Escapist Podcast: PAX Panel: What Women Really Want From Female Characters

[DustyDrB]

This isn't just what women want. I think most men want it too. I hate it that games still have too many juvenile portrayals of women. It's lazy, pandering, makes for dull characters, and helps reinforce the stereotype that gaming is an activity for the immature. Not to say that it should be done away with completely, as I suppose there's always a place for such depictions of men and women in all forms of media. But it's definitely not something that should be the norm. With more well-written characters comes better story-telling and a chance to sympathize with someone unlike yourself (even of a different gender). I think this enhances the game as a whole, from story to gameplay.

Awww, just audio? Come on, reactions [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap3h9-yfrnQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=500s] to the demo images at the panel at PAX East were comedy gold!

Thanks for the link.

Wow. I missed people's reactions to Enslaved. I didn't know there was so much outrage over what Trip did in the beginning. Sure, it's no heart-of-gold move. But she did what she needed to do to survive, and I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing if I were in the same situation. Great game, great characters. And, of course, it's under-appreciated.

 

[Susan Arendt]

This isn't just what women want. I think most men want it too. I hate it that games still have too many juvenile portrayals of women. It's lazy, pandering, makes for dull characters, and helps reinforce the stereotype that gaming is an activity for the immature. Not to say that it should be done away with completely, as I suppose there's always a place for such depictions of men and women in all forms of media. But it's definitely not something that should be the norm. With more well-written characters comes better story-telling and a chance to sympathize with someone unlike yourself (even of a different gender). I think this enhances the game as a whole, from story to gameplay.

Awww, just audio? Come on, reactions [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap3h9-yfrnQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=500s] to the demo images at the panel at PAX East were comedy gold!

Thanks for the link.

Wow. I missed people's reactions to Enslaved. I didn't know there was so much outrage over what Trip did in the beginning. Sure, it's no heart-of-gold move. But she did what she needed to do to survive, and I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing if I were in the same situation. Great game, great characters. And, of course, it's under-appreciated.

You're right, of course, as the guy who came up and talked about the half-naked chick from Firefall demonstrated. Guys find these oversexed, shallow characters to be just as lame as we ladies do; it's actually fairly insulting for publishers to assume guys will buy something simply because a busty girl in a bikini is on the box.

 

[Eleima]

I do have one thing to say about FemShep though, you *can* give her scars in ME1, even if marketing decided to do away with those (but then again, they did the same to MaleShep, all scars disappeared in ME2; which is a shame, I thought they added distinction to my characters).

Given what happened at the start of ME2...I think it's reasonable to assume there wasn't any scar tissue around.
[Spoilers obviously]

True enough, but everything else was reconstructed "as is", so why not the scar? ^_^

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I do have one thing to say about FemShep though, you *can* give her scars in ME1, even if marketing decided to do away with those (but then again, they did the same to MaleShep, all scars disappeared in ME2; which is a shame, I thought they added distinction to my characters).

Given what happened at the start of ME2...I think it's reasonable to assume there wasn't any scar tissue around.
[Spoilers obviously]

True enough, but everything else was reconstructed "as is", so why not the scar? ^_^

Maybe

Spoiler

Miranda didn't like it? Or that reconstructing the scar would have been twice as difficult, given that scar tissue changes differently. Brand new "out of the mould" Shep probably wouldn't have blisters, callouses or cellulite either. Almost worth dying for.

 

[Gatx]

They brought up that FemShep had a default appearance before and why couldn't they just keep that. The thing is, the voting process ended basically reconstructing the default FemShep anyway. The hair color vote was a total landslide in the favor red.

 

[Freechoice]

I never understood the "character I need to relate to" mindset. I think what should be said is "a character I can sympathize with." I honestly would not care if the character I was playing had a higher pitch combat grunt than, say, Marcus Fenix. If you absolutely need to feel human by attaching yourself to the character, the primary facet should be the story, not the gender. Somehow, someway, I am calling AJ sexist.

I don't know I kind of understand where she is coming from when I play a game with a male lead like Crysis 2 (which I think is a good game) it feels like I am watching someone else's story even though Alcatraz is pretty much a vague character compared to Prophet. When I get to play as say, Lara Croft I feel more immersed in that game because I can put myself in the place of that character easier simply becuase I'm the same gender.

I hope that makes sense.

