Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[Spearmaster]

snip

snip

snip

Of course creating something that some people like and that others don't is not exclusion. But the people who don't enjoy that product are passively excluded when nothing is created to appeal to that other audience. It's like inviting a bunch of Muslims and Jews and vegetarians around and only serving pork buns. They could eat... Nothing "real" is stopping them. Except in this case we are talking about around 50% of the population.

This isn't the fault of any single game or genre of game but a problem of culture across the entire medium. It's not that Dragon's Crown of DoA shouldn't exist it'd just be nice to have more of something that balances them.

Nobody has a "right" to anything apart from hopefully basic civil rights. But we definitely have a right to say "there should be". (ie There should be better female characters. That is not entitlement. Entitlement implies rights and the use of it here suggests that people who would like gaming to be more properly mature are somehow grasping for rights that they of course do not have.

Almost like its a sea of Developers/Publishers out there that most likely hear and see what people are asking for and either don't want to take the risk of something new or figure someone else will do it, kinda punting the football around.

On the other side how does it help the cause when games from these same developers are attacked for making something, either a character choice or a whole game design, that is clearly designed by or for a certain groups taste, in most cases men? I'm sure most of this comes from the most extreme of the group but it results in a defensive response from a lot of male gamers, one of those defensive responses is what this weeks Jimquisition was about.

So it leaves me to question how attacking a game to the point of causing male gamers to defensively try to justify the existence of the game is a way of asking the industry for better representation of women. I hear from mostly level headed people that all seem to want the same thing and I'm on board with it but attacking games or game characters that were clearly meant to stimulate the male heterosexual population just comes off as a way of saying those games or character should not exist and men should not be allowed have them. (some people actually do believe this btw)

Saying "this game is a sexist piece of shit" and saying "this game is clearly for men, I wish we had games that were for everyone" is not the same thing. The difference is destructive versus constructive dialog.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Question:
Why is it always the men who are defending "the objectification of women"?
I almost never see, you know, ACTUAL WOMEN complaining about this, and when they do, they always come across as vapid as the objectified characters they complain about.
Every female i spoken with on the issue who isn't a mindless soccer mom has absolutely no problem with it, because they understand it's a fantasy.
Media reflect the society that creates them, gaming is not the issue here.

Tell me, defenders of this argument, what's your endgame? what do you want to see happen? in a perfect world, how would women characters be different?
Don't tell me what they wouldn't be, i understand that anything that reminds you that women have tits frightens you so, but what would they be?
There is far too much demonizing and no-one is trying to fix anything.


Jim, the topic used to be interesting, but you have added literally nothing to the debate since the last time you made a video about it. A discussion is fine, but you have since left the realm of any actual discussion, and you are veering dangerously close to white knight territory.

Wow, like a lightning bolt it hits me.
Guys are trying to make games more inviting to women so women will no longer see playing videogames as a bad thing!
They're trying to level the playing field, and turn gaming into a positive!!
No longer can women say "Look at that immature loser playing videogames!" purely based on gaming, and excluding all other facets of life as the they take part in it, too!
And thus, potentially, is about getting laid!
Is that EVIL? Not in my opinion.

... Nah.


Still, I wouldn't mind seeing more female protagonists. If this movement gets us more well written, well rounded (In writing, not polygons. ) women as playable characters that might hopefully draw in a larger female population of gamers, well I'm not going to stop it. <.<
I'm tired of Dudebro time being synonymous with videogames, and it feels like times are slowly changing away from the thick dudebro time that laid heavy on consoles.

Having said that, and moving along, this "agency" being talked about? I feel people are missing the point here, and there.
I think this "agency" aimed more along the lines of guys being more played as, thus having more agency.That is the line between Idealization, and objectification I see.

As opposed to the vast majority of women who have no agency as they're NPCs fated to fall in love with the playable guy, and are often damsels in distress, and what not. They have no purpose other than to be love interests, or be saved. Possibly be one's side-kick/NPC squad mate.

Agency means idealization over objectivization because you, the player, become that character to some degree. You are the playable character who is your ideal. He is your agent. Your ideal agent to do as you command~!

They can be sexualized, but as playable characters, they aren't the immobile, helpless object bound to programming, and story as much as an NPC, and have a great deal more freedom thanks to the player.

