Deified Data
Banned
Having a wife who games is just about the best thing in the world. Such an amazing hobby to share with someone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"No Girls Allowed": Why the Stereotype of Games for Boys Exists [Polygon]
- Thread starter Jintor
- Start date
- Status
anexanhume
Member
Great post. We do see some similar gender selectiveness in movies, but I'd argue that's because of how they're marketed as well (action movies vs. rom coms e.g.) It seems appealing to sexual preference has a huge determining factor, and a gender difference is merely assumed/implied in that dichotomy by the audience or marketers, respectively.
I think this article grossly over inflates the importance of advertising. You can see it in the very narrative they spin - while they're trying to demonstrate the marketing shifted to being dominated towards men with games like Doom, there's Myst immediately beside it which still has a sizable female audience despite the refocus of the marketing department.
Granted, they interviewed marketers so I'm not surprised that they sell themselves as being nearly omnipotent masters of the human unconsciousness. I mean, you have to laugh at the sheer bravado of Roesers saying he could sell tampons to men.
I won't outright dismiss marketing and its effects on consumerist behaviour but it is hardly the full story. Especially when the "science" behind marketing is, as the article points out, essentially a self fulfilling prophecy.
To bring up a counter example, and I know that it hardly rebukes the arguments but I want to add to the discourse, is the marketing for Dota 2. Here is a game that, by its characteristics, shouldn't work if it's directed at men because it features predominant female characters. The only trailer for Dota 2 shows the first "hero" of the game as a woman.
But I don't doubt that if you were to do demographics on the audience you would find that the majority of players are men. I don't know where this conventional wisdom that "men don't play games with women in them" arose, but it clearly exists in the marketers minds by their own confessions but when put to the test doesn't actually hold up.
It is pretty disgusting how ingratiated marketing has become in the industry though and this isn't the first time that we've heard stories of their opinions weighing heavily on choices. I remember there was some discussion earlier over even the box art for Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us because both games feature prominent female characters that had to present a secondary position to the male because "marketing says so."
Granted, they interviewed marketers so I'm not surprised that they sell themselves as being nearly omnipotent masters of the human unconsciousness. I mean, you have to laugh at the sheer bravado of Roesers saying he could sell tampons to men.
I won't outright dismiss marketing and its effects on consumerist behaviour but it is hardly the full story. Especially when the "science" behind marketing is, as the article points out, essentially a self fulfilling prophecy.
To bring up a counter example, and I know that it hardly rebukes the arguments but I want to add to the discourse, is the marketing for Dota 2. Here is a game that, by its characteristics, shouldn't work if it's directed at men because it features predominant female characters. The only trailer for Dota 2 shows the first "hero" of the game as a woman.
But I don't doubt that if you were to do demographics on the audience you would find that the majority of players are men. I don't know where this conventional wisdom that "men don't play games with women in them" arose, but it clearly exists in the marketers minds by their own confessions but when put to the test doesn't actually hold up.
It is pretty disgusting how ingratiated marketing has become in the industry though and this isn't the first time that we've heard stories of their opinions weighing heavily on choices. I remember there was some discussion earlier over even the box art for Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us because both games feature prominent female characters that had to present a secondary position to the male because "marketing says so."
Gentleman Jack
Member
Marketing at women isn't as simple as creating a female avatar and putting it in the web advertising for your product. And I didn't really see the heart of the article being 'How do we get more girls to want to buy games from Activision, Take Two, Ubisoft, Microsoft and Sony?'
The problem is very straightforwardly put in the article as one of perception. As long as big money publishers are seen to make games only for men, and young men to juveniles at that, video games won't shake their image as being 'toys for boys.' This makes the industry vulnerable to the types of moral panic (columbine, et al) that will forever marginalize it next to other types of largely protected media like literature, film and music. Witness how Roger Ebert struggled to see games as art. This toxic aura around video games is why legislation keeps getting pushed to wreck everybody's fun. Who keeps perpetuating this image since its establishment by Nintendo? It's a bigger question than the article is trying to answer, but the marketing is an easy target since the history of their efforts are plain to see. I find it tough to absolve them of at least some of the responsibility.
Road of Ease
Member
Despite being one of the most prevalent mommy issues around, this kind of talk is not in any way exclusive to women.
Seriously? Why do you think the industry is dominated by males and male leads? Males understand males better and male gamers relate more/better to male characters. It's common sense and I'm sick of being made to feel guilty about it every time I bring it up.
