Just having a woman in the commercial can make an ad campaign more female oriented. The product itself doesn't have to be altered.
Yeah. I also think online gaming providers need to toughen up and actually boot people who go out of their way to abuse other players. Free speech doesn't apply; these exchanges occur in a privately owned commercial space which people pay to access. I think sales and participation would increase if that reputation for choadery disappeared.
God, you remember how much of a work-intensive pain in the ass it was to try to moderate a forum for abusive content. Can you imagine trying to get that through with a million voice streams?
I can't really speak to Francis, but given how well that horrible 50 Cent game sold, and how well GTA 3 sold, I don't think that the original Louis would have negatively impacted sales. If anything, changing him into an office drone kicked against what I would have seen as the expected stereotype.
This. Louis does not look stereotypically black, Louis does not speak stereotypically black. This is refreshing to me.
However, I'm pretty sure several interviews have said that the changes were almost entirely to re-jig the character silhouettes so that they're more recognisable in low-light conditions and with lots going on. Just as with the written word, the outline is the most important part of visual recognition.
Zetetic Elench on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I'm trying to remember a point in time where feminism was not concerned about the subconscious motivations that led to sexual disparity. There is not much point to blaming specific developers for 'naughtiness', so much as getting them to consciously and critically think about the roles characters' genders play.
I'm not saying they're unconcerned about subconscious influences, but that the specific type of behaviour that they want people to watch out for in their own behaviour is in general the consciously disciminative statements. For example, my decision to say "women are stupid" is a conscious one, and part of the angle of attack that feminists use to try and stop such behaviour is to try and say "if you feel this urge, fight it". The other angle, to which you are referring, is trying to affect how society works to no longer produce environments in which these subconscious effects are generated, but the two are separate. And I am saying that a game designer producing a masculine female character is not subject to censure for the former. They may need to think a little harder, but to be honest I find it quite refreshing seeing female characters who are out and out brutal with no trace of compassion, rather than trying to soften it by including any female-typical properties. This can also be a positive thing; in general, joke-telling and being funny is very much seen as a male-typical trait. Including a lot of funny female characters (who one laughs with) can be part of an effort to get the idea that women can be funny without threatening out into the culture at large.
Ruby from Wet would seem to meet your basic definition of a gender-role-breaking masculinized female with all the macho tough talk and quip-cracking and brutality. The interesting thing is that the game is a self-conscious homage to 70s action/ exploitation/ grindhouse cinema (well, mostly by way of Tarantino I guess), and would I think not be readily embraced by many self-defined feminists.
I can't really speak to Francis, but given how well that horrible 50 Cent game sold, and how well GTA 3 sold, I don't think that the original Louis would have negatively impacted sales. If anything, changing him into an office drone kicked against what I would have seen as the expected stereotype.
This. Louis does not look stereotypically black, Louis does not speak stereotypically black. This is refreshing to me.
However, I'm pretty sure several interviews have said that the changes were almost entirely to re-jig the character silhouettes so that they're more recognisable in low-light conditions and with lots going on. Just as with the written word, the outline is the most important part of visual recognition.
I've always found this explanation hilarious, considering I often turn a corner, see Louis, and fill him full of lead thinking he's one of the Horde.
(I'm really bad at L4D.)
Salvation122 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I've always found this explanation hilarious, considering I often turn a corner, see Louis, and fill him full of lead thinking he's one of the Horde.
(I'm really bad at L4D.)
'cism
Irond Will on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Ruby from Wet would seem to meet your basic definition of a gender-role-breaking masculinized female with all the macho tough talk and quip-cracking and brutality. The interesting thing is that the game is a self-conscious homage to 70s action/ exploitation/ grindhouse cinema (well, mostly by way of Tarantino I guess), and would I think not be readily embraced by many self-defined feminists.
But that would be for reasons of exploitative presentation. A feminist can object to more than merely personality!
Even beyond 'media', the problem is people's views and expectations. If gender stereotypes and objectification didn't sell then they wouldn't be prevalent in games, movies, etc. It's not like some media conglomerate board decided one day that Western culture should be dominated by sexist imagery. It's dominated by sexist imagery because the majority of people have sexist notions and the imagery plays into them.
You're not going to convince any media industry to stop making products that cater to sexist, racist, classist, or whatever other fantasy if doing so is going to cost them sales. When guys stop wanting to be he-man action heroes who solve problems with the judicious application of high explosives and then get the girl, they'll stop making those movies and games. When women stop wanting to be outwardly confident but with a secret vulnerable side who need an apparently assholish but secretly gentle man to sweep them off their feet and make them learn to open up, they'll stop making horrible romantic comedies that follow that formula. Crying about industries producing sexist media is kind of putting the cart before the horse.
