311 réponses à ce sujet

[Br3admax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While that may be true, he is default for a reason. Otherwise the default custom face would be the default. Somehow I doubt the number of people who would pick that would be the same.

A supposition. We don't know. And can't know. It's an untestable hypothesis and what I was trying to illustrate is a belief on the same standings as someone that believes otherwise. You don't have greater substantiation to your belief.

And yes, I think if default custom face was the face of our marketing, you'd get people picking it at a higher rate than others. But this is my belief and it isn't any more valid than yours, or Rinji's, or whatever.

I can admit to this. Sure we can never know, but I'm basing what I believe more on what I've heard from dev through a few interviews on what they think about when they design a character. I've never heard anyone say that they just picked a face, and I've actually heard very few who have said they pick the default because it is default. The redesigning of FemShep herself showed this to me. Otherwise, they would have had no difference, no? It would be a waste of resources to redesign her then. Why would the ME team redesign her anyway, if their would be no more appeal to the fans of her? 

Modifié par Br3ad, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:08 .

[Silfren]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

RedIntifada wrote...

But, I do have to laugh at the idea that people in oppressed groups are mean or hostile because they dare criticise why in the 21st century we are still having these discussions. Sarkeesian actually enjoys playing videogames and as she always points out at the start of her video's it is possible to enjoy things while being critical of them... 

While I agree that the video game industry can do more to advance things like racial diversity, gender representation and a genuinely more open and accepting atmosphere... saying ANY gamer who has the disposable income and freedom to spend hours playing a game is "oppressed" is likely going to seem insanely disinegnious to me. 

This is a real first world problem... but it is TOTALLY a first world problem - "the escapist luxury activity I do for fun and serves no other purpose for my daily existence doesn't have COMMERCIALS with characters that look like me!!!" You'll get much more real sympathy and support from me when approach this exactly as it is - something the industry can do better... not something on the level of Darfur or real life abuses and oppression.

Funny, I thought that's what they were doing.  Talking about the issue: giving it the level of discussion it deserves.  What's happening, per your claim, is actually just you trying to claim that the issue is being given a disproportionate response, equal to Darfur, abuse, and oppression, because that's one of the go-to tactics for dismissing it as not being worthy of attention at all.

Mostly, the objections against the OP in this thread read rather a lot to me as if men are objecting to the possibility of having to face the same reality of dismissal and erasure that women have had to put up with since forever.  I do not for a moment believe that any of the men here who object that this is a non-issue would actually feel that way were the situation reversed. 

It's easy to believe that there isn't a real problem when you are part of the dominant group not adversely affected by it.  Of course you're not going to be able to see why there's an issue.  But I do feel that part of the motivation for the need to shout down this ongoing discussion is that men are secretly afraid of learning what it feels like to be treated like an add-on rather than the default.

Modifié par Silfren, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:53 .

[frankf43]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While that may be true, he is default for a reason. Otherwise the default custom face would be the default. Somehow I doubt the number of people who would pick that would be the same.

A supposition. We don't know. And can't know. It's an untestable hypothesis and what I was trying to illustrate is a belief on the same standings as someone that believes otherwise. You don't have greater substantiation to your belief.

And yes, I think if default custom face was the face of our marketing, you'd get people picking it at a higher rate than others. But this is my belief and it isn't any more valid than yours, or Rinji's, or whatever.

The fact is that even with the whole Character Creator that a large number of players will just pick the first character they are given because starting  the game is more important to them than spending time creating every aspect of their character.

Now while this concept is alien to me personally I can admit that for the vast majority it holds true.

[billy the squid]

RedIntifada wrote...

Anita Sarkeesian's series Tropes vs. Women in games has a new episode.

http://kotaku.com/ne...male-1466898678

The episode discusses ME's marketing (around the 19:55 mark) in particular the issue of the default protagonist being male and the female version being defined by the fact that she is female i.e. there is Shepard and femShepard rather than Shepard and maleShep.

