Support NeoGAF

[zeldablue]

Problem with that is... sex is almost universally wanted; even if people know it is bad for them to constantly be immersed in it, people like it and it helps sell copies(the most important factor). Hell even Pixar does it(obviously they are less obvious about it, but still) because it sells.

...
This can easily turn away people who aren't male. I enjoy my games without submissive chicks with no clothes on.

That's not to say sexuality is evil. Everyone wants to play as an attractive male or female, but if it feels like pandering it becomes an excruciating experience for me.

This is especially true if it is unfitting for the game or completely demeaning to a female audience.

I think this is why I generally stay away from "M" rated games.

 

[Glix]

All cultural products contain the politics of both the creator and the society that the creator is part of, even when the creator is reacting against it. Even abstract puzzle games reproduce specific aspects of this.

MS. Pac Man is differentiated not by genitalia but by stereotypical symbols of women - clothing accessory & make-up. This says that these are things that define 'female' in our culture, and thus is making a political statement about gender.

None of this is especially new thinking - certainly within critical theory of the Frankfurt School it's been an accepted trope since the 30s, and I've never seen any serious academic criticism that's refuted it.

NO. It says that that is what differentiates and defines SOME women, including Ms. Pac Man. Many women I know wear makeup and accessories.

The political statement is that some women wear makeup and accessories, including Pac Mans girlfriend. That is it.

 

[Shinta]

...
This can easily turn away people who aren't male. I enjoy my games without submissive chicks with no clothes on

Yeah, but you don't speak for all women, and don't pretend for a second that you do. Lots and lots of women like music, games, movies with very overt sexuality.

Does Lady Gaga turn away people who aren't male? I just literally googled her name and 4 naked shots were up on google image. Almost all her fans are female.

50 Shades of Grey is literally about a submissive chick with no clothes on. One of the most popular books in recent times, almost entirely read by women.

Everyone has different taste, different sexual tastes, and different factors in their moral compass. This is why we typically don't advocate censorship. It's best to just avoid what you don't like because at the end of the day, no one can speak for anyone else. Ever.

 

[RockTurtle]

No, not at all. I know this point gets kind of lost and I'm not really clear on it to be fair, but I'm not even talking about thematic depth or story or anything like that, I was specifically referring to indulgence and power fantasy and sexual fantasy. I'm not saying all games need to be serious or high art or anything like that, I'm saying we should be wary of how much of gaming (primarily, to be fair, the AAA market) skews towards gratuitous fantasy fulfillment.

and i think it's a valid statement.

However i feel that the singling out of gaming as being disproportionate in nothing but AAA gratuitous fantasy fulfillment is an argument that is derivative of any medium. How many blockbuster movies this year were nothing but remakes or calculated creative works?

if it sells, that's what people want. You know what made me stop hating on people that play nothing but CoD and sports games all year when its the same game released on the same engine? when i kept buying dynasty warrior games release after release and thought myself superior in terms of gaming taste and saw how many copies i had in my collection.

people who frequent gaming forums are a different breed. we are hardcore and dedicated enough to do so. So our "tastes" are more refined in our minds and we wish to let others experience what we feel. and sometimes that can cloud our judgement not only to other mediums, but genres within our medium. and other people's tastes and opinions.

...
This can easily turn away people who aren't male. I enjoy my games without submissive chicks with no clothes on.

That's not to say sexuality is evil. Everyone wants to play as an attractive male or female, but if it feels like pandering it becomes an excruciating experience for me.

This is especially true if it is unfitting for the game or completely demeaning to a female audience.

I think this is why I generally stay away from "M" rated games.

you voted with your wallet. that's a good step. however, don't make the mistake and think you are the norm or derivative of a specific mindset or demographic. nobody is. it's impossible to take into account personal tastes of millions of people at once, but the reason some tropes SELL is because PEOPLE LIKE IT.

if people hated it, it wouldn't sell. So if you buy more non-pandering games the creation of such games will be justified. but i don't think it's wrong to give people the choice for games that pander to them. or to lambaste them as monsters for it.

 

[sploatee]

and nobody is stopping those games from being made. but the "games are not mature like movies/books" statement has been parroted constantly in so many threads and by so many people that it loses its luster as an argument.

i think i speak for everyone when variety is definitely welcome. But the statement above makes it seem like we should only make "Citizen Kanes" and "no Michael Bays" because that's the only way we can mature the medium.

i would Appreciate more "the Last of Us" but i won't deny others their chances at CoDs or hell, even dead or alive: extreme beach volleyball.

No, no, no, not at all. That's not the point I'm making. I am the anti either/or. Did I mention anything about maturity? I just don't like Michael Bay, that's all.

I'm not on some crusade here, you know, and I'm happy enough with what I like to be comfortable with people liking different things to me. My points are:

1. Internet = bonkers echo chamber which magnifies these things ad infinitum and pushes people into adopting and then defending positions until they spontaneously combust.

2. Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, prejudice generally = Bad.