OT: Thanks for putting the Podcast up it was cool to be able to listen to it.

I would agree with the fact that people have a right to play the 'sparkle pony' games but they shouldn't be labelled as 'girls games' when I certainly don't enjoy them. The Sims 3 is pushing it for me but I do enjoy the building.

I find relating to a character is actually pretty shallow.

Michelle Orange discusses relatability here [http://therumpus.net/2010/10/and-this-is-word-for-word-the-theory-of-relatability-and-rethinking-justin-long%E2%80%99s-face/].

For different reasons, but the point is concurrent; relatability is diametrically opposed to characterization. By definition, an everyman has to have qualities that all people possess, otherwise the relatability goes downhill. This creates a very bland character in special situations. Likewise, a very well developed character is harder to relate to because they have definite characteristics. Relatability goes down, but characterization (and the chance for a more powerful narrative) increases. If a character is relatable and the narrative is powerful, it probably has to be self-aware, losing some of the immersion because of the reality tie-in to keep it from being silly, see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Granted, none of this is set in stone, but I'd be willing to bet good female characters have more depth than the average action hero.

That argument notwithstanding, I think it's worth reevaluating your priorities if you have to see anatomical similarities between yourself and a collection of pixels before you can start relating to them. In most circumstances, I imagine humans, especially ones in the Western world, have progressively homogenized problems that anyone can learn from. Likewise, the focus of most games is not problems caused by sex, but problems that get resolved because they need to get resolved.

I'm not trying to be aggressive, but this is a hot button for me (not a berserk button). These kinds of mentalities incentivize bland characters. If people do not raise their concern that relatability is a problem, it's not going to get changed. And it is a problem, it's just that most people don't see it because that has become the cultural norm.

Discussions such as this tend to address the symptoms, not the causes. If you try to compare it with reality, it's remarkably similar; prominent women are often sexualized and portrayed as dependent. In the same situations, men aren't. Men are just sort of expected to get things done regardless of what the audience thinks. Here's an entire tropes page on it [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender]. Sad, ain't it?

What women really want from female characters are characters that don't suck. Hell, James Cameron (of Aliens fame) said the best way to make a good female character is to write a male and change the pronouns. Sad indictment of gender comprehension? Yeah, but it works on more levels than you would think. People are people, problems are problems. In most cases, I think people just need a sympathetic (the common definition) ear. If it's something serious, you probably need to talk to a professional.

 

[Taunta]

I also kind of maybe disagreed with the "If a female character is just a man with boobs, what's the point?" comment. It depends on what was meant there, but what I mean is that I don't think a female character should need to be all about female issues and being stereotypically feminine or, on the other hand, breaking the stereotypes and having everyone point that out, or in short be defined by the fact she's feminine. I think the same character could be either, just flip a coin, and that's fine. Males don't have to be a specific way to be good male characters, they're just good characters and they happen to be males. I think it should be the same for female characters.

I never understood the "character I need to relate to" mindset. I think what should be said is "a character I can sympathize with." I honestly would not care if the character I was playing had a higher pitch combat grunt than, say, Marcus Fenix. If you absolutely need to feel human by attaching yourself to the character, the primary facet should be the story, not the gender. Somehow, someway, I am calling AJ sexist.

I don't know I kind of understand where she is coming from when I play a game with a male lead like Crysis 2 (which I think is a good game) it feels like I am watching someone else's story even though Alcatraz is pretty much a vague character compared to Prophet. When I get to play as say, Lara Croft I feel more immersed in that game because I can put myself in the place of that character easier simply becuase I'm the same gender.

I hope that makes sense.

OT: Thanks for putting the Podcast up it was cool to be able to listen to it.

I would agree with the fact that people have a right to play the 'sparkle pony' games but they shouldn't be labelled as 'girls games' when I certainly don't enjoy them. The Sims 3 is pushing it for me but I do enjoy the building.

What women really want from female characters are characters that don't suck. Hell, James Cameron (of Aliens fame) said the best way to make a good female character is to write a male and change the pronouns. Sad indictment of gender comprehension? Yeah, but it works on more levels than you would think. People are people, problems are problems. In most cases, I think people just need a sympathetic (the common definition) ear. If it's something serious, you probably need to talk to a professional.

