Support NeoGAF

[ShironRedshift]

Honestly one of my favorite female characters I saw as "strong" as a kid was Kazooie from Banjo-Kazooie, simply for being like no other female character in gaming at the time---as far as cartoon animals go, she wasn't overtly feminine (she had eyelashes and kind of wore makeup, but it wasn't that noticeable as say Dixie or that mouse from DKR) and while you could argue the female lead literally being stuck in a backpack the whole game was a bit odd, her personality was endearing and she came across as crass and crude without crossing that line into coming across as a "nag". It helped she wasn't above it all, she got the same amount of abuse as she dished out.

Banjo-Tooie, though as a game I think it's a tad inferior to the original, did a good job at making Kazooie and Grunty even stronger characters, the former by making her even more outspoken and giving her additional playability, and playing as her was far funner IMO, while Grunty ditched the sexist "I want to be prettier!" plot and just went full on supervillain akin to Dr. Robotnik.

Heh, what makes it more odd is that that's underselling Kazooie and that despite technically being in Banjo's backpack, Kazooie is the one that does most of the work in the game and is basically just hauling Banjo's sorry ass around (quite literally). I mean, just think about it: practically all the upgrades revolve around Kazooie. Whether it's basic movement (Talon Trot/Turbo Trainers/Flight), defense (Wonder Wings/Wading Boots), or offense (Eggs/Beak Barge/Rat-a-tap Rap/Beam Bomb), Kazooie's the one doing practically all of the work of the game. Even basic platforming, due to Kazooie's Feathery Flap functioning as the flutter jump of the game and her contributing to the backflip, not to mention Shock Spring Jumps, is mostly Kazooie. All Banjo really has going for him is basic A-to-B movement and jumps and even the first of those gets outclassed as soon as you get the Talon Trot in the first world of the game, which is both faster and more versatile than just relying on Banjo for movement. Kazooie may have been stuck in Banjo's sack most of the game, but both she and Banjo knew that she was the one putting in the real work and Banjo was mostly just along for the ride.

And of course all of this became even more obvious in the sequel where Kazooie gets all kinds of shit like not only Fire and Ice Eggs but also Grenade Eggs and Clockwork eggs and can basically turn into a torpedo underwater and shit, while Banjo has... his backpack, and that's it.

 

[foxuzamaki]

It is the worse when it comes to arguments about samus in other M, people were upset that she showed other emotions besides satiric bad ass like any other video game character of her time, this is not to say that other M is great storytelling and characters.
But when people get mad that Ridley does bring up some PTSD within her but then ignore that she then proceeded to kick his ass I run into confusion on how to continue the conversation

 

[Two Words]

Uh...

Are you even listening to yourself when you type this stuff out? You're acting as though every woman thinks of the IDEAL BABY MAKER whenever they approach a man. That's just not true. You can't apply that dumbass logic to every woman.

Men can have just as easy a time finding women to have sex with as women to men. Just like women can have just as easy of a time being REJECTED by men as men to women.

I'm not sure what happened to you or what you saw for your perspective to be this skewed, but you are definitely in the wrong here.

I never said anything about what women actually think.

 

[4Tran]

I agree that we need to stop with the "Strong" adjective. It's a vague term that tells us nothing about the character in question. But asking them to "write women the same way you write straight white dudes" shows some sort of underlying resentment to the subject at hand and would end up resulting in more anger about poorly written women in video games.

The only vague thing about using the term "strong" is when someone doesn't understand that it's strong in the literary sense; that's it's about characterization rather than about any specific character traits.

The idea about writing women the same way you write male characters isn't about how you go about constructing characters. It's about making women viable characters for every role in a story, from major characters to bit roles. Deeper characterization can be tackled after taking care of the first hurdle of representation in general.

This is one area where I feel that Asian works tend to do a better job than Western ones. For all that misogyny is rampant in many parts of Asia, their works of literature and so on, are more open to putting women into important roles. Cases in point: the classic Japanese Monkey TV show cast the traditionally male Tripitaka character with a female actor and how often Chinese historical fantasies will cast women as soldiers.

 

[Murkas]

Neat post.

KInda off topic but I remember watching a video some years back, might have been The Tester ( it was a video game developer themed reality TV show). One group of guys were tasked with designing an enemy female character, then when they presented their design to the judges, it was the most typical horrible female design where they explained why she had big boobs and why they're exposed and all that shit. Went full on stupid as this character's mode of attack would be to scream at the players because she's always on her period (or something equally as stupid).

The guy judges were snickering and laughing and the woman judge had a 'oh ffs' look on her face. I'm trying to find the video but not getting any luck. Wanna cringe again.

 

[psychowave]

It is the worse when it comes to arguments about samus in other M, people were upset that she showed other emotions besides satiric bad ass like any other video game character of her time, this is not to say that other M is great storytelling and characters.
But when people get mad that Ridley does bring up some PTSD within her but then ignore that she then proceeded to kick his ass I run into confusion on how to continue the conversation

Samus had to fight Ridley many times and never had PTSD before Other M. It goes against the established canon. It's bad writing.

