Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Let's hope you understand or at least try to one day.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Only 3% of games shown at E3 keynotes featured exclusively female protagonists
- Thread starter Spring Drive
- Start date
This has got to be one of the most cringe-worthy, overused sentences used to disregard social issues in video games.
ugh
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Yep.
Also, if he truly believed that he wouldn't be on this forum.
mikefrails
Banned
Audioboxer
Member
I've said in some other topics but I'll say again here. I think more diversity in the industry would come from more women in the workplace rather than trying to drag gaming along as is. Too many of the large publishers that are easy targets to go after and get the stage time at an event like E3 sell sequel upon sequel based upon marketed out the ass stereotypes and over reliance on undying loyalty from the same buyers. They aren't looking to appeal to new audiences, they want those safe 5-10m who are lockins with current formulas.
In other words good luck getting them to break their big money makers to take a risk at anything. What I will say though is most of these games you could quite clearly name in a second have MP that causes sequelitis in the first place. Whenever MP is involved being able to pick female should be a standard.
Are EA and DICE still doing that stupid as fuck women can't be in the BF MP mode because "realism"? It's a video game guys not a fucking history lesson.
Anyway, long story short look at working conditions in the real world, as in female employment, to gain some movement for diversity. Saying it's unfair polygons are being discriminated against won't get any of us far with big corporations. Plus you get the blowback on forums that polygons don't have feelings and all that other jazz. *roll eyes*
Not looking for everyone to agree with me, but I just genuinely feel having more women as devs, in marketing, in management and all areas of games development would be the best move. Without getting all every dev studio needs to be 50:50 gender balanced, most for a start should at least try to appeal more to women and actively avoid discriminating in employment. Which is illegal, sure, but every company has there thrifty lawyers to get around ever having an accusation stick.
In other words good luck getting them to break their big money makers to take a risk at anything. What I will say though is most of these games you could quite clearly name in a second have MP that causes sequelitis in the first place. Whenever MP is involved being able to pick female should be a standard.
Are EA and DICE still doing that stupid as fuck women can't be in the BF MP mode because "realism"? It's a video game guys not a fucking history lesson.
Anyway, long story short look at working conditions in the real world, as in female employment, to gain some movement for diversity. Saying it's unfair polygons are being discriminated against won't get any of us far with big corporations. Plus you get the blowback on forums that polygons don't have feelings and all that other jazz. *roll eyes*
Not looking for everyone to agree with me, but I just genuinely feel having more women as devs, in marketing, in management and all areas of games development would be the best move. Without getting all every dev studio needs to be 50:50 gender balanced, most for a start should at least try to appeal more to women and actively avoid discriminating in employment. Which is illegal, sure, but every company has there thrifty lawyers to get around ever having an accusation stick.
Weltall Zero
Member
Why does the fact that you don't care make your opinion more valid than that of those who do care? Why are they wrong for caring? I've seen people like you state that they're don't see color or gender over and over and I've yet to see a single one defend why that's supposed to be a positive, let alone entertain the notion that it might not.
From the article linked above:
This issue has been discussed to death in pretty much every thread that handles the lacking representation of genders, races & such other than white straight men in games (probably even in this thread, haven't read the whole thread so not sure). When you come into this thread with horrible arguments on the level of "who cares", then I'm not going to give you the time of my day to explain it to you. If you don't care, then you can NOT enter threads like these with your kindergartener level depth to your argumentation.
Sure, not every developer wants to make a game with a female protagonist. Still doesn't make your horrible "devs just want to make gamezzzzz, we cannot criticize them of anything, I don't care so no one else should" argument any less crap and fucking dumb.
A Link to the Past
Banned
We do still play games for fun. We also point out the fact that misogynistic and racist publishers are tainting art by demanding it be whiter and... manlier? I guess that's the right word for it.
Sony isn't some weird outlier, they're not the social outcasts, they're a top three video game company that does what all of the other companies do. If it wasn't for Square Enix, Life is Strange wouldn't have starred a woman, as most of the other publishers wanted the protagonists to be men. Do you think that this also isn't a product of the industry? Or perhaps that it is just a wacky coincidence that Sony and the other unnamed publishers really didn't like the idea of selling a game with a woman on a cover?
The only way we can keep publishers from interfering in art is to point out their erasure of women and other groups from their games. We are the ones defending art, and quite frankly, for you to bring up the idea that video games are art, it's embarrassingly hypocritical that you complained about how video games aren't about fun anymore. How is art fun? How can you justifiably bring that up and go on to complain about that with your viewpoints?
