Support NeoGAF

[BeforeJam]

I really can't wrap my head around this kind of thing.

Not once has the gender of the main character ever influenced my decision to buy a game or not. Is it really such an issue? Is there really such a large part of the audience out there that is put off by playing a female role?

It's just baffling. I mean how does the mind process of that person even work?

Someone provide me a sad yet humourous internal monologue of some idiot who wouldn't buy a game because the main character isn't a dude, otherwise I'll never get it.

Considering the majority of these types of games that have a female protagonist that aren't, like, JRPGs end up bombing, yeah, it's an issue with publishers. SE is pretty much the only company that can get away with it because they have a relatively large female fanbase with Final Fantasy and whatnot.

 

[Mandoric]

I really can't wrap my head around this kind of thing.

Not once has the gender of the main character ever influenced my decision to buy a game or not. Is it really such an issue? Is there really such a large part of the audience out there that is put off by playing a female role?

It's just baffling. I mean how does the mind process of that person even work?

Someone provide me a sad yet humourous internal monologue of some idiot who wouldn't buy a game because the main character isn't a dude, otherwise I'll never get it.

This is GAF, home of "I can't relate to the teenagers and effeminate guys in JRPGs" and so on. Same logic.

There's not really much that can be done about them, other than tapping untapped markets (usually by making a big deal and drawing in people who can't relate to dudebro!) and trying to normalize it until the gamer "us" is defined so wide that it's like gamer LaCroix or Schmidt complaining that he can't get inside the head of weird, foreign character Drake.

 

[Mononoke]

So if this purely comes down to $$, what will eventually change the mind of publishers to start taking "risk" (lol having to calling them risks) and step out of the comfort zone they have set up.

I guess another question is, would publishers really allow their own sexist views, stop them from making more money? So is this at its core, an issue of sexism? Or just an issue of someone trying to make money, but going about it the wrong way?

I guess what I'm really saying is, I would assume most Publishers/Companies are looking at stats/research. They do marketing inquiries, focus groups etc. They do a lot of marketing research. So why is the research coming up with results in a way, that makes them want to stick closely to what they've been doing?

Is the way they do research wrong? Giving false data? I think I read somewhere, maybe it was Naughty Dog? One publisher claimed the marketing research tests they were doing, were already slanted towards the views they wanted to hear.

 

[Sesha]

Look at Tomb Raider, it sold millions and was still considered unsuccessful initially.

It's almost a self fulfilling prophecy too. Games with a male lead do sell better, but games with a female lead don't get nearly as much marketing dollars behind it so which is the problem. It's going to take some publishers to risk the chance to lose money in order to dispel that method of thinking.

Didn't Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Hitman Absolution and Sleeping Dogs initially underperform as well? Pretty sure Tomb Raider had a higher budget than any of those, going by its production values, therefore it had to sell more. Not saying you don't have a point, but Tomb Raider's case was the case of a AAA monster project being absurdly expensive. I don't think the cast of Tomb Raider has much to teach publishers, unless they don't look at the numbers and just assume that Tomb Raider sold badly because Lara is a woman and not Lars Croft instead.

Edit: Yep.

Edit 2: I hate to play armchair mod, but guys, don't resort to personal insults. It's disrespectful and it makes light of the points you yourself are trying to make.

 

[Endo Punk]

You do realize if we use your logic, they would already notice the abysmal sales of Remember Me. That game didn't set the world on fire. Why would they bring up the same conversation when they know it won't have much of an effect on sales. Maybe, I dunno, they actually wanna talk about the issues they experienced.

Yeah I don't know why they are doing it especially when they found a publisher to fund a game with a female protagonist again. Makes them out to be liars, it's hard to trust them this time.

 

[……forgetit]

http://youtu.be/mFf8uU0e1Cc?t=1h41m11s (1:41:11 to 1:44:08)

Talks about Prince of Persia and Pandemonium losing girls/women due to the psychology of the characters. Sexualization and gritty aesthetic changes gender balance and actually made them lose part of their audience.

I'll try finding Anita too.

I've seen the Anita one, and yeah I was one of the people that Prince of Persia lost with Warrior Within. Yeah, I can't think of a time where they've done something like that and it ended up well. Serious games with mass appeal imo should be as inclusive as possible, meaning less sexualized characters. The thing is, I think we're already seeing a swing in that direction.

 

[DJ Crimson]

Yeah I don't know why they are doing it again especially when they found a publisher to fund a game with a female protagonist again. Makes them out to be liars, it's hard to trust them this time.

My post flew right over your head. I'm almost astonished by your blindness.

 

[cafemomo]

Tomb Raider is one of Square's better selling IP's so it would make sense for them to not care about a female love lead.

square has had a female lead in their games since 1994
They aren't unknown to the idea

 

[zeldablue]

Huh, never heard that one before, can you send a link? I'd like to read up on it.

Here's Anita. Skip to the tail end. Like 1:40:00.

Despite being ancient history. Historical precedence beats a vague blanket generalization. His citation never made the claim that Remember Me got it budget halved for having a female lead. He just draws that inference to make Dontnod look better.

The original interview is missing. So I can't find any real proof, but I swear I read it.

