So we all agree that there is a chance to be taken by gambling on women, yes?
No, there isn't an inherent risk for New Game X to exclude highly sexualized designs.
Your arguments are extremely tenuous and couched on getting people to agree with your asserted assumptions all the way to the conclusion, but let's ignore that and instead pretend that you are exactly right and that there is a great peril to not porning up every game: no one will care, because their reasons for opposing these ideas aren't based on spreadsheets, they're based on principle. Would you trip over yourself offering excuses for blatantly racist creations behind the shield of market morality?
It could be even simpler too: why isn't there a calculable risk in creating a game that is embarrassing enough to turn off consumers as a whole?
That's basically what happened with me and Bayonetta.
DMC I can play in front of other people most of the time, as cheesy as it is (and even that has some pretty ridiculous female characters whenever they show up).
But a Witch whose skimpy clothes disappear completely when she does a special attack? Look I don't care how much of a parody you're claiming it's supposed to be, I'd simply be embarrassed playing something like that in front of other people, and with good freaking reason.
So we all agree that there is a chance to be taken by gambling on women, yes?
No, there isn't an inherent risk for New Game X to exclude highly sexualized designs.
Your arguments are extremely tenuous and couched on getting people to agree with your asserted assumptions all the way to the conclusion, but let's ignore that and instead pretend that you are exactly right and that there is a great peril to not porning up every game: no one will care, because their reasons for opposing these ideas aren't based on spreadsheets, they're based on principle. Would you trip over yourself offering excuses for blatantly racist creations behind the shield of market morality?
It could be even simpler too: why isn't there a calculable risk in creating a game that is embarrassing enough to turn off consumers as a whole?
That's basically what happened with me and Bayonetta.
DMC I can play in front of other people most of the time, as cheesy as it is (and even that has some pretty ridiculous female characters whenever they show up).
But a Witch whose skimpy clothes disappear completely when she does a special attack? Look I don't care how much of a parody you're claiming it's supposed to be, I'd simply be embarrassed playing something like that in front of other people, and with good freaking reason.
To think about this, we have to put aside the merits of the title--even a very good title--and consider that, yes, there are additions to a game made stylistically that probably struck potential consumers as paints-on-head stupid (like giant purple dildo bats or an overly abundant amount of moaning from the protagonist) and were obvious enough to convince people on the fence not to buy a it.
Looking back at 2013 so far and looking ahead, it might actually be a good year for women carrying video games. While I can just about 100% guarantee that every single one of these games will have aspects (in some cases, strong aspects) that can and will be labeled "problematic" or blatantly sexist, we're in a year with a major IP relaunch featuring a female main character (Tomb Raider), a new entry of a major IP featuring a female lead character (Heart of the Swarm), a couple of major releases featuring female characters in major roles that aren't insulting to women (The Last of Us and Bioshock Infinite), and a few new IPs featuring female main characters (Remember Me, Beyond: Two Souls). Those games released thus far have been pretty well received by audiences and critics for the most part.
As years in gaming go for women, 2013 has potential.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Yeah, it's not a risk to have non-sexualized women in your games, games do that all the time. It's a risk to have a female protagonist because you're inviting controversy you wouldn't have to deal with otherwise (like the Tomb Raider 'rape scene' thing), but that can work in your favor too.
Honestly, the biggest thing keeping triple-A games using male protagonists right now is that the most successful triple-A games are all established brands and there aren't that many established brands with female heroines. Making a game with a new IP is a pretty big risk in the triple-A market right now, and if you manage to justify that risk it becomes harder to add other risks (like a female protagonist) on top of it. It can happen, but it's tough.
If anything the risk right now seems to be in sexualizing your female protagonist too much, because people will get outraged about it.
I think the disconnect here is that most of you are treating video games as the next great feminist crusade, and SKFM is treating video games as a business.
The thing is, everyone who has their livelihood invested in the industry is going to treat video games as a business.
To that end, they're going to be unlikely to mess with success. Our best avenue for change isn't to bitch about the status quo so much as it is to change it. Most of us are adults here. Want to really make a difference? Make an adventure game that follows in your vision and have it be a success. Crank out a flat chested Laura Croft in a parka game and have it be a success. That will turn some heads.
As it is, Beyond Good & Evil didn't do so hot.
The main point is this: It's one thing to nay-say someone else's money, time and effort. It's another to put yours on the line. So how much do you really believe in what you're arguing?
