Jimquisition: Creative Freedom, Strings Attached

[Goliath100]

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?

1) I have played Half-Life 2, but this is not relevant and will be considered a red herring if you bring it up again.
2) Stereotypical behavior is not needed for someone to be trans.
3) This is only a thing because of that fact that the player is part of the playable character. It can be a full character in their own right, but this is till a thing because of the player.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

If only things were that simple and people didn't divulge into colossal shitfest arguments.

Developer: My protagonist is a male.
Critic: Why? Why not female? 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 female 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.

End of story.

But isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE? The developer said that anybody is free to not buy his game if they don't like that aspect of it.

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.

Did he?

Was I the only one who actually read what this developer SAID? Because to me... he didn't mention freedom of speech, or lack of right to criticise him, or anything else along those lines.

Seriously, I don't get this. It seems like everybody is arguing over a "strawman" that Jim's put up here. And look, I'm a Jimquisition fan, but I just do not get this. At all. This is an interesting debate to have, but it's not relevant to anything the developer is quoted as having said!

 

[Dajmin]

Am I the only one who thinks that the reason the vast majority of games have male leads is simply because the majority of writers are male and you write what you know?

If that's the case then yes, it does also put forward an argument for getting in more female writers (I think Rihanna Pratchett has done pretty well on the games she's been involved with so far and I really enjoyed Heavenly Sword). That said, if you then go intentionally looking for a FEMALE writer instead of just a GOOD writer, to either fill up the numbers or to try and target a particular demographic, isn't that exactly the wrong thing to be doing? Trolls will be inferring that my comment means that all female writers are bad and that's blatantly not the case - I'd rather have a good female writer over a bad (or mediocre) male one. But likewise I'd rather have a good male one over a bad (or mediocre) female one.

So I guess my question is this: is dropping a token character in there (race/gender/sexuality/eye colour) not actually more offensive than just missing them out because the story is fine without them?

 

[chronobreak]

Am I the only one who thinks that the reason the vast majority of games have male leads is simply because the majority of writers are male and you write what you know?

If that's the case then yes, it does also put forward an argument for getting in more female writers (I think Rihanna Pratchett has done pretty well on the games she's been involved with so far and I really enjoyed Heavenly Sword). That said, if you then go intentionally looking for a FEMALE writer instead of just a GOOD writer, to either fill up the numbers or to try and target a particular demographic, isn't that exactly the wrong thing to be doing? Trolls will be inferring that my comment means that all female writers are bad and that's blatantly not the case - I'd rather have a good female writer over a bad (or mediocre) male one. But likewise I'd rather have a good male one over a bad (or mediocre) female one.

So I guess my question is this: is dropping a token character in there (race/gender/sexuality/eye colour) not actually more offensive than just missing them out because the story is fine without them?

That's the real problem. If you want more female characters, more gay characters, whatever, you need those groups to be equally represented in the creative (and financial) process. Nobody should be surprised men are writing for men. In most cases, it isn't like those groups are being purposefully excluded.

 

[Makabriel]

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?

1) I have played Half-Life 2, but this is not relevant and will be considered a red herring if you bring it up again.
2) Stereotypical behavior is not needed for someone to be trans.
3) This is only a thing because of that fact that the player is part of the playable character. It can be a full character in their own right, but this is till a thing because of the player.

So what is the purpose of pushing your agenda on this topic? Because that's all you are doing. Plenty of people have given plenty of rational explanation as to why Gordon Freeman is Male. Period. You are trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Freeman

I know I'm leaving myself wide open for this one, but there is the Wikki entry for the history and the background of the Half Life character of Gordon Freeman. None of what you are saying plays into his character what so ever. You want him to be a Trans, that's fine and up to you, but it's not Canon. That is not the character that is portrayed in the game.

 

[Yuuki]

What Jim said at 4:35...
"...it's a perfectly valid / important question and it deserves more than the anger and flippancy expressed by Moore in his answer, it deserves more than the usual peanut-gallery response..."

