Support NeoGAF

[Sblargh]

oh, we as a market have every ability to change the status quo, but yelling at a developer to change, then buying their games which are counter-productive to our argument is never going to work. Expecting a minority market is going to impact the entire industry is just dreaming, you'll just become a niche. And calling for action without doing anything is lazy. People who work on games can make change, definetly, and we can encourage that change, but not by blaming them.

Speaking up is an action. Having a popular site like RPS speak up is an action. Having talks on the subject at the "Game Developer Conference" in an action, because that's where, you know, game developers go to talk about development of games, which is the issue here. And maybe they only got the courage to speak up at GDC because enough sites like RPS spoke up first, and maybe RPS only felt comfortable being this activist about the issue because they saw what is going on in foruns like these. Or maybe not, maybe it was just a collective realization that something is wrong.

Yelling at a developer after buying the game might send a message about their next game, that we liked their game, but it could be better if only this was different. And they might take that into account on making their next game, or don't. Maybe because their focus testing tells different, maybe because the publisher doesn't want to risk the investment, maybe because, as a person, they don't want to make a game thinking "what if the player is a girl?", maybe they don't actually know how to answer this question and despiste wanting to make that game, they have to ignore it and make another game about dudes.

And finally, if there is no product on the shelf that reflects what you want, you'll obviously "vote with your wallet" on one that comes close. On the thing that appeal to your taste in genre, story, gameplay, etc etc, but doesn't appeal to my taste in diversity. Maybe I'll pre-order this game anyway, maybe I would only pre-order if it had a girl on the cover, but now I'll wait for the 75% sale on steam, or maybe I got it for free while buying it as a pre-order reward for the game that do have the girl on the cover.

I can't put a note on my credit card number saying "look, I'm buying this game, but you'll better improve on the diversity issue next time or I will not buy it anymore". But I can buy it and them go to a forum and whine about it, but oh, we got back to the beggining, where this is no action, this is nothing, this blaming, etc etc. Except it is, there just isn't this concrete ratio of "whining:change" like there isn't this "buying:staying-the-same" ratio.

Stuff is complex and the fanbase speaking up is part of it. It is not all, but it is not nothing.

 

[FieryBalrog]

There's quite a few people here and elsewhere who feel that being shrill and contemptuous is acceptable when in the service of achieving some purportedly righteous end. There are too many of these people to have any sort of actual conversation on a whole host of socio-political matters, and it includes this one. No matter if the particular issue is at most mildly relevant outside of some tiny first-world bubble, it's always a matter of salvation to be chased with the most fantastic zeal, directed at other people.

"But it stifles legitimate debate!" is the go-to defense of the concern troll. There are plenty of things that people aren't allowed to debate in any halfway civilized community ("but I just wanted to say that I thought the Holocaust was exaggerated!") and plenty of other places on the Internet to advance even the most loathsome opinions if one feels it absolutely necessary. RPS has no responsibility to provide an open forum for borderline misogyny.

Jumping straight to an overblown Holocaust-denial analogy is just one nicely symbolic example.

Bad process isn't a substitute for good process just because it serves as a convenient shortcut for effort and self-restraint.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Speaking up is an action. Having a popular site like RPS speak up is an action. Having talks on the subject at the "Game Developer Conference" in an action, because that's where, you know, game developers go to talk about development of games, which is the issue here. And maybe they only got the courage to speak up at GDC because enough sites like RPS spoke up first, and maybe RPS only felt comfortable being this activist about the issue because they saw what is going on in foruns like these. Or maybe not, maybe it was just a collective realization that something is wrong.

Yelling at a developer after buying the game might send a message about their next game, that we liked their game, but it could be better if only this was different. And they might take that into account on making their next game, or don't. Maybe because their focus testing tells different, maybe because the publisher doesn't want to risk the investment, maybe because, as a person, they don't want to make a game thinking "what if the player is a girl?", maybe they don't actually know how to answer this question and despiste wanting to make that game, they have to ignore it and make another game about dudes.

And finally, if there is no product on the shelf that reflects what you want, you'll obviously "vote with your wallet" on one that comes close. On the thing that appeal to your taste in genre, story, gameplay, etc etc, but doesn't appeal to my taste in diversity. Maybe I'll pre-order this game anyway, maybe I would only pre-order if it had a girl on the cover, but now I'll wait for the 75% sale on steam, or maybe I got it for free while buying it as a pre-order reward for the game that do have the girl on the cover.

I can't put a note on my credit card number saying "look, I'm buying this game, but you'll better improve on the diversity issue next time or I will not buy it anymore". But I can buy it and them go to a forum and whine about it, but oh, we got back to the beggining, where this is no action, this is nothing, this blaming, etc etc. Except it is, there just isn't this concrete ratio of "whining:change" like there isn't this "buying:staying-the-same" ratio.

Stuff is complex and the fanbase speaking up is part of it. It is not all, but it is not nothing.

You might not put a note on your credit card, but I did. When i bought halo 4 I wrote a very lengthy detailed essay explaining to them what i felt the issue of the game were, and why those issues existed, and what they could do to remedy them. I sent it to the developer. There are ways to actually evoke change, complaining on a forum, blaming some imaginary social structure, calling them misogynysts or sexist, is not the way to go. None of it is constructive, not one ounce.

