Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

Exactly. Most game, and maybe the majority of games, are gender agnostic. It'd be hard to get a good count on that. But it'd be easy to see why that would seem true. Any game where you can be male or female, any game where the player agency isn't human and or clearly gendered. Most Silent Protagonist games.

The games that this thread about, is a very small amount of mostly recent games. It also feels, though maybe not actually, targeted at, FPS primarily.

It's hard to talk about "most games" in a constructive way.  I feel like most games feature grizzled white male protagonists, but that's just my opinion.  Do low-budget or unsuccessful games count the same as the games which make news and are actively discussed?  Because here are the 10 top-selling games of 2013:

Grand Theft Auto V
Call of Duty: Ghosts
FIFA 2014
Pokemon X&Y
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
The Last of Us
Animal Crossing: A New Leaf
Tomb Raider
Monster Hunter IV
Bioshock Infinite

So:
3 male protagonists
Some male protagonists and a dog
A ton of male soccer players
Both genders (I assume)
Male protagonist
Male protagonist escorts a girl
Both genders I think?
Female character!
Both genders, full customization
Male protagonist escorts a girl

So, we have:
6 games with only male protagonists
3 games which allow choice
1 Lara Croft

Which is, I admit, less one-sided than I expected.  10 is a tiny sample size, but I was expecting so lopsided that it'd mean something.  Maybe sometime I'll get bored and go through a top-100 list sometime.

You can't really be trying to say that FIFA 2013 is has tonnes of male leads... Cause then the game has /hundreds/ of them because FIFA is the Male side to professional Soccer. I dont know if FIFA has a female side. But anyway. That's beside the point. The "Player" in FIFA has no form. You're an unseen godhand that directs the team as a whole. But the Player is not a Male anything. The closest thing that the Player can be, is a Whole Team, a gestalt entity. An amorphous Force of Will.

[MrWiggles]

And another point. The market success of a game, doens't really matter. The question hasn't been framed as, 'We need more successful video games to be more diverse' its  'We need more diversity in games.'

You can't dictate market success.

[Rolan7]

Sure, but it's hardly gender agnostic.  It's a game entirely about men.  I was addressing the statement that "most games are gender agnostic".  I didn't succeed, because my sample size was far too small.

Now of course there ARE women soccer players, FIFA just doesn't include them.  They explained why:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fifa-14-will-not-include-female-players/1100-6408074/

Speaking to Kotaku, EA Canada executive producer David Rutter said, “As a team, we have discussed at length the inclusion of female characters in FIFA, and whilst it's something that remains on our list of features for consideration as part of our mission statement above, we do not have plans to put female characters into the game this year."

Enrique went on to explain that including women would require a new physics model, player modelling, and hairstyles.

Which made me laugh not to groan.
A new physics model:  I don't know what this could mean other than jiggle physics.  Which is dumb because... sports bras. 
Hairstyles:  This sounds reasonable, except...  These are soccer players.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Most female players seem to at least tie it back (as do a lot of male players).

Player modelling:  The only real problem.  They couldn't cost-justify designing any female models, real or generic.  Mostly because the benefit would be so low - Most gamers don't care, we're used to games being a male-dominated form of expression.

Rule of three, though - they had to make two lies to go with the half-truth.  "Our customers collectively think women's soccer is a joke" and "Gamers don't care about women being arbitrarily excluded" were too true to print.

And another point. The market success of a game, doens't really matter. The question hasn't been framed as, 'We need more successful video games to be more diverse' its  'We need more diversity in games.'

You can't dictate market success.

Sure, but claims about "most videogames" are almost impossible to test, and mostly irrelevant.  If (hypothetically) console shovelware and no-budget indie projects tend to be gender neutral...  That has little impact on gaming culture compared to the stuff that actually *sells*.

As for dictating market success, I hope people will adjust their buying habits as they see fit once they acknowledge the situation.

[Morrigi]

Most of the people playing competitive video games are straight and male, and, as a whole, we're hardly up in arms about the lack of diversity in video games, because we just want to play our video games. And, for the corporations, there's often no point in pandering to a tiny minority of their potential consumer base (LGBT), or a group who generally don't play the AAA titles they're developing in the first place (women).

It makes no sense from a business standpoint, when the time and resources involved could be spent elsewhere.

[AlleeCat]

Here is something to discuss. What would be your way of creating equality in videogames? We all want equality here and we have established that pretty well. What would you do to solve the problem, if you were a game developer? And what is stopping game developers from solving the problem right now?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by equality. It's a bit of a broad term.