Next people will be arguing that masculine characters like Rambo and the Terminator will be better off as females. You can also ask any comic book fan about which Superhero they fantasize of being and 9 times out of 10 it'd be a male character, 1/10 for the weirdos who dream of being Supergirl/Wonder Woman. Is this considered sexism? Of course not.
What was the reason, then? Because I'm certain they didn't just toss a coin and choose the sex based on what side came out.
Tera was at least bearable, I didn't mind her in FF6 because she didn't hog all the focus (despite everyone billing her as the lead character in the game) and allowed Locke and other major male characters to show their presence. I enjoyed FF6 but it definitely wasn't Tera I related to when playing the game.
A lot of the time I feel video games are the most interesting when you can't or don't relate to the character.
Often it means the character has their own established personality free of self-insert and bland 'everyman/woman' traits that muddy the water of striking characteristics.
That being said that sort of thing isn't everyone's cup of tea, some people like to relate, some people the last thing they want to do is relate. So long as you're buying games you're encouraging the type of game you like to be made. So no reason to savage each other over prefrences.
Often it means the character has their own established personality free of self-insert and bland 'everyman/woman' traits that muddy the water of striking characteristics.
That being said that sort of thing isn't everyone's cup of tea, some people like to relate, some people the last thing they want to do is relate. So long as you're buying games you're encouraging the type of game you like to be made. So no reason to savage each other over prefrences.
Disgusting and repugnant seem a little bit extreme words to describe what essentialy is a bunch of interviews. And, seriously, sexist? Are we at the point where suggesting that there are (on average) fundamental differences between men and women sexist? Come on. That documentary is sexist only if you think that an engineer is worth more than a nurse, if you think that being more interested in the social aspect of people is inherently less valuable than being into, say, computers.
I have no idea about what female autism has to do with all of this and really I'm not sure what does it have to do with what Baron-Cohen was saying.
No. I'm saying that there are differences in our biology (hormones, to say the most obvious one) that influence the way men and women (ON AVERAGE*) behave. Of course the influence of society and culture is big as well. But even just considering that women are on the whole less physically violent than men can give a hint. When you see that, consistently, women prefer media that is more about relationship between people and less about pure action or violence you can see pretty clearly that a lot of women will not be interested in a medium like videogames that works very well in dealing with action and pretty bad at expressing something meaningful about humans.
And if you don't see the pattern in other media I don't know what to say. I guess you don't see differences between Eat Pray Love, 50 Shades of Grey, Danielle Steel books and the Fast & Furious series, Tom Clancy books and MMA fighting. I guess it's wildly conjectural, completely irresponsible, pseudo-scientific hogwash to imply that these things appeal differently to men and women because of how men and women are made.
The problem I have with the "it's all society's fault" side is that paints people as puppets of an invisible master and takes away agency from them. Instead of assuming that people do or don't do things because they want or don't want to, the assumption is that their choices are not determined by who they are but by what a mysterious force wants. Even worse, this perspective, in gender-related discourse, takes the male side as the natural state of humankind and the feminine side as the oppressed, slave-like state.
To get back into the topic: the data shows that before puberty kids play videogames pretty much in the same way. After that, boys do and girls don't. Why assuming that all these girls that stop gaming do that because of societal pressure? I'm pretty sure most boys get societal pressure to "stop wasting their time with games" as well. There might an element of that, but isn't it more logical to conclude that videogames are just not interesting for teenage girls? Why would companies who are constantly looking to sell more willfully exclude half of their previous audience?
* I can't stress enough "on average". Of course girls who play games are not abnormal nor mutants. Of course there are women who love MMA and men who watch lots of soap operas. Of course everyone is entitled to do pretty much what they want (that's exactly my point). But the fact I don't like sports doesn't invalidate the fact that men in general do like sports.
Why the hell would a marketer decide to target half of the potential interested audience? You think that more women than men want to watch the latest Jennifer Aniston rom-com because of how it was marketed and not because, generally speaking, more women are interested in that kind of product?
You make it sound like rock climbing.
Funny you would use that as an example. The relatable hero in The Terminator is Sarah Connor.
No offense, but do you really relate to a JRPG character? You genuinely feel emotional connection to a Final Fantasy character?
Great post - Simple and logical.
