Jimquisition: Creative Freedom, Strings Attached

[grumpymooselion]

Let me submit this:

I am male.

I have no issue with anyone decided to only allow for a male protagonist. This doesn't mean I prefer it. This doesn't mean I want it to be this way. This doesn't mean I run away screaming if a game stars a female. It simply means that I am okay with it, if it is the developer's choice.

I have issue with publishers dictating what the gender of a playable character is, to developers.

I am also a writer.

I have two novels that I'm working on, one nearly finished and the other only a few chapters are completed for. Both of them follow a single character, rather that switching the view between multiple characters. Both characters are female. Not to make a statement. Not to balance things against male protagonists in other books. Nothing like that.

I simply made the decision because the genders were part of the ideas I had. And anyone that wants them to be a different gender, or doesn't like the choice, can go jump off a cliff.

Likewise, if I'd written them with male protagonists, I'd have done it because the gender fit with my ideas. And if anyone wanted them to be a different gender, or didn't like the choice, they could also go jump off a cliff.

I tend to side with the developers. I side with them because publishers trying to force them into a decision, like gender, annoy me. I tend to side with the developers. I side with them because fans/critics ranting and criticizing, even trying to push for or force change, like gender, annoy me. My support is for creative freedom. Not change forced by publish or publisher opinion. My support i just for an artist, expressing themselves. Whatever that expression may be, even if I absolutely dislike what they're expressing, or, how they're expressing it.

-

Now, what do I prefer in games?

I prefer games where you can play both genders, and create your own unique character. I prefer being able to make something of my own, detail a background, and make choices within a story that affect my story. I like it when my character creation options have weight, and I do not, ever, want male and female characters to be the same, or be treated the same, within a story. This is for the simple reason that when I go through a game like this, I go through it multiple times, and I do not want the same experience yet again.

However, those aren't the only games I buy.

Personally, I do not refuse to buy a game based off the gender of the main character. Female protagonist? Sure, if the game is good. Male protagonist? Sure, if the game is good. One race, another race, that race, this race, mixed race, lesbian, gay, bi, straight or transgendered? Sure, if the game is good. Gameplay. Quality of writing. Quality of characters. Visual artistry. Playability. Challenge. There are many things I consider when buying a game.

The gender of a protagonist is not one of them.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

4)Actions define characters, player define action of playable character, therefore player defines playable character. In other words: The player is part of character's psyche. Psyche defines one's gender. Therefore, playable character changes after player's gender.

First off, everything that Lilani said goes for me too.

Secondly... if what you're saying were true, then Gordon Freeman isn't a theoretical physicist unless the player is also a theoretical physicist.

My psyche says that I'm an English teacher - does that mean that Black Mesa has started hiring English teachers to work in their physics department?

And yes, I'm being silly now. But it only sounds silly because you are assuming that players always transpose themselves onto the characters they play. Maybe you do that, but I don't - one of the things I like about games is getting to know the characters within the game world, including the protagonist. Even when I have customization and control, the Boss from Saints Row or Commander Shepard aren't me - they're characters in their own right (via their per-recorded dialog) which I have an influence over, but never "become" - even if they do happen to have breasts like I do.

 

[BarkBarker]

Fair and simple, if you don't try to improve your medium with the little things, how the FUCK are we gonna get the big things sorted out. If I was a developer, which I AM studying to be, and my story doesn't have any real difference whether they be a man or a woman, fuck it let them choose, it has no holding on anything I held dear and the story and gameplay is the same regardless, let the industry see more feminine characters put in positive light, then maybe push into better female members of the party, to the main protagonist being a well developed and appreciable female character, if you don't want to improve the industry, go work on fucking mobile phone games, cos I'll be damned if anything on a screen I can fidget and jostle about with in my hands can be immersive, how CAN you when the very act of being able to move the screen reminds me of the physicality of it all?

 

[Goliath100]

Snip

snip

1) This only applies to characters when they are playable, but not in cutscene or backstory. This also only applies to gender and nothing more.
2) Just because the game tell you something doesn't make it true. There also the very real possiblety that develepers don't know of this concept.
3) The player is not the character, but PART of the character.
4) Yes, this means that playable characters are constantly changing. To use gendered terms about playable characters are what's wrong.

 

[KDR_11k]

Is Fantasy Football the domain of Nuffle?

 

[BabySinclair]

You're an idiot who has no understanding of human biology. There's no hermaphrodite gender, as a person is either male or female (there's a huge number of scientific studies on children with both genitals which proves that there's no third gender, they children are always male or female).

Gender isn't cultural because gender roles are the same in all cultures. Women prefer roles that are people orientated, while men prefer STEM subjects. If gender could change hourly then you'd have women who had spent 30 years as a nurse suddenly wanting to become an engineer and vice versa.