There's a strong argument that sexist media reinforces the sexist notions people have. I don't know what the solution to breaking a very strong cycle is, but I'm pretty sure that it's not saying "sex shouldn't sell" when sex very clearly does.
A major problem of mine with the whole examination of feminine/masculine biases in gaming is the assumption that certain types of games are 'for men' or that women want some other type of game. The article about Metroid someone linked up-thread had a paragraph talking about how Metroid Prime involved an emphasis on puzzle-solving and collecting rather than on violence and domination, so was more female-friendly. I think that's BS. It's more puzzle-based/item-collection gameplay friendly. I love puzzle games and I'm a guy. Does that make me feminine? I don't think it does. I know women who like FPS and RTS games. Are they more masculine for that? Saying that a game is 'for women' or 'feminine' or 'female friendly' because it's not about shooting dudes in the head is silly and marketing them that way would be moronic. It alienates male gamers who appreciate that style of gameplay, reinforces the idea that women shouldn't be aggressive or competitive, and alienates the women who do enjoy games featuring violent/dominating gameplay.
Men and women are people. Games are entertainment. Some people like some types of entertainment. Trying to broadly categorize what men or women want as a group, or what a genre of entertainment as broad as 'gaming' is/should be providing is just doing a disservice to everyone.
I feel like your post kind of turns a 180 at paragraph 4. While yes there are certainly exceptions to the rule, there very definitely are broad categories and identifiers that, generally speaking, appeal to men or women.
Ironically, I think that Metroid has this famous cross-gender appeal principally because it has puzzle elements, is light on the hardcore shooter elements, and doesn't have much in the way of narrative at all. No one gets offended at freecell.
Actually, I guess I am not even convinced that females play Metroid to any unusual degree at all. I know it has a protagonist who turns out to be a female but is otherwise androgynous. She frankly seems much more popular with younger dudes than with women, judging from the goofballs at GameFaqs.
And, I mean, I am not less of a man because I think Army of Two looks asinine. But at the same time it would be ridiculous to assert that it was not targeted to a specific male demographic, nor that it might sell well to the ladies.
It should be kept in mind that sexualizing someone is not automatically sexist. Sexism requires that the sex/gender of the individual be a consideration.
--
For what it's worth, the games I've heard the ladies in my life refer to have been things like God of War, Valkyeria Chronicles (or whatever it's called), and some shooter or other.
Video games are not the root of sexism and other social issues. It is important that video games contain these things and that the games are the given to children. While we may all be adults or feel capable of separating what we are exposed to in media from what we feel and believe, children need guidance in order to understand why stereotypes are bad or why objectifying people is wrong. It's not so much of a problem for mature adults to be exposed to these things, but sitting a child down in front of a game for several hours a day and not being aware of the content and not teaching the child how to handle the content can actually contribute to these problems in society.
palatinus on
I just got a call from a telemarketer trying to sell me telemarketing.
Even beyond 'media', the problem is people's views and expectations. If gender stereotypes and objectification didn't sell then they wouldn't be prevalent in games, movies, etc. It's not like some media conglomerate board decided one day that Western culture should be dominated by sexist imagery. It's dominated by sexist imagery because the majority of people have sexist notions and the imagery plays into them.
You're not going to convince any media industry to stop making products that cater to sexist, racist, classist, or whatever other fantasy if doing so is going to cost them sales. When guys stop wanting to be he-man action heroes who solve problems with the judicious application of high explosives and then get the girl, they'll stop making those movies and games. When women stop wanting to be outwardly confident but with a secret vulnerable side who need an apparently assholish but secretly gentle man to sweep them off their feet and make them learn to open up, they'll stop making horrible romantic comedies that follow that formula. Crying about industries producing sexist media is kind of putting the cart before the horse.
There's a strong argument that sexist media reinforces the sexist notions people have. I don't know what the solution to breaking a very strong cycle is, but I'm pretty sure that it's not saying "sex shouldn't sell" when sex very clearly does.
A major problem of mine with the whole examination of feminine/masculine biases in gaming is the assumption that certain types of games are 'for men' or that women want some other type of game. The article about Metroid someone linked up-thread had a paragraph talking about how Metroid Prime involved an emphasis on puzzle-solving and collecting rather than on violence and domination, so was more female-friendly. I think that's BS. It's more puzzle-based/item-collection gameplay friendly. I love puzzle games and I'm a guy. Does that make me feminine? I don't think it does. I know women who like FPS and RTS games. Are they more masculine for that? Saying that a game is 'for women' or 'feminine' or 'female friendly' because it's not about shooting dudes in the head is silly and marketing them that way would be moronic. It alienates male gamers who appreciate that style of gameplay, reinforces the idea that women shouldn't be aggressive or competitive, and alienates the women who do enjoy games featuring violent/dominating gameplay.