 

[Xist2inspire]

Great post, OP. With that being said, though, I think we should take the gender-neutral thing further.

I've always tended to think that merely demanding "more women protagonists" in gaming just results in more poorly-written women, because 99% of men in gaming are poorly-written. It seems to pay lip service towards diversity in gaming, because we often assume that simply making the generic action protagonist a woman automatically makes the game itself a shining example of appealing to women. The "strong woman" checklist only contributes to this issue, and actually validates the notion that masculine "strength" and behaviors are inherently more desirable, and thus superior. By extension, it also seems to assert that only entertainment catered towards those sensibilities has worth.

It's like how a soldier, no matter what gender, will inherently be held in higher regard than a healer, because we only value one kind of strength. Most would say, "But it's usually men who are the soldiers, we need more female soldiers!" To that I say, "You're right, but what's so great about being a soldier?" People always argue that the industry should market traditional games by featuring more women, but few argue that the industry should market other types of games that don't inherently cater to the male-centric concept of "strength" to begin with. Something's not right with that.

It's not enough to just say "take a well-written male character and make him female", we need to acknowledge the kind of perspectives, feelings, and yes, "strength" that primarily come from women. By enforcing a "one size fits all" standard of what a "good" character thinks and does, we tend to only reinforce patriarchal standards.

 

[Cloukyo]

One of the problems is that, by going gender-first, you're a lot more likely to put women only in roles that are specifically for women and preclude them from everything else. That's how Hollywood casting will often end up with no female security officers, or plumbers, and so on.

There's nothing wrong with going gender first if you're a decent writer. If you're writing a character and then later decide it should be a girl... well... why? Literally why? To tick a box? Because you flipped a coin? Why not a guy?

If you're going to craft your character there should be reasoning behind every nuance you decide to add.

And before you say "WELL WHY SHOULD A GUY BE A DEFAULT!?" the guy would most likely be a default because the writer is a guy, who he'll go with what he finds most comfortable, after that he'll create variations outside of his comfort zone to craft elements of his character. Hence to choose a female character he'll need to find a reason to.

It's the same reason why many female authors like Margaret Atwood almost always go for female main leads (almost).

To change gender, race, sexuality, beliefs, from what you know and what you associate with, there needs to be a conscious choice.

To use Atwood as an example again. In many of her books, her female characters can play an array of roles (some are clearly only fit for a female character, like A Handmaids Tale but mostly she writes roles that could be any gender, but she chooses a woman "just because"). It's clear she's more comfortable writing female characters because that's what she gravitates to.

However for the book "oryx and crake" she went with male main characters. This was a conscious choice on her part because the themes of art and science and sex in a patriarchal society would only work with male leads.


This is actually one of the reasons to explain why you have many badly written videogame girl characters (although I maintain characters in games are rarely well written anyway). Usually scenario writers in games are men, and there's rarely decent literary talent in the game industry that can convey decent characterisation of the opposite sex.

 

[the black pearl]

The thing is, I feel like a ton of decent character who could be described as a "strong female". They belong to an archetype common in gaming of the character who typically (but not always) "looks danger in the face without blinking". And/or enjoys fighting. But they have other dimensions and they do have weaknesses. Although they still act one way 70-90% of the time. Despite nuances, Lightning can clearly be described this way. So when someone says "strong female character" ... the could be talking about Lightning. Or Mitsuru.

I cant tell if this the op is saying that this is too common (because it is extremely common), or if her beef is with something more narrow (less extremely common)

 

[pashmilla]

The thing is, I feel like a ton of decent character who could be described as a "strong female". They belong to an archetype common in gaming of the character who typically (but not always) "looks danger in the face without blinking". And/or enjoys fighting. But they have other dimensions and they do have weaknesses. Although they still act one way 70-90% of the time. Despite nuances, Lightning can clearly be described this way. So when someone says "strong female character" ... the could be talking about Lightning. Or Mitsuru.

I cant tell if this the op is saying that this is too common (because it is extremely common), or if her beef is with something more narrow (less extremely common)

I'm saying people need to stop focusing solely on creating """strong""" female characters and look more towards creating female characters who are actual people with layers and nuance. So it's more the former I guess.

 

[John Kowalski]

You are just using flowery language to describe a competent mercenary who realizes she is in too deep and pulls out. I am not asking Nadine to be any of those things. I am asking her to be something besides just a cardboard mercenary leader. The extent of her emotions are anger when she is duped or fear when shit is hitting the fan. Which is standard for anybody.

And that is the point. Screw "atypical" or "typical" representations. Don't make a man or woman. Make a character.

But she is a character. She just happens to be the character of the story whose purpose is to have ideals that aren't fantastical or deeply emotionally driven.

And, frankly, your point of it being flowery wording is kind of ridiculous. What do you think you were doing describing Rafe? Do you think your use of varied adjectives are somehow less exalting than my own?

