Print

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

[scrdest]

I'm fairly certain we're talking past each other. With a non-zero possibility we're agreeing with each other past each other.

[10ebbor10]

I'm fairly certain we're talking past each other. With a non-zero possibility we're agreeing with each other past each other.

Yup. Exactly what is happening.

Nobody here is against diversity. So once, let's look at this from a logical perspective. The problem is that there isn't enough diversity in games. Which is because there aren't enough being made. Capitalism tells us that this is because there's no demand for them, and that they don't sell well. I'm going to assume, that this is because the female interest in videogames is lower, which I'm going to assume is being caused by a shortage in games catering to that audience.

So, now that games catering to women exist, female interest will go up, expanding the market base for those games, resulting in more games.

See, positive feedback loop, give it a decade or such, and it'll sort itself out.


You can agree or disagree, but if you disagree, please provide an actual solution, or at least pinpoint what you think to be the actual problem*. So far, everybody has pointed out the problems, yet nobody is offering any solution that would resolve it. ((Pointing out a diversity friendly game is not a solution. Or well, if you point it out as a solution, then considering the game exists, the problem is solved))

*I mean, if you maintain that it would be more profitable for companies to include diversity, yet diversity isn't being included, then you're saying that there's a world wide cartel against women through the entire videogaming industry.

[Reelya]

Just curious Vector. Was Aerias being killed in FF7 an example of sacrificing a woman for the sake of a man's storyline? Because to FF7 fans, it's a watershed moment, one of the biggest upsets in the game up to that point. Aerias was also a pretty decently represented female character. Just curious what your interpretation of that is, if you've played it or are at least familiar with the moment

I think the problem Nenjin is not that sacrificing a female character for a male's story is inherently wrong.

It is how often it is done where the issue arises.

Actually, that's not the real issue either. It's normal and expected for 'The Hero' in an action or adventure-oriented story to lose another character, usually 'The Mentor' or 'The Sidekick'. In most stories, this is a male character who is sacrificed (common examples : Lord of the rings or the original Star Wars trilogy: Luke is *constantly* losing father-figure type male characters, at least 1-2 per movie).

Making that character female isn't the issue, hell for balance 50% of those characters should be women. What is the issue is when it's one of the only female characters who is relegated to that role in an otherwise male-dominated narrative. So, it's not fixed by saying "don't sacrifice female characters" but "add more female characters".

That raises another question, in these narratives where at a certain point the 'standard' Hero's Journey type monomyth you'd expect a mentor or sidekick type character to die as part of the character journey of the protagonist, is having that role played by a female going to be seen as automatically misogynist, thus it's more "PC" to cast a male for that role?

For example, I read a feminist review of Mirror's Edge, and while the writer was generally supportive, she pointed out several things she found to be misogynist, which included the main character's backstory about how she was traumatized by the violent death of her mother. Well, that kind of thing is par for the course for male characters losing their fathers / father-figure as part of the narrative. If we want female main characters to have stories which are as gritty as male characters, then we also have to ask whether asking for those types of narrative sanitized in some gender-specific way is going to achieve this.

[palsch]

*I mean, if you maintain that it would be more profitable for companies to include diversity, yet diversity isn't being included, then you're saying that there's a world wide cartel against women through the entire videogaming industry.

Ignoring the fact that capitalism isn't perfect, humans making the decisions aren't perfectly rational, perfectly informed actors with unlimited resources and creativity...

You don't need a world wide cartel against women for their to be serious and widespread hostility towards women that dampens that positive feedback loop. Actively working to make gaming, game development and wider culture in general less hostile towards women is an important first step here.

The problem I see is that these things can go backwards. People pretend that progress is an endless and unstoppable march and all we need to do is sit back and wait, but we see back-slipping all the time. Take [link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/05/14/women-in-tech-are-losing-from-top-to-bottom/]the decline of women in tech jobs[/link] for a recent and relevant example.

One thing I'm particularly worried about is an effective segregation of gaming. Or at least a carving out of safe spaces and then stopping and pretending the work is done. Women friendly games and minority-focused conventions are fantastic, but not an excuse to keep excluding those groups from the wider gaming culture or continuing to make the mainstream of games exclusionary.

And you don't have to look far to see that that sort of thing happens. Take the movie industry. You have distinct chick flicks and most minority groups have their niche cinema, with the occasional crossover success. And the mainstream remains focused on winning the young white male. Even people who have shown they can be successful in the niches tend to be limited to minor roles at best if they try to break into the mainstream, and you see open hostility (inside and outside the industry) towards attempts to break away from the accepted formulas. There are exceptions (there are always exceptions), but that's generally how the big money goes.

Right now gaming's niches are even more niche, while our mainstream faces even more hostility towards attempts to diversify, especially from gamers themselves. That's not a good starting point for future progress.

[Neonivek]

Right now gaming's niches are even more niche, while our mainstream faces even more hostility towards attempts to diversify, especially from gamers themselves. That's not a good starting point for future progress

In what way exactly?

