186 réponses à ce sujet

[Sutekh]

billy the squid wrote...

"not every game has to be a political statement or a work of art" from Ken Levine should be foremost in people's minds

Which doesn't mean no game should do it, which was what the initial quote (Androme's)  was getting at. Some genre (i.e. anything with a solid story) are a more efficient and logical medium for this sort of things. On the same topic, you don't expect the same level of depth and / or social awareness from an action B flick as from a thoughtfully written drama. Doesn't mean the former shouldn't contain any, but they're not the ideal medium.

On the topic of female on cover, I don't care. Ideally, I'd rather they go with a simple symbol and no protagonist at all, for two reasons:

Regardless of sexism, I'm not very fond of the idea of a canon protagonist on general principles, whether they be male or female (for RPGs and such, where we're supposed to have the Power of Creation). This is also why I'm not very fond of trailers involving the protag as well. And I realize this is a rather extreme point of view, but still.

The truth's in the pudding, or the game itself. The cover isn't something I spend hours staring at, so what's important is how women - or any other member of under-represented minorities, whatever they are - are developed and presented in the game. This is where the interaction and experience happens. When it comes to Bioware, so far, so good (roughly), so they can put an orange polka-dots spider on the cover for all I care, as long as they write people well.

[N7KnightSabre]

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

One thing I've noticed is that games with female protagonists tend to be in low combat settings. Portal is a puzzle game, Mirror's Edge had some shooting but it's primarily a platformer. Lot of point and click adventure games seem to star women.

What we need is more Tomb Raider style games. More female action heroes. More female space marines. More female fantasy heroes that aren't wearing bikini armour.

BioWare's not really the company to give us that, because they make RPGs that let you create your own character rather than having a set protagonist, but hopefully they'll be able to influence other developers who do have games with set protagonists into giving female leads a chance.

Lightning from FFXIII is quite respectful,though her main outfit in the new game is quite uh weird and a bit more revealing /: lol

ISome other female characters that are front and center:

Heather from Silent Hill 3
Jill Valentine, Claire Redfield, Sheva Alamar,  Rebecca Chambers  from Resident Evil
P.N 03's protagonist
Kelly from Gun Valkyrie
Laura from the D series and Enemy Zero
Tillis is one of the two main characters in Burning Rangers
La Pucelle Tactics (Alot of Nippon Ichi games have female protagonists)
Dragon Force for the Saturn had two Female Characters to choose from (Junon rocked btw)
Maya from Persona 2 Eternal Punishment
Ulala from Space Channel 5 (Okay, dancing game but still awesome and so is Ulala)
Yuna from FFX-2
Aya Brea from Parasite Eve
Samus from Metroid
Major Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell

these are just a few of the ones that I can think of right now.  I've been raised off games and have been playing them since 1990.  I looked to some of these women as role models when I was a kid.  Having a female lead is fun for me and a good change from all the chiseled, brown haired men that everygame has now.  Lee Everett from TWD was a nice change to that recipe.

[billy the squid]

Xilizhra wrote...

And that is were your points start to fall down. Listen to the interview, particularly in the full context about when he talks about the practicalities and difficulties of development and how the original BioShock wouldn't have even been published in the current climate.

Where is this in the interview? And why would the original Bioshock allegedly not have been produced?

but, all you've done is replace commercial interests with a social ideological emphasis. They, in effect, have functionally the same impact. Dictating the path of an "artistic" product. There is no difference between the two, in terms of effect. The only one being the latter is divorced from the realities of a business world, and your own personal prefrence and bias towards the sociological aspects.

If social pressure is applied in the right areas, and if society changes enough in those areas, they can eventually become one and the same.

It's in the first 15 minutes, for the context of practical development, you have to listen to it. It was quite a surprise actually, that's something I hadn't anticipated. 

http://youtu.be/JwsjALh2vYA?t=3m9s Here.

But, you're actually doing what the commercial intrests are currently doing, dictating the path of an "artistic product" which equates to the same move that businesses frequently engage in. You've just hidden it under a mantle of being progressive. All it does is shift it to a new demographic, it simply being your prefrence this time. Not dictated by a mass market appeal, but your own desires, which is exactly the problem, it's not done because it's better, or for some higher purpose. But, because that's what you (plural) like.