 

[kirblar]

RE3 and Dino Crisis are ancient history now.

The Resident Evil series used to have a really good balance of male/female protagonists. Chris and Jill had equal billing in RE, Leon and Claire in RE2, and RE3 was given entirely to Jill. Even Code Veronica and RE0 put the focus on the female lead. RE4 is all Leon's, which is fine as it balances out RE3. RE5 gives the main focus to Chris while Sheva is the secondary character, again kind of reflecting RE0.

It's with RE6 that the trend of male leads becomes a bit worrying. Across three campaigns there are six playable characters, only two of whom are woman and both of whom are secondary to the male lead. I feel at least one of those campaigns would have been better served making the woman the player one character. It feels that, with the success of RE4 and especially RE5, Capcom are afraid to put the focus back on the female characters.

You could argue that, with three playable female characters, Revelations 2 is going to fix this, but at the same time you could argue it's a side-game and doesn't carry the same weight or risk as a mainline title. Unless RE7 comes out with Jill Valentine as the lead with a male character backing her up, I think we're going to be seeing a trend of white male lead characters in RE for a long time.

I would point to the genre shift w/ RE4 as to why this has occurred. Classic RE games (and Revelations) are primarily in the horror genre. RE 4/5/6, on the other hand, are action. Horror is a genre with a long history of female appeal (and female leads) across various mediums, while action movies/games tend to be heavily targeted at males.

 

[jmizzal]

Glad they didnt change their stance

Last year every Nintendo first party game had at least one female playable character, that is a pretty big milestone

 

[zeldablue]

I would point to the genre shift w/ RE4 as to why this has occurred. Classic RE games (and Revelations) are primarily in the horror genre. RE 4/5/6, on the other hand, are action. Horror is a genre with a long history of female appeal (and female leads) across various mediums, while action movies/games tend to be heavily targeted at males.

Yeah. I don't know if people know how much women love horror.

But let's be clear here. Women and girls love the horror genre. I love RE4. But RE5 definitely lost me due to the lack of scary and the boost in testosterone fueled boulder punching. xD

Glad they didnt change their stance

Last year every Nintendo first party game had at least one female playable character, that is a pretty big milestone

Dang. Aunoma keeps getting asked about playable girls and he keeps on acting coy about it too. Though since about 2005 Nintendo's been doing what ever they could to get rid of the "boy's only" brand.

 

[Endo Punk]

My post flew right over your head. I'm almost astonished by your blindness.

The game didn't do well because it wasn't a good game, end of story. They got gamers on their side by saying no pubs would support the female lead when they lost sight of the fact their game wasn't very fun to play. They didn't talk about the serious issues they experienced, at least not to my knowledge and I was following that game. They made a blanket statement and that's it, now they are doing it again after having another publisher support their game female lead and all. Does that look like a dev who has something meaningful to add to the discussion, or just one that is using the already heated debates regarding women in games to sell his game?

 

[Fargo_Dog]

Honestly, I'd rather see more women actually in game development making decisions rather than the superficiality of a female protagonist. It's a nice, warm fuzzy feeling seeing a lead character as a woman, but when it's just more men writing for her and designing her, the amount of unique voices will still be somewhat stunted.

 

[mreddie]

Fucking AAA, suits really think a girl on the cover results in low sales? Really?

 

[Kai Dracon]

Bringing up Prince of Persia and Warrior Within is interesting to me, as those games always felt as if they existed at a particular boundary in the history of western console games. Sands of Time's characters, presentation, and overall aesthetic were what you would have commonly seen in the Playstation 1 and early PS2 era, aimed at a very wide, general audience. Warrior Within seemed to have been dramatically affected by "Xbox era marketing". Suddenly grimdark bro-grit was the lead product being pushed to expand console game appeal to an audience that didn't think nerdy video games were mature (lol) enough for them.

I seem to recall Microsoft set a specific mandate to this effect for the original Xbox, a strategy to reboot the image of video games into something designed to capture a specific audience.

 

[jmizzal]

I probably wouldn't have got it if it was about dudes.

Kinda the same here, even Remember me I wouldnt even be interested in that game if it wasnt a female lead, still gotta pick it up. I already have Life is Strange preordered

 

[……forgetit]

Here's Anita. Skip to the tail end. Like 1:40:00.


The original interview is missing. So I can't find any real proof, but I swear I read it.

You know, I think you should play Dragon Age Inquisition if you haven't already, it's a nice change of pace from what you'd expect of female characters in a fantasy setting.

 

[DJ Crimson]

The game didn't do well because it wasn't a good game, end of story. They got gamers on their side by saying no pubs would support the female lead when they lost sight of the fact their game wasn't very fun to play. They didn't talk about the serious issues they experienced, at least not my knowledge and I was following that game. They made a blanket statement and that's it, now they are doing it again after having another publisher support their game female lead and all. Does that look like a dev who has something meaningful to add to the discussion or just one that is using the already heated debates regarding women in games and wants to use it to sell his game?

You keep arguing that it's a sales tactics. To WHO? Why would they use the same "tactic" when it had NO effect on sales? Your argument has nothing to stand on save for assumptions and theories. Developers like them should keep talking about the issues that came up. Nothing will change if we blindly ignore them.