But I am pretty sure, actually I am confident someone will respond to the first question that "we live in a world dominated by men oppressing women" because at the end of the day men must never dominate anything because if they do it means they are oppressors. So the industry is not dominated by women and women leads because of gender discrimination.
Soon this loophole of NeoGuilt will make you feel as if being a man equals guilt. That is their aim because deep down inside they hate men when in fact back in the 90s it was quite common for a hot college girl to reject a man who was into video games because at that time men would be tagged as "nerds, nolifers, weirdos". Let us not dig deeper into how gamers, mostly men, have been treated over the years for having a passion like every common person on this planet earth because I do not have enough napkins to wipe the tears.
Now because of the fact that more women are entering the industry from everywhere (occupation, journalism, gaming) it is all about gender discrimination in which 9 out of 10 cases are assuming men discriminating women. Women want now more piece of the cheese but will not compete straight with men but rather through a chain of emotional panels talking about gender bias in video gaming industry. That is exactly why you see this rise of "Why game companies do not support the XYZ community
Right now, men cannot be just better than women because there is always going to be some quasi justification of Godfather Figures empowering the industry with coded messages of male superiority. Simply, the world will not allow it.
If women do think that they are left out then they might as well lead the way and introduce games that are aiming to appeal more to them if they truly believe there is wide open market for that.
That is the exact reason why the newest GTA got some heated debate regarding its "misogyny" because right now there is this driving force of cultists who want to turn the world upside down and find discrimination everywhere.
You will never bring justice, fairness and equality by acting like a Neoevangelical Christian. Video games are not manifestos of Marx so stop with this bullshit that your distorted version of the world shits in to your face. Oh look I fell for the gender trap again.
Get a grip with reality already.
Yeah, true. But the icon who sold the tickets is definitely Arnold in his sunglasses.
It's the rare movie where the person on the cover, and the focus of the movie, is the villain.
I don't know why character in fiction should be relatable in the first place, but that would be out of topic this time.
Yeah, but the Terminator isn't relatable in the first film. He's frightening and emasculating (like in the bedroom scene where he beats the shit out of that one makes guy trying to have sex). The poster I quoted was talking about relatable characters. There's only one scene where you can really relate to the original Terminator, and it's the "Fuck you asshole" line to the annoying neighbor.
If we're talking about James Cameron, might as well bring up Aliens too. That movie actually did put its relatable character on much of the marketing (unlike Alien). And it did pretty well at the box office.
I think movies shouldn't tailor their protagonists to audiences that closely. As long as a characters' conflicts are understandable (Michael Corleone has anger, family ties, and expectations), we can relate to the characters' actions and features (even when he's a head of organized crime).
Yeah, no doubt. It just kind of struck me as interesting when you really think about the Terminator franchise. Sarah is popular, and is a cool character, but it's all about Arnold. It was so much about Arnold that they had to turn him into a good guy in the next two films. He wasn't relatable at all, and yet everyone was totally captivated. Then they made his character more relatable in the sequels due to popular demand.
Almost seems like Arnold wasn't really planned as the focus, but his charisma just won them over and made them change their plans completely.
flabberghastly
Member
I don't think I've ever met a single person, not even the most strident queer theorist, who will deny that hormones affect human behaviors. The issue is more to the side of that claim: what should be identified as the primary factor, cause, or catalyst for an apparent differentiation in the likelihood of use of an entire medium. My personal inclination lends me to believe that it isn't biological per se - considered in the narrow way in which we tend to conceive of biology (this latter point I'll leave vague, because the argument for it goes well beyond the bounds of this video game forum, but does relate directly to my ongoing postgraduate work). This isn't to say that testosterone, estrogen, or whatever are not providing some effect, that they aren't giving someone a nudge, but it would be useful to keep in mind that we don't know how or where exactly that nudge is occurring - viz, it does not necessarily produce directly a particular predisposition away from the entirety of the medium, but could have effects on the organism in other areas or aspects of life and society that have the epiphenomenal result of leading said organism to alternative uses of their time and energy (moreover, I'd like to make it clear that this sort of epiphenomenon does not even necessarily entail an orientation away per se in a directional sense - a point I can only make entirely clear by way of a seemingly unrelated analogy: I very rarely, if ever, eat onions and fuyu persimmons, but I do not eat them for entirely different reasons: The former, onions, I don't eat, because I simply do not like the taste, ergo I actively avoid them. My orientation is purposefully oriented away from onions. Fuyu persimmons, however, I do not eat, because they are rarely available - hachiya I can readily find in stores around this time of year (hence why I have persimmons on the mind), but I never see the fuyu variety - ergo I am not oriented away from fuyu persimmons; they are simply something with which I do not come into physical contact due to a complex mix of geography, biology, economy, etc). This is all to say that drawing a direct causal relationship between biological sex and the use of an entire technological medium is incredibly simplistic in and of itself. The use or not of such a medium is overdetermined by so many different inputs (including hormones) that it is negligent to point at some correlation and immediately leap to a conclusion. There is not, by default, some supposedly natural response by such a large subset of humanity to a technological medium.
