What should gaming developers do in terms of feminism and self-censorship?

[Bombiz]

The moment you stop writing what you want and start writing what everyone else wants you stop becoming an artist and start becoming a panderer.

Guess Michaelangelo was a complete hack then. Along with pretty much every game dev ever.

The idea of the artist as some independent creative force is actually very recent. Throughout history artists, even the great artists like Michaelangelo, have worked to strict commissions (like seriously, Renaissance art contracts specify stuff like which particular type of paint should be used and in what quantities, and the patron got to have the artwork edited until he liked it, even if he knew fuck all about art) or churned out stuff to meet the public demand so they could afford to live.

You can produce what you consider to be the greatest painting/book/game/song of all time, but if no one buys it you're not going to make any money. And if selling your art is your job, it might be terribly noble to stick to your vision no matter what, but you're not going to last very long if you exclusively take that approach.

"As soon as you talk about political or social responsibility, you've amputated the best limbs you've got as an artist.?

I completely disagree. Some of the best pieces of art and literature have been overtly political, promoting the artists' own political message and ideals, their ideas of "political or social responsibility." This view just seems short-sighted to me - of course it's not appropriate all the time, but there are plenty of cases when it is, and indeed where that's the whole point.

so what i get from this is that most of great art has come from "pandering" to the people and that as an artist you need to sometimes give up "artistic integrity" in order to make money. So if that's the case then did Demons Souls or Mount and Blade make enough money to spawn 3 squeals? I don't see those artists pandering to the audience yet the still make enough money to survive on.
and if making money is important then why is it so wrong to make the over used while guy character? isn't the whole point of that to sell more copies?
maybe a clarification on your point would help me see it your way.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

[MASSIVE SARCASM]
No no no, OP, this won't do.
*rolls eyes and clucks tongue*.
When will you disgusting Cis-scum understand you need to include at least five transwomen, six queers, four otherkin and no white people?
Fuck your 'creativity', you need more POCS.
[/MASSIVE SARCASM]

Seriously, though, if you write for someone else, and not for your own enjoyment, you better be getting paid (or otherwise compensated, as per work in general), is my take.
Like, if it's a private project you're doing just for yourself, with thoughts of maybe publishing in some format later on, then fuck it, go with what you feel is right.
If it's work, then fulfil your duties like the good little robot you are; put aside your creativity and let your soul die.
If it's a private project you hope to make money off of...put it on a website, riddle it with ads, and start pandering to everyone.
Someone wants to see epic fight scenes in your down-to-earth drama? Well, if enough people start clamoring for it...
And then you become a vending machine for those who cannot create, and only consume. Of course, some people enjoy that sort of thing, I suppose, so I'm not gonna condemn it.

 

[Saetha]

"As soon as you talk about political or social responsibility, you've amputated the best limbs you've got as an artist.?

I completely disagree. Some of the best pieces of art and literature have been overtly political, promoting the artists' own political message and ideals, their ideas of "political or social responsibility." This view just seems short-sighted to me - of course it's not appropriate all the time, but there are plenty of cases when it is, and indeed where that's the whole point.

I... don't really think that's what the quote's getting at. I don't think it's saying "Never include anything political or social in your story whatsoever, because that's bad" so much as it's saying "Don't let the politics and social values of the time get in the way of your story." And yes, quite a few great works of art would never have been made if the author had kow-towed to the expectations of the time. That's what the quote's warning against. Politics and morality are ever-changing, and they should, at best, inspire your creativity, but never chain it down - because creativity is the best "limb" an artist's got.

Basically, a work of art may partially be the product of the society it was made in. But that society will continue to evolve and change, and that work most likely will not. While that work was good in context, as time wears on it will have to stand on it's actual merits more then any notion it had of "progress" or "social justice" - because future generations won't see that. This is why one should always be cautious of making a work that's "subversive" or "edgy" - certainly, a subversive work can go down in history and become a classic, but if subversion is ALL it's got going for it, chances are it's unlikely to be remembered once the social context of said works changes.

Take the idea of the "Strong Female Character" who lived to prove that girls could run and gun and do everything guys do (As well as haughtily spout some grrrl power catch phrase like "Come on, boys, you don't want to lose to a girl, do you?") Such a character would've been lauded just a few years ago, but now everyone just rolls their eyes and go "She's just a dude with boobs - write a REAL female character, you sexist pig." Now writing a female character who is "strong" and calling it a day will get you almost as much flak for not having a female character to begin with. The idea of what a good female character is has changed.