Objectification is what (or usually who) you're after. The NPC you're off to save who's often a woman who's there as a trophy for your character, even as the fate of a planet hangs in the balance. The person you're off to rescue is the object of your desire. You cannot play as this person, and thus have no agency. They are helpless to the way the game pans out.

Sexualization, and objectification aren't one in the same! Princess Peach is often an object (thus objectified), though she sometimes gains agency (And thus the potential for idealization) in some games like smash bros., Mario Kart, her own game, and Mario bros 2.

Quality of the characters isn't in my equasion as far as this goes (as that's another can of worms being guys getting all the useful powers in most games, while women just tend not to), nor is their circumstance in said game. The fact that guys have the agency of being playable most of the time is what this boils down to with the path I'm going.

What leads me towards this way? Lets look at 2 previous videos of Jims! the Culling of female protagonsits, I believe, and the video about shooters being sausagefests. He's callign out the BS, too. Shame he can't out the companies by name.

I get the feeling he wants more female playable characters, and I don't blame him.

Not saying that there aren't problems in the sexual appearance of characters, or that one gender's problems are lesser than anothers, here! Guys, and Gals have problems in the gaming industry.
BUT I'd feel a lot better if female protagonists and male protagonists had the exact same problems, meaning both are often represented, and both have good, or bad presentations.
I can't help but feel the lack of female PLAYABLE protagonists that aren't upstaged by a dude that steals their thunder is sorta one-upping guys in the problems area.
The fact that game companies are ka-boshing people who want to make female protagonists is another problem that I wish wasn't around, or was actually shared between the genders.

Guys do get objectified, and to a smaller extent women do as enemies in your way, but which is usually the gender of the playable protagonist?

Am I calling anyone evil for enjoying sexualization? Hell no. The only ones I dare call "evil" are the game companies that actually prevent female protagonists.

Maybe I'm wrong here? I dunno.

I doubt I'm wrong on this, however, in that this topic WILL NEVER DIE until guys, and gals have the exact same problems. In videogames it seems like the battle one can win. People that are tired of the topic? Help the people you disagree with and get these changes done, then you'll get that peace and quiet you want.

I can't believe I waded through 19 pages reading this. Not that the topic is boring, but it's 19 pages.

And I'm also saying, Thank GOD for Jim. Hopefully game companies will get wind of him, and listen as he calls them out on their BS, and stop blocking female protagonists. People of some fame are better for getting changes made over a buncha nobodies.

 

[O maestre]

I was demanding on the forums that Bioware put in some male strippers since ME1, day one. It's really strange that as openly sexual and powerful as the asari are, they aren't on the receiving end and have a bar with a bunch of male aliens taking it all off so they can make their way through college.

I'm asking a serious question, here. Why do you think Bioware should have put male strippers in ME1? Is it because you legitimately believe that female gamers want to see male strippers in games? Or is it just because you think it's "fair" and it satisfies your personal moral code?

Well, yes I do think female gamers would enjoy that. Straight women tend to enjoy seeing attractive, half naked men. I mean, have you seen some of the fan art the women are making of just the male LIs. Hell, there is this joeblack guy on deviant art posting 3D models of the guys shirtless on motorcycles, just for the fangirls. With the introduction of drell, having few of them dancing on some tables would have been amazing.

And again, for the sake of Mass Effect's own lore, the asari are a sexually open race who find everyone else not their species sexually attractive. You would think with all their power and influence in the galaxy, they would have strip clubs set up for their viewing pleasure, which would mean there should be some male strippers shaking their asses at the bars.

Yeah that would probably be the case ... if it wasn't for the fact that the asari seem to have been conceived solely for the gratification of a teenage boys sexual fantasies, An all female race of seductive telepathic sirens always on the look out for new genes to lure in, and willing to do "it" with anything as long as its new, including lesbian sex... oh I probably should put lesbian in quotation marks, since you know they just happen to be aliens whom look like our females except they are blue, don't have hair but are otherwise always physically attractive.

Your idea has merit, but the asari are hard to redeem by their very concept, almost as if they were taken from an old sci fi pulp novel. A case for them being just as attracted to the female strippers could be made... except that most of the strippers are asari.... the whole race is an example of hyper sexualisation notched up to eleven. If the Mass Effect series had been launched today when there is so much attention on gender roles it would have been bombed critically burned by its peers and buried by the market.

 

[Smeatza]

I genuinely found this quote disturbing. Fictional characters are still representations of people. Attitudes towards fictional characters can influence peoples perspectives in real life. Or offer you an idea of their attitudes towards real people.