I won't address the latter point, because I feel I did so sufficiently above, but with the former you are subtly shifting your line of argument, whether you realize it or not, and essentially making a case against something with absolutely no bearing on what I'm arguing. I never said that if we do even the briefest, most superficial survey of entertainment media that we won't find obvious differentiation between genders. I wouldn't make such an argument, because it would be hopelessly futile to defend such a patently false view. What I'm addressing is the use or not of the medium as a whole, which was what you yourself were addressing in the post I originally quoted. You were dealing with why, "[a]fter puberty, a majority of girls stop playing," not why, hypothetically, "after puberty, a majority of girls expect different variants of the video game medium," hence the response I provided. If you go back and reread my original post, hopefully my meaning should now be more clear now.
I'd also like to introduce one more complication into the mix, and I do so willingly acknowledging my own ignorance on the subject: is there, in statistically meaningful surveys, a general consensus that young women after puberty do actually stop playing video games? We can all obviously produce heaps of our own anecdotal evidence on the subject, detailing how our friends lists on XBL, PSN, Steam, etc, consist mostly of males, how none of the young women we knew in middle school and high school talked about video games at the time, etc, but these are, for very blatant reasons, irreparably biased.
The biology argument you prefer works the exact same way. In fact, so much of the social-constructionist argumentation that proliferated through the 80s and 90s was specifically focused on opening space for human freedom or agency (however conceived) against the perceived desire of sociobiologists to naturalize the present political state of affairs and deny the possibility of alternative social formations.
There are so many possible explanations in so many of the threads on this theme that I honestly can't be bothered to enumerate them all. To go back to the original topic of the thread, however, I certainly think the prevailing assumption that girls don't (want to) play video games is contributing.
No doubt, bro. I can't even begin to fathom how anyone could want a badass character like Warrant Officer Ripley to be played by some chick.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Boom.
EchoedTruth
Banned
So in order to relate to a character/enjoy entertainment, it must be same-sex?
That's funny, cause I'm a straight male and Aliens is my favorite movie of all time, and Ripley is my favorite Hero/Heroine.
Next up: explain to me how/why you think that games/comics are made to appeal to only men? Cause that's what you're saying. Not only that, but how is it you cannot identify with a character because they are female? Short of the whole physical identifiers... I fail to see a difference in the two (the fact that you do though, is very telling).
I identified with Lara Croft in the new TR, I identified with Aeris in FF7, I identified with multiple female chars... and thought they were great.
You sound like an angry virgin, pal.
anexanhume
Member
It's not that simple. Some things are created specifically for certain markets, and some things are marketed specifically for certain markets. Sometimes trailers show different perspectives on the same movie to get different types of people interested. Some times the trailers do this to the extent that people are even upset with the final product of the movie because they feel it was misrepresented. I think romcoms as a genre are the result of a group of minds getting together and trying to figure out to capture the sappy market while keeping the people who are viewed as being dragged along interested enough to agree to see it. In general, I think movies are over-targeted in some cases in terms of their potential audiences, whereas the opposite is true for games.
These are different than music or books say, where I don't think there's as much forced gendered-interest dichotomy going on.
Ripley wasn't 'badass', it isn't suppose to be a part of her character trait. What made her work was how 'down to earth' she was, allowing the audience to relate to her more easily. She wasn't there as a symbol for feminism, but rather as a struggling human being that had to overcome great obstacles. She needed to be 'weak' in order for her triumph at the end to be meaningful.
At least have a better idea of your characters before throwing it at my face, genius.
The amount of male femisnists in the industry currently annoys me to no end.
If the story and characters are well written, of course. It's what the creators want.
flabberghastly
Member
"Badass" isn't a character trait per se; it's a description. One that, in fact, is very often applied to this character. A quick Google search of Ripley+Alien+badass results in 142,000 matches. Sigourney Weaver herself even called Ripley a "badass." Obviously, such a description for this one particular character is relatively widespread.
