Women and Gaming

[Twilight_guy]

Game companies make characters that appeal to the people who play their games. The games you are describing are mostly played by guys. (most "hardcore" games and online shooters are for mostly guys and you know it, don't even try to argue it). Therefor the characters are either young male kids that are like them (sometime angst young male kids to appeal to broody teenagers) or buff idealizations of a possible future self that they aspire to(kids who play Gears of War have an odd idea of ideal self because they are young... and stupid). If you want strong female leads you will need to find the area that is most heavily populated by females (I'm going to show my blind ignorance and say casual games, correct me if I'm wrong please). Of course there is a strong base of female customers in more casual games but these games are generally simple and straightforward enough that well defined characters are not necessary. You don't need a strong and well characterized female to sell say peggle, bejeweled or even plants v. zombies. On top of that, these markets tend to be catch all that used more gender neutral characters in order to catch all possible groups rather then just one so creating elaborate female characters specifically doesn't happen.
In short, games that will will come in contact most often are played by dudes and thus are represented by dudes. A stronger Female player base would change this but girls seem to inherently not be draw to gaming(this is a general trend, don't kill me ladies!).

 

[cainx10a]

Representations of women in gaming are usually pretty sexist.

Same goes for men.

 

[funguy2121]

I dont see a point of all this, the purpose of arguement is to convey one. All you do is try to twist my words around. I know what I mean when I say something, so stop trying to be a smart ass.

Also Im too lazy to go scouring the internet for essays written regarding things I say, especially for something so trivial as this. You can dissagree if you want, but dont try to claim it doesnt exist.

If you truly have questioned all your beleifs, why do you continue to hold foolish ones, perhaps you didnt question them correctly, or you simply did not see an alternative.

You obviously understand very little of human nature, and how people have progressed throughout the ages, you spout the usual liberal bullshit that everyone else does. Do you even know what independent thought is ?

Women cannot be realisticly placed as protagonists because they are more biologically valuable than men, as such, since the tribalist clans of humans began spreading, men have protected women. You think that because in the last few years some stupid politicians create equal rites that this undoes thousands of years of socio-cultural development and advancement ?

Like I said before, self delusion. Go read a book instead of regurgitating everything you are told.

First of all, I'm gonna go ahead and call troll here. You came in with the flames, making unsubstantiated arguments and insulting large groups of people. When I took you to task and challenged you to support your claims, you changed your claims and then accused ME of twisting them. No sir, I did not.

Which of my beliefs is foolish? The ones that aren't based on a form of our civilization that no longer exists because we have ceased to hunt and gather?

Case in troll point: you accuse me of self-delusion and blindly accepting what I've been told, even though that contradicts a statement you made seconds earlier; you create a thread of logic based upon the outdated paternalistic structures of dead cultures, and then you wrap it all up in a neat little bow called "human nature."

Please define human nature. I would suggest that "human nature" is a fallacious concept. One person may beat a woman senseless in a dark alley and steal her belongings, and another may help her find her car keys. What is the common thread?

(Who wants to bet that he's next going to call me naive?)

Oh, and I now proclaim that "it" (whatever the Hell "it" is) does not exist.

 

[crypt-creature]

Women cannot be realisticly placed as protagonists because they are more biologically valuable than men, as such, since the tribalist clans of humans began spreading, men have protected women. You think that because in the last few years some stupid politicians create equal rites that this undoes thousands of years of socio-cultural development and advancement ?

Actually, they can be.
A rarity indeed but very possible, and through thousands of years there have been women popping up all over that could be considered 'Protagonists'. Oddly, most of them were met with opposition because being in any position of power was supposed to be a 'mans' job.

 

[SecondmateFlint]

I wonder if women game designers or programmers create the obnoxiously unproportional and under-clothed women as jokes. I know I would if I was a game designer. I guess as for the topic, I love the Metroid games (obviously...) and I think Samus is pretty cool.

Yes, there are an unnecessary amount of skin shown than what makes sense but if it sells no one is going to change. I think we kind of all need to get over this as a society. Trust us, we hate all the half-naked women running around but if it's a good game that's not going to stop us from playing. Live and let live.

