Steve Youngblood
Member
Yes. Further, I don't believe that conversations like this infringe on that freedom.
Why are there still so many white men in video games
- Thread starter Kater
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Further, I don't believe that conversations like this infringe on that freedom.
shadowstar
Member
I'm tired of being white killing non whites. Even when they try to make the protagonist a different ethnicity he looks white (FC4).
faceless007
Member
I wonder why this doesn't apply to every single other thread on NeoGAF expressing a desire for developers to make games a certain way when it comes to things like gameplay, art style, story, mechanics, etc. You know, like:
"Why does every game these days have XP, collectibles, side quests etc?"
"I WANT: Open world Zelda; core items from start; challenging, with skippable tutorial"
"What art style would you prefer for Zelda U?"
"If Naughty Dog makes Uncharted 4, this is how they have to do it."
"The Metroid series needs better villains."
"Anyone feel Mario 3D World should have MK8's graphical style instead?"
"How would you fix Little Big Planet?"
"Stupid gameplay decisions"
"Content bloat is slowly ruining AAA games"
"Are you happy with the "visual identity" adopted by modern Final Fantasy?"
"Story spamming through audio and text logfiles needs to stop"
"Thief's customization options should become standard."
"Games Where the Main Character Should Have Been Different"
"I don't care how hardcore your game is, you should be able to fucking pause."
"Titanfall has maximum player count of 12 (alongside AI)"
By your logic, if anyone here wants a game to change they should stop posting on GAF and just go make it themselves.
RockTurtle
Member
to be fair most of those are technical in nature.
i don't think anyone is accusing you of being a fascist or sexist or racist for not making your game 60 fps.
Steve Youngblood
Member
to be fair most of those are technical in nature.
i don't think anyone is accusing you of being a fascist or sexist or racist for not making your game 60 fps.
Right. But is director/designer's vision sacrosanct or isn't it?
shadowstar
Member
I don't think Anita or any sane person is calling anyone a racist or fascist. They're just pointing out and discussing issues in diversity. What's the problem with discussing things? Why do people feel so threatened?
Kadayi
Banned
I'd be curious to see a concrete breakdown of the ethnicity and sexuality of all game protagonists featured at E3 over the last 10 years or so. Not that I doubt that there's probably a lot more white male characters than most, but given the youtube for E3 2014 linked in the tweet features characters from games that are already out (Watchdogs/TLOU/GTA V) I think some base level factual data is required in order to map out the trends and remove biases from both ends of the spectrum freakonomics style.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
The only solution to this is for all games to have a character creator.
Karsticles
Member
I dont think most people consider basic mechanical aspects like "I want to be able to pause" to be part of the vision. Often, they just aren't considered. I dont think that wanting to pause is interfering with an artistic vision in the same way altering characters/story are. There are likely exceptions, but not many.
Live Free or Die
Banned
Does it really matter what someone's gender, race, hair color, what clothes they are wearing or anything else for that matter is in a video game? I don't know why people just cant play the game and enjoy it, instead of always trying to start some form of controversy.
faceless007
Member
Uh, no they aren't. But fine, here are more aesthetic/artistic ones:
"Critique: Zelda Link to the Past 2 doesn't look "lived in""
"Hey Assassin's Creed, stop killing off all your good characters. *spoilers*"
"Games that you would have preferred to not use pixel art"
"Anyone Hoping for a Longer & Harder Bosses in the Next 3D Mario"
"I wish Arc Systems' fighters weren't so animey"
"Anyone else tired of iron sights in shooters?"
"Attn developers: Please stop putting so much damn loot everywhere"
"Video Game Cliché's That Need To Go Away"
"Jade Raymond: Splinter Cell "Too Complex"" (lots of posts saying she's making the game wrong)
Thief hands-on (PCGamer) (lots of posts saying they're making it wrong)
"Games series where character designs got progressively worse?"
"Why doesn't Tales go back to Vesperia's art style(minus the chibi characters)"
Well it's sure as hell common to see "lazy devs" thrown around regarding complaints like that, so apparently it's OK to insult developers' work ethic if they don't make games up to gamer's demanding standards. Not sure why that's any better. And I daresay the level of outrage or vitriol, however you want to quantify it, directed at developers who don't reach 1080p60 this gen or not meeting other technical standards is easily comparable if not greater than the way you're exaggerating the complaints about representation. No one is actually calling devs fascist or racist or sexist (the complaint would be more properly stated as "developers are, whether intentionally or not, perpetuating a racist/sexist status quo"), but I've sure seen a lot of posters call devs incompetent for things like 30fps.i don't think anyone is accusing you of being a fascist or sexist or racist for not making your game 60 fps.
Yes it does matter. Stop asking.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Don't like it? Why don't you make a video game where you can pause!
Hopefully, that sounds like a stupid suggestion. The answer to my rhetorical question was "no, the developer's vision is not sacrosanct."
flatearthpandas
Member
Probably because it isn't anyone's job to make everyone feel represented. Creating interesting gameplay, art styles, stories, and mechanics, however, is their job.
Also, the topics you listed were mostly specific complaints about specific games that can be feasibly addressed. You'll notice the go-to response in the Assassin's Creed Unity female representation thread wasn't for anyone to quit their jobs and design their own next-gen assassin game with female options because there are more practical solutions.
The best way to address the problem of an underrepresentation of females and minorities in gaming as a whole is to address female and minority representation in the industry.
shadowstar
Member
Because games are art trying to express a vision or point. Games are an intellectual endeavor.
People will generally resort to calling any group of people lazy instead of actually researching an issue in just about any area of discussion. It's lazy shallow debating 101.
