A little defense for Ubisoft for the female assassin discussion.

[DoubleU12]

Double Post. Apologizes.

 

[DoubleU12]

I don't know why but that "too hard" comment irked me. Do you know how hard it is? I don't. I admittedly only read the OP and guy under him before I got bored and started skimming but from what they said it sounds pretty hard.

I really don't give a shit about how hard it is for them. Assassins Creed is an annual game series for a reason: It makes a metric fuckton of money. I would assume that they could spend the bit more to follow up their claim of historic accuracy.

But overall: They have female assassin assets, be it from the multiplayer of older titles or from that one game in the series where you play a female assassin. Combine that with the fact that they already reuse assets like crazy (= savong money) and I conclude that their "it is too hard" statement was a pile of steaming bullshit.

Yeah, too hard is a bit of a hard pill to swallow but I mean... they are a business. They have dead lines where they have to show presentable, likely other projects going on at the same time, budgets, non-understanding higher ups to impress, several unforeseen problems arise, likely 1 or 2 men who call all the shots, and several lower food chain employees that just get the bare minimum done each day and clock out to go home. Facts of all businesses hehe.

On top of that it might also require a lot of back tracking codes and such. I don't know this for a fact but it might have to undo a lot of work they simply can't as a business go back on now if crunch time is coming.

 

[flying_whimsy]

I saw the thread title and came in hoping this was one of those accidentally double posted threads that devolved into a massive derailing via irreverent humor. I could not have been more wrong. All we need now is someone screaming about entitlement and a couple folks getting suspended for being dicks and the cycle will be complete.

OT: I guess I should try to contribute (and since everyone else in this thread has been really wordy, I will be, too): Setting aside some issues about stereotyping and gender roles that I've seen pop up more towards this end of the thread, I think there is a very simple issue at the heart of all of this:

Ubisoft starts every game in the series with a disclaimer talking about how much they care about diversity. In every game since the mode was introduced there have been playable female characters in the multiplayer (and in the case of that one portable game, as the main character). Ubisoft has also been making money hand over fist with the series and has shown no hesitation to reuse existing assets. The new game (set in a period of radical female participation) has no playable female characters. When questioned about it, Ubisoft claims poverty prevented them from including females.

Most arguments for the inclusion of female characters (including the excellent one in the critical intel column regarding historical accuracy) are fairly strong, while ones defending Ubisoft have been pretty weak though valid to a lesser extent (but they designed it that way; it is expensive making female characters; it's their game); but since neither side will listen to the other everyone just starts shouting.

A decade or so ago this wouldn't have been the same hot button it is now; both the industry and the community at large are becoming aware of issues regarding representation in gaming. It is going to be a painful process as we as a group sort these issues out. These arguments aren't going to go away while there are still problems about representation. And there are problems about representation in gaming.

The thing that pisses me off the most isn't hearing the poor arguments, the ignorance, or, dare I say, the privilege behind some of these discussions: it's the people that throw their hands in the air and say they don't care, don't understand the problem, or don't want to take sides. Inaction only helps the status quo: by doing nothing you are taking a side. Doing nothing, being complacent, being willfully ignorant of the needs of others are why these issues exist in the first place.

Just to end this on a light note: Purple monkey dishwasher.

 

[DementedSheep]

"tough girl" is secretly pathetically emotionally fragile, obsessed with her body, the attention of men and has to run off and have a cry confusing all the big strong men. How inspired, after all she is just a woman and this is what women are like. Guys don't have these issue and not wanting to disappoint or wanting to prove yourself are male motivations.

I assuming most of this statement is being sarcastic. : ) I mean the 1st statement almost contradicts the 2nd. These are simply broad examples I was giving so readers wouldn't have to think too hard.

Everyone has stress, especially when they're in a situation they don't fit in well, women relate more to crying and stress when portrayed through a story than men. This is IN GENERAL a fact.

Men are in general more competitive than women but not wanting to disappoint and wanting to prove yourself is a very gender neutral motivation, I think you are thinking in either too narrowly or broadly when you say that but I have seen both sexes absolutely CRUSHED emotionally when dealing with situations like college exams (As well as not caring less how poorly they did) and both genders are willing to jump through hoops to maintain a failing friendship or relationship.

But once again these are simply broad examples, there are several ways real world women would strive to prove themselves and not disappoint as well as endless ways big tough men can feel helpless and weak.