Men and women are people. Games are entertainment. Some people like some types of entertainment. Trying to broadly categorize what men or women want as a group, or what a genre of entertainment as broad as 'gaming' is/should be providing is just doing a disservice to everyone.
I feel like your post kind of turns a 180 at paragraph 4. While yes there are certainly exceptions to the rule, there very definitely are broad categories and identifiers that, generally speaking, appeal to men or women.
Ironically, I think that Metroid has this famous cross-gender appeal principally because it has puzzle elements, is light on the hardcore shooter elements, and doesn't have much in the way of narrative at all. No one gets offended at freecell.
Actually, I guess I am not even convinced that females play Metroid to any unusual degree at all. I know it has a protagonist who turns out to be a female but is otherwise androgynous. She frankly seems much more popular with younger dudes than with women, judging from the goofballs at GameFaqs.
And, I mean, I am not less of a man because I think Army of Two looks asinine. But at the same time it would be ridiculous to assert that it was not targeted to a specific male demographic, nor that it might sell well to the ladies.
If you're saying that one can make broad statements about 'gaming' then I definitely disagree. "Gaming" encompasses everything from professional-level Starcraft to playing Peggle in your browser. It would be like making categorizations about the sexist nature of novels.
If you're saying that you can make generalizations about the type of story or characters that would appeal to a given demographic then I'd agree with you. I do not think, though, that if you strip away the characters and story from Gears of War and presented it to an audience of equally-aged male and female self-identified gamers you would find a marked preference for the gameplay mechanics in one gender over the other. The story and characters in most 'hardcore' games, which are traditionally viewed as not appealing to women, are usually overtly male- and 13-to-34-centric. Not, I think, because women can't enjoy those types of games, but because that's the demographic that the market grew out of. We're starting to see the industry realize that they can sell shooters and RPGs to girls if they start writing the dialog and designing the characters with women in mind, but that doesn't require an adjustment to the mechanics.
Basically: I'm not disagreeing that video game story writing is often sexist and stereotyped. I'm disagreeing that you can say, with any accuracy, 'Women want to play games where you solve puzzles' or 'Men don't want to play games that aren't competitive'.
Video games are not the root of sexism and other social issues. It is important that video games contain these things and that the games are the given to children. While we may all be adults or feel capable of separating what we are exposed to in media from what we feel and believe, children need guidance in order to understand why stereotypes are bad or why objectifying people is wrong. It's not so much of a problem for mature adults to be exposed to these things, but sitting a child down in front of a game for several hours a day and not being aware of the content and not teaching the child how to handle the content can actually contribute to these problems in society.
Just like TV, movies, books, and every other form of entertainment, this isn't the problem of the industry. Parents need to be aware of what their kids are consuming. It's irresponsible to let your child eat whatever they want because they're unlikely to get a healthy diet. It's equally irresponsible to let your child play whatever video game or watch whatever movie they feel like. The solution is not to make potentially-harmful-to-children material not available to anyone anymore than the solution to giving kids a healthy diet is to ban all junk food.
Just like TV, movies, books, and every other form of entertainment, this isn't the problem of the industry. Parents need to be aware of what their kids are consuming. It's irresponsible to let your child eat whatever they want because they're unlikely to get a healthy diet. It's equally irresponsible to let your child play whatever video game or watch whatever movie they feel like. The solution is not to make potentially-harmful-to-children material not available to anyone anymore than the solution to giving kids a healthy diet is to ban all junk food.
I completely agree. As for other forms of media, that's not what the forum was originally tasked to discuss that's why I didn't mention them. As to your solution, I did not really present a solution except the one I implied by saying parents need to provide guidance for their children.
I think it is far more harmful to attempt to sanitize the world for your children and then assume everything is fine if you leave them alone with the TV or video game system.
My point is basically that while the content of some games may be sexist, racist, or other -ist, this is a reflection of society, not really a cause for these problems. Then I was stating that the exception is that children can be influenced by these things and so they are not inconsequential.
palatinus on
I just got a call from a telemarketer trying to sell me telemarketing.
Video games are not the root of sexism and other social issues. It is important that video games contain these things and that the games are the given to children. While we may all be adults or feel capable of separating what we are exposed to in media from what we feel and believe, children need guidance in order to understand why stereotypes are bad or why objectifying people is wrong. It's not so much of a problem for mature adults to be exposed to these things, but sitting a child down in front of a game for several hours a day and not being aware of the content and not teaching the child how to handle the content can actually contribute to these problems in society.