There are plenty of concerns. Before the later Gears of War games, I don't think it's a stretch to say that chopping a big macho guy in half with a chainsaw in the most horrific way imaginable* is substantially less controversial than chopping a big brawn lady in half with the same chainsaw. Of course, GoW can get away with both now, but here you would could have the exclusion of women from the central "going to die horrifically" cast for reasons less involved in sex being good for sales.
*Then again, maybe horrific chainsaw murder should be looked with some controversy and dismay as unnecessary.
Yeah, it's not a risk to have non-sexualized women in your games, games do that all the time. It's a risk to have a female protagonist because you're inviting controversy you wouldn't have to deal with otherwise (like the Tomb Raider 'rape scene' thing), but that can work in your favor too.
Honestly, the biggest thing keeping triple-A games using male protagonists right now is that the most successful triple-A games are all established brands and there aren't that many established brands with female heroines. Making a game with a new IP is a pretty big risk in the triple-A market right now, and if you manage to justify that risk it becomes harder to add other risks (like a female protagonist) on top of it. It can happen, but it's tough.
If anything the risk right now seems to be in sexualizing your female protagonist too much, because people will get outraged about it.
y'know this brings back a whole set of bad memories
we have an industry - a consumer base - where THIS happened:
yes, we had fan outrage that Faith was SIMPLY NOT SEXY ENOUGH. In a game played in first-person. Where her job did have her running on catwalks, but not in fashion shows.
a character that's the very definition of 'not needing to be sexualized' and there was outrage that her boobs weren't big enough and her lips weren't pouty enough.
so you know what - 5 years ago, it WAS a risk. but we've come a long way - i can't imagine a similar controversy being given any air time nowadays because we've shifted the debate.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I'm not getting any community outrage from that kotaku article. If you follow the link, the second image is a fan attempting to redraw her based on what he thinks the asian market wants, not demanding that she be that way. Kotaku's position is pretty much where the mainstream games media has been for a while ("Chainmail bikinis are really awful guys. Anyway, let's go chainsaw some bitches.")
There are really two risks being talked about here. Having a female protagonist is a risk. Having overt sexuality in your game is a risk. Not having sexuality is not a risk, unless you're making a game with character customization in which case you want to have sexy options because that's what people will pick anyway.
The safe play in the current market isn't to make a game with a non-sexualized female protagonist, and it isn't to make a game with a bouncing bimbo. The safe play is to make another Call of Duty.
I think the disconnect here is that most of you are treating video games as the next great feminist crusade, and SKFM is treating video games as a business.
The thing is, everyone who has their livelihood invested in the industry is going to treat video games as a business.
To that end, they're going to be unlikely to mess with success. Our best avenue for change isn't to bitch about the status quo so much as it is to change it. Most of us are adults here. Want to really make a difference? Make an adventure game that follows in your vision and have it be a success. Crank out a flat chested Laura Croft in a parka game and have it be a success. That will turn some heads.
As it is, Beyond Good & Evil didn't do so hot.
The main point is this: It's one thing to nay-say someone else's money, time and effort. It's another to put yours on the line. So how much do you really believe in what you're arguing?
"If you can't fund a multi-million dollar game yourself, you don't have the right to bitch" is such a dumb and dismissive argument that it's a very ridiculous stance to take. It's the classic "You don't do what I do, thus I am immune to criticism" stance.
Sure, BG&E didn't sell well. But is that because of the female main character, or because the game was in a genre that was slowly dying off in a year with a ridiculous number of quality releases and was barely marketed? Mirror's Edge was a first person platformer, a genre that functionally only sort of existed in brief moments in levels in shooters. Just about the only female main character that's put in traditional games (that isn't a choice like FemShep) is Samus Aran, and Metroid games sell quite well. Non-sexualized female protagonists simply have not been put in the big money genres, they go in narrow niches like adventure games or platformers, so there simply is no way to state that those games would not sell with one.
I mean, we're just talking about triple-A titles here, right? Indie games seem to have pretty decent character diversity in general, so I'm guessing they aren't the problem you guys are having.
It's impossible to have that discussion without looking at the state of triple-A gaming as a whole. Right now, you have to go more than 20 spots down the 2013 sales chart for triple-A games to find a game that isn't part of an established IP.
So why are female protagonists such a risk and done so rarely? There are several reasons, but that's the most important one. The big triple-A games have male protagonists because they are sequels to franchises that also have male protagonists.
I think the disconnect here is that most of you are treating video games as the next great feminist crusade, and SKFM is treating video games as a business.