3. So-called 'dumb' games like CoD = OK if you like em. Not every game has to be "clever".

4. Diversity in games = Good. Because it means you get yer Proteus, Flower, Journey, Gone Home etc alongside yer CoD.

Both the 'dumb' game advocates and the 'diversity' advocates get far too earnest and insist on arguing their position to the exclusivity of the other. It makes no sense. I'm quite happy watching both Pacific Rim and [insert really clever subtitled film, preferably in black and white]. Tribalism is what gets me down. And - to bring it all back to the topic - OP's post is about as tribal as you can get.

 

[RockTurtle]

stuff

duly noted! and that's what i was saying too but i tend to have to rewrite statements cause what i want to say doesn't always translate well when i write!

 

[sploatee]

duly noted! and that's what i was saying too but i tend to have to rewrite statements cause what i want to say doesn't always translate well when i write!

Ya see, it's that damn internet again!!!

 

[The Technomancer]

Not sure if this is the thread to discuss CoD but I do have actual problems with that series and they're not because the games are "dumb" or even "violent" but because the contextual presentation in those games, especially the last few entries, is really fucked up.

 

[RockTurtle]

Not sure if this is the thread to discuss CoD but I do have actual problems with that series and they're not because the games are "dumb" or even "violent" but because the contextual presentation in those games, especially the last few entries, is really fucked up.

yeah it's gotten kinda irky. but i vote with my wallet!

 

[Giolon]

This is the #1, single most important question. And without a doubt, it is the question that is avoided at all costs for many social justice writers. The OP is very interesting, in that he actually for once didn't avoid stating what his goals were.

Almost everyone avoids saying it, and goes to great lengths to keep it as vague as possible. Because in reality, many people have goals that line up with the OP, but they are ugly and toxic when you state them out loud. So they shroud them in vagueness and avoid the question.

Every single social justice writer should state their goals along with their criticism. The end goal is the entire point of the criticism.

That's the biggest problem I have with the people who's social justice points of view on gaming I've experienced. When you get down to asking them directly "So, do you want this banned?". They'll hem and they'll haw and say "no, no, I don't want to ban or force anyone to do anything!" -- that they just want people to be more aware, and that they want to be inclusive and have a discussion, but rarely will anyone admit to wanting the content they dislike to entirely go away.

Tycho's take on the issue when it came up over Dragon's Crown, is one of the most eloquent I've seen:

It’s very weird to pull up a story about a game with frankly visionary art and hear why it shouldn’t exist, or to hear what I supposedly fantasize about, or what kind of power I supposedly revere, and any attempt to defend oneself from these psychotic projections or to assert that creators may create is evidence of a dark seed sprouting in the heart. It’s an incredible state of affairs. They’re not censors, though - oh, no no. You’ll understand it eventually; what you need to do is censor yourself.

And there is rarely any discussion, because no matter who you are, if you don't agree with their point of view, there's no way to talk to them. Your very being isn't good enough, no matter who you are. If you're a white, straight, male you're automatically disqualified. Even if you're in the minority of minorities, it doesn't count because your opinion obviously doesn't represent everyone of that minority.

There's little inclusivity that I've seen - mostly the attempt to silence dissenting opinions and frame their holders as bad, bigoted people. If you want to have a discussion, you have to be willing to face the fact that some people are going to disagree with you, and you have to be willing to accept their existence, and if not welcome then tolerate their presence, and respect their position. And absolutely - argue against them until you're blue in the face, but do so without demonizing. If you want to convince me that your position is right, you'll have to do it without insinuating that I'm a bad person for disagreeing with you.

When the goal is to get more points of view represented, and more types of gaming content made, I am in full support. But when the goal is to get rid of points of view or content that someone doesn't like, I will invariably stand with the opposition.

 

[unbias]

Not sure if this is the thread to discuss CoD but I do have actual problems with that series and they're not because the games are "dumb" or even "violent" but because the contextual presentation in those games, especially the last few entries, is really fucked up.

I think they are just running out of idea's and jumping on some very old stories and just repackaging them. One of the many downsides to yearly series.

 

[The Technomancer]

I think they are just running out of idea's and jumping on some very old stories and just repackaging them. One of the many downsides to yearly series.

Well I mean, to paraphrase one of my favorite media critics with something like MW3 even if its creators are not necessarily racist it creates and indulges in a scenario in which a person can "get their Arab-killing rocks off" without any kind of tonal resistance and its all in the name of fun.

 

[The Technomancer]

That's the biggest problem I have with the people who's social justice points of view on gaming I've experienced. When you get down to asking them directly "So, do you want this banned?". They'll hem and they'll haw and say "no, no, I don't want to ban or force anyone to do anything!" -- that they just want people to be more aware, and that they want to be inclusive and have a discussion, but rarely will anyone admit to wanting the content they dislike to entirely go away.