But let's not stop there. Let's perhaps ponder why you use only the singular "trait" instead of its plural form, and what that says about your comprehension and expectations of characterization. Moreover, we should possibly wonder why you seemingly think a singe word, "badass," could be an adequate "trait" to sum up an entire character - not Ripley, of course, as you've made unmistakably clear, but someone else, undoubtedly with a penis.
Road of Ease
Member
Weirdos? Really?
I must say, even though I'm appalled at what you're saying, at least you actually admit that you're sexist. I kind of respect you for it.
Deified Data
Banned
The hobby or the wife?
I don't think there's an adequate way to civily describe how I want to respond to your attitude as a whole.
EchoedTruth
Banned
She wasn't weak at all, during any point of "Aliens" ... you apparently haven't even watched the movie. SMDH... wtf is wrong with you? And "Male Feminists"???? Really? You mean guys who don't carry your outdated, prejudiced, and completely fucked up view of women?
People like you really make me question humanity.
Deified Data
Banned
Another misguided soul who believes "strong human being" isn't somehow the ultimate feminist ideal.
What do you think a feminist is, exactly?
I think they were detailed in that Harry Potter spinoff book about magical creatures.
faceless007
Member
Without getting too far afield with this, there's quite a large body of research that indicates that's basically the case, hard as it may be to accept. People, in general, do not have as much free will as they think they do. Rather, they are prone to making decisions based on unconscious cognitive biases and irrational thought processes that they don't even recognize, and then rationalizing their decisions later. It's kind of staggering, once you get into it, how easily our brains are manipulated and influenced by external factors we don't even realize. For a good starter on this subject, I recommend Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely (or just watch his TED talk for a quick primer), or Infuence by Robert Cialdini (which goes into how marketing takes advantage of this). Or just read up on cognitive biases. It isn't really that there's an "invisible puppet master" controlling us, but that there are countless societal and external factors subtly shaping our preferences and decisions in ways we are not conscious of and don't want to admit. And marketers are well aware of these biases as well. So while it would be facile to claim that marketers can easily get you to buy something with a single ad, the reality is that you are often subconsciously persuaded in certain directions based off factors you would insist have no bearing on your decision-making process.
If the feminists don't know what they are exactly, how are we supposed to know?
There's about 50 different kinds of feminists these days, take your pick on what the definition of feminism actually is.
Deified Data
Banned
There's a very clear-cut, baseline definition of feminism out there: advocacy for the equal treatment of women. Picking and choosing crackpot outliers (the same outliers that can be found in any political or philosophical movement) doesn't change that.
Today's feminism movement has greatly varied definitions of equal treatment. And it's not just the outliers. What feminism was in the 20's through the 80's doesn't necessarily reflect what it is today.
Deified Data
Banned
There's only one meaningful definition of equal treatment. It defines itself.
And since we're living in the present, it's very safe to assume that we're discussing feminism in the present tense.
Equal treatment is ranges from fighting actual discrimination, to tropes, to birth control is a right. And everything in between.
I'd be happy if I could get a consistent answer to the question : "If I hold a door open for someone just because she's a woman, does that make me sexist?"
I attribute lightning's presence more to a certain lightning obsessed director's preferences, not some attempt to appeal to female gamers(Very far from it I'd say). Not to mention XIII was bad overall not because of the lead, but because almost everything about the narrative was crap.
And as for FF VI, the game spent a sizable amount of time with Celes as the main character as well.
The latter part of your statement perplexes me, though. If you're reading a book, do you not relate to women when the perspective shifts toward them? Because personally I do.
Edit:
No, though I hold doors open for everyone personally. Just seems like the polite thing to do.
Road of Ease
Member
I'm curious, how is it decided what "actual" discrimination is? How is a person's experience of discrimination less "actual" than someone else's?
Deified Data
Banned
A feminist advocates for equal treatment in all of those fields. Some people choose to specialize out of preference or expertise.
And to answer your question, no, holding a door open for a woman doesn't necessarily make you sexist. It really depends on why you think someone is deserving of that special treatment. It's not just because she's a woman. What about being a woman makes her worthy of holding the door open for her? Why not extend that courtesy to men as well? These are all things to consider. I realize that's not the compact answer you requested, but...