With almost half of RPG gamers being female the fact that women are always having to negotiate a male protagonist in marketing is a problem.

Already we have seen the first bits of footage for Dragon Age: Inquisition and of coures we had a male playing character in that demo. It would be great if we could see some female inquisitors in future demos and marketing especially without a big deal being made of it i.e. that it just happens as this is our inquisitor as opposed to it being seen as a special thing that inquisitors are female.

Also it would be great if the default option on character building menues didn't default to male. I could be wrong but most (if not all) RPG games that I have played  have the default option (i.e. the one the cursor starts on) as male which probably increases the statistic to male. The majority of people probably played soldiers on ME3 for the same reason.

Female gamers deserve to finally feel like they are the "default" and male gamers can and should learn to navigate seeing themselves through a female avitar... like women gamers are constantly having to do.



MODEDIT:  Keep this on the topic.  Personal attacks against posters or Anita will not be tolerated.
- Allan

We'll just gloss over the fact that her videos are riddled with inaccurate pusudo intellectual crap.

That Bioware's on figures from ME3 stated that only 20% of people actually played a femal character, not including those men who chose a female shepard for whatever reason. So where's this 50% market share? Playing Farmville? Or is it an example of the typical tripe that usually get's bandied around in one of her asinine poorly produced videos?

[David7204]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Have people considered the deeper reasons as to why male combative characters appeal over female combative characters? Deeper than 'we're all sexist'?

Is it because we as a culture associate traditional 'heroism' with a male protagonists?  And have done so for thousands of years?

Actually, that's more or less right.

But why is that?

Almost certainly because of violence. Because pretty much all 'epic' fiction in existence involves violence in some form, and the great majority of epic heroes are warriors. And who are the people who commit violence? Men.

So at some level, female warriors aren't taken as seriously. They certainly aren't taken as seriously in real life. And that includes by me. So the qualities of 'toughness' and 'badassness' and whatever lose some of their appeal in fiction.

Modifié par David7204, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:09 .

[Ravensword]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Why do you guys gobble up her con artistry shlock? She's only in it for the dough.

Well, it's okay unless they start donating to her kickstarter en masse.

I mean, really, all that money and she has yet to put out the remaining videos on her series. She has yet to release a budget on her video series, but that's probably b/c of the fact that people wouldn't appreciate the fact that their money is being used to pay her rent and sundries.

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
Have people considered the deeper reasons as to why male combative characters appeal over female combative characters? Deeper than 'we're all sexist'?

There are deeper reasons for why that has been so for thousands of years of cultural history. Culture changes, though, as do the material circumstances that *may* have made this meme dominant. I am, in fact, a great proponent of not ignoring possible biological roots of our behaviour, but at the same I am also a proponent of overcoming our stone-age legacy if it's no longer useful. There is no instrinsic value to anything just because it is part of our history, biologically and culturally.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:11 .

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Have people considered the deeper reasons as to why male combative characters appeal over female combative characters? Deeper than 'we're all sexist'?

Is it because we as a culture associate traditional 'heroism' with a male protagonists?  And have done so for thousands of years?

Actually, that's more or less right.

But why is that?

Almost certainly because of violence. Because pretty much all 'epic' fiction in existence involves violence in some form, and the great majority of epic heroes are warriors. And who are the people who commit violence? Men.

So at some level, female warriors aren't taken as seriously. They certainly aren't taken as seriously in real life. And that includes by me.

I don't know what gender this is more prejudice against. 

[Steelcan]

Silfren wrote...



Mostly, the objections against the OP in this thread read rather a lot to me as if men are objecting to the possibility of having to face the same reality of dismissal and erasure that women have had to put up with since forever.  I do not for a moment believe that any of the men here who object that this is a non-issue would actually feel that way were the situation reversed. 

It's easy to believe that there isn't a real problem when you are part of the dominant group not adversely affected by it.  Of course you're not going to be able to see why there's an issue.  But I do feel that part of the motivation for the need to shout down this ongoing discussion is that men are secretly afraid of learning what it feels like to be treated like an add-on rather than the default.