Well, the issue is that you need to push for society to change, not the gaming industry, which caters to that demographic's desires, rather than strictly dictating what the desire is. Which is why that idea is so fundamentally wrong, that the Gaming industry should independently move to be more inclusive, equal etc. etc. because it's commercial, it moves to the largest most lucrative market.

If it's artictic, then enforcing your own social ideology is anathema to artistic integrity and as bad as the commercialised aspect which I've seen so maligned. 

So which is a game? Commercial product, or artistic piece. Either way you're as guilty by doing the same as the large Publishers.

[Demoiselle]

esper wrote...

Demoiselle wrote...

esper wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Androme wrote...

 Video game developers needs to stop turning the gaming industry into a same-sex romance, ''race & ethnicity is a social construct'', transsexual-industry thing. And do what they do best: Games.

Media exploring social issues? What madness is this?!

http://youtu.be/JwsjALh2vYA?t=16m10s

The line at 17: 42  "not every game has to be a political statement or a work of art" from Ken Levine should be foremost in people's minds

This is true. Angry Birds and its ilk will always have their niche.

So you imply that anything which isn't similar to the above must innovate and should deal with certain topics, and bodies and developers should decide which games are okay and which ones aren't. Seems to be the same line of thought that the female developer had in the discussion with Kevin Levine. This topic should be included because... because games should bring up the politics of equality and blah, blah, blah?

Really, every aspect of media now has to deal with the social mores and new aspects of society?

No but any aspect of media CAN if they want to. An obviously some games and games developers want to.
Bioware wants to be inclusive, so they strive to make inclusive games. There are nothing wrong with that, just as there are nothing wrong with making a games like angry birds, which (as far as I know) is just for fun and an relaxing.

I wasn't aware being female or non hetrosexual were NEW aspects of society.

What has it to do with being new aspect of societies? You do not need to be a new kind of person simply for having a wish to be included in the media you like to consume.

And just because to females and non-hetronormative have existed for a long time it does not mean that they have been included enough nor does it mean that there is anything wrong with a game or any other mediea dealing with. it or exploring the issues.

This. How do some people go from a game giving representation to a fairly large part of its audience who are often left out to 'pandering'?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Why did you use the word pandering in quotations? No one in this discussion has said anyone is being pandered to.

[Xilizhra]

So which is a game? Commercial product, or artistic piece. Either way you're as guilty by doing the same as the large Publishers.

That's rather like saying that police officers are just as guilty as bank robbers because they both use guns. Ultimately, though, I do have a higher purpose in mind; namely, adding components to a culture of inclusiveness. It's not a matter of simple taste. There can, to be sure, be a diversity of concepts under that umbrella, but the umbrella, by the same token, needs to have a diversity of concepts and not just a single, limited range.

[billy the squid]

Sutekh wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

"not every game has to be a political statement or a work of art" from Ken Levine should be foremost in people's minds

Which doesn't mean no game should do it, which was what the initial quote (Androme's)  was getting at. Some genre (i.e. anything with a solid story) are a more efficient and logical medium for this sort of things. On the same topic, you don't expect the same level of depth and / or social awareness from an action B flick as from a thoughtfully written drama. Doesn't mean the former shouldn't contain any, but they're not the ideal medium.

On the topic of female on cover, I don't care. Ideally, I'd rather they go with a simple symbol and no protagonist at all, for two reasons:

Regardless of sexism, I'm not very fond of the idea of a canon protagonist on general principles, whether they be male or female (for RPGs and such, where we're supposed to have the Power of Creation). This is also why I'm not very fond of trailers involving the protag as well. And I realize this is a rather extreme point of view, but still.

The truth's in the pudding, or the game itself. The cover isn't something I spend hours staring at, so what's important is how women - or any other member of under-represented minorities, whatever they are - are developed and presented in the game. This is where the interaction and experience happens. When it comes to Bioware, so far, so good (roughly), so they can put an orange polka-dots spider on the cover for all I care, as long as they write people well.