Maybe for children.
I think most adults are intelligent and well balanced enough to realise that fictional characters don't have to represent or even be indicative of real life.
And why should those who realise that fiction is fictional have to change our ways to accommodate those who are too stupid to realise that fiction isn't real.
Where will it end? Are we going to start prosecuting writers for murder, for killing off their characters? Who draws that line?

 

[O maestre]

Otherwise we could go on and say black people or muslims (or almost any type of minority in the western world) are being objectified as well.

Yes, you could. And that would be generally true.

I don't really think the definition of objectification can be related to minority issues, that is more a case of lack of representation. Objectification is where something like a person is utilized in a narrative as an object, the extreme example would be a man using another man/woman/person as a chair or a broom or a prize ect. I cannot really see the same thing being applied to people of other race, if so I could use an example.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The industry shouldn't have to be guilt into it. It should see the opportunity on it's own and invest a bit into it. While I'll call 50% bs, It's not hard to tell that their are female gamers and what games they play and how much. Hell why are companies looking into public data like trophies and achievements and gamer profiles to profile not just females but all gamers better. And finally just I don't know ask female gamers what they'd like to see more in games, not guys assuming what females want in games.

Like Xcom enemy unknown, it was an untapped market and they didn't have to throw much money at it and because of it the sales the game had it made a profit. It should be the same for a "female" orientated game. Make a grade B games, don't spend a lot, make it more female but don't scare away the male audience also, *Market it* and see if it sells. See if the fans come out of the wood work to buy it. When companies are throwing money in the fire making games like Star trek and Aliens:CM

Finally making the "other end objectification" isn't going to solve anything. After reading a lot of this thread and if you put together what people are seeming to think female gamers want ((Strong female lead, not afraid to be openly sexual and pursue male characters, males objectified in her eyes, Doing all the work, rescuing and what not)) It really seems what this thread thinks the perfect female gamer game is a hardcore female erotica game... Point missed. Find a better way to find out what people ACTUALLY want.

I like this idea. I think one of the biggest problems of the objectification of omen is a general deterioration of female protagonists and diverse characters to begin with. But the problem is, given that game design is a fairly male orientated arena are you actually going to get a game that lives up to an effective female notion of beauty, appeal and charm?

I don't like this idea of 'making women like one of the men, that will solve it' ... because it doesn't really address the problem at all. Women face a very different social environment, and it's not simply a case of looking to publications such as Bazaar or Marie Claire to find your inspiration. Otherwise we're trading one extreme for another, where to be a model and an ideal of feminine beauty you have to be 5'10-6', 64 kilos and less, above 17 but under 29. Otherwise you are going to end up with just as unappealing characters as many of them are now.

Let's say you were going to make a historical Adventure/rpg ... I would pay money to play a game centred on a woman in a deeply unhappy marriage, bound by custom in 18th century Batavia. Your husband constantly taking the credit for your brilliant investment and management behind the scenes as you struggle to enact plans to have both he and his brother eliminated in an 'accident' so that you could inherit what rightfully belongs to you. As you slowly, through the course of the game, attempt to build alliances in your "husband's" trading house. Trying to secretly manage a smooth transition into power, before he and his immediate family realise your subterfuge.

If we want to show women as courageous, bold, decisive characters it would be nice to have characters defend themselves against a world of inequity. Not simply have a male/female choices because then you'e just offering the same experience without deviance. And whilst that might be fine up to a point, but it's not exactly communicating anything meaningful or diversifying the role of women in videogames.

I wouldn't mind either portrayal of women, but I think if we want to have standout female protagonists in games, it's about time that we show the historical mistreatment of women ... muddy our hands a little by digging into some very real examples of what could be epic storylines for videogames. Movies do it, books do it ... why can't we take a step back a bit and rationalize that there are women in the world, right now, living desperate and extraordinary lives that are worthy of being examined further through an interactive medium?

 

[TAdamson]

snip

Almost like its a sea of Developers/Publishers out there that most likely hear and see what people are asking for and either don't want to take the risk of something new or figure someone else will do it, kinda punting the football around.

On the other side how does it help the cause when games from these same developers are attacked for making something, either a character choice or a whole game design, that is clearly designed by or for a certain groups taste, in most cases men? I'm sure most of this comes from the most extreme of the group but it results in a defensive response from a lot of male gamers, one of those defensive responses is what this weeks Jimquisition was about.

So it leaves me to question how attacking a game to the point of causing male gamers to defensively try to justify the existence of the game is a way of asking the industry for better representation of women. I hear from mostly level headed people that all seem to want the same thing and I'm on board with it but attacking games or game characters that were clearly meant to stimulate the male heterosexual population just comes off as a way of saying those games or character should not exist and men should not be allowed have them. (some people actually do believe this btw)

Saying "this game is a sexist piece of shit" and saying "this game is clearly for men, I wish we had games that were for everyone" is not the same thing. The difference is destructive versus constructive dialog.

It's a final straw thing for some people. I think some games for men should be a "sexist piece of shit". Maxim exists for a reason. But Maxim is "sexist piece of shit" demographic chasing. Most games are not specifically "sexist piece of shit" chasing, they just happen to ignore the female demographic, and then the game equivalent of Maxim is targeted due to frustration.


Dead or Alive is what it is and I think most people accept that but it's a good example of how stupid a demographic that they're targeting

Dragons Crown I don't really have a problem with....

----- Apart from the blank emotionless child faces on the female characters. Seriously... Tits, ass and inappropriate clothing: Fine...... Having the same very-teen, anime, emotionally-blank, face on every female character: Makes me frown because its a little dehumanising.-----

I'm annoyed that Soul Calibur went from simply having sexy characters to going for absurd boob-physix titillation.

I'm annoyed that female protagonists are verboten.

I'm annoyed that there isn't the game version of Ellen Ripley or Hermione Granger or Arya Stark.

So it's easy to point to DoA or Dragon's Crown and ask why so much of this "sexist piece of shit" exists and why more interesting, realistic female characters don't exist.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

But Jimbo, why did you ignore pretty much every JRPG character in existence?
Are the twinky half naked, emotional guys really a power fantasy?

And objectification isn't a problem at all. You're looking to much into nothing.

When a woman in a game is objectified, it's that woman in that game that's being objectified. It has no implication in real life. Same would be the case with a man, black, Asian, straight, gay, bi, trans... no matter how much they look like real people, they are nothing more than polygons.

And form a business standpoint, it makes no sense to listen to you guys. If a game is aimed at horny teenager (like pretty much every game with objectified women is), it makes no sense to listen to a demographic that won't buy the game in the first place, or the amount of new costumer wouldn't be big enough to compensate for the lost costumer.

Rather than changing the existing games, women should try to get developer to pander to them.

But that's just my opinion. My only problem is that objectification of character in games is... how should I say it... it's like objectification of the targeted audience. If every game targeted at men has naked chicks, what that does say about the men? That they can't think with anything besides their dick? That men can't think of anything besides sex?
Again, I don't have a problem with the objectification of the character in games because for me, they don't represent the real world. They are just polygons.
However, the "objectification" (I honestly don't know what word to use here, maybe generalization?) of the targeted audience is a problem for me because it objectifies/generalizes real people, in fact, ~49% of the world population.

Should find a flame shield.

 

[generals3]

I doubt you'll find many BMW drivers lobbying for BMW to create cheaper cars to allow poorer people to have access to BMW awesomeness.

Are you serious? Do you really think that BMW drivers don't want their BMWs to cost less? I'd say the vast majority of them would like cheaper BMWs so they'd have more money to spend on other things. Only a very small minority of BMW drivers are filthy-rich enough to not care about price. After all, BMW owners are typically in the middle-class.

And yes, I'd say that plenty of BMW owners would want BMW ownership to be more widespread. Because they are well-engineered and have high safety standards. I'd guess most BMW owners also have families, so having more people driving BMWs would mean that their children and other family members would be more protected from being injured or killed by car accidents. Plus having more nice cars on the roads just makes for a more pleasant urban environment than having heaping piles of junk everywhere.

Whether or not they would want the price reduced for themselves or family is irrelevant to the argument. And don't forget it's a semi-luxurious car which wouldn't confer the status to the drivers it does now if they were as cheap as Micras. Many would see their utility they get from the car reduced if everyone drove them around. And I have yet to hear any BMW driver complain about the price for altruistic reasons. You may enlighten me with the lobbyists if you wish but i doubt they exist.

The fact women have few leading roles would be irrelevant to the objectification case. You can't have every single group being given a leading role in a single game.

Who said they should all be protagonists in any single game? I'm pretty sure the conversation is about games in general.