 

[mojojoeo]

Unfortunately, the writing is pretty abysmal, and outside of a single cutscene that's all that is mentioned of her family status. Also, the female VA is... pretty bad.

From the open beta, characterization (where the game is a nonlinear sandbox) is pretty shallow.

this. the writing inst great. the backstories are super shallow.

its a 7/10 games that will be fun in coop; its not terribly special.

 

[Kain-Nosgoth]

It is the worse when it comes to arguments about samus in other M, people were upset that she showed other emotions besides satiric bad ass like any other video game character of her time, this is not to say that other M is great storytelling and characters.
But when people get mad that Ridley does bring up some PTSD within her but then ignore that she then proceeded to kick his ass I run into confusion on how to continue the conversation

i'm all for characters having a variety of emotions and more depth, especially female characters... but come on, Other M was really far from good writing, it was the worse thing you could do to this character! It doesn't fit at all with the rest of the serie

 

[Cloukyo]

Isn't "strong female character" a phrase that is meant to mean "developed and nuanced character with defined character traits"?

A lot of people are treating it like it means literally strong... Who cares about whether a character is literally strong? When did that ever mean that a character was well written?

Isn't decent writing and believable characterisation more important than how strong and independent a character is?

i'm all for characters having a variety of emotions and more depth, especially female characters... but come on, Other M was really far from good writing, it was the worse thing you could do to this character! It doesn't fit at all with the rest of the serie

Seconded.

Samus is a badass. Other M is a disgrace.

 

[Jennipeg]

I like her. I think her poor treatment of Jon is not only exaggerated (she was cold and distant to him his own life, but she wasn't abusive to him beyond that one "it should have been you" incident that she blurted out when she was mad with grief, and considering the circumstances of the world of Westeros, she didn't owe him much more than that) by the fandom, it actually makes her a far more interesting character than if she hadn't said that line.

I can't speak for the fandom on this one, I read the first book without outside input.

The way Jon and Catelyn talk about their relationship makes me think it was more than that. Not physically or even verbally abusive, but i'd say emotionally abusive. If it was only one of them thinking about it, you could say it was a misunderstanding between them, or unintentional, but they both acknowledge it. She made him feel like an outcast in his own family, and let him know that he was not welcome, she disliked him even being around her sons. She begged Ned to let him go to the wall just to get rid of him, he wanted to belong somewhere away from her, and she was desperate for him to go, that's more than cold, and he was just a boy. When she said the 'it should have been you' line, he wasn't even surprised, that says it all to me.

I don't like that aspect of her but it makes her interesting I agree, she is noble, loyal and loving to her real family. She's not wholly likeable to me but she is a great character.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Isn't "strong female character" a phrase that is meant to mean "developed and nuanced character with defined character traits"?

A lot of people are treating it like it means literally strong... Who cares about whether a character is literally strong? When did that ever mean that a character was well written?

Isn't decent writing and believable characterisation more important than how strong and independent a character is?



Seconded.

Samus is a badass. Other M is a disgrace.

As the point has been brought up, part of the problem is that what the phrase should mean, based on the simple notion of 'strong' writing, isn't actually how it's predominantly been used for decades, especially in video game discussion. Particularly in the context of female characters as role models or as 'good' representation, usage of the term has tended more towards a literal interpretation.

Simply treating the meaning of 'strong female character' as inherently obvious ultimately misses the pitfalls that have plagued its usage by writers and creators who, however well meaning, have also used it as a shorthand and justification to write characters that quite frankly aren't written very strongly at all, even by the relatively low standards of video games.

 

[LordKasual]

It is the worse when it comes to arguments about samus in other M, people were upset that she showed other emotions besides satiric bad ass like any other video game character of her time, this is not to say that other M is great storytelling and characters.
But when people get mad that Ridley does bring up some PTSD within her but then ignore that she then proceeded to kick his ass I run into confusion on how to continue the conversation

Continuity is the reason the Other M Samus is garbage. Not the fact that she's emotional. There is zero evidence suggesting Samus would have that kind of temperament, and an entire series worth of games that would suggest she would have the opposite. Just because Samus never really spoke in the previous games doesn't mean she displayed no personality.

So when people turned on Other M and got greeted by a melodramatic, hesitant, irrational, subservient, emotionally fragile character, with a serious mother complex over a biological weapon that imprinted onto her (that she then immediately gave away for scientific research)....well, they reacted how anyone would have.

But I heard that the real issue with Other M Samus is that she's actually been that way for years, thanks to the JP Manga of the comic. And since Other M was the first JP-developed console Metroid title since SNES, the world was greeted with a completely different character than they had been used to thanks to the Prime titles.

 

[LordofPwn]

Whenever I read "Strong male/female character/role/lead" I just assume people are saying it's a good performance with decent character progression. Though I've heard this more so about movies over the years.