Clothing, make-up, and hairstyle have nothing to do with gender. A man can wear women's clothing, make-up, and hairstyles but none of these will change his gender in any way.

Finally male and female traits are common in all cultures. That's why there's no human cultures where the women hunt and the men raise children.

For biology, XY, XX, XXY, and XYY do actually cause differences in the development of sexual organs and physical traits, height, muscle development and so on. There is no "hermaphrodite" in the classical sense of both male and female genitalia but having one set and expressing physical traits of the other sex does exist, especially in under-developed countries like rural India and in Africa, where

And yes, what men and women do and are expected to do is determined culturally. Who farms, who raises kids, who conducts trade, who runs the tribe/village/town, how you act, and how you dress is set by your culture. Burial mounds a with female skeletons with battle wounds and skeletal modifications associated with warfare, alongside weapons and a greater wealth of grave goods were uncovered in Pokrovka, Russia, suggesting women not only fought and died in battle, some may have had a greater role in society as leaders and warriors than men.

Saying women prefer people oriented roles while men prefer STEM roles is rather offensive to those that don't, and there's a lot that don't agree with that statement. Around 20% of engineer students in the US are female, and the number's growing. It's also going up in almost every other field of science and mathematics. Culturally, boys and girls are raised differently. What do you get for a young girl? Pink room, flowers, princesses, unicorns, barbie dolls, fake make-up, toy kitchen. Boys get blue, LEGOs, NERF guns, action figures of soldiers/cops, toy cars. It's why the term "tomboy" exists, it's for girls that are seen as acting more like boys than they are like girls. Hell, it's the reason why "fake gamer girl" exists, because the cultural perception is that Males play shooters and "hardcore" games while Females play "casual" games. It's not because girls don't play "hardcore" games, it's because it's seen as a Male trait.

Put on a dress, make-up, lipstick, and high heels and go to work. You don't think people are going to find it weird? Don't think people are going to question you? It's because culturally men don't wear make-up or dresses, women do. You don't see dresses in the Men's aisle. You don't see skirts or blouses. Go to Scotland, bet you can find a skirt with Men's clothing, only difference is that they call it a kilt.

Gender is not binary, and it is not tied directly to what the parts in your pants are. Poorer areas of India recognize three genders, Male, Female, and Hijra. Hijra consists of eunichs, crossdressers and, intersexed persons. They are not seen as being either male nor female, but a third, distinct category Sex and Gender. I recommend you watch Between the Lines: India's Third Gender (2005) or listen to the BBC's The Hijra's of India. The hijra have their own role in society, performing a mix of male and female roles as well as roles unique to their gender. Many Native American tribes in North America had a similar third gender that consisted of biologically male members that either renounced or were stripped of "Maleness" to become what is now referred to as "Two-Spirit". The old term that has fallen out of favor is Berdache. Again, they occupied their own role in their cultures neither Male or Female.

The narrow and dogmatic view on Sex and Gender being not only binary but synonyms is why the LGBT communities in many cultures around the world are facing the hardships they are. If someone is born XY but identifies as a woman, then their gender is Female, regardless of being of the Male sex. They are not a guy in drag, but a woman with different parts. The sooner cultures get back around to accepting that while sex is set, gender is not, then the sooner those cultures can get over their squeamishness.

And please refrain from the insults, all they do is prove that you don't have a solid argument.

 

[mjc0961]

This whole argument is similar to which came first, the chicken or the egg?

In the end, while I still think women have been left out of the spotlight as protagonists and that it's not a bad thing to question why not, I just feel as though it's going to become a redundant question. Sure, there will be the occasional answer of, "Producers made us" but there's gonna be a majority of answers that fall under, "I dunno, just felt right/fitting/reasonable/like what I wanted to do".

Don't force it, don't not do it for the sake of fear either.

I agree completely. And I think there should be less of a focus on attacking games that have a male protagonist and more praising of games that have a female protagonist. If you want female protagonists, how about showing games that have them some support? I heard that Remember Me was pretty good, and I look forward to playing it when I get some breathing room in my backlog, but why is nobody talking about this game? All I ever see is "this game's developers are misogynistic for making the protagonist male" and "that game's developers are misogynistic for making the protagonist male". Honestly, I feel like too many people out there just want to ***** and ***** and ***** and ***** until every game ever released has a female protagonist.

To throw a wrench into this...

It's impossible for a playble character (when playable) to have a gender other than the players. The player is part of the playable character, and the physical absolutes that defines the genders are impossible to measure on virtual character. Than logic follows that what the player identify as defines the gender of the playable character.

Edit: What I'm saying is that if Half-Life 2 is played by someone identifying as female, Gordon Freeman is female in that case. If played by someone idenifying as male, Gordon is male.