One, no one is talking about a "crusade," so spare me the loaded language; two, SKFM is talking about his vague assumptions about business without much to support it, like how you mysteriously single out BG&E as the representative title for female protagonists and whose sales were based on that; three, your advice that you can't criticize/effect change without being a creator is patently absurd (and I'm sure you don't follow it, be it in games, movies, television, books, or whatever else) and somehow ignores the role of consumers mere moments after some comments about the business of selling games to people.
Actually, I'm saying trying to shame video game companies isn't going to change the dynamic for Triple A games.
There's too much money and risk involved. You'll have to show them that the risk is worth the reward, and bitching on an internet forum and making snide remarks on twitter isn't going to do that.
Actually, I'm saying trying to shame video game companies isn't going to change the dynamic for Triple A games.
There's too much money and risk involved. You'll have to show them that the risk is worth the reward, and bitching on an internet forum and making snide remarks on twitter isn't going to do that.
I'm fairly sure this thread is pretty much "Make these games with interesting female characters and we will buy them." (Assuming the game itself is good)
What SKFM is arguing is basically how businesses in America are run currently: even if it'd increase our profits 1000% in the future, if it costs us money or lowers our profits any right now then fuck it. We've seen how myopic businesses can be with the banking crash and SKFM is basically advocating the same sort of shortsightedness should be continued within the gaming industry.
If you want an example about what'd happen to the gaming industry if they continue focusing on their existing audience rather than making an attempt to continually expand their audience, just look at anime and its decline. They made the decision to focus on the consumers who spent the most cash on anime, so it moved away from stuff that was more or less well liked across both genders to stuff more focused on the male gaze and they rapidly shed fans.
Hell, if you look at the history of LEGO you can see they did the same thing. In the 70s and 80s they advertised in a more gender neutral way, but then they decided if they doubled-down on boys they could make more money. They did in the short term but they've fucked themselves in the long term, as now sales have dropped and they have to undo years of "LEGO is a boy's toy" to try and recover.
Gaming's following the same path so far. The NES and SNES eras didn't really have explicit gaze issues, mainly due to graphics fidelity not allowing sprites to fall into that bucket that well. Likewise they didn't really have complexity issues, enough that many parents played the systems alongside their kids. Starting with the PS1 era, gaming consoles had enough power to render the more sexist stuff so it was more visible and the complexity level of games skyrocketed with the introduction of 3D games so a lot of people stopped playing. At that point gaming kept doubling down on the shrinking, more dedicated fanbase over and over until we're at the point we're at now. Nintendo tried to break the cycle with the Wii, but no one else helped them, partly because of the SKFMs of the industry poo-pooing the idea and declaring Wii development not worth the money. At this point if things continue the way they're going, conservative publishers will keep doubling down on the same niche over and over enough that video games will eventually run out of people to cater to and die.
This is why breaking the cycle now and getting women and minorities and QUILTBAG people into gaming sooner than later is important: it's something that will help the continuing health of the industry while also treating groups that have been traditionally used as objects or stereotypes as actual people.
What SKFM is arguing is basically how businesses in America are run currently: even if it'd increase our profits 1000% in the future, if it costs us money or lowers our profits any right now then fuck it. We've seen how myopic businesses can be with the banking crash and SKFM is basically advocating the same sort of shortsightedness should be continued within the gaming industry.
If you want an example about what'd happen to the gaming industry if they continue focusing on their existing audience rather than making an attempt to continually expand their audience, just look at anime and its decline. They made the decision to focus on the consumers who spent the most cash on anime, so it moved away from stuff that was more or less well liked across both genders to stuff more focused on the male gaze and they rapidly shed fans.
Hell, if you look at the history of LEGO you can see they did the same thing. In the 70s and 80s they advertised in a more gender neutral way, but then they decided if they doubled-down on boys they could make more money. They did in the short term but they've fucked themselves in the long term, as now sales have dropped and they have to undo years of "LEGO is a boy's toy" to try and recover.
Gaming's following the same path so far. The NES and SNES eras didn't really have explicit gaze issues, mainly due to graphics fidelity not allowing sprites to fall into that bucket that well. Likewise they didn't really have complexity issues, enough that many parents played the systems alongside their kids. Starting with the PS1 era, gaming consoles had enough power to render the more sexist stuff so it was more visible and the complexity level of games skyrocketed with the introduction of 3D games so a lot of people stopped playing. At that point gaming kept doubling down on the shrinking, more dedicated fanbase over and over until we're at the point we're at now. Nintendo tried to break the cycle with the Wii, but no one else helped them, partly because of the SKFMs of the industry poo-pooing the idea and declaring Wii development not worth the money. At this point if things continue the way they're going, conservative publishers will keep doubling down on the same niche over and over enough that video games will eventually run out of people to cater to and die.