Anger, flippancy, peanut-gallery response by Moore? Sorry but...what the fuck?

This is what Moore said:
"Why do we want girls to play girls and why do we want boys to play boys? So I should, as a game creator, start pandering to public opinion? I think we should be making what we want to make, and if somebody is upset by that then please don't buy the product."

I see no anger and flippancy there, he has politely told people that if they are upset by his story/character decisions then they are free not to buy his product, and that he shouldn't have change his protagonists' gender just because some people want him to.
Considering that there would have been quite a few people jumping onto the annoying question-asking bandwagon of "omg why not a female lead? Games need more female leads, why don't you have one? Are you sexist? Discriminatory?" etc etc, Moore gave a very calm and polite answer to the people asking those sorts of questions.
They should be more than satisfied with that response.

I have no idea why Jim picked on Moore in his video about creative/expressive freedom. Moore did NOT say anything about people not having the right to ask those questions. Read his quote again: "...then please don't buy the product." That's all. There was no anger/flippancy.
If he had said "shut up, stop asking these questions and go away" then Jim would've had a point.

But isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE? The developer said that anybody is free to not buy his game if they don't like that aspect of it.

Ya, it's why I said that if only things always went that way then it would be a very quick & painless discussion regarding the protagonists' gender in videogames.

Edited my post for clarity.

 

[wulf3n]

I'm not sure what the point of this episode was.

I think it's about "Developers can choose to do whatever they want but have to be willing to deal with the criticism of their choice"

I thought that was pretty obvious, and wasn't aware it was an issue.

But that door swings both ways, i see a lot of people criticize then get upset when other criticise their criticism.

 

[Fiairflair]

I agree completely with Jim's views on this one. The only thing I would add is that discussion and debate are intrinsically valuable too.

Creative, interesting games, made freely, are good.
Reason and free thought about games are good too.

 

[Goliath100]

So what is the purpose of pushing your agenda on this topic? Because that's all you are doing. Plenty of people have given plenty of rational explanation as to why Gordon Freeman is Male. Period. You are trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Freeman

I know I'm leaving myself wide open for this one, but there is the Wikki entry for the history and the background of the Half Life character of Gordon Freeman. None of what you are saying plays into his character what so ever. You want him to be a Trans, that's fine and up to you, but it's not Canon. That is not the character that is portrayed in the game.

Why do some of you have a hard time getting that this is a phenomenon within games? It's a byproduct of games being interactive. There is no getting around this (with exception of character that their status as "playable" is debatable). I have seen non arguments agains the consept, only misunderstanding of how it works.

 

[Makabriel]

So what is the purpose of pushing your agenda on this topic? Because that's all you are doing. Plenty of people have given plenty of rational explanation as to why Gordon Freeman is Male. Period. You are trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Freeman

I know I'm leaving myself wide open for this one, but there is the Wikki entry for the history and the background of the Half Life character of Gordon Freeman. None of what you are saying plays into his character what so ever. You want him to be a Trans, that's fine and up to you, but it's not Canon. That is not the character that is portrayed in the game.

Why do some of you have a hard time getting that this is a phenomenon within games? It's a byproduct of games being interactive. There is no getting around this (with exception of character that their status as "playable" is debatable). I have seen non arguments agains the consept, only misunderstanding of how it works.

I have no problem understanding your concept. You want the character you are playing in a game in which -you- design the avatar to be Trans/Gay/Bi whatever, that's up to you. You want to imagine that Gordon, or Max Payne, or Nathan Drake is a Trans, that's also up to you. But what you can't do is tell us that is what the character is, when it isn't.

 

[Goliath100]

I have no problem understanding your concept. You want the character you are playing in a game in which -you- design the avatar to be Trans/Gay/Bi whatever, that's up to you. You want to imagine that Gordon, or Max Payne, or Nathan Drake is a Trans, that's also up to you. But what you can't do is tell us that is what the character is, when it isn't.

You don't get it. The fact that you are using the line "...you want..." proves you really don't get it.

 

[Dragonbums]

After PAX and what happened there, I think we can all agree that this needed to be said.