Just like TV, movies, books, and every other form of entertainment, this isn't the problem of the industry. Parents need to be aware of what their kids are consuming. It's irresponsible to let your child eat whatever they want because they're unlikely to get a healthy diet. It's equally irresponsible to let your child play whatever video game or watch whatever movie they feel like. The solution is not to make potentially-harmful-to-children material not available to anyone anymore than the solution to giving kids a healthy diet is to ban all junk food.
Except that sexism, objectification, homophobia, etc. aren't just bad for kids, they're bad for everyone. They're the trans fats of modern media, and it's no loss if we're more conscientious about their presence in our media and actively work towards getting rid of them.
Except that sexism, objectification, homophobia, etc. aren't just bad for kids, they're bad for everyone. They're the trans fats of modern media, and it's no loss if we're more conscientious about their presence in our media and actively work towards getting rid of them.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, businesses are driven by business. Until people stop buying games with content they disagree with, the companies will continue to make the games. A problem with that is that not everyone agrees on what material is actually bad. But if the content of the games are a reflection of our society, we need people to act better in order to create any real lasting change in our forms of media.
Also, I don't believe that the portrayal of things that are bad are inherently bad. For instance, the portrayal of a negative concept in a form of media is often used as a way of exposing people to that concept for further discussion.
Personally, I hate all the things you listed so I don't disagree with your feelings.
palatinus on
I just got a call from a telemarketer trying to sell me telemarketing.
Just like TV, movies, books, and every other form of entertainment, this isn't the problem of the industry. Parents need to be aware of what their kids are consuming. It's irresponsible to let your child eat whatever they want because they're unlikely to get a healthy diet. It's equally irresponsible to let your child play whatever video game or watch whatever movie they feel like. The solution is not to make potentially-harmful-to-children material not available to anyone anymore than the solution to giving kids a healthy diet is to ban all junk food.
I completely agree. As for other forms of media, that's not what the forum was originally tasked to discuss that's why I didn't mention them. As to your solution, I did not really present a solution except the one I implied by saying parents need to provide guidance for their children.
I think it is far more harmful to attempt to sanitize the world for your children and then assume everything is fine if you leave them alone with the TV or video game system.
My point is basically that while the content of some games may be sexist, racist, or other -ist, this is a reflection of society, not really a cause for these problems. Then I was stating that the exception is that children can be influenced by these things and so they are not inconsequential.
Just like TV, movies, books, and every other form of entertainment, this isn't the problem of the industry. Parents need to be aware of what their kids are consuming. It's irresponsible to let your child eat whatever they want because they're unlikely to get a healthy diet. It's equally irresponsible to let your child play whatever video game or watch whatever movie they feel like. The solution is not to make potentially-harmful-to-children material not available to anyone anymore than the solution to giving kids a healthy diet is to ban all junk food.
I completely agree. As for other forms of media, that's not what the forum was originally tasked to discuss that's why I didn't mention them. As to your solution, I did not really present a solution except the one I implied by saying parents need to provide guidance for their children.
I think it is far more harmful to attempt to sanitize the world for your children and then assume everything is fine if you leave them alone with the TV or video game system.
My point is basically that while the content of some games may be sexist, racist, or other -ist, this is a reflection of society, not really a cause for these problems. Then I was stating that the exception is that children can be influenced by these things and so they are not inconsequential.
Sorry. I read more into your tone than was there.
That's cool. You'll find that I'm actually fanatically against censorship. I have a hard time with my feelings of what is right and wrong to say versus my feelings against censorship. Basically I would rather have everyone say anything no matter how hurtful than silence any ideas even if I think they are obviously wrong to me. On the other hand, I do see trends in media that I don't like and wish would go away. I just don't think someone should be putting a black line through things that are "bad". I just want people to learn how to be better people.
palatinus on
I just got a call from a telemarketer trying to sell me telemarketing.
I don't have time to read the thread right now, but I would point to Alpha Centauri is a rather sexually equal game. Which is just more proof that it is the greatest game of all time.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I think it's completely legit to let a lot of dumb things slide past censorship. Truthfully, I'd rather know how some people and businesses really feel about important topics, so I can easier choose who to avoid.
Besides that, I think everyone shunning you for being a bigoted idiot is probably going to get the message across better than some committee deciding that you can't say something. Kind of a free market of ideas and opinions where over time it becomes so painfully obvious that having racist or sexist or homophobic views is so stupid and dumb that eventually people will fucking stop (for the most part).
But that's a perfect world, and off topic.
Another note on competitive gaming: when the girls decide to exclude themselves (or get excluded by an organizing body), nothing good comes of it. You will only become a better player if you play against better players, and it's not hard for them to plateau when their competition is so limited. As I said before, there is no physical barrier involved, like there is in sports, and no reason that females can't compete with males at every level. I hope to see more of it in the future.