Tycho's take on the issue when it came up over Dragon's Crown, is one of the most eloquent I've seen:


And there is no discussion, because no matter who you are, if you don't agree with their point of view, there's no way to talk to them. Your very being isn't good enough, no matter who you are. If you're a white, straight, male you're automatically disqualified. Even if you're in the minority of minorities, it doesn't count because your opinion obviously doesn't represent everyone of that minority.

There's little inclusivity that I've seen - mostly the attempt to silence dissenting opinions and frame their holders as bad, bigoted people. If you want to have a discussion, you have to be willing to face the fact that some people are going to disagree with you, and you have to be willing to accept their existence, and if not welcome then tolerate their presence, and respect their position. And absolutely - argue against them until you're blue in the face, but do so without demonizing.

When the goal is to get more points of view represented, and more types of gaming content made, I am in full support. But when the goal is to get rid of points of view or content that someone doesn't like, I will invariably stand with the opposition.

While I agree that this can be problematic it also is not in any way, shape, or form unique to the one "side" of the issue. Any attempt to affect any opinion about how something might be "problematic" or "insensitive" or "sexist" is instantly met with a goddamn barrage of utterly impenetrable cries of CENSORSHIP and ITS ART and DON'T TAKE AWAY MY TOYS. As if a general decrease in the amount of games featuring blatant sexualization or whatever is suddenly going to leave them without any games they want to play

 

[RockTurtle]

While I agree that this can be problematic it also is not in any way, shape, or form unique to the one "side" of the issue. Any attempt to affect any opinion about how something might be "problematic" or "insensitive" or "sexist" is instantly met with a goddamn barrage of cries of CENSORSHIP and ITS ART and DON'T TAKE AWAY MY TOYS

but the OP stated that is exactly what he wanted though. censoring or straight up affecting the creation of some games. so aren't SOME of those cries for concern.....vindicated?

EDIT: i learned a new word today!

vin·di·cate
ˈvindəˌkāt/Submit
verb
past tense: vindicated; past participle: vindicated
1.
clear (someone) of blame or suspicion.
"hospital staff were vindicated by the inquest verdict"
synonyms: acquit, clear, absolve, exonerate; More

2.show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified.
"more sober views were vindicated by events"

 

[castlemadeofsand]

Well I mean, to paraphrase one of my favorite media critics with something like MW3 even if its creators are not necessarily racist it creates and indulges in a scenario in which a person can "get their Arab-killing rocks off" without any kind of tonal resistance and its all in the name of fun.

whats different about that and killing nazi's in the older games? or the mayhem in gta games

 

[faceless007]

This is the #1, single most important question. And without a doubt, it is the question that is avoided at all costs for many social justice writers. The OP is very interesting, in that he actually for once didn't avoid stating what his goals were.

Almost everyone avoids saying it, and goes to great lengths to keep it as vague as possible. Because in reality, many people have goals that line up with the OP, but they are ugly and toxic when you state them out loud. So they shroud them in vagueness and avoid the question.

Every single social justice writer should state their goals along with their criticism. The end goal is the entire point of the criticism.

Well, your thesis is essentially an exercise in mind-reading couched in unquantified terms like "many" and "almost everyone" so I'm skeptical. But if you remember, I tried a while ago:

Ideally, I think it's something like a medium where (in some way that controls for stories about historical events) there are just as many great stories about compelling female characters as there are about compelling male characters, where female characters get just as much agency and active roles to perform as males, where stories about females are not immediately dismissed as unrelatable or unrealistic and don't need to be peppered with outdated female-specific tropes in order to justify the use of a female, and where the female doesn't necessarily need to be extremely beautiful to even be considered.

I don't know how much it will matter -- I knew as soon as I read the OP several of you would seize onto it with "Look, this is what all feminists really believe" -- but let me state for the record OP doesn't speak for me, or most of the reasonable feminists or social justice advocates I converse with, and I denounce his stated purpose of trying to "get rid" of objectionable content. I always thought the Dragon's Crown and God of War issues were trivial microscopic distractions from the broader structural issues I would prefer to talk about. But discussion of structural issues and broad trends rarely seems to get any traction when it's so much easier to start an incendiary topic about a single miniscule surface-level example.

 

[zeldablue]

Yeah, but you don't speak for all women, and don't pretend for a second that you do. Lots and lots of women like music, games, movies with very overt sexuality.

Does Lady Gaga turn away people who aren't male? I just literally googled her name and 4 naked shots were up on google image. Almost all her fans are female.

50 Shades of Grey is literally about a submissive chick with no clothes on. One of the most popular books in recent times, almost entirely read by women.

Everyone has different taste, different sexual tastes, and different factors in their moral compass. This is why we typically don't advocate censorship. It's best to just avoid what you don't like because at the end of the day, no one can speak for anyone else. Ever.

He said it was universal...and I was telling him that it wasn't for everyone. I realize I'm part of a strange minority where I don't play games, watch movies, or read books for sex...but I like to think there are others too who play games and enjoy media for other reasons. I'm sure 50 shades spends a lot of time describing a sexy guy without any clothes, but most games don't show butt naked dudes because it could easily scare away the straight male crowd...especially those with slightly homophobic tendencies.