The Puppeteer game or the "review" of the 2DS?

More than likely, Dickwolves 2: The Dickwolvening.

Although I've heard there was something else going on at PAX of controversial merit, Jim already referenced Mike Krahulik in his last Rhymedown spectacular.

Nah.
I think that probably may be it. Kotaku did an article piece in regards to the whole Dickwolves meme being taken down from Penny Arcade after enough fans bitched at them about it.

 

[Sutter Cane]

Why should a game be criticised or scrutinised simply because it doesn't have a female protagonist?

Why shouldn't it?

because there's nothing inherently wrong with telling a story about a guy. The problem with there not being enough good female playable characters in games is an issue because it's a trend, not because having a male protagonist is bad. I mean if I end up staying with someone who cooks spaghetti for dinner every night for 2 weeks, i'd almost certainly get sick of it, but that doesn't mean that choosing to make spaghetti for your evening meal is a bad choice. Criticizing a game for simply choosing to have a male protagonist is basically like criticizing a different friend's cooking skills simply because he chose to make spaghetti in the previous scenario.

 

[Dragonbums]

What Jim said at 4:35...
"...it's a perfectly valid / important question and it deserves more than the anger and flippancy expressed by Moore in his answer, it deserves more than the usual peanut-gallery response..."

Anger, flippancy, peanut-gallery response by Moore? Sorry but...what the fuck?

This is what Moore said:
"Why do we want girls to play girls and why do we want boys to play boys? So I should, as a game creator, start pandering to public opinion? I think we should be making what we want to make, and if somebody is upset by that then please don't buy the product."

I see no anger and flippancy there, he has politely told people that if they are upset by his story/character decisions then they are free not to buy his product, and that he shouldn't have change his protagonists' gender just because some people want him to.
Considering that there would have been quite a few people jumping onto the annoying question-asking bandwagon of "omg why not a female lead? Games need more female leads, why don't you have one? Are you sexist? Discriminatory?" etc etc, Moore gave a very calm and polite answer to the people asking those sorts of questions.
They should be more than satisfied with that response.

I have no idea why Jim picked on Moore in his video about creative/expressive freedom. Moore did NOT say anything about people not having the right to ask those questions. Read his quote again: "...then please don't buy the product." That's all. There was no goddamn anger/flippancy.
If he had said "shut up, stop asking these questions and go away" then Jim would've had a point.

But isn't that EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE? The developer said that anybody is free to not buy his game if they don't like that aspect of it.

Ya, it's why I said that if only things always went that way then it would be a very quick & painless discussion regarding the protagonists' gender in videogames.

Edited my post for clarity.

I don't think anyone was asking for him to change the gender of the protagonist though. I believe that due to circumstances with the story that enables said puppet to be anything, why didn't he give the option for a female character. If what I'm understanding is correct.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I got a theory that all the criticisms that game developers get about female characters is the reason why you see a lack of diversity. Anytime a game developer puts breasts on a video game character. There are always complaints about how that character is being sexualized and objectified. If I was a game developer and had a good idea about a game with a female protagonist, I would shelve it until people can appreciate the game as a whole. Instead of dealing with people who takes things out of context just to get outraged about something.

 

[carnex]

However, if Rockstar had included a female protagonist - and I'll bet that someone at Rockstar would have been up for writing something like that, if given the chance - then I would be buying GTA 5.

This is reasonable, but I must add one thing.

People would buy game for female protagonist (although not necessarily, Mirrors Edge proves that and it's not a bad game, far from it. When you can?t get a run going it isn't that good, but when you get good and start stringing runs its unique experience in best possible sense) that would be short lived business plan. Once females get more prominent in games, people buying games because of female characters large majority would stop looking at that as special feature. On the other hand writers and creators would not fell as free with female characters as they are with male characters (you basically can't write unacceptable male characters and it's really hard to find things to do to and with male characters which would raise eyebrows of the public if those actions do not involve women and children). So as a long term politics of company those make no sense.

