16 réponses à ce sujet

[MesTarrant]

 The more games I play, the more frustrated I sometimes become at the lack of creative design for female characters. (I'm a woman, if that matters - though I think men and women can both have this concern.)


To be honest the game that really pushed my buttons (even though I still LOVE IT TO BITS) is Mass Effect. We had so many unique male aliens - it was obvious their designers had a great time pushing themselves creatively to bring unique species into the game. Drell, salarians, turians, krogans, volus - all male, all unique, none particularly "attractive" but I suppose that's up for debate.


Females - Asari? Quarians? Human? All the same. All thin, busty, sexy. No design creativity gone into them whatsoever. They are just there for sex appeal. I watched a youtube vid with some designer laughing about the idea of a female krogan (who in the end was Eve) and how to possibly make her female. It's like it never occured to him to just make her look bad-ass as opposed to sexy. (In the end she looked like a regular krogan just completely covered up... Well it's a step in the right direction I guess.)


Now I'm looking at this Dragon Age character art. The link seems to say it's for DA2, so I don't know if this is an indication of what Inquisition will be like... But anyway, even though I really think Dragon Age is miles better in this sense than Mass Effect, I still think the game suffers (or is going to suffer) from the same limitations when it comes to creating cool female characters.


I'm not trying to say we should abolish all sexiness from the game. I'm just saying it would be nice to have more variety. For instance at this point the qunari female looks hot. Gone are the bulging muscles and the frankenstein forehead thing and the slightly stooped shoulders. If it weren't for the horns and the skin color, she actually wouldn't look like a different race AT ALL. But remove the horns and skin color from the male qunari, and he still looks non-human.


If the female dwarf wasn't standing next to a male dwarf, she wouldn't look non-human either. Just short. 


As I said before, Dragon Age really isn't all that bad in this aspect because we did have Shale. But we also had old lady Wynne who had basically the same body as a young woman. Why not make her more realistically old - pudgy in some areas, saggy, etc... You know?


I just think it'd be great to have more of a mix of sexy characters and CREATIVE characters for females.  Hope I didn't step on any toes. What do you think??

[Allan Schumacher]

Maddok900 wrote...

MesTarrant wrote...

lol  Okay... Well if you're going that route, isn't it common knowledge now that gamers' average age is 30+ and females make up 45% of that?

No matter what the articles based on surveys done on a few thousand gamers with shared tendencies tell you, I can assure you that the average age is nowhere near 30, it simply isn't.

Fortunately old farts like myself (almost 33) that grew up at and just after the inception of video gaming will start shifting that number increasingly upwards!

I can't really say what the average age is.  You can disagree with the ESA studies since people will disagree on whether the games are truly games, or what have you, but if you're just speaking from personal experience and intuition, it's best to not "assure" us of anything.


Taken more clearly: Lets not waste anyone's time discussing whether or not it is or is not relevant to have a topic like this based on whatever make up we think the games industry has for its demographics.

[Allan Schumacher]

Roxy Ferret wrote...

Alan? Almost 33 is just at/after the inception of video gaming? I love your thinking, but I was video gaming WAY ahead of you. BBSing was my first love, with all of its text based gaming, dial-up quirks, and vast innovations that lead to what is now the current consensus of video gaming. We led the pack. I'll gladly trade your age, but not for my video gaming experience.

~ Roxy

Well, I'd consider "after" to be within the span of 10 years.  I'm a Nintendo era person, but I was thinking early computer games and the Atari (and competitors) as the widescale push for gaming.

The only reason why I'd put myself at "inception" is that it could be argued that gaming, and who it's marketed towards now, was heavily influenced by the pushes Nintendo made in the 80s (the Atari was marketed more as a system for families, while the Nintendo was pushed as a toy for boys) in the aftermath of the video game crash.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am indeed speaking from "personal experience and intuition", and I am still assuring you. We are not having an actual arguement that anyone besides the people who share this hobby care about, and rightfully so. That usually means intuition is the best you can get.

Your assurances don't do anything to convince me that your perception is anything more than hastily made generalizations based on your own limited experiences.