This may be true of some people, but it's not true of me. Not seeing color doesn't mean I pretend that everyone is white. Yes, I'm aware that Agent Locke in Halo 5 was a black male - my minds eye didn't pretend he was white. It means I don't keep a running tally of characters in games. I feel like the people upset about this issue keep such a tally, and I imagine them just irate and fuming that the white male category has more tallies present.
No, I used the word story. I think you and I have vastly different definitions of the word story.
I don't follow video game sexism maybe as much as I should, but are these claims true and with evidence?
And I don't think saying the art is "tainted" because its white/male is the right way to say it. Changing the original intention, maybe, if these claims are true, is what you probably meant in the first part of the post.
I know I'm a few pages late, but jesus what an amazing gif reponse this is.
Ah yes, now we bring in the blaming of the outrage culture to dismiss any & all form of criticism about subjects of race & gender. I'm sure you'd feel right at home with GGers.
News flash, I'm fairly certain none of us you're throwing your crappy arguments at keep a tally. Not a single one. Some people like Anita Sarkeesian and, for example, people who study the representation of different demographies do so because that's required for argumentation (you can't just pull numbers out of your ass) and that's what science is. You need hard numbers to point out patterns like how rare it is for women to get the spotlight in games (& other mediums).
It's not about some single game not being a feminist's wet dream. I can somewhat enjoy an objectifying sausage-fest like God of War just fine. It's more of a problem when 9/10 games (or even more) are those kinds of sausagefests. Some people are capable of seeing the bigger picture.
If you're asking about the Life is Strange stuff and so, yes, it's true. The developers have talked about this. Dontnod's first game Remember Me also suffered from similar sentiments. Only Capcom was willing to fund that game's development with the female main character intact while others would have wanted it changed into a male character.
Sad
Life is Strange is great as is. Are there any studies, reports, etc done on this as to how many developers have been forced to change their games at the request of publishers?A Link to the Past
Banned
It doesn't matter what the term is, why do you care about the freedom of designers if you're just in it for the fun? And if you do care, why are you so against people who are trying to cut down on the overrepresentation of white men as a product of corporate interference?
Also thanks for the partial reply, though I guess I can't blame you for only giving that much
No one claimed that, I said that it's tainted because it's white/male for corporate/marketing reasons and not artistic reasons. It's why you're a lot more likely to play as a non-white person and/or a woman if you don't have people to whom you answer.
Weltall Zero
Member
Do you have any data on that? It's not easy to extrapolate a lot of statistic data when the sample size can almost be counted on one hand.
So wait, you come in here saying we shouldn't care what gender or color characters are, I tell you that some people don't want their identities erased, and your argument is "I'm special, I'm different"? Like, what? In what way, shape or form did you not follow the colorblind argument to the letter?
I know you're banned and I'm late, but my significant other has been gluten intolerant all her life, so if you get to read this, kindly go
[bleep]
Chû Totoro
Member
This is a very shocking number I'd never have though the difference would be that big
Is it really a "exclusively" vs. "exclusively" comparison or is it "exclusively" female vs. "at least one" male?
This is a serious question because if it's "exclusively" vs. "exclusively" then this is a really really big difference. And else I think she should make a more precise comparison even if the 3% games with exclusively female protagonists is very low even without putting it in perspective with anything :/
Is it really a "exclusively" vs. "exclusively" comparison or is it "exclusively" female vs. "at least one" male?
This is a serious question because if it's "exclusively" vs. "exclusively" then this is a really really big difference. And else I think she should make a more precise comparison even if the 3% games with exclusively female protagonists is very low even without putting it in perspective with anything :/
Mr. Nice_Guy
Member
Isn't great, but change doesn't happen overnight. The amount of strong female role models, and positive LGBT representation in gaming has had nothing but steadily increase over the last few years, and will obviously continue due to all the support it has gotten, and the amount of people requesting it. I just feel like it would be nice to point that out instead of using an inflated statistic to draw ire out of people. Some positivity once in a while isn't a bad thing is all.
I would say that is immense progress compared to even 5 years ago. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I would have to imagine they were much higher than that.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
Chû Totoro;207832611 said:This is a very shocking number I'd never have though the difference would be that big
Is it really a "exclusively" vs. "exclusively" comparison or is it "exclusively" female vs. "at least one" male?
This is a serious question because if it's "exclusively" vs. "exclusively" then this is a really really big difference. And else I think she should make a more precise comparison even if the 3% games with exclusively female protagonists is very low even without putting it in perspective with anything :/
I haven't seen the data (and supplementing chart) in the OP disputed by anyone. Are you asking if it is accurate? Or is there another data point that you are looking for?
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
I think the number is lower than last year?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Negativity is the only reliable approach to the industry that results in change. Positivity encourages complacency, and frankly, being negative towards their current efforts does not discourage them from trying, it just makes them do better in the future. Good devs, anyway.
Well at least it's still a big discussion.
But let's get back to Fun and balanced games.
Best post so far.
It's why I feel like people get misguided despite good intentions. Like when there was the uproar about the Coen Brothers new film because it didn't feature prominent black Hollywood roles.
I get the criticism of assigning white male as the default and how that needs to culturally change but moreover the real effect is going to come from structural changes. Having female and minority voices in the roles of story creation, directors, producers CEO etc.
That to me is where focus should be. Stuff like this is interesting to give a snapchat of the industry and there is value in that. But you have to take the right lessons and put forth the proper policy. Otherwise you just risk stagnation or just putting a pretty painting over a giant hole in the structure. Which just hides the issues for a little bit or at worse deceives that something is being done when really little is.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Huh?
Weltall Zero
Member
Let nobody say Hellion won't find reasons to stay placidly unfazed. "At least we don't burn witches in the stake anymore!".
Gotta love the posts citing "well at least there's progress" out of their arses when numbers demonstrating objective and quantifiable regression are posted in this very page.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
It's harder to balance a game properly if the main character is a woman.
yurinka
Member
It makes sense because unlike in mobile gaming (which is the majority of the gaming market if we count amount of people) most console players are male.
There are the well known exceptions, but sales of console games with female only main character typically sell way worse than the others.
I assume it's because people prefer characters of they same gender because it's easier to identify with them, and most console players are male. So devs make male main characters to sell better.
There are the well known exceptions, but sales of console games with female only main character typically sell way worse than the others.
I assume it's because people prefer characters of they same gender because it's easier to identify with them, and most console players are male. So devs make male main characters to sell better.
If you want more games for females you need game dev studios with mainly female staff building games they would like to play. You can't expect white males to know understand and passionately build games for a different demographic. That's not how this is going to work. IMHO you can't force these things. It has to naturally come from the developers themselves.
I can't believe you guys are still using the "shoehorned" argument. You're literally saying being straight white and male is the *default* and you don't see the problem in that? White men make up 32-36% of the total population in the US so they are VASTLY over represented in literally everything.
Hari Seldon
Member
This seems like a hugely clickbait title when the sampling bias is so fucking bad and it ignores the over 50% of games letting you play as a female.
sensui-tomo
Member
I'm assuming it's a joke of the legend of Zelda thing with if link was a girl the triforce wouldn't be balanced or some shit.
A Link to the Past
Banned
They didn't include that for very specific reasons. The article is about the disparity between roles that exclusively star men and roles that exclusively star women.
Ah, okay :v
It won't actually, and to think that says a lot about how you view representation. The issue is miles away from "every game should represent every group." Where the issue is is "games barely ever feature X group and disproportionately give important roles to the same groups over and over again." The homogenization fearmongering is just that - fearmongering. It isn't worrying that something that has happened will happen, it's worrying that a theoretical future may occur.
ViolentP
Member
My previous statement isn't about representation. Are women underutilized as leads? Depends on who you ask, but if the consensus is that they are, then the correct action is to push for change. And none of this "discussing is the first step" nonsense. Equality doesn't require battle as the consumer has much more power than they may believe. Complaining that only 3% of games at E3 had female leads is not evidence that foul play has occurred, it is the result of social norms to this point. So scream from the high heavens that games need more female protagonists if you want, it doesn't change the root issue. The result of yelling is developers creating games to accommodate the loudest voices, not address the issue we hope to improve. It's why we now need trigger warnings in our games.
A Link to the Past
Banned
What are you even talking about? The root issue is that designers believe that it is not financially viable to feature women in lead roles, which is why many of the expansion of female roles have been optional and not mandatory. Demonstrating that this is indeed wrong is the best way to enact change.
You wrote a super long paragraph that ultimately says nothing. You refer to nebulous "issues we hope to improve" (like what?), you talk of games that feature trigger warnings (for instance, the ESRB), "not evidence that foul play has occurred" (who is even discussing this as a matter of "foul play"?), "it doesn't change the root issue" (what is the root issue?), "it is the result of social norms" (like what?), You talk of how we actually need to push for change rather than "discussing", and yet you do not establish how exactly people aren't pushing for change. The existence OF discussion is not evidence of inaction.
ViolentP
Member
Firstly, the root issue I am talking about is unequal representation of women in media. This is the real issue I am seeing.
Second, the ESRB is also not the trigger warning I am talking about. This is the result of people yelling:
Third, relax. If you and I saw eye to eye on this subject, neither of us would learn anything from this discussion. If you want to take it easy, I'm willing to hear your side of things. But if you continue to take everything I say defensively without a thought about what motivates me to that opinion, well you can finish with someone else.