You flip those motivation and it would still relate to some and some women because they aren't actually gendered even if in media land we like doing character arcs with men being pulled up and women being pulled down. Thinking about gender in these terms doesn't make for better characters, it makes more clichéd ones, Making female characters is not hard. If you actually just took a male character and gender flipped them instead of changing a whole bunch to try and make them "feminine", vulnerable or load them up with sex appeal and you might actually get a character who I have some respect for and I can relate to.

 

[Vegosiux]

The thing that pisses me off the most isn't hearing the poor arguments, the ignorance, or, dare I say, the privilege behind some of these discussions: it's the people that throw their hands in the air and say they don't care, don't understand the problem, or don't want to take sides. Inaction only helps the status quo: by doing nothing you are taking a side. Doing nothing, being complacent, being willfully ignorant of the needs of others are why these issues exist in the first place.

Y'know, don't judge people that harshly. You don't know which battles they are fighting. Realistically, none of us can be everywhere, there are too many causes to fight for.

What you're saying here is "If you don't consider this particular cause as important as I do, then you're part of the problem". You're othering people. You're judging them not on their actions, but on the fact that they don't have the same set of priorities as you. You're reducing them to one-dimensional beings. But people aren't one-dimensional beings.

Too often this rhetoric you used there is not used to spur people into thinking about the issue at hand, but merely to bludgeon them.

 

[flying_whimsy]

The thing that pisses me off the most isn't hearing the poor arguments, the ignorance, or, dare I say, the privilege behind some of these discussions: it's the people that throw their hands in the air and say they don't care, don't understand the problem, or don't want to take sides. Inaction only helps the status quo: by doing nothing you are taking a side. Doing nothing, being complacent, being willfully ignorant of the needs of others are why these issues exist in the first place.

Y'know, don't judge people that harshly. You don't know which battles they are fighting. Realistically, none of us can be everywhere, there are too many causes to fight for.

What you're saying here is "If you don't consider this particular cause as important as I do, then you're part of the problem". You're othering people. You're judging them not on their actions, but on the fact that they don't have the same set of priorities as you. You're reducing them to one-dimensional beings. But people aren't one-dimensional beings.

Too often this rhetoric you used there is not used to spur people into thinking about the issue at hand, but merely to bludgeon them.

That is a rather extreme interpretation of what I'm saying and I'd argue a bit disingenuous. I'm not saying people should care about the issue as much as I do (I don't expect them to, because most people do actually just play games for fun); what I am saying is that people that refuse to acknowledge the issue or think that abstaining from it somehow excuses them from having a role in it are wrong and should be called out on it. These problems involve everyone, not just the subgroups they affect. Equality is a universal problem.

I don't think it's too much to ask that people try to have at least some awareness of the consequences of their decisions whether direct or indirect. That doesn't mean they have to act differently, but knowing at least gives us a better understanding of the world and our part in it. Knowledge is always the first step towards change; ignorance and complacency are bigger obstacles than hate.

You may call it bludgeoning, but I prefer to call it responsibility.

 

[Vegosiux]

That is a rather extreme interpretation of what I'm saying and I'd argue a bit disingenuous.

Trust me, if I wanted to go for extreme and disingenuous, I'd do stuff like drawing analogy how we according to your logic apparently shouldn't imprison criminals, cause they're not the real problem, it's people who don't care for any crime-fighting effort that are worse.

That would be extreme and disingenuous.

I'm not saying people should care about the issue as much as I do (I don't expect them to, because most people do actually just play games for fun); what I am saying is that people that refuse to acknowledge the issue or think that abstaining from it somehow excuses them from having a role in it are wrong and should be called out on it.

Well, how would you know, I thought you were directing the bulk of your anger at the wrong target, and called you out on it. I still think so, by the way.

These problems involve everyone, not just the subgroups they affect. Equality is a universal problem.

It is, and you don't know which particular issues of equality they might or might not be dealing with in their own lives. You don't know what efforts they do or do not put in for it. You don't know whether they simply think they should be tackling the issue of equality from different angles and are focusing on that instead.

You're just assuming that because they don't see to be doing this one specific thing out of so many possibilities, they must be doing nothing.

What would you tell to someone saying "No, I don't care that there are less female protagonists in videogames, and I don't care either way, and now if you'll excuse me I need to keep pressing my boss into paying my female coworkers the same as he pays the guys"?