 

[QaaQer]

People keep saying things like this, but the movie industry is practically the same, yet moviegoers are never accused of being juvenile. And that industry has been around for nearly 100 years.

People do say the same thing wrt to movies:

http://flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia

“It’s a strange time. There’s not a whole lot that any of us can do about it,” David Lynch, who hasn’t directed a feature since 2006’s Inland Empire, explained over the summer. “You’ve seen waves of things go up and down, but maybe the arthouse will be back in vogue, and they’ll reappear all over the place again. I don’t know. It would be beautiful.”

It wasn’t always this way. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, when Waters and Lynch were doing their most commercially successful work, it was possible to finance — either independently or via or the studio system — mid-budget films (anywhere from $5 million to $60 million) with an adult sensibility. But slowly, quietly, over roughly the decade and a half since the turn of the century, the paradigm shifted. Studios began to make fewer films, betting big on would-be blockbusters, operating under the assumption that large investments equal large returns. Movies that don’t fit into that box (thoughtful dramas, dark comedies, oddball thrillers, experimental efforts) were relegated to the indies, where freedom is greater, but resources are far more limited. As Mad Men’s Matthew Weiner put it, “Something happened that nobody can make a movie between $500,000 and $80 million. That can’t be possible.”

If David Lynch cannot scrabble 5 million together to make a movie in almost a decade, something is wrong.

And anyone who loves movies, watch "Under The Skin". If you haven't heard about it, don't read anything, don't google , just watch it before it gets ruined for you. It is a really rare movie that almost never get made today.

 

[Nzyme32]

Fucking AAA, suits really think a girl on the cover results in low sales? Really?

It may be a lot simpler than that. Such as, they haven't tried it for this sort of game, therefore they rather not risk it. This is a problem inherent to many publishers where they only goal they are set on is the income returned. It's another reasons for why even vetrain devs can often move to try to be independent since that is now a whole lot more feasible.

All that said, there are decent publishers out there too who are not averse to experimentation or even just doing things that are not the norm / apparently shown to have the probability of reduced returns

 

[silvermember]

"generally" by gamers. Means some liked it, most didn't. Reflected on its terrible sales.

Some of my favorite games have female leads like RE3, Fear Effect games, Parasite Eve, Bayonetta(not that fav), Project Zero, and recently Transistor which is my GOTY 2014. I don't have a problem with female leads I have a problem with Dontnod doing the exact same thing they did when trying to sell Remember Me to gamers. That's a terrible way to sell your game and it just takes the conversation away from the game to representation of women in games and that conversation just runs in circles. We get it you made a game with women do you want a medal? I mean holy shit let the game speak for itself. Supergiant didn't need to resort to such cheap sales tactics with Transistor because a dev knows when he has a product that is great and Dontnot are showing once again they may not.

OK, let me start by apologizing to you for implying or saying you hate female leads, I should not have done that. Next time, say "some" don't use "generally" because generally usually implies on average.

I don't know why you are still stuck on the bolded section. Maybe the are doing the exact same thing because the industry hasn't really change. Unless you think they are lying to get attention, then there is nothing wrong with sharing the difficulty of getting a female lead, especially considering the recent revelation that Femshep was the first Shepard but ended up being second fiddle and the fact that sleeping dogs main character got changed into female. Dontnod is simply sharing their experiences given the recent revelations as a way of showing how little the industry has changed OVERALL between ME1 up to this point and that is valid. Will this help them sell more copies you betcha.

Also I do think the SE and Dontnod deserve a medal for sticking to their guns especially Dontnod given how vulnerable they are at the moment.

Finally, you seem to have missed a very critical difference between Life is strange and Transistor which will explain why Supergiant games probably never had issues with publisher rejecting the lead for being female. Answer the question below to find out.

Between the two games with female leads, Life is strange and Transistor which is self-published and doesn't need their lead approved? Answer in spoiler.

Spoiler

Transistor

 

[mazpratim]

I don't think there's a single game out there that bombed just because it had a female lead

 

[zeldablue]

Bringing up Prince of Persia and Warrior Within is interesting to me, as those games always felt as if they existed at a particular boundary in the history of western console games. Sands of Time's characters, presentation, and overall aesthetic were what you would have commonly seen in the Playstation 1 and early PS2 era, aimed at a very wide, general audience. Warrior Within seemed to have been dramatically affected by "Xbox era marketing". Suddenly grimdark bro-grit was the lead product being pushed to expand console game appeal to an audience that didn't think nerdy video games were mature (lol) enough for them.

I seem to recall Microsoft set a specific mandate to this effect for the original Xbox, a strategy to reboot the image of video games into something designed to capture a specific audience.

Dang it Microsoft. You ruined everything. That marketing shift completely screwed me over. As soon as every title started focusing on how manly macho man the lead character was the industry started to lose me.

I remember trying hard to get into it and just being like "...noooope." and then resting with Nintendo. That was also the moment where Japan and the West started to split, since their perception on masculinity are completely contradictory.

Ironically, Zelda followed suit in 2006 and came out with gritty Zelda. But TP was awesome. Lol.