So yes, I'm voting with my wallet like many females who have probably enjoyed candy crush over God of War. Lol.

Our society is saturated in this sort of thing, so men and women are equally desensitized to it. Girls enjoy gangsta rap about slapping women because its the norm, it's mainstream. Similarly a lot of gay people do what they can to be straight in order to keep up with what society tells them.

I'm not oppose to it. I enjoy raunchy, silly things and I even like sexist jokes. I don't see myself as a feminist...I just don't like playing games where its really obvious that they didn't want me to play it. Would you play 20 hours of Barbie's Mansion? Lol.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Well, your thesis is essentially an exercise in mind-reading couched in unquantified terms like "many" and "almost everyone" so I'm skeptical. But if you remember, I tried a while ago:

I don't know how much it will matter -- I knew as soon as I read the OP several of you would seize onto it with "Look, this is what all feminists really believe" -- but let me state for the record OP doesn't speak for me, or most of the reasonable feminists or social justice advocates I converse with, and I denounce his stated purpose of trying to "get rid" of objectionable content. I always thought the Dragon's Crown and God of War issues were trivial microscopic distractions from the broader structural issues I would prefer to talk about. But discussion of structural issues and broad trends rarely seems to get any traction when it's so much easier to start an incendiary topic about a single miniscule surface-level example.

Another quality post by faceless007. Thanks for showing up.

 

[EvaUnit02]

What if the creator is black/female and has a black/female character?

This is what happens: they are forced to change it to a white male or else their game won't be funded or released.

Your scenario has never happened that I can think of. But the scenario I laid out HAS happened literally all the time. Starfox, Remember Me, even TLoU.

Lol

Not literally all the time. In fact, not even most of the time.

...and folks need to give the Sarkeesian Starfox angle a rest. Crystal wasn't relegated to a secondary role because she was female. She was relegated to a secondary role because she wasn't Starfox.

 

[The Technomancer]

but the OP stated that is exactly what he wanted though. censoring or straight up affecting the creation of some games. so aren't SOME of those cries for concern.....vindicated?

Eh, I see where you're coming from but a.)no I really don't think that people, even a "movement" trying to influence something's creation is censorship, its just one of the forms the creator-consumer dynamic takes and b.)really, even if they are successful there will still be plenty of toys left.

 

[casabolg]

I'll just share my thoughts on the current movement towards more diversity of games.I feel it's taken a very easy to do but ineffective and exclusionary route that kicks up more of a storm than good. Strangely, excluding women in anything beyond discussion:

We quickly talk about the need for people to stop thinking that males need a identical male character to relate to but we acknowledge that a barrier that keeps women out of being interesting out of playing games is the lack of representation and lack of good representation of women for them. Unless we just want to take The France Route and fight for legally enforced diversity, we should be trying to fight both sides on this. That would be the most effective method.

To ignore that women are a vast majority of mainstream gamers and moreover hardcore gamers leaves them in an ill-deserved feeling of being wronged, which promotes inaction for them to fix the issue but for others to do it for them. If we were to acknowledge this inequality, then goals can be placed to fix them and the organization of resolving those goals builds friendship, community, and awareness. If you were to focus the idea of getting men less interested in the idea of playing someone similar to them, then it would be both fair and useful for women to be gotten more into games by getting women less interested in the idea of playing someone similar to themselves as well, along with interested in games or more games in general. Focusing on building community for women to start playing games more and holding up things they enjoy would make for a solution-centric rhetoric instead of a problem-centric rhetoric, gain a larger community for women to take up the mic and support one another playing online, and more than anything, build faster an audience for women for the markets to adhere to and awareness for the growth of this movement.

Our current movement has focused on what we don't like and basically tried to promote change purely by wanting to change what people are interested in and leaving women with the idea that they have no agency in this situation while men have all of it. They ignore entirely why things are in this current situation and take no effort to take control of those elements. I have no idea why. It's definitely harder to do but it would actually gets things accomplished in a greater way than the way we are now and does less overall damage. Just sitting on wanting people to change breeds anger from both sides.

All of this said, the most difficult thing to note is that many arguments I've seen on why diverse representation is important is that all races and sex can more easily connect to, listen to, and accept things from a similar looking person. This can be used to make an argument as to why things haven't changed and the majority gets their way still. I'd worry if this criticism can actually accomplish something in overcoming this concept on an unconscious level.

 

[Devolution]

I don't know how much it will matter -- I knew as soon as I read the OP several of you would seize onto it with "Look, this is what all feminists really believe" -- but let me state for the record OP doesn't speak for me, or most of the reasonable feminists or social justice advocates I converse with, and I denounce his stated purpose of trying to "get rid" of objectionable content. I always thought the Dragon's Crown and God of War issues were trivial microscopic distractions from the broader structural issues I would prefer to talk about. But discussion of structural issues and broad trends rarely seems to get any traction when it's so much easier to start an incendiary topic about a single miniscule surface-level example.