When you "assure people" that their own experiences and intuition are wrong, you end up speaking down to them. Especially when you make dismissive generalizations like "nowhere near."  (people aren't just wrong.... they've very wrong)

Based on my own personal experiences, gamers are surprisingly old. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most gamers I know are older than 30, and I'd say the average age of BioWare as a developer is over 30 as well (and this studio of 400 people are pretty much all gamers). My uncle is 70 (and loves Half-Life). It takes FOUR 20 year olds to bring the average age of gaming down to 30 for him.  Granted, my own experiences may not be reflective of the actual demographic.

That being said, I'm sure you are actively participating in the social events of the gaming community for a long time as well. Sometimes, it just doesn't take research to determine the character of a sub-culture; thinking on the global picture, where gaming is still mostly perceived as a hobby of introvert youngsters and people with less desire or chance to get an active social life, it is not surprising to find it as a hobby associated with teenage men for now. As I said, on some occasions you simply know the big picture without a study being very necessary, and that is coming from a science geek.

Yes, I am directly challenging the notion that that assumption is correct. I think it's grossly outdated and often used in inappropriate ways to justify things that may or may not be correct. Further, science and empiricism has, throughout history, consistently shown that research is in fact necessary and that logic and assumption are routinely wrong.

I went to PAX. I saw the demographic make up of not only content creators, but content consumers. I'd put most in the age of 25-30 for consumers, over 30 for the creators (and I think it's safe to say the creators are typically still game players themselves). That you stated that they are "nowhere near" 30, then we'd have to ask "what does it mean to be near?" 29? 28? 27?  And there's still the realization of "how accurate is PAX?" because there's selection bias for people that can afford to go, are okay supporting Penny Arcade, can afford to go, and so forth.

I'd still consider 28 to be "near 30." I'd probably be willing to accept 27, though I'd probably generalize to the nearest multiple of 5 and say near 25, in that case (and if you were to ask me, I do believe that most gamers are over the age of 25).

Hailing from middle-east, I can say that most of the time you just wouldn't say out loud that you are a gamer while hunting for a comforting night, or when you are over a certain age; I can again safely say that while this doesn't seem to be a radical issue, or not an issue at all in the West; the gaming community do indeed share certain traits that are near impossible to deny, male domination and age being the most apparent of them.

IMO this undermines your position. Gamers that hide their gaming status based on sex and age are still gamers, and by your own word they are under represented since they are disinclined to admit that they are gamers.  Further, the reticence of people to admit to it is a social construct that I feel is outdated.


I'm much more inclined to concede that more men than women play our games (though I'm not sure if that need be the case, and the turnouts and places like PAX showed a non-trivial presence of women gamers), but given that I was talking about age, I cannot disagree more with your assurances. Where I will be inclined to agree is that younger people tend to spend *more* time gaming (because my gamer friends occasionally do other things than game now, like take care of kids or whatnot). Though depending on how you break down the market, I have easily acquired more games (both in quantity and in dollar value) since I was 25 then the entirety of my life when I was younger (and I have been gaming since I was 3 - god bless Lode Runner).


So yes, I challenge your assurances. I think it's infinitely wiser for you to recognize that "you don't know" because, despite everything that I just said in this post, my opinion is still "I don't know what the average age of gamers is." What I am saying, though, is that I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the average age of gamers (and I'm referring to the "hardcore games" not social games) is near 30. If we do include games that people like you and I don't normally play, I wouldn't be surprised if the number was even higher. My Mom is 60 and plays games every single day.... She just doesn't play the games I'm interested in, although she loves adventure games too. I used to play the Sierra Adventure games with her growing up. She works 3 days a week, and on the 4 days she doesn't she probably spends about 6+ hours each day playing games. I doubt she identifies as a gamer though, which is another issue with self-reporting. And every now and then I treat her to a game I like, like Plants vs Zombies, and she ends up absolutely loving it.

If you don't want to talk about demographics though, I won't push the isse any further

Please don't give a giant post about demographics and then say, after the fact (and The Last Word™) that you're cool not pressing the issue further (since you already decided to press the issue further).

But my opinion that Bioware, like many others, do take advantage of some base desires remains the same; and that's not criticism, it's a necessity to survive in a male dominated market. Visually simulating the instincts you simply can't satisfy in modern society, violence, need to kill, power struggles with other males, and for some the sexual ones(again, considering the "general" social statue of the community) is a very attractive reason for men to play video games, and that's very, very healthy.