If they don't have to be in any single game than how can you make an accusation if most games decide to not make that choice for monetary reasons? You know if one game doesn't do anything wrong by not having a female protagonist how can 100 games do anything wrong by not having a female protagonist?

You can't sum up 100 non-problematic games and suddenly have a problematic game industry. You need to prove there is a problem in the elements you summed up if you want to prove the group of elements has a problem.

 

[ferrishthefish]

Well, yes I do think female gamers would enjoy that. Straight women tend to enjoy seeing attractive, half naked men. I mean, have you seen some of the fan art the women are making of just the male LIs. Hell, there is this joeblack guy on deviant art posting 3D models of the guys shirtless on motorcycles, just for the fangirls. With the introduction of drell, having few of them dancing on some tables would have been amazing.

Attractive, half-naked men are not the same as male strippers. You go to the beach to see one; you go to the male strip joint to shove Lincolns in the other's junk (I think that's how it works, not sure). I'm also willing to bet that some male strippers are UNattractive, half-naked men, potentially trying to work their way through space school. Even the male strippers that ARE attractive have a completely different power structure than attractive, half-naked non-stripper men--i.e., total dependency as opposed to confident power. Incidentally, I'd also be willing to bet that confident, powerful men are more attractive to the average female than dependent, and therefore weak, men. I've heard of some studies on it that I won't bother looking up atm.

(I'd try to argue that attractive, half-naked women are not the same as female strippers for symmetry's sake, but I enjoy my current status of not being a target.)

I'm basically trying to suggest that average female sexual tastes might not be mirror images of average male sexual tastes, so appealing equally to male and female sexual tastes might not be as simple as you think. I'm not saying there's equal attention paid to female sexual tastes in games, because the industry's own behavior disproves that, but you can't just point to asymmetry and try to equate it to inequality. They are not the same.

And again, for the sake of Mass Effect's own lore, the asari are a sexually open race who find everyone else not their species sexually attractive. You would think with all their power and influence in the galaxy, they would have strip clubs set up for their viewing pleasure, which would mean there should be some male strippers shaking their asses at the bars.

Just because something is possible, sensible, or even directly implied by the framework of the story does not mean the developer will or ought to include it. You know the recent Batman movies, which have been commercial and critical successes despite having a plot hole the size of Jupiter, specifically that Batman and Alfred are able to single-handedly foil the efforts cave moisture and bat shit and their fantastic ability to destroy all of Batman's very expensive electronics? Yeah, they chose to leave that part out despite it being a direct consequence of housing such a huge operation in a fucking cave because it would have been stupid to include something that does not appeal to any audience and, in fact, reduces the appeal to the existing audience(s). People like to see Batman kick ass with futuristic and non-destroyed technology, and without being covered in guano.

I hate to have to use this line, but video games are ENTERTAINMENT. It's not worth the time and effort to produce entertainment (which costs money) if it won't be more appealing than real life (which is essentially free). In other words, it's about appeal, not about making sense. And since male strippers would most likely reduce the appeal to young men (most likely straight), Bioware understandably would require some proof that male strippers would produce enough appeal to the female or gay audience to make up for the reduced appeal to straight males, regardless of how much sense male strippers make in the context of the story.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

But Jimbo, why did you ignore pretty much every JRPG character in existence?
Are the twinky half naked, emotional guys really a power fantasy?

And objectification isn't a problem at all. You're looking to much into nothing.

When a woman in a game is objectified, it's that woman in that game that's being objectified. It has no implication in real life. Same would be the case with a man, black, Asian, straight, gay, bi, trans... no matter how much they look like real people, they are nothing more than polygons.

And form a business standpoint, it makes no sense to listen to you guys. If a game is aimed at horny teenager (like pretty much every game with objectified women is), it makes no sense to listen to a demographic that won't buy the game in the first place, or the amount of new costumer wouldn't be big enough to compensate for the lost costumer.

Rather than changing the existing games, women should try to get developer to pander to them.

But that's just my opinion. My only problem is that objectification of character in games is... how should I say it... it's like objectification of the targeted audience. If every game targeted at men has naked chicks, what that does say about the men? That they can't think with anything besides their dick? That men can't think of anything besides sex?
Again, I don't have a problem with the objectification of the character in games because for me, they don't represent the real world. They are just polygons.
However, the "objectification" (I honestly don't know what word to use here, maybe generalization?) of the targeted audience is a problem for me because it objectifies/generalizes real people, in fact, ~49% of the world population.

