xXxJessicaxXx said:
Assassins Creed 3 said that a female protagonist wouldn't fit into the period of the game (yet a Native American would be acceptable and wouldn't rouse suspicion wherever he went?).
Actually, this is sort of historically accurate. Natives may not have had free reign, but they certainly did have more freedom than women in a lot of ways important to this series. Especially if he's only half native, as I was led to believe.
Of course, this game series is far from anachronism free....
The Witcher of course has Geralt whose misogyny is accepted because of the books. Meanwhile if developers made a Conan game would he be portrayed as a racist?
Can't talk there. Don't follow.
Kingdoms of Amalur treats the female character like she is a man (constant flirts from female characters) to the extent where she is forced to marry a women if she wants to complete a quest line, there is no option to just say 'No' and complete the quest that way.
I'd throw in Saints Row 2/3 to that list. Similar scenario. The genders switch for the protagonist only.
I personally find this amusing, but then again, this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't really give a damn about relationships in video games.
Risen 2 has dismissed a playable female out of hand even though their protagonist is 'The nameless hero' and plenty of women were involved in piracy.
I'd be syrprised if, historically there were "plenty" of women pirates in this sense. One of the stauncher naval traditions was the superstition that women on a boat were bad luck.
However, this one's pretty interesting. I was under the impression there was a female lead, but I haven't followed the game very closely. However, we ARE talking about a fantasy-style pirate game. Even if there were no female pirates in history, the question becomes "so what?"
I can't see any reasons to exclude a female lead, except what I'll get to in a second.
Sometimes I wonder whether we will ever be accepted as part of gaming or the very excuse of 'men are our main demographic' is going to discourage women from playing games and therefore not allow the demographic to balance out.
It doesn't seem to be discouraging anyone, honestly.
I know that I'm in the minority here and I'm probably going to get shouted down pretty badly but please think about what it's like to grow up loving a past-time that no one seems to want you to be involved in.
Passtime, or sometimes accepted as pass-time/pass-time.
Anyway, nitpick aside, here we go:
I don't think this is systematic or intentional. A lot of unintentional bias springs up, and it can be harmful overall. This is why we should pay attention to and discuss these things. I dislike the fact that issues of race, sexuality and gender are frequently shouted down, because they really need to be discussed.
So when I say there is no intentional bias, don't take as me saying there is no bias. There clearly is, and a fair chunk. But are they actively and deliberately discouraging women? I don't think so. More than ever, games are being broadened to try and appeal to every market. In games with a creatable character, there's almost no excuse to not include options to make a female character. Or an (insert other group here).
The main reason I think they don't is the same one I was going to allude to:
Laziness.
It may not literally be laziness, but a lot of these games require new elements for female characters, most specifically dialogue, which has to be recorded. This is why I think Kingdoms of Amalur has all the women flirting: Otherwise, they might have to do more voice acting. Similarly, if you play through Saints Row the Third with ANY of the dialogue choices (except maybe zombie), you will notice all the dialogue is the same except the boss'. Even the Boss will say variations that make the responses make sense, so they have to keep some level of linearity. Flirting with Shaundi, for example, or the lines wouldn't make any sense. Or, GASP HORROR, they'd have to record new lines.
I think dialogue has screwed up a lot in gaming, actually. But Most of that's not at issue here.
Assassin's Creed I'll give a little bit of a benefit of the doubt, but not much.
I think if there was an easier way to be inclusive, we'd see it. But two sets of dialogue and the like is an expenditure, and the game companies are pretty deadset against actually shelling out money unless they think it'll be profitable. Since boys are the main consumers, target boys.
There's also that other...Shall we say, touchy issue. Culturally, it's pretty much expected from women to be okay with a male lead but men not being okay with a woman lead. In short, women are expected to "deal with it," and men are expected to go "DO NOT WANT!" And that's socially fine. It's not even a gaming thing. Double standard? Yes, and I haven't even gotten into the difference between "girls liking girls" and "boys liking boys."
So given that your primary base is considered openly hostile to females and the secondary base isn't considered openly hostile to males, would you honestly want to piss off the major base to feed one that might not even appreciate it?
There's also the issue of the actual people in charge. Like leads to like. I'm pretty sure the dominance in writing and design leads to a lot of issues, not the least thinking of male protagonists.
Kahunaburger said:
Well, I'm all tingly. >.>
Specifically, the ideal person your average teenage boy would want to be while punching things.
Exactly, and that's the major difference in design choices. Additionally, men aren't dressed with sex in mind. They're not posed with sex in mind. Their dialogue is only read with sex in mind if it's sex with the 34DDDDD woman wearing a thong and pasties who is the love interest despite neither having personality.