Okay.

You're completely and horribly incorrect, but okay.

If you are a girl and play Half Life, the above character is now female because Goliath said so with absolutely nothing to back up his claim. Because why not, right? Fuck logic.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I'm very torn on this issue. I get that asking questions "why a male protagonist?" is important for a dialogue. But to me its kinda a never ending and very one sided issue. Its ALWAYS 'why a male protagonist and not a woman', its never 'why a woman and not a man?'. Its always on one side. No one has ever asked why is Laura Croft a woman? Couldn't the games still work if she were a he? Why was Specialist Traynor in ME3 a woman and not a man? For that matter, why not an Asari or a squirrel? Why was Aeris a woman and not a dude? Did she NEED to be a woman? And if so, why isn't that sexist if the reverse is?
This is why its a never ending issue to me. The games are made they way they were meant to be. If we as gamers can question each and every choice, then we must. why is conker not a dog, why is Spyro not an oriental dragon, how come Pokemon doesn't reference Michael Jackson enough? And when will Final Fantasy include a bear-to-human other kin that likes Twilight but doesn't like Starbucks? Inclusion, people!
Simple answer: because you didn't make the game.
Should there be more female leads? Sure, go for it! But in fairness, be prepared for other gamers to call you sexist and ask why not a man. That's turn-about and that's fair play.

 

[Jennacide]

I totally agree with Jim on this. It's always nice to see when we are given an option of male or female protagonists, when it makes sense like most WRPGs, but I also hate it when the community at large feels that companies should be obligated to include them. Forcing a game to cater to your demands isn't helping creativity, and it's not helping support feminism when it's only put in to appease people instead of specifically built for it's inclusion. A good example is Persona 4. Atlus specifically told the fanbase that while P3P could be modified easily to include a female protagonist, too many of the relationships in 4 relied on the protag to be male, and would be too much work to change for Golden. They also smartly took the feedback and offered that they will try to make Persona 5 support both protagonists from the start.

 

[Lilani]

1) This only applies to characters when they are playable, but not in cutscene or backstory. This also only applies to gender and nothing more.
2) Just because the game tell you something doesn't make it true. There also the very real possiblety that develepers don't know of this concept.
3) The player is not the character, but PART of the character.
4) Yes, this means that playable characters are constantly changing. To use gendered terms about playable characters are what's wrong.

1. HL and HL2 are always playable. Whenever the characters are speaking, you're always able to move, or even walk away if you choose. And at the same time while things are playable, you are being addressed as a male. Tell me, have you ever played these games before?
2. Whether or not they knew of the concept, it clearly wasn't their intention the moment they made an effort to say "This is you, you are male."
3. I'm not seeing where I ever disputed this.
4. I don't get why using gendered terms is wrong when the character has been given a gender.

You're being unnecessarily obtuse. Gordon Freeman's gender is completely uncontested, canonically. There is much we don't know about him and how the HL universe works, but his status as a human male theoretical physicist is one of the things we are presented as absolute, literal fact. If you're going to be this way, then I'm going to start arguing that Doctor Breen is actually a very humanoid mongoose.

 

[Goliath100]

snip

How do you feel about trans people? (just answer, there is a point here)

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

if only more people understood that concept that freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from criticism. it would alleviate a lot of frustration worldwide.

Am I being thick here? Where exactly did Gavin Moore say anything to suggest that he DOESN'T understand this concept?

- He said that it was his choice. Which is fine.
- He said that he didn't want to pander to public opinion. Which is fine.
- He said that if somebody didn't like his creation, they were free to not buy / play the game. Which is also fine.

Conspicuously absent here is any mention of freedom of speech or anybody else's right (or lack thereof) to criticise his choices.

Jim, I always enjoy your videos and I usually respect your arguments even if I don't agree with them. But this seems like a strawman. You're putting words into Moore's mouth that, as far as I can see, he never said or intended.

 

[Merklyn236]

This is why we should thank God for you Jim. You spelled it all out. Create what you want, but realize you still may have to defend it - and that people can 'vote' for or against you with their wallets.

 

[Lilani]

snip

How do you feel about trans people? (just answer, there is a point here)

I am perfectly fine with trans people. I know transgenderism exists, I believe they should live and use whatever facilities they choose to.

What I have no idea about is what this has to do with Gordon Freeman. Are you saying even though it says his gender is male that means his gender identity is up in the air as well? His gender is defined. He's called a male, he appears to be a male, and it appears he's done nothing to correct those around him or make them think otherwise. What else are you looking for to accept that Gordon Freeman is a male?

Now I have two questions for you, and answer them separately. Do you think that Link is a male, and do you think that Harry Potter is a male, and say why for each.

