The New York Times Criticizes The Last of Us for Having a Male Protagonist

[Fdzzaigl]

Haven't played this game, so I don't know why they pick it specifically to complain about that issue. But I do find that games go for the "burly guy" protagonists way too often.

I'd love to see more powerful and genuine alternatives, not just mature women but also perhaps younger children (even if put into difficult situations) and less burly men. Honestly, I think that many companies just pick this type of white male protagonist because they're unable to think outside the box, or unjustly think the audience somehow demands it.

I realise that I'm posting alot of times in a short space of time(generally I try to avoid that) so I'm sorry if you lot are getting sick of me.

But... how do we know it's unjust? We don't know it's unjust, and I doubt people inside the industry are willing to be as assumptious as your average forum dweller(no offence meant) about what will and won't work. Because... it's in their business interests to know a thing or two based on actual empirical knowledge rather than guess-work.

I think that the reason that industry-insiders don't come out and refute some of these claims directly is because they're terrified of bad press. Bad press in the internet age is truly menacing, so don't tell people what they don't wanna hear.

Maybe "unjust" could have been worded better. But what reason is there to assume that such is really the case? I mean, we've been having popular franchises like Lara Croft and Samus Aran for years in gaming, not to say that they're the best example of powerful protagonists.

Other media have proven very successful when stepping outside the traditional. Like Stieg Larsson's books (Lisbeth Salander) and subsequent films, "The Descent" horror film with only women roles etc.

First off, I think habits and perceptions often start settling down as "truths" in the minds of people, game developers included, while you could just as well be successful with something else, or even more so.

Secondly, not everything in gaming should be about making the absolute maximum of money possible at all times. God forbid that there are still some devs out there who could actually make a choice in favour of creativity and stronger storytelling.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Haven't played this game, so I don't know why they pick it specifically to complain about that issue. But I do find that games go for the "burly guy" protagonists way too often.

I'd love to see more powerful and genuine alternatives, not just mature women but also perhaps younger children (even if put into difficult situations) and less burly men. Honestly, I think that many companies just pick this type of white male protagonist because they're unable to think outside the box, or unjustly think the audience somehow demands it.

I realise that I'm posting alot of times in a short space of time(generally I try to avoid that) so I'm sorry if you lot are getting sick of me.

But... how do we know it's unjust? We don't know it's unjust, and I doubt people inside the industry are willing to be as assumptious as your average forum dweller(no offence meant) about what will and won't work. Because... it's in their business interests to know a thing or two based on actual empirical knowledge rather than guess-work.

I think that the reason that industry-insiders don't come out and refute some of these claims directly is because they're terrified of bad press. Bad press in the internet age is truly menacing, so don't tell people what they don't wanna hear.

Maybe "unjust" could have been worded better. But what reason is there to assume that such is really the case? I mean, we've been having popular franchises like Lara Croft and Samus Aran for years in gaming, not to say that they're the best example of powerful protagonists.

Other media have proven very successful when stepping outside the traditional. Like Stieg Larsson's books (Lisbeth Salander) and subsequent films, "The Descent" horror film with only women roles etc.

First off, I think habits and perceptions often start settling down as "truths" in the minds of people, game developers included, while you could just as well be successful with something else, or even more so.

Secondly, not everything in gaming should be about making the absolute maximum of money possible at all times. God forbid that there are still some devs out there who could actually make a choice in favour of creativity and stronger storytelling.

I'm saying that I doubt that they do just assume anything. Doesn't everyone do market research? Which seems alot like the opposite of being happy to just assume that something is true.

It's not to say that a game couldn't subvert the industry norms and be successful(good ideas often come from out on the fringe). It's to say that the people getting indignant about these companies not gambling should get over themselves. If there was truly as big of an untapped market as a lot of people are claiming, somebody would stroll in and clean up.

I don't understand how people can in good-conscience be talking about what these companies should do without knowing what they're talking about.

 

[Rariow]

You've missed the point. The point is that no game wants to tell the story of a Clementine, or an Ellie, or any female protagonist, when they can instead go with yet another male character father figure as the protagonist.

Fair enough, but if that's not the story the game devs set out to tell, it's simply irrelevant and even somewhat rude to tell them they're doing it wrong. The Last of Us set out to tell the story it wanted to tell. If that's not the story you want, I'm sorry, but that's just not a problem with it, it's a problem with your expectations of it. I'd love to play a game where you play the Ellie or the Clementine. The fact that that's not the game Naughty Dog made doesn't make it worse in the slightest.