Good. so agree with my point that gaming mainstream products are not the avenue for social concepts, because they are fundamentally different aka CoD, BF3 GoW.

And by logical extension you also, by implication agree that Gaider's comments and the article are an over generalisation and hypocritical. As the industry in total does not cater to his ideas as the various types of games, are the polar opposite in many cases, while BioWare has the opportunity and is in a position to put this into effect properly, but failed to do so, so far.

[Topsider]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

I agree with Mr. Gaider's line of reasoning. The industry has some pretty skewed ideas. Good thing BioWare gives us the option to choose. 

hmm, if "skewed ideas" means the greatest return on your investment, then you'd be right. In this case, no. The industry is interested in one thing: $
Money, money, money! Publishers don't care about the protagonist's gender, or who's on the cover, unless it hurts their profit margin. If they thought a female character would sell more copies they'd be falling over themselves to make that game... and covering the box with her. Lower than expected sales and few publishers would risk it again.

Bioware (EA) might give us the option to choose, but the male protagonist is always the marketing focus. Why is that? Are they worried that showing a female protag would scare off male customers? Or people who don't normally play RPGs. it's possible.

[esper]

Topsider wrote...

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

I agree with Mr. Gaider's line of reasoning. The industry has some pretty skewed ideas. Good thing BioWare gives us the option to choose. 

hmm, if "skewed ideas" means the greatest return on your investment, then you'd be right. In this case, no. The industry is interested in one thing: $
Money, money, money! Publishers don't care about the protagonist's gender, or who's on the cover, unless it hurts their profit margin. If they thought a female character would sell more copies they'd be falling over themselves to make that game... and covering the box with her. Lower than expected sales and few publishers would risk it again.

Bioware (EA) might give us the option to choose, but the male protagonist is always the marketing focus. Why is that? Are they worried that showing a female protag would scare off male customers? Or people who don't normally play RPGs. it's possible.

But it is those money making ideas that might be skewed or at the very least outdated.
Fact is that women are becoming a larger and larger part of customers for games and with specific genre it might be close to an even 50/50 or perhaps even more.

The game makers just assuming that a straight male character sells most is not proven and might not even be right.

[billy the squid]

Xilizhra wrote...

So which is a game? Commercial product, or artistic piece. Either way you're as guilty by doing the same as the large Publishers.

That's rather like saying that police officers are just as guilty as bank robbers because they both use guns. Ultimately, though, I do have a higher purpose in mind; namely, adding components to a culture of inclusiveness. It's not a matter of simple taste. There can, to be sure, be a diversity of concepts under that umbrella, but the umbrella, by the same token, needs to have a diversity of concepts and not just a single, limited range.

So by enforcing your own agenda you are, in effect doing the same thing that the large publishers do. You simply replaced business and commercial interests with sociological ones by dictating the various topics that a game should include as broad as they may be. 

So you are guilty of the same stifling of artistic integrity as they are, by creating a board of various topics which are more appealing to you and in the games you like. It's not then higher minded, you've been compromised by internal bias, by forcing a concept into a story, because it "should" be there, not because it feels right or fits.

In addition, if there is no requirement to include them, the concepts, then there is no demonstable difference between what we get now, and what we would get under a what you're proposing, as the larger demographic and market hasn't changed in it's consumption patterns. Unless it's actually enforced, in which case you've proscribed the moral high ground, by making it an inclusion.

[Sutekh]

billy the squid wrote...

Good. so agree with my point that gaming mainstream products are not the avenue for social concepts, because they are fundamentally different aka CoD, BF3 GoW.

Actually yes, I do.

Ideally, the gender shouldn't matter at all, but we're not living in an ideal world, and I'm aware of demographics and financial issues. I'm also not sure that forcing the issue would have any positive and productive result in terms of social awareness, inclusion or acceptance, but could provoke a negative reaction in response ("I'm sick and tired of those chicks on my turf" leading to "I'm not buying" leading to "we're not putting women on covers ever again"). This said, demographic is changing, so there might come a time when a dudette on the cover, or alternate covers, is, in fact, commercially right (big speculative conditional here, though).