Should find a flame shield.

Considering the half naked JRPG protagonists are usually wielding impossible weapons as big as they are, are performing massive damage to enemies that dwarf them, have a destiny only they can meet, AND have a princess to save, and/or a female to be their love interest, yeah, they are power trips all the same. Just in a somewhat more realistic less steroid filled package. Honestly, there's not a huge diffirence between them and western guys like Kratos, and War save a hundred lbs of muscle.

I agree game companies know their market, and cater to them. Sex sells. Honestly, I'm a bit of a fan of sex selling, and I'm not ashamed to say it as it doesn't really make or break a game for me. Massive deviation from teh formula could be problematic. But what about more minor deviations that aren't as few as twice a year among every company?

Personally, I don't care about what amount of the sex sells mantra goes into the game so long as the protagonist is female/gender select, and has some quality to the game.
I mean, bayonetta, for instance. She's a double edged sword. Sex sells to a high degree, but some women find her to be the power trip. Bayonetta owns who she is, and her sexuality. She isn't sexy for no reason at all, basically unlike like more than a few scantily clad fighting women.

Still, the outright denial of female protagonists (Jim never says which companies do this, and they'd prolly get blacklisted by me in a heartbeat 'til they changed. ), and things standing in their way, from the story I read about a guy at capcom getting stonewalled from wanting a female lead (which I guess was isolated since Capcom is distributing Remember me), to the fighting the makers of Remember Me had to put up with to even get someone to help with getting the game out there, to Naughty Dog having to fight to keep the little girl from "Last of Us" on the cover, to Bioshock getting a Dudebro cover alternative (I guess it isn't as harmful since it's not like the game got changed), female protagonist games getting next to zero advertisement, and other disheartening BS like that happening? In 2013?
Honestly, you can't expect people to just watch it happen, can you? We certainly aren't regardless of your answer. Provide all the excuses you want, but that won't stop topics like this for certain since you're not the first, or last trying to explain away the topic with these same excuses.
Frankly the practice is disgusting to an extreme to me, both in defending the practice, and to a greater degree, the practice itself.

This topic will not go away until there's no examples of this topic to talk about no matter what is said, bluntly.

The problem with finding a company to cater to female gamers is, who, exactly do women turn to? What company has the balls big enough to do this? And make some decent games on top of that? It's not like a want ad can be taken out.

Honestly, my plan is to try my best to support what ever game comes out that has quality, and a female protagonist/gender select. Hopefully my tiny hands pushing against the dudebro tide, along with, hopefully, many others, will be enough to make them realize that a good character, regardless of gender, can sell.

Who ever decides to take on the niche more might find themselves in a world of money as the niche may not be as small as they think it is. I could be wrong though. It's unexplored territory with a generation or two entrenched in console generations.

If you have a problem with how males as consumers are objectified, well, like you said, sex sells, basically. They cater to it coz guys with hormones are hard pressed to help themselves. Those that can control themselves? The sex sells games saturate the maket. Good luck buying one that doesn't tart up their characters, male and female alike to appeal to power trips.

And honestly, I think you're looking at objectification from the wrong angle. it's not the sexualized objectivity in it's entirity, it's how rare female protagonists are, as opposed to being shunted into roles where they are objectified by the narrative itself? Princess Zelda, Princess Peach, basically every woman you gotta save regardless of how sexy they are. I elaborate on this in a post not far back so I won't double down here.

 

[generals3]

Still, the outright denial of female protagonists (Jim never says which companies do this, and they'd prolly get blacklisted by me in a heartbeat 'til they changed. ), and things standing in their way, from the story I read about a guy at capcom getting stonewalled from wanting a female lead (which I guess was isolated since Capcom is distributing Remember me), to the fighting the makers of Remember Me had to put up with to even get someone to help with getting the game out there, to Naughty Dog having to fight to keep the little girl from "Last of Us" on the cover, to Bioshock getting a Dudebro cover alternative (I guess it isn't as harmful since it's not like the game got changed), female protagonist games getting next to zero advertisement, and other disheartening BS like that happening? In 2013?
Honestly, you can't expect people to just watch it happen, can you? We certainly aren't regardless of your answer. Provide all the excuses you want, but that won't stop topics like this for certain since you're not the first, or last trying to explain away the topic with these same excuses.
Frankly the practice is disgusting to an extreme to me, both in defending the practice, and to a greater degree, the practice itself.