 

[RedmistSM]

What a pleasant episode. I didn't know which way you would go on this "issue", and I'm happy you decided there wasn't much of one besides both sides being open to the other doing exactly what they want, like the Puppeteer dev said. Was afraid it would turn into "every game should have a gender option" or something. Like a game can only be inclusive by having a character creator and the ability to romance every npc so open world games and Bioware rpgs are the only things you can play.

That game looks astounding, by the way. I hadn't seen it in motion before. I'm happy those guys weren't told what to do. That kind of freedom can go either way, but certainly looks like it turned out great this time.

Okay, let me give my two cents: There is nothing wrong deciding to go with a male character instead of a female character. Take a film like Glengary Glen Ross. The story and themes are such that replacing any of the characters with a woman would fundamentally change them. The film is inheritely about masculinity, and replacing an actor with an actress would have changed the movies chemistry.

That said, a developer should be able to articulate why they made the character selections they did. It shouldn't be a thoughtless choice, and if they act defensively when the question is presented, it's only going to invite more criticism. That's because avoiding the discussion is seen as evidence that you don't have a good reason for the choice you made, fairly or not.

These conversations are not going away. I thinks folks would be satisfied if Rockstar came forward with why they went with male-only PCs. They don't even have to spoil anything, just say 'given the story we want to tell, we feel that a female lead wouldn't be appropriate. Once the game is released we'd be happy to discuss this further.' Attempting to bury conversation with the broad brush of 'censorship' will only embolden the other side to continue to press the issue.

I don't think they need a reason other than that's what they want to do. The reason for designing a character the way it is can be any little thing, like giving one a mustache and overalls so that his sprite would look better, or because they thought an open red coat over a bare upper body looked stylish. In GTA they probably have a good reason. I'm not a big Rockstar player, but I hear they are influenced by certain movies and presumably made protagonists that reflect, rip off or or somewhat imitate the types of characters seen in those movies. But even if their reason was that they just felt like it, that doesn't make them bad guys for not having more variety or including minorities and females. You can read into "We just felt like it" what you want I suppose, but thinking "could this character be a girl?" at every turn is not a requirement for being a good person and a good designer. It's fair to call them out on it if you feel they are doing a poor job, but they are under no obligation to have a reason to follow their heart or feel bad about themselves.

 

[Goliath100]

Now I have two questions for you, and answer them separately. Do you think that Link is a male, and do you think that Harry Potter is a male, and say why for each.

In non-playable media they are both male, and playable media, they are both genderless (in objective terms, because it changes after the player's gender).

So you aren't transphobic: Than, would it not be wrong to reference a trans person by physical sex, instead of psychological gender?

 

[chronobreak]

snip

Are you transphobic or a troll? Physical traits don't define gender.

Not everyone buys into that.

 

[Depulcator]

As long as the game is good, I don't care what my gender is. And as for the whole "I'm not buying it" crowd. I'm buying the new GTA, so one of your non purchases is nullified good day!

 

[Lilani]

In non-playable media they are both male, and playable media, they are both genderless (in objective terms, because it changes after the player's gender).

So you aren't transphobic: Than, would it not be wrong to reference a trans person by physical sex, instead of psychological gender?

You never answered my question a couple of posts ago: have you played the Half-Life games.

Because in gameplay, all signs point to Gordon identifying as a male. At the beginning of HL1 you go to his locker in the male locker room. Everybody identifies him as a male. If Gordon psychologically feels differently about his gender-identity, he has given no other indication. No doubt he had to apply to get into Black Mesa, and if he wanted to be referred to something other than male that was his chance. If Gordon Freeman is transgendered, then all evidence at this point points to the contrary. I think a person should be called whatever gender they identify themselves as. Gordon has thus far identified himself as a male, and so that is how I will also identify him.

And why doesn't a person's gender in the cutscenes transfer to gameplay? Why are they suddenly genderless when gameplay starts, and then have a gender during cutscenes, and then it's gone again when gameplay starts again. That doesn't make sense. It's the same character, same experiences. And what about a game like Half-Life or Dear Esther or Amnesia: The Dark Descent, where gameplay and cutscenes are one in the same?

 

[Yuuki]

Every time a developer is criticized/questioned for the gender of their protagonist(s) (assuming the decision was made without any pressure from the publisher), the "argument" should ideally play out as below:

Developer: My protagonist is a [X gender].
Critic: Why not [Y gender]? I have the right to ask this question.
Developer: Yes you do. The answer is that it's my decision. It's how I have crafted my game & story as the creator.
Critic: Alright. I'm not buying your game because there's no [Y gender] protagonist. It's my decision.
Developer: I'm OK with that. Have a pleasant day.
Critic: I'm OK with you being OK with that. Goodbye.

Simple. No colossal flamewar arguments needed.