This is why breaking the cycle now and getting women and minorities and QUILTBAG people into gaming sooner than later is important: it's something that will help the continuing health of the industry while also treating groups that have been traditionally used as objects or stereotypes as actual people.
Actually the current console generation (particularly the last few years) has pretty much followed the opposite path to what you're saying here. Early games were very sexist/exclusive and gaming has gotten increasingly mainstream over the years.
I really don't know what games you are playing that have been getting steadily more sexist or exclusive over the years, but it's definitely not representative of the games industry of today. Did you miss the whole mobile/social shakeup which was largely about making lower-investment more casual games to appeal to a wider (read: female) audience? The Nintendo Wii which made family gaming a thing? The increasing push over the last few years for triple-A games to be thematically more like movies and less like comic books?
One section of the game industry (triple-A console titles) is stuck in a creative rut right now, but it has less to do with diversity issues and more to do with development costs not matching up to consumer expectations for product. Lots of triple-A studios would make original IP if they could, but the development money to do so simply isn't there right now, because original IPs tend not to sell as well as established brands. Another section of the game industry (the free-to-play space) has had incredible success over the last few years selling lots and lots of products with sexualized female characters, and they continue to see higher profits every year.
I can see why the narrative you're selling is appealing if you are a player who wants a particular kind of triple-A game, but it just doesn't match the reality of the industry right now.
I still don't believe for a second that if the next CoD game starred a female protagonist that it would hurt sales in any significant way.
I believe sales would suffer greatly. Even if the protagonist is silent, a woman on the boxart would drive the regulars away no matter how good the game was.
+3
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
On women gaming now, they are already buying the games, objectification and all. What you need to show in order to make the case for a shift is that changing will bring in more consumers than the current model. That is a question that can and should be answered. Until then, all we can do is conjecture, while the AAA publishers stick with what works because its working. It's just that simple.
On women gaming now, they are already buying the games, objectification and all. What you need to show in order to make the case for a shift is that changing will bring in more consumers than the current model. That is a question that can and should be answered. Until then, all we can do is conjecture, while the AAA publishers stick with what works because its working. It's just that simple.
And, you know, continue to point out the blatantly sexist stuff the industry and people like you support so long as it gets them money.
That's the other thing we can do.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
On women gaming now, they are already buying the games, objectification and all. What you need to show in order to make the case for a shift is that changing will bring in more consumers than the current model. That is a question that can and should be answered. Until then, all we can do is conjecture, while the AAA publishers stick with what works because its working. It's just that simple.
And, you know, continue to point out the blatantly sexist stuff the industry and people like you support so long as it gets them money.
That's the other thing we can do.
I have no horse in this race. I do t mind current character designs, but would not mind if they changed. What I would mind is if more female characters equals more iterations of romance options in RPGs, because they are unifirmly terrible and suck up huge amounts of resources (the voice acting alone). Similiarly, I don't support more fully voiced games with a choice of gender, because it leads to wasting so much money on voice acting. Really, I wish full voice acting for RPGs would just go die.
On women gaming now, they are already buying the games, objectification and all. What you need to show in order to make the case for a shift is that changing will bring in more consumers than the current model. That is a question that can and should be answered. Until then, all we can do is conjecture, while the AAA publishers stick with what works because its working. It's just that simple.
Why don't you provide more than conjecture to back up your argument?
You know, since you've already stated that evidence is needed for any counter argument.
Out of curiosity, the last couple of Gears of War games had female characters right?
Any anecdotal evidence on how frequently you see them used online? Not that it realistically means much one way or the other, but I'm still curious.
I haven't been online in a while (too long, I need to go through GoW3 more thoroughly), but they're popular enough given that they're practically all recent additions. Or at least they were: they blend into the macho aesthetic well enough that they're not jarring in the least (suitably grey and brown), but they're simply not as popular either.
Out of curiosity, the last couple of Gears of War games had female characters right?
Any anecdotal evidence on how frequently you see them used online? Not that it realistically means much one way or the other, but I'm still curious.
I haven't been online in a while (too long, I need to go through GoW3 more thoroughly), but they're popular enough given that they're practically all recent additions. Or at least they were: they blend into the macho aesthetic well enough that they're not jarring in the least (suitably grey and brown), but they're simply not as popular either.
Anya and the Locust Queen were popular. I never saw many Bernies or Sams.
On women gaming now, they are already buying the games, objectification and all. What you need to show in order to make the case for a shift is that changing will bring in more consumers than the current model. That is a question that can and should be answered. Until then, all we can do is conjecture, while the AAA publishers stick with what works because its working. It's just that simple.