But, if I wanted to design a game with equality in mind, I would do it one of two ways:
One way would be to have a minority character treated just as fairly as their non-minority counterparts. i.e. A trans man being treated as just as much of a man as his cisgender counterparts. It's a little unrealistic, although this does happen already to an extent with black characters.
The other way would be to highlight the fact that everyone treats them differently. Have it be something they struggle with, and eventually overcome, and make sure it still portrays them in a positive light. The best way to do this would be to do plenty of research and talk to people in similar situations. I would probably also get someone from that community to consult on the script while it was being written, so they can say "Hey, that's offensive." or "Here's probably another thing they would struggle with." because, as a white bi trans woman, my experiences are wildly different from that of, say, a black gay cis man.

In the end, I really just think it's a matter of doing more research before you start, and encouraging more people from diverse backgrounds to help you with your game. Be open to criticism, and be willing to own up to your mistakes, instead of calling people insensitive and shutting everyone down.

[DJ]

A new physics model:  I don't know what this could mean other than jiggle physics.  Which is dumb because... sports bras.

Actually, there's a difference in how women and men walk and run, because the hips and the center of gravity are different.

Anyway, I don't see a game about women's soccer getting made simply because barely anyone watches the real thing. So there's just no target audience for a game, and you can't pin this on the publishers.

[Rolan7]

That was my point, yeah.  They decided that including some female models would cost more than it would increase sales.  It's just that two of their reasons were ridiculous fabrications, because the truth (that including women isn't worth some extra textures, even as a paid DLC or something) reveals how male-dominated they know the market to be.

The companies aren't *evil*, they're just serving a sexist market.

[Neonivek]

And another point. The market success of a game, doens't really matter. The question hasn't been framed as, 'We need more successful video games to be more diverse' its  'We need more diversity in games.'

You can't dictate market success.

Well then you would be entirely right most games are gender neutral simply because most games. The reason I don't QUITE like to do that is because there are a lot more fodder games out there then people usually realize.

Which made me laugh not to groan.
A new physics model:  I don't know what this could mean other than jiggle physics.  Which is dumb because... sports bras. 
Hairstyles:  This sounds reasonable, except...  These are soccer players.

Sports games pretty much do 1 thing. I can FULLY believe that simply accepting a new body structure would completely change the engine.

When they say adding women would be too much work for little reward... I am inclined to believe them.

Hockey games however... I'd be less placated... but some have included female players, including a few that allowed you to add female hockey players when there weren't any naturally.

A new physics model:  I don't know what this could mean other than jiggle physics.  Which is dumb because... sports bras.

Actually, there's a difference in how women and men walk and run, because the hips and the center of gravity are different.

Anyway, I don't see a game about women's soccer getting made simply because barely anyone watches the real thing. So there's just no target audience for a game, and you can't pin this on the publishers.

Ohh no they made it already... it stinks but they made it... Or was it women's basket ball?

That was my point, yeah.  They decided that including some female models would cost more than it would increase sales.  It's just that two of their reasons were ridiculous fabrications, because the truth (that including women isn't worth some extra textures, even as a paid DLC or something) reveals how male-dominated they know the market to be.

The companies aren't *evil*, they're just serving a sexist market.

Favoring men or favoring women doesn't make it a sexist market. It takes a bit more than that.

While I believe some games can be sexist (DAMN IT OTHER M!!!) and that there are a lot of problems with videogames. I do not believe the market is so tainted, so irredeemable that it can be called Sexist as a whole.

And HECK your evidence was showing the top 10 games in a market that is rather male... and EVEN THEN there were games with a female protagonist and strong female characters within the game (Strong as in well characterized). Meaning that even in a market predominately male, we still actually have that push.

As in games don't have to feature women AT ALL in order to be popular... yet still chose so anyway.

Most of the people playing competitive video games are straight and male, and, as a whole, we're hardly up in arms about the lack of diversity in video games, because we just want to play our video games. And, for the corporations, there's often no point in pandering to a tiny minority of their potential consumer base (LGBT), or a group who generally don't play the AAA titles they're developing in the first place (women).

It makes no sense from a business standpoint, when the time and resources involved could be spent elsewhere.

Interestingly enough Morrigi I think most players prefer some diversity.

It is why I believe we are getting some more now, that and I honestly still believe videogames are a creative medium, so the art does change with the times and reflects them.

Heck I can think of a game where the main character was Bi-sexual and it wasn't a split path sort of thing... and that game was made in the 90s.

[Soadreqm]

I can't, for the life of me, in my 20 years of gaming think of one game that had actually good story and characterisation, if I held games to books standarts.

The one I can name is Planescape: Torment. The protagonist is very much a blank slate, but he's a relatively intricate blank slate, and surrounded by other, more personable characters.
It's not especially difficult to create well-written games, if you have the money. You just need to hire a good writer. For some reason, very few high-budget developers do.