 

[Cloukyo]

As the point has been brought up, part of the problem is that what the phrase should mean, based on the simple notion of 'strong' writing, isn't actually how it's predominantly been used for decades, especially in video game discussion. Particularly in the context of female characters as role models or as 'good' representation, usage of the term has tended more towards a literal interpretation.

Simply treating the meaning of 'strong female character' as inherently obvious ultimately misses the pitfalls that have plagued its usage by writers and creators who, however well meaning, have also used it as a shorthand and justification to write characters that quite frankly aren't written very strongly at all, even by the relatively low standards of video games.

Maybe people should just stop using the damn term "strong female character" and start using the phrase "well written female character" from now on. It's actually quite a cringeworthy phrase anyway.

The more people keep pushing this "WHERE ARE OUR STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS!?" the more we'll end up with crazy teleporting ninja females who don't need no man characters, rather than actual characters.

Spoiler

No hate, Bayonetta is one of my favourite videogame characters, but I think she's so on the nose that it's ok

 

[4Tran]

There's nothing wrong with going gender first if you're a decent writer. If you're writing a character and then later decide it should be a girl... well... why? Literally why? To tick a box? Because you flipped a coin? Why not a guy?

That's precisely the point. "Why not a guy?" is exactly the same thing as "why not a woman?" so either or can be used and there's no excuse for 90% of the characters in a game to be either gender.

If you're going to craft your character there should be reasoning behind every nuance you decide to add.

The thing is, the gender of bit characters only matters in a handful of cases. And so characters can be of either gender the vast majority of the time, and this mix should be reflected in the final product.

And before you say "WELL WHY SHOULD A GUY BE A DEFAULT!?" the guy would most likely be a default because the writer is a guy, who he'll go with what he finds most comfortable, after that he'll create variations outside of his comfort zone to craft elements of his character. Hence to choose a female character he'll need to find a reason to.

When we're talking about deeper characterization, yeah, gender is going to play a large role, and it's going to be important to introduce a lot of nuance and so forth. However, gaming is really working on its baby steps at the moment and we're still at the point of trying to avoid putting women into bikini armor and not having the cast in a game be 90% men.

i'm all for characters having a variety of emotions and more depth, especially female characters... but come on, Other M was really far from good writing, it was the worse thing you could do to this character! It doesn't fit at all with the rest of the serie

The primary problem with Other M's writing was that Samus was a woman, and one of the most important roles for women is being a mother. And so the whole thing had to be about Samus being a mother, and even the title has to allude to it.

Isn't "strong female character" a phrase that is meant to mean "developed and nuanced character with defined character traits"?

Yes. It's the literary definition of "strong" and a lot of people seem to get confused by it.

Continuity is the reason the Other M Samus is garbage. Not the fact that she's emotional. There is zero evidence suggesting Samus would have that kind of temperament, and an entire series worth of games that would suggest she would have the opposite. Just because Samus never really spoke in the previous games doesn't mean she displayed no personality.

The defining character trait of Samus in Other M is "woman", and that's why her character sucks.

 

[Silvawuff]

To me a strong female character is a sum of her parts, I think a lot of discussion around this is in context surrounding female characters being represented more often and in better roles than female characters prior.

All said, I think media and those consuming it are more aware of women than ever before, which is totally an awesome thing, and we shouldn't let contextual semantics sour that.

 

[yunbuns]

I can't speak for the fandom on this one, I read the first book without outside input.

The way Jon and Catelyn talk about their relationship makes me think it was more than that. Not physically or even verbally abusive, but i'd say emotionally abusive. If it was only one of them thinking about it, you could say it was a misunderstanding between them, or unintentional, but they both acknowledge it. She made him feel like an outcast in his own family, and let him know that he was not welcome, she disliked him even being around her sons. She begged Ned to let him go to the wall just to get rid of him, he wanted to belong somewhere away from her, and she was desperate for him to go, that's more than cold, and he was just a boy. When she said the 'it should have been you' line, he wasn't even surprised, that says it all to me.

I don't like that aspect of her but it makes her interesting I agree, she is noble, loyal and loving to her real family. She's not wholly likeable to me but she is a great character.

Jon's a bastard. To her he isn't family and that's how bastards are seen in Westeros. Ned bringing him into their home is literally an insult Catelyn. I'm not saying that because its the norm that it's right but people get really wrapped up in the poor Jon narrative and don't really think about it how it is in the context of that world. Outside of Dorne and some rare cases, you don't really see bastards being treated well in Westeros.

 

[Jennipeg]

Jon's a bastard. To her he isn't family and that's how bastards are seen in Westeros. Ned bringing him into their home is literally an insult Catelyn. I'm not saying that because its the norm that it's right but people get really wrapped up in the poor Jon narrative and don't really think about it how it is in the context of that world. Outside of Dorne and some rare cases, you don't really see bastards being treated well in Westeros.

I don't think it makes her a bad person, it's totally understandable from both points of view. It's a complex relationship, and its really interesting to read, because on the surface you just think she's horrible, but like you say, his presence is an insult. But at the same time Jon is a child, and i'll take the kids side because he is innocent in it. Her anger is really with Ned but she takes it out on Jon, that's not Jon's fault regardless of the world they live in and she acknowledges that more than once. That's why I think she is the strongest (in the well written sense) character in the series, she's not perfect and that's great.