 

[shanshan310]

and I'm pretty sure it's not, so I guess we should agree to disagree.

Okay, why?

 

[TaroYamada]

I don't really think "people who can look beyond their own limited perspective and attempt to be inclusive of others when operating in a professional environment" is an unreasonable place to start in defining "adult."

I don't write everyone with opposing views off that way. When people offer ridiculous justifications like "well maybe people just want to make sexist games!" instead of actually grappling with the issue seriously, however, I am not inclined to take their contribution as high-value.

In the part of the post you quoted that started us on this topic of discussion, the poster was using an example of sexy women and space marines. This is the part you quoted previously:

What if they only want to make hyersexualized females and uber macho spess mahrinez.

Should they be forced to?

I just don't see where you're going with this Charlequin? Those games shouldn't be made because they are "non-inclusive"? You don't like them so they shouldn't exist? They should be forced to make games catering to women alongside men or be kicked out of the industry? Please clarify because thus far that's what you've implicated.

As for the second paragraph, you oversimplified the argument that other poster had (the one quoted above) but none the less it's nice to know you aren't opposed to individuals expressing their views.

I can't put a note on my credit card number saying "look, I'm buying this game, but you'll better improve on the diversity issue next time or I will not buy it anymore". But I can buy it and them go to a forum and whine about it, but oh, we got back to the beggining, where this is no action, this is nothing, this blaming, etc etc. Except it is, there just isn't this concrete ratio of "whining:change" like there isn't this "buying:staying-the-same" ratio.

This is something I have a hard time comprehending, if you believe in something so deeply why do you financially support products/businesses that you feel are harmful to your beliefs? I disapprove of Wal-Mart's business practices so I haven't shopped there in 10+ years, I don't like the diamond trade so my fiance's wedding ring will be lab made, or much more minor, I hate GfWL and I boycott PC releases that use it. It reminds me of tea party folk who complain about social programs but then utilize them because they "pay for them", if you have a political or moral view on something but are willing to use a product/service/business that violates that belief, whether for financial gain or purely for enjoyment, the belief must not be very deeply held.

 

[Sblargh]

You might not put a note on your credit card, but I did. When i bought halo 4 I wrote a very lengthy detailed essay explaining to them what i felt the issue of the game were, and why those issues existed, and what they could do to remedy them. I sent it to the developer. There are ways to actually evoke change, complaining on a forum, blaming some imaginary social structure, calling them misogynysts or sexist, is not the way to go.

So sending letters are valid, but complaining on a forum isn't?

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Okay, why?

because the patriarchy is a myth. There is no patriarchy. Assuming that there is this outside male dominated view on the world is defeatest in the absolute highest regard. You may aswell be trying to blame god.

The development enviroment is dominated heavily by men, and if you want to use that as an argument then do it properly. State the facts, 89% of game developers are men, and 91% of those men are straight. Does this impacts games and game development? yes. Does this impacts how and who the games are made and marketed for? yes. But so what? Everything else is built on pure conjecture with no supporting evidence, none. So what's the next step? some bulshit idealism, hire this, do that, make the impossible?

So sending letters are valid, but complaining on a forum isn't?

creating critical and coherent arguments as to what the real issues are, and what they stem from, and where they could be changed, and what the impact of that change might be, that's what is important. None of this is happening, all we get is a bunch of finger pointing.

 

[frequency]

I look at the post histories of every poster I see that basically says to shut up about the issues because it's only business and complaining does nothing.

I look to see if they post in other threads about other topics with the same attitude. I try to find their posts in Sim City threads for everyone to shut up because it was just a business decision. Or how always online and/or no used games is justified because it's what Microsoft decided was best for them as a business.

I have yet to find one poster that has the same attitude in other threads where people voice their discontent.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I look at the post histories of every poster I see that basically says to shut up about the issues because it's only business and complaining does nothing.

I look to see if they post in other threads about other topics with the same attitude. I try to find their posts in Sim City threads for everyone to shut up because it was just a business decision. Or how always online and/or no used games is justified because it's what Microsoft decided was best for them as a business.

I have yet to find one poster that has the same attitude in other threads where people voice their discontent.

and yet all of your posts are blaming some non existent social structure and demanding change, without laying out any arguments. Or complaining about people talking about the business side of the issue. Way to be the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[shanshan310]

because the patriarchy is a myth. There is no patriarchy. Assuming that there is this outside male dominated view on the world is defeatest in the absolute highest regard. You may aswell be trying to blame god.

The development enviroment is dominated heavily by men, and if you want to use that as an argument then do it properly. State the facts, 89% of games are made by men, and 91% of those men are straight. Does this impacts games and game development? yes. Does this impacts how and who the games are made and marketed for? yes. But so what? Everything else is built on pure conjecture with no supporting evidence, none.

Oh, so you fundamentally disagree with the idea of society being male dominated (Or do you? you then go on to say the gaming industry is male dominated.). I have no idea what to say, except "not from where I'm standing".

Your "so what if men make games and only market them to men?" is the whole point.

 

[frequency]

and yet all of your posts are blaming some non existent social structure and demanding change, without laying out any arguments. Or complaining about people talking about the business side of the issue. Way to be the pot calling the kettle black.