If you're a game developer, put effort into your games. Don't be scared of putting that shit in there, stand up for what is right. Ask LGBTQ people about their experiences. Make a character, and make their sexuality part of them, but not necessarily a focus. If webcomics can do it, games certainly can.
[...]
It would not hurt the game industry to try, but they hate trying new things because of the chance it might. It's why games start looking like the same thing over and over again, and why Indie games (can) end up being so popular; they can try new things, and people like new things, when done well.

I'm not sure if they can. I mean, assuming we're talking about the BIG game developers here. If you take millions of dollars of someone else's money, you have a legal obligation to make your game sell to as many people as you can. The people who really care about playing a transsexual character are a tiny niche market, and focusing on them over the more traditional dudebro market is not a sound financial decision. Developers don't want to take risks, because their livelihood depends on publishers who don't want to take risks, and the publishers don't want to take risks because the publishers are in it for money and only money.

Sure, it's possible that making your protagonist something other than a faceless heterosexual white dude is not going to hurt sales. It might even help sales. Many games with other kinds of protagonists have sold really well, and some potential customers are saying that they don't want to play faceless heterosexual white dudes. And that is nice, and pointing this out to game developers sounds like a worthwhile pursuit. I'm saying that you can't really argue that they should "stand up for what is right". Large publishers will never put people's feelings above their own profits. If they were willing to do that, they would not have become large publishers. Unless pandering to niche markets will make them more money instead of less, they will not do it. If you're in one of these niche markets, you're going to have to find someone else to finance your games.

And people do that. Plenty of games have seen light as Kickstarter projects. Plenty of games have been self-funded by the developers. Plenty of games are being developed with no budget whatsoever, by a single person who has a day job doing something else. Games for the unwashed masses are made with corporate backing, because the unwashed masses have shittons of money, and the games are a good investment. Games that only a few thousand people will ever play are made on the cheap.

And I don't really see why the world shouldn't work that way. If you want to argue that there's something wrong with it, you should outline some kind of alternate economic system for the games industry to use.

But also, the whole 'more women just need to become game designers' thing? It's not as simple as that. You can't know how many of them want to be, and get told they can't (because of their gender, but no one ever says that, of course), or that that's a silly idea.

If you accept that having more female game developers would be a good thing, then it really is that simple. If women think that they can't become game designers, that is a problem with the women, not the industry. The solution would be to tell the women to become game designers. If someone is actively keeping women from becoming game designers, for example by not hiring women, that is a problem with a specific person, and the solution should focus on that specific person.

[Neonivek]

You could subsidize the games industry Soadreqm millions of dollars... or give them a "no female lead" tax.

As well we can have censorship laws that prevent female characters in games from having tragic backstories AND from being able to be victimized in games or else their game won't be able to be sold on market.

Plus you can have schools teach children that only games with these set qualities of female characters and protagonists have any worth and that games who do not have it are inherently sexist.

You can embargo the media and make deals with them as well.

You could pass laws forcing gaming companies to have a percent of their workforce as women or face fines or taxes on the games they produce.

You could create a award that videogames can display on their boxes that say they are a non-sexist or progressive games... or even a stamp that says a game is sexist if they do not hold up to the conformity.

All perfectly legitimate ways to do it in a Capitalist Country.

This is assuming of course we are just censoring them for not using women. We could also of course be equal opportunity and charge them if they, for example, put a man in a compromising position, or if they make a game where the only lead is female. Which of course depends on whether or not you believe sexism can apply to both genders.

So which is the solution?

[Soadreqm]

Neonivek: Yes, those are all valid suggestions. I personally find several of them horrifying from a free speech standpoint, do not think that they would fix any real problems, and would not support attempts to implement them, but they are things that could be done.

I think all that shit I wrote could be summarized as "You shouldn't blame the industry, even if you think it's bad, because the industry isn't going to change on it's own." Trying to change things on your own is cool, though.

[Neonivek]

And I didn't just make them up, some of them have been attempted before with various levels of success (Subsidizing and Taxing are both the ones that just flat out fail)

Well ok Taxing doesn't FLAT OUT fail, but it has only been used in situations where the end goal WAS to kill the market.

[Rolan7]

I don't know if the subsidy option belongs with the ridiculous strawmen, but it's true we can't expect corporations to waste money being "good". Good PR, sure, but making unsexist games isn't worth the good PR. Largely because, I think, the gaming market doesn't see or care about the sexism. That's why it's helpful to point it out, and analyze our rationalizations.

[Neonivek]

I don't know if the subsidy option belongs with the ridiculous strawmen, but it's true we can't expect corporations to waste money being "good". Good PR, sure, but making unsexist games isn't worth the good PR. Largely because, I think, the gaming market doesn't see or care about the sexism. That's why it's helpful to point it out, and analyze our rationalizations.

Ridiculous Strawman? I listed all the possible solutions for government intervention, several of which have been attempted by real governments in real life.

Even the "Award for being not-sexist" exists.

[Rolan7]

Actually yeah I misread.