Do keep in mind, though, that I’m trying to instigate intelligent and meaningful conversations. Responses like “Stereotypes come from somewhere” aren’t really useful to my project or to such conversations in general (because stereotypes DO come from somewhere—they are perpetuated by our society in order to maintain the status quo of the social “norm” between sexes, races, classes, sexual orientations, and other social groups, and this should be kept in mind any time you notice stereotypes). Also, although I understand that it’s easy to get angry at someone for having a different view of a particular topic, please try to keep it civil—the point of this is to share ideas with one another, and that becomes really difficult in an aggressive or hostile conversation.
This is silly. There's always a historical seed from which a stereotype comes, and are almost always propagated by small-minded people as a manifestation of fear rather than a cabal trying to protect its interests. Jewish bankers come from the old position of the court Jew, and the watermelon thing come from the reconstruction images of blacks, bloody-lipped from the juice of the watermelon. Finding these sources is very useful when tracing the evolution of a prejudice.
(actually doing an essay on Room of Ones Own/Tipping the Velvet on that exact topic right now).
I utterly adore keeley hawes
There are different schools of feminism, especially literary feminism. Some forms of feminism focus on the celebration of gender - equality through recognizing female gender traits as good but different rather than bothering to point out that they're mosty arbitrary. French Feminism, regarding literature, posits that women will write and enjoy stories which are less direct and linear than what a man writes and enjoys because women tend to have more erogenous zones, for example.
As far as I am aware, and this may be a statement arising from gross ignorance but this is the impression I have got from almost every discussion I've ever had on this topic in an academic environment, that would put them squarely in a minority. The rejection of gender traits and gender essentialism is very close to the core of most of what I would recognise as feminism.
Not so much. We don't live in a post-gendered world, and so treating a 'male' character as if it was 'default human' rather than 'male' is an error. You guys posting about how men=people and women=women are missing the fact that male characters are no more balanced people characters in terms of traits than female characters are. You're just very used to thinking of yourselves as the normal version of humans and everyone else as... a little less so. That's not a personal attack, just a comment on cultural training.
There's also probably a lot to say about how character traits regarded as favourable are usually co-opted and coded as masculine (heroic, logical, etc), leaving the less favourable ones coded as feminine (needy, emotional, unprincipled).
The Cat on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
There's also probably a lot to say about how character traits regarded as favourable are usually co-opted and coded as masculine (heroic, logical, etc), leaving the less favourable ones coded as feminine (needy, emotional, unprincipled).
If you check my later posts you'll see I was basically making a longer version of exactly that point :P
EDIT: For reference:
Women excelling in male-typical areas and using male-typical traits to do it is nothing I have a problem with. If you wish to excel in a violent occupation, it helps to have a temperament that tends towards violence. The fact we interpret this as typically male is an imposition of our perceptions.
To LibrarianThorne: It’s true, it’s also possible to be sexist against men. Men are just as likely to be hyper-sexualized and objectified in video games as women are. That’s a great observation.
Yeah, I'm sure you'll be able to wangle a good 500 words out of it. Now how about you try participating in your own thread instead of cribbing material off our participation and treating us like a talking wikipedia?
Just having a woman in the commercial can make an ad campaign more female oriented. The product itself doesn't have to be altered.
Yeah. I also think online gaming providers need to toughen up and actually boot people who go out of their way to abuse other players. Free speech doesn't apply; these exchanges occur in a privately owned commercial space which people pay to access. I think sales and participation would increase if that reputation for choadery disappeared.
God, you remember how much of a work-intensive pain in the ass it was to try to moderate a forum for abusive content. Can you imagine trying to get that through with a million voice streams?
I was thinking more a complaints-based system. Or Echelon, heh :P 'Its too hard" isn't a line I've got a whole lot of time for.
So, just on the topic of "female characters in movies are sexist and retarded too, so neener", can we now try and explain why that's often not the case on TV? Weeds, Nurse Jackie, the Sopranos, BSG, True Blood, Firefly, Farscape, Burn Notice, hell even stuff like SG-1 and Sanctuary - heaps of shows have interesting, complex female characters that aren't channeling Romantic Comedy Bimbo at the screen. What makes TV stand out, and why can't video games get there?
So, just on the topic of "female characters in movies are sexist and retarded too, so neener", can we now try and explain why that's often not the case on TV? Weeds, Nurse Jackie, the Sopranos, BSG, True Blood, Firefly, Farscape, Burn Notice, hell even stuff like SG-1 and Sanctuary - heaps of shows have interesting, complex female characters that aren't channeling Romantic Comedy Bimbo at the screen. What makes TV stand out, and why can't video games get there?
