You just gloriously summed up the recent discussions on this thread beautifully.bobleponge said:
Now excuse me while I go cope with the fact that I'm a genetic anomaly.
Jimquisition: Vertigo
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Now excuse me while I go cope with the fact that I'm a genetic anomaly.
Don't hold out on hope though. Remember, Nintendo is notorious for always attracting the female demographic as one of the big three.Magenera said:
The one thing that all Nintendo games have in common is that they are fun. They aren't trying to be edgy, cool, violent for violence sakes, or deep.
They are just there to be fun. The same can be said for a good lot of the mobile games on the market. They are simply fun.
Just like how many videogames were back in the day.
Let's not also discount the fact many a male Escapist user (and gamers on other sites) have stated many times that they got their girlfriend into gaming with games like Skyrim (or Elder Scrolls in general.), Mass Effect, WoW, and other similar titles.
These are pretty "male centric" games, yet they seem to also have more of a stick on female players as well.
It's not that their needs to be a market shift. It's just that game devs other than Nintendo and indies need to start pumping out more fun for fun sakes games.
However considering how everyone is too wound up in the deep plot phase of videogames, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
That was the case centuries ago.Since the 60,rich people have a tan to show that they can afford a trip to St Tropez (that's where the term Jet Set comes from) and spend their days sunbathing on the beach because they have enough money and don't need to work.It's really more of a racist issue,since photoshop is often used for "whitewashing" people with darker skin.Dragonbums said:
Beyonce in real life and Beyonce for a L'Oréal ad campaign:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6xakgAWQK1qa9dfj.jpg
Gabby Sidibe in real life and Gabby Sidibe on an Elle cover:
http://www.beautyredefined.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gabourey-sidibe-photoshop-450-thumb-450x300-764251.jpg
And when you have a light skin tone,this is what they'll do to you:
Nicole Kidman in real life: http://filmsplusmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Nicole-Kidman7.jpg
and after a photoshoot: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/celebdatabase/nicolekidman/nicole_kidman1_300_400.jpg
It's the old idea that "white and european" (but not too white) is better than any other skin color or look people could have.And it's not only in Japan or the West,in other parts of the world,the most common platsic surgeries are still surgeries with the purpose of looking more "european".
Let's not forget that she has a plain face, especially for the upcoming Mirrors Edge 2. I've posted it a few times in this thread and she's not even wearing makeup. It's flat and not particularly feminine. For her to be ruled out, Jim's criteria has to actively rule out the plain faced too and demand specifically ugly. His criteria was attractive which is... a wide and subjective range. I loved mirrors edge but don't consider her attractive. Even the male characters that are usually ugly have something that makes them desireable to play as. Usually huge rippling muscle. Even the Heavy Rain example has a range of other playable protagonists including a female whose attractiveness shifts in the game from plain to attractive.doomed89 said:
I just want to say that I find it remarkably apt that your avatar is that of a horse and this is your first or second post here. Good show, sir or madame. Though I disagree with the rest of your points. Developers may produce personally vindicating/desireable work on their own but in large AAA companies with a team of developers it's mostly about creating a brand that meets the needs of the consumer market they face. Aka, turns the most profit by filling a need. So women haven't traditionally been hot-brainless characters in games because developers are horny nerds (a stereotypical and even sexist claim against developers for you to make, fyi), they've been that way because it sells games to the hugely male consumer market. The power of money, my friend, nothing less and nothing more.MEsoJD said:
Lately, we've seen developers take a route of making the characters more realistic and giving them legitimate roles in games. I think they've been generally rewarded for that by having a story that is richer with characters that stick with you. Even the classic and still loved protector/hero role becomes more meaningful with characters that you actually care about protecting/saving. Take The Last of Us. Ellie is a little cute but not beautiful and has scars, is dressed realistically, has realistic and even small proportions, and, spoiler, you play as her at some points (how, when, why and for how long I'll leave unsaid) which makes her a playable protagonist. She's also generally portrayed as a daughter character and so even the narrative makes you feel protective of her and not attracted to her. They spent the entire game crafting her character and that game is still selling a ton. It's currently the 14th best selling item in Video Games of 2013 so far. Second best selling video game (if you group the ps3 and 360 copies together as one game) so far.
According to Amazon anyways [http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2013/videogames]. Which is a decent market indicator. That's with it only being available on one console too. So as AAA developers see this benefit them they'll do more of it. But even with her basically plain and made unattractive by your role of guardian/father figure over her, she isn't ugly and I don't think there's a demand for it either. What people should be made at isn't even necessarily sexually attractive nature of female characters. That happens in all forms of media and women even do it to themselves. If they're willing to undergo a knife to have larger breasts in real life then playing as a perky attractive character isn't necessarily a negative. Women don't slap on a skintight spandex sportsbra/shorts combo to go running in public wihtout some kind of knowledge that they're showing off their body. What people should be upset about is poorly or negatively written female characters who are inept or defined as sexual objects. So what if a female has attractive features? That doesn't matter, women try to look attractive all over the world and if we start getting offended by that happening in media too then we're just kidding ourselves. But a poorly written and incapable character defined by nothing other than their body? That's wrong. That's the heart of what we've been complaining about. My wife personally has a problem with the chainmail bikini scenario. The idea of a woman who dresses completely inappropriately for a task she knows she's about to accomplish is just silly. I mean, it happens in real life, lord knows there's been enough city-girl meets farm-life reality TV shows. But it still smacks of impracticality of the woman even if unintentional. So you can only go so far with clothing before the choice of dress also writes an unflattering characteristic of the girl's planning/personality.
I actually used Kotaku as the reference because the onlineeducation site had some serious downtime a few months back whereas Kotaku's page is just a picture of that exact image. Just FYI.Magenera said:
If anyone reads those numbers and has any questions about my methodology or exact math work (mostly basic division with rounding to the tenth spot), feel free to ask as the quoted work is mine.
It's important to note that social gamers on mobile or free to play games are not necessarily consumers. For example, I play Angry Birds. I do not buy angry birds. I did play farmville at one point, I did not spend a dime. Their hope is that enough people will pay money for certain actions to make them a huge ROI.
The AAA market and the casual/social market aren't exactly overlapping. The casual market doesn't generally pay $60 for a game. EA is actively pursuing this group and we'll see if there's enough overlap to turn a decent profit but that also relies on EA producing a product they want. For example, their last "free to play" required you to buy the game and then had free to play elements which basically made them the worst kind of evil. Casual gaming as a whole also has the problem of not typically being something you can throw in the system and playing with little to know background. We'll see if the two areas can be merged, but I expect the attempt will only succeed in weakening the nature of the AAA to the point that it wouldn't be really considered AAA if it goes that route. It could create a clarification of categories of AAA. Such as casual AAA vs traditional AAA.
Oh no. I'm very aware of that. (being black myself and all.)allizzwell said:
Of course, thanks for clearing that up.
I guess I should kind of no better. But no one else ever said otherwise.
While this absolutely is something people do, please keep in mind that skin color is not some stable thing. Sun exposure can drastically change the complexity of individuals of any race. There are many other images of a lighter skinned Beyonce and the difference may be more tanning than you'd think. Though the picture you presented was clearly lighter than normal. For some reason, people seem to think that black people don't tan or aren't affected by the sun at all. I'm not sure where they get that.allizzwell said:
She's not a playable protagonist, which was one of the major criteria. The personalities at the head of the Civ empires are just that, personalities, not characters. You don't play as them you play through them, if you catch my meaning.Hagi said:I think Maria Theresa is worth a mention, I mean I get that she'd be overlooked when compared to protagonists from games where the story and character development is central. But compared to Jim's conclusion of a dinosaur, whose not in any way visually female, I think she wins hands down. Even if she's based on a real world person she's undoubtedly a developer created character, she's not conventionally attractive and she definitely has unique motivations that aren't just about hardship or doing something for a man ( on the contrary, her special ability is about making a man do something for her ).
I get why she wasn't chosen as she's a real person. But all the same I think she'd have been the better choice whilst still proving the overall point, by virtue of being taken straight from the pages of world history whilst actually being a human woman instead of a dinosaur.
You also play through most protagonists, with them being basically just a skin for your player model during actual gameplay and you get to watch them externally through cutscenes.Arrogancy said:
She's a playable protagonist every bit as much as Vertigo is. You can select her from a whole roster of possible options to represent you in-game and you get some flavor text to explain her motivations and backstory.
If you're going to disqualify Maria Theresa on those grounds then you should disqualify Vertigo as well.
As I said, I can understand not counting her on the basis of her not being invented by the developers. But she is a protagonist every bit as much as the characters from a fighting game.
Alright, let me articulate the difference: You directly control Vertigo and the other characters thus far listed in this thread, you do not directly control Maria. She is just a portrait that symbolizes a civilization, not really a driving force within that civilization, at least as far as the game is concerned. She may as well not exist for the vast majority of the time because the focus isn't on Maria as a character and her actions, but rather about the civilization which you, the player, manage, not you, Maria acting as player proxy. That's the difference, and why I don't think Maria is a valid protagonist.Hagi said:
Probably has more to do with the fact that chocolate or dark chocolate black people are more or less "common".Lightknight said:
At first glance, especially if one is not a stickler for details, It always appears that we don't tan at all no matter what the weather is.
However if we were to remove our clothing, you can see a very discernible shade difference between what is usually covered up by fabrics.
Of course even then, the difference is a bit hard to see. Especially in winter and fall seasons.
You do directly control Maria. You are Maria. Why do you think the entire introduction speech talks about Maria in the second person? Why the special power she grants is available at all times and not only in the ages she actually was alive?Arrogancy said:
Both of them are 2D drawings that represent your character. Both of them are protagonists.
I only recently learned that people aren't necessarily aware that everyone tans.Dragonbums said:
It's still surprising though. I mean, I figured this out in elementary school with my best friend being black. Back from spring break and he's multiple shades darker? Easy to see. But you'd think people would at least have black coworkers they'd see tanning even if not close friends. Maybe people really aren't that observant? Like you said, it's less noticeable if people are naturally in the darker complexion range so perhaps that's why as it is a more common range?
*sigh*
80% response: 'Dude, why are we still talking about this? This isn't an issue let's move on!'
10% response: 'serious attempts to discuss it by men/women'
10% response: trolling and/or outright asshattery
Amidst all the demands for 'citation needed' and 'well this character doesn't meet all the criteria but TOTALLY SHOULD BE COUNTED because it would make me feel better' and the poor people actually trying to engage in civil discussion...
*sigh*
Fine, I didn't read the whole thread. Maybe that should be 70/20/10 ratio, who knows, but the point is that if I can't get to page 5 without reading that women in general are stupid and wrong for daring to notice inequality, or criticize the status quo, or *gasp* asking for something other than what they have now in terms of how their gender is treated by the games industry, then really, why should I spend my time reading the rest of it?
"Well, then why are you here at all?"
Because there's a goddamn good reason Jim keeps bringing this up. He's right, and he should know that at least some of us 'get it'. Odd, how there seems to be a feminine bias in this regard, but nowhere else in the games industry...
80% response: 'Dude, why are we still talking about this? This isn't an issue let's move on!'
10% response: 'serious attempts to discuss it by men/women'
10% response: trolling and/or outright asshattery
Amidst all the demands for 'citation needed' and 'well this character doesn't meet all the criteria but TOTALLY SHOULD BE COUNTED because it would make me feel better' and the poor people actually trying to engage in civil discussion...
*sigh*
Fine, I didn't read the whole thread. Maybe that should be 70/20/10 ratio, who knows, but the point is that if I can't get to page 5 without reading that women in general are stupid and wrong for daring to notice inequality, or criticize the status quo, or *gasp* asking for something other than what they have now in terms of how their gender is treated by the games industry, then really, why should I spend my time reading the rest of it?
"Well, then why are you here at all?"
Because there's a goddamn good reason Jim keeps bringing this up. He's right, and he should know that at least some of us 'get it'. Odd, how there seems to be a feminine bias in this regard, but nowhere else in the games industry...
I guess so. That, and the fact that and the whole black skin vs. the sun jokes.Lightknight said:
I mean, for the longest time from middle school to high school, people thought it was impossible for black people to get sunburns. (I certainly didn't, but I know a fair few black people who did.) Because of some childish version of environmental adaptation.
I finally came back and finished reading this thread...
I really wish I hadn't.
The Evolutionary Psychology arguments ("girls are hardwired for x!") are ludicrously flawed at best. There's a reason well-educated people react poorly when you bring up that subject, it's not exactly been a hotbed of rationality and good testing methods in the past. And beyond that...
There are no evo-psych models that are anywhere NEAR 99% supported by evidence, like, say, evolution itself is. I don't think there's much you could say about evo-psych that's even 70% supported, other than "we like to reproduce because people without reproductive drives didn't reproduce", and that's borderline tautological. Stretching it to something as specific as "girls like dolls" is just plain wrong. The overwhelming evidence required to make a strong, specific statement like that without being scientifically dishonest just straight up does not exist. There's studies that suggest things, but within any of those papers you'll find half a dozen caveats and little to no attempts to isolate societal factors (since that's more or less impossible).
This leads me to the other recurring flawed argument, "all these numbers show games with 'x' don't sell".
Is x the reason though? Could there be other factors? Have you isolated the variables and concluded that yes, it was almost certainly x? You know, the scientific method? Or are there other factors? Like marketing, or the overall lack of data points including x, or the *incredibly poor reporting of sales overall (particularly digital, i.e. PC), or even the lack of information about the methods or credibility of these stats (incredibly important in science, btw)? Or even that, if the data from 201x (don't know when these studies are from exactly) really is pointing towards some conclusion, that these numbers have been changing very rapidly over the past 3-5 years and will probably continue to do so, especially if developers try to make these changes happen?