I have to disagree with the notion that gender is interchangeable. While it's nice to say that "people are people, regardless of gender", gender plays a huge role in how people view the world, and just how they act in general. Men and women have different values and respond differently to their environment, and have different ways of thinking, especially considering gender roles relative to their culture. As far as Psychology is concerned, things like gender and culture change everything. This, of course, doesn't mean the character has to be stereotypical, but that should go without saying.

 

[Freechoice]

I have to disagree with the notion that gender is interchangeable. While it's nice to say that "people are people, regardless of gender", gender plays a huge role in how people view the world, and just how they act in general. Men and women have different values and respond differently to their environment, and have different ways of thinking, especially considering gender roles relative to their culture. As far as Psychology is concerned, things like gender and culture change everything. This, of course, doesn't mean the character has to be stereotypical, but that should go without saying.

Do you see many of the predominantly male characters in games pursuing masculine gender tropes, problems, etc. to the detriment or even to the expansion of the narrative? In most cases, the answer is no because there's a job to do.

In entertainment of the singular installment variety (games, films, not-books, not-TV), a character is cast in a role, usually professional. It's a soldier or a spy or a demo guy. Doesn't matter. They are professional people with professional obligations and only things that bother to characterize heavily (Persona series) will explore gender-based content. It's the same reason a doctor or lawyer of either gender is acceptable if they are both of similar qualification. Professional obligation demands that they leave their personal life out of their job.

Gender based outlooks have little place in most action games because the point is to advance an already existing plot and guys and gals have to be able to shoot the same way.

Femshep saves the universe in the same fashion as Dudeshep. Chloe Frazier is a snarky asshole like Nathan Drake. Jill Valentine shoots zombies just like Chris Redfield.

A professional is a professional, regardless of how they pee.

And really, what differences are there that don't have a distaff counterpart on TV Tropes?

 

[Trilliandi]

I'm glad that Bayonetta pleased some people. Bayonetta woould have been something I could've enjoyed... if it WASN'T trying SO HARD to be Devil May Cry, and yet NOT calling itself Devil May Cry. And this simple point, made my stupid brain just shut down and reject the whole game and expect Dante to pop out and yell 'Just kidding folks, this is totaly DMC.' Could not enjoy it.

 

[Taunta]

I have to disagree with the notion that gender is interchangeable. While it's nice to say that "people are people, regardless of gender", gender plays a huge role in how people view the world, and just how they act in general. Men and women have different values and respond differently to their environment, and have different ways of thinking, especially considering gender roles relative to their culture. As far as Psychology is concerned, things like gender and culture change everything. This, of course, doesn't mean the character has to be stereotypical, but that should go without saying.

Do you see many of the predominantly male characters in games pursuing masculine gender tropes, problems, etc. to the detriment or even to the expansion of the narrative? In most cases, the answer is no because there's a job to do.

In entertainment of the singular installment variety (games, films, not-books, not-TV), a character is cast in a role, usually professional. It's a soldier or a spy or a demo guy. Doesn't matter. They are professional people with professional obligations and only things that bother to characterize heavily (Persona series) will explore gender-based content. It's the same reason a doctor or lawyer of either gender is acceptable if they are both of similar qualification. Professional obligation demands that they leave their personal life out of their job.

Gender based outlooks have little place in most action games because the point is to advance an already existing plot and guys and gals have to be able to shoot the same way.

Femshep saves the universe in the same fashion as Dudeshep. Chloe Frazier is a snarky asshole like Nathan Drake. Jill Valentine shoots zombies just like Chris Redfield.

A professional is a professional, regardless of how they pee.

And really, what differences are there that don't have a distaff counterpart on TV Tropes?

If a character's sole defining trait is their profession, then they're not a fully fleshed out character, and I think you have more problems than making strong convincing females.

You seem to classify people more by their profession, insisting that they all should act as a stereotype of someone with their profession should act, when in reality that's not the case. That creates a 2d character at best, and I would argue that because even real life doctors and soldiers have personalities, video game doctors and soldiers should too. How does a female doctor break the news to her patient that he or she has a terminal illness? How does that differ from how a male doctor would? And "It wouldn't" is not the right answer. Would a male or female soldier be more likely to kill unnecessarily? Would a male or female be more likely to help a civilian in need?