Video games don't have interesting, complex characters of any gender.
Just having a woman in the commercial can make an ad campaign more female oriented. The product itself doesn't have to be altered.
Yeah. I also think online gaming providers need to toughen up and actually boot people who go out of their way to abuse other players. Free speech doesn't apply; these exchanges occur in a privately owned commercial space which people pay to access. I think sales and participation would increase if that reputation for choadery disappeared.
God, you remember how much of a work-intensive pain in the ass it was to try to moderate a forum for abusive content. Can you imagine trying to get that through with a million voice streams?
I was thinking more a complaints-based system. Or Echelon, heh :P 'Its too hard" isn't a line I've got a whole lot of time for.
Man, if you could somehow label an Xbox live user as Sexist, Racist, Homosexist, and filter people with X number of complaints, that would be great. It would still be like trying to filter water with a screen, though, because every year the supply of anonymous d-bag teenagers is replenished.
At a guess I'd say TV writers make a greater attempt to appeal to women as that's where a large proportion of TV audience share is. Games are still predominantly aimed at 11-30 year old males. Also an extended serial format means you are encouraged to spend more time on characterization even if only because its cheap to film.
Games are also limited by the demands of game play. One dimensionality is appealing to game designers and publishers because it means immediate accessibility: "you are john McClain ripoff. kill terrorists."
Man, if you could somehow label an Xbox live user as Sexist, Racist, Homosexist, and filter people with X number of complaints, that would be great. It would still be like trying to filter water with a screen, though, because every year the supply of anonymous d-bag teenagers is replenished.
They have a system along these lines already set up. As well as alllowing you to place yourself into one of four broad groups which changes who you play with. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the family group has some high standards set so it's far easier to have someone removed from it. Of course we don't have any of the exact specifics of the system because then people would play it.
So, just on the topic of "female characters in movies are sexist and retarded too, so neener", can we now try and explain why that's often not the case on TV? Weeds, Nurse Jackie, the Sopranos, BSG, True Blood, Firefly, Farscape, Burn Notice, hell even stuff like SG-1 and Sanctuary - heaps of shows have interesting, complex female characters that aren't channeling Romantic Comedy Bimbo at the screen. What makes TV stand out, and why can't video games get there?
Video games don't have interesting, complex characters of any gender.
Well, that's one useless comment out of the way. Anyone care to contribute something constructive?
So, just on the topic of "female characters in movies are sexist and retarded too, so neener", can we now try and explain why that's often not the case on TV? Weeds, Nurse Jackie, the Sopranos, BSG, True Blood, Firefly, Farscape, Burn Notice, hell even stuff like SG-1 and Sanctuary - heaps of shows have interesting, complex female characters that aren't channeling Romantic Comedy Bimbo at the screen. What makes TV stand out, and why can't video games get there?
Video games don't have interesting, complex characters of any gender.
Actually, it interests me that it's easier to think of interesting female characters for TV than for movies.
Also, come on now, we've reached the point that video games can and do feature characters with more well-reasoned motivations than many shitty movie or telelvision characters.
I mean, Shale is certainly an interesting character who is kind of complicated.
So, just on the topic of "female characters in movies are sexist and retarded too, so neener", can we now try and explain why that's often not the case on TV? Weeds, Nurse Jackie, the Sopranos, BSG, True Blood, Firefly, Farscape, Burn Notice, hell even stuff like SG-1 and Sanctuary - heaps of shows have interesting, complex female characters that aren't channeling Romantic Comedy Bimbo at the screen. What makes TV stand out, and why can't video games get there?
Leaving aside the fact that the industry is traditionally male dominated, I'd wager because video games still generally have horrible plots/characters period. It's continued to improve and I'm sure it will continue to get better, but an actually good, interesting character is still hard to come by at all.
Well, that's one useless comment out of the way. Anyone care to contribute something constructive?
Cheaper to produce which allows more risk taking rather then design by commite and with marketing teams. Also tends towards an ensemble cast, rather then maybe a couple main characters.
So, just on the topic of "female characters in movies are sexist and retarded too, so neener", can we now try and explain why that's often not the case on TV? Weeds, Nurse Jackie, the Sopranos, BSG, True Blood, Firefly, Farscape, Burn Notice, hell even stuff like SG-1 and Sanctuary - heaps of shows have interesting, complex female characters that aren't channeling Romantic Comedy Bimbo at the screen. What makes TV stand out, and why can't video games get there?
Generally speaking, a game or a movie will fully develop the main character or characters, while the rest tend to remain archetypes, simply due to time limitations if nothing else.
How often are women the main character(s), and how do their treatments compare to male main characters?