And, you know, continue to point out the blatantly sexist stuff the industry and people like you support so long as it gets them money.
That's the other thing we can do.
I have no horse in this race. I do t mind current character designs, but would not mind if they changed. What I would mind is if more female characters equals more iterations of romance options in RPGs, because they are unifirmly terrible and suck up huge amounts of resources (the voice acting alone). Similiarly, I don't support more fully voiced games with a choice of gender, because it leads to wasting so much money on voice acting. Really, I wish full voice acting for RPGs would just go die.
On women gaming now, they are already buying the games, objectification and all. What you need to show in order to make the case for a shift is that changing will bring in more consumers than the current model. That is a question that can and should be answered. Until then, all we can do is conjecture, while the AAA publishers stick with what works because its working. It's just that simple.
And, you know, continue to point out the blatantly sexist stuff the industry and people like you support so long as it gets them money.
If that woman's cleavedge made one more person pick the game up off the shelf, it was a net positive for microprose. And to be blunt, if taking her top off could have increased sales enough to get a sequel, I'd endorse it 100000% because I like playing great games.
You've said so yourself. If making the world more hostile and unfair for women gets you what you want then you wholly support it. You will support a hostile and uncomfortable culture for women without hesitation so long as you can get a game you like out of it.
And fortunately myself and the majority of other people can point this attitude out for being the selfish, short sighted thing it is. And thus culture is slightly altered for the better.
Quid on
+10
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
I don't think having more female balance in games leading to more romance choices in RPGs leading to greater voice acting requirements leading to higher budgets for games is an epidemic you should worry about brah.
I don't think having more female balance in games leading to more romance choices in RPGs leading to greater voice acting requirements leading to higher budgets for games is an epidemic you should worry about brah.
I'd like to see the developers' thought process for that.
Maybe it'd be something like this:
Creative lead - "We need to stop objectifying women you guys"
Rest of the development team - "You're right!"
Creative lead - "That means we need more romance options!"
Hmmm nevermind that doesn't make any sense. :rotate:
Sure, we could make games appeal more to women but then it'd be all pink stuff and unicorns and pastel colored glitter pens.
Ugh come on guys.
More games with female leads seem like they would attract more women as consumers ... but that doesn't really happen. You do lose male customers when you make the lead character female unless it's a super-star franchise like Tomb Raider. The best option is to have a create-a-character feature so everyone is happy.
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
This is just me talking, but I'm thunking that if a guy won't play a game because it has an icky girl as a protagonist, he probably isn't old enough to play video games.
Sure, we could make games appeal more to women but then it'd be all pink stuff and unicorns and pastel colored glitter pens.
Ugh come on guys.
More games with female leads seem like they would attract more women as consumers ... but that doesn't really happen. You do lose male customers when you make the lead character female unless it's a super-star franchise like Tomb Raider. The best option is to have a create-a-character feature so everyone is happy.
Not seeing a point here since the current paradigm is most people would like a company to simply make something not stupidly offensive. I've only said game companies shouldn't create and sell sexist products even if profitable. Not that they should be paragons of feminism who strike out at every idiot on a comments section at all costs.
Is it really such a terrible request that people not fuck up the world any worse than it is already?
Quid on
+2
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i have on several occasions not bought rpgs because u have to play as a dood
Sure, we could make games appeal more to women but then it'd be all pink stuff and unicorns and pastel colored glitter pens.
Ugh come on guys.
More games with female leads seem like they would attract more women as consumers ... but that doesn't really happen. You do lose male customers when you make the lead character female unless it's a super-star franchise like Tomb Raider. The best option is to have a create-a-character feature so everyone is happy.
Not seeing a point here since the current paradigm is most people would like a company to simply make something not stupidly offensive. I've only said game companies shouldn't create and sell sexist products even if profitable. Not that they should be paragons of feminism who strike out at every idiot on a comments section at all costs.
Is it really such a terrible request that people not fuck up the world any worse than it is already?
And I half-agree. I'm saying it's a good and reasonable thing to request that Catwoman zip up her sneaking suit all the way in the next Arkham game. I'm also saying don't count on Warner Bros. ever releasing an action game starring Wonder Woman in the lead role because WB knows it wouldn't sell well to the masses.
Sure, we could make games appeal more to women but then it'd be all pink stuff and unicorns and pastel colored glitter pens.
Ugh come on guys.
More games with female leads seem like they would attract more women as consumers ... but that doesn't really happen. You do lose male customers when you make the lead character female unless it's a super-star franchise like Tomb Raider. The best option is to have a create-a-character feature so everyone is happy.
