learn about and maybe even find a way to identify with people who aren't like them?

And the concept of "privilege" is not a way to take people down; it's merely a truth that some groups can get away with things others can't simply because of how they're born. I'm a guy, but I can walk around at night and not have to worry about being sexually assaulted as much as a woman can. I can go to a party and get drunk and not have to worry about being sexually assaulted, but women have to consider this. That's privilege. I don't have to deal with shit that women do, for example.

People who take offense at having their own social and cultural privilege pointed out to them need to get over it. If someone's response to this is to vote for a terrible human being, they are just terrible human beings who don't want their place in the social order questioned, and it's not about changing their minds so much as it is about not letting them ignore people who are not so privileged. They won't have any peace about it, at the very least.

 

[shark sandwich]

I disagree. Being more decent to each other is inevitable, because it's obviously the smart thing to do. Some people want to be assholes, but that's not the majority and that's not the future.

I agree with this, but going around calling people racist and sexist, posting snarky holier-than-though Facebook posts, etc. is not going to make them listen to you. It's mostly just going to make them dig in further.

Trump didn't win the popular vote, and I don't believe the reason he won can be attributed to assholes backlashing against progress. That's a part of it, but the real issue is right wing opinion news telling rural, under-educated people that they are actually the smart people and it's the college educated elites that have it all wrong. It's Fox News, Limbaugh et al telling ignorant people that their ignorance is a virtue and that their ignorance represents 'real America'.

That's certainly part of it but I think there's more than just that. Clinton had an insane 59% unfavorability rating. She was just a terrible candidate, and so her campaign and her supporters spent like 95% of their effort telling us how racist and sexist Trump and his supporters are, rather than telling us why we should actually want Clinton to be president. The only thing I saw on TV for the last month was scary footage of kids watching Trump say mean things about women.

This should've been the easiest victory in the history of politics, and yet the Democrats managed to lose. You can't pin this solely on the other side.

And BTW, Trump did better with ALL ethnic groups compared to Mitt Romney when he went against Obama in 2012. He also won the majority of the white female vote. Clinton's own campaign staff, when asked why their predictions were so wrong, said that they expected women and Latinos with an unfavorable opinion of Clinton would vote for her anyway in much larger numbers than they actually did.

 

[someday]

Yup. Mafia 3 is excellent even if the greatest thing it can possibly do to stand out against the rest of the competition is leading other people who aren't normally catered to to that same bombastic experience that so is usually aimed at a very specific demographic.

I'm a black woman that prefers AAA games. I like shooters and action games. I loved Mafia 3 and it actually made me smile while playing it because I "recognized" the characters to an extent. I get really tired of hearing that I need to look to indie games or mobile games to find representation or whatever. I spend as much money as the next gamer and it's really fucking nice when I can feel a little of that "identifying" with the character I'm playing for 10 hours or more. I'd kill for a black woman killing everybody in a AAA shooter. Closest I got was Sunset Overdrive with the create-a-character.

 

[shark sandwich]

What Ms. Alexander is talking about is, at the very least, giving people with identities like mine that have been foisted upon me from birth more attention. You might say that we're all human, but that's not how society works here in real life. More characters with problems that I might have specific to my identity is great! I can feel like games understand me. More characters with problems that I don't have is fine, too! I can learn more about the issues that people of other identities might be dealing with. Like, as a black dude, I know everything about white people, what they think, and what they care about because that's just part and parcel of living in Western society. I don't have a problem with this. Why do so many people have a problem with having to learn about and maybe even find a way to identify with people who aren't like them?

I certainly don't have a problem with it. I'd like games like that! I just thought this point could've been made 1000x more effectively if she focused on telling us which games she thought did it right, what ideas she would like to see, what power fantasies she had in mind, etc. Instead it's just nothing but complaining, which is going to turn off anybody who doesn't already agree with her.

And the concept of "privilege" is not a way to take people down; it's merely a truth that some groups can get away with things others can't simply because of how they're born. I'm a guy, but I can walk around at night and not have to worry about being sexually assaulted as much as a woman can. I can go to a party and get drunk and not have to worry about being sexually assaulted, but women have to consider this. That's privilege. I don't have to deal with shit that women do, for example.

People who take offense at having their own social and cultural privilege pointed out to them need to get over it. If someone's response to this is to vote for a terrible human being, they are just terrible human beings who don't want their place in the social order questioned, and it's not about changing their minds so much as it is about not letting them ignore people who are not so privileged. They won't have any peace about it, at the very least.