 

[Autoignition]

Spoiler

...Luna was THE driving force behind Noctis for pretty much the entire game, so much so that it was used against him. I don't see how anyone could say she isn't an active presence, that makes no sense.

Noctis' desire to see her again was as strong as (if not stronger) than his desire to avenge his father and homeland.

[citation needed]

Noctis went after Luna because he had nowhere else to go. Point me in the direction of any piece of dialogue that indicates that he wanted to see her more than anything else. I've played the game twice and never got the impression that you're pushing.

...I'm assuming FFXV was your first Final Fantasy game.

Welcome to JRPGs? It's jarring, I know, but you learn to enjoy it after a while.

I've been playing Final Fantasy and JRPGs in general since the 90s, but nice try I guess. I've never seen a mainline FF botch its storytelling like this. Literally never. Characters get sidetracked and pulled away from their main missions, sure, but they never just decide to start their mission halfway through the game. FFXV was insanity on that front.

 

[pashmilla]

[citation needed]

Noctis went after Luna because he had nowhere else to go. Point me in the direction of any piece of dialogue that indicates that he wanted to see her more than anything else. I've played the game twice and never got the impression that you're pushing.



I've been playing Final Fantasy and JRPGs in general since the 90s, but nice try I guess. I've never seen a mainline FF botch its storytelling like this. Literally never. Characters get sidetracked and pulled away from their main missions, sure, but they never just decide to start their mission halfway through the game. FFXV was insanity on that front.

Don't bother with LordKasual, he once told me that FFXV couldn't be sexist because of that frog quest lady being black or something.

 

[Tarextherex]

Heh, what makes it more odd is that that's underselling Kazooie and that despite technically being in Banjo's backpack, Kazooie is the one that does most of the work in the game and is basically just hauling Banjo's sorry ass around (quite literally). I mean, just think about it: practically all the upgrades revolve around Kazooie. Whether it's basic movement (Talon Trot/Turbo Trainers/Flight), defense (Wonder Wings/Wading Boots), or offense (Eggs/Beak Barge/Rat-a-tap Rap/Beam Bomb), Kazooie's the one doing practically all of the work of the game. Even basic platforming, due to Kazooie's Feathery Flap functioning as the flutter jump of the game and her contributing to the backflip, not to mention Shock Spring Jumps, is mostly Kazooie. All Banjo really has going for him is basic A-to-B movement and jumps and even the first of those gets outclassed as soon as you get the Talon Trot in the first world of the game, which is both faster and more versatile than just relying on Banjo for movement. Kazooie may have been stuck in Banjo's sack most of the game, but both she and Banjo knew that she was the one putting in the real work and Banjo was mostly just along for the ride.

And of course all of this became even more obvious in the sequel where Kazooie gets all kinds of shit like not only Fire and Ice Eggs but also Grenade Eggs and Clockwork eggs and can basically turn into a torpedo underwater and shit, while Banjo has... his backpack, and that's it.

Something I found always funny about this is how in the first one, Banjo would roll to attack. However, in Tooie the rolling attack is defined by Kazooie's wings covering him to power up, so that's why Banjo can't even roll by himself when split up lmao


On the topic of Samus I think badass is a horrible word to define any powerful character really, it just infers too much the idea of being one-dimensional. According to the few characterisation given by Metroid 2/Super Metroid scenes and narration, Fusion dialogues and even Prime log book entries, you'd think Samus is very level headed and mature but not to the point of being totally impartial in the execution of her tasks(hence saving the baby etc). The problem in Other M is that it simply doubled down on the few that we know about her in a very overdramatic way. The whole rational aspect of the character was wasted on dull monologues that constantly stated the obvious, and the whole mother thing coupled with the admiration of Adam simply went down the cliché drain really. It was a bad representation of an already established character, this can happen to any char regardless of gender

 

[Jennipeg]

[citation needed]

Noctis went after Luna because he had nowhere else to go. Point me in the direction of any piece of dialogue that indicates that he wanted to see her more than anything else. I've played the game twice and never got the impression that you're pushing.



I've been playing Final Fantasy and JRPGs in general since the 90s, but nice try I guess. I've never seen a mainline FF botch its storytelling like this. Literally never. Characters get sidetracked and pulled away from their main missions, sure, but they never just decide to start their mission halfway through the game. FFXV was insanity on that front.

'Hey Noctis, you looking forward to getting married?'

'Yeah I guess'

Can't you feel the love pouring out of Noctis? I didn't get it either. We must have played a different game.