You know, I think you should play Dragon Age Inquisition if you haven't already, it's a nice change of pace from what you'd expect of female characters in a fantasy setting.

Is that the one where you take down big monsters with a team? I might have a friend introduce me to it.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

In my mind this is such a silly and unnecessary trend, as I - and I'd feel most others, have no issues playing as a female when it suits the game.
My first run in Mass Effect I played through as FemShep because it felt organic that the lead be female. I can't imagine I would have enjoyed that series as much if I were forced to play as a male.

 

[Jharp]

I picked up Remember Me when it was free for PS+ users and found that it was totally underrated. I had been interested in it but never picked it up due to the poor to average reception, but when I finally did, it was surprisingly fun action game. It's not super deep or complex, but it was fun enough, had a fantastic art style, and a good, weird, French-as-fuck story. I loved it.

I should pick it up on Steam and send a couple bucks their way, and Life Is Strange is definitely a day one for me.

 

[ppor]

I feel like they had a similar story with Remember Me and Capcom but I could be wrong. Interesting that it's the Japanese publishers who are ok with a lead female.

Don't Japanese games have more female leads in general?

 

[Cybit]

Yeah, the culture is different. They don't deny games with females in them as often. :/ I typically play horror games or Nintendo games, so very rarely am I exposed to the ten year old with skimpy clothes thing.

I'm not super into guns or shooting people. And I don't really like playing as a big beefy dude, because I don't like feeling over powering. I want to feel dwarfed by enemies. It's more exciting to be more on the disempowered side. There's just a lot stylistically and attitude wise that turns me off from most western titles. The consumer focus tested risk averse aspect is definitely souring for me.

Besides all of that, publishers have a tendency to make designers draw the women with less clothes and stuff. Or make the bust size bigger. All of that marketing based feedback really takes a toll on whatever the real artistic vision initially was. I want to see developers win more freedom. I hope that shift happens soon.

Maybe when the economy boosts up, publishers will take more experimental risks.

You touch on what I feel is the real issue; which is shareholder capitalism is a place that has, in the last 10 or so years, moved heavily away from risk in general.

So if this purely comes down to $$, what will eventually change the mind of publishers to start taking "risk" (lol having to calling them risks) and step out of the comfort zone they have set up.

I guess another question is, would publishers really allow their own sexist views, stop them from making more money? So is this at its core, an issue of sexism? Or just an issue of someone trying to make money, but going about it the wrong way?

I guess what I'm really saying is, I would assume most Publishers/Companies are looking at stats/research. They do marketing inquiries, focus groups etc. They do a lot of marketing research. So why is the research coming up with results in a way, that makes them want to stick closely to what they've been doing?

Is the way they do research wrong? Giving false data? I think I read somewhere, maybe it was Naughty Dog? One publisher claimed the marketing research tests they were doing, were already slanted towards the views they wanted to hear.

Bingo. So I work in the analytics (aerospace) field, and one of the things we've seen with the rise of "Big Data" is that many companies who are doing "research" are starting their hypothesis based on pre-existing views. Unsurprisingly, they usually end up just re-confirming their pre-existing beliefs because they design their experiments with those pre-conceived notions. I mean, think of how long the "data" showed that female led movies wouldn't do well. Meanwhile, a more objective study done by 538 shows that their pre-existing beliefs are wrong.

I think what is often seen as sexism is probably more "risk-aversion" by gaming and entertainment. Gaming got big and pulled into the more corporate world at the same time shareholders became extraordinarily risk-averse. Hell, even at the company I am at; our new product was developed by subcontracting out the majority of the parts in the name of "risk-reduction", and it's going to end up costing us something like $25 BILLION dollars more to end up making up for the "risk-aversive" policy that drove it.

Frankly, I think gaming companies are being foolish and losing money by being so risk-averse. Most of the suits don't actually understand what makes a game successful or not - so they try to use correlation as causation due to their ignorance. Hence; the bias against anything that isn't the "norm".

 

[Mononoke]

I don't think there's a single game out there that bombed just because it had a female lead

Seems like, it's a scapegoat used for other issues in the game. ie. it not getting enough marketing budget. ie. it not being a good game. Or it not being a game that looked interesting in the first place.

That said, it does seem that in some of these people's heads, they do believe that low sales/ marketing can be attributed to female leads. For whatever reason. They must be getting their research from something. I'm curious how they are going about getting this data, and more importantly, how they are coming to the conclusions they are coming to.

Because I'm with you, I think they are pushing blame on the wrong factors as to why something fails, or has a chance to fail (in this case, they are putting high risk on female leads, and or female's being a heavy part of the marketing).

EDIT: To be make it clear, I think they are wrong. I'm just wondering WHY they are stuck on these notions. Because it seems to me, they keep using some data to back up their stubborn practices (and that data may be flawed, see the post above mine).

The question is: where are they getting this marketing/research data, and how are they coming to these conclusions?

If they are just doing market/research that is slanted towards their pre-existing views, they are pretty much just closing themselves in, and justifying why their past practices are "safe" and not a "risk". But if that data is being slanted to tell them what they want to hear, then it's meaningless. And only continues to push this problem with under-representation and devs not making the games they want to make.