There is going to be a default, you can't just have black hole where a protagonist should be in trailers and promotional meterial.

Since most people play Male protagonists (even when the option of a female protagonist appears the numbers are still heavily male skewed) they are going to get marketing that appeals to their tastes. 

Its just the way it works.  Now if you want to change societal perceptions of female protagonists in video games thats another issue.

But I don't see the slightest evidence that having Sheploo in a trailer is sexist.

[daveliam]

Wraith 02 wrote...

Progress doesn't happen overnight. People should be happy that the face of gaming is changing to a more gender equal state rather than complaining that it isn't happening at the pace they want it to.

Imagine if you were unable to walk, If you started taking a few steps you should encourage it and be happy with the fact that it is working towards a better overall goal.
Instead most feminists are of the idea that you should start kicking the person to make them walk faster.

It might seem a bit arrogant bit you should be happy with what you are given, that isn't to say that you don't deserve more but that progress is being made.

I totally agree with you that progress doesn't happen overnight.  And, again, I totally agree that Bioware is actively making attempts to progress when other companies aren't even trying.  I'm glad that we agree on that.

What I disagree with you is the idea that "most feminists" are forcing the issue by pointing out that there are still areas where we need additional progress.  I think the problem is that, in alot of cases, the people in charge don't have these issues on their immediate radar so they make decisions that support the status quo, ultimately blocking the progress that we both think is very necessary.  "Most feminists" point these decisions out because otherwise, they wouldn't even register.  Then, they get yelled at and berated by people who call them names and denigrate them. 

In the case of the ME marketing, my argument is that the game might have been just as successful if Femshep was highlighted as default, but we'll never know because that decision wasn't made.  It would be cool to test out my theory though by having the next Bioware series place the "fem" version of the protagonist as the default.

[MissOuJ]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, the distinction is not between the people who choose maleShep vs. femShep, it's between the people who make a conscious choice and those who go with the default because it's the default. No, I'm not saying that the latter is inferior - people have priorities and for some the protagonist's details don't matter for a variety of reasons - but by not making a conscious choice *AND* thus being funnelled into the (usually) male default they become unwitting carriers of the sexist meme that the male is the default. The effect of that can be mitigated by the simple expedient of making people aware of the meme, and that's what things like Ms. Sarkeesian's video are about. It's about making people think "Hmm...I've always picked the default. Perhaps I've missed something I would've enjoyed. Let's do it differently next time"  

Yeah, this. Beautifully put.

Another interesting find regarding the ME series: when I checked other forums discussing this topic, I saw many people who were unaware you could actually play as female Shepard - there was at least one gamer who thought that thad feature had come in later (an in ME2) and wasn't even an option in ME1 - which again, is probably partly because of marketing, but also because of the way the character screen functions in the first gema (if memory serves it goes something along tha lines of Quick Start / Custom (both guySheps) --> (if Custom is chosen) --> Default Appearance / Custom Appearance (guy and fem Sheps), so if you choose Quick Start, you're automatically playing the Default Soldier GuyShep, and there's no indication you can even play as a female character. In ME2, the first thing you're asked when starting a new game is which gender you want to play as, and the loading screens sometimes encourage you to replay the game with a Shepard of different class / gender, so those things help as well (though that kinda breaks the fourth wall a bit, but then again there's so much metatext needed in games in general that that can't really be avoided).

So, for the start-up screen... a bunch of premade quick-start characters of different gender / race / class combinations, plus a command that takes the player to the character creation screen. Multiple "defaults" --> problem solved!

But on the topic of advertising...

Why should the ads have any set Inquisitor in the first place? Ever since E3 and the GameInformer story BioWare's tagline has been "Your Inquisitor, your game - go nuts! Consequences are yours" so why would there even be need for a "default" Inquisitor in the promo material, if each and every player's Inquisitior is supposed to be unique (well, not really, since there can only be so many options, but in spirit at least)? We know we're going to have awesome NPC's (again, both male and female) that are going to work fine in the promo material.