Totally agree that certain people have privilege and would do better to realize that and attempt to empathize with others who don't have those privileges. What I disagree with is calling "those people" terrible human beings who don't want their place in the social order questioned.

Try to see it from "those people's" perspective. There are a large number of Americans who have old-fashioned ideas of gender roles and people of other races. Many of them are from an older generation. They certainly wouldn't call themselves racist or sexist, although you could probably find attitudes or subconscious behaviors that you would categorize as racist/sexist.

Those are your potential allies. THE absolute worst way to win them over and expand their worldview is to call them privileged, deplorables, hypocrites, terrible people etc, pick apart everything they do and say trying to find examples of racism/sexism, and try to shame and silence their viewpoints. That's the wrong way to have a conversation.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Try to see it from "those people's" perspective.

So, I want to say that I read your whole response, and I'm not trying to disregard anything that you've said.

However, I wanted to pare your response down to one line because I think that this is what you are not getting:

As someone who isn't part of that group, I already know exactly what they think and what their perspective is. I can't help but know because I'm bombarded with information about their jobs, their drug problems, their religious beliefs, their beliefs about people who look like me, etc. It's impossible not to know any of this as a minority.

I guess this is the point: It's really not on me to learn anything more about them, and they seem pretty disinterested in learning about me. Being nice and waiting for people to care doesn't work. It's never worked. Most of these folks aren't people who are willing to be convinced. You might not like that, but it's true.

Therefore, you have to fight them. Not physically, but you have to fight their complacency and their willingness to ignore you. You have to speak up. That's always how majority cultures have been forced to confront minorities in their society.

 

[Lime]

I'm a black woman that prefers AAA games. I like shooters and action games. I loved Mafia 3 and it actually made me smile while playing it because I "recognized" the characters to an extent. I get really tired of hearing that I need to look to indie games or mobile games to find representation or whatever. I spend as much money as the next gamer and it's really fucking nice when I can feel a little of that "identifying" with the character I'm playing for 10 hours or more. I'd kill for a black woman killing everybody in a AAA shooter. Closest I got was Sunset Overdrive with the create-a-character.

Thank you for this. The whole "AAA games is only for white boys" is grating to listen to.

 

[SystemUser]

This is interesting, because Hearthstone is a card game, yes violence is part of the mechanics, but it's more an abstraction of the concept of violence, in the same way Chess is an abstraction of the concept of war, do chess sets come with warnings about violent content? Does Magic the Gathering? Yugioh? Vanguard? Risk?

Where do we paint the line of where the abstraction of violence counts as violent content? Im sure Dungeons & Dragons hand books must have violent content warning.

Chess abstracts the violence to the point where I think it takes more explanation to understand that the game is violent. I think there was a time when it was more easily recognizable as a war game. Horses, castles, bishops, and kings don't make most modern people instantly think of war. Hearthstone and Magic the Gathering are both generally aimed at teens and older due to the content.


I am not against violent games. I am not even against well supervised/parented kids playing some violent games. I think the line should be pretty much where it is now. The ESRB labels Hearthstone with Teen level Fantasy Violence and parents can decide if their child is ready. I am a consumer of violence, but I feel like I am honest about it. Even though I do consume a lot of violent entertainment I also enjoy non-violent entertainment too.

 

[someday]

Thank you for this. The whole "AAA games is only for white boys" is grating to listen to.

And it happens in every single thread like this, without fail. I usually just avoid these but I had the time today.

 

[SapientWolf]

I'm a black woman that prefers AAA games. I like shooters and action games. I loved Mafia 3 and it actually made me smile while playing it because I "recognized" the characters to an extent. I get really tired of hearing that I need to look to indie games or mobile games to find representation or whatever. I spend as much money as the next gamer and it's really fucking nice when I can feel a little of that "identifying" with the character I'm playing for 10 hours or more. I'd kill for a black woman killing everybody in a AAA shooter. Closest I got was Sunset Overdrive with the create-a-character.

I think people need to broaden their horizons in general because AAA video games are some of the safest, most risk averse products to ever hit the store shelves. It's because these companies are two major flops away from closing the doors.

 

[Vermillion]

I mean, why not? Bayonetta spends pretty much her entire first game punching patriarchal symbols in the face and subverting misogynistic tropes in fiction with maximum gusto.