Spring-Loaded
Member
That post you just quoted is "relaxed," or at the very least "not agitated."
If you don't want to discuss the matter further, you can just leave the thread. No need to try to paint a post as being aggressive/angry merely to justify leaving the thread.
ViolentP
Member
A person that is on the defensive is far from relaxed. But it appears this thread is built for a particular type that I don't seem to fall into. Ironic, but unsurprising. Hope you guys get what you're after.
A Link to the Past
Banned
...What, that's it? That's like, one of the most innocuous things I've ever seen. I'm frankly shocked that you consider a trigger warning on a Steam page (where you don't even tell us what game it is) to be anything more than a "whatever." If that is the result of people "yelling," I think that the negative consequences are essentially zero.
Also, I don't know what about my post is not relaxed. I am asking for you to clarify what you're talking about and what half of the statements you made mean, and you haven't explained more than a couple of them so far. If you don't want people to ask you these questions, why are you here? It's going to happen, whether you like it or not.
Nothing of what I asked is a hard question to answer, it can literally be summed up by "what do you mean?" in every instance, and in fact, for many I said essentially precisely that. You can talk about people being defensive all you want, but ultimately your contributions to the thread have amounted to you making vague statements and becoming accusatory when someone asked for clarity to the point that you've essentially announced that you are leaving the thread.
Also, I don't know what about my post is not relaxed. I am asking for you to clarify what you're talking about and what half of the statements you made mean, and you haven't explained more than a couple of them so far. If you don't want people to ask you these questions, why are you here? It's going to happen, whether you like it or not.
Nothing of what I asked is a hard question to answer, it can literally be summed up by "what do you mean?" in every instance, and in fact, for many I said essentially precisely that. You can talk about people being defensive all you want, but ultimately your contributions to the thread have amounted to you making vague statements and becoming accusatory when someone asked for clarity to the point that you've essentially announced that you are leaving the thread.
ViolentP
Member
Again, the trigger warning itself isn't the issue, it's the fact that it's becoming a requirement in order to satiate those who feel wrong is being done. The problem that led to this need however, remains unaddressed. It's like people complaining that the branch is rotten, and to make them happy, we cut it. Ignoring that the rot starts at the root and will continue to grow.
And the reason I tell you to relax is that you are coming off as bitter. Not once did you care what my reasoning was as you were to busy giving me a response on an opinion you may not yet fully understand. I don't care for you answers to my opinions, I was interested in the opinions of others here.
psychodino
Neo Member
It really bothers me that SJWs are trying to downplay Emily being playable because Corvo is also playable in Dishonored 2.
Spring-Loaded
Member
Just because something doesn't address the core of a problem, or only helps with symptoms of a problem, doesn't mean that it's a waste of time. It also doesn't preclude being able to take other courses of action to address that problem. No one thinks trigger warnings are a magical cure-all solution.
And that dude isn't coming across as bitter, just straight up. You haven't seen actual bitterness if you think that counts.
A Link to the Past
Banned
No one is ignoring anything, nor are people acting as though trigger warnings address the issue. Please do not resort to these rather unfortunate straw arguments.
It is impossible for a good faith discussion to occur with a person who cannot even do so little as clarify their statements. You could have been entirely finished with this and not have to make the discussion about your words if you had just answered my questions. I have made attempts to understand what you're saying, but instead of clarifying, you have become defensive and refused to do so. You're essentially criticizing me for not understanding what you're saying while also refusing to help me to understand what you are saying.
Uh, no one is doing that. Are you suggesting that it's not okay to criticize this specific issue?
ViolentP
Member
You don't think that focusing on a result of an issue could be detrimental to addressing the actual problem? If women are truly underutilized, I think the focus should be on understanding why that is case and focus on changing that? Not that I have a horse in this race, but I certainly wouldn't want to see an influx of female lead roles only because people are complaining about it. It should happen because whatever held them back to begin with has been resolved.
This may seem a grandiose solution, I'm just wary due to the times change has been made solely to satiate consumer for the sake of profit.
I'm criticizing you because these questions you want me to answer are misconstrued versions of what I am actually trying to say and it's far from appreciated. Just the same, this conversation could have been in a more productive place if you simply asked "why" instead of "so you're saying x is y because of z? You crazy."
A Link to the Past
Banned
Why can't you just say what the actual problem is
When you do that it sounds like you're inventing a problem just so that you can claim that the way people are going about it now isn't good without having to have what you claim to be the proper reason be scrutinized
When you do that it sounds like you're inventing a problem just so that you can claim that the way people are going about it now isn't good without having to have what you claim to be the proper reason be scrutinized
ViolentP
Member
Why male leads far outnumber female leads? Isn't that the very subject of this thread?