And this is why discussions about demographics really frustrate me. Suggesting that games should have these components because otherwise I'd be off satisfying my male urges to kill, compete, and be violent is an exceptionally frustrating thing to read. The implication that such factors are innately biological, as opposed to socially constructed (or adversely, socially countermanded), is doubly frustrating and something that I adamantly disagree with. And it happens every single time.


Say you like these games because you find them fun, rather than justifying it as some sort of outlet for the inner monster that you are. I'm much more inclined to believe the former than the latter, anyways.


EDIT: Granted, my bias is definitely of a Western perspective.  Cultures that I'm, for the most part, not at all knowledgeable about, could make most of my assumptions completely wrong.  Though I'm not sure how much a game like Dragon Age markets itself to non-Western markets, nor what their consumption rates are there.  So yeah, my perspective is one of the western market.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 février 2014 - 12:31 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I would argue that she was the most attractive female character in DA2.

I'd probably agree.

As for the "male body type" counter argument, there may also be some sampling qualms. We can put a punk like Gamlen in ****** poor rags and the details of his body type (i.e. seeing the muscles) can be easier to cover up since we toss some crappy, tattered rags on him.

[Allan Schumacher]

Like some people just evoke a purely sexual emotion while others make you take a second before you do something else. there is a difference between beauty and sexy.

Define those differences. You'll likely find several people disagreeing with you.

http://www.merriam-w...dictionary/sexy


Further, take a picture of a person you find sexy and show it to a variety of different cultures, and you'll find disagreements with your assertion.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am referring to the stereotypical "sexy".

This may be the disconnect. You mention that "Aveline isn't really sexy" and then make references to "normal sexy."

I think the mere existence of people thinking Aveline is sexy, or Cassandra is sexy, and what have you, is serving an impetus that having a body type that is less typical of a particular type of sexiness could be seen as a good thing.


Having said that, as stated, there are challenges with having multiple types of body types, mostly from a technological perspective than an actual art design perspective (though that isn't trivial either). I do agree with the notion that BioWare could do better in this regard, however.


I feel that the man's body is less predicated on shape. As such, it's easier to cover up with clothes that tell a visual story that can still be consistent while reusing body types, while with a woman maybe that is less easy to do.


I will say, however, that the male body type is indeed an idealized body type, especially with no clothes on to make that visual aspect more apparent.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't see how any of this matters for the topic anyway. Even if you're right, if the devs don't believe that the demographics are what you think they are they won't design games around those demographics.

To be fair, I speak on behalf of myself in a topic like this (and almost anywhere else, really).

I know more 30+ people who game than those under 30, and I know many,
many women who game. Of course, as 30+ person myself, I don't generally
associate with younger people. But conversely, the young person doesn't
associate much with older people, and so is unaware of their gaming
habits.

Thanks motomotogirl, and that's definitely the point I was trying to illustrate.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 février 2014 - 02:52 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't know if it's so much that the BSN flip-flops, but rather different people say the opposite things.

[Allan Schumacher]

If someone is only interested in appearances what would you call that person? Shallow, yes? If all it takes for you to identify with a character is a similar appearance to your own than that is shallow. I play video games to be immersed in a world other my own and I don't think strong-armed, ham-fisted affirmative action has any place in video games.

If you don't care about it, why would it bother you if a game had "a black guy here, a gay woman there, a bisexual latino dwarf thrown in for good measure?" By the same token that other people shouldn't care, don't you undermine your own position by seemingly being resistant to characters based on their appearance?

[Allan Schumacher]

qistina can you come back... we need better trolls

Unnecessary and it stops right now.

[Allan Schumacher]

n7stormrunner wrote...

I'm sorry but I feel he need to post about something different before my head explodes, but aren't most women attractive in real life, why would fantasy be any different?

Just as a note, the perspective that "boob plate" would be less effective for the wearer isn't actually a new one that he created.  You can disagree that other people are also wrong, but the perception that the armor would be less protective as a result, and potentially even more dangerous to the wearer, isn't a new one.

I am not an armorsmith and have zero knowledge over how armor feels when it is worn and what have you, but the idea of the armor deflecting a blow towards your center of mass certainly comes up a lot.

You're suggesting that those that feel this way are incorrect in their assessments?

[Allan Schumacher]

I believe it largely depend on the armour, using the example posted earlier the answer no, it is basically the same design for the men and women except making room for under the armour for breasts. if however the changes open a gap in the armour then yes it would be a problem. of couse if you can get though the armour anyhow when there is no gap or the gap is always a part of the design for men or women. then it wouldn't matter if it was "boob plate" or not you would have cut though anyway.

Is this perspective based upon any actual experience? In order to "make room for under the breasts," you'd have to structurally change the armor. Wouldn't this override the idea that the armor is essentially the same design? Wouldn't the force dissipation of a heavy, blunt hit to the armor be different? If not, why not?

[Allan Schumacher]

Not at all. I want BioWare to make the best characters they possibly can and putting self-imposed restrictions on characters from the outset inhibits that. If the writers sat down to start coming up with characters and had a list of minorities, social groups, etc to make characters from then those characters are worthless IMO. Above all I want well-written characters with interesting personalities. I don't want political correctness and a childish definition of inclusivity invading my video games. And I say my video games because BioWare is basically the only company making games that I love.

How much of a self-imposed restriction is the character's skin colour or appearance?

If you were to take a blender and mix and match random ethnicity into the characters of the Dragon Age games, how much would the story change?

[Allan Schumacher]

that women are a lot stronger than I think. And the reason why any of that matters is that the realism of armor design goes out the window when the person wearing it isn't able to use it at all in the first place.

Real plate armor isn't that heavy. It's about 15-20kg distributed across the entire weight of the body mitigating its overall effect. There'd be no shortage of women that were capable of wearing plate armor and being effective at using it.

Troops today carry more weight than plate armor.

[Allan Schumacher]

BasilKarlo wrote...

How would it benefit? Why do things just to do them instead of creating characters organically? Why make race a focus at all?

A benefit, it seems, is simply that some people would go "hey, I appreciate that."

Here's part of the issue I think people have: most of our staff is white, and as such our "default" when "race doesn't matter at all" is simply "white person."

However, if race doesn't matter at all, then all feedback like this is is a thought of "hey, can you make someone with a different colour skin?"  To which, if race doesn't matter at all, only changes something at the beginning of the development and wouldn't affect the organic creation of a character.


As a white person though, I have a predisposition to think of race (or other deviations from myself, really) only when I think it DOES matter.  Which is problematic, because it means that without any external influence, in a game where race doesn't matter I'll be inclined to make primarily white people.  Now, I'm just making a supposition here, but the idea that I may see things differently if I grew up rarely seeing white people in the fiction I consumed could be disappointing doesn't seem WAY out there for me.


So, if we're at a situation where you and I feel race doesn't matter and we don't care, while someone else goes "Hey, I think it'd be value added if you mixed it up a little bit," and it doesn't actually take much beyond letting art/design know "make this person different than a white person" then it seems like it's a small gain for a small cost.  You and I won't care, but someone else comes away feeling a bit better about the game.

Even then, there being no benefit or detriment to doing so doesn't strike me as a compelling reason not to.


Or are you suggesting that going to an artist and saying "draw me a man" and "draw me a black man" (or even more generally, draw me a non-white man) is a significant self-imposed restriction?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 février 2014 - 09:23 .

[Allan Schumacher]

If I understand Basil's point, it's more of a criticism of shallow taste and token minoritism when you include a token minority for the primary purpose of being a token minority rather than a role in their own right (which would be legitimate).

There is a vague, nebulous point at which interacting with someone solely on the basis of them being a minority figure is condescending or even reflective of discriminatory mindsets. A point at which you're identifying someone entirely by their category, and not at all by their character, which is just as stuck in engaging in stereotyping (or, rather, how you will be stereotyped if you don't) and just as uninterested in the individual as people who discriminate against [insert category here]. You're still treating people according to their [category], rather than their personhood.

So in your perspective then, skin colour should only be included because different skin colour does matter?

But if race does matter, that would mean that we're de facto making a political statement by having primarily white people, would it not?