 

[Kin5290]

Something I found always funny about this is how in the first one, Banjo would roll to attack. However, in Tooie the rolling attack is defined by Kazooie's wings covering him to power up, so that's why Banjo can't even roll by himself when split up lmao


On the topic of Samus I think badass is a horrible word to define any powerful character really, it just infers too much the idea of being one-dimensional. According to the few characterisation given by Metroid 2/Super Metroid scenes and narration, Fusion dialogues and even Prime log book entries, you'd think Samus is very level headed and mature but not to the point of being totally impartial in the execution of her tasks(hence saving the baby etc). The problem in Other M is that it simply doubled down on the few that we know about her in a very overdramatic way. The whole rational aspect of the character was wasted on dull monologues that constantly stated the obvious, and the whole mother thing coupled with the admiration of Adam simply went down the cliché drain really. It was a bad representation of an already established character, this can happen to any char regardless of gender

I wouldn't say that. What happens in Other M, with a capable character being laid low by emotional fragility and quasiromantic veneration for a male paternalistic figure (with a loss of agency), as well as all of the motherhood cliches being applied with all of the subtlety of a brick to the face, are all pretty gendered female.

 

[GLAMr]

I think demanding "strong" and/or "well written" characters can be a bit of a trap, as it holds female characters to a standard male characters are not held to.

I think at this stage it's a numbers game. If they just put more female, LGBT+, PoC or other underrepresented groups into games there are bound to be some gems amongst the inevitable tide of shit. Most straight white male characters are pretty bad in games, but we get some good ones just through the raw power of probability. Once we get some good examples, they can provide positive archetypes for future characters.

 

[Astral Dog]

'Hey Noctis, you looking forward to getting married?'

'Yeah I guess'

Can't you feel the love pouring out of Noctis? I didn't get it either. We must have played a different game.

It was one of those arranged marriages. Bunch of jrpgs at least are consistent putting the main relationship in your face.

FFXV is like "meh,they send letters sometimes"

 

[Tarextherex]

I wouldn't say that. What happens in Other M, with a capable character being laid low by emotional fragility and quasiromantic veneration for a male paternalistic figure (with a loss of agency), as well as all of the motherhood cliches being applied with all of the subtlety of a brick to the face, are all pretty gendered female.

Bad cliches are present for male and female characters, imagine if Samus was a guy but suddenly became a macho space marine in Other M because the whole point is about blowing up aliens or some shit. People would probably have similar backlash if Mario/Link became edgy. While Other M is the most infamous example of character assassination/bad writing this doesn't inherently means that such things only happen to female characters. That other thread about character assassinations that often mentioned Other M had plenty of examples regarding male characters that became too stereotypical

 

[Laughing Banana]

Ashe is a good character, I guess. Too bad her costume is so terrible, and she is perhaps one of the worst (best?) examples of a female character with such a terrible male-gaze oriented costume designs I have ever seen.

 

[Nuke Soda]

Interesting read OP, got a knack for writing there. I like well written female characters and it is really cool when a story gets one right. Also have you checked out Tales from the Borderlands? Fiona is pretty awesome with her fedora and her wits and the tiny wrist gun she carries with only a couple bullets. I am not sure if she is considered well written, but I thought she was.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I'm saying people need to stop focusing solely on creating """strong""" female characters and look more towards creating female characters who are actual people with layers and nuance. So it's more the former I guess.

When did this triple quote thing start? I don't get it

 

[petran79]

I remember a point I saw raised years ago, can't remember from where (possibly if not probably tumblr), on how the expectations of a 'strong female character' can at times undermine the creation of strongly written female characters, whatever their flaws may be.

The example in question was that Guybrush Threepwood wouldn't be 'allowed' to be (or rather, wouldn't be positively welcomed as) a female character, in the current cultural climate.

By which it was meant that Guybrush's cavalcade of flaws - including being physically weak, an idiot in almost every fashion that doesn't involve solving bizarre puzzles, cowardly, lacking confidence, and a touch of a pervert - are only collectively acceptable as a character because he's a guy. We presume these flaws are part of who he is, and are not meant to be reflective of or would be found commonly in all other characters of the same gender or race. If you made a female equivalent, many people would deride them as too weak, as a harmful example, so instead you'd get a 'strong female character' to try and avoid any such criticisms, and would probably fit one of the archetypes as defined in OP's essay. My guess would be femme fatale because that's how female pirates work apparently.

There's a need for nuance when it comes to representation, because people don't easily slot into single archetypes, or have all the same interests and beliefs.

Lauren from Blackwell Epiphany goes even further and is one of the most realistic female characters I've encountered.

Self-destructive, introverted, depressed and confused. She smokes too which makes her even less acceptable, especially on consoles. Killing and cleavage are fine, but smoking the non-femme fatale way is unacceptable.

 

[Aztechnology]

Yes, good stuff.

 

[IncognitoPanda]

Its also hilarious that people think straight white male characters aren't written as archetypes a lot of the time too.

So much this.

It's true about the "strong female character". She's not nuanced. Reboot Lara Croft is still a fantasy, although a more tasteful (less tasteless?) one. But most video games are about combat, being a hero, fighting crime etc. and the main characters reflect that. It's not nuanced, but the female ones aren't less nuanced than the male ones.

How many video games has a male overweight loser as the protagonist except The Simpsons games, exactly? Both genders are portrayed that way, not just the female ones.

 

[Cloukyo]

I wouldn't say that. What happens in Other M, with a capable character being laid low by emotional fragility and quasiromantic veneration for a male paternalistic figure (with a loss of agency), as well as all of the motherhood cliches being applied with all of the subtlety of a brick to the face, are all pretty gendered female.

Samus is one dimensional. And that's fine, she's from a NES game that isn't very narrative heavy. The same in the GBA. All we should know is that she's a girl, and she rocks, like Doomguy and the guy from Contra.

If we were to continue her story with a more narrative heavy game you'd want something that builds on that.

To use doomguy as an example again, if you ended up creating a sequel focused on plot, and made him some guy with PTSD because of what he saw on mars... fuck me that'd be terrible. Instead they did the right thing with the new Doom and just kept him being a brainless shooter.

We don't need every character to be deep and complex, games aren't what you should look to for deep and layered characters, and you should only expect it when the game claims to have a decent narrative.

This is honestly one of the reasons why I don't get why people care so much about how characters are portrayed from a narrative level in games. Look towards movies, TV shows and books if you want a critique on how women are portrayed. You largely won't find anything but one dimensional shells because any decent game should be focused on the gameplay, with a character trait simply driving it forward somewhat.


This is why I can't stand the new Tomb Raider games, they tried so hard to make Lara a believable and deep character, but failed spectacularly because the gameplay betrayed that narrative completely. Complain all you want about old Lara's breasts, but keeping her as a one dimensional James Bond/Indiana Jones clone worked for what you were doing in the games.

tl;dr - Character traits should serve as an accessory to the game.

So much this.

It's true about the "strong female character". She's not nuanced. Reboot Lara Croft is still a fantasy, although a more tasteful (less tasteless?) one. But most video games are about combat, being a hero, fighting crime etc. and the main characters reflect that. It's not nuanced, but the female ones aren't less nuanced than the male ones.

How many video games has a male overweight loser as the protagonist except The Simpsons games, exactly? Both genders are portrayed that way, not just the female ones.

This so much. Game writing is shit, regardless of gender. We should be paying more attention to gameplay instead of fretting over "hurrr the deep motivations and character development".

If the writing is good, that's great, fine, whatever. But expecting it to be the standard is ridiculous. People are so caught up with being this or that group being represented in a positive light that they forget to just play the game and have fun.

I'm glad I stick to nintendo games and fighting games. Don't have to worry about this shit that has forced its way into AAA western "cinematic games"

(regarding nu-lara, she might have been less tasteless, but she wasn't as appropriate for the mission statement of the Tomb Raider franchise. I wonder how people would react to a Bond movie where he was crying all the time while mowing down countless bad guys?)

 

[Deleted member 465307]

This thread reminded me that when the Mafia 3 DLC was announced on February 2nd, the marketing blurb had this to say when teasing upcoming news on the first expansion:

In the coming weeks, we’ll be revealing much more on “Faster, Baby!” including its incredible new environment, strong female lead, new gameplay mechanics and activities, and of course, the DLC story expansion’s power-crazed antagonist.

When I read that, I was put off by the fact that "strong female lead" was being teased as a feature of the DLC. Her character might be really interesting, but reading that in the marketing made me shake my head. I think it was because the term has become clichéd and troublesome in its own way, as this thread points out. I understand that it was definitely the marketing team, rather than the developers and writers who work on the game, who wrote that, so it doesn't necessarily represent the game or character in any way. It's just really strange to see "strong female lead" sandwiched between "new environment" and "new gameplay mechanics and activities" and used as a bullet point.

I want diversity and representation, but I don't want it be commodified and treated as something...exceptional, I guess? I suppose it just reminds me of the risk of characters being sold for their gender/race/sexuality/etc. and not becoming multidimensional or compelling beyond that one quality. Phrases like "strong female lead" feel reductive, not because they inherently are, but because current trends and discourse have turned that phrase into something empty.

Thanks for making this thread, OP, and making me think a bit more about a moment from earlier this month. Also, cool use of Greek mythology!

 

[fabricated backlash]

I'd argue that we first need less action games.
Less shoot bang, more social interaction, non violent problem solving or moral dilemmas that go beyond the usual boring life/death dichotomy.

Genuine character development beyond the usual fascistoid military or gun porn would be a welcomed change and give more fertile ground for deep characters and more perspectives than the usual mass murderer with a cause.

 

[Cloukyo]

I'd argue that we first need less action games.
Less shoot bang, more social interaction, non violent problem solving or moral dilemmas that go beyond the usual boring life/death dichotomy.

Sadly shoot bang games and sports games are what sell in the west these days...

*clutches Vita*

 

[fabricated backlash]

Sadly shoot bang games and sports games are what sell in the west these days...

*clutches Vita*

And that's why you won't see much improvement on the interesting character front in most aaa games.
Hell most games don't even do anything with the theme of violence beyond some lip service or hilariously tone deaf and dissonant vignettes.

2013s Tomb Raider comes to mind.

 

[SPCTRE]

I'd argue that we first need less action games.

I'd argue that they're not mutually exclusive concepts if you have good writers. For reference, see Uncharted 4's portrayal of a "simple", adult relationship/marriage.

 

[pashmilla]

I'd argue that we first need less action games.
Less shoot bang, more social interaction, non violent problem solving or moral dilemmas that go beyond the usual boring life/death dichotomy.

Genuine character development beyond the usual fascistoid military or gun porn would be a welcomed change and give more fertile ground for deep characters and more perspectives than the usual mass murderer with a cause.

I mean, Chloe and Elena are amazing and they're from Uncharted, a very shoot-bang game. It's possible to have action and good characters.

 

[sfried]

Great post, OP. With that being said, though, I think we should take the gender-neutral thing further.

I've always tended to think that merely demanding "more women protagonists" in gaming just results in more poorly-written women, because 99% of men in gaming are poorly-written. It seems to pay lip service towards diversity in gaming, because we often assume that simply making the generic action protagonist a woman automatically makes the game itself a shining example of appealing to women. The "strong woman" checklist only contributes to this issue, and actually validates the notion that masculine "strength" and behaviors are inherently more desirable, and thus superior. By extension, it also seems to assert that only entertainment catered towards those sensibilities has worth.

It's like how a soldier, no matter what gender, will inherently be held in higher regard than a healer, because we only value one kind of strength. Most would say, "But it's usually men who are the soldiers, we need more female soldiers!" To that I say, "You're right, but what's so great about being a soldier?" People always argue that the industry should market traditional games by featuring more women, but few argue that the industry should market other types of games that don't inherently cater to the male-centric concept of "strength" to begin with. Something's not right with that.

It's not enough to just say "take a well-written male character and make him female", we need to acknowledge the kind of perspectives, feelings, and yes, "strength" that primarily come from women. By enforcing a "one size fits all" standard of what a "good" character thinks and does, we tend to only reinforce patriarchal standards.

Well posted. I don't know if there's anything I could add, other than yes, we might need better written characters overall. I don't think it should be an exclusive thing but inclusive.

 

[Ratrat]

I agree.

Think there was a feminist frequency video about it. A character like Lightning may look 'strong' for her ability to beat people up. But she is just badly written, boring gender swapped Cloud, most likely the directors ideal...


Estelle from TITS is a great example of an interesting, likable character with flaws, strengths, humor, good development. Its quite rare in games.

 

[Terrell]

I like the utilization of goddesses from classic Greek literature to encapsulate the current archetypes and what they're missing in video games to make them a whole person. Great use of short-hand descriptors.

It certainly highlights the problem of how many examples of "strong female characters" are really only as such at the most superficial of levels.

The industry is littered with cardboard cutouts as main and secondary characters, but female characters seem to suffer from even less depth. Between these female depictions of women, the caricature of masculinity on the other side, and so very little in between for persons of color and LGBT representation (if only because a cardboard cutout of those groups end up being insulting caricatures and stereotypes, more often than not), the solution is clear:

The industry by and large needs more and better writers.

 

[Iamcorrupt]

I think one of the biggest issues is we get too many "stronk" female characters and so few with strength of character. Max from life is strange is one of my recent faves because she's not the guns blazing badass but she's doing what she does because of the strength of her will and the need to help her friends.

 

[Steroyd]

I'd argue that we first need less action games.
Less shoot bang, more social interaction, non violent problem solving or moral dilemmas that go beyond the usual boring life/death dichotomy.

Genuine character development beyond the usual fascistoid military or gun porn would be a welcomed change and give more fertile ground for deep characters and more perspectives than the usual mass murderer with a cause.

Not neccesarily, haven't played it myself but Doom guy from Doom sounds like he's got so much more personaility than most protags in the same genre and he doesn't utter a single word.

At least with how Jim Sterling, articulates.

https://youtu.be/AphprlpAVyE


And another end of the spectrum would be Samus while less shoot bangy than COD she exudes her baddasery by getting planted on a planet, thing needs to be done and she gets the job done other, people respect her and the space pirates fear her, and it doesn't need social interaction for it to be done, just through the action of her allies and enemies and how they revere her*

*Obviously I speak of this pre-Other M.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I agree that we need to stop with the "Strong" adjective. It's a vague term that tells us nothing about the character in question. But asking them to "write women the same way you write straight white dudes" shows some sort of underlying resentment to the subject at hand and would end up resulting in more anger about poorly written women in video games.

It's nothing short of fascinating to behold the kind of 60's series Batman logic leaps used to deduce tone, just so you could play the tone policing card.

If you think that men are portrayed any more fairly or realistically in games then I think that says a lot more about you're reality than the one you wish writers to emulate.

Kindly fuck out of here with that condescending shit. There, I gave you something to actually tone police.