Please look at my post history.
Thanks.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Oh, so you fundamentally disagree with the idea of society being male dominated (Or do you? you then go on to say the gaming industry is male dominated.). I have no idea what to say, except "not from where I'm standing".

Your "so what if men make games and only market them to men?" is the whole point.

Yes, I disagree with the notion that there's some male-centric domination which exists in society.

And i'm saying so what if the development is male dominated? what does this statistic actually change? And what does demanding change from them entail, and how does it make anything better?

 

[shanshan310]

I'm saying so what if the development is male dominated? what does this change?

Women are not being catered for?

It doesn't "change" anything. There is no change.

 

[HK-47]

Oh noes the thought police are here.

You can't stop people from liking what they like.

Platinum games will keep on making hyper-sexualized action romps and no amount of bitching will make them stop. And God bless them for it.

See Kamiya's bad-ass twitter as an example.

If you want oh-so-mature content, make it yourself, you have no right to demand it from someone not interested in making it.

My point is if someone wants to make a certain kind of game, however pandering, they have every right to.

You can't shame them into doing something to suit your tastes. You don't like it? Take your business to someone who does suit your tastes.

But demanding someone conform to your will, or stop what they like doing, is bullshit IMO.

you cant stop people from complaining about it either.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Women are not being catered for?

It doesn't "change" anything. There is no change.

but that's obviously not true. There are games for all demographics, and marketed to all demographics. So obviously that can't be the issue.

And you're right, it doesn't change anything, so stop focusing on who's making the game, focus on why they're being made. Then we actually solve some problems.

 

[Sblargh]

creating critical and coherent arguments as to what the real issues are, and what they stem from, and where they could be changed, and what the impact of that change might be, that's what is important. None of this is happening, all we get is a bunch of finger pointing.

I think a bit of everything is going on, from more academic essays on bookstores to angry youtube comments yelling that y'all a bunch of mysoginistic pigs.

But now the problem shifted almost entirely. Now it isn't an issue of complaining in a forum or writing about it on RPS, the problem is that we are not being academic enough. So now the problem isn't one of action, but how the action must be resolved, i.e, with less "finger pointing" and more "critical and coherent arguments as to what the real issues are". And we got to the poing where we forgotten entirely about market forces, because even writting letters to the developers is a valid action as long as the letter is well written.

We got to the point where you are concerned that the tone of the critique isn't appropriated and the theory (the existence of "patriarchy" as you understand it) used by some of the critics is not solid enough. And so it won't lead to change, because the rational agents involved in game development won't listen to the irrational agents of feminist critique.

But what if they do? What if both groups are equally crazy and in the crazy field of yelling at each other they are actually communicating change? What if a more harsh tone and the yelling of a thousand furious forum posters break a psychological shield a developer has that a well written coherent thesis can not trespass?

 

[TaroYamada]

But what if they do? What if both groups are equally crazy and in the crazy field of yelling at each other they are actually communicating change? What if a more harsh tone and the yelling of a thousand furious forum posters break a psychological shield a developer has that a well written coherent thesis can not trespass?

I think it's more likely to desensitize them to the complaints than break some "shield". It has seemed to desensitize gamers, it's hard to take a movement seriously when one of the key concerns of its followers is the storyline of Mario.

 

[shanshan310]

but that's obviously not true. There are games for all demographics, and marketed to all demographics. So obviously that can't be the issue.

And you're right, it doesn't change anything, so stop focusing on who's making the game, focus on why they're being made. Then we actually solve some problems.

The male dominated industry has always been a thing, thus there is no change into things being male dominated. Don't twist my words into agreeing with whatever your point was.

Most non-casual games are marketed to 18 - 25 yo males. There are very limited mainstream 'serious' games being marketed towards women. If that's not the issue what, perchance, do you think people are complaining about exactly?

I agree that money is an issue, and publishers seem afraid to take a chance with anything other than the target group they know will buy the games.

 

[Darth Kupi]

I just don't see where you're going with this? Those games shouldn't be made because they are "non-inclusive"? You don't like them so they shouldn't exist? They should be forced to make games catering to women alongside men or be kicked out of the industry? Please clarify because thus far that's what you've implicated.

As for the second paragraph, you oversimplified the argument that other poster had (the one quoted above) but none the less it's nice to know you aren't opposed to individuals expressing their views.

You took quoted post to mean the opposite.

I'm actually arguing for someone's right to make total horseshit pandering games, which are non-inclusive, which only appeal to horny teenagers.


And why not? If I wanted make Ass 'n Titties Parade 2: The Crackening, a dude bro shooter/slicer/erotic dating sim with a hunky main character and token scantily clad female love interests with porn star physiques, I'm going to make it, fuck anyone who says otherwise, even women who might feel objectified and excluded.

And if people complain and want me to change it for A'nT 3:Melon Harvest, well fuck em again, I'll add bump mapped nipples if I want to.

That was my point. What if I the game developer only wanted to make A'nT sequels and spin-offs and nothing else. I can't be forced to make something that appeals to women if I don't want to. As long as I have a desire to make that type of game, and there's a market to fund it, I'm not changing it to appeal to a different demographic and noone has the right to force me otherwise.