 

[high_castle]

As a woman gamer, I tend to stay away from most games with female protagonists because they are geared towards men 99.9% of the time and the so-called "strong female" in the lead is nothing more than a masculine personality with boobs. Frankly, it's a little insulting, but I AM seeing glimmers of hope. For instance, Ashley Williams in Mass Effect was a tough-as-nails space marine who also retained her femininity. More importantly, she was a well-rounded character with faults and virtues...just like male characters get. And in Dragon Age, the newest BioWare title, there are tons of well-developed female characters. You have women villains and heroes, both paragons of virtue and true despots. They're treated as people first, women second. I think that's important, as too often my gender gets shafted in terms of characterization.

 

[ostro-whiskey]

I dont see a point of all this, the purpose of arguement is to convey one. All you do is try to twist my words around. I know what I mean when I say something, so stop trying to be a smart ass.

Also Im too lazy to go scouring the internet for essays written regarding things I say, especially for something so trivial as this. You can dissagree if you want, but dont try to claim it doesnt exist.

If you truly have questioned all your beleifs, why do you continue to hold foolish ones, perhaps you didnt question them correctly, or you simply did not see an alternative.

You obviously understand very little of human nature, and how people have progressed throughout the ages, you spout the usual liberal bullshit that everyone else does. Do you even know what independent thought is ?

Women cannot be realisticly placed as protagonists because they are more biologically valuable than men, as such, since the tribalist clans of humans began spreading, men have protected women. You think that because in the last few years some stupid politicians create equal rites that this undoes thousands of years of socio-cultural development and advancement ?

Like I said before, self delusion. Go read a book instead of regurgitating everything you are told.

First of all, I'm gonna go ahead and call troll here. You came in with the flames, making unsubstantiated arguments and insulting large groups of people. When I took you to task and challenged you to support your claims, you changed your claims and then accused ME of twisting them. No sir, I did not.

Which of my beliefs is foolish? The ones that aren't based on a form of our civilization that no longer exists because we have ceased to hunt and gather?

Case in troll point: you accuse me of self-delusion and blindly accepting what I've been told, even though that contradicts a statement you made seconds earlier; you create a thread of logic based upon the outdated paternalistic structures of dead cultures, and then you wrap it all up in a neat little bow called "human nature."

Please define human nature. I would suggest that "human nature" is a fallacious concept. One person may beat a woman senseless in a dark alley and steal her belongings, and another may help her find her car keys. What is the common thread?

(Who wants to bet that he's next going to call me naive?)

Oh, and I now proclaim that "it" (whatever the Hell "it" is) does not exist.

Women cannot be realisticly placed as protagonists because they are more biologically valuable than men, as such, since the tribalist clans of humans began spreading, men have protected women. You think that because in the last few years some stupid politicians create equal rites that this undoes thousands of years of socio-cultural development and advancement ?

Actually, they can be.
A rarity indeed but very possible, and through thousands of years there have been women popping up all over that could be considered 'Protagonists'. Oddly, most of them were met with opposition because being in any position of power was supposed to be a 'mans' job.

I already addressed this when I stated that the individual does not represent the entire group, Im sure youve studied mathematics and know what an outlier is. I did not claim women are incapable of being unable to show leadership and dominance, I was claiming that most of them do not, because they have never needed to, in the majority.

Furthermore, human nature is very important, considering it is what causes people to act the way they do. I supported my view with how humanity progressed, thousands of years of adaptation cannot be undone simply because some femenist dykes cant find husbands. None of your claims have been backed up by any reasoning, which is why I consider you to be nothing more than a parrot, and reinforce the premise that you do not know what individual thought is.

I have been called a troll before, perhaps this is the pc forum way of trying to insult someone just because you dont agree with them ?

I already told you that you misinterpreted what I wrote, I did not change any claim, if you feel so strongly that I have can you tell me what I have changed, if youre going to make claims that I contradict myself, can you show where this happens. I can claim that your balls have fallen off due to liberal douchebagism, but unless I actually have a visual evidence of the fleshy patch, it means nothing. Take a note from crypt-creature, as how to structure an arguement.

I already told you why your beliefs are foolish, because you fail to look objectively at an opposing statement, instead you get all offended and defensive. Because you act as if just because our society is this was now, it must be equated with progress.