Sadly, the discussion will always get pushed back into "it's about money". Which would be fair, if there wasn't an issue with the research/data. If, there wasn't a major problem with them adopting out of date practices by continuing off of questionable marketing/research.

 

[Anura]

Dang it Microsoft. You ruined everything. That marketing shift completely screwed me over. As soon as every title started focusing on how manly macho man the lead character was the industry started to lose me.

I remember trying hard to get into it and just being like "...noooope." and then resting with Nintendo. That was also the moment where Japan and the West started to split, since their perception on masculinity are completely contradictory.

Ironically, Zelda followed suit in 2006 and came out with gritty Zelda. But TP was awesome. Lol.


Is that the one where you take down big monsters with a team? I might have a friend introduce me to it.

Yeah, I had pretty much the same reaction to "dudebro". Most sections of the industry no longer bothered to even pretend like they wanted me and my business. So, I ended up with Nintendo and the Wii was my most played console last gen. It was possibly in part thanks to MHtri, lol.

 

[zeldablue]

Seems like, it's a scapegoat used for other issues in the game. ie. it not getting enough marketing budget. ie. it not being a good game. Or it not being a game that looked interesting in the first place.

That said, it does seem that in some of these people's heads, they do believe that low sales/ marketing can be attributed to female leads. For whatever reason. They must be getting their research from something. I'm curious how they are going about getting this data, and more importantly, how they are coming to the conclusions they are coming to.

Because I'm with you, I think they are pushing blame on the wrong factors as to why something fails, or has a chance to fail (in this case, they are putting high risk on female leads, and or female's being a heavy part of the marketing).

EDIT: To be make it clear, I think they are wrong. I'm just wondering WHY they are stuck on these notions. Because it seems to me, they keep using some data to back up their stubborn practices (and that data may be flawed, see the post above min).

The question is: where are they getting this marketing/research data, and how are they coming to these conclusions?

If they are just doing market/research that is slanted towards their pre-existing views, they are pretty much just closing themselves in, and justifying why their past practices are "safe" and not a "risk". But if that data is being slanted to tell them what they want to hear, then it's meaningless. And only continues to push this problem with under-representation and devs making the games they want to make.

It's not just games though. I work in advertising. Whenever we have a girl as the character, the old dudes in charge tell us to turn it into a guy every time.

Every. Single. Time.

 

[QaaQer]

The conflation of sales and gender of the lead is probably something people looking into "gamer" demographics came up with. Cause surveys and focus groups are always right, right?

I'm not sure how you think companies go about deciding of covers for AAA games, but the covers do not get made by accident.

Companies use sophisticated focus testing methods, eg. scalable and cost effective neuromarketing methodologies, and have shitloads of real world data.

BTW, they also do it with movie posters. Thats why the era of the great movie poster ended in the 90s sometime. The thing that gets people's attention and into theaters is a recognizable face or name, thats why every big movie has a star's face on it, their name in 48 pt font, or a recognizable comic book character.

Random OT movie posters

 

[Mononoke]

It's not just games though. I work in advertising. Whenever we have a girl as the character, the old dudes in charge tell us to turn it into a guy every time.

Every. Single. Time.

Yeah, I've worked in film. I know how that can be. My post is meant for everything in media/entertainment. Not just games.

It just seems to me, they are looking at research/data the wrong way. They are taking research/data and making it so it fits their narrative. Because they don't want to get off the formula that has made them money in the past. I saw this all the time in the film industry. It's pretty sickening.

Best way to explain it, it's like talking to grandparent that is like...stuck in their mindset built up over a lifetime. Nothing you can say or do will reason with them. They believe in whatever they believe, and won't move off it. It's maddening. Even if you pointed out that the research was slanted or wrong - NOPE...this is right, because it was right in the past. And it's made us money in the past. Shhh.

I just, don't like how it always gets defaulted back to "it's about making money" argument. Because if you've worked in advertising or any industry (related to media), you know the people running it are not looking at the data right (or are, determined to stick closely to what made them money in the past, so they spend money to prove they are right). So when we have these discussions, it defaulting back to "it's about making money"..can be frustrating. I get where people are coming from. And it's true in some sense, yes it's about making money. This is a business, and not a charity. And taking "risk" is not something people should be forced into. Not taking risk makes sense (most of the time).

However, this is more of a situation where, out of touch people are sticking to out of date ideas (that once made them money), and they refuse to budge off it.

 

[mugurumakensei]

It's with RE6 that the trend of male leads becomes a bit worrying. Across three campaigns there are six playable characters, only two of whom are woman and both of whom are secondary to the male lead. I feel at least one of those campaigns would have been better served making the woman the player one character. It feels that, with the success of RE4 and especially RE5, Capcom are afraid to put the focus back on the female characters.

There are four campaigns and three playable female characters with Ada being the lead in hers.

 

[EventHorizon]

When I first saw this thread I was firmly in the camp of "Who in the world wouldn't buy a game because the lead character is female". However, I'd never even heard about "Life is Strange". After just now seeing a commercial for it, I now believe the publishers were right and the female lead will hurt sales.