Everyone here has been arguing economics, that devs want to make core games that are appealing to women, just the market doesn't allow them. I'm just saying that even if the market allowed female-incusive games, you don't have the right to demand them from someone who doesn't want to do it.

 

[Sblargh]

I think it's more likely to desensitize them to the complaints than break some "shield". It has seemed to desensitize gamers, it's hard to take a movement seriously when one of the key concerns of its followers is the storyline of Mario.

I think I don't know. I don't think any of us has any control over how these things are perceived or how people will react. Some people think like you do, and so they try to act cool, be it on the net, be it writting articles on their publication; some people think those fuckers deserve a good yelling, so they call them out and that's it; some people stay on the middle and gently tell people to go fuck themselves in a calm and coherent manner.

I think the game developer community as well as feminists and gamers in general, are too diverse to talk about a "them". Some of "them" might respond to indignation, some of "them" might respond to rationalization, some of "them" might not respond to anything ever because of stuff going on in their lives that has nothing to do with gaming development and some of "them" might respond to anything because they were almost there anyway.

Like saying "vote with your wallets" is too reductionist of how individuals in the market act, I think "watch your tone" is too reductionist of how individuals in the public discourse act.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

The male dominated industry has always been a thing, thus there is no change into things being male dominated. Don't twist my words into agreeing with whatever your point was.

Most non-casual games are marketed to 18 - 25 yo males. There are very limited mainstream 'serious' games being marketed towards women. If that's not the issue what, perchance, do you think people are complaining about exactly?

I agree that money is an issue, and publishers seem afraid to take a chance with anything other than the target group they know will buy the games.

My point is that it doesn't matter who's making the games, now or ever. If the games are getting made by 30 year old women, and they're still the same game, what would you infer from that?

right. they're not marketed to 18-25 year olds. Those are "core" games, mario is mainstream, but not considered "core", same with games like dance central, rockband, the sims, etc. These are mainstream games, they're not considered "core" because they're not made for a that "core" demographic. The whole core demographic was created a long time ago.

 

[shanshan310]

My point is that it doesn't matter who's making the games, now or ever. If the games are getting made by 30 year old women, and they're still the same game, what would you infer from that?

no, most casual games aren't marketed to 18-25 year olds. Core games are, those are the big blockbuster games. Casual games are marketed E-M.

No it doesn't. Even if the women are making the games, its still male dominated because its only catering to men.

I said non-casual games. Those big budget blockbuster games are marketed to 18 - 35 yos.

 

[Lionheart1337]

There's quite a few people here and elsewhere who feel that being shrill and contemptuous is acceptable when in the service of achieving some purportedly righteous end. There are too many of these people to have any sort of actual conversation on a whole host of socio-political matters, and it includes this one. No matter if the particular issue is at most mildly relevant outside of some tiny first-world bubble, it's always a matter of salvation to be chased with the most fantastic zeal, directed at other people.



Jumping straight to an overblown Holocaust-denial analogy is just one nicely symbolic example.

Bad process isn't a substitute for good process just because it serves as a convenient shortcut for effort and self-restraint.

Ugh. Looks like someone needs a proper shaming. Then you shall see the light.

Spoiler

joke

 

[Sblargh]

My point is that it doesn't matter who's making the games, now or ever. If the games are getting made by 30 year old women, and they're still the same game, what would you infer from that?

no, most casual games aren't marketed to 18-25 year olds. Core games are, those are the big blockbuster games. Casual games are marketed E-M.

It's like asking what if apples fell to the sky, what would you infer from gravity? I would infer that our theories about gravity are wrong or that we are overlooking something (it's not an apple, but a red balloon), but it doesn't matter, because the empirical evidence is so contrary to this hypothesis that the scenario is just bananas.

 

[shanshan310]

It's like asking what if apples fell to the sky, what would you infer from gravity? I would infer that our theories about gravity are wrong or that we are overlooking something (it's not an apple, but a red balloon), but it doesn't matter, because the empirical evidence is so contrary to this hypothesis that the scenario is just bananas.

Maybe apples do fall up where he lives:

Yes, I disagree with the notion that there's some male-centric domination which exists in society.

 

[faceless007]

creating critical and coherent arguments as to what the real issues are, and what they stem from, and where they could be changed, and what the impact of that change might be, that's what is important. None of this is happening, all we get is a bunch of finger pointing.

Then you aren't looking, and are choosing to focus on the aspects of the discussion you just don't like that much. Walker's article in the OP is pretty critical and coherent to me, as are many of RPS's articles on the subject. I know there are several posters here, myself included, who do often try to write arguments about exactly the aspects you mention (I can try to dig them up, if you want). They're there if you look. But I don't know how you make the distinction between those and finger-pointing, since any argument about media and trends pretty much needs to point out specific examples, even though that tends to make the fans of those things really defensive -- and if we don't name examples, we're often accused of being vague and not having any evidence. So we just can't win, I guess.

 

[TaroYamada]

You took quoted post to mean the opposite.

I'm actually arguing for someone's right to make total horseshit pandering games, which are non-inclusive, which only appeal to horny teenagers.


And why not? If I wanted make Ass 'n Titties Parade 2: The Crackening, a dude bro shooter/slicer/erotic dating sim with a hunky main character and token scantily clad female love interests with porn star physiques, I'm going to make it, fuck anyone who says otherwise, even women who might feel objectified and excluded.