Games with female lead characters don't work except the ones that do work. Got it. You're saying you lose male customers when you have a female lead as if it is factual when there's absolutely no evidence to back you up. Until you can open a tear to a reality where the only difference is gender swapping in games, and point to lower sales, you can't say that it works like that.
I'm not the only one who thinks that thinking "more women in games" = "more romance" is kind of telling, right?
I am charitably assuming that he means "more selectable-gender protagonists in RPGs = more romance options costing money (because you have one set for males and one set for females)," which is still such a vanishingly small matter that even mentioning it is sort of ridiculous.
You do lose male customers when you make the lead character female unless it's a super-star franchise like Tomb Raider.
"Unless." There's always these "unlesses" accommodating successes that defy the rule until people realize the rule is kind of nonsense. Do you have some data on this? Was Portal a superstar franchise as a new title? Was Bayonetta? When the studio's next title, Vanquish, sold half as many copies as Bayonetta, can we assume that was because of the male protagonist? To the extent that a given title with a female protagonist doesn't sell, is that a self-fulfilling prophecy based on errant assumptions rather than actual fact?
Sure, we could make games appeal more to women but then it'd be all pink stuff and unicorns and pastel colored glitter pens.
Ugh come on guys.
More games with female leads seem like they would attract more women as consumers ... but that doesn't really happen. You do lose male customers when you make the lead character female unless it's a super-star franchise like Tomb Raider. The best option is to have a create-a-character feature so everyone is happy.
Not seeing a point here since the current paradigm is most people would like a company to simply make something not stupidly offensive. I've only said game companies shouldn't create and sell sexist products even if profitable. Not that they should be paragons of feminism who strike out at every idiot on a comments section at all costs.
Is it really such a terrible request that people not fuck up the world any worse than it is already?
And I half-agree. I'm saying it's a good and reasonable thing to request that Catwoman zip up her sneaking suit all the way in the next Arkham game. I'm also saying don't count on Warner Bros. ever releasing an action game starring Wonder Woman in the lead role because WB knows it wouldn't sell well to the masses.
How did they reach that conclusion?
I'd buy the shit out of a Wonder Woman video game. That comic has been pretty good lately.
Posts
That's basically what happened with me and Bayonetta.
DMC I can play in front of other people most of the time, as cheesy as it is (and even that has some pretty ridiculous female characters whenever they show up).
But a Witch whose skimpy clothes disappear completely when she does a special attack? Look I don't care how much of a parody you're claiming it's supposed to be, I'd simply be embarrassed playing something like that in front of other people, and with good freaking reason.
To think about this, we have to put aside the merits of the title--even a very good title--and consider that, yes, there are additions to a game made stylistically that probably struck potential consumers as paints-on-head stupid (like giant purple dildo bats or an overly abundant amount of moaning from the protagonist) and were obvious enough to convince people on the fence not to buy a it.
As years in gaming go for women, 2013 has potential.
Honestly, the biggest thing keeping triple-A games using male protagonists right now is that the most successful triple-A games are all established brands and there aren't that many established brands with female heroines. Making a game with a new IP is a pretty big risk in the triple-A market right now, and if you manage to justify that risk it becomes harder to add other risks (like a female protagonist) on top of it. It can happen, but it's tough.
If anything the risk right now seems to be in sexualizing your female protagonist too much, because people will get outraged about it.
The thing is, everyone who has their livelihood invested in the industry is going to treat video games as a business.
To that end, they're going to be unlikely to mess with success. Our best avenue for change isn't to bitch about the status quo so much as it is to change it. Most of us are adults here. Want to really make a difference? Make an adventure game that follows in your vision and have it be a success. Crank out a flat chested Laura Croft in a parka game and have it be a success. That will turn some heads.
As it is, Beyond Good & Evil didn't do so hot.
The main point is this: It's one thing to nay-say someone else's money, time and effort. It's another to put yours on the line. So how much do you really believe in what you're arguing?
*Then again, maybe horrific chainsaw murder should be looked with some controversy and dismay as unnecessary.
y'know this brings back a whole set of bad memories
we have an industry - a consumer base - where THIS happened:
http://kotaku.com/5099050/faith-is-not-a-12-year+old-with-a-boob-job
yes, we had fan outrage that Faith was SIMPLY NOT SEXY ENOUGH. In a game played in first-person. Where her job did have her running on catwalks, but not in fashion shows.
a character that's the very definition of 'not needing to be sexualized' and there was outrage that her boobs weren't big enough and her lips weren't pouty enough.
so you know what - 5 years ago, it WAS a risk. but we've come a long way - i can't imagine a similar controversy being given any air time nowadays because we've shifted the debate.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
There are really two risks being talked about here. Having a female protagonist is a risk. Having overt sexuality in your game is a risk. Not having sexuality is not a risk, unless you're making a game with character customization in which case you want to have sexy options because that's what people will pick anyway.