I mean I know that Gamers can be openly hostile to people who go like "These games need more such and such" because they take it as a "This game is invalid because it doesn't include this", but to my knowledge most gamers are pretty accepting of these changes and additions and more and more gamers actually call out games for all white casts or all male casts.

Hostility on part of game producers? certainly I can see that. They play it so safe they often think if they don't cater exclusively to the white male demographic that the game they produce won't earn as much money... But to my knowledge it has been that way for a very long time.

In fact the decrease in certain demographics has more to do with genre crashes... For example the point and click crash after the 90s. As well as supreme dominance of certain genres such as shooters (which have next to none).

[palsch]

In what way exactly?

I mean I know that Gamers can be openly hostile to people who go like "These games need more such and such" because they take it as a "This game is invalid because it doesn't include this"...

You also see similar hostility towards developers who talk about increasing diversity/representation/inclusion in games. I don't think you can reduce it to just overreacting or misplaced responses to criticism.

Admittedly it's usually female voices putting forwards this viewpoint and so is hard to decouple from basic sexism among gamers - take the Jennifer Hepler situation for one. You don't see nearly as much hostility when it comes from men. See Manveer Heir's recent talk and the massively more positive response he got. Although even then you get a toned down version of the usual bullshit in comment sections and social media (see any slashdot or reddit thread where it's discussed).

I guess it's more just a fact of bigots being a vocal part of the gaming market.

[Sappho]

I guess it's more just a fact of bigots being a vocal part of the gaming market.

Which seems surprising, actually. When I was growing up, the gamers were the kids who didn't fit in anywhere else. The misfits. When no one else in the world accepted us, we found a home in gaming. How does that grow into "if you don't fit into my idea of a GAMER then you aren't a real gamer" and all the other types of bigotry that seem to be such a big part of the community these days? Is it just people who were outcasts before trying to make themselves feel powerful by picking another group to be outcasts? "You didn't let me play with you so now I'm not letting you play with me?" I've never understood that. I'd like to think gamers are more intelligent and mature than that.

[Neonivek]

Honestly with anything good or bad the people who seem to speak up the most tend to be the crazies.

Look at Gun Registration and how much of a failure that news coverage was in the USA. Debates between crazy people on both sides.

Whenever there is coverage on something ecological in the newspaper they tend to get PETA's opinion...

As for Jennifer Hepler...

While I cannot comment on gender I can just get a quote here.

"What is your least favorite thing about working in the industry?"

Playing the games.

I am not surprised there was at least some backlash.

Even I want to say buck up and her reasoning is rather fair.

How does that grow into "if you don't fit into my idea of a GAMER then you aren't a real gamer"

Because the niche expanded until it was no longer a niche and those original gamers were largely pushed to the side as they went from being the prime audience to a tertiary audience, with the main audience being interpreted as a very low brow lowest common denominator with a few games peaking out from the wreckage.

I'd like to think gamers are more intelligent and mature than that.

Well remember gamers include the immature people now.

Honestly I separate "Gamer" from "Casual Gamer" simply by medium awareness.

[palsch]

Which seems surprising, actually. When I was growing up, the gamers were the kids who didn't fit in anywhere else. The misfits. When no one else in the world accepted us, we found a home in gaming. How does that grow into "if you don't fit into my idea of a GAMER then you aren't a real gamer" and all the other types of bigotry that seem to be such a big part of the community these days? Is it just people who were outcasts before trying to make themselves feel powerful by picking another group to be outcasts? "You didn't let me play with you so now I'm not letting you play with me?" I've never understood that. I'd like to think gamers are more intelligent and mature than that.

Wish it was surprising to me.

I've seen similar happen in the past at university. Remove outcasts from the groups that shat on them and put them in a new social environment and they often seem to fall into similar roles of outcasts and 'oppressors', only now trying to get a place in the oppressors role.

Hell, you could make a case that the 'revenge of the nerds' type narratives - where the poor oppressed smart kids are actually superior to those who look down on them and will have power over them in the future - help feed the problem. The people put up with bullying and now see it as their divine right to bully.

And that's ignoring that today gaming is cool and you are equally likely to see the bully playing games as the victim.

[Neonivek]

Well mind you Palsch it makes sense on another level.

Since the most common thinking is "They should know how bad it feels to be picked on"... But the flip side is "You are dealing with a group that has been abused and relegated to a niche".

Then again people's general idea of what makes someone a jerk is rather... wrong. Or shall we forget the "Bullies are people with low self-esteem" myth?

[scrdest]

Well mind you Palsch it makes sense on another level.

Since the most common thinking is "They should know how bad it feels to be picked on"... But the flip side is "You are dealing with a group that has been abused and relegated to a niche".

Then again people's general idea of what makes someone a jerk is rather... wrong. Or shall we forget the "Bullies are people with low self-esteem" myth?