And if people complain and want me to change it for A'nT 3:Melon Harvest, well fuck em again, I'll add bump mapped nipples if I want to.

That was my point. What if I the game developer only wanted to make A'nT sequels and spin-offs and nothing else. I can't be forced to make something that appeals to women if I don't want to. As long as I have a desire to make that type of game, and there's a market to fund it, I'm not changing it to appeal to a different demographic and noone has the right to force me otherwise.


Everyone here has been arguing economics, that devs want to make core games that are appealing to women, just the market doesn't allow them. I'm just saying that even if the market allowed female-incusive games, you don't have the right to demand them from someone who doesn't want to do it.

No I was talking to Charlequin, not you, he had quoted that part earlier and I was re-referencing it. Please reread what I stated in that post and I'll go back and edit it to make it explicitly clear that I was re-referencing what Charlequin quoted.

It's like asking what if apples fell to the sky, what would you infer from gravity? I would infer that our theories about gravity are wrong or that we are overlooking something (it's not an apple, but a red balloon), but it doesn't matter, because the empirical evidence is so contrary to this hypothesis that the scenario is just bananas.

Comparing moral codes with scientific theories is an absolute farce in any shape or form.

No it doesn't. Even if the women are making the games, its still male dominated because its only catering to men.

I said non-casual games. Those big budget blockbuster games are marketed to 18 - 35 yos.

Why shouldn't it be male oriented if male's are the ones willing to plop down the $60 necessary to keep these businesses running? If women become a larger market it's almost undeniable the market will expand to capitalize on them as we've seen in mobile/social. That's not the case thus far within the core gaming market and so it hasn't happened.

 

[Karkador]

Why shouldn't it be male oriented if male's are the ones willing to plop down the $60 necessary to keep these businesses running? If women become a larger market it's almost undeniable the market will expand to capitalize on them as we've seen in mobile/social. That's not the case thus far within the core gaming market and so it hasn't happened.

Women are just as capable of spending money as men are, just give them a more interesting and compelling reason to do so. You're asking for women to swim upstream and get interested in the current landscape before it changes to be more interesting for them.

Also, males can appreciate things that are not 'male-oriented', too. If you're saying that catering to a male audience means excluding women, you've just described the 'boys club' mentality which people are railing against.

 

[Kazerei]

Why shouldn't it be male oriented if male's are the ones willing to plop down the $60 necessary to keep these businesses running? If women become a larger market it's almost undeniable the market will expand to capitalize on them as we've seen in mobile/social. That's not the case thus far within the core gaming market and so it hasn't happened.

It's a catch-22. Games are more male-oriented, because the purchasers are largely male. The purchasers are largely male, because games are more male-oriented. The cycle has to be broken from both sides.

 

[TaroYamada]

Women are just as capable of spending money as men are, just give them a more interesting and compelling reason to do so. You're asking for women to get interested in the current landscape before it changes to be more interesting for them.

Also, males can appreciate things that are not 'male-oriented', too. If you're saying that catering to a male audience means excluding women, you've just described the 'boys club' mentality which people are railing against.

I never said women didn't have money, I inferred that most companies haven't seen enough to take the risks the supporters of this movement are asking for. That's true, unless you are proposing some ridiculous conspiracy where companies are turning down guaranteed profit. Furthermore, I think it's disingenuous to act as though the console market hasn't attempted to appeal to females, or that there's nothing women can like in the currently existing market. Nintendo seems to have done quite well with western women last generation but since they seem to have been mostly casual, they moved on, Nintendo has also been consistently popular amongst Japanese women. It's the efforts from third parties that have largely struggled.

As for the "boy's club" nonsense, it's inevitable that some products targeted towards men will lose the interest of most females, the same can be said for products targeted towards women on the other end of the spectrum. I don't see anything wrong with either.

 

[A.E Suggs]

I'll be honest, the only way I see any of this dying is when gaming on console dies which I honestly think won't be long from now. I give it 10 more years at best.

 

[Sblargh]

I'll be honest, the only way I see any of this dying is when gaming on console dies which I honestly think won't be long from now. I give it 10 more years at best.

I'll accept any solution that hails the PC as the superior plataform.

 

[Karkador]

As for the "boy's club" nonsense, it's inevitable that some products targeted towards men will lose the interest of most females, the same can be said for products targeted towards women on the other end of the spectrum. I don't see anything wrong with either.

That would at least be functional, but games currently don't offer that much variety.

In other mediums, variety exists and you get stuff that panders to each segment of the crowd, as well as stuff that works for different people all at once. You can make things everyone can enjoy. You can also make games for one segment that at least have a decent portrayal of other segments.

Making videogames that say 'men are awesome,women aren't as much' to a male audience because girls don't play games is just a circle jerk.

 

[Castle Doctrine]

John Walker:

There are issues that affect men, and often men who are the target demographic of gaming. Suicide is an especially serious example, and it’s something RPS has covered, and expressed concern over. Our caring about equality in the games industry, and in the portrayal of women, does not exclude our caring about matters affecting men. Obviously.

Not convincing. I'm sure John knows he can't care too much about issues that affect men, because he might cross a line and show too much concern for the privileged sex, which weirdly has a higher suicide rate than females, and not to mention other life and death statistics unfavorable to privileged males compared to females that John probably doesn't care about. He's not alone because nobody else does either. He should ask himself why. Why does he care so deeply about women as compared to men?

It will help him understand why there are so many "white knights". It's a used and abused term, but it is true that guys often, not always but often, care about girls because, I'm going to be blunt, they have a vagina. Because of sexual attraction.

The article didn't move me because it's based on the massive false premise of male-female interchangeability. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Laughing Banana]

What is the end-goal for this movement? At what point when a proponent of this movement nods his/her head and says, "This is it, good job guys!"

Is there an example out of there that relates to this equality issue that video game industry can see as an example/to pursue for? I mean, any other industry where the goal for movement such as this has been achieved or at least ideal enough to say that it works for it?

 

[Vermillion]

What is the end-goal for this movement? At what point when a proponent of this movement nods his/her head and says, "This is it, good job guys!"

Is there an example out of there that relates to this equality issue that video game industry can see as an example/to pursue for? I mean, any other industry where the goal for movement such as this has been achieved or at least ideal enough to say that it works for it?

Equality has hardly been reached for any recent movement I can think of. It's a process that must eventually change how the group is thought of socially.

The main goal is improving society, or in this case, who video games appeal to. How that happens or what the ultimate goal is will change over time, but right now, the fight is for improvement.

 

[michaelius]

What is the end-goal for this movement? At what point when a proponent of this movement nods his/her head and says, "This is it, good job guys!"

Is there an example out of there that relates to this equality issue that video game industry can see as an example/to pursue for? I mean, any other industry where the goal for movement such as this has been achieved or at least ideal enough to say that it works for it?

That's a very good question

You'd think that the goal would be to increase diversity so that are more female oriented games produced while male oriented products stays as it is.

But when you actually read those conversation in this thread or in Anita thread - it seems the goal would be 100% politically correct unisex product devoid of any gender stuff.

 

[HK-47]

John Walker:



Not convincing. I'm sure John knows he can't care too much about issues that affect men, because he might cross a line and show too much concern for the privileged sex, which weirdly has a higher suicide rate than females, and not to mention other life and death statistics unfavorable to privileged males compared to females that John probably doesn't care about. He's not alone because nobody else does either. He should ask himself why. Why does he care so deeply about women as compared to men?

It will help him understand why there are so many "white knights". It's a used and abused term, but it is true that guys often, not always but often, care about girls because, I'm going to be blunt, they have a vagina. Because of sexual attraction.

The article didn't move me because it's based on the massive false premise of male-female interchangeability. It's intellectually dishonest.

What, did you read his fucking psych profile?

 

[squidyj]

I'll accept any solution that hails the PC as the superior plataform.

you're willing to accept any solution that installs PC as the master race?

 

[HK-47]

That's a very good question

You'd think that the goal would be to increase diversity so that are more female oriented games produced while male oriented products stays as it is.

But when you actually read those conversation in this thread or in Anita thread - it seems the goal would be 100% politically correct unisex product devoid of any gender stuff.

lol right cause one of the things that people are damning the industry for is their amazing take on the female perspective.

Give me a fucking break. The industry is way more guilty of this, with "strong" female character essentially being a standard male action hero with a different model.

 

[Aretak]

But when you actually read those conversation in this thread or in Anita thread - it seems the goal would be 100% politically correct unisex product devoid of any gender stuff.

Pfft, and people say that EA turning all their games into the digital equivalent of tap water is a cynical attempt to grab cash from as many pockets as possible, when in truth they're just misunderstood, pioneering crusaders for equality.

No wonder Peter Moore always seems so angry.

 

[truestatic]

lol right cause one of the things that people are damning the industry for is their amazing take on the female perspective.

Give me a fucking break. The industry is way more guilty of this, with "strong" female character essentially being a standard male action hero with a different model.

What specifically do you want out of a female character? I feel like there's two takes on what makes a strong female character and one is undefined by her gender, that traditional gender roles as they are represented in video games need to be done away with. This would seem to give us more of what you're complaining about. Characters like Mira from Space Marine, I guess.

The other is that these characters are really just displaying male character traits. These arguments seem to be at odds with each other. I'm not trying to attribute both to you, I'm just... I'm curious to know what makes a positive female character. If it's not a 'male action hero in a different model' does a positive female character require a completely different kind of game?

 

[Slavik81]

It's about as sexist as putting more male bathrooms in company which have 90% of male workers...

This is so silly, I feel a need to address it.

I've worked at a few companies with ratios like that (engineering), and I don't think any of them had fewer washrooms for women.

They usually don't specialize buildings that much. It just wouldn't make sense, since changing the washrooms would be very expensive. Better to make a building generic and be flexible than specialize it for a tiny efficiency gain.

 

[unbias]

Oh, so you fundamentally disagree with the idea of society being male dominated

Politically it is male dominated(in terms of held offices), but that isn't what patriarchy states(or at least that isn't the point behind the philosophy). Patriarchy theory doesn't really take a proper look at gender roles and instead creates a scenario for every man as a whole in society. Instead patriarchy paints a scenario where the people they(men) are closest and most intimate with(women), and subjugate them in a servant role for the sake of domination of society(power fantasy).

It is saying men intentionally oppress women(the group they are most intimate with, beyond just sex), which is asserting(intentionally or not) that men as a whole are sociopaths(subjugated the people they have the closest relationships/most intimate/raise children with and doing so for the sake of power).

...

I don't think we are ever going to get women properly represented(or men honestly, unless you believe all men like the gender role stereotypes) until you can break the male/female gender roles and stereotypes of how they are each supposed to act. with almost every gender role expectation one can easily find the reflection or the consequences of that gender role for the other gender.

Fixing perspective isn't as simple as putting a woman in a game as a leading lady, because in this topic and many many others, even when there are women staring as the lead(it is stil pervasive in movies much less expecting more for games), there is always someone talking about how the female was "acting like a dude" further empowering societal stereotypes where men HAVE to or are expected to act a certain way, while not even realizing that they are doing the exact same thing to the women.

I don't think people realize what exactly they are asking people to do, when they ask for more diversity in gaming/movies/ect. It is apparent(to me), even in the way people post that while claiming they want equal rights, they do it in the same breath of saying how woman or men should be portrayed based on gender role expectations. Never going to get what people are asking for until there is a general acceptance for starting to hammer away at gender roles. It seems to me there are a lot of people out there that want gender equality and think they can do it without killing gender roles across the board, and I just find that to be incredibly silly.

 

[Ikael]

Woman VS videogames tropes redux. The article readed more like a forum rebuttal and was very defensive, and thus, very little informative. But I agree with its writter: debate is always a good thing, and trying to silence it is not tolerable, even if I view the usual angry replies more like random butthurt rather than a coordinated effort for censorsehip.

Still, the debate advanced little. The RPS article pretty much sustained the same Anita's talking points:

- There are few girls working at the videogame industry
- Consequently, there's a "boy's club" mentality when it comes to the videogame public and culture
- There is sexism in videogames as well
- Furthermore, there are offensive female stereotypes in videogames
- The representation of said stereotypes have a pernicious and calamitous consequences for society and the real world at large
- Thus it is a noble endeavour to dennounce and shut down such practices

As far as I view it, only the first two points are the crux of the matter, from which the rest derives (or even the very first one), yet the focus of these type of articles is puted into the latter ones, and they accept the latest conclussions as articles of faith with little to no reasoning behind them other than "it is obvious".

There is still no conclussive proof or whatsoever than negative media causes measurable real world consecuences, other than "it offends me" used as some kind of golden star measurment for equality, with most studies repeating extreemly similar reasoning processess and methodological faults as the whole "violence in media ends up reflecting in violence in the real world" ones. Most studies are either methodologically inconsistent, fall into the whole correlation implies causation fallacy or simply restort to this type of false premise (you can substitute "agression" with "offense" and the jump of logic would be the same).

My second gripe with these type of articles: It is really, really poor journalism. Very little research and investigation, focused into feelings, perceptions, personal testimonies, quotas and personal opinions, with little emphasis into hard data: numbers, statistics, sociologic studies, economic factors.

And finally, yet again political correction is, as always, focusing on the form rather than substance, coming from a vision of humans as a "social animal only", and conveniently forgotting the much harder to tackle economic issues that underlines them. The social equivalent of eating a placebo so you can die happily. Political correction is the very definition of "white people's problems"; so to speak. You have an industry such as ours with very deep problems (toxic working enviroment, spurious relationship with media, etc) and you have also sexism which create dire real world consequences (marital abuse, gendericide, etc) yet this type of debate places the focus into downright ridiculous post modernist theological problems such was why there was no women on the PS4's presentation. I can't take this crap seriously.


So, as a preventive answer to the inevitable question of "which kind of articles would you like to be written about sexism and videogames", I would like to see addressed these two things:

- Providing solid evidence that sexism in media breeds sexism in the real world. You know, pretty much like how violent videogames were ought to make us all psycopaths since violence in the media also breed violence in the real world.

- Describing what is the end-goal for this movement, if there's one at all or if we are at one of the cases where we got one solution seaching in need of a problem

Neither Sarkeesian's videos nor this article answered to any of these two questions. As I view it, the political correction debate is every bit as sterile and counterproductive as it always has been.

 

[michaelius]

lol right cause one of the things that people are damning the industry for is their amazing take on the female perspective.

Give me a fucking break. The industry is way more guilty of this, with "strong" female character essentially being a standard male action hero with a different model.

Because even if it's female hero the product is still made by males for males...

And you can't change it by crying on forums - publishers need dollar incentive to make more female oriented games - and if we get more female oriented games there will be more demand for female game developers.

Pfft, and people say that EA turning all their games into the digital equivalent of tap water is a cynical attempt to grab cash from as many pockets as possible, when in truth they're just misunderstood, pioneering crusaders for equality.

No wonder Peter Moore always seems so angry.

Heh but actually EA is praised for their inclusion of LGBT stuff and has one of most female oriented products portfolios among publishers (after Nintendo)

 

[jimi_dini]

Instead patriarchy paints a scenario where the people they(men) are closest and most intimate with(women), and subjugate them in a servant role for the sake of domination of society(power fantasy).