Also I kinda love the official site's art, and the idea that the Inquisitor's helmet is given to you, the player - so it would be both adressing the possible future consumer (who sees the ad / trailer), and the character they create / end up playing as. I'd think something along those lines would be pretty cool.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:15 .

[frankf43]

Br3ad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Have people considered the deeper reasons as to why male combative characters appeal over female combative characters? Deeper than 'we're all sexist'?

Is it because we as a culture associate traditional 'heroism' with a male protagonists?  And have done so for thousands of years?

Actually, that's more or less right.

But why is that?

Almost certainly because of violence. Because pretty much all 'epic' fiction in existence involves violence in some form, and the great majority of epic heroes are warriors. And who are the people who commit violence? Men.

So at some level, female warriors aren't taken as seriously. They certainly aren't taken as seriously in real life. And that includes by me.

I don't know what gender this is more prejudice against. 

Males. It quite clearly states that only males are violent a negative emotion when it is completely untrue.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Have people considered the deeper reasons as to why male combative characters appeal over female combative characters? Deeper than 'we're all sexist'?

Is it because we as a culture associate traditional 'heroism' with a male protagonists?  And have done so for thousands of years?

Actually, that's more or less right.

But why is that?

Almost certainly because of violence. Because pretty much all 'epic' fiction in existence involves violence in some form, and the great majority of epic heroes are warriors. And who are the people who commit violence? Men.

So at some level, female warriors aren't taken as seriously. They certainly aren't taken as seriously in real life. And that includes by me. So the qualities of 'toughness' and 'badassness' and whatever lose some of their appeal in fiction.

In my personal opinion, this may be aided to a degree because many "warrior women" in epic fiction are just walking talking breats, Miranda comes to mind as does Samara, looking outside of ME in DA we have Isabela and to a lesser degree Aveline.

These are all "warrior women" but they don't get taken as seriously.

I could go on about why I think FemShep isn't and shouldn't be taken as seriously, but that'll just result in me being called a sexist or some other noise.

And you'd disagree with it because I'd say the root of it is her attractiveness.

[David7204]

It doesn't help that quite a few female characters are portrayed very, very poorly. And very often, those characters are actually lauded as feminist when they come off to me as incredibly anti-feminist. Catwoman from TDKR is the best example I can think of. Thankfully, female BioWare characters have managed to steer well clear of that.

[Silfren]

CronoDragoon wrote...

RedIntifada wrote...
Female gamers deserve to finally feel like they are the "default" and male gamers can and should learn to navigate seeing themselves through a female avitar... like women gamers are constantly having to do.

Uh, no. That is equally sexist. The only way to be non-sexist is to advertise both equally and not have a "default", but this is problematic marketing-wise as it could confuse people who don't frequent the boards. Personally I have no problenm with marketing both equally but I am sure there are reasons why BW does this that are not sexist.

Perhaps it is, but there's something illustrative about mindsets which think that the current sexist set-up is acceptable or just not a big enough deal to warrant mention, but which cry foul, loudly and angrily, when it is suggested that the opposite be done instead.

Frankly I think it would be a good idea to reverse the default to women and have men be the afterthought, just to show men what living in that reality actually feels like.  And then I'd love to see their reactions if women dismissed their complaints by attacking their opinions with thinly-veiled misandry.

Modifié par Silfren, 19 novembre 2013 - 08:05 .

[Anthadlas]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Have people considered the deeper reasons as to why male combative characters appeal over female combative characters? Deeper than 'we're all sexist'?

Is it because we as a culture associate traditional 'heroism' with a male protagonists?  And have done so for thousands of years?

Actually, that's more or less right.

But why is that?

Almost certainly because of violence. Because pretty much all 'epic' fiction in existence involves violence in some form, and the great majority of epic heroes are warriors. And who are the people who commit violence? Men.