Actually, would you even let them finish after "I don't care either way" before "calling them out on it"? Call me cynical, but somehow I am not completely convinced you would. Not that it matters what I think on this point, mind, and I might well be wrong - but see what kind of impression you left on me? Impressions matter.

I hope you're not going to say you don't care what I think, at least not while you maintain "not caring" is the worst possible thing, it would throw consistency right out the window.

I don't think it's too much to ask that people try to have at least some awareness of the consequences of their decisions whether direct or indirect. That doesn't mean they have to act differently, but knowing at least gives us a better understanding of the world and our part in it.

But what you did was step on a soapbox and go "You know what pisses me off? Those guys! I am angry, those people there are making me angry, and they better change their ways if they don't want my anger be directed at them."

Well, nobody owes you anything. Nobody cares why you're angry at them, except those people who actually matter in your personal life. Being angry at random strangers and talking down at them is going to only make them shrug and go talk to someone who's nice to talk to.

Show them why they should care. "I'm angry that they don't" simply isn't good enough of a reason for them to start.

Knowledge is always the first step towards change; ignorance and complacency are bigger obstacles than hate.

They sure aren't helping, but they're not actively hurting anyone, while hate is. See my extreme and disingenuous analogy for example.

I could concede to the point that it's more difficult to educate people than decry them and thus removing ignorance is indeed more difficult than isolating haters, but that would actually be a point in my favor, since you seemed to be a lot more invested in decrying. (Impressions popping up again, see?)

You may call it bludgeoning, but I prefer to call it responsibility.

Of course you do. One man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters and all, it's a perspective thing. And we humans are really good at inventing reasons and justifications for why our perspective is superior to others. I'd likely make something up too if you challenged me on something like this.

 

[flying_whimsy]

snip

Are you trying to start a fight with me? I don't recall being that insulting to you in my response and I won't be in this one either.

I was airing a complaint I have about other people's lack of involvement. And just so you know, I would wait to hear them out on their reasons; I'm not an irrational hate spewing social justice commentator despite your efforts to make me out to be one. Of course people are going to be having issues going on in other parts of their lives, and in a normal conversation with such a person I would actually show them why they should care. Like I said I was just voicing a complaint that you seem to have taken personally (which was not my intent). And while you say no one cares about my opinion (which is why my opinion was tacked onto other comments more topical as I am not active enough on this board for people to care what my opinion is), the proper response would be to ignore it. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and making a terrible amount of assumptions about me as a person.

I'm tired of derailing this thread, so if you want to continue this I'd rather you pm me than waste everyone else's time with our squabble.

---

To try and get this thread back on topic: why is the thread titled "Oops"?

 

[Vegosiux]

Are you trying to start a fight with me? I don't recall being that insulting to you in my response and I won't be in this one either.

Nope, just telling you why I think you're wrong on a point and pointing out how it quite matters what kind of impression you leave with people. Funny that you would start with "And I won't stoop to your level" though.

I was airing a complaint I have about other people's lack of involvement. And just so you know, I would wait to hear them out on their reasons; I'm not an irrational hate spewing social justice commentator despite your efforts to make me out to be one. Of course people are going to be having issues going on in other parts of their lives, and in a normal conversation with such a person I would actually show them why they should care.

I even said that I could likely be wrong in my impressions. I think acknowledging that is the exact opposite of trying to make you out to be anything.

Like I said I was just voicing a complaint that you seem to have taken personally (which was not my intent).

Personally? Not really, no. But it does annoy me slightly when people say silly things like "Not doing anything is even worse than actively harming people!"

And while you say no one cares about my opinion (which is why my opinion was tacked onto other comments more topical as I am not active enough on this board for people to care what my opinion is), the proper response would be to ignore it. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and making a terrible amount of assumptions about me as a person.

I don't recall saying nobody cares about your opinion.

I do recall saying nobody except for people who matter in your personal life cares that you're angry at them.

I also don't think staying silent would be the only proper response.

I'm tired of derailing this thread, so if you want to continue this I'd rather you pm me than waste everyone else's time with our squabble.

While that seems like a good idea at a glance, it robs me of any opportunity to explain my position further for the benefit of the onlookers. It would end up being just another way of silencing me. Unintentionally, of course, as it does seem like a good idea at a glance.

 

[Dragonlayer]

I don't understand why people think Ubisoft needs to justify their character creation to anyone. Not having a female character is indicative of nothing, and having a female character is also indicative of nothing.

All this is is volunteer victims playing at offended for...some reason I can't grasp.