The thing is, they kind of are. The part that is wrong is the part that implies it's lower than those of the bullied.

[Neonivek]

It isn't at all. People with high-self-esteem tend to become bullies.

They even once improved the bullies' self-esteem and found that it increased their bullying.

While certainly there can be the "Low self-esteem bully"... most of them are people who think they are better then everyone else.

[nenjin]

One thing I'm particularly worried about is an effective segregation of gaming. Or at least a carving out of safe spaces and then stopping and pretending the work is done. Women friendly games and minority-focused conventions are fantastic, but not an excuse to keep excluding those groups from the wider gaming culture or continuing to make the mainstream of games exclusionary.

Woah woah woah. This is where I draw the line. I'm fine with everyone having a space for their game, their viewpoints, their gender, their sexuality.....

But acceptance in all of gaming? Is that even appropriate? Do we need equal representation in every single genre, every single game? Does Pitfall need a strong female protagonist, multiple gender identity playable characters? Does SmashTV need to stop from the murder and the mutilation and the bikini babes to address the world of multiple sexuality identities we have now?

I'd say progress IS progress. The fact there are even groups, subcultures and what not that are commercially viable within their own communities is success. I do not consider LGBT in everything, everywhere, the end goal. In that, that's the kind of dystopian PC nightmare a lot of people don't want, as much as they want everyone to have a seat at the table.

You basically need the entire world to be accepting of LGBT to have that kind of cultural assimilation. So saying you wish LGBT featured across the gaming landscape is putting the cart before the horse.

And besides. What you call backsliding is its own culture, its own viewpoint, its own way of life. I'd rather have all present, LGBT and your typical garden variety male WASP viewpoint, then everything crushed and compacted into one-size-fits-all-gaming.

---

Let me put it this way. I hope we reach a point where, in a random sampling of your average gamer, presenting them a game made by a woman, featuring a female/LGBT protagonist or featuring an LGBT theme will not immediately lead to snickers, jeers and someone being called a fag. That's a worthy goal and encapsulates the "a seat for everyone at the table" ideology.

But making it so no game can be made that doesn't offend any one of those groups on some level (even the offense of omission!), that includes every one of these groups somewhere in the game? No. That's not "a seat for everyone at the table." That's "my way or the highway."

[scriver]

I guess it's more just a fact of bigots being a vocal part of the gaming market.

Which seems surprising, actually. When I was growing up, the gamers were the kids who didn't fit in anywhere else. The misfits. When no one else in the world accepted us, we found a home in gaming. How does that grow into "if you don't fit into my idea of a GAMER then you aren't a real gamer" and all the other types of bigotry that seem to be such a big part of the community these days? Is it just people who were outcasts before trying to make themselves feel powerful by picking another group to be outcasts? "You didn't let me play with you so now I'm not letting you play with me?" I've never understood that. I'd like to think gamers are more intelligent and mature than that.

A perspective from an unexpected source.

But yeah. People internalise social patterns. Those who have been stepped on - and seen the popularity of their tormentors rise as a consequence - are, depending on what lesson they take away from it, both more likely to step on others in the future and more likely to think higher of other people when they step on people who aren't them.

As for the whole "they aren't real gamers/nerds", I think there is slightly different (but relwted) reason, but I really want to finish this edit as quickly as possible.

While certainly there can be the "Low self-esteem bully"... most of them are people who think they are better then everyone else.

Well that's certainly true for 99,3% of all nerds.

[palsch]

One thing I'm particularly worried about is an effective segregation of gaming. Or at least a carving out of safe spaces and then stopping and pretending the work is done. Women friendly games and minority-focused conventions are fantastic, but not an excuse to keep excluding those groups from the wider gaming culture or continuing to make the mainstream of games exclusionary.

...

But making it so no game can be made that doesn't offend any one of those groups on some level (even the offense of omission!), that includes every one of these groups somewhere in the game? No. That's not "a seat for everyone at the table." That's "my way or the highway."

I've left in my quote because I think there is a substantial distance between it and your concluding state there.

I don't expect universal acceptance. I may want and demand it, but don't expect to get what I want and don't expect my demands to have any power outside a very limited sphere of influence.

Instead, as I said in the post, I want gaming to avoid the pitfall of the film industry, where the mainstream is focused on a single demographic to the exclusion of others (pre-emptive examples) and minorities are pushed into niches and otherwise ignored.

What I was arguing for is a world where minorities can have representation in mainstream games rather than just niche games targeted solely to those minorities. And I'd honestly expect games to be able to do better than film in this regard (and arguably they are starting to pull it off) thanks to a demographic advantage and less historical baggage.

It's not saying that all games need perfect representation or that WASPs can't be shown in games, but that 'mainstream' shouldn't mean 'default, white male protagonist' by definition. I think we are already moving away from that, and that's the backsliding I'd like to avoid.

(Also, I might be getting a bit tired, but is this coming close to an 'intolerance of intolerance is intolerant' argument?)