 

[funguy2121]

I already addressed this when I stated that the individual does not represent the entire group, Im sure youve studied mathematics and know what an outlier is. I did not claim women are incapable of being unable to show leadership and dominance, I was claiming that most of them do not, because they have never needed to, in the majority.

Furthermore, human nature is very important, considering it is what causes people to act the way they do. I supported my view with how humanity progressed, thousands of years of adaptation cannot be undone simply because some femenist dykes cant find husbands. None of your claims have been backed up by any reasoning, which is why I consider you to be nothing more than a parrot, and reinforce the premise that you do not know what individual thought is.

I have been called a troll before, perhaps this is the pc forum way of trying to insult someone just because you dont agree with them ?

I already told you that you misinterpreted what I wrote, I did not change any claim, if you feel so strongly that I have can you tell me what I have changed, if youre going to make claims that I contradict myself, can you show where this happens. I can claim that your balls have fallen off due to liberal douchebagism, but unless I actually have a visual evidence of the fleshy patch, it means nothing. Take a note from crypt-creature, as how to structure an arguement.

I already told you why your beliefs are foolish, because you fail to look objectively at an opposing statement, instead you get all offended and defensive. Because you act as if just because our society is this was now, it must be equated with progress.

Sorry, stopped reading at "femenist(misspelled) dyke who can't find a husband." At a mere 20 I don't think you should be giving out heterosexual marriage advice to homosexual women. Also, if you don't understand why motherhood is a leadership role then you aren't going to understand the flaws in your argument anyway. Once again, some vague reference to ancient patriarchal culture doesn't explain the existence of human nature, which you still have yet to define.

The world is big and complex and does not fit within your normal parameters. I would like for you to explain how my belief in civil rights makes me a douche.

 

[ostro-whiskey]

I already addressed this when I stated that the individual does not represent the entire group, Im sure youve studied mathematics and know what an outlier is. I did not claim women are incapable of being unable to show leadership and dominance, I was claiming that most of them do not, because they have never needed to, in the majority.

Furthermore, human nature is very important, considering it is what causes people to act the way they do. I supported my view with how humanity progressed, thousands of years of adaptation cannot be undone simply because some femenist dykes cant find husbands. None of your claims have been backed up by any reasoning, which is why I consider you to be nothing more than a parrot, and reinforce the premise that you do not know what individual thought is.

I have been called a troll before, perhaps this is the pc forum way of trying to insult someone just because you dont agree with them ?

I already told you that you misinterpreted what I wrote, I did not change any claim, if you feel so strongly that I have can you tell me what I have changed, if youre going to make claims that I contradict myself, can you show where this happens. I can claim that your balls have fallen off due to liberal douchebagism, but unless I actually have a visual evidence of the fleshy patch, it means nothing. Take a note from crypt-creature, as how to structure an arguement.

I already told you why your beliefs are foolish, because you fail to look objectively at an opposing statement, instead you get all offended and defensive. Because you act as if just because our society is this was now, it must be equated with progress.

Sorry, stopped reading at "femenist(misspelled) dyke who can't find a husband." At a mere 20 I don't think you should be giving out heterosexual marriage advice to homosexual women. Also, if you don't understand why motherhood is a leadership role then you aren't going to understand the flaws in your argument anyway. Once again, some vague reference to ancient patriarchal culture doesn't explain the existence of human nature, which you still have yet to define.

The world is big and complex and does not fit within your normal parameters. I would like for you to explain how my belief in civil rights makes me a douche.

Its not your belief in civil rights, but the fact that you consider any other possible means to be wrong, what gives you the moral highground to make such an assessment, why dont you get off your tower.

Also once again you have avoided all the major points in my arguement and only chose to respond to what you want to. Which just proves my point that you cant back up your arguement and are just regurgitating the same crap.

 

[funguy2121]

Its not your belief in civil rights, but the fact that you consider any other possible means to be wrong, what gives you the moral highground to make such an assessment, why dont you get off your tower.

Also once again you have avoided all the major points in my arguement and only chose to respond to what you want to. Which just proves my point that you cant back up your arguement and are just regurgitating the same crap.

/Gets off tower.