On one level I agree with you: nobody should fold to demands for more diverse characters just because of political correctness, and that unless the game deals with very specific gender scenarios (like pregnancy or coming out as homosexual in a very conservatively masculine community for example), the gender of characters is indeed indicative of nothing.

But considering Ubisoft has had female characters - both playable and support - in all its previous Creed games, them coming out and saying "But this is too hard you guys!" just doesn't cut it. If they could have you fighting a female Knights Templar during the freaking Crusades, they can certainly justify putting women in Paris in 1789!

 

[flying_whimsy]

snip

I didn't once say that the worst thing people did was be inactive; I just said it pissed me off the most (because I find it easier to reason with haters as they are already actively engaged). And I wasn't trying to silence you; I figured this discussion was quickly moving into the kind of territory where it was between you and me while not actively contributing to the discussion at hand which I should remind you was ubisoft's latest gender controversy.

I didn't come into this thread looking for a fight and I certainly didn't expect it in response to my sloppily voiced complaint that you've blown entirely out of proportion. The bulk of my original post was simply trying to restate the issue at hand in a simple fashion, followed by a quick voicing of a complaint I've had about some of the more common responses I see in these debates. It was not meant to summarize the issue, 'other' anyone else, or do anything beyond add some sort of personal touch to a post I figured no one would read.

Frankly, I don't care what your impression of me is: I'll never meet you in real life and what few comments I make in this forum will have limited if any effect on any person reading them. You have been nothing but condescending, confrontational, and insulting. I have been off-putting, passionate, and guilty of briefly soap-boxing, but not to the degree that should provoke the response you've given.

At the heart of this argument is the fact that you think my complaint was unfair and neglected placing blame on people that actually deserve the blame; you would be right if that was the entirety of my feelings on the issue. There's obviously more to it than that and I think you have entered into this discussion in bad faith.

I'm not sure what your goal is here. Are you looking for some sort of concession or apology? You're not going to get one. All of this discussion over what was it, three sentences? What contribution have either of us made to the thread, the ubisoft issue, or even to the larger one of equality with this discussion? None. What is even the point of us going on in this vein? I'm not going to concede, and I don't think you're going to stop attacking me and picking my posts apart sentence by sentence. Honestly I think we should just walk away and let everyone else get on with the topic.

--

To everyone else in this thread, I'm sorry if I have derailed the discussion.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

I think my favorite part of this whole controversy is encapsulated in the initial thread where a screenshot of Jim Sterling's tweet was posted. Everyone in the initial posts of the thread was saying, "Surely this was a joke," only to find out that, no, this (IMO excessive) anger is going to be a very real thing.

This is the ultimatum you are going to be faced with and you are going to have answer for yourself. Implementing an interchangeable male/female protagonist means creating content. I've modeled and programmed for video games and I can tell you that it is no small amount of work. There is concept art, UV mapping, modeling, rigging, mo-cap/animation, voice acting, programming animation triggers, balancing hit-boxes, etc. All of that is content, this isn't something that can be pumped out in two days, and it all takes time and money.

The question you have to ask yourself is this:
When working with a finite budget, would you rather have developers spend some of it on creating a gender option for the player, or would you rather that budget go toward theoretical additional content for the game (such as additional polish, an additional level, increased environmental graphical fidelity, etc.)? That's the question you are going to be faced with, and you will have to determine where your priorities lie.

Personally, I think choosing to spend time working on other features instead of creating a gender option, or choosing to add a gender option are both fine decisions. It's a matter of what developers think they need to focus on in order to execute their artistic vision. And that's what the entire game will end up being; the product of someone's artistic vision. It's not some political comment, it's not a slander toward the female gender, and they have a right to make the game they want. You also have the right to not agree with that decision, and if you don't then vote with your wallet. If enough people do care about this issue then I guarantee you Ubisoft will hear that message loud and clear.

How can people say things so RIGHT?! Man, nanja'd better than I ever could do...

 

[Vegosiux]

Are you looking for some sort of concession or apology? You're not going to get one.

You have made a concession. I wasn't actually going for it though, what I was going for was...wait, I think I actually answered that in my previous post, so I don't understand why you're asking again. But well, since you asked...no, I wasn't looking for either.

I do have my vices, though. Having to get the last word in is a particularly obnoxious one at times, and causes both me and others some frustration now and then.

But, well, guess there's nothing more to be said. Especially not since your post seems to be mostly about how terrible I've been to you, to the point I'm starting to have a few cynical suspicions again, but I will say no more.

 

[flying_whimsy]

Are you looking for some sort of concession or apology? You're not going to get one.

You have made a concession. I wasn't actually going for it though, what I was going for was...wait, I think I actually answered that in my previous post, so I don't understand why you're asking again. But well, since you asked...no, I wasn't looking for either.

I do have my vices, though. Having to get the last word in is a particularly obnoxious one at times, and causes both me and others some frustration now and then.

But, well, guess there's nothing more to be said. Especially not since your post seems to be mostly about how terrible I've been to you, to the point I'm starting to have a few cynical suspicions again, but I will say no more.

No, I haven't made a concession. I don't care about your vices, and you simply could have walked away. I almost walked away and let you have the last word, but I'm not giving in. I was cynical about you from the start, but refrained from making insinuations and only called you out for being overly aggressive over what was from the start a petty issue. Rereading your posts I still have no idea what you hoped to accomplish other than get a rise out of me.

And you were pretty terrible to me: you jumped on me for a three sentence complaint then picked apart every post to follow sentence by sentence while making veiled ad hominem attacks on me. Even your closing remark was another subtle ad hominem attack. I don't appreciate it and I don't think you came into this discussion in the interests of cooperation or understanding.

You have failed to acknowledge that none of this has contributed to the discussion at hand, namely whether or not Ubisoft's claim that developing female characters was too costly and their time was better spent on other features is a valid defense against claims of leaving out female playable characters. What do you have to say on that issue? Let's show some class and get back on topic already.


OT: I can understand the design decision on Ubisoft's part, but given the current climate of gamer culture I think it was a mistake to make a roster of only male white dudes. The community is too sensitive to let that slide in an AC game. Yeah, making another player character with entirely different clothing and skeleton modeling requires more resources than most people are willing to admit. I think the issue most people have is that they have put that level of investment in previously, and all they would have had to do was import existing assets that would require a considerably smaller level of tweaking to get the same result. To do so in a setting involving arguably the most female involvement before the industrial age just adds insult to injury. Imagine if it was the other way around and male playable characters were excluded for the exact same reason: people would be out for Ubisoft's blood.

So yes, Ubisoft's claim does have merit and I can see why people are having trouble understanding the outrage, but the outrage isn't really about that. People are outraged because it seems like the company has taken a step backwards and neglected including part of the audience when they have featured them in the past; it basically comes across as a statement that these people with two x chromosomes aren't worth the effort it would take to make them a part of the game. That's why people are pissed about it.

capcha: goody goody gumdrops. You said it capcha.

EDIT: I'd still like to know why the thread is called "oops"

 

[DoubleU12]

I'm an artist in the game industry, and have done characters. I've seen a project go through from pre-production to shipping. I've been on a project that went super smooth and had great planning, and some that were a bit of mess. I also spent a few years creating playable female models for TF2 as a side mod project, back before I really even knew what I was doing. It was a learning process for me, mistakes were made along the way, but each time I learned valuable things that would benefit my decision-making in terms of character design the next time around.

Based on my experiences with AAA game development at a real life studio (though not with a budget as near as big as AC) and interacting with the gaming community during the production of mod stuff, I'm gonna have to agree with the popular opinion that the reason stated is a pretty gigantic cop-out.

Nobody likes crunch, nobody likes wacky, sudden changes to a production schedule on tight deadlines. Which is why, if adding a female character was something that was considered important, it should be planned from the start, given proper development time and thought, and not shoehorned in as an afterthought and causing a burden to the devs.

With the budget of Ubisoft's games, I'm sure they could hire a few good producers. Making games is hard, but this doesn't have to be rocket science.

I think a character can still be a male or a female character without making them absolutely devoid of gender. Women have very different priorities, wants, needs, concerns and means of dealing with problems than male characters and bringing these details out strengthens a character's design.

Do they really?

Well you would definitely know more than me on the subject. I know very little what goes into making massive game projects like these. The program I use has a lot of convenient tools provided for me.

When Sakurai said the work load compiled with each character they added, aside from balancing (which I assume is more tedious minor tweaking) I don't really know what he meant which means it is probably on a coding level which of course I have no education on.

That being said, I mentioned this on a previous post but any business has a lot flaws, no business is an exception. Lower food chain employees who get the bare minimum done and clock out to go home, 1 or maybe 2 guys who ultimately make all the decisions and who probably have little or vastly too much interaction with people on their product.

Higher ups that deal with investors and such who want to see results for the money they spent in very unsympathetic deadlines.

I'm not saying this is how coding works but what if adding a female character at this point in production would undo several months worth of coding they already implemented that they would then have to repair which could take days or even weeks with unforeseen problems that occur. The 1 guy who makes all the calls may be able to hire more people to work on it but it would be a real up hill struggle explaining to his higher ups why it would be in their best interest to back track their progress like that.

Like I said that might not be how it goes but that's just 1 possible scenario I thought of among several road blocks that could occur. That's how big business works, and it really restricts what any 1 person or 1 division of people can do.

I assume a game developer has a lot of freedom going forward but going back is quite and changing something is quite difficult. If that wasn't the case video games would implemented audience feedback on their games currently in development rather than adding it in the future installment much more often.

(Although that always brings up the topic of the industry greedily withholding fun features to ensure a future installment will make money but that's a very dark evil place we're not talking about here! XD haha)

 

[Sarah Kerrigan]

I was hoping Far Cry 4 would have an interesting protagonist this time around but it's just a lame white guy again. At least the villain looks to be highly entertaining.

Uh, no. Ajay Ghale is not just some white guy. He is a Kyrat native, grew up there, and is an indian protag. Just, uh, fixing your comment there.

My fault. I barely saw any of him in the trailer since it's 1st-person. He just seemed to be the same kinda character archetype as Jason from Far Cry 3, which is disappointing.

nah it's fine, and I can understand the confusion. But yeah, he's far from the 'white protag' (and I loved Jason myself.)

 

[DoubleU12]

"tough girl" is secretly pathetically emotionally fragile, obsessed with her body, the attention of men and has to run off and have a cry confusing all the big strong men. How inspired, after all she is just a woman and this is what women are like. Guys don't have these issue and not wanting to disappoint or wanting to prove yourself are male motivations.

I assuming most of this statement is being sarcastic. : ) I mean the 1st statement almost contradicts the 2nd. These are simply broad examples I was giving so readers wouldn't have to think too hard.

Everyone has stress, especially when they're in a situation they don't fit in well, women relate more to crying and stress when portrayed through a story than men. This is IN GENERAL a fact.

Men are in general more competitive than women but not wanting to disappoint and wanting to prove yourself is a very gender neutral motivation, I think you are thinking in either too narrowly or broadly when you say that but I have seen both sexes absolutely CRUSHED emotionally when dealing with situations like college exams (As well as not caring less how poorly they did) and both genders are willing to jump through hoops to maintain a failing friendship or relationship.

But once again these are simply broad examples, there are several ways real world women would strive to prove themselves and not disappoint as well as endless ways big tough men can feel helpless and weak.

You flip those motivation and it would still relate to some and some women because they aren't actually gendered even if in media land we like doing character arcs with men being pulled up and women being pulled down. Thinking about gender in these terms doesn't make for better characters, it makes more clichéd ones, Making female characters is not hard. If you actually just took a male character and gender flipped them instead of changing a whole bunch to try and make them "feminine", vulnerable or load them up with sex appeal and you might actually get a character who I have some respect for and I can relate to.

I personally hate the fact that women are so hyper sexualized in media. It's degrading to both men and women and not even very sexy and I find big tuff white dudes uninteresting personally, I prefer most characters who have a large range of emotions which tuff white dudes lack.

Yes of course you can flip the genders and it can work but only for 1 character (maybe 2 if you do it for each gender) and I'm sure that is not the only kind of character arch-type you respect. Every time you make a characters you will strive to make them unique and creative from 1 another, they have their own motivations unique from all the others around them. You can make her want to become a pokemon master but you can also want her to be a pokemon fashion coordinator but that doesn't make her a bad character and the girl who wants to be the pokemon master a good character.

And I'm not entirely talking about just men and women. There are also lots of people who want to be represented in stories, movies and games. Homosexuals, diverse races and cultures, the mentally and physically disabled and of course men and women.

The bad thing is, all of these groups of people are quick to jump on anything they can translate as being negative. It really is a battle you can't win no matter what you do. If you show someone with immediately recognizable race specific qualities then you're racist yet they want themselves represented in media?!?! If you show someone with physically disability than your insensitive yet they want themselves represented in media.

If you make a character with homosexual stereotypes then you're bad but if you make a character who is otherwise a boring normal guy but oh by the way he's also gay then they'll say some other excuse why he is now a bad character and a bad representation of homosexuals.

And if you avoid the issue because you don't want all that negative feedback then you have the problems like the 1 Ubisoft and Disney and every big media business is having.

Really the only characters you're allowed to make are white males. Otherwise how dare you, you horrible scum of humanity. No minority group has ever been imperfect, not even once and to even hint at such is worthy of crucifixion.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with gender neutral characters at all. There are plenty of gender neutral characters I like a lot. I'm just also saying there's nothing wrong with "not" gender neutrality as well but we as people really seem like we're not mature enough to deal with stuff like that anymore.

That's why there is no Wonder Woman movie. Because no matter what you do with the character the movie will probably fail. She's over sexualized, she's not faithful to the original, she's not relateable to real women, she has no personality. There's really no way the character can satisfy everyone and if she doesn't satisfy everyone then she will be torn apart by whatever negative assets everyone chooses to focus on.

 

[DementedSheep]

"tough girl" is secretly pathetically emotionally fragile, obsessed with her body, the attention of men and has to run off and have a cry confusing all the big strong men. How inspired, after all she is just a woman and this is what women are like. Guys don't have these issue and not wanting to disappoint or wanting to prove yourself are male motivations.

I assuming most of this statement is being sarcastic. : ) I mean the 1st statement almost contradicts the 2nd. These are simply broad examples I was giving so readers wouldn't have to think too hard.

Everyone has stress, especially when they're in a situation they don't fit in well, women relate more to crying and stress when portrayed through a story than men. This is IN GENERAL a fact.

Men are in general more competitive than women but not wanting to disappoint and wanting to prove yourself is a very gender neutral motivation, I think you are thinking in either too narrowly or broadly when you say that but I have seen both sexes absolutely CRUSHED emotionally when dealing with situations like college exams (As well as not caring less how poorly they did) and both genders are willing to jump through hoops to maintain a failing friendship or relationship.

But once again these are simply broad examples, there are several ways real world women would strive to prove themselves and not disappoint as well as endless ways big tough men can feel helpless and weak.

You flip those motivation and it would still relate to some and some women because they aren't actually gendered even if in media land we like doing character arcs with men being pulled up and women being pulled down. Thinking about gender in these terms doesn't make for better characters, it makes more clichéd ones, Making female characters is not hard. If you actually just took a male character and gender flipped them instead of changing a whole bunch to try and make them "feminine", vulnerable or load them up with sex appeal and you might actually get a character who I have some respect for and I can relate to.

I personally hate the fact that women are so hyper sexualized in media. It's degrading to both men and women and not even very sexy and I find big tuff white dudes uninteresting personally, I prefer most characters who have a large range of emotions which tuff white dudes lack.

Yes of course you can flip the genders and it can work but only for 1 character (maybe 2 if you do it for each gender) and I'm sure that is not the only kind of character arch-type you respect. Every time you make a characters you will strive to make them unique and creative from 1 another, they have their own motivations unique from all the others around them. You can make her want to become a pokemon master but you can also want her to be a pokemon fashion coordinator but that doesn't make her a bad character and the girl who wants to be the pokemon master a good character.

And I'm not entirely talking about just men and women. There are also lots of people who want to be represented in stories, movies and games. Homosexuals, diverse races and cultures, the mentally and physically disabled and of course men and women.

The bad thing is, all of these groups of people are quick to jump on anything they can translate as being negative. It really is a battle you can't win no matter what you do. If you show someone with immediately recognizable race specific qualities then you're racist yet they want themselves represented in media?!?! If you show someone with physically disability than your insensitive yet they want themselves represented in media.

If you make a character with homosexual stereotypes then you're bad but if you make a character who is otherwise a boring normal guy but oh by the way he's also gay then they'll say some other excuse why he is now a bad character and a bad representation of homosexuals.

And if you avoid the issue because you don't want all that negative feedback then you have the problems like the 1 Ubisoft and Disney and every big media business is having.

Really the only characters you're allowed to make are white males. Otherwise how dare you, you horrible scum of humanity. No minority group has ever been imperfect, not even once and to even hint at such is worthy of crucifixion.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with gender neutral characters at all. There are plenty of gender neutral characters I like a lot. I'm just also saying there's nothing wrong with "not" gender neutrality as well but we as people really seem like we're not mature enough to deal with stuff like that anymore.

That's why there is no Wonder Woman movie. Because no matter what you do with the character the movie will probably fail. She's over sexualized, she's not faithful to the original, she's not relateable to real women, she has no personality. There's really no way the character can satisfy everyone and if she doesn't satisfy everyone then she will be torn apart by whatever negative assets everyone chooses to focus on.

It not about having no flaws it about having those specific goddam flaws repeatedly. Your idea of a character who not gender neutral is girl who has runs off to have a little cry or wants to feel beautiful and get attention from the opposite sex and a guy who messes around and makes gross jokes? You know someone of the most relationship and body obsessed people I know are guys? I definitely know guys who turn on the waterworks for everything. Minority group don't have flaws. You know why? because its just a descriptor of a group of people. People in the group have different flaws.

 

[DoubleU12]

It not about having no flaws it about having those specific goddam flaws repeatedly. Your idea of a character who not gender neutral is girl who has runs off to have a little cry or wants to feel beautiful and get attention from the opposite sex and a guy who messes around and makes gross jokes? You know someone of the most relationship and body obsessed people I know are guys? I definitely know guys who turn on the waterworks for everything. Minority group don't have flaws. You know why? because its just a descriptor of a group of people. People in the group have different flaws.

^_^ Yeah but my cry example was just 1 simple example so readers knew what I'm talking about without thinking too much, creating a very diverse character is hard and takes a lot of thought and requires a lot of knowledge of your plans in the story so they can fit their role. There's nothing wrong with a tuff girl needing a cry. Or a male needing a cry but yeah I can agree seeing similar characters repeatedly does get tedious and unoriginal but then who can decide who can make certain character types and when.

I'm sure I can name several broody characters as the 4 assassins in this game, I'm sure I can find several female characters that could replace Samus Aran and no one would notice a difference. Neither you or I will ever make a TRULY unique character and if we do, it is only 1 character for 1 story. We will likely need 12 more characters, maybe more for that 1 story and what if you are making more stories in the future? It's unlikely you'll be able to create another purely unique character ever again. Instead you mix up several sub character types that have already been done before but not in the way you are trying to do. : ) It's not easy making a character and you know you can't please everyone all the time but it's still pretty heavy when a character you put a lot of care into and it isn't well received especially when you know no one has tackled the idea you've presented in that way and yet uninspired call of duty sequel #12 comes out and everyone defends it's thrown together plot with no original characters at all.

 

[DementedSheep]

It not about having no flaws it about having those specific goddam flaws repeatedly. Your idea of a character who not gender neutral is girl who has runs off to have a little cry or wants to feel beautiful and get attention from the opposite sex and a guy who messes around and makes gross jokes? You know someone of the most relationship and body obsessed people I know are guys? I definitely know guys who turn on the waterworks for everything. Minority group don't have flaws. You know why? because its just a descriptor of a group of people. People in the group have different flaws.

^_^ Yeah but my cry example was just 1 simple example so readers knew what I'm talking about without thinking too much, creating a very diverse character is hard and takes a lot of thought and requires a lot of knowledge of your plans in the story so they can fit their role. There's nothing wrong with a tuff girl needing a cry. Or a male needing a cry but yeah I can agree seeing similar characters repeatedly does get tedious and unoriginal but then who can decide who can make certain character types and when.

I'm sure I can name several broody characters as the 4 assassins in this game, I'm sure I can find several female characters that could replace Samus Aran and no one would notice a difference. Neither you or I will ever make a TRULY unique character and if we do, it is only 1 character for 1 story. We will likely need 12 more characters, maybe more for that 1 story and what if you are making more stories in the future? It's unlikely you'll be able to create another purely unique character ever again. Instead you mix up several sub character types that have already been done before but not in the way you are trying to do. : ) It's not easy making a character and you know you can't please everyone all the time but it's still pretty heavy when a character you put a lot of care into and it isn't well received especially when you know no one has tackled the idea you've presented in that way and yet uninspired call of duty sequel #12 comes out and everyone defends it's thrown together plot with no original characters at all.

This is isn't about diverse characters. This is about you making it complicated to gender swap a character because "Women have very different priorities, wants, needs, concerns and means of dealing with problems than male characters." The reasons you have difficultly swapping character gender is because you needlessly gender traits and as per usual the examples in how men women are different involves women getting pathetic traits with their character development centred around showing weakness where guys have character development about proving themselves.