Multiple AAA franchises regularly starring a female protagonists now and forever

[Pogilrup]

It is hard to measure the progress of sex and gender diversity in the videogames medium.

But personally I would see it as a milestone if we can get ad blitzes for big name games that feature a female protagonist, not named Samus Aran, Bayonetta or Lara Croft, not just one year or even one decade but every year til the end of humanity.

Now why AAA games? It is because characters of AAA games have a high probability of being ingrained in pop culture memory for years to come.

Many indie games may be successful but few that I know of can achieve widespread pop culture status. Mobile games can achieve pop culture status fast, but can they withstand the test of time?

Having many female protagonists in the medium is good, but having many memorable iconic female protagonists is even better as they would serve as a metaphorical anchor to inspire similar protagonists.

 

[krazykidd]

Hey if it sells, more power to them. If it doesn't we only got ourselves to blame.

Seriously , if games with a female protagonist sold as well or better than ones with male protagonists, we would see a lot more games with female protags. Hell female protagonists could even become the majority if it sold enough.

 

[Pogilrup]

Of course, this future may come with a price.

Franchises typically featuring male protagonists being permanently rebooted with a female protagonist.

Tell me is that something you as a fan are willing to risk?

Personally, I am not really much of a fan of anything but I am very concerned for the medium overall.

EDIT: Also this scenario of opposite sex reboot is very unlikely but not impossible.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

I think it's because of things like the Infinite hidassle of they changed the boxart to hide Elizabeth, or that NaughtyDawg had to fight for Elle on the cover of LastofUs.

Not to mention people want variety from middle aged/under aged white guy.

 

[Zontar]

The biggest issue with having more, good or bad, made tends to be both monetary and critical.

For monetary, it's a risk. Look at the latest Tomb Raider. A big triple A game with a respectable marketing budget. The game sold well by consumer standards, yet it disappointed the industry. This was an iconic character getting a reboot which sold millions. Say what you will about outcry for more female protagonists or that the industry is both giving them an unfair chance and that the expectations for that one game in particular where set too high, the sales figures for it most likely had more of an impact on the industry's view on the matter then all of the news about it for the past 5 years.

Then there's the critical. Put simply, you just can't win this one. Every female protagonist in recent years has been criticized harshly for one reason or another. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes you have a situation with Last of Us where you can get everything right and still be criticised by the very people you where trying to please for reasons which are well outside of the reasonable. Simply put, many company know going in, just by the fact they have a female protagonists there will be harsh, negative criticism aimed towards them (often by the same people demanding more diversity in games. Not always, but often enough that it's no surprise the largest studios elect to ignore the issue all together instead of entering the minefield).

At the end of the day, the change will need to come where it always does in the video game industry, from the small. Small games have always been where the new ideas are experimented with. It's the testing ground which is the most effective trial by fire for new ideas. If there is any hope, it lies with the indies.

 

[Pogilrup]

The biggest issue with having more, good or bad, made tends to be both monetary and critical.

For monetary, it's a risk. Look at the latest Tomb Raider. A big triple A game with a respectable marketing budget. The game sold well by consumer standards, yet it disappointed the industry. This was an iconic character getting a reboot which sold millions. Say what you will about outcry for more female protagonists or that the industry is both giving them an unfair chance and that the expectations for that one game in particular where set too high, the sales figures for it most likely had more of an impact on the industry's view on the matter then all of the news about it for the past 5 years.

Then there's the critical. Put simply, you just can't win this one. Every female protagonist in recent years has been criticized harshly for one reason or another. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes you have a situation with Last of Us where you can get everything right and still be criticised by the very people you where trying to please for reasons which are well outside of the reasonable. Simply put, many company know going in, just by the fact they have a female protagonists there will be harsh, negative criticism aimed towards them (often by the same people demanding more diversity in games. Not always, but often enough that it's no surprise the largest studios elect to ignore the issue all together instead of entering the minefield).

At the end of the day, the change will need to come where it always does in the video game industry, from the small. Small games have always been where the new ideas are experimented with. It's the testing ground which is the most effective trial by fire for new ideas. If there is any hope, it lies with the indies.

Indie games might be able to bring about the change, but it is the AAA that will make sure that the change will stay.

I know shouldn't wish for this, but imagine a future where there is a publisher willing to fund a game franchise featuring a female protagonist and that this franchise releases a game every single year.

Wouldn't that game be more likely to be ingrained in the memory of pop culture than an indie game, that while great as a game, that is only appreciated by a small but dedicated audience?

Remember the pop culture of the present is partially shaped by the pop culture of the past. So the reason the current state of pop culture contained diluted sexism is because it inherited from the pop culture 30 years ago and that pop culture inherited from the pop culture another 30 years ago and so on.

IMO changing AAA games is more likely to affect this vicious cycle.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Hey if it sells, more power to them. If it doesn't we only got ourselves to blame.

Seriously , if games with a female protagonist sold as well or better than ones with male protagonists, we would see a lot more games with female protags. Hell female protagonists could even become the majority if it sold enough.

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I realize voting with wallets is pretty flawed as there's a few variables that are extremely important to consider.

I mean, there's
http://www.themarysue.com/e3-games-female-characters/
that offers a list of 31 games that, at the least, have gender select, and it's not terribly complete, but lemme ask you this, how many have you honestly heard of?
Advertising can make, or break a game, IMO, or at least go a very long way towards it. How can we buy a game we've never heard of?
I mean, that list makes it seem like 2014 will be one of the best years yet for female playable characters, but if no one knows about them, it doesn't help much. Not everyone's as intense about videogame news as to actually look up these games. Most people, IMO, look at shelves, commercials, and maybe will research a little. Hell, maybe that's why so few games are virtually unkillable, like CoD, BF, and GTA as people generally aren't aware of other stuff?

Then there's the variables that don't include the protagonist being female. I mean, there's games like Hydrophobia, and Amy that came out a year or two ago. They were not great games. If the game itself is terrible, people won't likely buy it no matter who the protagonist is.

For all the potential it had, Remember Me squandered it. It wasn't a fantastic game, but it wasn't terrible, IMO.

Having played Assassin's Creed Liberation, it's not bad, but it's lacking the Multiplayer AC fans love, and I dunno if it's just Liberation, or what, but the climbing, and some free running mechanics were buggy. Great game, but flawed, and second rate compared to the ones originally made for console. If it weren't for the lower price point, I'd say the game is at a disadvantage.
None the less, I do support the idea of middle cost games like AC: Liberation if it means women getting their foot in the door.

Venetica's a pretty nice game, but flawed, and absurdly under the radar, IMO, so of course it's not going to do well.

Of course, there's the whole fact that the games we might want to buy don't exist, like AC Unity, and Farcry 4 with female playable characters. <.<
I guess I'm saying there's some solid limits to genres we can use our wallets on.
Open world games, sports games (For he life of me, I could swear there was a sports game with gender select, but I sure can't remember it.), and I can't remember many other genres. CoD gave us female avatars. Sure, we have Saints Row, but sadly, where's Saints Row lately?
GTA Online is nice in an MMO sort of way, but it's no story mode.

Then there's the console itself. Vita, and PSP aren't really going anywhere. Expecting a game to sell well on a system that isn't selling well is a bit unfair?
It's not likely that people will have multiple systems. An Xbone player can't very well vote with a 3ds game if they don't have a 3ds, right? Unless they just buy the game for some reason.
People just don't have the money to throw at the industry to keep up with everything.

Voting with indie games is flawed in that I'm not terribly sure indie games have made a large impact in the industry. Sure, some indie games appear on consoles, but what has the main industry really taken away from the indie game developers?

The ultimate blow to voting with your wallet is the fact that the industry in general seems to feel like they an make enough money without being inclusive, so they just aren't. There's few exceptions, like Square, Tecmo-Koei, and Platinum that seem to do what ever they want.
The industry sabotages itself, by and large, which leads to the whole lack of games to vote with.

There's more I could cover, but I think I made my point, and I don't want to go on too long.

Sure, we can buy the games we can, but it feels like it's not a winning tactic to me.

 

[Elfgore]

Not to mention people want variety from middle aged/under aged white guy.

Now I want to make clear that I'm not against diversity, just I think this is a good point.

When you say "people" who do you mean? Like everyone on The Escapist? Or do you mean everyone who plays video games? I would say a lot of us on The Escapist want more diversity, but we're the minority of gamers. I have no clue what the majority wants since they rarely voice their opinions to others, especially random people on the internet.