It is saying men intentionally oppress women(the group they are most intimate with, beyond just sex), which is asserting(intentionally or not) that men as a whole are sociopaths(subjugated the people they have the closest relationships/most intimate/raise children with and doing so for the sake of power).

Doesn't this sound extremly sexist?

I mean the idea about a society that is based on patriarchy (and every male is and needs to be part of it) is the only explanation for "females are generally paid less just because of their gender although for the exact same job having the same amount of experience and same amount of qualifications, additionally every industry even prefers males instead of females all the time". This doesn't make any economical sense whatsoever. Who would pay someone else way more for exactly the same? I would call that someone stupid. Unless of course there is a secret male society. And as far as I know, there is none. Although my father died when I was a child, so maybe I missed it because of that.

I would rather say that the few that are in power (aka have plenty of money aka the 1% - not related to gender) are the actual problem. Some of those may be sexist, some of those are definitely sociopaths. I think the higher up you are, the more of a sociopath you have to be.

 

[FaceDa]

because the patriarchy is a myth. There is no patriarchy. Assuming that there is this outside male dominated view on the world is defeatest in the absolute highest regard. You may aswell be trying to blame god.

Women can't drive in Saudi Arabia, but it's not patriarchy guys that's not real

 

[Cyrano]

It is saying men intentionally oppress women(the group they are most intimate with, beyond just sex), which is asserting(intentionally or not) that men as a whole are sociopaths(subjugated the people they have the closest relationships/most intimate/raise children with and doing so for the sake of power).

I don't think men are sociopaths. I think men are mostly well-meaning people who say/do a lot of dumb things, either because they don't know it's hurting other people, or because they don't understand proximity. Which is to say that they're people, and they make mistakes, and expecting perfection or for them to "get it" in a patriarchal society is expecting a lot of them due to growing up with social attitudes and pressures that they themselves are often unaware of.

Now, the men who send death threats to people or who make a game where you beat a person up, or the people who support or play these things... yeah, those people are probably sociopaths. What's more, getting angry at people who offer criticism and attempting to criticize the person and not the criticism? Yeah, those people also probably fit that mold. They are defending and taking place in reprehensible actions, for the furtherance of their own social attitudes and at the exclusion of other people. People who are unwilling to consider another person's ideas are pretty scary, because it means they believe that they themselves have it "figured out." Which means they believe in their own self-righteousness with regards to their actions, and that not only are other people wrong, but they're the ones who are also right.

As I said before, I believe that most people are good people, and that they aren't intending to do what they do, but it does happen, and it does hurt.



Somebody else mentioned the "goal" of feminism. Look, this isn't the way to think about feminism. Feminism is not a goal. It's a movement, and movements don't have defined goals, unless progress is a goal. Which I guess you could consider it that way, but it also means that any progress could potentially be where it ends, and that's not helpful. Feminism, just like attempting to end racism, is more like a way of life, a system of beliefs, and trying to forward those beliefs, in the same way Christians attempt to forward helping people (or at least the way Mother Theresa attempted to help people... the Christian movement in America has some real problems with how they think about others...).

and yet all of your posts are blaming some non existent social structure and demanding change, without laying out any arguments. Or complaining about people talking about the business side of the issue. Way to be the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh please. frequency's one of the best posters I've seen, here or anywhere else on GAF. Shame on you.

 

[Riposte]

I have yet to find one poster that has the same attitude in other threads where people voice their discontent.

I think you'll find that I'm pretty consistent on drawing the line between companies and their customers. If I'm wrong, shame me. I often berate people for being too attached to franchises/brands ("how dare they ruin game x") and for thinking less of people who are glad to deal with "anti-consumer" practices because they like the game more ("If you support game's Y DLC you are an idiot"). If I decide then that game z's has too many barriers or I don't like where it goes despite liking previous games in the series, I'll voice my discontent and be on my way, no more or no less.

I pretty much dislike all positions which take on a righteous bent while standing in an arena which very much amounts to tastes and accepting responsibility for acting on those tastes. Probably the cruelest thing I can say, with all honesty, is that I do not believe in special treatment of this particular set of tastes(whether it be themes that appeal more to a specific idea of girls, female protags, etc) being satiated by developers (in other words it is no different from people asking for less FPS or less violent games or for more old school JRPGs, etc).

However I'm someone who is perfectly fine with the discussion or at least some form of discussion existing (and also voice my discontent when tropes or whatnot affects my enjoyment on games, to varying degrees). I think voicing your concerns to devs is perfectly natural and everyone does it anyway. Even when I disagree with the self-righteous, resentful, and domineering edge of the discussion (or particular examples of taste that don't just sit right with me, e.g. Princess Peach being a damsel being a problem), the sounds it makes is not much different from the kind I find to be a fine way to influence devs - the methods at the moment are effectively inoffensive to me. The point is I simply can't stop myself from disagreeing with them when (some) people show their true colors: self-righteous, resentful, and domineering. The fact someone actively would want others to stop making videogames is completely abhorrent to me, perhaps one of the most disgusting things I've read within the field of videogames. I'm more in favor of removing barriers to power (jobs) rather than separating power (jobs) from those you resent.

On the other hand, what I've been talking about so far is content. There is very little room to argue about things such as sexual harassment or sexist management and I consider it a completely different issue and I have a completely different answer for it (one that supports the victims, if you needed to ask).