If you wanted, you can still tell a story about parenthood, with a grown woman caring for an Ellie or Clementine, but that is unthinkable to game writers. It has to be a man's story, it has to be a male protagonist, and we have to think twice about even putting a female character on the box art, let alone letting them lead in a game. Think I'm wrong? Please point me in the direction of all the game stories featuring female protagonists who look over the age of 30.

That is completely fair. But that's not what Suellentrop seems to be saying at all. He's just complaining over and over about how you're playing Joel instead of Ellie. He's not looking for a parenthood-themed game, he's looking for a broken childhood-themed game, and it's just unfair of him to hold that against The Last of Us. If his argument was "Joel could've just as easily been female", I might've not cared nearly as much. But the way he puts it seems to be "The game was made worse by Joel being male", which, I'm sorry, but is just blatantly untrue. Joel's gender really does not matter in the slightest.

To be completely honest, re-reading my post now and remembering how I felt back then I can't really figure out why I was so angry. It still mildly annoys me, but nothing to warrant the seething rage I had at the time.

 

[TomPreston]

The fact that Naughty Dog had to go through so much turmoil just to get her on the cover of the box is a serious issue we need to address and change.

No. It is not an issue. Do you think "the fact coca cola had to use a black color on the coke zero cans is a serious issue we need to address and change"? If not than this isn't an issue either.

The packaging is still to this day an extremely important aspect of marketing. There is no issue whatsoever with someone/a company thinking putting certain characters on the package would lower its marketability.

There is an issue with the creepy fact that the concept of a female character on the cover of a video game box DOES lower it's marketability. Don't give me the "market demands it" rhetoric because that's a cop out.

By the way, Naughty Dog's game does feature a woman on the cover right now. How've the sales to that game been? Has her being on the cover prevented the game from being considered a masterpiece or affected sales in any way? If not then wouldn't that kinda prove that the whole "you can't have women on a cover because it's not really marketable" concept to be... flawed? I'd be very interested to see how this game does in comparison to other games, especially since it's gotten so many rave reviews.

 

[generals3]

There is an issue with the creepy fact that the concept of a female character on the cover of a video game box DOES lower it's marketability. Don't give me the "market demands it" rhetoric because that's a cop out.

By the way, Naughty Dog's game does feature a woman on the cover right now. How've the sales to that game been? Has her being on the cover prevented the game from being considered a masterpiece or affected sales in any way? If not then wouldn't that kinda prove that the whole "you can't have women on a cover because it's not really marketable" concept to be... flawed? I'd be very interested to see how this game does in comparison to other games, especially since it's gotten so many rave reviews.

Why is it creepy? Or at least any more creepy than coke zero having to adopt a darker color than coke light? There is nothing creepy about people not being drawn towards a box with a woman on it as much as a box with a man on it. Unless off course you think marketing is creepy in general.

And unfortunately that's not how you test this. The good test would be to take a sample of X gamers and than confront them with the box with the girl on it and the one without the girl and see how they react.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

Wow, the New York Times (one of the most hypocritical, insane, moon-logic following paper of lies) has a problem with a game, and ties their silly politically correct dogma to it. News flash: Grass is green and the ocean is wet. I was already going to get The Last Of Us, but this is going to make me buy it today instead of waiting for the price of a new copy to drop.

 

[TomPreston]

There is an issue with the creepy fact that the concept of a female character on the cover of a video game box DOES lower it's marketability. Don't give me the "market demands it" rhetoric because that's a cop out.

By the way, Naughty Dog's game does feature a woman on the cover right now. How've the sales to that game been? Has her being on the cover prevented the game from being considered a masterpiece or affected sales in any way? If not then wouldn't that kinda prove that the whole "you can't have women on a cover because it's not really marketable" concept to be... flawed? I'd be very interested to see how this game does in comparison to other games, especially since it's gotten so many rave reviews.

Why is it creepy? Or at least any more creepy that coke zero had to adopt a darker color than coke light? There is nothing creepy about people not being drawn towards a box with a woman on it as much as a box with a man on it. Unless off course you think marketing is creepy in general.

And unfortunately that's not how you test this. The good test would be to take a sample of X gamers and than confront them with the box with the girl on it and the one without the girl and see how they react.

It's creepy because:

1. It implies that women aren't important enough or are somehow detrimental to the sales of a game. By your logic of "what marketing tells us" the latest Tomb Raider should've had a man on the cover.

2. It ignores reality where women do make up a sizable chunk of the gaming sphere right now. Women only make up 50% of the entire planet's gender after all... it's creepy that women aren't featured more equally in entertainment both men and women enjoy. The excuse "women don't play or want these sorts of games" is inherently flawed as well because developers and marketing don't TRY so how would they KNOW? It's the whole "we've always done it this way therefor there's no need to change" mentality that plagues ALL backwards thinking.

3. Marketing statistics are often skewed and inaccurate. For example, with this very game Naughty Dog had to fight to have a woman featured on the cover. They suggested a focus test group to do EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. Only problem? They never even considered the CONCEPT of having WOMEN in the focus test group. Naughty Dog had to force them to include women in the focus group. Even if you have to begrudgingly admit it, you have to agree that that's kinda messed up. Not including women in a focus test group to see if having a woman on the cover of a game is alright... that's messed up. It's almost like they were trying to find data to prove their theory.

 

[Something Amyss]

an ignorant self-styled critic raving about sexism in video games. havent seen enough of those.

Yeah, how dare a critic for a prominent paper consider himself a critic and think he has grounds to sound off on critical issues. What insanity.

 

[Bruce]

Eh, I can kind of sympathise.

I review for a newspaper too, which means I get the games but not the pressure to sugar-coat, particularly as I have avoided falling into the trap of games journalism.

Anyway, the main thing is I play a lot of games, of very varying quality. Bad games often end up with the same tropes and set-ups as good games.

That can after a while wear on you as you play and notice the same elements from the last five terrible games you have played now in a game that is actually quite good.

As a pure gamer I found I could overlook a lot of this, I didn't notice recurring patterns the same, but as a critic I have to pay more attention and deconstruct why I like or dislike a game, and what elements in good games bug me.

And some of that is going to be stuff that I have seen handled badly in worse games. It is a bit like eating something a bit vrot can put you off eating the same thing but fresh.

How one should handle that as a reviewer I'm not too sure. Personally I try to not have that taint my reviews, because I have played those bad games but you haven't and a reviewer should serve his or her audience.

But at the same time a review is supposed to be an opinion so I can see how somebody else could take a different approach to it.

 

[EHKOS]

Yeah, no. I've played about two hours, there's no problem with the game. Well, it's a little slowly paced right now, but it's greatly immerseive. And from what I've seen so far, she couldn't make it on her own, not because of her gender, but because of her age. Now shut up and let one of the highest quality studios tell their damn story.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wow, the New York Times (one of the most hypocritical, insane, moon-logic following paper of lies) has a problem with a game, and ties their silly politically correct dogma to it. News flash: Grass is green and the ocean is wet. I was already going to get The Last Of Us, but this is going to make me buy it today instead of waiting for the price of a new copy to drop.

It always amuses me when one of the sources that most consistently leads the media in informed viewers/listeners/readers is accused of "dogma" and "lies." It's not only funny, but demonstrates how much people prefer being told what they want to hear rather than what is true. Then again, reality does have a known liberal bias.

 

[FoolKiller]

On Topic: "reviewers" need to play and then review a game based on what it is. Instead of playing and reviewing a game against what you want it to be. This makes about a much since as reviewing Elmo in Grouch land then complaining cause their wasn't as much FPS action in it as you wanted.

Its like the review I read for Silent Hill: Downpour. One reviewer constantly criticized it for not being a shooter. I was confused.

 

[generals3]

It's creepy because:

1. It implies that women aren't important enough or are somehow detrimental to the sales of a game. By your logic of "what marketing tells us" the latest Tomb Raider should've had a man on the cover.

It has nothing to do with importance, I would have thought my comparison with coke would have made that clear "black" is not more important than "grey" either. The latest tomb raider shouldn't because the protagonist was a female and showing the protagonist on the box is congruent with the content. You see it's like putting a soldier on the box of a shooter would probably attract costumers but doing the same on Sim City's box would probably raise more confusion than anything else. What you want is a box art which is congruent with the content and attracts the attention of potential buyers in a positive way.
And "are somehow detrimental to sales", yes, so what? You won't see men in banana hammocks in a car show either. So what?

2. It ignores reality where women do make up a sizable chunk of the gaming sphere right now. Women only make up 50% of the entire planet's gender after all... it's creepy that women aren't featured more equally in entertainment both men and women enjoy. The excuse "women don't play or want these sorts of games" is inherently flawed as well because developers and marketing don't TRY so how would they KNOW? It's the whole "we've always done it this way therefor there's no need to change" mentality that plagues ALL backwards thinking.

And let me use your own logic against you: Is it that men don't like lipstick because companies don't try to sell lipstick to men? Or maybe... just maybe it's the other way around?

If you ever heard of "market research" you'd know your entire second point is most likely moot. Unless you assume the entire marketing departments of companies like EA and Activision haven't even had a marketing 101 course and have their heads stuck in their asses?

3. Marketing statistics are often skewed and inaccurate. For example, with this very game Naughty Dog had to fight to have a woman featured on the cover. They suggested a focus test group to do EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. Only problem? They never even considered the CONCEPT of having WOMEN in the focus test group. Naughty Dog had to force them to include women in the focus group. Even if you have to begrudgingly admit it, you have to agree that that's kinda messed up. Not including women in a focus test group to see if having a woman on the cover of a game is alright... that's messed up. It's almost like they were trying to find data to prove their theory.

And Naughty dog thus showed why devs shouldn't do marketing. Your focus group should represent your main target segments. You ain't going to have 90y old people in a focus group about Call Of Duty either.

 

[shadowuser10141]

Unless you assume the entire marketing departments of companies like EA and Activision haven't even had a marketing 101 course and have their heads stuck in their asses?

Yeah, Jim Sterling makes entertaining videos every week but he always claims that publishers are clueless and gaming would better if he was in charge.
Really? There is reason these companies are at the helm of the industry.

 

[Bruce]

And Naughty dog thus showed why devs shouldn't do marketing. Your focus group should represent your main target segments. You ain't going to have 90y old people in a focus group about Call Of Duty either.

So, why shouldn't the game's target audience include women? What is particularly gendered about a post apocalyptic setting?

Here is the thing with marketing, the publishers are generally terrible at it. They enter with the idea of "This is my market" and it hasn't been the market for 10 years. The average gamer's age is about 30, women over the age of 18 represent a greater portion of the gaming market than boys under 17. (31% versus 19%)

Games are still being mainly marketed to boys under 17. That is who is ending up in the focus groups.

 

[shadowuser10141]

And Naughty dog thus showed why devs shouldn't do marketing. Your focus group should represent your main target segments. You ain't going to have 90y old people in a focus group about Call Of Duty either.
The average gamer's age is about 30, women over the age of 18 represent a greater portion of the gaming market than boys under 17. (31% versus 19%)

Out of the 31% how many own a console? Don't tell me it's irrelevant.

 

[generals3]

So, why shouldn't the game's target audience include women? What is particularly gendered about a post apocalyptic setting?

Here is the thing with marketing, the publishers are generally terrible at it. They enter with the idea of "This is my market" and it hasn't been the market for 10 years. The average gamer's age is about 30, women over the age of 18 represent a greater portion of the gaming market than boys under 17. (31% versus 19%)

Games are still being mainly marketed to boys under 17. That is who is ending up in the focus groups.

Violent videogames are much more preferred by men than women. And men tend to prefer action/shooters/RPG games. And if you want I can copy paste the links to study for it again but tbh i'm getting sick of linking them in every topic.

You talk about the average gamer... Which says nothing about the average gamer for said game. Someone who plays farmville most likely doesn't have the same profile as someone who plays Solitaire or Call of Duty. That's why your statistics show nothing. All you do is further prove my point by showing your lack of understanding of marketing (which is not a problem, but you shouldn't act like you understand it better than companies making millions while you obviously know little about it).

Also you need to understand that marketing something towards a group doesn't always exclude the other. For instance by making a game appealing to 17y olds you're maybe making it appealing for 40y old as well because the 40y old who play said games do it for the same reasons as the 17y olds.

I can easily illustrate this phenomenon with a Belgian example. Jupiler is a typically masculine beer brand, it has manly adds, they sponsor soccer (typically a man's sport) and their slogan is "Jupiler, Men Know Why". And guess what? It's the favorite beer of women.

However based on the current "clash" it's obvious what men want is not the same as what women want in videogames. Hence why in a segment still dominated by men that's who you want to listen to.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

I'm saying that I doubt that they do just assume anything. Doesn't everyone do market research? Which seems alot like the opposite of being happy to just assume that something is true.

It's not to say that a game couldn't subvert the industry norms and be successful(good ideas often come from out on the fringe). It's to say that the people getting indignant about these companies not gambling should get over themselves. If there was truly as big of an untapped market as a lot of people are claiming, somebody would stroll in and clean up.

I don't understand how people can in good-conscience be talking about what these companies should do without knowing what they're talking about.

Honestly man, I'm just giving my opinion. My opinion is that I'd like to see a more varied scene in terms of videogame protagonists. I never wanted to say that I have the truth or that I know perfectly well what is going on in the heads of others.

However, coming myself from a (still limited experience) "media" background, I can say that at least in my experience, determining a target audience for a project often goes together with a lot of conjecture and what is perceived as "common sense" not always with academic research, you'd take years to get anything off the ground then. The problem with common sense, is that it can also drive you into cliché territory if you don't open yourself up for new ideas enough.

Finally, I don't want to kick your legs here mate, but you haven't exactly provided any evidence yourself to show that games with burly white male protagonists are so much more popular. The reasoning of "all those people can't be wrong" is a weak argument at best.

 

[Bruce]

So, why shouldn't the game's target audience include women? What is particularly gendered about a post apocalyptic setting?

Here is the thing with marketing, the publishers are generally terrible at it. They enter with the idea of "This is my market" and it hasn't been the market for 10 years. The average gamer's age is about 30, women over the age of 18 represent a greater portion of the gaming market than boys under 17. (31% versus 19%)

Games are still being mainly marketed to boys under 17. That is who is ending up in the focus groups.

Violent videogames are much more preferred by men than women. And men tend to prefer action/shooters/RPG games. And if you want I can copy paste the links to study for it again but tbh i'm getting sick of linking them in every topic.

You talk about the average gamer... Which says nothing about the average gamer for said game. Someone who plays farmville most likely doesn't have the same profile as someone who plays Solitaire or Call of Duty. That's why your statistics show nothing. All you do is further prove my point by showing your lack of understanding of marketing (which is not a problem, but you shouldn't act like you understand it better than companies making millions while you obviously know little about it).

Also you need to understand that marketing something towards a group doesn't always exclude the other. For instance by making a game appealing to 17y olds you're maybe making it appealing for 40y old as well because the 40y old who play said games do it for the same reasons as the 17y olds.

I can easily illustrate this phenomenon with a Belgian example. Jupiler is a typically masculine beer brand, it has manly adds, they sponsor soccer (typically a man's sport) and their slogan is "Jupiler, Men Know Why". And guess what? It's the favorite beer of women.

However based on the current "clash" it's obvious what men want is not the same as what women want in videogames. Hence why in a segment still dominated by men that's who you want to listen to.

Unless you actually want growth - which is the major aim for public companies like those publishers. You don't just look at current console owners, you look at your full potential market.

Which is exactly what Nintendo did the the Wii - by getting in a much older market. It got into the retirement homes. It is a proven strategy that overly restrictive focus testing, such as not including any women in the test groups, fails to pick up.

 

[generals3]

Unless you actually want growth - which is the major aim for public companies like those publishers. You don't just look at current console owners, you look at your full potential market.

Which is exactly what Nintendo did the the Wii - by getting in a much older market. It got into the retirement homes. It is a proven strategy that overly restrictive focus testing, such as not including any women in the test groups, fails to pick up.

Yes Nintendo Wii picked up other segments. But they didn't do it by making horror survival games or FPS's. They got their other segments with "silly" tennis games or games like the Wii fit and stuff like that. How is devs making these types of games relevant to the claim that devs supposedly have to listen to people not representing the target of the product they make?

I'm not suggesting that developers shouldn't make games for women, old men, babies, martians, whatever. I'm merely pointing out some very basic marketing concepts here. That having people in your focus group which aren't part of your main target is more likely to cause harm than good because their ideas might please them but displease the main target. And let's not forget these focus groups are exactly meant to increase growth, you know, by maximizing the amount of potential costumers actually becoming costumers. Men being more likely to buy the game those are the ones you want to get. You won't tell lipstick producers they're missing on growth by focusing their marketing on women are you?