So unless story is about female character, (and specificly FEMALE, so they can avoid being called man in skirt) shoving one in on every corner would be counterproductive for both consumers and creators.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, I'm saying there is not a thing as a playable gendered character. Or at least be defined as non gendered.

But why, if not for the reason I just listed?

I find it a bit unsound to be attacking specific developers for this sort of thing unless their games happen to be misogynist all around and in general. Like Jim said, the developers should have every right to choose what goes in their game.

I'm not sure he was "attacked" for this in the first place. He was asked why there weren't female options in the game. Jim even comments on this calling him hostile or some such (forget the exact word). You're quote-mining Jim, in short.

Making a fuss over puppeteer saving money by including only one protagonist, and choosing a male one for a myriad of potential unknown reasons (perhaps artistic, perhaps marketing, perhaps because most of the developers were male) isn't going to make any huge waves in the push to make video games more female-inclusive. It's inconsequential, wasted effort if you ask me.

Can you point to this happening before his antagonistic response? Because as far as my understanding goes, he was merely asked, as I said above.

Yes, "attacking" people by default is bad, but as far as I can tell, taking the stance that this is what happened with The Puppeteer is folly and out of touch with reality. By all means, prove me wrong if I'm wrong.

But even his own quotes make that look dubious at best.

If it makes no difference why do you care so much? Do you want actual female characters in the games or just something that looks female but acts androgynous? How does that help anyone?

Do you not understand what the word "ostensibly" means? I did put that before the "makes no difference" bit for a reason.

What I "want" is avatar choice in cases where it already supposedly makes no difference. And since that's his argument here, not mine....

 

[Something Amyss]

Why can't I choose to play one? Hmm. Equality.

No, false equivalence. But tell you what. If we start seeing fewer male-only titles, I will fully support your quest for a male protagonist in Mirror's Edge. Until then, however, it's the usual illusion of fairness.

Nah.
I think that probably may be it. Kotaku did an article piece in regards to the whole Dickwolves meme being taken down from Penny Arcade after enough fans bitched at them about it.

At PAX this last week, Mike said he regretted doing that, though. He also said if you were offended by such a thing you shouldn't be reading PA, but he also said he wanted PAX to be an inclusive environment. Which, you know, seems rather contradictory and probably worse than the guy who made the Puppeteer, because he's not claiming he wants to also host an open environment. It's like that old joke: there's two things I can't stand--intolerance and [insert slur for minority here].

Except, you know, it's not a joke. Mike said it apparently in earnest.

And I get it. There's a lot of comedians I don't frequent, for example. Usually because they're not funny, but sometimes they step on my toes. The dickwolves thing didn't really bother me as much as some of the fans of Penny Arcade who went on the attack. But now? Now I'm not sure how I feel. "we want an open environment, now watch while I draw dickwolves because rape jokes are funny and if you don't like it you shouldn't come."

Yeah, kind of a mixed message.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Did he?

Was I the only one who actually read what this developer SAID? Because to me... he didn't mention freedom of speech, or lack of right to criticise him, or anything else along those lines.

Seriously, I don't get this. It seems like everybody is arguing over a "strawman" that Jim's put up here. And look, I'm a Jimquisition fan, but I just do not get this. At all. This is an interesting debate to have, but it's not relevant to anything the developer is quoted as having said!

I believe the "freedom of speech" crap tends to come from people who come out in defense of the developer, not the developer themselves. At least, that's where I usually see people using the term as improperly as their little, ignorant hearts possibly can to throw up, in their mind, an absolute defense against any criticism that can be levied against the developer's words.

But why would anybody but the developer even CARE? The guy has defended his right to make the game that he wants to make, the way that he wants to make it... and done pretty much nothing else.

This is more than my pore little brain can comprehend.

EDIT: It's also clearly the developer himself that Jim quotes, the developer's attitude that Jim is critical of. Not one of those situations like the fan backlash against a reviewer who dared criticise the art style of Dragon Crown's female characters' breasts. (on which subject I wholeheartedly agree with Jim.)