Yup.

 

[Giolon]

While I agree that this can be problematic it also is not in any way, shape, or form unique to the one "side" of the issue. Any attempt to affect any opinion about how something might be "problematic" or "insensitive" or "sexist" is instantly met with a goddamn barrage of utterly impenetrable cries of CENSORSHIP and ITS ART and DON'T TAKE AWAY MY TOYS. As if a general decrease in the amount of games featuring blatant sexualization or whatever is suddenly going to leave them without any games they want to play

I agree - I am not going to condone all of the responses from the opposition as perfectly reasoned and made in good faith either - including some of my own.

 

[Lowlander2]

I read the entire OP and was fairly confused as to the greater context of the situation. I've never even heard of this Maddy Meyers person, and without a link to the referenced article, I was forced to look at her Twitter timeline to try to find and it and failed there (she tweets too much, couldn't find it).

I was going to say that I did post the relevant links in the post, but then I realised what my mistake was. So, here is the article in question.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't know how much it will matter -- I knew as soon as I read the OP several of you would seize onto it with "Look, this is what all feminists really believe" -- but let me state for the record OP doesn't speak for me, or most of the reasonable feminists or social justice advocates I converse with, and I denounce his stated purpose of trying to "get rid" of objectionable content. I always thought the Dragon's Crown and God of War issues were trivial microscopic distractions from the broader structural issues I would prefer to talk about. But discussion of structural issues and broad trends rarely seems to get any traction when it's so much easier to start an incendiary topic about a single miniscule surface-level example.

Good lord this. I mean here on GAF we've got it fairly good, we can actually have large multi-page threads about sex appeal in games in general that remain (somewhat) civil but elsewhere controversies like Dragon's Crown and God of War are basically the only time the topic even seems to come up

 

[zeldablue]

Not literally all the time. In fact, not even most of the time.

...and folks need to give the Sarkeesian Starfox angle a rest. Crystal wasn't relegated to a secondary role because she was female. She was relegated to a secondary role because she wasn't Starfox.

Just like Prince Fluff. :C

 

[RockTurtle]

I'm not oppose to it. I enjoy raunchy, silly things and I even like sexist jokes. I don't see myself as a feminist...I just don't like playing games where its really obvious that they didn't want me to play it. Would you play 20 hours of Barbie's Mansion? Lol

are there games where it specifically says women can't play it? do they happen to have stuff that YOU PERSONALLY don't find appealing? or do you mean games with a particularly male demographic in mind? which in turn i ask, how is that different than marketing to a niche market like tabletop . or in the case of ms pacman SPECIFICALLY made to appeal to women?

do barbie games say you can't play them if you are male?

The default character is a male (especially a white male) unless there is a reason to make it something else. It's the "everyman," which every other person on Earth is assumed to be able to relate to entirely, whereas it's considered an unrealistic hindrance to ask white males to be able to relate to anyone else.

if this small brown boy in a 3rd world country could still relate to Link, maybe it's easier than you think? even when i didn't know english all i thought was about the cool graphics (At the time) and gameplay. but of course i can't speak for everyone, specially from a western point of view! all i cared was that i was a hero!

 

[sploatee]

Well, your thesis is essentially an exercise in mind-reading couched in unquantified terms like "many" and "almost everyone" so I'm skeptical. But if you remember, I tried a while ago:



I don't know how much it will matter -- I knew as soon as I read the OP several of you would seize onto it with "Look, this is what all feminists really believe" -- but let me state for the record OP doesn't speak for me, or most of the reasonable feminists or social justice advocates I converse with, and I denounce his stated purpose of trying to "get rid" of objectionable content. I always thought the Dragon's Crown and God of War issues were trivial microscopic distractions from the broader structural issues I would prefer to talk about. But discussion of structural issues and broad trends rarely seems to get any traction when it's so much easier to start an incendiary topic about a single miniscule surface-level example.

Well...talk about the broad trends and structural issues then. I'm all ears. Make me think.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well...talk about the broad trends and structural issues then. I'm all ears. Make me think.

The entire post they linked too is a great starting point, or at least an overview of some fundamental issues. This in particular pretty much sums up a huge swathe of my thoughts:

Which brings me to arguments like Anita's. Without offering an opinion as to how successful she is, part of the purpose of these arguments is to get both developers and consumers to think a little more analytically about story devices, even the obvious ones, and to get people to question the value and necessity of the devices they use. Just because something has a long tradition and history behind it doesn't make it good. One of the few true rebuttals made against Anita (that also misses the entire point) is that many of these tropes are used not because the developers deliberately wanted to oppress the female characters, but because it's an archetypal and widely-understood device and they didn't see the need to spend any time writing something better or more original. This is true.