Which is why, OP, I recommend that you write what you want. Focus on the quality of your work, not if it's subversive or progressive or anything. Because the definitions of such words are always evolving. If you want a female character in your story, go ahead and write her in. If you think she feels token and pointless, or just clutters the setting, or otherwise degrades either the quality of the work or the enjoyment you derive from creating it, cut her out. This is something that, I feel, many gloss over - as the author or writer or creator, you should have fun with it. You should enjoy your creation. Yes, there's this idea that an author needs to please their fans, an idea that's particularly prevalent among said fans. But your story, whatever it may be, whoever you writing it for, is first and foremost for you.

You can't please everyone. Just please yourself.

 

[Spacemonkey430]

I guess I just don't get the whole "we need more women and LGBT characters and if you don't then that means you're an ignorant slave to a misogynistic society." I'm not any good at writing but my good friend is trying to make a living out of it. He merely writes the characters as he wants to write them and tells the story he wants to tell his audience. I personally like them because they have lots of action, intrigue, and humor. Numerically, there are fewer women than men in his stories. And I'm sure every female character could be construed in a certain way to make them appear like they were written by a misogynist. He doesn't care though. He welcomes any potential attention that would come from it, following Kevin Smith's example when he protested his own movie at a theater. And I have to say, I respect that. I like his female characters just as much as the male ones and think some of the female characters are more dynamic and interesting and even more entertaining than some male ones. Can't we just respect a writer's decision of what they write? Be reasonable and if something is offensive, Ok its offensive. I just don't get what seems like whining for the sake of whining. I don't deny the fact that discrimination still exists, I'm not ignorant enough to say its gone, but really?

 

[Fsyco]

If there's one thing I've learned from years of reading film and game studies, it's that nobody can accuse of inoffensive portrayal of a group of people if you don't have any in there to begin with. If you pretend they don't exist, they can't accuse you of actively offending them.

No but seriously, you should make the things you want to make. There's kind of a problem in that people claim there isn't enough of group X represented in media, so people shoe-horn in poorly written characters of group X to meet a quota, then everyone complains that works with group X aren't very good and thus they don't sell. Then the marketing analyst people go "well, nobody buys media featuring group X, don't include them".It's a vicious cycle.

There isn't really a magic formula that makes your work feminist or racially-friendly or whatever. You have to have well-written characters first and foremost. Don't think you have the chops to tackle feminist issues? Don't write about them then. Some kind of campaign to get more women into game development might be the solution, but that could take years to get decent results.

 

[The_Echo]

What should game devs do?

Whatever the fuck they want. That's what.

Nobody in any field should pander to a specific group just so they don't cause some bullshit controversy.

Devs should be making the games they want. Not the games Anita Sarkeesian or Yahtzee Croshaw or David Cage or fucking anyone else wants. You can't please everyone, so don't bother trying.

And if you don't like what they've made, well tough shit. You don't have the right to tell them which games are OK.

 

[Spacemonkey430]

What should game devs do?

Whatever the fuck they want. That's what.

Nobody in any field should pander to a specific group just so they don't cause some bullshit controversy.

Devs should be making the games they want. Not the games Anita Sarkeesian or Yahtzee Croshaw or David Cage or fucking anyone else wants. You can't please everyone, so don't bother trying.

And if you don't like what they've made, well tough shit. You don't have the right to tell them which games are OK.

No,but money does though.That whole 'screw everyone else I'm doing what I want' may seem like a good idea but if nobody's buying your shit then it's just a stupid one.

Isn't that the point? Make the game you want to make for the target audience you want to make it for. Time and time again you hear how its sound business practice to develop with your target audience in mind and not just develop by the numbers and hope that your game is so vanilla that everybody likes it.

 

[Bombiz]

What should game devs do?

Whatever the fuck they want. That's what.

Nobody in any field should pander to a specific group just so they don't cause some bullshit controversy.

Devs should be making the games they want. Not the games Anita Sarkeesian or Yahtzee Croshaw or David Cage or fucking anyone else wants. You can't please everyone, so don't bother trying.

And if you don't like what they've made, well tough shit. You don't have the right to tell them which games are OK.