The idea that only character-driven games should have realistic and deep characterization is a dangerous one, and that action-driven games should have cardboard cut-outs and two-dimensional people. That's the same as the "anti-artistic games" argument. Having realistic characters with dimensions and flaws is not a drawback, just like having artistic merit and making the player think is not a drawback. If anything, having three-dimensional characters can only enhance your immersion, and by extension, your enjoyment. Why do you think more people enjoyed the romance more in DA2, instead of Fable 3? Because your companions in DA2 had depth and personalities, and in Fable 3 you were expected to favor one faceless civilian over the other.

Also, Shepard is not a good example for any personality discussion, as Shepard is a blank slate, male or female. That's like starting an argument with "My avatar on World of Warcraft..."

 

[Freechoice]

If a character's sole defining trait is their profession, then they're not a fully fleshed out character, and I think you have more problems than making strong convincing females.

You seem to classify people more by their profession, insisting that they all should act as a stereotype of someone with their profession should act, when in reality that's not the case. That creates a 2d character at best, and I would argue that because even real life doctors and soldiers have personalities, video game doctors and soldiers should too. How does a female doctor break the news to her patient that he or she has a terminal illness? How does that differ from how a male doctor would? And "It wouldn't" is not the right answer. Would a male or female soldier be more likely to kill unnecessarily? Would a male or female be more likely to help a civilian in need?

The idea that only character-driven games should have realistic and deep characterization is a dangerous one, and that action-driven games should have cardboard cut-outs and two-dimensional people. That's the same as the "anti-artistic games" argument. Having realistic characters with dimensions and flaws is not a drawback, just like having artistic merit and making the player think is not a drawback. If anything, having three-dimensional characters can only enhance your immersion, and by extension, your enjoyment.

Also, Shepard is not a good example for any personality discussion, as Shepard is a blank slate, male or female. That's like starting an argument with "My avatar on World of Warcraft..."

I think you should just stop here because you took only what you wanted to see from my points and glossed over everything else. Here's why:

For one, I did not say that a character's sole definition should be their job. I said their job should keep any gender related problems outside of their work environment. This is in part because gender issues tend to be very deep, personal problems that can interfere with a work environment.

Your class questions are irrelevant because anyone can have any reaction and act in any manner. Characters act according to how they are written, what is needed of them and how they are developed and are subject to presupposition by their authors.

Likewise, I said nothing about stopping action heavy games from having characterization. Again, it was about gender issues.

And what about my other examples? What about Frazier being the counterpart to Drake? What about Jill having perpetual UST with Chris while trying to beat his headshot score?

Oh, and I just finished listening to the podcast and it seems that I was agreed with without having known it. One of the casters advocated (reasonable) androgyny as a happy medium for character design, a concept that is in complete agreement with my idea that human problems are largely universal within a culture. Not all, but the point remains that if you create a gender specific problem, half the human race can't relate and if you have to explain it, you either lose punch or it becomes weird.

 

[Ariseishirou]

How does a female doctor break the news to her patient that he or she has a terminal illness? How does that differ from how a male doctor would? And "It wouldn't" is not the right answer.

Having had both a male and a female family doctor in those kinds of situations, "it wouldn't" is the right answer.

Professionals, male or female, are often trained to handle situations in a specific, professional manner. Sometimes it's the profession that does matter, not the gender. Frankly, the insinuation that one gender of soldier would hold life to be more precious than another is also extremely offensive, off-putting, and I do not share your point of view.

 

[Taunta]

If a character's sole defining trait is their profession, then they're not a fully fleshed out character, and I think you have more problems than making strong convincing females.

You seem to classify people more by their profession, insisting that they all should act as a stereotype of someone with their profession should act, when in reality that's not the case. That creates a 2d character at best, and I would argue that because even real life doctors and soldiers have personalities, video game doctors and soldiers should too. How does a female doctor break the news to her patient that he or she has a terminal illness? How does that differ from how a male doctor would? And "It wouldn't" is not the right answer. Would a male or female soldier be more likely to kill unnecessarily? Would a male or female be more likely to help a civilian in need?

The idea that only character-driven games should have realistic and deep characterization is a dangerous one, and that action-driven games should have cardboard cut-outs and two-dimensional people. That's the same as the "anti-artistic games" argument. Having realistic characters with dimensions and flaws is not a drawback, just like having artistic merit and making the player think is not a drawback. If anything, having three-dimensional characters can only enhance your immersion, and by extension, your enjoyment.

Also, Shepard is not a good example for any personality discussion, as Shepard is a blank slate, male or female. That's like starting an argument with "My avatar on World of Warcraft..."

I think you should just stop here because you took only what you wanted to see from my points and glossed over everything else. Here's why:

For one, I did not say that a character's sole definition should be their job. I said their job should keep any gender related problems outside of their work environment. This is in part because gender issues tend to be very deep, personal problems that can interfere with a work environment.

Your class questions are irrelevant because anyone can have any reaction and act in any manner. Characters act according to how they are written, what is needed of them and how they are developed and are subject to presupposition by their authors.

Likewise, I said nothing about stopping action heavy games from having characterization. Again, it was about gender issues.

And what about my other examples? What about Frazier being the counterpart to Drake? What about Jill having perpetual UST with Chris while trying to beat his headshot score?

Oh, and I just finished listening to the podcast and it seems that I was agreed with without having known it. One of the casters advocated (reasonable) androgyny as a happy medium for character design, a concept that is in complete agreement with my idea that human problems are largely universal within a culture. Not all, but the point remains that if you create a gender specific problem, half the human race can't relate and if you have to explain it, you either lose punch or it becomes weird.

Allow me to address your points individually to avoid the cop-out argument "Oh you only read what you wanted to read".

Do you see many of the predominantly male characters in games pursuing masculine gender tropes, problems, etc. to the detriment or even to the expansion of the narrative? In most cases, the answer is no because there's a job to do.

In entertainment of the singular installment variety (games, films, not-books, not-TV), a character is cast in a role, usually professional. It's a soldier or a spy or a demo guy. Doesn't matter...It's the same reason a doctor or lawyer of either gender is acceptable if they are both of similar qualification. Professional obligation demands that they leave their personal life out of their job.

"Gender, culture, and personality are irrelevant, a character should act within the stereotypical frame of what their job depicts." Nevermind that a single personality profession trait does not depict what a person should do in all scenarios, or even how. So sorry, simply saying "He's a soldier, he should act like a soldier." does not hold water.

...only things that bother to characterize heavily (Persona series) will explore gender-based content.

"Only in character-driven games (I.e. the persona series) should explore how something like your gender should affect someone's character"

Gender based outlooks have little place in most action games because the point is to advance an already existing plot and guys and gals have to be able to shoot the same way

I didn't say anything about gender affecting someone's ability to be a soldier, I said something about gender affecting someone's choices and reactions to their environment. Also "Action games should not have characters where their gender plays a realistic part in their personality."

And what about my other examples? What about Frazier being the counterpart to Drake? What about Jill having perpetual UST with Chris while trying to beat his headshot score?

Simple. I've never played those games so I can't contest you on those.

A professional is a professional, regardless of how they pee.

"A person should act as a stereotype of their profession, regardless of their gender."

 

[Freechoice]

snip

Will=/=Should
Pulling words from nowhere=Bad

There's no arguing with this because I neither stated nor implied your points. I'll just quote the person that said it better than me.

How does a female doctor break the news to her patient that he or she has a terminal illness? How does that differ from how a male doctor would? And "It wouldn't" is not the right answer.

Having had both a male and a female family doctor in those kinds of situations, "it wouldn't" is the right answer.

Professionals, male or female, are often trained to handle situations in a specific, professional manner. Sometimes it's the profession that does matter, not the gender. Frankly, the insinuation that one gender of soldier would hold life to be more precious than another is also extremely offensive, off-putting, and I do not share your point of view.

 

[Taunta]

How does a female doctor break the news to her patient that he or she has a terminal illness? How does that differ from how a male doctor would? And "It wouldn't" is not the right answer.

Having had both a male and a female family doctor in those kinds of situations, "it wouldn't" is the right answer.

Professionals, male or female, are often trained to handle situations in a specific, professional manner. Sometimes it's the profession that does matter, not the gender. Frankly, the insinuation that one gender of soldier would hold life to be more precious than another is also extremely offensive, off-putting, and I do not share your point of view.

I don't think you understand. Obviously professionals are expected to act with a certain amount of rapport. I'm not saying that one gender would be less likely to act with rapport, but that still doesn't explain to me any differences about the subtle nuances one gender of doctor would be more likely to give.

Also, kudos to you for getting offended without me even having to suggest any gender. I just asked a hypothetical question. But since you addressed it specifically...