On the one hand you're saying it's mostly Biology, which takes free agency out of the equation. On the other hand you complain that if it was society's fault we have no free agency. Quite the circular argument.
Honestly I don't even see how free agency is even pertinent, there's only one past and one future for us anyway, so there's absolutely no way to tell we ever have a real choice in anything in life to begin with. I also don't see why this should even make people upset.
But that's me.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Being asked to relate to a character regardless of their gender is not as tightly connected to your own masculinity or femininity as you suggest. Terminator asks you to relate to an unprepared single woman trying to survive, this doesn't mean people who connect with Sara Connor dream of being Sarah Connor, only that the visceral and constant struggle for her life drives the action of the film and keeps the audience engaged. Unless you've got a real problem with rooting for a woman to live to the end of the film, in which case you're going to have to come up with a stronger justification than 'it's common sense, I'd want a guy in that role to survive more than a woman.'
Replace Lightning with a male version of Lightning in XIII and you still end up with an empty shell devoid of emotion or character traits that engage the player. You singling out her gender being forced upon Square Enix by unnamed forces and hand waving it as 'common sense' as a pivot point for why the game failed on a narrative or commercial level is insufficient to escape the patina of sexism dripping from your criticism.
EchoedTruth
Banned
Dealing with people like Tangsta is like chasing your tail. It takes a great distaste for logic, reason, and sense to carry beliefs like he does.
You're unbelievable, I actually provided a sensible counter argument to your naivety and you counter with my incorrect use of grammar and a Google search.
Vasquez was the female 'badass', Ripley was just an 'ordinary' woman/human being and I don't think it was ever intended for the audience to draw parallels between the two characters. Her story was there to signify the timely reminder of what human beings are capable of when pushed to extremes, she's not a 'badass' in any sense, merely a survivor that did what she had to survive. Her character would've worked regardless of sex and so please stop drumming the 'badass female' argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, all this talk of I as a 'male' should be able to relate to female characters because of they are essentially 'human beings'. Well, I can flip that and state that females should be able to relate to male characters just as well, right?
So if they can relate male characters, what the hell is the point of us arguing at all? Stick to male leads and everyone should be happy, right?
Equality for women. The movement has merit and I support their goals, but reality is most feminists just want free handouts without making the effort to earn anything, and they do by bringing up the "we've been mistreated for too long so now you need to give us free stuff to make up for it". I recall a girl at work bring up this argument when she didn't get the promotion she wanted, citing sexism and threatening to sue. My managers called her bluff and she had to leave the company in shame. She didn't get the job because she was lazy and didn't have the skillset to do the job right, and she knew it.
You think feminism is equality for humans in general? Hah! That'll be the day, when have feminists ever sided with or helped men? They drum on about 'gender equality' but I don't think they actually know what the hell that means.
EchoedTruth
Banned
But I thought women couldn't be bad ass? At least in your world.
I mean I guess I shouldn't be surprised by someone who can't identify with a character that is female... and that assumes that the video game / comic industry is a male-oriented one. These opinions might've held water like... 30 years ago? I think you should find a time machine to go back to a time when you would be more comfortable, and with fewer "male feminists" as you like to call guys who have their heads on properly.
I guess LGBT people must really boggle your little mind.
Deified Data
Banned
This is genius, I don't know how devs didn't figure this out sooner.
Combat unequal representation in gaming by making all protagonists male - if anyone complains, they must be sexist. Totally flawless solution.
If anyone needed proof that this guy is just (successfully) trolling us, here it is.
Utterly fascinating.
I don't believe the point here in this thread is to stick female leads everywhere, necessarily. But the point of that argument is, while I can relate to female characters in books, if 90% of books had female leads and male leads were an aberration, it would give the impression that books were not for men, and obviously less men would then read books. The situation presented applies to gaming.
This is not to say there should be female leads in games for the sake of it regardless of what the game is trying to be, but that there should be more games where a female lead does not feel shoehorned.
Edit:
Oh wow, didn't see those bannings coming >.>
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Good lord this thread went absolutely insane
VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
I don't know what "adding females for the sake of it" means.
Can someone explain?
Can someone explain?
Like replacing the main character in BF 4 with a female lead. It wouldn't fit the game(as it is now) at all. Or at least that's what I meant when I said as much.
Riposte
Member
Bribe co-workers with electronic women so next time the drinks are on them. It is an old Japanese proverb.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked