Sexualized characters that were done right.

[Dragonbums]

To me a sexualized character "done right" will always be a character where his/her design matches the personality of the character and compliments it. After all appearence speaks just as much about a character as her personality. And in visual mediums first impressions matter A LOT. You can argue that all you want but it's true. It's amazing how all other visual medium outlets understand this, but the videogame outlet is the one creative medium where people will fight this to the death.

For example- if your character is the shy sort who likes to be left alone, I'm not gonna believe that shit if she's wearing a lingerie.

If your character is constantly in a cold environment and is all about surviving, then skills and backstory be damned. If I see her in a fucking fuzzy bra I'm gonna question it. The designers of these characters can make 10 million excuses, but at the end of the day the design was made for titillation. Not for any practical character design perspective.

No one goes after Dead or Alive for being sexist because the devs didn't try to bullshit anyone. They fucking knew what they did and the owned it. However other devs like the dudes behind War Paint will try to act like they were being "culturally relevant" which we all know is a bunch of shit so they got called out on it.

 

[mecegirl]

To me a sexualized character "done right" will always be a character where his/her design matches the personality of the character and compliments it. After all appearence speaks just as much about a character as her personality. And in visual mediums first impressions matter A LOT. You can argue that all you want but it's true. It's amazing how all other visual medium outlets understand this, but the videogame outlet is the one creative medium where people will fight this to the death.

For example- if your character is the shy sort who likes to be left alone, I'm not gonna believe that shit if she's wearing a lingerie.

If your character is constantly in a cold environment and is all about surviving, then skills and backstory be damned. If I see her in a fucking fuzzy bra I'm gonna question it. The designers of these characters can make 10 million excuses, but at the end of the day the design was made for titillation. Not for any practical character design perspective.

No one goes after Dead or Alive for being sexist because the devs didn't try to bullshit anyone. They fucking knew what they did and the owned it. However other devs like the dudes behind War Paint will try to act like they were being "culturally relevant" which we all know is a bunch of shit so they got called out on it.

I'd like to add superhero comic books to that list of creative mediums. But otherwise I agree with all of your points.

 

[Dragonbums]

To me a sexualized character "done right" will always be a character where his/her design matches the personality of the character and compliments it. After all appearence speaks just as much about a character as her personality. And in visual mediums first impressions matter A LOT. You can argue that all you want but it's true. It's amazing how all other visual medium outlets understand this, but the videogame outlet is the one creative medium where people will fight this to the death.

For example- if your character is the shy sort who likes to be left alone, I'm not gonna believe that shit if she's wearing a lingerie.

If your character is constantly in a cold environment and is all about surviving, then skills and backstory be damned. If I see her in a fucking fuzzy bra I'm gonna question it. The designers of these characters can make 10 million excuses, but at the end of the day the design was made for titillation. Not for any practical character design perspective.

No one goes after Dead or Alive for being sexist because the devs didn't try to bullshit anyone. They fucking knew what they did and the owned it. However other devs like the dudes behind War Paint will try to act like they were being "culturally relevant" which we all know is a bunch of shit so they got called out on it.

I'd like to add superhero comic books to that list of creative mediums. But otherwise I agree with all of your points.

Oops. Sometimes I think comics are a bit worse than videogames on this front.

 

[mecegirl]

Oops. Sometimes I think comics are a bit worse than videogames on this front.

Off the top of my head a pretty good example in comics of sexulization that counters a characters backstory is Huntress' "belly window" costume.

Spoiler

Because in the story line right before the appearance of that costume not only was she dressed more modestly. (Or rather in the same fashion as all of Gotham City's heroes covered from neck to toe.)

Spoiler

But she was shot by the Joker in the stomach...And I'm pretty sure that after surviving something like that finding ways to incorporate better armor would be the normal response. At least now she's back to standard Gotham gear.

 

[wulf3n]

referring Wulf3n sexualising her as a symptom of buying a touch too heavily into that power fantasy. Sort of like when you're at a cafe and the waitress smiles as she gives you your coffee and you misconstrue your financial power as sexual power.

That isn't my interpretation it's her design.

The player is supposed to have feelings for her, demonstrated by Episode 2.

also

Are you familiar with the Madonna/Whore complex?

Yes, but I don't see how it fits here.

 

[wulf3n]

As my previous post alluded to, I'm a bit of a Cammy White fan, and she's not exactly a subtle design - she's objectified. But as the next quote makes clear, it seems like we're using the same sets of words with different contexts and/or meanings.

Probably. To be clear my interpretation of the word is as follows:

sexualize (ˈsɛksjʊəˌlaɪz) or sexualise
vb
1. to render sexual; endow with sexual characteristics.
2. to give or acquire sexual associations

Because that's how society commonly limits that definition, and that's the context for this rather superficial thread? A 'sexualised' character is, I think it's fair to say, commonly objectified visually at the expense of their actual character.

That just feels unnecessarily limiting.

...which isn't how the rest of society or the industry sees it. You're fine to use your own subjectively constructed definition, but ultimately it's as useful to do as calling a tractor a lawnmower...

To me it seems as though the rest of society is using a general word to talk about something specific. Like asking for an eating utensil when what you really want is a spoon. In this case it's wanting to talk about visual sexualisation under the banner of sexualisation which isn't inherently visual.

Alyx Vance isn't a 'sexualised character done right'. She's just, by and large, 'a character done right'.

For the most part yes, however she's a little too perfect. What flaws does she have? That's what leads me to the sexualisation observation.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Oh yes, such a broad image. But without any depth, it's just a 2-D picture. Try stepping to the side and seeing beyond the surface of the topic. Trust me, it'll be educational.

Granted, after you said this:

I feel I'm one of the very few people on these forums who tries to see far beyond what people conceive as "issues" and understands the causes of why things happen the way they do.

I wonder if you're one of the few people on these forums who sees beyond what people conceive as issues and understands the causes of why things happen the way they do, thereby horribly missing the point of WHY people have a problem with these things in the first place, all the while assuming that people DON'T understand the causes of why things happen when they have a problem with it.

So, you know. You step back and see the broad picture, but do you actually understand the picture?

Oh I understand perfectly well why people will have a problem with it. They want to see their wants and wishes fulfilled in media and things aren't going their way, the media isn't catering enough to their tastes. That's exactly why they have a problem with it and call it "a problem" i.e. something that is wrong and needs immediate fixing.

I personally find that mindset short-sighted and self-centred. Anyone who understands the causes and understands the big picture should also understand that there is no right or wrong in this industry and no problems - there are only people's purchasing decisions, i.e. what sells and what doesn't. For example Jim will have you believe that EA's practices are horrible and evil (etc etc) but that only hints that maybe Jim doesn't know why EA (and other publishers/devs) continue to do what they do. Consumers drive their practices.

You acknowledge "there is a problem", but you "don't call it a problem"? Right...

Hmm maybe I didn't word that well enough for you to understand. The thing that people are call a problem - I do not call it that. I simply refer to it as another pattern/trend. Does that make sense now?

 

[Vault101]

The latter confuses me, because "appreciating" female beauty seems to translate into "distorting women almost beyond recognition through some sort of haunted funhouse mirror." I mean, the characters in question are usually caricatures. Bayonetta is a prime example.

*shrug* I just know somone here once said they didn't see the big deal because all of it was just "apreciating the beuty of women" like...thanks dude....I get it now, its about your feelings...sorry to be such a meanie

[quote/]
Actually, men don't even need to be a minority to get their "undies in a twist." Just look at the reaction to Twilight. The franchise that launched a million cries of outrage.[/quote]

and it wasn't even for them

[sub/]inb4 "but most things arent for females!" the difference is our selection is tiny beyond com roms...and practically non existant for games[/sub]

 

[wulf3n]

*shrug* I just know somone here once said they didn't see the big deal because all of it was just "apreciating the beuty of women" like...thanks dude....I get it now, its about your feelings...sorry to be such a meanie

So it's actually about your feelings instead. Got it.

 

[Vault101]

So it's actually about your feelings instead. Got it.

not exactly

its more like...another "point" that boils down to the same thing, the refusal to acknowledge an issue...this makes up like 50% of gender arguments

[i/]"its not a thing, go away, stop being mean to the things I like"[/i]

 

[wulf3n]

not exactly

its more like...another "point" that boils down to the same thing, the refusal to acknowledge an issue...this makes up like 50% of gender arguments

[i/]"its not a thing, go away, stop being mean to the things I like"[/i]

Are the arguments of both side really that different though.

When you boil it down both sides are really just fighting for games to be what they want by criticizing those that want something different and their arguments.

The only real difference is one side already has what they want while the other doesn't.

Everyone just wants to enjoy their hobby.

 

[Vault101]

[
Are the arguments of both side really that different though.

When you boil it down both sides are really just fighting for games to be what they want by criticizing those that want something different and their arguments.

The only real difference is one side already has what they want while the other doesn't.

Everyone just wants to enjoy their hobby.

false equivalency...another thing used in de-railing arguments....

no..I don't believe they are, not all "arguments" are equal, or even "arguments" at all, especially when their coming from a....different place...
[spoiler/][img/]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/pir_anha/581997/232001/232001_640.jpg[/img][/spoiler]


I mean as much as I hate to use this example, I don't go up to a black person and say [i/]I think its unfair that I can't use the word N***, my grandfather used to use it all the time, and it upsets me that I can't[/i] <-I sure as fuck shouldn't act like thats a totally reasonable argument with acutal weight5

 

[wulf3n]

false equivalency...another thing used in de-railing arguments....

You know just saying something doesn't make it true right?

no..I don't believe they are, not all "arguments" are equal, or even "arguments" at all, especially when their coming from a....different place...

If that's what you choose to believe so be it.


[spoiler/][img/]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/pir_anha/581997/232001/232001_640.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

haha.

I mean as much as I hate to use this example, I don't go up to a black person and say [i/]I think its unfair that I can't use the word N***, my grandfather used to use it all the time, and it upsets me that I can't[/i] <-I sure as fuck shouldn't act like thats a totally reasonable argument with acutal weight

Yeah, that doesn't actually relate to this situation at all.
This isn't about the "validity" of an argument or "fairness" this is about the inherent selfishness of humanity. Everyone just wants games that appeal to them. Both sides do, as demonstrated by your posts.

 

[Vault101]

You know just saying something doesn't make it true right?

you basically implied both "sides" had vaild reasons and weight in their arguments (and by "sides" I'm referring to someone who tells you there isn't a problem because it doesn't affect them), which comes under false equivalency

[quote/]Everyone just wants to enjoy their hobby.[/quote]

and everyone wants free ice cream too, is it mean of me to imply theres a problem with things people like? shall we sit around the campfire singing kumbaya?



[quote/]If that's what you choose to believe so be it.[/quote]

I'm just saying someone's own experience can add or remove weight from what they say, of course what they say is more important, but fucked if someone is going to tell me "problems don't real" because they get miffed they can't have a share of the oppression pie [footnote/]of coarse as I just did there I don't like dictating what people reasons may be..but I feel like Ive seen time and time again its never actually about a real point, its "you make me feel like the bad guy in the grand narrative of life" and that bothers me[/footnote] if somone had an actual argument then that would be cool, but de-railing is not an argument


[quote/]
Yeah, that doesn't actually relate to this situation at all.
This isn't about the "validity" of an argument or "fairness" this is about the inherent selfishness of humanity. Everyone just wants games that appeal to them. Both sides do, as demonstrated by your posts.[/quote]

yes you're right, this is about selfishness , the person being upset they can't use the n word and the guy dismissing ANY idea of sexualisation being bad through intellectual dishonesty is being self centered, the same people who get their undies in such a twist over "PC" [i/]what do you mean I can't use derogatory terms anymore!! what about my feelings??[/i]

also are you implying there is some agenda that if it gets its way ALL games will become PC positive feminist propaganda? because thats some other level BS trotted out by people who for some reason have a problem with entertainment being more inclusive...and it aint gonna happen

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

When some say "oh it's still a man's world" (implying it's a problem) they seem to be forgetting that's it's primarily because men have played the dominating role in creating everything as we know today and driving progress in all fields.

Change that and media will change accordingly. Change consumer trends and media will change accordingly.

And things ARE changing, it's just that we need to wait many more years/decades to see it happen.

People think "raising awareness" and labelling it as a "problem" is going to speed up change, but really it's not going to do squat over a global scale. Change in fictional media will happen when it needs to, at the pace that it wants to.

In other words, check your privilege, dude.

My only privilege appears to be the ability to take a step back and look at the broader picture : /

Hey quick question

If you don't say you want a cupcake, how am I supposed to know you want a cupcake?

By you saying you want a cupcake.

Same story here. Raising awareness that you want something in your media is what makes change happen in the first place. Things aren't just changing because of the passing of time, they are changing because women are beginning to rake in the dough irl and are starting to speak with their money. Approximately 4/10 households has a woman being the breadwinner nowadays. That's whats changing the landscape.

Not saying anything and sitting idly by is what the catered to do.

It's good women are finally earning money, but asking for 50/50 equality in media (especially videogames) comes across as a bit ridiculous considering extremely few women are interesting in actually MAKING games. They are asking purely to be catered to.
In that regard they are sitting idly by and asking for change to happen, not actually driving it.

 

[wulf3n]

you basically implied both "sides" had vaild reasons and weight in their arguments (and by "sides" I'm referring to someone who tells you there isn't a problem because it doesn't affect them), which comes under false equivalency

If that is what I implied then I apoligise. What I was trying to say was "validity" is a relative term. That to everyone their argument is valid, otherwise they probably wouldn't put it forward.

edit: And that most if not all are just trying to make games better from their perspective. That's what I meant by both side basically having the same argument.

and everyone wants free ice cream too, is it mean of me to imply theres a problem with things people like?

Mean, no. But it's understandable that a person will get defensive when someone criticises something they like/want. Not necessarily excusable, but understandable.

shall we sit around the campfire singing kumbaya?

One day, hopefully.

I'm just saying someone's own experience can add or remove weight from what they say, of course what they say is more important, but fucked if someone is going to tell me "problems don't real" because they get miffed they can't have a share of the oppression pie [footnote/]of coarse as I just did there I don't like dictating what people reasons may be..but I feel like Ive seen time and time again its never actually about a real point, its "you make me feel like the bad guy in the grand narrative of life" and that bothers me[/footnote] if somone had an actual argument then that would be cool, but de-railing is not an argument

Of course, however I doubt many actually see their argument as a "derailment". I mean all arguments are essentially trying to show the other side their position in the hopes everyone comes to a shared understanding, in essence, ending the debate. I understand that it's frustrating having to explain the same thing countless times, I just don't think dismissing their "argument" as something malicious is all that helpful.

I think everyone is just trying to make the games industry their kind of better. Now that's going to cause a lot of contention as "better" in this case is so drastically different for both sides.

yes you're right, this is about selfishness , the person being upset they can't use the n word and the guy dismissing ANY idea of sexualisation being bad through intellectual dishonesty is being self centered, the same people who get their undies in such a twist over "PC" [i/]what do you mean I can't use derogatory terms anymore!! what about my feelings??[/i]

I didn't really think of that, though It does raise an interesting gray area. We think of the use of the derogatory term in that scenario as still being used as derogatory, but what if it's more said person uses that word because they want to be a part of that culture? Is it still as bad? Do we still dismiss them as a racist, or do we accept their intent as naivety over hate, and try convince them otherwise.

also are you implying there is some agenda that if it gets its way ALL games will become PC positive feminist propaganda? because thats some other level BS trotted out by people who for some reason have a problem with entertainment being more inclusive...and it aint gonna happen

No, even if that were the case I wouldn't be that bothered if the agenda got it's way. I mean it would essentially be just changing one agenda for another, at least this would offer a little variety for a while.

All I'm trying to imply is that I don't think it's healthy for the gaming community to keep treating everything as though it is founded by some malicious intent.

Now my initial response was a lot more confrontational than I was intending. What I should have said was if it's not about his feelings then whose feelings is it about, and by extension is it still ok to ignore his feelings?

 

[Vault101]

edit: And that most if not all are just trying to make games better from their perspective. That's what I meant by both side basically having the same argument.

I honestly think some people don't care and get irritated when others start sayign theres a problem...but thats just me and neither here nor there

[quote/]
Mean, no. But it's understandable that a person will get defensive when someone criticises something they like/want. Not necessarily excusable, but understandable.[/quote]

it is understandable but still...

if you have a thing you like...there will ALWAYS be somone out there who will interpret to be problematic in some way shape or form..and some of them might even have fair points, but there comes a point where things are entertainment, and not propaganda to fill an ideology. You have to be [b/]honest[/b] with yourself (which is really really hard) as to weather or not thease points are fair, and if you don't agree then thats fine, if you do agree then thats fine too, you can still enjoy the thing, or if you feel you can't then thats fine too. I don't mind the game Metro last light but boy its got some serious lady issues

just because someone out there said Frozen was actually sexist doesn't nullify other arguments as to weather or not something is sexist and doesn't justify "not dealing with female characters cause its too hard"

[quote/]
Of course, however I doubt many actually see their argument as a "derailment". I mean all arguments are essentially trying to show the other side their position in the hopes everyone comes to a shared understanding, in essence, ending the debate. I understand that it's frustrating having to explain the same thing countless times, I just don't think dismissing their "argument" as something malicious is all that helpful.

I think everyone is just trying to make the games industry their kind of better. Now that's going to cause a lot of contention as "better" in this case is so drastically different for both sides.[/quote]
no its not always malcious, but again when you encounter it enough times it gets irritating, and you get sick of trying to appease peoples feelings

[quote/]
I didn't really think of that, though It does raise an interesting gray area.[/quote]
and it was essentially my entire point

[quote/]We think of the use of the derogatory term in that scenario as still being used as derogatory, but what if it's more said person uses that word because they want to be a part of that culture? Is it still as bad? Do we still dismiss them as a racist, or do we accept their intent as naivety over hate, and try convince them otherwise.[/quote]
well obviously not everyone is malicious, and while I'm not an expert on who should and should use the N-word (since you know..I'm white) I'm not sure somone like Quinen Tarantino gets a free pass just because he genuinely doesn't mean ill by it, he doesn't dictate to black people what they should and shouldn't feel offended by....but anyway that issue is one I don't dare touch.

[quote/]
All I'm trying to imply is that I don't think it's healthy for the gaming community to keep treating everything as though it is founded by some malicious intent.[/quote]
is that what people actually say or people interpret the criticism? in a similar (but more extreme way) how some people think that "clearly feminists hate men" <-uhhh no buddy, we didn't say that at all....like you know, projection?

[quote/] extension is it still ok to ignore his feelings?[/quote]

well I'd explain why his feelings are not a good argument..but again people don't like to hear that

 

[CloudAtlas]

Edit:

It's good women are finally earning money, but asking for 50/50 equality in media (especially videogames) comes across as a bit ridiculous considering extremely few women are interesting in actually MAKING games. They are asking purely to be catered to.
In that regard they are sitting idly by and asking for change to happen, not actually driving it.

Please don't make that lame argument. 99% of male gamers don't develop games themselves either, and are only asking "to be catered to". Yet no one ignores there wishes.

Are you sure, are you really sure you're not applying a double standard here? Also, what happened to money being the one and only driving force behind everything, as you're so fond of claiming all the time? Shouldn't that mean that being a paying customer is not only enough, but all that matters?

Oh yes, such a broad image. But without any depth, it's just a 2-D picture. Try stepping to the side and seeing beyond the surface of the topic. Trust me, it'll be educational.

Granted, after you said this:

I feel I'm one of the very few people on these forums who tries to see far beyond what people conceive as "issues" and understands the causes of why things happen the way they do.

I wonder if you're one of the few people on these forums who sees beyond what people conceive as issues and understands the causes of why things happen the way they do, thereby horribly missing the point of WHY people have a problem with these things in the first place, all the while assuming that people DON'T understand the causes of why things happen when they have a problem with it.

So, you know. You step back and see the broad picture, but do you actually understand the picture?

Oh I understand perfectly well why people will have a problem with it. They want to see their wants and wishes fulfilled in media and things aren't going their way, the media isn't catering enough to their tastes. That's exactly why they have a problem with it and call it "a problem" i.e. something that is wrong and needs immediate fixing.

I personally find that mindset short-sighted and self-centred. Anyone who understands the causes and understands the big picture should also understand that there is no right or wrong in this industry and no problems - there are only people's purchasing decisions, i.e. what sells and what doesn't. For example Jim will have you believe that EA's practices are horrible and evil (etc etc) but that only hints that maybe Jim doesn't know why EA (and other publishers/devs) continue to do what they do. Consumers drive their practices.

You're quoting the wrong person here, but whatever. Your view is still shallow and superficial. And, well, self-contradictory...

You acknowledge "there is a problem", but you "don't call it a problem"? Right...

Hmm maybe I didn't word that well enough for you to understand. The thing that people are call a problem - I do not call it that. I simply refer to it as another pattern/trend. Does that make sense now?

No, you "didn't word that well enough for me to understand" - you worded it in a self-contradictory way.

Also, why aren't you responding to the other instances where I showed you that you make inconsistent arguments? Like the one where you're first claiming it's all about the money, always and exclusively, and consequentially poor female representation in video games is necessarily solely the result of the market not wanting that, but later go on to state that poor female representation is (also) the result of a dearth of women in game development, i.e. NOT due to market demands?

So what is it now? Are game writers writing few and underwhelming female characters because they're male and don't know any better? Or because their audience are immature idiots who don't want any better?

Or what about a third option? Game developers just believing that good, strong female characters just don't sell, without really giving it a try? Perhaps not unlike the movie industry, regardless of evidence to the opposite (Hunger Games, Twilight, Gravity)? Do you preclude the possibility that beliefs which may or may not be based on reality inform these decisions?

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Please don't make that lame argument. 99% of male gamers don't develop games themselves either, and are only asking "to be catered to". Yet no one ignores there wishes.

Oh boy, time for a history lesson then. Males played the dominant role in creating gaming as we know it. They created it for entertainment, pushing the limits of technology, creating an industry, etc. Nobody ignores the wishes of male gamers because gamers were already made BY males FOR males ground-up. There was an early time when games were marketed towards both young girls and boys but the male consumer base simply roared ahead and that's why things are the way they are.

Are you sure, are you really sure you're not applying a double standard here? Also, what happened to money being the one and only driving force behind everything, as you're so fond of claiming all the time? Shouldn't that mean that being a paying customer is not only enough, but all that matters?

It's still the primary driving force but games still need to be made by someone, they don't just appear out of thin air you know. I assumed that people could at least apply basic logic around what I was saying.

You're quoting the wrong person here, but whatever. Your view is still shallow and superficial. And, well, self-contradictory...

Those are adjectives. You need a bit more than that.

No, you "didn't word that well enough for me to understand" - you worded it in a self-contradictory way.

You understood my point - mission accomplished there. How much you want to dwell on my choice of words after understanding the point is of no significance to me.

Also, why aren't you responding to the other instances where I showed you that you make inconsistent arguments? Like the one where you're first claiming it's all about the money, always and exclusively, and consequentially poor female representation in video games is necessarily solely the result of the market not wanting that, but later go on to state that poor female representation is (also) the result of a dearth of women in game development, i.e. NOT due to market demands?

Try not to think of things in such black-and-white. Consumer decisions are the driving force of basically everything that you would call "negative" or "a problem". That is purely what I'm discussing here. The "bad" stuff.

So what is it now? Are game writers writing few and underwhelming female characters because they're male and don't know any better? Or because their audience are immature idiots who don't want any better?

I think it has more to do with gaming in general having poor writing because marrying two concepts (telling a story and letting the player interact/play) is not particularly easy, and it's easy to let the story have a back seat if the gameplay is good enough to rake in sales. Most consumers seem to consider a good story as the icing on the cake, not the core of the cake. That's what consumer patterns have shown so far anyway. A game can have no story whatsoever and still make millions with raw gameplay - what is this telling devs and publishers?

Or what about a third option? Game developers just believing that good, strong female characters just don't sell, without really giving it a try?

More of a case of strong female characters simply not being NECCESSARY because when people play a game, the character they are playing as can often be a blank cardboard "default" character...and the "default" gender in gaming is still considered male e.g. 99% of all enemies and cannon-fodder in games are male/masculine. That's one factor.
Then another factor is the gaming audience categorized by demographics. The "core" demographics (FPS, RTS, Arcade Fighter, RPG, MMO, MOBA, etc) still have a primarily male demographic.
Unfortunately if you ask me to dig up statistics of that I can't find any because the industry seems to be extremely scared of releasing statistics that look completely skewed. There was a survey on this very website on what genders people are, turns out something like 80-85% of this forum community is male...that's sort of a hint. I think that thread was deleted by admins because I can't find it any more.

Perhaps not unlike the movie industry, regardless of evidence to the opposite (Hunger Games, Twilight, Gravity)? Do you preclude the possibility that beliefs which may or may not be based on reality inform these decisions?

Movies are a lot better off in that regard, but let keep this about gaming

 

[CloudAtlas]

Most consumers seem to consider a good story as the icing on the cake, not the core of the cake. That's what consumer patterns have shown so far anyway. (...)

More of a case of strong female characters simply not being NECCESSARY because when people play a game, the character they are playing as can often be a blank cardboard "default" character (...)

For many games, story and characters are very important though; at times even their main selling points. Those are the games that absolutely need good characters. And those are exactly the kind of games that most of the debate about the portrayal and quality of characters beyond a superficial level is revolving around.