*[http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/its-time-for-the-gaming-press-to-grow-up-and-ignore-the-npd-group]
ergh, internet arguments just keep sucking me in
http://xkcd.com/386/
edit: the tanning thing
There are some countries (Malaysia was the country I heard about) where some of my friends have informed me it is still more fashionable to be as pale as possible, as it signifies you are rich enough not to have to work outside. Tanning in countries where jobs are primarily indoors indicates that you have enough money and/or time to go outside and get a tan. I think the dividing line between tan and pale being fashionable is simply the percentage of jobs which involve outdoor labor.
I really wish I hadn't.
The Evolutionary Psychology arguments ("girls are hardwired for x!") are ludicrously flawed at best. There's a reason well-educated people react poorly when you bring up that subject, it's not exactly been a hotbed of rationality and good testing methods in the past. And beyond that...
There are no evo-psych models that are anywhere NEAR 99% supported by evidence, like, say, evolution itself is. I don't think there's much you could say about evo-psych that's even 70% supported, other than "we like to reproduce because people without reproductive drives didn't reproduce", and that's borderline tautological. Stretching it to something as specific as "girls like dolls" is just plain wrong. The overwhelming evidence required to make a strong, specific statement like that without being scientifically dishonest just straight up does not exist. There's studies that suggest things, but within any of those papers you'll find half a dozen caveats and little to no attempts to isolate societal factors (since that's more or less impossible).
This leads me to the other recurring flawed argument, "all these numbers show games with 'x' don't sell".
Is x the reason though? Could there be other factors? Have you isolated the variables and concluded that yes, it was almost certainly x? You know, the scientific method? Or are there other factors? Like marketing, or the overall lack of data points including x, or the *incredibly poor reporting of sales overall (particularly digital, i.e. PC), or even the lack of information about the methods or credibility of these stats (incredibly important in science, btw)? Or even that, if the data from 201x (don't know when these studies are from exactly) really is pointing towards some conclusion, that these numbers have been changing very rapidly over the past 3-5 years and will probably continue to do so, especially if developers try to make these changes happen?
*[http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/its-time-for-the-gaming-press-to-grow-up-and-ignore-the-npd-group]
ergh, internet arguments just keep sucking me in
http://xkcd.com/386/
edit: the tanning thing
There are some countries (Malaysia was the country I heard about) where some of my friends have informed me it is still more fashionable to be as pale as possible, as it signifies you are rich enough not to have to work outside. Tanning in countries where jobs are primarily indoors indicates that you have enough money and/or time to go outside and get a tan. I think the dividing line between tan and pale being fashionable is simply the percentage of jobs which involve outdoor labor.
And herein lies the problem.Magenera said:
If YOU don't like something in videogames, you have a lot more options and alternatives to choose from. However when WE don't like something, there is honestly not a whole lot we can choose from.
Most female gamers at most are simply asking for better female representation in videogames. That's it. At it's base, that is all we are asking.
Granted, as individuals, we all have different tastes and preferences, however at it's base that is all that we are asking for.
You don't necessarily have to care about that. However to say that are opinions should be disregarded isn't fair either.
The video Jim made was an extreme criteria that I don't think anyone, not even female gamers were really going for. He was just trying to make a point.
I've seen a lot of mentions of Skullgirls and Dota characters which are on point.
Someone mentioned April Ryan from Dreamfall but she fails the not be young test.
Rachel Manners from J.U.L.I.A. on the other hand doesn't. She's an astrobiologist awoken to find the rest of her crewmates missing and the ship they are flying in damaged. With help from the ship's AI she/you have to solve both problems.
Melanie Emberly from Cart Life is a mom with a depressing as hell back story but that's nothing new for any character you play in that game.
My 3rd and last contribution to this list is Redacted from Divekick. She is a great parody on female stereotypes in fighters.
Her character provides the holy grail of "fan service" by being completely naked but gets by censors and ratings boards because she's an anthropomorphic animal, who chews cigars instead of smokes them.
Someone mentioned April Ryan from Dreamfall but she fails the not be young test.
Rachel Manners from J.U.L.I.A. on the other hand doesn't. She's an astrobiologist awoken to find the rest of her crewmates missing and the ship they are flying in damaged. With help from the ship's AI she/you have to solve both problems.
Melanie Emberly from Cart Life is a mom with a depressing as hell back story but that's nothing new for any character you play in that game.
My 3rd and last contribution to this list is Redacted from Divekick. She is a great parody on female stereotypes in fighters.
Her character provides the holy grail of "fan service" by being completely naked but gets by censors and ratings boards because she's an anthropomorphic animal, who chews cigars instead of smokes them.