I also hate to say this, especially since I enjoy artistic freedom, but the video game industry is a business. When games with white protagonist sell better than anything else, publishers are going to push studios to release games as such. Which is something that I consider sad but true. Fixing the problem is going to be difficult and admit I see no solution that isn't nigh impossible.

 

[Pogilrup]

Some of you prefer to make a sandstorm (i.e. encourage more indie games with diverse characters) and hopefully there are some of you who prefer to throw boulders (i.e. pressure the AAA to have a change in design direction).

Personally, I want to see those "boulders" displaced.

EDIT: Ok maybe it should be "I'll go with the boulders whenever there's a chance".

 

[Zontar]

The biggest issue with having more, good or bad, made tends to be both monetary and critical.

For monetary, it's a risk. Look at the latest Tomb Raider. A big triple A game with a respectable marketing budget. The game sold well by consumer standards, yet it disappointed the industry. This was an iconic character getting a reboot which sold millions. Say what you will about outcry for more female protagonists or that the industry is both giving them an unfair chance and that the expectations for that one game in particular where set too high, the sales figures for it most likely had more of an impact on the industry's view on the matter then all of the news about it for the past 5 years.

Then there's the critical. Put simply, you just can't win this one. Every female protagonist in recent years has been criticized harshly for one reason or another. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes you have a situation with Last of Us where you can get everything right and still be criticised by the very people you where trying to please for reasons which are well outside of the reasonable. Simply put, many company know going in, just by the fact they have a female protagonists there will be harsh, negative criticism aimed towards them (often by the same people demanding more diversity in games. Not always, but often enough that it's no surprise the largest studios elect to ignore the issue all together instead of entering the minefield).

At the end of the day, the change will need to come where it always does in the video game industry, from the small. Small games have always been where the new ideas are experimented with. It's the testing ground which is the most effective trial by fire for new ideas. If there is any hope, it lies with the indies.

Indie games might be able to bring about the change, but it is the AAA that will make sure that the change will stay.

I know shouldn't wish for this, but imagine a future where there is a publisher willing to fund a game franchise featuring a female protagonist and that this franchise releases a game every single year.

Wouldn't that game be more likely to be ingrained in the memory of pop culture than an indie game, that while great as a game, that is only appreciated by a small but dedicated audience?

Remember the pop culture of the present is partially shaped by the pop culture of the past. So the reason the current state of pop culture contained diluted sexism is because it inherited from the pop culture 30 years ago and that pop culture inherited from the pop culture another 30 years ago and so on.

IMO changing AAA games is more likely to affect this vicious cycle.

The problem is that triple A gaming tends to be the old guard built into a rigid system. If you want a new idea, it needs to be proven in a trial by fire. Numbers don't lie, and the only numbers the larger parts of the industry care about are telling them right now that it isn't a good idea. Sure, you could have 1 big triple A title try and make a new annual IP with a female protagonist, but what if it fails? What if it under-preforms (which already happened) or flops, or worst costs a studio its own existence? All change is slow, you don't change ingrained ideas overnight (not if you want them to work instead of exploding in your face and setting back the implementation of your ideals back).

You're right that a triple A game is more likely to affect the vicious cycle, but that works both ways. Slower progress which can reinforce and truly assert itself has always worked better then sudden changes done in leaps and bounds.

 

[Pogilrup]

The biggest issue with having more, good or bad, made tends to be both monetary and critical.

For monetary, it's a risk. Look at the latest Tomb Raider. A big triple A game with a respectable marketing budget. The game sold well by consumer standards, yet it disappointed the industry. This was an iconic character getting a reboot which sold millions. Say what you will about outcry for more female protagonists or that the industry is both giving them an unfair chance and that the expectations for that one game in particular where set too high, the sales figures for it most likely had more of an impact on the industry's view on the matter then all of the news about it for the past 5 years.

Then there's the critical. Put simply, you just can't win this one. Every female protagonist in recent years has been criticized harshly for one reason or another. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes you have a situation with Last of Us where you can get everything right and still be criticised by the very people you where trying to please for reasons which are well outside of the reasonable. Simply put, many company know going in, just by the fact they have a female protagonists there will be harsh, negative criticism aimed towards them (often by the same people demanding more diversity in games. Not always, but often enough that it's no surprise the largest studios elect to ignore the issue all together instead of entering the minefield).