I can definitely say that Bayonetta is a very big debated game series among game related feminists and in general female gamers. Some women do feel like it is a power fantasy because you are playing a game where the main character is a very powerful witch in complete control over her sexuality and gender fighting patriarchal figures and symbols.

Yeah. I was wondering because I do know that it's pretty hotly debated, especially after Bayo 2.

 

[dreamfall]

I'm a black woman that prefers AAA games. I like shooters and action games. I loved Mafia 3 and it actually made me smile while playing it because I "recognized" the characters to an extent. I get really tired of hearing that I need to look to indie games or mobile games to find representation or whatever. I spend as much money as the next gamer and it's really fucking nice when I can feel a little of that "identifying" with the character I'm playing for 10 hours or more. I'd kill for a black woman killing everybody in a AAA shooter. Closest I got was Sunset Overdrive with the create-a-character.

Amen to all of this. I hope we get that game soon!

 

[someday]

I think people need to broaden their horizons in general because AAA video games are some of the safest, most risk averse products to ever hit the store shelves. It's because these companies are two major flops away from closing the doors.

I was pretty happy with the direction Watch Dogs 2 went and Ubisoft is doing alright. I'll buy the game later but I still have a bad taste over the insanely shitty Aiden character from the first game.

 

[Pinko Marx]

I didn't agree with her original "Gamers are dead" piece, nor am I hip to the idea of her being some voice for women in the industry. But I agree with the article and her general message.

 

[Gestault]

I spent more than a few minutes formulating a response to the article, admitedly based on the selection in the OP. Then I decided to read the whole article. I've since scrapped that post.

Honestly, the OP's selections mis-characterized this piece to the point of it being unrecognizable next to the original. I think the relatively bleak outlook Alexander justifies throughout the piece, and the call-to-action toward the end are excellent:

Perhaps we can’t change the consumers. But we can — and we must — offer different definitions of power, different fantasies for different people. If we’re creating our dream worlds in these designs and devices, there must be room for the idea that not all of us have the same kinds of dreams. What else might human beings want besides great power, freedom from consequences, and uninterrupted time with fictional women? Those are fine dreams for some, of course, but what about the others — for people whose far-off ideals simply include safety, acceptance, respect?

 

[Cartman86]

Good read, but I feel different about it. I think male power fantasies are on the decline (AAA games) and VR and AR are exactly where people are going to see the limits of that. The best VR experiences are not shooters, and if they are great it's not really about the shooting. It's the novelty and very human experience of standing in the same space with another person and simply seeing them perform actions that resemble reality. My hope at least is as the headsets become more mainstream everyone else feels the same way. Who knows though? Maybe they aren't selling crazy numbers because people want full blown shooters. Like she points out though as empathy machines I don't know how these expensive devices are going to do much if no one can afford them. As it stands now the people who have VR kind of already have the luxury of doing a lot of shit or taking the time to understand someone else, but obviously enough choose not to....

 

[Betty]

I disagree. Being more decent to each other is inevitable, because it's obviously the smart thing to do. Some people want to be assholes, but that's not the majority and that's not the future.

It's the next 4 years, at least.

 

[Freshmaker]

A market that is dying? Mind elaborating? o_o

It's been apparent for years that the current AAA model is unsustainable. It's more a question of when it'll collapse. To me, this is a largely self correcting problem.

 

[uomoartificiale]

Very interesting article. It just occured to me that if you just listen to any trailer for any big game release of the past 10 years, all you can hear is the continous barrage of gun shooting and shooting.
To me that is the infinite pit of boredom games are slowly sinking into. How can any developer genuinely passionate about games having that kind of mechanic be the main course of their game is beyond me (and makes the wasted talent of Naughty Dog on a shooter series bizzare to say the least).
Recently several people voiced the opinion that Watch Dogs 2 could be a much better game without guns. maybe something is slowly changing in the mainstream perception.

 

[petran79]

Chess abstracts the violence to the point where I think it takes more explanation to understand that the game is violent. I think there was a time when it was more easily recognizable as a war game. Horses, castles, bishops, and kings don't make most modern people instantly think of war. Hearthstone and Magic the Gathering are both generally aimed at teens and older due to the content.

Battle Chess was one of the most engaging video games I played in the late 80s on an Amiga. SFX and animations were amazing and the Queen was the tallest, darkest and most fearsome character. They made her a dark magic witch and if you defeated her, she'd turn into a flying demon bat.