Female protagonists aren't anything new, but female protagonists already in established romantic relationships when the game starts? That's a hell of a rarity, right?
Is that the game where execs were all like "ew the player has to kiss a boy? gaaayyyyyyy"?
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
I have a preference for female protagonists right now because like 96% of shit I've played has a male one and I want something new for a change goddammit.
I have a preference for female protagonists right now because like 96% of shit I've played has a male one and I want something new for a change goddammit.
The status quo is lazy and cynical as all fuck.
i think that, were the two genders equally represented, I would prefer male, but I too prefer female protagonists purely for novelty
I'm not sure how much the gender choice would sway me on sales.
But that's because I'm an anomaly. I buy every system and almost every major game. I play everything. It's basically never a choice between a good game with a male lead and one with a female lead, because I will buy them both if they are both good or important releases.
But I'd like to think that if I were pickier I would try to intentionally support female leads when I can.
Speaking of Raiden, and FF.
I find it interesting that while Japan is notorious for sexualizing female characters, they also have a strong tendency to try and make male characters that are attractive, too.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not equal or even close. But a lot of characters in JRPGs, or Raiden for example, are actually designed with what women in Japanese media find attractive in mind.
I still keep up with new anime, partly in hopes of something actually worthwhile coming out (which happens every now and then), but mainly just out of morbid curiosity to see what kind of shameless pandering they'll come up with next. That said, at least they take a break from constantly sexualizing women in increasingly ludicrous ways to objectify men once in a while.
I mean, watch this and tell me this isn't intended to appeal to women:
I've recently played Fable 2, Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim with female characters and found it automatically makes the game a little more interesting by virtue of the fact that you're playing a character type that's less common. Playing a big guy with a hammer in Skyrim is eh. Playing a big girl with a hammer? Much cooler.
The only problem is that on voiced games playing as female massively increases your chances of being played by Jennifer Hale.
+7
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
that isn't the worst thing in the world but some variety might be nice
when every female character is jennifer hale or laura bailey it gets a bit dull
on the scale of marcus fenix to nathan drake, i have a feeling the nathan drake side is more female-gazey
while we're on the subject, i've seen something along these lines in comments all around the internet:
I never buy games with a female protagonist. I just can't get into them.
and increasingly i'm starting to view it as a sign of intellectual laziness instead of personal preference
it's not just in games though, it's in movies too
I don't think there's anything lazy about having that kind of preference. I prefer games that let me play as a female protagonist, and I'll often buy them over games that make me play as a rugged muscley guy. How is that any different? It's not.
If Dishonored had a female protagonist, it probably would have been a day one purchase for me, instead of sitting in my Steam wish list. For me personally, I prefer female protagonists based on "I like hearing female voices more than I like hearing male voices."
If it makes you feel any better the protagonist of Dishonored is a silent one.
Silent Protagonists are the worst. I hate it in Half Life 2, I hate it in BioShock, it annoyed the crap out of me in Dead Space, I'm really, really not a fan. The only one I can stand is Chell, and that's because I assume she spends Portal not wanting to dignify GladOS's insane bullship with a response, and in Portal 2 she's suffering from brain damage that causes her to jump every time she means to say anything.
I very strongly believe that the way that the games industry is going to change is by producing more and better games with female protagonists. I think that it will benefit all levels of the industry, starting by providing an increased target audience, changing perceptions among gamers, and eventually leading to more women creating games, marketing that isn't offensive to women, etc.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Male characters have Troy Baker, Nolan North and Steve Blum
It happens
Yeah but those three can act.
+2
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
silent protagonists are unfortunately the only way to do a true blank canvas character.
a voice actress will ALWAYS impart a degree of personality to the lines she delivers, no matter how much choice between different dialogue you give and no matter how much freedom the player has to choose their actions.
silent protagonists are unfortunately the only way to do a true blank canvas character.
a voice actress will ALWAYS impart a degree of personality to the lines she delivers, no matter how much choice between different dialogue you give and no matter how much freedom the player has to choose their actions.
I don't get "blank canvas." Depending on the actions of the character, I either get "mute" or "suffering from a brain injury." To me, a named video game character (Gordon Freeman, the dude from Bioshock, etc) never speaking makes about as much sense as having a movie with the same goal wherein which the protagonist doesn't speak.
I can't speak for Jennifer Hale as a stage or screen actor, but I like her as a voice actor.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I find it interesting that while Japan is notorious for sexualizing female characters, they also have a strong tendency to try and make male characters that are attractive, too.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not equal or even close. But a lot of characters in JRPGs, or Raiden for example, are actually designed with what women in Japanese media find attractive in mind.
Now still, it's different. Cloud and Tifa are both attractive, but the latter is clearly more overtly so. Even Raiden running around naked doing cartwheels isn't treated like Sniper Wolf.
I wanted to bring this part up again briefly and quote the wiki entry on bishonen:
Bishōnen (美少年?, also transliterated About this sound bishounen (help·info)) is a Japanese term literally meaning "beautiful youth (boy)".
The term describes an aesthetic that can be found in disparate areas in East Asia: a young man whose beauty (and sexual appeal) transcends the boundary of gender or sexual orientation. It has always shown the strongest manifestation in Japanese pop culture, gaining in popularity due to the androgynous glam rock bands of the 1970s,[1] but it has roots in ancient Japanese literature, the homosocial and homoerotic ideals of the medieval Chinese imperial court and intellectuals, and Indian aesthetic concepts carried over from Hinduism, imported with Buddhism to China.[2]
Today, bishōnen are very popular among girls and women in Japan.[2][3] Reasons for this social phenomenon may include the unique male and female social relationships found within the genre. Some have theorized that bishōnen provide a non-traditional outlet for gender relations. Moreover, it breaks down stereotypes surrounding feminine male characters. These are often depicted with very strong martial arts abilities, sports talent, high intelligence, or comedic flair, traits that are usually assigned to the hero/protagonist.[4]
We almost exclusively talk about things in terms of western culture without caveat because that's our common reference and the source for the majority of our discussion, but I think it's useful to note things like this because it's a cultural issue, not a human one (just like, say, this). It isn't because of innate sex drives, it's because of everything we layer on top.
on the scale of marcus fenix to nathan drake, i have a feeling the nathan drake side is more female-gazey
while we're on the subject, i've seen something along these lines in comments all around the internet:
I never buy games with a female protagonist. I just can't get into them.
and increasingly i'm starting to view it as a sign of intellectual laziness instead of personal preference
it's not just in games though, it's in movies too
I don't think there's anything lazy about having that kind of preference. I prefer games that let me play as a female protagonist, and I'll often buy them over games that make me play as a rugged muscley guy. How is that any different? It's not.
If Dishonored had a female protagonist, it probably would have been a day one purchase for me, instead of sitting in my Steam wish list. For me personally, I prefer female protagonists based on "I like hearing female voices more than I like hearing male voices."
If it makes you feel any better the protagonist of Dishonored is a silent one.
Silent Protagonists are the worst. I hate it in Half Life 2, I hate it in BioShock, it annoyed the crap out of me in Dead Space, I'm really, really not a fan. The only one I can stand is Chell, and that's because I assume she spends Portal not wanting to dignify GladOS's insane bullship with a response, and in Portal 2 she's suffering from brain damage that causes her to jump every time she means to say anything.
I very strongly believe that the way that the games industry is going to change is by producing more and better games with female protagonists. I think that it will benefit all levels of the industry, starting by providing an increased target audience, changing perceptions among gamers, and eventually leading to more women creating games, marketing that isn't offensive to women, etc.
Silent protagonists are the best. You want to kill my immersion? Throw some VA in with an actor I've already heard in 15 other games. If I have the option, I always turn off the voices in games.
I find it interesting that while Japan is notorious for sexualizing female characters, they also have a strong tendency to try and make male characters that are attractive, too.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not equal or even close. But a lot of characters in JRPGs, or Raiden for example, are actually designed with what women in Japanese media find attractive in mind.
Now still, it's different. Cloud and Tifa are both attractive, but the latter is clearly more overtly so. Even Raiden running around naked doing cartwheels isn't treated like Sniper Wolf.
I wanted to bring this part up again briefly and quote the wiki entry on bishonen:
Bishōnen (美少年?, also transliterated About this sound bishounen (help·info)) is a Japanese term literally meaning "beautiful youth (boy)".
The term describes an aesthetic that can be found in disparate areas in East Asia: a young man whose beauty (and sexual appeal) transcends the boundary of gender or sexual orientation. It has always shown the strongest manifestation in Japanese pop culture, gaining in popularity due to the androgynous glam rock bands of the 1970s,[1] but it has roots in ancient Japanese literature, the homosocial and homoerotic ideals of the medieval Chinese imperial court and intellectuals, and Indian aesthetic concepts carried over from Hinduism, imported with Buddhism to China.[2]
Today, bishōnen are very popular among girls and women in Japan.[2][3] Reasons for this social phenomenon may include the unique male and female social relationships found within the genre. Some have theorized that bishōnen provide a non-traditional outlet for gender relations. Moreover, it breaks down stereotypes surrounding feminine male characters. These are often depicted with very strong martial arts abilities, sports talent, high intelligence, or comedic flair, traits that are usually assigned to the hero/protagonist.[4]
We almost exclusively talk about things in terms of western culture without caveat because that's our common reference and the source for the majority of our discussion, but I think it's useful to note things like this because it's a cultural issue, not a human one (just like, say, this). It isn't because of innate sex drives, it's because of everything we layer on top.
I've recently played Fable 2, Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim with female characters and found it automatically makes the game a little more interesting by virtue of the fact that you're playing a character type that's less common. Playing a big guy with a hammer in Skyrim is eh. Playing a big girl with a hammer? Much cooler.
The only problem is that on voiced games playing as female massively increases your chances of being played by Jennifer Hale.
i used to think i liked playing as a female character because of the novelty, because when i got the choice i'd try a role in a game i didn't often get to be in, but i think now it might be just a more basic desire to get more content from a game.
in games where you can choose gender, like skyrim or mass effect, i find that if you play as a woman, NPC's will often have unique extra dialogue, like a guy will hit on you in the first mass effect. i think this is a subtle reflection of social values that men are the default and women are deviations from that, so while you get a "normal" experience as a guy, you get something extra if you're a woman.
in skyrim i noticed that when NPC's have gender-specific lines, like that woman in whiterun, it'll be a comment on your gender if you're a woman, but a comment on their gender in relation to yours if you are a man. for example, whiterun lady will say to female characters that though life is tough as a woman in skyrim, be tough and they'll respect you or something like that. if you're a man, she'll ask you if you have a problem with strong women. i haven't done any proper investigation into this so it could just be an artifact of my selective attention, but maybe not?
on the scale of marcus fenix to nathan drake, i have a feeling the nathan drake side is more female-gazey
while we're on the subject, i've seen something along these lines in comments all around the internet:
I never buy games with a female protagonist. I just can't get into them.
and increasingly i'm starting to view it as a sign of intellectual laziness instead of personal preference
it's not just in games though, it's in movies too
I don't think there's anything lazy about having that kind of preference. I prefer games that let me play as a female protagonist, and I'll often buy them over games that make me play as a rugged muscley guy. How is that any different? It's not.
If Dishonored had a female protagonist, it probably would have been a day one purchase for me, instead of sitting in my Steam wish list. For me personally, I prefer female protagonists based on "I like hearing female voices more than I like hearing male voices."
If it makes you feel any better the protagonist of Dishonored is a silent one.
Silent Protagonists are the worst. I hate it in Half Life 2, I hate it in BioShock, it annoyed the crap out of me in Dead Space, I'm really, really not a fan. The only one I can stand is Chell, and that's because I assume she spends Portal not wanting to dignify GladOS's insane bullship with a response, and in Portal 2 she's suffering from brain damage that causes her to jump every time she means to say anything.
I very strongly believe that the way that the games industry is going to change is by producing more and better games with female protagonists. I think that it will benefit all levels of the industry, starting by providing an increased target audience, changing perceptions among gamers, and eventually leading to more women creating games, marketing that isn't offensive to women, etc.
Silent protagonists are the best. You want to kill my immersion? Throw some VA in with an actor I've already heard in 15 other games. If I have the option, I always turn off the voices in games.
Our differences are too vast to bridge on this. This discussion is over.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't think that there is anything unreasonable with a man wanting to play male characters. It's always going to be easier to identify with a character who is more like yourself. I have replayed some games, like fallout 1/2 as a female character to see the extra choices, and while it can be interesting, it definitely feels like more of a novelty than anything else to me.
Not everybody plays games to identify with the main character, however. The MC can be an extension of yourself, or the MC can be a character in a story you control. There are different mindsets.
A duck! on
+6
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The words attractive and sexualized aren't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Actually, it's pretty much impossible to make an attractive women doing video-gamey things and not have people identify it as sexualized. The recent Tomb Raider game is a good example of that.
And games with unattractive leads probably won't sell.
To be honest, I think all these discussions are kind of pointless, because we don't have the most important piece of information: probable sales impact. Without that information, we have no idea how reasonable or unreasonable it is to ask developers to change their designs. Even if someone in this thread has the single greatest argument possible for why developers need to change, it is meaningless until we know if implementing these changes will hurt their sales, and thereby hurt the chance of publishers working with them again and the chance if them continuing to exist as a company.