Now, where were we? "Any other possible means?" If you can explain this than I can comment on it. It sounds like you think I'm a close-minded person. I do believe if you look at your initial post, it trivialized equal rights as some pipe dream belonging to us liberal douchebags. I won't quote it because I've found it just makes for more type that no one wants to read when trolls demand that I quote them in what they've just said or tell me to repeat myself. I think it's clear that you're playing the Paul Reubens game.

So no, I don't think I'm regurgitating anything at all. Where would I have consumed this crap? John Stewart? The liberal Jew-and-gay-run media?

Do you remember your initial claims?


While we're playing, can I be this guy?

 

[Gindil]

You two, enough. This is getting WAY out of hand.

I wonder if women game designers or programmers create the obnoxiously unproportional and under-clothed women as jokes. I know I would if I was a game designer. I guess as for the topic, I love the Metroid games (obviously...) and I think Samus is pretty cool.

Yes, there are an unnecessary amount of skin shown than what makes sense but if it sells no one is going to change. I think we kind of all need to get over this as a society. Trust us, we hate all the half-naked women running around but if it's a good game that's not going to stop us from playing. Live and let live.

I remember that on Dante's Inferno, there was at least one female lead designer. So... Yeah.

Game companies make characters that appeal to the people who play their games. The games you are describing are mostly played by guys. (most "hardcore" games and online shooters are for mostly guys and you know it, don't even try to argue it). Therefor the characters are either young male kids that are like them (sometime angst young male kids to appeal to broody teenagers) or buff idealizations of a possible future self that they aspire to(kids who play Gears of War have an odd idea of ideal self because they are young... and stupid). If you want strong female leads you will need to find the area that is most heavily populated by females (I'm going to show my blind ignorance and say casual games, correct me if I'm wrong please). Of course there is a strong base of female customers in more casual games but these games are generally simple and straightforward enough that well defined characters are not necessary. You don't need a strong and well characterized female to sell say peggle, bejeweled or even plants v. zombies. On top of that, these markets tend to be catch all that used more gender neutral characters in order to catch all possible groups rather then just one so creating elaborate female characters specifically doesn't happen.
In short, games that will will come in contact most often are played by dudes and thus are represented by dudes. A stronger Female player base would change this but girls seem to inherently not be draw to gaming(this is a general trend, don't kill me ladies!).

I don't think so. Valkyria Chronicles [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YTzxjnLU5c] has some great female leads that can be just as cold blooded as the men, as well as good with a shot. They're in the army, it may be the Victorian Age for the dress, but a lot of characterization doesn't fall to "I can trust her because of her boob size."

I'm noticing a lot of people have this belief that only women are the majority of casual gamers, or make up that much more of a base. I don't believe that to be the case. Granted, there are a few games that pander to a specific audience that can be gender neutral. I had fun with Plants vs Zombies as well as Torchlight (a lighter look at Diablo). I figure that higher profile games shouldn't be afraid to give more characterizations to female roles than sidekick with C+ bra size and the ability to shoot machine guns without being able to pick up an RPG.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Other text not relevant to this...

Game companies make characters that appeal to the people who play their games. The games you are describing are mostly played by guys. (most "hardcore" games and online shooters are for mostly guys and you know it, don't even try to argue it). Therefor the characters are either young male kids that are like them (sometime angst young male kids to appeal to broody teenagers) or buff idealizations of a possible future self that they aspire to(kids who play Gears of War have an odd idea of ideal self because they are young... and stupid). If you want strong female leads you will need to find the area that is most heavily populated by females (I'm going to show my blind ignorance and say casual games, correct me if I'm wrong please). Of course there is a strong base of female customers in more casual games but these games are generally simple and straightforward enough that well defined characters are not necessary. You don't need a strong and well characterized female to sell say peggle, bejeweled or even plants v. zombies. On top of that, these markets tend to be catch all that used more gender neutral characters in order to catch all possible groups rather then just one so creating elaborate female characters specifically doesn't happen.
In short, games that will will come in contact most often are played by dudes and thus are represented by dudes. A stronger Female player base would change this but girls seem to inherently not be draw to gaming(this is a general trend, don't kill me ladies!).