Yes [http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/latane_bystand.html], gender [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394507/Women-selfish-men-likely-bad-mouth-friends-says-study.html] is a confounding variable [http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Confounding%20Variable] in a person's inclination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect] to help someone.

Also informative, are episodes of "What would you do?". Just count the number of females and males who intervene.

 

[Taunta]

snip

Will=/=Should
Pulling words from nowhere=Bad

There's no arguing with this because I neither stated nor implied your points. I'll just quote the person that said it better than me.

Then clearly you shouldn't be arguing if you can't choose your words in a way that wouldn't imply to others things that you don't mean. I.E. Carefully

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I never understood the "character I need to relate to" mindset. I think what should be said is "a character I can sympathize with." I honestly would not care if the character I was playing had a higher pitch combat grunt than, say, Marcus Fenix. If you absolutely need to feel human by attaching yourself to the character, the primary facet should be the story, not the gender. Somehow, someway, I am calling AJ sexist.

I don't know I kind of understand where she is coming from when I play a game with a male lead like Crysis 2 (which I think is a good game) it feels like I am watching someone else's story even though Alcatraz is pretty much a vague character compared to Prophet. When I get to play as say, Lara Croft I feel more immersed in that game because I can put myself in the place of that character easier simply becuase I'm the same gender.

I hope that makes sense.

OT: Thanks for putting the Podcast up it was cool to be able to listen to it.

I would agree with the fact that people have a right to play the 'sparkle pony' games but they shouldn't be labelled as 'girls games' when I certainly don't enjoy them. The Sims 3 is pushing it for me but I do enjoy the building.

I would agree with you that a good character is more relatable than a bad one no matter thier sex but the gender thing is like another level on top of that for me.
I find relating to a character is actually pretty shallow.

Michelle Orange discusses relatability here [http://therumpus.net/2010/10/and-this-is-word-for-word-the-theory-of-relatability-and-rethinking-justin-long%E2%80%99s-face/].

For different reasons, but the point is concurrent; relatability is diametrically opposed to characterization. By definition, an everyman has to have qualities that all people possess, otherwise the relatability goes downhill. This creates a very bland character in special situations.

I don't think it's shallow at all, It's definately not a concious thing on my part. It's just something I noticed while playing certain games. I feel more immersed in the action when the character is the same gender as me, such as Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2.

I have tried to play ME2 as male shep and I don't get the same feeling from it. I don't sit there and say 'This is a man therefore I won't enjoy this as much'. It's just something that happens on a subconcious level.

I have played games for 25 years now and I have noticed that I think about certain games in a different way. Femshep feels like 'me' while Alan Wake doesn't, it's his own story. I enjoyed Resident Evil 1 and 2 much more as Jill and Claire than I did as Chris and Leon. I can relate to them easier even with the terrible voice acting.

It definately not a desicion I make, just one that I feel. It doesn't stop me from enjoying games with a male lead but I enjoy them more as a female character. Which is what I was trying to convey.

I would agree that a good character is more relatable than a bad one but the gender thing is just another level on top of that for me.

 

[trooper6]

Were any of the women on the panel queer in any way?
I just ask because very often discussions of "what woman want" often ends up being "what heterosexual women want" but just unstated. Or woman == traditional femininity. Or woman == motherhood in the context of heterosexuality.

I think that is one of the problems I'm having with what was otherwise an awesome panel. A whif of heterosexism.

I'm getting the feeling that none of the women is an awesome butch lesbian. That changes some perceptions around gender issues in gaming or other places.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Listening through it, but have to say something first on women in games.

The Thing (1971), had no female characters. Male dominance of the sciences and research at that time, although change was happening, meant yes, there were no women on that research station and it made sense.

For war games, yes, women are involved in war, more involved in some armies than others. The medieval Mongolians, the Soviets, they had less problem with women in their ranks. But, in other settings, other contexts, you may not find women, and that can be credible.

Now if a game was set in 2011 in universities in America, or Australia, or France. Yes, I would expect a lot of female characters, students, lecturers, staff etc. On a battlefield, far less so.

On a medieval battlefield? Perhaps, but most certainly as camp followers if the army is being scouted, visiting family in carriages or on horse if noble etc etc.

In modern war, with grenades and bullets and front line soldiers, maybe not.

Another example, WW1.
It would be way out of place to find women characters fighting in the trenches. It was not the 1990s, or the 1229 in Russia.