WHy is it disheartening this happens in 2013? Marketing is marketing and will always be. If a company feels that putting a big marketing budget in a game is a waste of money than so be it. The date in which that happened seems rather irrelevant. And gender specific marketing is widespread, think of brands like Nivea slapping "for men" on their products for men or Coke Zero. You can say "but, 2013!" all you want but companies won't stop using marketing they think is the most efficient. if they are convinced that slapping a dudebro on the cover instead of a woman will generate more sales, there is nothing wrong with that. I'd say not doing it while thinking doing it would generate more sales would be extremely wrong.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Still, the outright denial of female protagonists (Jim never says which companies do this, and they'd prolly get blacklisted by me in a heartbeat 'til they changed. ), and things standing in their way, from the story I read about a guy at capcom getting stonewalled from wanting a female lead (which I guess was isolated since Capcom is distributing Remember me), to the fighting the makers of Remember Me had to put up with to even get someone to help with getting the game out there, to Naughty Dog having to fight to keep the little girl from "Last of Us" on the cover, to Bioshock getting a Dudebro cover alternative (I guess it isn't as harmful since it's not like the game got changed), female protagonist games getting next to zero advertisement, and other disheartening BS like that happening? In 2013?
Honestly, you can't expect people to just watch it happen, can you? We certainly aren't regardless of your answer. Provide all the excuses you want, but that won't stop topics like this for certain since you're not the first, or last trying to explain away the topic with these same excuses.
Frankly the practice is disgusting to an extreme to me, both in defending the practice, and to a greater degree, the practice itself.

WHy is it disheartening this happens in 2013? Marketing is marketing and will always be. If a company feels that putting a big marketing budget in a game is a waste of money than so be it. The date in which that happened seems rather irrelevant. And gender specific marketing is widespread, think of brands like Nivea slapping "for men" on their products for men or Coke Zero. You can say "but, 2013!" all you want but companies won't stop using marketing they think is the most efficient. if they are convinced that slapping a dudebro on the cover instead of a woman will generate more sales, there is nothing wrong with that. I'd say not doing it while thinking doing it would generate more sales would be extremely wrong.

I guess I'm just one of those weird optimists that wants to think that humanity is evolving socially. It probably will, but it'll prolly be decades in the future, or even a century since there'll likely have to be newblood for the gaming industry to change.

I'm not saying the game that dares break the mold and be more catered to women has to be their sole source of revenue. I'm just hoping they get made more now and then, and meet less resistance in the process.

Also there's women that grew up in the gaming generations. I had a woman ask me about a game and she was old enough to be my mom. Society is changing. Businesses that won't adapt might find them missing out.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Whether or not they would want the price reduced for themselves or family is irrelevant to the argument. And don't forget it's a semi-luxurious car which wouldn't confer the status to the drivers it does now if they were as cheap as Micras

You assume that the majority of BMW owners buy BMWs to raise their "status," rather than simply wanting to buy a well-made vehicle. Perhaps you could provide some research demonstrating this?

If you have ever traveled in Europe, you'd know that BMWs aren't particularly exotic, they are fairly typical middle-class cars (depending on the model). People looking for status are more likely to drive Ferraris, Rolls Royces, Bentleys, Porches, or Bugattis. The majority of BMWs sold don't particularly convey high status, they are pretty normal cars.

If you'd like an example of BMW owners expressing the desire for more widespread BMW ownership, then I'll direct you to this podcast: http://neutral.fm

And I have yet to hear any BMW driver complain about the price for altruistic reasons.

Well, you just read me writing it. It may not be the same as hearing someone say it, but there it is. If more cars on the road were more like BMWs, then that would be a good thing. I don't feel superior because not everyone can afford one. It would be fantastic if more people drove them. It's not something that makes me feel insecure. They are very good cars - why wouldn't I want more people to drive such good cars? It would make the roads safer and more pleasant to drive on.

If they don't have to be in any single game than how can you make an accusation if most games decide to not make that choice for monetary reasons?

The "monetary reasons" are bullshit. If anything, the male gamer market is already saturated, and it would make more sense to appeal to more females, as they are a less-exploited market.

You know if one game doesn't do anything wrong by not having a female protagonist how can 100 games do anything wrong by not having a female protagonist?

It isn't just about the protagonist. It's also about having less stereotypical female characters in general.