I don't think so. Valkyria Chronicles [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YTzxjnLU5c] has some great female leads that can be just as cold blooded as the men, as well as good with a shot. They're in the army, it may be the Victorian Age for the dress, but a lot of characterization doesn't fall to "I can trust her because of her boob size."

I'm noticing a lot of people have this belief that only women are the majority of casual gamers, or make up that much more of a base. I don't believe that to be the case. Granted, there are a few games that pander to a specific audience that can be gender neutral. I had fun with Plants vs Zombies as well as Torchlight (a lighter look at Diablo). I figure that higher profile games shouldn't be afraid to give more characterizations to female roles than sidekick with C+ bra size and the ability to shoot machine guns without being able to pick up an RPG.

Valkyria Chronicles is a JRPG and thus from Japan and exempt from the influence of western game design. I should probably have made it clear that this applies to western developers. It's a whole other ball game over there.

I said a "strong base" and "gender neutral." There is no specific gender dominates the casual audience but when compared to the lack luster base of the "hardcore" there is a much larger percentage of females. When seeing a female gamer in online shooters is a rarity at best, an even number of male and female gamers in the casual ground constitutes a much larger portion of a female audience and thus warrants more attention to not catering to male gamers. I'm just making a remark on some sociological and anthropological factors that go into how games are made.

I'd love to not be inundated with a flood of roided up macho men and power armor space marines and maybe see a female characters that isn't defined entirely by her breasts. That doesn't change the culutre of gameing though and so long as that stays, nothing changes.

 

[Captain Schpack]

I think that a woman playing videogames is a turn on. For example, I can ask my sister to play Guitar Hero and she'll get all mad and flustered. I want a woman who can be the gunner during Overwatch and who can get my back during co-op.

Also, i do agree (as a guy) that it's a tad annoying that the standard female model in a game includes DD's and an ass extending a good few inches from the rest of her.I'd rather a no-ass, A or B girl in a game with a personality or dialogue that makes me give a shit about her as a character.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

Reading this thread, can people stop using the word ***** to describe women? 100 years of hard work to get on a level playing field with men undermined in one word.

Seriously why would the heavy be a little child? If anything she would be like this [http://alciha.deviantart.com/art/TF2-Heavy-Weapons-Girl-87684513] to say the least.

It's called irony. Reply to your post tied in with my reply to this one:

You're 100% correct about women in gaming. We need more representation of women in video games, and, preferably, that are not bitches like that **** in WET. we need women like Alex in Eternal Darkness and Joanna from Perfect Dark. Good observation and, with your help, we can correct it.

I think you're both missing a massive point. Proportionality. I mean, gaming is aimed at a male audience and most males ould feel more comfortable playing as a male lead. I don't think most people would not buy a game because of it, but devs are aiming at a male audience, so they make a male character. I'm aware of how much I said male in the last two sentences.
But anyway, if you take the whole of male characters in video game history, divy them up into arrogant alpha males, war heroes and whatever else and took a percentage of believable character, characters who would act and talk as a real person would in those scenarios, I'd wager that it would be to different to the percentage of females. There's just more of them. I mean, Rubi is no more of a dick than Nathan Drake and Lara Crofts boobs are no more gratuitous then the cast of Gears of War's muscles.
But then you get people like Heather Mason, Rebecca Chambers and Claire Redfield and it's like... I can't think of a more realistic character the Heather Mason. Put a 17 year old girl in the middle of a town which randomly turns into hell and she'd end up like Heather.

So, what's the problem? I think the games industry does need to be less sexist, but the first step is to make more lead female characters. The problem with the characters referred to is that they don't really serve any purpose. Put a girl as the main character they have to have a purpose. They have to have an interesting or enimatic personality or the game will fail.

 

[Smagmuck_]

If other guys would stop being dicks to anything with a vagina there would be more female gamers...

 

[crypt-creature]

I already addressed this when I stated that the individual does not represent the entire group, Im sure youve studied mathematics and know what an outlier is. I did not claim women are incapable of being unable to show leadership and dominance, I was claiming that most of them do not, because they have never needed to, in the majority.