So, just on the topic of "female characters in movies are sexist and retarded too, so neener", can we now try and explain why that's often not the case on TV? Weeds, Nurse Jackie, the Sopranos, BSG, True Blood, Firefly, Farscape, Burn Notice, hell even stuff like SG-1 and Sanctuary - heaps of shows have interesting, complex female characters that aren't channeling Romantic Comedy Bimbo at the screen. What makes TV stand out, and why can't video games get there?
Length of narrative?
Fail. Doesn't explain why interesting male characters outnumber females in movies, a medium which has arguably less time for character development than a computer game, which generally has at least 40 hours of play time in which to work.
Well, that's one useless comment out of the way. Anyone care to contribute something constructive?
Cheaper to produce which allows more risk taking rather then design by commite and with marketing teams. Also tends towards an ensemble cast, rather then maybe a couple main characters.
Not necessarily cheaper, and I'd argue that risk taking and TV don't actually mix very well at all for the most part. Ensembles... maybe, but I don't see why adding more characters makes it easier to develop them.
There are a lot more women working in TV, I suspect, than either games or movies.
Posts
God, you remember how much of a work-intensive pain in the ass it was to try to moderate a forum for abusive content. Can you imagine trying to get that through with a million voice streams?
This. Louis does not look stereotypically black, Louis does not speak stereotypically black. This is refreshing to me.
However, I'm pretty sure several interviews have said that the changes were almost entirely to re-jig the character silhouettes so that they're more recognisable in low-light conditions and with lots going on. Just as with the written word, the outline is the most important part of visual recognition.
Ruby from Wet would seem to meet your basic definition of a gender-role-breaking masculinized female with all the macho tough talk and quip-cracking and brutality. The interesting thing is that the game is a self-conscious homage to 70s action/ exploitation/ grindhouse cinema (well, mostly by way of Tarantino I guess), and would I think not be readily embraced by many self-defined feminists.
I've always found this explanation hilarious, considering I often turn a corner, see Louis, and fill him full of lead thinking he's one of the Horde.
(I'm really bad at L4D.)
'cism
But that would be for reasons of exploitative presentation. A feminist can object to more than merely personality!
Totally
I feel like your post kind of turns a 180 at paragraph 4. While yes there are certainly exceptions to the rule, there very definitely are broad categories and identifiers that, generally speaking, appeal to men or women.
Ironically, I think that Metroid has this famous cross-gender appeal principally because it has puzzle elements, is light on the hardcore shooter elements, and doesn't have much in the way of narrative at all. No one gets offended at freecell.
Actually, I guess I am not even convinced that females play Metroid to any unusual degree at all. I know it has a protagonist who turns out to be a female but is otherwise androgynous. She frankly seems much more popular with younger dudes than with women, judging from the goofballs at GameFaqs.
And, I mean, I am not less of a man because I think Army of Two looks asinine. But at the same time it would be ridiculous to assert that it was not targeted to a specific male demographic, nor that it might sell well to the ladies.
--
For what it's worth, the games I've heard the ladies in my life refer to have been things like God of War, Valkyeria Chronicles (or whatever it's called), and some shooter or other.
If you're saying that one can make broad statements about 'gaming' then I definitely disagree. "Gaming" encompasses everything from professional-level Starcraft to playing Peggle in your browser. It would be like making categorizations about the sexist nature of novels.
If you're saying that you can make generalizations about the type of story or characters that would appeal to a given demographic then I'd agree with you. I do not think, though, that if you strip away the characters and story from Gears of War and presented it to an audience of equally-aged male and female self-identified gamers you would find a marked preference for the gameplay mechanics in one gender over the other. The story and characters in most 'hardcore' games, which are traditionally viewed as not appealing to women, are usually overtly male- and 13-to-34-centric. Not, I think, because women can't enjoy those types of games, but because that's the demographic that the market grew out of. We're starting to see the industry realize that they can sell shooters and RPGs to girls if they start writing the dialog and designing the characters with women in mind, but that doesn't require an adjustment to the mechanics.
Basically: I'm not disagreeing that video game story writing is often sexist and stereotyped. I'm disagreeing that you can say, with any accuracy, 'Women want to play games where you solve puzzles' or 'Men don't want to play games that aren't competitive'.
Just like TV, movies, books, and every other form of entertainment, this isn't the problem of the industry. Parents need to be aware of what their kids are consuming. It's irresponsible to let your child eat whatever they want because they're unlikely to get a healthy diet. It's equally irresponsible to let your child play whatever video game or watch whatever movie they feel like. The solution is not to make potentially-harmful-to-children material not available to anyone anymore than the solution to giving kids a healthy diet is to ban all junk food.
I completely agree. As for other forms of media, that's not what the forum was originally tasked to discuss that's why I didn't mention them. As to your solution, I did not really present a solution except the one I implied by saying parents need to provide guidance for their children.