So at some level, female warriors aren't taken as seriously. They certainly aren't taken as seriously in real life. And that includes by me. So the qualities of 'toughness' and 'badassness' and whatever lose some of their appeal in fiction.

Same reason Male nurses and babysitters aren't taken seriously, It's just not a role associated with them.
Games will always feature violence as a gameplay mechanic and general objective. Sad look into the human mind there but still.
Male protagonists will always be the most popular as they are the group most commonly linked to these activities. Whether that is true or not holds no merit as these are historically linked.
It's like a samarai game without a japanese protagonist or a game based in Russia where you play an American.
Whilst these situations are feasible and explanable they will not be highly featured as they are not associated with the source material.

[Steelcan]

frankf43 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Have people considered the deeper reasons as to why male combative characters appeal over female combative characters? Deeper than 'we're all sexist'?

Is it because we as a culture associate traditional 'heroism' with a male protagonists?  And have done so for thousands of years?

Actually, that's more or less right.

But why is that?

Almost certainly because of violence. Because pretty much all 'epic' fiction in existence involves violence in some form, and the great majority of epic heroes are warriors. And who are the people who commit violence? Men.

So at some level, female warriors aren't taken as seriously. They certainly aren't taken as seriously in real life. And that includes by me.

I don't know what gender this is more prejudice against. 

Males. It quite clearly states that only males are violent a negative emotion when it is completely untrue.

We just happen to be better at bashing each others brains out, testosterone and large muscle mass help with that.

[David7204]

frankf43 wrote...

Males. It quite clearly states that only males are violent a negative emotion when it is completely untrue.

First of all, violence isn't negative. We love it in fiction. We should be able to acknowledge it's merits in real life.

Secondly, it's true. Violence is overwhelmingly commited, for lack of a better word, by men.

[frankf43]

Silfren wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

RedIntifada wrote...
Female gamers deserve to finally feel like they are the "default" and male gamers can and should learn to navigate seeing themselves through a female avitar... like women gamers are constantly having to do.

Uh, no. That is equally sexist. The only way to be non-sexist is to advertise both equally and not have a "default", but this is problematic marketing-wise as it could confuse people who don't frequent the boards. Personally I have no problenm with marketing both equally but I am sure there are reasons why BW does this that are not sexist.

Perhaps it is, but there's something illustrative about mindsets which think that the current sexist set-up is acceptable or just not a big enough deal to warrant mention, but which cry fowl, loudly and angrily, when it is suggested that the opposite be done instead.

Frankly I think it would be a good idea to reverse the default to women and have men be the afterthought, just to show men what living in that reality actually feels like.  And then I'd love to see their reactions if women dismissed their complaints by attacking their opinions with thinly-veiled misandry.

I really wouldn't mind as I said before I have never had a problem playing Tomb raider.

[David7204]

Wraith 02 wrote...

Games will always feature violence as a gameplay mechanic and general objective. Sad look into the human mind there but still.

Not sad at all.

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

Males. It quite clearly states that only males are violent a negative emotion when it is completely untrue.

First of all, violence isn't negative. We love it in fiction. We should be able to acknowledge it's merits in real life.

Because it lacks the negative consequences that actually come with taking the life of another human being. Most of us don't love killing hundereds on the daily, I'm sure.

Secondly, it's true. Violence is overwhelmingly commited, for lack of a better word, by men.

"If I don't hear about it, it didn't happen." 

Modifié par Br3ad, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:20 .

[Steelcan]

Silfren wrote...


Perhaps it is, but there's something illustrative about mindsets which think that the current sexist set-up is acceptable or just not a big enough deal to warrant mention, but which cry fowl, loudly and angrily, when it is suggested that the opposite be done instead.

Frankly I think it would be a good idea to reverse the default to women and have men be the afterthought, just to show men what living in that reality actually feels like.  And then I'd love to see their reactions if women dismissed their complaints by attacking their opinions with thinly-veiled misandry.

It would be a poor idea from an economic view and thats really all that matters.

[frankf43]

David7204 wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

Males. It quite clearly states that only males are violent a negative emotion when it is completely untrue.

First of all, violence isn't negative. We love it in fiction. We should be able to acknowledge it's merits in real life.

Secondly, it's true. Violence is overwhelmingly commited, for lack of a better word, by men.

I have a friend six foot two male who is beaten up mercilessly by his five foot four wife. Not all violence is committed by men.

If you take the time to watch the police programs in Britain you would see that the violent offences taking place on the streets late at night are just as likely to be two females fighting as two males.

[Anthadlas]

frankf43 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Have people considered the deeper reasons as to why male combative characters appeal over female combative characters? Deeper than 'we're all sexist'?

Is it because we as a culture associate traditional 'heroism' with a male protagonists?  And have done so for thousands of years?

Actually, that's more or less right.

But why is that?

Almost certainly because of violence. Because pretty much all 'epic' fiction in existence involves violence in some form, and the great majority of epic heroes are warriors. And who are the people who commit violence? Men.

So at some level, female warriors aren't taken as seriously. They certainly aren't taken as seriously in real life. And that includes by me.

I don't know what gender this is more prejudice against. 

Males. It quite clearly states that only males are violent a negative emotion when it is completely untrue.

This is the problem with Sexism, you read that post as "Men are violent" and took it out of context.

He is actually stating that historically men are considered to be the more violent of the 2 sexes and this is the reason they are featured in violent videogames.

He was in no way stating that that was true or his opinion, so read it more closely next time.

[Silfren]

Rodia Driftwood wrote...

RedIntifada wrote...

Anita Sarkeesian's series Tropes vs. Women in games has a new episode.

http://kotaku.com/ne...male-1466898678

The episode discusses ME's marketing (around the 19:55 mark) in particular the issue of the default protagonist being male and the female version being defined by the fact that she is female i.e. there is Shepard and femShepard rather than Shepard and maleShep.

With almost half of RPG gamers being female the fact that women are always having to negotiate a male protagonist in marketing is a problem.

Already we have seen the first bits of footage for Dragon Age: Inquisition and of coures we had a male playing character in that demo. It would be great if we could see some female inquisitors in future demos and marketing especially without a big deal being made of it i.e. that it just happens as this is our inquisitor as opposed to it being seen as a special thing that inquisitors are female.

Also it would be great if the default option on character building menues didn't default to male. I could be wrong but most (if not all) RPG games that I have played  have the default option (i.e. the one the cursor starts on) as male which probably increases the statistic to male. The majority of people probably played soldiers on ME3 for the same reason.

Female gamers deserve to finally feel like they are the "default" and male gamers can and should learn to navigate seeing themselves through a female avitar... like women gamers are constantly having to do.

This is so wrong. If any female gamers read this reply of mine, do you feel offended, ignored, insulted or let down when marketing for DA:I is don with a male protagonist? Seriously, who makes a big deal out of this? It's just a damn game. No feelings were ever hurt because the cover art of a game had a male protagonist, except that of a bleeding heart feminist who claims equality in the most pathetic and hypocritical way. OP's post is downright insulting to the senses. 

Female gamers don't deserve anything. Now, I'm not saying screw female gamers, I'm saying who the hell takes the default character being male offensive? Does Anita Sarkeesian speak for all female gamers? I don't think so. I don't think all female gamers get upset because of something so trivial like this. 

Okay, first off, I'm sick of seeing the issue of being offended thrown around willy-nilly.  I do not find it offensive that the default character is always male.  However, I DO recognize that it is problematic specifically because it reveals a mindset that sees men as the default and women as secondary.

Recognizing that something is problematic because it is symptomatic of a larger issue of sexist thinking should not be scorned as "omg how can you be offended by this?"  Like so many other things in this thread, this serves only to detract from the actual point and to dismiss women's objections, intentionally or not--and I do suspect it to be intentional.