The safe play in the current market isn't to make a game with a non-sexualized female protagonist, and it isn't to make a game with a bouncing bimbo. The safe play is to make another Call of Duty.
"If you can't fund a multi-million dollar game yourself, you don't have the right to bitch" is such a dumb and dismissive argument that it's a very ridiculous stance to take. It's the classic "You don't do what I do, thus I am immune to criticism" stance.
Sure, BG&E didn't sell well. But is that because of the female main character, or because the game was in a genre that was slowly dying off in a year with a ridiculous number of quality releases and was barely marketed? Mirror's Edge was a first person platformer, a genre that functionally only sort of existed in brief moments in levels in shooters. Just about the only female main character that's put in traditional games (that isn't a choice like FemShep) is Samus Aran, and Metroid games sell quite well. Non-sexualized female protagonists simply have not been put in the big money genres, they go in narrow niches like adventure games or platformers, so there simply is no way to state that those games would not sell with one.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
It's impossible to have that discussion without looking at the state of triple-A gaming as a whole. Right now, you have to go more than 20 spots down the 2013 sales chart for triple-A games to find a game that isn't part of an established IP.
So why are female protagonists such a risk and done so rarely? There are several reasons, but that's the most important one. The big triple-A games have male protagonists because they are sequels to franchises that also have male protagonists.
One, no one is talking about a "crusade," so spare me the loaded language; two, SKFM is talking about his vague assumptions about business without much to support it, like how you mysteriously single out BG&E as the representative title for female protagonists and whose sales were based on that; three, your advice that you can't criticize/effect change without being a creator is patently absurd (and I'm sure you don't follow it, be it in games, movies, television, books, or whatever else) and somehow ignores the role of consumers mere moments after some comments about the business of selling games to people.
So: no.
There's too much money and risk involved. You'll have to show them that the risk is worth the reward, and bitching on an internet forum and making snide remarks on twitter isn't going to do that.
Any anecdotal evidence on how frequently you see them used online? Not that it realistically means much one way or the other, but I'm still curious.
I'm fairly sure this thread is pretty much "Make these games with interesting female characters and we will buy them." (Assuming the game itself is good)
To the rest of that: discussion and visibility is in fact how culture shifts, not just isolated events by creators in a vacuum.
If you want an example about what'd happen to the gaming industry if they continue focusing on their existing audience rather than making an attempt to continually expand their audience, just look at anime and its decline. They made the decision to focus on the consumers who spent the most cash on anime, so it moved away from stuff that was more or less well liked across both genders to stuff more focused on the male gaze and they rapidly shed fans.
Hell, if you look at the history of LEGO you can see they did the same thing. In the 70s and 80s they advertised in a more gender neutral way, but then they decided if they doubled-down on boys they could make more money. They did in the short term but they've fucked themselves in the long term, as now sales have dropped and they have to undo years of "LEGO is a boy's toy" to try and recover.
Gaming's following the same path so far. The NES and SNES eras didn't really have explicit gaze issues, mainly due to graphics fidelity not allowing sprites to fall into that bucket that well. Likewise they didn't really have complexity issues, enough that many parents played the systems alongside their kids. Starting with the PS1 era, gaming consoles had enough power to render the more sexist stuff so it was more visible and the complexity level of games skyrocketed with the introduction of 3D games so a lot of people stopped playing. At that point gaming kept doubling down on the shrinking, more dedicated fanbase over and over until we're at the point we're at now. Nintendo tried to break the cycle with the Wii, but no one else helped them, partly because of the SKFMs of the industry poo-pooing the idea and declaring Wii development not worth the money. At this point if things continue the way they're going, conservative publishers will keep doubling down on the same niche over and over enough that video games will eventually run out of people to cater to and die.
This is why breaking the cycle now and getting women and minorities and QUILTBAG people into gaming sooner than later is important: it's something that will help the continuing health of the industry while also treating groups that have been traditionally used as objects or stereotypes as actual people.
Actually the current console generation (particularly the last few years) has pretty much followed the opposite path to what you're saying here. Early games were very sexist/exclusive and gaming has gotten increasingly mainstream over the years.