I think it is far more harmful to attempt to sanitize the world for your children and then assume everything is fine if you leave them alone with the TV or video game system.
My point is basically that while the content of some games may be sexist, racist, or other -ist, this is a reflection of society, not really a cause for these problems. Then I was stating that the exception is that children can be influenced by these things and so they are not inconsequential.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, businesses are driven by business. Until people stop buying games with content they disagree with, the companies will continue to make the games. A problem with that is that not everyone agrees on what material is actually bad. But if the content of the games are a reflection of our society, we need people to act better in order to create any real lasting change in our forms of media.
Also, I don't believe that the portrayal of things that are bad are inherently bad. For instance, the portrayal of a negative concept in a form of media is often used as a way of exposing people to that concept for further discussion.
Personally, I hate all the things you listed so I don't disagree with your feelings.
Sorry. I read more into your tone than was there.
That's cool. You'll find that I'm actually fanatically against censorship. I have a hard time with my feelings of what is right and wrong to say versus my feelings against censorship. Basically I would rather have everyone say anything no matter how hurtful than silence any ideas even if I think they are obviously wrong to me. On the other hand, I do see trends in media that I don't like and wish would go away. I just don't think someone should be putting a black line through things that are "bad". I just want people to learn how to be better people.
Besides that, I think everyone shunning you for being a bigoted idiot is probably going to get the message across better than some committee deciding that you can't say something. Kind of a free market of ideas and opinions where over time it becomes so painfully obvious that having racist or sexist or homophobic views is so stupid and dumb that eventually people will fucking stop (for the most part).
But that's a perfect world, and off topic.
Another note on competitive gaming: when the girls decide to exclude themselves (or get excluded by an organizing body), nothing good comes of it. You will only become a better player if you play against better players, and it's not hard for them to plateau when their competition is so limited. As I said before, there is no physical barrier involved, like there is in sports, and no reason that females can't compete with males at every level. I hope to see more of it in the future.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
This is silly. There's always a historical seed from which a stereotype comes, and are almost always propagated by small-minded people as a manifestation of fear rather than a cabal trying to protect its interests. Jewish bankers come from the old position of the court Jew, and the watermelon thing come from the reconstruction images of blacks, bloody-lipped from the juice of the watermelon. Finding these sources is very useful when tracing the evolution of a prejudice.
There's also probably a lot to say about how character traits regarded as favourable are usually co-opted and coded as masculine (heroic, logical, etc), leaving the less favourable ones coded as feminine (needy, emotional, unprincipled).
If you check my later posts you'll see I was basically making a longer version of exactly that point :P
EDIT: For reference:
I was thinking more a complaints-based system. Or Echelon, heh :P 'Its too hard" isn't a line I've got a whole lot of time for.
I know this is from way back on page 1 but seriously:
Critics thought x movie was good, critics thought x movie was bad.
Scientists theorized x was one thing, scientists also theorized x was something completely different.
I don't see your point, unless its just THEM FEMINISTS HUH
Video games don't have interesting, complex characters of any gender.
Man, if you could somehow label an Xbox live user as Sexist, Racist, Homosexist, and filter people with X number of complaints, that would be great. It would still be like trying to filter water with a screen, though, because every year the supply of anonymous d-bag teenagers is replenished.
Games are also limited by the demands of game play. One dimensionality is appealing to game designers and publishers because it means immediate accessibility: "you are john McClain ripoff. kill terrorists."
Well, that's one useless comment out of the way. Anyone care to contribute something constructive?
Actually, it interests me that it's easier to think of interesting female characters for TV than for movies.
Also, come on now, we've reached the point that video games can and do feature characters with more well-reasoned motivations than many shitty movie or telelvision characters.
I mean, Shale is certainly an interesting character who is kind of complicated.
Leaving aside the fact that the industry is traditionally male dominated, I'd wager because video games still generally have horrible plots/characters period. It's continued to improve and I'm sure it will continue to get better, but an actually good, interesting character is still hard to come by at all.
Cheaper to produce which allows more risk taking rather then design by commite and with marketing teams. Also tends towards an ensemble cast, rather then maybe a couple main characters.
Length of narrative?
How often are women the main character(s), and how do their treatments compare to male main characters?
Fail. Doesn't explain why interesting male characters outnumber females in movies, a medium which has arguably less time for character development than a computer game, which generally has at least 40 hours of play time in which to work.
Not necessarily cheaper, and I'd argue that risk taking and TV don't actually mix very well at all for the most part. Ensembles... maybe, but I don't see why adding more characters makes it easier to develop them.
There are a lot more women working in TV, I suspect, than either games or movies.