This game appears to be more of an interactive movie than a traditional video game, and its focus appears to be a "teenage girl in high school" simulator. That's not going to sell well to the mostly male console gaming audience just like a teenage girl in high school movie wouldn't sell well to the same audience. The problem isn't specifically the female lead but that the game comes across as being marketed towards a female audience. Many guys simply aren't going to give a game a chance that has a girl drawing teddy bears in a notebook.

In a more traditional action game I don't think this would be an issue. The gameplay would speak for itself and the gender of the main character would be a secondary concern. However this particular type of game switches that around. As a result the devs need to make a bigger effort to align the story with their audience if they want to maximize sales. This is like trying to sell a music game based on polka.

 

[jmood88]

When I first saw this thread I was firmly in the camp of "Who in the world wouldn't buy a game because the lead character is female". However, I'd never even heard about "Life is Strange". After just now seeing a commercial for it, I now believe the publishers were right and the female lead will hurt sales.

This game appears to be more of an interactive movie than a traditional video game, and its focus appears to be a "teenage girl in high school" simulator. That's not going to sell well to the mostly male console gaming audience just like a teenage girl in high school movie wouldn't sell well to the same audience. The problem isn't specifically the female lead but that the game comes across as being marketed towards a female audience. Many guys simply aren't going to give a game a chance that has a girl drawing teddy bears in a notebook.

In a more traditional action game I don't think this would be an issue. The gameplay would speak for itself and the gender of the main character would be a secondary concern. However this particular type of game switches that around. As a result the devs need to make a bigger effort to align the story with their audience if they want to maximize sales. This is like trying to sell a music game based on polka.

Meanwhile, you have a bunch of people on this forum who would be more than willing to buy a game like this if there was a bunch of japanese writing all over the place.

 

[SolidSnakex]

EDIT: To be make it clear, I think they are wrong. I'm just wondering WHY they are stuck on these notions. Because it seems to me, they keep using some data to back up their stubborn practices (and that data may be flawed, see the post above mine).

The question is: where are they getting this marketing/research data, and how are they coming to these conclusions?

A lot of the time they are wrong. A good example of this is actually a game you'd least expect, Call of Duty. Activision didn't want Infinity Ward to make a modern game because they did research that showed that consumers didn't want a game in that setting. So they were pushing for IW to make another WW2 game. IW eventually won out and went on to make Modern Warfare.

But in order to prove them wrong you've got to have a lot of pull. Which Vince and Jason had because of how successful their CoD games were. Treyarch didn't have pull, which is why their female led True Crime game was killed.

 

[zeldablue]

When I first saw this thread I was firmly in the camp of "Who in the world wouldn't buy a game because the lead character is female". However, I'd never even heard about "Life is Strange". After just now seeing a commercial for it, I now believe the publishers were right and the female lead will hurt sales.

This game appears to be more of an interactive movie than a traditional video game, and its focus appears to be a "teenage girl in high school" simulator. That's not going to sell well to the mostly male console gaming audience just like a teenage girl in high school movie wouldn't sell well to the same audience. The problem isn't specifically the female lead but that the game comes across as being marketed towards a female audience. Many guys simply aren't going to give a game a chance that has a girl drawing teddy bears in a notebook.

In a more traditional action game I don't think this would be an issue. The gameplay would speak for itself and the gender of the main character would be a secondary concern. However this particular type of game switches that around. As a result the devs need to make a bigger effort to align the story with their audience if they want to maximize sales. This is like trying to sell a music game based on polka.

Looks like a murder mystery.

But yeah, I agree. I am averse to both chick flicks and dudebro stories. Unless this game wants to throw in something Twin Peaks-esque, it hasn't really caught my eye yet.

 

[Mononoke]

A lot of the time they are wrong. A good example of this is actually a game you'd least expect, Call of Duty. Activision didn't want Infinity Ward to make a modern game because they did research that showed that consumers didn't want a game in that setting. So they were pushing for IW to make another WW2 game. IW eventually won out and went on to make Modern Warfare.

But in order to prove them wrong you've got to have a lot of pull. Which Vince and Jason had because of how successful their CoD games were. Treyarch didn't have pull, which is why their female led True Crime game was killed.

Crazy stuff. But I beleive it. Like I said I spent some time in the film industry and would see this mentality everywhere. You don't move off the old formula. It's a big no no. Forget the fact that, the formula might be losing them money as its outdated.

But yeah, unless your a really powerful player, you won't have a say against the folks stuck in their ways.

Not really sure what the solution is. Like, maybe over time these people will die out and the younger generation taking over will start adapting to the new demographics?

 

[sprinkles]

Just purchased from GMG for $13.85. Looks neat imo

Saw this thread, watched the trailer on Steam and bought it on GMG seconds later.

 

[Endo Punk]

OK, let me start by apologizing to you for implying or saying you hate female leads, I should not have done that. Next time, say "some" don't use "generally" because generally usually implies on average.

I don't know why you are still stuck on the bolded section. Maybe the are doing the exact same thing because the industry hasn't really change. Unless you think they are lying to get attention, then there is nothing wrong with sharing the difficulty of getting a female lead, especially considering the recent revelation that Femshep was the first Shepard but ended up being second fiddle and the fact that sleeping dogs main character got changed into female. Dontnod is simply sharing their experiences given the recent revelations as a way of showing how little the industry has changed OVERALL between ME1 up to this point and that is valid. Will this help them sell more copies you betcha.

Also I do think the SE and Dontnod deserve a medal for sticking to their guns especially Dontnod given how vulnerable they are at the moment.

Finally, you seem to have missed a very critical difference between Life is strange and Transistor which will explain why Supergiant games probably never had issues with publisher rejecting the lead for being female. Answer the question below to find out.

Between the two games with female leads, Life is strange and Transistor which is self-published and doesn't need their lead approved? Answer in spoiler.

Spoiler

Transistor

No worries. I understand the issues are worth taking about but eh I just don't like how both times they have created this underdog image for themselves by acting like the mean ol man is putting them down for creating female lead characters, at least they have pubs who support them, not that it matters, the indie scene is huge and you have crowd funding, self publishing etc.

Transistor was indeed self published but it wasn't promoted as this female game everyone needs to support because rights and such. It was an awesome game and devs let it speak for itself and it sold over 600k. My problem is whereas a dev like Supergiant comes of earnest and greatful, Dontnot comes of bitter and imo using the conversation with women in games to indeed sell more. Ultimately it wouldn't matter if they have a good game in their hand, and if they don't I hope they don't use controversy around their next one after this.

 

[zeldablue]

Crazy stuff. But I beleive it. Like I said I spent some time in the film industry and would see this mentality everywhere. You don't move off the old formula. It's a big no no. Forget the fact that, the formula might be losing them money as its outdated.

But yeah, unless your a really powerful player, you won't have a say against the folks stuck in their ways.

Not really sure what the solution is. Like, maybe over time these people will die out and the younger generation taking over will start adapting to the new demographics?

You just need cool publishers who are secure, healthy and passionate enough to care about games.

Nintendo's nice because they have a relaxed view on funds. Take as much time and money as you'd like. Just make sure it doesn't suck. Healthy schedule + funs = great product. To this day, I have no clue how The Wind Waker existed. It really goes to show how much Nintendo doesn't do research, or doesn't care about research.

Sony also said whatever Naughty Dog wants to do, they can do.

So basically you need. 1. Ambitious and trusting publishers and 2. Badass developers who haven't "failed" yet.

And with a powerful brand and history, consumers will eat up anything from that company.

 

[Mononoke]

You just need cool publishers who are secure, healthy and passionate enough to care about games.

Nintendo's nice because they have a relaxed view on funds. Take as much time as money as you'd like. Just make sure it doesn't suck. To this day, I have no clue how The Wind Waker existed. It really goes to show how much Nintendo doesn't do research, or doesn't care about research.

Sony also said whatever Naughty Dog wants to do, they can do.

So basically you need. 1. Ambitious publishers and 2. Badass developers who haven't "failed" yet.

And with a powerful brand and history, consumers will eat up anything from that company.

Sure. But what is the solution in the bigger scheme of things? Clearly this has been an issue for 30 years. And clearly based on the responses in here, and just what people are saying, a lot of people are NOT happy with the representation of females in gaming.

Maybe those people you talked about (Sony/Nintendo), will end up making the next big thing. And then these other people will try to copy them. So maybe it will take a really successful series/game with a female lead to make that happen. Then again, we've already had series like Tomb Raider.

Hmm.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Nintendo's nice because they have a relaxed view on funds. Take as much time as money as you'd like. Just make sure it doesn't suck. To this day, I have no clue how The Wind Waker existed. It really goes to show how much Nintendo doesn't do research, or doesn't care about research.

Sony also said whatever Naughty Dog wants to do, they can do.

So basically you need. 1. Ambitious publishers and 2. Badass developers who haven't "failed" yet.

There's another factor involved. Action games are where the biggest imbalance of gender happens. Most other genres are far more balanced.

 

[dragonbane]

Those games are old...

Even Heavenly Sword is at least 9 years old. I think their faith has gone down since.

Well probably not Sonys as they just spend a lot of money on a title that released last year (Beyond).

 

[sn00zer]

Well the comments on the Life is Strange Trailer are already pretty disheartening.

I was sold in this trailer without all the quotes

 

[Mononoke]

On the topic of Life Is Strange. I sure hope it's not like Gone Home. I hated that game. Thought it was absolutely awful. I just found the entire thing to be really boring (the actual gameplay aspect). I thought they could have done more to draw you in (in terms of the puzzles being more interesting). While I get it's a narrative/atmosphere game, there is no excuse for not making the puzzles unique and interesting.

Also, I figured out the twist in the plot a mile away. So getting to the end just felt like a trudge. Like I was supposed to feel emotional, and care about the history of the person in the house. But I kind of lost interest. I do think the game...nails the atmosphere down perfectly. But I just wish there were more.

Life is Strange looks up my ally. But yeah, if it's just another hallway simulator praised because of the themes, I'm going to pass. It's great we are getting more diverse games and games pushing the boundaries on the kind of themes/characters we have in gaming (it's sad that...we are in a place that it's considered pushing the boundaries). So I applaud this, and think we need to keep doing these things. But I also don't want to games getting a pass, simply because they had these themes/characters. They still need to be good games. And that balance can be found. It certainly can.