You only buy games if you find the characters attractive? O_o Why do games without female characters sell then? Are only women buying them? Mostly women play call of duty? Surely you don't actually believe that sexualized characters are needed to make money in this industry.
It's impossible to argue that changing female designs would negatively impact sales without also having data on motivating factors for purchases. No amount of data is necessary for developers to change female characters' designs. Furthermore you have no reason to believe that non-sexist female characters wouldn't boost sales.
Maybe someone could make a lot of money by selling a lot of games designed with white supremacists in mind, but that doesn't mean they ought to.
Without data, the conservative course is to avoid change.
Even if it's true, it's still a bad thing. The fact is that doing the right thing is not always compatible with making money.
50 years ago, TV shows and the movies would have lost viewers if they had African American characters who were portrayed as intelligent professionals. But do you really want to live in a world that didn't have people who took that risk and did the right thing?
Why should changing the world be the responsibility of people making games as a living? You are literally asking them to put their careers at risk to effect social change. That hardly seems fair to me. And if I have to choose between a world where thoughtful game designers have lower sales (and thereby don't get publishers to publish subsequent games) and the less thoughtful, less interning game designers win out or a world where everyone panders, I'll choose the latter every time, because I want good, interesting games to co tinge to be made, and its already an uphill battle to get them made as it is (look at how much easier it is for Bioware or Bethesda to get an rpg made while Obsidian gets stuck with chatty licenses and Troika went under. . .)
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Not everybody plays games to identify with the main character, however. The MC can be an extension of yourself, or the MC can be a character in a story you control. There are different mindsets.
That is fair, but it doesn't really speak to my point that a male gamer is reasonable if he says he never wants to play a female character, because he wants to identify with the character he plays.
The words attractive and sexualized aren't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Actually, it's pretty much impossible to make an attractive women doing video-gamey things and not have people identify it as sexualized. The recent Tomb Raider game is a good example of that.
And games with unattractive leads probably won't sell.
To be honest, I think all these discussions are kind of pointless, because we don't have the most important piece of information: probable sales impact. Without that information, we have no idea how reasonable or unreasonable it is to ask developers to change their designs. Even if someone in this thread has the single greatest argument possible for why developers need to change, it is meaningless until we know if implementing these changes will hurt their sales, and thereby hurt the chance of publishers working with them again and the chance if them continuing to exist as a company.
You only buy games if you find the characters attractive? O_o Why do games without female characters sell then? Are only women buying them? Mostly women play call of duty? Surely you don't actually believe that sexualized characters are needed to make money in this industry.
It's impossible to argue that changing female designs would negatively impact sales without also having data on motivating factors for purchases. No amount of data is necessary for developers to change female characters' designs. Furthermore you have no reason to believe that non-sexist female characters wouldn't boost sales.
Maybe someone could make a lot of money by selling a lot of games designed with white supremacists in mind, but that doesn't mean they ought to.
Without data, the conservative course is to avoid change.
Even if it's true, it's still a bad thing. The fact is that doing the right thing is not always compatible with making money.
50 years ago, TV shows and the movies would have lost viewers if they had African American characters who were portrayed as intelligent professionals. But do you really want to live in a world that didn't have people who took that risk and did the right thing?
Why should changing the world be the responsibility of people making games as a living? You are literally asking them to put their careers at risk to effect social change. That hardly seems fair to me. And if I have to choose between a world where thoughtful game designers have lower sales (and thereby don't get publishers to publish subsequent games) and the less thoughtful, less interning game designers win out or a world where everyone panders, I'll choose the latter every time, because I want good, interesting games to co tinge to be made, and its already an uphill battle to get them made as it is (look at how much easier it is for Bioware or Bethesda to get an rpg made while Obsidian gets stuck with chatty licenses and Troika went under. . .)
This is a preposterous false dichotomy. There is no correlation between less sexualization of female characters and lower sales, at least not any that's been in any way proven. That would be the first step.
This is something that has to be done in baby steps, but yes, change of this kind is the responsibility of everyone, you don't get to hide behind the dollar when people talk about what we owe each other on a social or artistic level.
Nobody is going to lose their jobs for making reasonably-designed female characters.
Wyborn on
+1
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The words attractive and sexualized aren't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Actually, it's pretty much impossible to make an attractive women doing video-gamey things and not have people identify it as sexualized. The recent Tomb Raider game is a good example of that.
And games with unattractive leads probably won't sell.
To be honest, I think all these discussions are kind of pointless, because we don't have the most important piece of information: probable sales impact. Without that information, we have no idea how reasonable or unreasonable it is to ask developers to change their designs. Even if someone in this thread has the single greatest argument possible for why developers need to change, it is meaningless until we know if implementing these changes will hurt their sales, and thereby hurt the chance of publishers working with them again and the chance if them continuing to exist as a company.
You only buy games if you find the characters attractive? O_o Why do games without female characters sell then? Are only women buying them? Mostly women play call of duty? Surely you don't actually believe that sexualized characters are needed to make money in this industry.
It's impossible to argue that changing female designs would negatively impact sales without also having data on motivating factors for purchases. No amount of data is necessary for developers to change female characters' designs. Furthermore you have no reason to believe that non-sexist female characters wouldn't boost sales.
Maybe someone could make a lot of money by selling a lot of games designed with white supremacists in mind, but that doesn't mean they ought to.
Without data, the conservative course is to avoid change.
Even if it's true, it's still a bad thing. The fact is that doing the right thing is not always compatible with making money.
50 years ago, TV shows and the movies would have lost viewers if they had African American characters who were portrayed as intelligent professionals. But do you really want to live in a world that didn't have people who took that risk and did the right thing?
Why should changing the world be the responsibility of people making games as a living? You are literally asking them to put their careers at risk to effect social change. That hardly seems fair to me. And if I have to choose between a world where thoughtful game designers have lower sales (and thereby don't get publishers to publish subsequent games) and the less thoughtful, less interning game designers win out or a world where everyone panders, I'll choose the latter every time, because I want good, interesting games to co tinge to be made, and its already an uphill battle to get them made as it is (look at how much easier it is for Bioware or Bethesda to get an rpg made while Obsidian gets stuck with chatty licenses and Troika went under. . .)
This is a preposterous false dichotomy. There is no correlation between less sexualization of female characters and lower sales, at least not any that's been in any way proven. That would be the first step.
This is something that has to be done in baby steps, but yes, change of this kind is the responsibility of everyone, you don't get to hide behind the dollar when people talk about what we owe each other on a social or artistic level.
Nobody is going to lose their jobs for making reasonably-designed female characters.
You say that, but as I said a few pages back, we don't have the data we need, and in the absence of data, the conservative, safe course is to continue the current practices. Without data, you are asking the publishers to take a risk for non-economic reasons. Why should they listen?
What someone who cares about this really needs to do is commission large scale surveys and research on the topic, and then present those findings as an argument that change will increase sales on net (assuming that is the outcome, but who knows).
The words attractive and sexualized aren't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Actually, it's pretty much impossible to make an attractive women doing video-gamey things and not have people identify it as sexualized. The recent Tomb Raider game is a good example of that.
And games with unattractive leads probably won't sell.
To be honest, I think all these discussions are kind of pointless, because we don't have the most important piece of information: probable sales impact. Without that information, we have no idea how reasonable or unreasonable it is to ask developers to change their designs. Even if someone in this thread has the single greatest argument possible for why developers need to change, it is meaningless until we know if implementing these changes will hurt their sales, and thereby hurt the chance of publishers working with them again and the chance if them continuing to exist as a company.
You only buy games if you find the characters attractive? O_o Why do games without female characters sell then? Are only women buying them? Mostly women play call of duty? Surely you don't actually believe that sexualized characters are needed to make money in this industry.
It's impossible to argue that changing female designs would negatively impact sales without also having data on motivating factors for purchases. No amount of data is necessary for developers to change female characters' designs. Furthermore you have no reason to believe that non-sexist female characters wouldn't boost sales.
Maybe someone could make a lot of money by selling a lot of games designed with white supremacists in mind, but that doesn't mean they ought to.
Without data, the conservative course is to avoid change.
Even if it's true, it's still a bad thing. The fact is that doing the right thing is not always compatible with making money.
50 years ago, TV shows and the movies would have lost viewers if they had African American characters who were portrayed as intelligent professionals. But do you really want to live in a world that didn't have people who took that risk and did the right thing?
Why should changing the world be the responsibility of people making games as a living? You are literally asking them to put their careers at risk to effect social change. That hardly seems fair to me. And if I have to choose between a world where thoughtful game designers have lower sales (and thereby don't get publishers to publish subsequent games) and the less thoughtful, less interning game designers win out or a world where everyone panders, I'll choose the latter every time, because I want good, interesting games to co tinge to be made, and its already an uphill battle to get them made as it is (look at how much easier it is for Bioware or Bethesda to get an rpg made while Obsidian gets stuck with chatty licenses and Troika went under. . .)
This is a preposterous false dichotomy. There is no correlation between less sexualization of female characters and lower sales, at least not any that's been in any way proven. That would be the first step.
This is something that has to be done in baby steps, but yes, change of this kind is the responsibility of everyone, you don't get to hide behind the dollar when people talk about what we owe each other on a social or artistic level.
Nobody is going to lose their jobs for making reasonably-designed female characters.
You say that, but as I said a few pages back, we don't have the data we need, and in the absence of data, the conservative, safe course is to continue the current practices. Without data, you are asking the publishers to take a risk for non-economic reasons. Why should they listen?
What someone who cares about this really needs to do is commission large scale surveys and research on the topic, and then present those findings as an argument that change will increase sales on net (assuming that is the outcome, but who knows).
That's the lovely thing, isn't it? Some developers are already listening, because they believe that female representation is important to the medium long-term, and it's also important to the medium on a societal level because better female representation will lead to better reception of women in the game space which will lead to more women developers which wil llead to a richer, more productive environment on the hwole. People are rallying behind the #1ReasonWhy idea because making the environment of game development safer and more conducive for women developers is an inherently noble endeavour.
The conservative, safe course is not right, and more and more people are realizing that over time.
Saying, "The gross sexualization of female characters should continue because if it doesn't then people might make less money" is both intellectually lazy and morally groundless.
Wyborn on
+1
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The words attractive and sexualized aren't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Actually, it's pretty much impossible to make an attractive women doing video-gamey things and not have people identify it as sexualized. The recent Tomb Raider game is a good example of that.
And games with unattractive leads probably won't sell.
To be honest, I think all these discussions are kind of pointless, because we don't have the most important piece of information: probable sales impact. Without that information, we have no idea how reasonable or unreasonable it is to ask developers to change their designs. Even if someone in this thread has the single greatest argument possible for why developers need to change, it is meaningless until we know if implementing these changes will hurt their sales, and thereby hurt the chance of publishers working with them again and the chance if them continuing to exist as a company.
You only buy games if you find the characters attractive? O_o Why do games without female characters sell then? Are only women buying them? Mostly women play call of duty? Surely you don't actually believe that sexualized characters are needed to make money in this industry.
It's impossible to argue that changing female designs would negatively impact sales without also having data on motivating factors for purchases. No amount of data is necessary for developers to change female characters' designs. Furthermore you have no reason to believe that non-sexist female characters wouldn't boost sales.
Maybe someone could make a lot of money by selling a lot of games designed with white supremacists in mind, but that doesn't mean they ought to.
Without data, the conservative course is to avoid change.
Even if it's true, it's still a bad thing. The fact is that doing the right thing is not always compatible with making money.
50 years ago, TV shows and the movies would have lost viewers if they had African American characters who were portrayed as intelligent professionals. But do you really want to live in a world that didn't have people who took that risk and did the right thing?
Why should changing the world be the responsibility of people making games as a living? You are literally asking them to put their careers at risk to effect social change. That hardly seems fair to me. And if I have to choose between a world where thoughtful game designers have lower sales (and thereby don't get publishers to publish subsequent games) and the less thoughtful, less interning game designers win out or a world where everyone panders, I'll choose the latter every time, because I want good, interesting games to co tinge to be made, and its already an uphill battle to get them made as it is (look at how much easier it is for Bioware or Bethesda to get an rpg made while Obsidian gets stuck with chatty licenses and Troika went under. . .)
This is a preposterous false dichotomy. There is no correlation between less sexualization of female characters and lower sales, at least not any that's been in any way proven. That would be the first step.
This is something that has to be done in baby steps, but yes, change of this kind is the responsibility of everyone, you don't get to hide behind the dollar when people talk about what we owe each other on a social or artistic level.
Nobody is going to lose their jobs for making reasonably-designed female characters.
You say that, but as I said a few pages back, we don't have the data we need, and in the absence of data, the conservative, safe course is to continue the current practices. Without data, you are asking the publishers to take a risk for non-economic reasons. Why should they listen?
What someone who cares about this really needs to do is commission large scale surveys and research on the topic, and then present those findings as an argument that change will increase sales on net (assuming that is the outcome, but who knows).
That's the lovely thing, isn't it? Some developers are already listening, because they believe that female representation is important to the medium long-term, and it's also important to the medium on a societal level because better female representation will lead to better reception of women in the game space which will lead to more women developers which wil llead to a richer, more productive environment on the hwole. People are rallying behind the #1ReasonWhy idea because making the environment of game development safer and more conducive for women developers is an inherently noble endeavour.
The conservative, safe course is not right, and more and more people are realizing that over time.
Saying, "The gross sexualization of female characters should continue because if it doesn't then people might make less money" is both intellectually lazy and morally groundless.
And this is why (as I said before) the problem is solved, this thread is filled with examples of nonsexualized characters, and this is just a victory lap now. Who is really producing games with non-sexualized female characters?
I don't think that wanting to continue to be employed or have your company survive (look at how publishers can crush a developer) is lazy or immoral.
And this is why (as I said before) the problem is solved, this thread is filled with examples of nonsexualized characters, and this is just a victory lap now. Who is really producing games with non-sexualized female characters?
I don't think that wanting to continue to be employed or have your company survive (look at how publishers can crush a developer) is lazy or immoral.
Now let me make sure I've got this right.
You feel the gender culture war is already won, and that problem is solved, and it's just a matter of clean-up from here on out. Is that right?
Wyborn on
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You just need ears, not hard data, to know women are put off by impossible proportions and revealing cleavage.
No, you need to know if the net gain in purchases by women and men who are anti-objectification enough to not buy now will outweigh lost sales from gamers that buy based on character designs. The relevant questions are about preference strength, resignation of advertising, ability to get shelf space with a less traditionally flashy box, etc.
Samara in ME...I couldn't even use her because every time I see her I think "Horny nerdboy boner generator".
With Jack, I did her loyalty mission as soon as I got her to unlock her not as ridiculous armor because I love listening to the shit she says in a fight.
Don't know if I have a point but that's part of my view on the sexualization of female characters.
And this is why (as I said before) the problem is solved, this thread is filled with examples of nonsexualized characters, and this is just a victory lap now. Who is really producing games with non-sexualized female characters?
I don't think that wanting to continue to be employed or have your company survive (look at how publishers can crush a developer) is lazy or immoral.
Now let me make sure I've got this right.
You feel the gender culture war is already won, and that problem is solved, and it's just a matter of clean-up from here on out. Is that right?
Posts
Is that the game where execs were all like "ew the player has to kiss a boy? gaaayyyyyyy"?
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
And I would absolutely believe those reports
The status quo is lazy and cynical as all fuck.
Moar gay plz.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
i think that, were the two genders equally represented, I would prefer male, but I too prefer female protagonists purely for novelty
But that's because I'm an anomaly. I buy every system and almost every major game. I play everything. It's basically never a choice between a good game with a male lead and one with a female lead, because I will buy them both if they are both good or important releases.
But I'd like to think that if I were pickier I would try to intentionally support female leads when I can.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
I still keep up with new anime, partly in hopes of something actually worthwhile coming out (which happens every now and then), but mainly just out of morbid curiosity to see what kind of shameless pandering they'll come up with next. That said, at least they take a break from constantly sexualizing women in increasingly ludicrous ways to objectify men once in a while.
I mean, watch this and tell me this isn't intended to appeal to women:
The only problem is that on voiced games playing as female massively increases your chances of being played by Jennifer Hale.
when every female character is jennifer hale or laura bailey it gets a bit dull
Male characters have Troy Baker, Nolan North and Steve Blum
It happens
Silent Protagonists are the worst. I hate it in Half Life 2, I hate it in BioShock, it annoyed the crap out of me in Dead Space, I'm really, really not a fan. The only one I can stand is Chell, and that's because I assume she spends Portal not wanting to dignify GladOS's insane bullship with a response, and in Portal 2 she's suffering from brain damage that causes her to jump every time she means to say anything.
I very strongly believe that the way that the games industry is going to change is by producing more and better games with female protagonists. I think that it will benefit all levels of the industry, starting by providing an increased target audience, changing perceptions among gamers, and eventually leading to more women creating games, marketing that isn't offensive to women, etc.
Yeah but those three can act.
a voice actress will ALWAYS impart a degree of personality to the lines she delivers, no matter how much choice between different dialogue you give and no matter how much freedom the player has to choose their actions.
Most of the time I try to make it look like my wife - I usually fail, but I still pretend
Playing a girl with a giant hammer is one thing
Playing as your wife with a giant hammer is fun times
I don't get "blank canvas." Depending on the actions of the character, I either get "mute" or "suffering from a brain injury." To me, a named video game character (Gordon Freeman, the dude from Bioshock, etc) never speaking makes about as much sense as having a movie with the same goal wherein which the protagonist doesn't speak.
I can't speak for Jennifer Hale as a stage or screen actor, but I like her as a voice actor.
She is the essential version of the Boss from Saints Row for me
If she's not in SR4 I shall be very put out
"We always assumed she could talk, she just chooses not to, what with robots all being dicks, why give them the satisfaction?” - Erik Wolpaw
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I wanted to bring this part up again briefly and quote the wiki entry on bishonen:
We almost exclusively talk about things in terms of western culture without caveat because that's our common reference and the source for the majority of our discussion, but I think it's useful to note things like this because it's a cultural issue, not a human one (just like, say, this). It isn't because of innate sex drives, it's because of everything we layer on top.
Silent protagonists are the best. You want to kill my immersion? Throw some VA in with an actor I've already heard in 15 other games. If I have the option, I always turn off the voices in games.
In the west, they are called "elves".
i used to think i liked playing as a female character because of the novelty, because when i got the choice i'd try a role in a game i didn't often get to be in, but i think now it might be just a more basic desire to get more content from a game.
in games where you can choose gender, like skyrim or mass effect, i find that if you play as a woman, NPC's will often have unique extra dialogue, like a guy will hit on you in the first mass effect. i think this is a subtle reflection of social values that men are the default and women are deviations from that, so while you get a "normal" experience as a guy, you get something extra if you're a woman.
in skyrim i noticed that when NPC's have gender-specific lines, like that woman in whiterun, it'll be a comment on your gender if you're a woman, but a comment on their gender in relation to yours if you are a man. for example, whiterun lady will say to female characters that though life is tough as a woman in skyrim, be tough and they'll respect you or something like that. if you're a man, she'll ask you if you have a problem with strong women. i haven't done any proper investigation into this so it could just be an artifact of my selective attention, but maybe not?
Why should changing the world be the responsibility of people making games as a living? You are literally asking them to put their careers at risk to effect social change. That hardly seems fair to me. And if I have to choose between a world where thoughtful game designers have lower sales (and thereby don't get publishers to publish subsequent games) and the less thoughtful, less interning game designers win out or a world where everyone panders, I'll choose the latter every time, because I want good, interesting games to co tinge to be made, and its already an uphill battle to get them made as it is (look at how much easier it is for Bioware or Bethesda to get an rpg made while Obsidian gets stuck with chatty licenses and Troika went under. . .)
That is fair, but it doesn't really speak to my point that a male gamer is reasonable if he says he never wants to play a female character, because he wants to identify with the character he plays.
This is a preposterous false dichotomy. There is no correlation between less sexualization of female characters and lower sales, at least not any that's been in any way proven. That would be the first step.
This is something that has to be done in baby steps, but yes, change of this kind is the responsibility of everyone, you don't get to hide behind the dollar when people talk about what we owe each other on a social or artistic level.
Nobody is going to lose their jobs for making reasonably-designed female characters.
You say that, but as I said a few pages back, we don't have the data we need, and in the absence of data, the conservative, safe course is to continue the current practices. Without data, you are asking the publishers to take a risk for non-economic reasons. Why should they listen?
What someone who cares about this really needs to do is commission large scale surveys and research on the topic, and then present those findings as an argument that change will increase sales on net (assuming that is the outcome, but who knows).
That's the lovely thing, isn't it? Some developers are already listening, because they believe that female representation is important to the medium long-term, and it's also important to the medium on a societal level because better female representation will lead to better reception of women in the game space which will lead to more women developers which wil llead to a richer, more productive environment on the hwole. People are rallying behind the #1ReasonWhy idea because making the environment of game development safer and more conducive for women developers is an inherently noble endeavour.
The conservative, safe course is not right, and more and more people are realizing that over time.
Saying, "The gross sexualization of female characters should continue because if it doesn't then people might make less money" is both intellectually lazy and morally groundless.
And this is why (as I said before) the problem is solved, this thread is filled with examples of nonsexualized characters, and this is just a victory lap now. Who is really producing games with non-sexualized female characters?
I don't think that wanting to continue to be employed or have your company survive (look at how publishers can crush a developer) is lazy or immoral.
Now let me make sure I've got this right.
You feel the gender culture war is already won, and that problem is solved, and it's just a matter of clean-up from here on out. Is that right?
No, you need to know if the net gain in purchases by women and men who are anti-objectification enough to not buy now will outweigh lost sales from gamers that buy based on character designs. The relevant questions are about preference strength, resignation of advertising, ability to get shelf space with a less traditionally flashy box, etc.
With Jack, I did her loyalty mission as soon as I got her to unlock her not as ridiculous armor because I love listening to the shit she says in a fight.
Don't know if I have a point but that's part of my view on the sexualization of female characters.
I was being sarcastic.