But the next step for anyone legitimately interested in media criticism is to question that rationale: If these devices are agreed to be used more due to laziness and not questioning certain cliches, why not find better story devices, or at least find more creative and non-cliched ways to use them? It's difficult to write about this without pointing to examples, and the problem is the instant you do, you're accused of cherry-picking and calling those authors bigots. But the purpose of using examples, as Anita's series is attempting to do, is basically to look at specific facets of a work and ask "Why was that done, and is it necessary to the overall work to do it that way?" This doesn't need to be restricted to story and character tropes, you can also do it with cinematography, set/level design, editing, pacing, music, etc. Every facet of an artistic work is open for analysis and debate as to what its contribution to the overall work is.

...

That is, essentially, the problem: that even though there are very many stories where gender is not a determining plot device, the vast majority of them center around men anyway, and whatever female characters are present are usually reduced to inactive, passive, victimized, secondary (and often gratuitously sexualized) roles. The default character is a male (especially a white male) unless there is a reason to make it something else. It's the "everyman," which every other person on Earth is assumed to be able to relate to entirely, whereas it's considered an unrealistic hindrance to ask white males to be able to relate to anyone else. This is the "relatable" argument sometimes seen, the idea that men would have a hard time relating to a female protagonist, even though women are asked and expected to relate to male protagonists in the vast majority of stories they see.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

...and folks need to give the Sarkeesian Starfox angle a rest. Crystal wasn't relegated to a secondary role because she was female. She was relegated to a secondary role because she wasn't Starfox.

You forgot to add "and turned into a sexualized, objectified, vapid, helpless damsel in distress" after "relegated to secondary role"....

 

[zeldablue]

are there games where it specifically says women can't play it? do they happen to have stuff that YOU PERSONALLY don't find appealing? or do you mean games with a particularly male demographic in mind? which in turn i ask, how is that different than marketing to a niche market like tabletop . or in the case of ms pacman SPECIFICALLY made to appeal to women?

do barbie games say you can't play them if you are male?

Uhh, I'm having a hard time answering so I'll just list games that I love and gave a chance along with games that turned me away somehow on a subconscious level.

Love: Zelda, Mario, Smash Bros, Devil May Cry1, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Fire Emblem, Halo 2, Kirby, EarthBound, Soul Calibur, Catherine, Tales of Symphonia, Walking Dead, Tomb Raider legends, Trauma Center

Eh: Bayonetta, Animal Crossing, Call of Duty...

Irked: GTA, Duke Nukem, God of War, games with too much shooting. Also, Cooking mama.

The reasons for being turned off certainly vary, but it usually comes down to the game's core mechanics topped off with too much gruff male parts. Cooking Mama was just silly.

New question: would you spend 60 bucks to play Barbies Mansion? Of course You can play it but...would you play it?

if this small brown boy in a 3rd world country could still relate to Link, maybe it's easier than you think? even when i didn't know english all i thought was about the cool graphics (At the time) and gameplay. but of course i can't speak for everyone, specially from a western point of view! all i cared was that i was a hero!

If its Link vs some chick character who looks like me. I'd definitely pick Link.

 

[sploatee]

The entire post they linked too is a great starting point, or at least an overview of some fundamental issues. This in particular pretty much sums up a huge swathe of my thoughts:

Yeah, its a good read and I agree with it. The points made remind me of the Bechdel test.

I have an inherent discomfort with anything that is too earnest though. It might be that I'm from Manchester. Part of the joy of games can be in stupidity and reckless violence. If there was a game which involved tons of reckless sex, I'd probably enjoy that too.

And although I agree 100% with that post, I find it hard to get too passionate about supporting that kind of view when I'll happily spend a good few hours stabbing policemen, stealing boats and destroying alien civilisations that I never took the time to understand.

Edit: sorry, I read that back and it was a bit more oblique than it should've been. My question is - I'm a female gamer. I enjoy blindly violent games as much as I enjoy more thoughtful games. All that matters to me is that it's a good game. I feel hypocritical getting too deep into discussions about sexism in games when I find it fun murdering people on screen.

 

[unbias]

The entire post they linked too is a great starting point, or at least an overview of some fundamental issues. This in particular pretty much sums up a huge swathe of my thoughts:

Like I said/linked earlier, I think asking for these things, before fixing the most basic of story telling issues games have is just premature. I think asking for my diversity, socially, with story telling is putting the cart before the horse. The reason most of this stuff exists is much more about expectations and sales then it is anything else, imo. Tropes, sexuality, lack of personhood and ect are used because they are quick fillers. Until games regularly change the approach of gameplay, I don't think you are going to see much divergence of anything in AAA games.

I, personally, think focusing on social diversity before structural diversity is just creating an echo chamber among internet forumites and activists.

 

[castlemadeofsand]

Uhh, I'm having a hard time answering so I'll just list games I love and have a chance along with games that turned me away somehow on the subconscious level.

Love: Zelda, Mario, Smash Bros, Devil May Cry1, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Fire Emblem, Halo 2, Kirby, Soul Calibur, Catherine, Tales of Symphonia, Walking Dead, Tomb Raider legends, Trauma Center

Eh: Bayonetta, Animal Crossing, Call of Duty...

Irked: GTA, Duke Nukem, God of War, games with too much shooting. Also, Cooking mama.

The reasons for being turned off certainly vary, but it usually comes down to the game's core mechanics topped off with too much gruff male parts. Cooking Mama was just silly.



If its Link vs some chick character who looks like me. I'd definitely pick Link.

whats so silly about cooking mama?

 

[RockTurtle]

Uhh, I'm having a hard time answering so I'll just list games I love and have a chance along with games that turned me away somehow on the subconscious level.

Love: Zelda, Mario, Smash Bros, Devil May Cry1, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Fire Emblem, Halo 2, Kirby, Soul Calibur, Catherine, Tales of Symphonia, Walking Dead, Tomb Raider legends, Trauma Center

Eh: Bayonetta, Animal Crossing, Call of Duty...

Irked: GTA, Duke Nukem, God of War, games with too much shooting. Also, Cooking mama.

The reasons for being turned off certainly vary, but it usually comes down to the game's core mechanics topped off with too much gruff male parts. Cooking Mama was just silly.



If its Link vs some chick character who looks like me. I'd definitely pick Link.

so from what i noticed you don't like "realistic violent" games and enjoy more fantasy violence (i.e. halo's beams and lasers compared to CoD).

and yeah, when i played as jill in resident evil my thoughts werent "im playing a girl ewww" it was "gotdamn ZOMBIES!"

I'm always irked a lot of the discussions concern a WESTERN american/european viewpoint and disregard the asian/latin demographic. Talk about inclusion but don't include others. even the ones doing not creating inclusive media!

Yeah, its a good read and I agree with it. The points made remind me of the Bechdel test.

I have an inherent discomfort with anything that is too earnest though. It might be that I'm from Manchester. Part of the joy of games can be in stupidity and reckless violence. If there was a game which involved tons of reckless sex, I'd probably enjoy that too.

And although I agree 100% with that post, I find it hard to get too passionate about supporting that kind of view when I'll happily spend a good few hours stabbing policemen, stealing boats and destroying alien civilisations that I never took the time to understand.

i think its because you are AWARE of the social aspects of a medium you also take into account the context behind a lot of them, and that not everything is made to specifically discriminate or put down races genders or sexual orientations. that some games are just games for the sake of being games, and need to include basic tropes THAT ARE UNIVERSAL.

it's kind of like how sometimes people who have fun overreacting to simple works in a medium to try and apply a view that wasn't the original pursuit. Like saying Beauty and the Beast was nothing more than an exercise in Stockholm syndrome and that it promotes sticking with abusive relationships.

 

[zeldablue]

whats so silly about cooking mama?

Motion. Controls. :|

 

[casabolg]

Motion. Controls. :|

Well that was a better response than expected.

 

[The Technomancer]

Like I said/linked earlier, I think asking for these things, before fixing the most basic of story telling issues games have is just premature. I think asking for my diversity, socially, with story telling is putting the cart before the horse. The reason most of this stuff exists is much more about expectations and sales then it is anything else, imo. Tropes, sexuality, lack of personhood and ect are used because they are quick fillers. Until games regularly change the approach of gameplay, I don't think you are going to see much divergence of anything in AAA games.

I, personally, think focusing on social diversity before structural diversity is just creating an echo chamber among internet forumites and activists.

oh I definitely agree that we need structural diversity as well. Although to hear some people talk we shouldn't even be discussing that, we should just be voting with our wallets and hoping that developers finally wake up and stop all chasing that CoD money

 

[zeldablue]

Well that was a better response than expected.

I actually liked the premise of making food from all the different regions of the world. But they never gave me the real ingredients and the controls are pretty much broken.

It has nothing to do with girls being in the kitchen! Lol

 

[The Technomancer]

I actually liked the premise of making food from all the different regions of the world. But they never gave me the real ingredients and the controls are pretty much broken.

It has nothing to do with girls being in the kitchen! Lol

Funnily enough gaming has largely not had any real problems with the "domestic female" stereotype, although I'm unsure if that's due to any actual awareness or just because not many games deal with "the home". Either way I don't really have a problem with Cooking Mama then on that level because its not symptomatic of some larger trend.

 

[RockTurtle]

oh I definitely agree that we need structural diversity as well. Although to hear some people talk we shouldn't even be discussing that, we should just be voting with our wallets and hoping that developers finally wake up and stop all chasing that CoD money

yeah those people are bad!

 

[Lowlander2]

Man Lowlander 2 has one hell of a thread to come back to in the morning...

It's not quite as bad as I would have thought, given the initial wave of posts telling me I was various bad things for asking Dragon's Crown to disappear. And for the record, NO, that is not the case. I was using it as a general metric because other people hated its character design so much they didn't want to see it propagate.

My policy on games, after the entire campaign made against GTA V, is such that I won't say a thing about a game until I play it. So I can't say I want Dragon's Crown to go away unless I play it and it turns out to be that bad in terms of representation. But I'm not going to say whether it is that bad until I've played it. So I don't have any feelings towards the game beyond observing others' feelings on it.

As for Penny Arcade, a loss of jobs carries too much weight and responsibility for me to ask for it. It's hyperbolic to say so. But yes, I do think they needed to be taken to greater task, because good Lord, the shit that came out of Mike and Jerry's mouthes last year.

But for the rest of that paragraph, I didn't have an investment either way. I didn't care about Ascension's trophy, I didn't care about Dragon's Crown or Killer Is Dead. Those are general metrics that people involved DID care about, and I was gauging how those were affected in response to them, and in the case of Dragon's Crown, they went backwards and the game sold over expectations. And that's all I was trying to say.

 

[zeldablue]

yeah those people are bad!

Bad for me. They screwed up Resident Evil. And maybe survival horror in general.

 

[RockTurtle]

Bad for me. They screwed up Resident Evil. And maybe survival horror in general.

i don't think that was the point technomancer was making ;p

but i know what you mean! COD makes all games bad by proxy of companies trying to chase that COD money!

 

[unbias]

oh I definitely agree that we need structural diversity as well. Although to hear some people talk we shouldn't even be discussing that, we should just be voting with our wallets and hoping that developers finally wake up and stop all chasing that CoD money

Eh, it is understandable, even if I disagree with them. Lately there has been a lot of talk about the AAA trend, and if you have been a fan of the large majority of the AAA games as of late you would feel your enjoyment may be threatened. And that is just it, diversity WILL impact those who are perfectly happy with the status quo. More structural diversity in games mean more different type of games, which will mean less of the main type.

 

[castlemadeofsand]

I actually liked the premise of making food from all the different regions of the world. But they never gave me the real ingredients and the controls are pretty much broken.

It has nothing to do with girls being in the kitchen! Lol

i was just curious lol. my sister loves the game but she does't play many games and probably didn't understand the controls sucked

 

[The Technomancer]

Eh, it is understandable, even if I disagree with them. Lately there has been a lot of talk about the AAA trend, and if you have been a fan of the large majority of the AAA games as of late you would feel your enjoyment may be threatened. And that is just it, diversity WILL impact those who are perfectly happy with the status quo. More structural diversity in games mean more different type of games, which will mean less of the main type.

yeah, but...okay, like, I'm into really niche games. Really niche. People who like young anime girls in skimpy outfits probably get five times as many games a year as I do aimed at my particular tastes. And I still find plenty of ways to enjoy a lot of diverse games from a lot of different genres and styles. If the people whom the vast majority of the market is aimed at are worried that as a side effect of diversity there might end up being slightly less games aimed at them...well...I understand that on some level but I really can't be too sympathetic. They're still going to have bucketloads of toys.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Eh, it is understandable, even if I disagree with them. Lately there has been a lot of talk about the AAA trend, and if you have been a fan of the large majority of the AAA games as of late you would feel your enjoyment may be threatened. And that is just it, diversity WILL impact those who are perfectly happy with the status quo. More structural diversity in games mean more different type of games, which will mean less of the main type.

...Is this a real argument now? Like, seriously, people are upset because the market is diversifying and they don't have enough dudebro shooters and somehow we should respect this asinine point of view?

 

[unbias]

yeah, but...okay, like, I'm into really niche games. Really niche. People who like young anime girls in skimpy outfits probably get five times as many games a year as I do aimed at my particular tastes. And I still find plenty of ways to enjoy a lot of diverse games from a lot of different genres and styles. If the people whom the vast majority of the market is aimed at are worried that as a side effect of diversity there might end up being slightly less games aimed at them...well...I understand that on some level but I really can't be too sympathetic. They're still going to have bucketloads of toys.

Well that is just it... I said I udnerstand it, I never said I'm sympathetic. The consumers goal is to negotiate what he or she wants, and if trying to argue your way into some AAA games that suit your fancy helps, then by all means. It is impossible for everyone to be satisfied 100% in a market, so trying to help foster demand for yourself is perfectly acceptable imo. I, personally, find no need to be sympathetic to people who are happy with the status quo, I just need to understand their perspective.

 

[RockTurtle]

yeah, but...okay, like, I'm into really niche games. Really niche. People who like young anime girls in skimpy outfits probably get five times as many games a year as I do aimed at my particular tastes. And I still find plenty of ways to enjoy a lot of diverse games from a lot of different genres and styles. If the people whom the vast majority of the market is aimed at are worried that as a side effect of diversity there might end up being slightly less games aimed at them...well...I understand that on some level but I really can't be too sympathetic. They're still going to have bucketloads of toys.

those people usually don't join gaming forums or even follow gaming news outside of the signs in gamestop.

i should know. i teach high school so i get first hand look at the demographic tastes. being part of a gaming forum makes you as a gamer a niche within a niche within a niche. so those AAA gamers are usually not even concerned or care about these types of subject enough to have an opinion.

hell most of them didnt even know they were about to be blocked from buying used games on xbox one, all they cared about is playing the next COD and paying extra for season pass for content thats not even guaranteed to be good!