At the end of the day, the change will need to come where it always does in the video game industry, from the small. Small games have always been where the new ideas are experimented with. It's the testing ground which is the most effective trial by fire for new ideas. If there is any hope, it lies with the indies.

Indie games might be able to bring about the change, but it is the AAA that will make sure that the change will stay.

I know shouldn't wish for this, but imagine a future where there is a publisher willing to fund a game franchise featuring a female protagonist and that this franchise releases a game every single year.

Wouldn't that game be more likely to be ingrained in the memory of pop culture than an indie game, that while great as a game, that is only appreciated by a small but dedicated audience?

Remember the pop culture of the present is partially shaped by the pop culture of the past. So the reason the current state of pop culture contained diluted sexism is because it inherited from the pop culture 30 years ago and that pop culture inherited from the pop culture another 30 years ago and so on.

IMO changing AAA games is more likely to affect this vicious cycle.

The problem is that triple A gaming tends to be the old guard built into a rigid system. If you want a new idea, it needs to be proven in a trial by fire. Numbers don't lie, and the only numbers the larger parts of the industry care about are telling them right now that it isn't a good idea. Sure, you could have 1 big triple A title try and make a new annual IP with a female protagonist, but what if it fails? What if it under-preforms (which already happened) or flops, or worst costs a studio its own existence? All change is slow, you don't change ingrained ideas overnight (not if you want them to work instead of exploding in your face and setting back the implementation of your ideals back).

You're right that a triple A game is more likely to affect the vicious cycle, but that works both ways. Slower progress which can reinforce and truly assert itself has always worked better then sudden changes done in leaps and bounds.

Sigh, okay that's pretty convincing.

Still that doesn't meant we can't and/or shouldn't try to change certain AAA titles no matter how obstinate the people behind the projects may be.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

Sure, you could have 1 big triple A title try and make a new annual IP with a female protagonist, but what if it fails? What if it under-preforms (which already happened) or flops, or worst costs a studio its own existence?

I'm not sure that AAA "failure" is an accurate barometer of anything. They overspend themselves and then leave it up to us consumers to cover their asses, and so, if we don't buy in "OMGZ smashed every record of all time!!" numbers, then the AAA producers blame us for the game's so-called disappointing returns. If they would show some damn restraint in their budgets, then maybe 6.5 million sales wouldn't be considered a failure state.

Point is, in my opinion, they're the ones who failed Tomb Raider, not the buying public.

 

[Zontar]

Sure, you could have 1 big triple A title try and make a new annual IP with a female protagonist, but what if it fails? What if it under-preforms (which already happened) or flops, or worst costs a studio its own existence?

I'm not sure that AAA "failure" is an accurate barometer of anything. They overspend themselves and then leave it up to us consumers to cover their asses, and so, if we don't buy in "OMGZ smashed every record of all time!!" numbers, then the AAA producers blame us for the game's so-called disappointing returns. If they would show some damn restraint in their budgets, then maybe 6.5 million sales wouldn't be considered a failure state.

Point is, in my opinion, they're the ones who failed Tomb Raider, not the buying public.

That may be true, but from the industry's perspective it's the bottom line which counts above all else, not the measurable success of a game in the market itself, not the overspending in the making of the game, just how much money they make off it in the end.

It doesn't really matter who failed the game in the end, what matters is that it did fail, and that harmed the idea of big budget games on a triple A level having female protagonists. Not a desirably situation, but one which is a by-product of the system in place (a system which the industry would not be able to function without, making the problem worst because of it).

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I mean, there's
http://www.themarysue.com/e3-games-female-characters/
that offers a list of 31 games that, at the least, have gender select, and it's not terribly complete, but lemme ask you this, how many have you honestly heard of?

Actually, quite a few of them. And in the comments section of that post, the first one lists even more - and I recognize most of those as well. I guess, if you are not well versed in games, or have been living under a rock, you may not have heard of these titles. But I'd suspect that most gamers - at least on this site - have heard of these.

The ones I didn't know are probably new IPs introduced at E3 - so it makes sense to not have heard of them.

Asking a member of this community (or most gaming communities for that matter) if they know about "x" game is not going to work, since I'll bet they have.

Edit: go ahead and check out my psn profile and see if I've played some of the games you mentionned like Venetica and Saints Row...

http://psnprofiles.com/s69-5

Well, the point of the question was to get people to think about how much they've heard about the games. Odds are most gamers have heard even less than that, since most people here are generally pretty well informed. Heck, the ones people haven't heard of are likely to be near unknown to most unless word gets out, or they see it on a shelf.

Yeah, later on in the post I said something to the effect that most gamers aren't like us, I think. They aren't going to be that much in the know, and may not even be arsed to find games like Venetica short of buying a bargain game.

Saints row wasn't in my list of obscure games.
It definitely isn't that obscure, as opposed to sitting in the shadow of the Giant named GTA. I'm kinda bummed that the Saints row series has pretty much ended.

My point is I imagine a lot of gamers aren't as in the know as we are, and I believe I said as much. That said, there's ample room for any game to not do well simply because there's not enough people that know about it.

 

[kilenem]

On the one side I'm like if the creator of the game wanted a male protagonist let him have his freedom but on the other side I hate hearing something like there couldn't be a female protagonist in GTA. I know a girl who shot a guy four times in the back while he walking his kid. Females could be in every game but if a creator has a ligetimate reason for excludeing a female from a game let him do it. Unless its because of marketing, Mrs. Pack Man was designed and marketed for women and is still staple of the video game industry. Played by women and men.

 

[KaZuYa]

The problem is that sex sells and soon as you put a female protagonist in front of the marketing and money men all they are going to want to see is skimpy outfits and big breasts because that's what sells in every other market and these people are professional marketers not excusive to games and if it works everywhere else it will work in games. Gaming can't change the world and to prove my point as a type this an advert for Fashiontv is playing underneath and what does it feature, yup a pretty girl with large breasts dancing about in her underwear.

 

[Syntax Error]

Hey if it sells, more power to them. If it doesn't we only got ourselves to blame.

Seriously , if games with a female protagonist sold as well or better than ones with male protagonists, we would see a lot more games with female protags. Hell female protagonists could even become the majority if it sold enough.

Maybe games with playable female protagonists would sell more if they were actually fun? It's like INNOVATION, really. You don't "innovate" for the sake of innovation so you have a new feature bullet point at the back of the box. "Diversity" is probably the newest buzzword these days and for what? To correct a perceived slight to the fairer gender? Make them fun first, and make sure that everything else you develop would be gender-neutral so you can plop whatever male, female or LGBT protagonist you can think of.

 

[zumbledum]

It is hard to measure the progress of sex and gender diversity in the videogames medium.

But personally I would see it as a milestone if we can get ad blitzes for big name games that feature a female protagonist, not named Samus Aran, Bayonetta or Lara Croft, not just one year or even one decade but every year til the end of humanity.

Now why AAA games? It is because characters of AAA games have a high probability of being ingrained in pop culture memory for years to come.

Many indie games may be successful but few that I know of can achieve widespread pop culture status. Mobile games can achieve pop culture status fast, but can they withstand the test of time?

Having many female protagonists in the medium is good, but having many memorable iconic female protagonists is even better as they would serve as a metaphorical anchor to inspire similar protagonists.

Hi , im a gamer, i play games because they are games. can you explain to me how it matters to a game what gender/species the character i am controlling is? because after 35+ years of playing games i havent seen one. if there were laws or active discrimination like there used to be you might have a point. but your just asking some poor company to fall on the sword for your pointless crusade.

not that it matters but why do you only care about getting enough women in? what about old people , fat people, ugly people, black people, or people that dont speak english.
its all irelevant to gaming ofc i just wonder why you discriminate

 

[krazykidd]

Hey if it sells, more power to them. If it doesn't we only got ourselves to blame.

Seriously , if games with a female protagonist sold as well or better than ones with male protagonists, we would see a lot more games with female protags. Hell female protagonists could even become the majority if it sold enough.

Maybe games with playable female protagonists would sell more if they were actually fun? It's like INNOVATION, really. You don't "innovate" for the sake of innovation so you have a new feature bullet point at the back of the box. "Diversity" is probably the newest buzzword these days and for what? To correct a perceived slight to the fairer gender? Make them fun first, and make sure that everything else you develop would be gender-neutral so you can plop whatever male, female or LGBT protagonist you can think of.

I agree with you 100%. I personally don't care who i am playing when i play a game. However, do you think there is a correlation between games having a female protagonist and games not being fun? I doubt a dev would make a game less fun because the game has a girl protag.