No,but money does though.That whole 'screw everyone else I'm doing what I want' may seem like a good idea but if nobody's buying your shit then it's just a stupid one.

Isn't that the point? Make the game you want to make for the target audience you want to make it for. Time and time again you hear how its sound business practice to develop with your target audience in mind and not just develop by the numbers and hope that your game is so vanilla that everybody likes it.

There needs to be a balance,willfully ignoring a potential pool of customers is beyond stupid and I don't see why game devs continue to do so.

I thing mount and blade and dark/demons souls are a good example of this. these are games that appeal to a niche audience yet still get more then enough money to keep making sequels. i honestly depends on the game where talking about. if a "good strong female character" was added to Dark Souls or Total War i don't think the sales would spike up enough to warrant the time put int. But if you where to add them an RPG (Drageon age or Mass Effect type) then that might warrant the change. Maybe some developers are happy with the niche audience and money that they have right now and don't see any real point in changing.

 

[Tanis]

FORCING a character to be a minority is just as racist as forcing one not to be.

I don't like black face in cinema, why would I want it in video games?

 

[Hellz_Barz]

Make the game you want to make, Disregard everything else.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

What should game devs do?

Whatever the fuck they want. That's what.

Nobody in any field should pander to a specific group just so they don't cause some bullshit controversy.

Devs should be making the games they want. Not the games Anita Sarkeesian or Yahtzee Croshaw or David Cage or fucking anyone else wants. You can't please everyone, so don't bother trying.

And if you don't like what they've made, well tough shit. You don't have the right to tell them which games are OK.

Pretty much this right here.
If someone doesn't like it they can complain, critic, not buy, etc. At the end of the day though, as long as creators are creating what they want to create; and we have a diverse industry full of different perspectives, everything will be groovy.

 

[Chemical Alia]

All I'd want is for game developers to realise that they have a female audience that matters.

Think of your female characters as people first, women second. Consider what has shaped them as a person, why are they acting this way? What are their motivations? Are they realistic? Do they make sense in the world around them? Are they relatable?

Developers are ALREADY made to self-censor- do you think every developer just happens to want to make blank white dude number 999999?

No developer or creator is free from outside influence and it's hypocritical to demand that they have no outside influence just when it comes to this.

Just do your best and keep your mind open to criticism, especially in regards to things you personally have not experienced.

Very well put, and I agree.

The moment you stop writing what you want and start writing what everyone else wants you stop becoming an artist and start becoming a panderer.

Guess Michaelangelo was a complete hack then. Along with pretty much every game dev ever.

The idea of the artist as some independent creative force is actually very recent. Throughout history artists, even the great artists like Michaelangelo, have worked to strict commissions (like seriously, Renaissance art contracts specify stuff like which particular type of paint should be used and in what quantities, and the patron got to have the artwork edited until he liked it, even if he knew fuck all about art) or churned out stuff to meet the public demand so they could afford to live.

You can produce what you consider to be the greatest painting/book/game/song of all time, but if no one buys it you're not going to make any money. And if selling your art is your job, it might be terribly noble to stick to your vision no matter what, but you're not going to last very long if you exclusively take that approach.

When it comes to the Renaissance, Michaelangelo was a pretty tame example, even. Rich patrons usually had such gigantic egos and weird self-insertion requests, that it was not unlike modern day DeviantArt. So you ended up with paintings by the greatest masters of their time, depicting the Annunciation taking place in some rich couple in 15th century Flanders' house, with said rich couple standing right outside. Like that 90's Romeo and Juliet movie, but weirder.

Spoiler

But yeah, it's a very careful balancing act to get the most artistic satisfaction from your work while maintaining appeal and inclusiveness with the most people. It requires a lot of thought, but I always appreciate it when people put good thought into what they do for a living.

 

[DementedSheep]

No no no, you aren't suppose to actually think about anything! Art is only pure if you shit it onto a page with not thought whatsoever even when you're doing this as a job.

Anyway you don't need a quota but you should be thinking about it. Make sure you aren't using "artistic freedom" as excuse to be lazy (I'm not saying you are, I don't know you nor have I read your stuff but this is what happens). If you want your stuff to reach it's full potential you have to work at it and this goes for any art form. People just use the same base for each character which is usually either a trope or what they are and then tweak it because it's easier than actually having a diverse cast and trying to think about things like gender and race. Everyone ends up being a white straight dude because unless there is a specific reason you have to use a "minority" character they don't get used because it just isn't thought about. The same thing often happens with family, hobbies, quirks and interests that don't relate to to plot and you end up with flat characters.