I really don't know what games you are playing that have been getting steadily more sexist or exclusive over the years, but it's definitely not representative of the games industry of today. Did you miss the whole mobile/social shakeup which was largely about making lower-investment more casual games to appeal to a wider (read: female) audience? The Nintendo Wii which made family gaming a thing? The increasing push over the last few years for triple-A games to be thematically more like movies and less like comic books?
One section of the game industry (triple-A console titles) is stuck in a creative rut right now, but it has less to do with diversity issues and more to do with development costs not matching up to consumer expectations for product. Lots of triple-A studios would make original IP if they could, but the development money to do so simply isn't there right now, because original IPs tend not to sell as well as established brands. Another section of the game industry (the free-to-play space) has had incredible success over the last few years selling lots and lots of products with sexualized female characters, and they continue to see higher profits every year.
I can see why the narrative you're selling is appealing if you are a player who wants a particular kind of triple-A game, but it just doesn't match the reality of the industry right now.
I believe sales would suffer greatly. Even if the protagonist is silent, a woman on the boxart would drive the regulars away no matter how good the game was.
And, you know, continue to point out the blatantly sexist stuff the industry and people like you support so long as it gets them money.
That's the other thing we can do.
I have no horse in this race. I do t mind current character designs, but would not mind if they changed. What I would mind is if more female characters equals more iterations of romance options in RPGs, because they are unifirmly terrible and suck up huge amounts of resources (the voice acting alone). Similiarly, I don't support more fully voiced games with a choice of gender, because it leads to wasting so much money on voice acting. Really, I wish full voice acting for RPGs would just go die.
Why don't you provide more than conjecture to back up your argument?
You know, since you've already stated that evidence is needed for any counter argument.
I haven't been online in a while (too long, I need to go through GoW3 more thoroughly), but they're popular enough given that they're practically all recent additions. Or at least they were: they blend into the macho aesthetic well enough that they're not jarring in the least (suitably grey and brown), but they're simply not as popular either.
Anya and the Locust Queen were popular. I never saw many Bernies or Sams.
So do you or don't you have horse in this race?
You're saying one thing and arguing another.
Sure you do:
You've said so yourself. If making the world more hostile and unfair for women gets you what you want then you wholly support it. You will support a hostile and uncomfortable culture for women without hesitation so long as you can get a game you like out of it.
And fortunately myself and the majority of other people can point this attitude out for being the selfish, short sighted thing it is. And thus culture is slightly altered for the better.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I'd like to see the developers' thought process for that.
Maybe it'd be something like this:
Creative lead - "We need to stop objectifying women you guys"
Rest of the development team - "You're right!"
Creative lead - "That means we need more romance options!"
Hmmm nevermind that doesn't make any sense. :rotate:
Ugh come on guys.
More games with female leads seem like they would attract more women as consumers ... but that doesn't really happen. You do lose male customers when you make the lead character female unless it's a super-star franchise like Tomb Raider. The best option is to have a create-a-character feature so everyone is happy.
Yes, even if he's technically 27 years old.
Not seeing a point here since the current paradigm is most people would like a company to simply make something not stupidly offensive. I've only said game companies shouldn't create and sell sexist products even if profitable. Not that they should be paragons of feminism who strike out at every idiot on a comments section at all costs.
Is it really such a terrible request that people not fuck up the world any worse than it is already?
And I half-agree. I'm saying it's a good and reasonable thing to request that Catwoman zip up her sneaking suit all the way in the next Arkham game. I'm also saying don't count on Warner Bros. ever releasing an action game starring Wonder Woman in the lead role because WB knows it wouldn't sell well to the masses.
Games with female lead characters don't work except the ones that do work. Got it. You're saying you lose male customers when you have a female lead as if it is factual when there's absolutely no evidence to back you up. Until you can open a tear to a reality where the only difference is gender swapping in games, and point to lower sales, you can't say that it works like that.
I am charitably assuming that he means "more selectable-gender protagonists in RPGs = more romance options costing money (because you have one set for males and one set for females)," which is still such a vanishingly small matter that even mentioning it is sort of ridiculous.
"Unless." There's always these "unlesses" accommodating successes that defy the rule until people realize the rule is kind of nonsense. Do you have some data on this? Was Portal a superstar franchise as a new title? Was Bayonetta? When the studio's next title, Vanquish, sold half as many copies as Bayonetta, can we assume that was because of the male protagonist? To the extent that a given title with a female protagonist doesn't sell, is that a self-fulfilling prophecy based on errant assumptions rather than actual fact?
How did they reach that conclusion?
I'd buy the shit out of a Wonder Woman video game. That comic has been pretty good lately.