This isn't easy. There should be a soft spot between forcing and ignoring, but I sure don't know where it is.

And by logical extension you also, by implication agree that Gaider's comments and the article are an over generalisation and hypocritical. As the industry in total does not cater to his ideas as the various types of games, are the polar opposite in many cases, while BioWare has the opportunity and is in a position to put this into effect properly, but failed to do so, so far.

Generalisation, yes. Hypocritical? Why? He's saying what he thinks, and so far, his actions (i.e. writing) are aligned with what he says, so I don't see any hypocrisy there. Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but that's common enough from anyone not to warrant indignation on my part.

As for Bioware, I kinda agree if we stick to the covers / trailer things. Content (which is what counts for me), is quite okay - although it could be improved, just as anything.

Modifié par Sutekh, 02 avril 2013 - 03:28 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

So which is a game? Commercial product, or artistic piece. Either way you're as guilty by doing the same as the large Publishers.

That's rather like saying that police officers are just as guilty as bank robbers because they both use guns. Ultimately, though, I do have a higher purpose in mind; namely, adding components to a culture of inclusiveness. It's not a matter of simple taste. There can, to be sure, be a diversity of concepts under that umbrella, but the umbrella, by the same token, needs to have a diversity of concepts and not just a single, limited range.

That is assuming that expanding inclusivity in video games is a higher purpose. Which might be overstating things. 

Preventing genocide in the Sudan is a higher purpose. Laboring for the right of women to vote in third world countries is a higher purpose. Putting digital renderings of a woman in a form of entertainment that the player can control is just simply "nice" at best.

[Xilizhra]

So by enforcing your own agenda you are, in effect doing the same thing that the large publishers do. You simply replaced business and commercial interests with sociological ones by dictating the various topics that a game should include as broad as they may be.

So you are guilty of the same stifling of artistic integrity as they are, by creating a board of various topics which are more appealing to you and in the games you like. It's not then higher minded, you've been compromised by internal bias, by forcing a concept into a story, because it "should" be there, not because it feels right or fits.

In addition, if there is no requirement to include them, the concepts, then there is no demonstable difference between what we get now, and what we would get under a what you're proposing, as the larger demographic and market hasn't changed in it's consumption patterns. Unless it's actually enforced, in which case you've proscribed the moral high ground, by making it an inclusion.

As you've basically just repeated your last post, I see no reason to make a new reply.

Preventing genocide in the Sudan is a higher purpose. Laboring for the right of women to vote in third world countries is a higher purpose. Putting digital renderings of a woman in a form of entertainment that the player can control is just simply "nice" at best.

The more large steps that are taken, the more smaller ones we need to take. In any case, not everyone has the emotional fortitude to deal with the first two things, so it's good to have places for them to contribute.

[Sebby]

I find it comical that Gaider and by extension the EA brand he works in think they have a leg to stand on when it comes to female representation when their games aren't even on the level of Halo and Gears of War. Those "dumb shooters" have female combatants in proper attire like their male counterparts unlike BW games where they end up with high heels, no pants, nipple straps, large cleavage,etc and have their asses constantly shoved in the camera.

[Bfler]

Even if more women play games, Bioware's latest target audience are the action/shooter gamers and that is male domain, so it is reasonable that they give preference to the male protagonist during marketing.

Btw. I don't see a problem here, since you can choose between male and female char in most RPG games, and every Bioware game.

Modifié par Bfler, 02 avril 2013 - 03:35 .

[The Heretic of Time]

As our good friend Luke would say: "Thou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye before thou points out the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye."


Watch and learn Gaider and the rest of BioWare, THIS is how you properly present women in your games:




In comparison, THIS is how it SHOULDN'T be done:

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 avril 2013 - 03:45 .

[billy the squid]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]So by enforcing your own agenda you are, in effect doing the same thing that the large publishers do. You simply replaced business and commercial interests with sociological ones by dictating the various topics that a game should include as broad as they may be.