Although if you are actually expecting to be able to just write your stories and have them made into games your going to be disappointed. You aren't the only one on the team, you're probably not the only writer and not the one who pitched the base idea, you have to make it work with the gameplay, it not a hobby so it has to sell to people other than you and you are told what you can and can't do because they don't want anything that might scare investors or the demographic they want off so artistic freedom is a bit of a moot point anyway.

Fighting and explosions don't make a "fighting fuck toy". That's if you oversex them with posing, dress, dialogue and camera angles. I doubt that's what you'd get if you genderswaped a male character and didn't also change them to be like that.

 

[Rastrelly]

There is no such thing as "a good female character", only "a good character". Character's sex, appearance, behaviour, etc. is defined by narrative logic and style, nothing else.

 

[Elel]

Over the years I've learnt one important thing. You should like your own characters. A lot. Then writing works. For that to happen, you must flesh your characters out, imagine yourself to be them realistically, and live their lives until they come alive. Only in that case they stop being random stereotypes pulled out of your sleeve. Once that happens, you cannot control them any longer, they have their own set character and will act strictly according to it. Which puts a stop to any of your attempts to make them serve your own agenda. They're like other people, separate from you.

So when questions like those of OP arise, it means something is wrong with their writing at the moment. Beeing choosy, or inability to write a certain character or a wish to write only certain characters, means that one lacks an ability to like their own characters, and the reason for that is they're nothing more but vague stereotypes. Taking some writing classes on writing characters would help here. And reading very good books.

Overall, it's a mistake to think that a writer is someone who can string words together or devise plots. Additionally, a writer is someone who is genuinely interested in other people. Various people, a lot of different people, not just one type. A write is a psychologist.

----------------

To those idealistic people who think that gaming companies create and write whatever they want, I hate to disappoint you. As someone familiar with how publishing operates (not game publishing, but it's all the same) I can tell you that writers aren't free, by any means. They're told what they should write and how, in order to sell for sure to the intended audience. To be safe, it's always something excruciatingly generic. Generic and bland sells, otherwise it's a risk. I've seen that done a lot to various aspiring authors who showed promise. For example, it goes like this: main character must be like that, he should have one love interest, story should go like that and end like that, love story should go like that, no stray philosophical thoughts, etc. And then a person writes next books following this most bland and generic formula that he or she was told to comply to. And becomes a happy author of a few crappy books.

So, the problem of writing for a particular audience is not limited to gaming! It's everywhere. To break out of this mold, you have to strike everyone as a genious and create a few significant works to prove it, then noone will tell you what to do. But let's be realistic, that rarely happens. So alternatively, you can write as you're told to, but still try to create characters and stories with souls, within limitations that others set upon you. Many writers who're considered great nowadays were told what to write, but were doing it brilliantly.

I personally am amazed at what is happening to gaming industry and fanbase at the moment. Thanks to how suffocatingly limited its audience has been pictured before, many gamers nowadays recognize that they're been fed the generic kind of thing all along and start protesting. This is marvelous. The situation creates space for real talents to shine.

 

[Caiphus]

It's a tough question. I would imagine that developers are often pressured by publishers to appeal to the male demographic as much as possible (see last year's controversies about having Elizabeth on/off the cover of Bioshock Infinite etc etc). So often, one is drawn to conclude, the option to "self-censor" or to create characters that would appeal to other demographics is taken out of developers' hands somewhat. As the person above has posted more eloquently than me.

Saying that, it would be nice if developers and publishers were to act with empathy towards their audience, to recognise that there are other possible demographics out there, and to avoid acting offensively.

Aside from that... The works of fiction that they create are theirs alone. If they recognise that there is a push for inclusion in gaming and still decide to make a game aimed at the male 13-30 crowd, then that's up to them. It's their product after all. The gaming community can ask for alternative games, and some have started to pop up already. But I don't think individual developers have an obligation to make games other than those that they would prefer making. As long as they aren't rather clearly offensive, then yeah, I don't think they're morally at fault. Again, empathy is the key. We could use a lot more of it in the gaming community.

But if they see people crying for inclusive games and then decide to make one, good for them. Hopefully they get rewarded by the people doing the crying. Win for everybody.