You can't sum up 100 non-problematic games and suddenly have a problematic game industry. You need to prove there is a problem in the elements you summed up if you want to prove the group of elements has a problem.

I'm not talking about 100 non-problematic games. I'm talking about the majority of mainstream games being problematic when it comes to gender representation.

 

[Subscriptism]

You're asking that question to someone on the internet? I'm not out to change the world, I can't make a difference.

Point One: I never said it didn't matter.

True, but you did say it was getting too much attention, and then contradicted yourself by saying that you can't make a difference by posting on the internet. So, which is it? Either the internet is ineffective, therefore it doesn't matter if this is getting attention on these boards, or the internet is effective at drawing attention to issues. You can't really have it both ways.

Point Two: The issues I mentioned are slowly killing the notion quality in the industry and the fact that you no longer own what you pay for, you just have a license to use it. I'm going to be frank and say that if someone is self-harming and having psychological issues over the way women are depicted in video games then they need a lesson about reality and fiction and what people are like in the real world. You don't see me upset that I'm not two metres tall with pecs of steel, because I know it's a total fantasy an idealisation.

OK, so the "notion of quality in the industry" is more important than harm to actual people?

I think you might see your latter point differently if you actually were female. Most men don't have to deal with constant leering and sexual attention every single day. For many women, the ways genders are portrayed in games [strong]is[/strong] basically an extension of reality. It's not fiction to be objectified as a woman, it's incredibly common. As a male, you usually aren't being constantly stared at and compared to some ideal male warrior. But women [strong]are[/strong] being constantly stared at and compared to supermodels and idealized game characters.

Perhaps I might see it, however I can't personally nor do I know of any other male who can even remotely be described as constantly leering, nor do I personally know a single woman who has ever complained that they are being leered at 24/7. I just don't buy it.

 

[generals3]

Well, you just read me writing it. It may not be the same as hearing someone say it, but there it is. If more cars on the road were more like BMWs, then that would be a good thing. I don't feel superior because not everyone can afford one. It would be fantastic if more people drove them. It's not something that makes me feel insecure. They are very good cars - why wouldn't I want more people to drive such good cars? It would make the roads safer and more pleasant to drive on.

Which are two selfish reasons to want to spread BMW's. So my point stands.

If they don't have to be in any single game than how can you make an accusation if most games decide to not make that choice for monetary reasons?

The "monetary reasons" are bullshit. If anything, the male gamer market is already saturated, and it would make more sense to appeal to more females, as they are a less-exploited market.

You know if one game doesn't do anything wrong by not having a female protagonist how can 100 games do anything wrong by not having a female protagonist?

It isn't just about the protagonist. It's also about having less stereotypical female characters in general.

You can't sum up 100 non-problematic games and suddenly have a problematic game industry. You need to prove there is a problem in the elements you summed up if you want to prove the group of elements has a problem.

I'm not talking about 100 non-problematic games. I'm talking about the majority of mainstream games being problematic when it comes to gender representation.

And how are they problematic? And the monetary reasons are bullshit? So you have conducted market studies ? I'm sorry that I would put more faith in a marketing department of a big company which probably spend a lot of time studying the market than a random poster who probably only has his word to back up the claim it's not a monetary sound business practice. The fact it's less exploited doesn't mean it's more profitable, niche markets for example are usually de-facto less exploited but you won't see every big business venturing in them exactly because it's a niche market.
Gaming companies are run by people who want to make profit, not bro dudes who want to exclude women.

 

[NoeL]

Question!!! Why does Superman shave his legs? HOW does Superman shave his legs? I mean Greenlantern I can get, Human with alien technology. How does Superman manage though? Industrial strength polymer leg waxing?

Yet you never wondered how he shaves his face?

Anyway, I remember an episode of Lois and Clark where he shaved by reflecting his eye lasers with a mirror. I guess his skin is tougher than his hair, and the strength of his laser vision falls nicely between the two.

 

[Aikayai]

I'm getting tired of how poorly the community deals with these issues. Maybe in 50 years we'll come back to this topic and the problem will still be there. I feel for the women out there in the industry who want their voices heard only to be silenced by a community that can't take a sane pill for a day and realize that its a serious issue. By segregating people by gender, race or belief we belittle ourselves and that is something that EA or Activision is supposed to do for us. I believe that is something we can all agree on.

Admit there is a problem, then we can do something about it.