Gone Home could have been excellent for me, if they only tweaked the puzzle sections and done more with tying that into exploring the house. Although to be fair, it was a regular house. So how much could they have done puzzle wise, with ordinary objects. I get the limitations. But I really didn't like the end product.

 

[JohngPR]

Didn't Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Hitman Absolution and Sleeping Dogs initially underperform as well? Pretty sure Tomb Raider had a higher budget than any of those, going by its production values, therefore it had to sell more. Not saying you don't have a point, but Tomb Raider's case was the case of a AAA monster project being absurdly expensive. I don't think the cast of Tomb Raider has much to teach publishers, unless they don't look at the numbers and just assume that Tomb Raider sold badly because Lara is a woman and not Lars Croft instead.

Edit: Yep.

I'm surprised to hear that they thought Sleeping Dogs underperformed considering its history.

You are right. It's all a fairly gray area. I don't think it's as simple as some think.

 

[Lime]

Yeah, I've worked in film. I know how that can be. My post is meant for everything in media/entertainment. Not just games.

It just seems to me, they are looking at research/data the wrong way. They are taking research/data and making it so it fits their narrative. Because they don't want to get off the formula that has made them money in the past. I saw this all the time in the film industry. It's pretty sickening.

Best way to explain it, it's like talking to grandparent that is like...stuck in their mindset built up over a lifetime. Nothing you can say or do will reason with them. They believe in whatever they believe, and won't move off it. It's maddening. Even if you pointed out that the research was slanted or wrong - NOPE...this is right, because it was right in the past. And it's made us money in the past. Shhh.

I just, don't like how it always gets defaulted back to "it's about making money" argument. Because if you've worked in advertising or any industry (related to media), you know the people running it are not looking at the data right (or are, determined to stick closely to what made them money in the past, so they spend money to prove they are right). So when we have these discussions, it defaulting back to "it's about making money"..can be frustrating. I get where people are coming from. And it's true in some sense, yes it's about making money. This is a business, and not a charity. And taking "risk" is not something people should be forced into. Not taking risk makes sense (most of the time).

However, this is more of a situation where, out of touch people are sticking to out of date ideas (that once made them money), and they refuse to budge off it.

I think this article kind of explains it - the fundamental logical loop is the same:

 

[zeldablue]

Sure. But what is the solution in the bigger scheme of things? Clearly this has been an issue for 30 years. And clearly based on the responses in here, and just what people are saying, a lot of people are NOT happy with the representation of females in gaming.

Maybe those people you talked about (Sony/Nintendo), will end up making the next big thing. And then these other people will try to copy them. So maybe it will take a really successful series/game with a female lead to make that happen. Then again, we've already had series like Tomb Raider.

Hmm.

Oh, for long term. In that case it has to do with transitioning the industry back down to appreciating mid-range budgeted games. (Like Deadly Promition level budget) B games have been very overlooked. If you can make a modest budget look sexy to the masses then you'd see games going for more things. As it stands, it's either indie or AAA. There needs to be something healthier. You'd have to teach consumers not to be tech/graphic whores and sell them on something else. A lot of genres have basically died because action is the only profitable thing left. It sucks.

There's another factor involved. Action games are where the biggest imbalance of gender happens. Most other genres are far more balanced.

Right. And the genre that's 50/50 gender wise is Adventure and platformer. Adventure games are harder to make and aren't as profitable. So once again it comes down to bringing the value of B games back up. PS4 and Xbone doesn't have the userbase for platformers. Reading the development for Silent Hill Shattered Memories is interesting because of how many constraints the industry has and how they dealt with it by putting it on the Wii.

On the topic of Life Is Strange. I sure hope it's not like Gone Home. I hated that game. Thought it was absolutely awful. I just found the entire thing to be really boring (the actual gameplay aspect). I thought they could have done more to draw you in (in terms of the puzzles being more interesting). While I get it's a narrative/atmosphere game, there is no excuse for not making the puzzles unique and interesting.

Also, I figured out the twist in the plot a mile away. So getting to the end just felt like a trudge. Like I was supposed to feel emotional, and care about the history of the person in the house. But I kind of lost interest. I do think the game...nails the atmosphere down perfectly. But I just wish there were more.

Life is Strange looks up my ally. But yeah, if it's just another hallway simulator praised because of the themes, I'm going to pass. It's great we are getting more diverse games and games pushing the boundaries on the kind of themes/characters we have in gaming (it's sad that...we are in a place that it's considered pushing the boundaries). So I applaud this, and think we need to keep doing these things. But I also don't want to games getting a pass, simply because they had these themes/characters. They still need to be good games. And that balance can be found. It certainly can.

Gone Home could have been excellent for me, if they only tweaked the puzzle sections and done more with tying that into exploring the house. Although to be fair, it was a regular house. So how much could they have done puzzle wise, with ordinary objects. I get the limitations. But I really didn't like the end product.

If there isn't enough sustenance to a game then I'll watch it on youtube.

If it's drama/suspense then I'll be interested, though I haven't seen much "gameplay."