So you are guilty of the same stifling of artistic integrity as they are, by creating a board of various topics which are more appealing to you and in the games you like. It's not then higher minded, you've been compromised by internal bias, by forcing a concept into a story, because it "should" be there, not because it feels right or fits.

In addition, if there is no requirement to include them, the concepts, then there is no demonstable difference between what we get now, and what we would get under a what you're proposing, as the larger demographic and market hasn't changed in it's consumption patterns. Unless it's actually enforced, in which case you've proscribed the moral high ground, by making it an inclusion.[/quote]

As you've basically just repeated your last post, I see no reason to make a new reply.[/quote]

Because your analogy was absurd, and you've made no attempt to differentiate between your actions which fundamentally follow the same action as every publisher, you are exactly the same. Only saying that you have a higher purpose, which does not get you off. 

Which was precisely my point, from the begining. There is no difference between you and your ilk and those which drive a commercial and business interest forwards. You simply cloak it in a mantle of progressiveness. That is the hypocrisy. To malign one organisation for pushing it's interests, while you do exactly the same, regardless of the game itself.

I don't think you should be taking the moral high ground when it comes to making things "better"

[/quote]

Modifié par billy the squid, 02 avril 2013 - 03:41 .

[Renmiri1]

Topsider wrote...

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

I agree with Mr. Gaider's line of reasoning. The industry has some pretty skewed ideas. Good thing BioWare gives us the option to choose. 

hmm, if "skewed ideas" means the greatest return on your investment, then you'd be right. In this case, no. The industry is interested in one thing: $
Money, money, money! Publishers don't care about the protagonist's gender, or who's on the cover, unless it hurts their profit margin. If they thought a female character would sell more copies they'd be falling over themselves to make that game... and covering the box with her. Lower than expected sales and few publishers would risk it again.

Bioware (EA) might give us the option to choose, but the male protagonist is always the marketing focus. Why is that? Are they worried that showing a female protag would scare off male customers? Or people who don't normally play RPGs. it's possible.

You would think they go for pure profit but fact is that gaming demographics changed substantially in the past 5 years and the industry is still making games for the 14-21 year old male while thay are merely 18% of gamers nowadays

http://renmiri.tumbl...puter-and-video


PS: Incidentaly that armor with "boob cups" would be deadly for anyone using it... 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 02 avril 2013 - 03:45 .

[esper]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Watch and learn Gaider and the rest of BioWare, THIS is how you properly present women in your games:




In comparison, THIS is how it SHOULDN'T be done:




As our good friend Luke would say: "Thou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye before thou points out the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye."

Not a game Gaider is responsible for at all.

[Renmiri1]

in fantasy female armors, the pressure point is directly on the sternum. The breasts are not going to stop the force of you falling onto them, and because of that the metal is going to push in and bash you in the sternum.

What does a fractured sternum do? Why it goes right into your heart and lungs of course
Deadly for the woman, but good to look at

So, no, this is NOT how you should present females, if you want them alive in your games :innocent:

Modifié par Renmiri1, 02 avril 2013 - 03:47 .

[In Exile]

Demoiselle wrote...
Ok,no. The representation of men as bulky, overpowered etc is not the same as women being represented as over sexualised. Male protagonists being represented in that way is to appeal to a male audience, as a fantasy for themselves. Women being represented the way they are is NOT to appeal to a female audience as a parralel but again to appeal to a male audience.

Taking physical apperance alone, you think that a 6'2 ripped and chiselled male model (see e.g. M!Shepard's character model in ME3) is a "fantasy" for a short unattractive dude? Because the research is pretty unequivocal that it isnt (in terms of say marketing). 

Games are power-trips, but that's because of the status portrayals - a good example being TW2. But there's a big difference between the implication most games have that men = status/power, and attractive, ripped guys = men feeling good about themselves. 

[Dutchess]

esper wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Watch and learn Gaider and the rest of BioWare, THIS is how you properly present women in your games:

*snip*


In comparison, THIS is how it SHOULDN'T be done:

*snip*


As our good friend Luke would say: "Thou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye before thou points out the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye."

Not a game Gaider is responsible for at all.

[jillabender]

Billy the Squid wrote...

So by enforcing your own agenda you are, in effect doing the same thing that the large publishers do. You simply replaced business and commercial interests with sociological ones by dictating the various topics that a game should include as broad as they may be. 

So you are guilty of the same stifling of artistic integrity as they are, by creating a board of various topics which are more appealing to you and in the games you like. It's not then higher minded, you've been compromised by internal bias, by forcing a concept into a story, because it "should" be there, not because it feels right or fits.

As I've said before, it can make artistic sense in some circumstances to feature male characters more prominently than female characters in a game or in the marketing for a game - for example, I wouldn't fault a game based on the Shawshank Redemption for failing the Bechdel test.

What I take away from the quote from David Gaider in the original post is that the assumption that it wouldn't be economically viable to feature female characters more prominently is often based on faulty reasoning - and that's something I can agree with.

The fact that, as David Gaider points out, no one ever suggests that a game sold poorly because it featured a male lead, suggests that there's a tendency on the part of marketers to leap to the conclusion that a game sold poorly because it featured a female lead, while ignoring other possible reasons it might have sold poorly.

I can understand the position that game developers should be free to do what makes economic sense, and I agree that no one storyteller, in any medium, can be expected to single-handedly correct every issue of under-representation.

But I do think the assumption that female characters are less marketable is often a shaky one, and that it's been given far more power than it should have. It can also be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it can be used as justification to give games featuring female leads smaller budgets, which might contribute to lower sales. So, I hope the assumption that female characters are less marketable will lose some of its power over game developers in the future.

I'd also add that I don't think BioWare feel obligated to address every social wrong that they possibly can in their games (nor should they) - I think that they do try to be deliberate about not making the default straight, white or male in every instance, but I don't see that as a reason to worry that BioWare will go overboard in letting other people's social agendas dictate the kind of story they tell. (I realize that you didn't necessarily suggest that, but it's a sentiment that I've sometimes come across in similar discussions on these forums.)

Modifié par jillabender, 02 avril 2013 - 04:03 .

[Topsider]

esper wrote...

Topsider wrote...

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

I agree with Mr. Gaider's line of reasoning. The industry has some pretty skewed ideas. Good thing BioWare gives us the option to choose. 

hmm, if "skewed ideas" means the greatest return on your investment, then you'd be right. In this case, no. The industry is interested in one thing: $
Money, money, money! Publishers don't care about the protagonist's gender, or who's on the cover, unless it hurts their profit margin. If they thought a female character would sell more copies they'd be falling over themselves to make that game... and covering the box with her. Lower than expected sales and few publishers would risk it again.

Bioware (EA) might give us the option to choose, but the male protagonist is always the marketing focus. Why is that? Are they worried that showing a female protag would scare off male customers? Or people who don't normally play RPGs. it's possible.

But it is those money making ideas that might be skewed or at the very least outdated.
Fact is that women are becoming a larger and larger part of customers for games and with specific genre it might be close to an even 50/50 or perhaps even more.

The game makers just assuming that a straight male character sells most is not proven and might not even be right.

Publishers spend millions of dollars making these games, it's understandable when they're marketed to who they think will buy the most. In some cases the data may be outdated, but then you get stats from ME3 showing that 82% played as manShep. Marketers will assume most are male gamers even if there's a few variables to consider. 

Game budgets are simply too high to be taking unnecessary risks. It's the main reason the market is flooded with sequels. Hopefully, sequelitis is reduced when the new consoles are released which should encourage more innovation. Female protagonists will have a better chance.

[The Heretic of Time]

esper wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Watch and learn Gaider and the rest of BioWare, THIS is how you properly present women in your games:

*snip Gears of War 3 picture of Anya*


In comparison, THIS is how it SHOULDN'T be done:

*snip ME2 picture of Miranda*


As our good friend Luke would say: "Thou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye before thou points out the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye."

Not a game Gaider is responsible for at all.

Then let me add to my post:


This is how you SHOULDN'T represent women in your games:




Try this instead:

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 avril 2013 - 03:56 .