Never said that the individual does, or would, represent the entire group.
Simply implying that if more women were to be placed in positions of power over time, it doesn't have to be a military position, more female protagonists might become a greater possibility.
More women want to be leaders or recognized figures, but it's still going to be a long time before they will be recognized or acknowledged as such.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Strong Character != Good Character. At least when we use strong to mean competence in said person's relative field. It's important to note the distinction because only one can be the primary focus of a character and people mix the terms too often.

Some statistic fails here too, you can't use a stastic on a entire population (all games) to describe a minority of games (notable games on the Escapist forum) also using specific examples to prove a trend in how woman representations sell games is flawed both because of selection bias and because no game exist in a vacuum (quality, marketing, press ect can't be quantified.)

Using personal experience (which i'll admit is biased) I might as well give my opinion on the state of the industry in representation of female characters. Since games usually deal with situations that require more competence in a field than every day life, all women in games are unrealistically strong. What's really notable here is the quality and quantity of that competence relative to male characters. The quality is the same, all PCs will be able to accompish their goal. However the number of woman PCs seem much lower. As for quality of characters between women and men I like them the about same so I can't see the problem here :/

 

[Iron Mal]

My personal opinion is that the issue is less with stereotypical female characters and more with flat characters in general (women just happen to be the most common victims of this).

A woman with big tits who's nothing other than a bimbo to be shagged by the rugged male protaganist is just as bad a character as the rugged male protaganist who's typified by being 'badass' (although the woman will get more in the way of complaints since it would be argued by the feminist public that it's sexist, as if the stereotypical image of a man being nothing but a wisecracking killing machine as well as an arsehole isn't).

 

[ostro-whiskey]

Its not your belief in civil rights, but the fact that you consider any other possible means to be wrong, what gives you the moral highground to make such an assessment, why dont you get off your tower.

Also once again you have avoided all the major points in my arguement and only chose to respond to what you want to. Which just proves my point that you cant back up your arguement and are just regurgitating the same crap.

/Gets off tower.

Now, where were we? "Any other possible means?" If you can explain this than I can comment on it. It sounds like you think I'm a close-minded person. I do believe if you look at your initial post, it trivialized equal rights as some pipe dream belonging to us liberal douchebags. I won't quote it because I've found it just makes for more type that no one wants to read when trolls demand that I quote them in what they've just said or tell me to repeat myself. I think it's clear that you're playing the Paul Reubens game.

So no, I don't think I'm regurgitating anything at all. Where would I have consumed this crap? John Stewart? The liberal Jew-and-gay-run media?

Do you remember your initial claims?


While we're playing, can I be this guy?

Ofcourse Ill trivialize equal rights, its idealistic crap, what ever happened to realism, and people wonder why the western society is suffering from an existential plague.

Again you show your ability to divert conversation, ahh you socialist weasels.

I already addressed this when I stated that the individual does not represent the entire group, Im sure youve studied mathematics and know what an outlier is. I did not claim women are incapable of being unable to show leadership and dominance, I was claiming that most of them do not, because they have never needed to, in the majority.

Never said that the individual does, or would, represent the entire group.
Simply implying that if more women were to be placed in positions of power over time, it doesn't have to be a military position, more female protagonists might become a greater possibility.
More women want to be leaders or recognized figures, but it's still going to be a long time before they will be recognized or acknowledged as such.

You cant possibly know this, you are simply speculating. Although the assholes in charge have already created situations which allow women to rise, so only time will tell if they do possess the ability to do such. Ill add that the only chick I know of that was equatable to a man in achievement was Boudica.

 

[crypt-creature]

You cant possibly know this, you are simply speculating. Although the assholes in charge have already created situations which allow women to rise, so only time will tell if they do possess the ability to do such. Ill add that the only chick I know of that was equatable to a man in achievement was Boudica.

That's why I said 'might' and 'possibility', meaning I indeed don't know but am speculating given the current state of things.
Either way it is starting to happen, although most places still want males to be in charge more than females (depends on the position/field and such, but still). Men still have a huge advantage over women, having had positions of power and influence in their grasp far longer than women, and as a whole are used to it. Naturally they will also have more achievements.
Women just need more time and experience in those types of roles.
Will they be exactly like men in their decision making? No.
Is that bad? Not necessarily.