RockTurtle
Member
i think there's a difference between "system doesn't have enough ram, i can't add enemies on screen" or "i would have made a female and male character, but budget and time constraints didn't allow me to develop for two" with something like "i want to make this character this race because that's what my story is about".
but, i digress, what people find as important enough to leave on the cutting room floor is subjective
shadowstar
Member
I honestly don't think this would help in AAA gaming because female developers would still have to create games that would sell and most western gamers are white males.
What really bothered me about that is that Hernandez didn't even acknowledge that Sony offers a scholarship specifically directed at girls who want to get into the games industry.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Yeah, that's...kinda what I'm saying. Plus those links deal with technical/mechanical aspects of the game or level design, a lot of those being terrible as well (i.e Zelda should be like Skyrim...no, it really shouldn't).
The best representative for you is yourself, no one knows you better than yourself. Devs obviously listen to these criticism regarding diversity to an extent, but they are never going to outright take them 100% in stride. These are still their games; despite all the design-by-committee that goes on these days, at the core these things are what the devs want.
If they want to play with a certain gender or ethnicity as the lead, for whatever reason, that's their choice. You just have to hope their ideas sync with your wishes, but don't expect them to make your game for you.
Kadayi
Banned
Variation is a costly exercise and often times requires a lot of narrative compromise especially when it comes to personalisation. Certain games excel at it (Mass Effect) for instance, but there's only so much calling people by their surnames, and dodging their avatars sexuality you can get away with.
If you want distinction, ultimately the better fit is always going to be something tailored to a specific character and the representation of them.
ScatheZombie
Member
It isn't. Anyone who works in the industry can tell you, firsthand, that design principles and design vision are extremely fluid through development and even afterwards. It's almost never a solid thing that you can define as "the vision".
A good designer is willing and able to sacrifice the original vision or original design if it isn't working, if a new idea arises, or if the budget and deadlines demand so. The bad designers are the ones unwilling to adjust their 'vision' to ship a product.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
To me it seems "go make it yourself" applies best to non-commercial work. I.e. if I am an artist creating paintings of horses non-commercially, viewers of my paintings don't have a great reason to demand I paint cheetahs instead.
But games in the context we're talking about are mostly commercial products. They're meant to be sold. That means there are customers and I think potential customers have a right to ask "I would like to see this product. Would someone please make it and sell it to me. I have monies I am trying exchange." That doesn't mean someone is required to make it. But people can ask, and in fact they should ask to demonstrate there is demand.
This is real point and it is often glossed over in these discussions.
This stuff about the sacredness of creative vision becomes more complicated when it's commercial. The AAA tier of games are rarely about the unique vision of a single person. No delicate flowers here - these things are made by committee as someone pointed out earlier.
In this sense I think it is pretty fair to criticize the game industry in general for content because AAA games are ruthless in exploiting the lowest common denominator. People don't have much of a problem critiquing other mediums like that, such as citing Hollywood for exploiting the summer blockbuster movie audience.
But games in the context we're talking about are mostly commercial products. They're meant to be sold. That means there are customers and I think potential customers have a right to ask "I would like to see this product. Would someone please make it and sell it to me. I have monies I am trying exchange." That doesn't mean someone is required to make it. But people can ask, and in fact they should ask to demonstrate there is demand.
This is real point and it is often glossed over in these discussions.
This stuff about the sacredness of creative vision becomes more complicated when it's commercial. The AAA tier of games are rarely about the unique vision of a single person. No delicate flowers here - these things are made by committee as someone pointed out earlier.
In this sense I think it is pretty fair to criticize the game industry in general for content because AAA games are ruthless in exploiting the lowest common denominator. People don't have much of a problem critiquing other mediums like that, such as citing Hollywood for exploiting the summer blockbuster movie audience.
Karsticles
Member
I feel like you completely ignored my post despite quoting it. The post you quoted makes a claim as to why your statement is not equivalent to one about aesthetics. Mechanics are generally subject to heavy criticism, as everyone wants a game to play better. Aesthetics get touchy, and there I think artistic integrity becomes an issue.
My response to your rhetorical question was that mechanics are not necessarily part of the developer's position, so your question has no contextual basis in response to a claim about vision. That said, overarching mechanics themes (deliberate attacks vs. Cancelable attacks) often play a huge role, and that is part of artistic intent. For example, when people complain about the difficulty or combat mechanics in Dark Souls, the 99% response is to get over it and go play something else. In Dark Souls, however, those are major decisions that help form the artistic vision. Dark Souls would not feel the same with Bayonetta gameplay.
On the flip side, the 3D Zelda games have awful combat, and it contributes to nothing. That is, Link's attack style does not add to the atmosphere in the same way Dark Souls combat does. It is thus far more subject to criticism.
If I were to create a chart, it would go like this:
Minor mechanics (frame data)
Major mechanics (combat systems)
Atmospheric mechanics (Fallout radiation)
Pure aesthetics (art style)
The first two categories, nearly everyone accepts that they are open to criticism. The third category is generally off-limits unless it severely harms gameplay. The fourth category is what many people here are arguing is sacred.
So, I think your question about developer intent being sacred is oversimplifying the issue. I also think this entirely opinion-based, and many people (obviously) find all four categories to be open to criticism. Personally, I stay away from the fourth. I will say I don't like a style, but I think it is too far to demand that it should be changed. I think it is appropriate to let developers know how you feel about it, of course.
My end point: if you want to try and catch someone contradicting him or herself, I think you should use a relevant example. Pausing is in a different category for most people than art style in terms of artistic intent. If you dont have a common ground to argue from, then you aren't doing anything more than shouting at a wall.
Edit: Yes, it is unfair to suggest that people should just go and make their own games. Instead, I would love it if people focused on praising what is good instead of attacking what is bad. I would love it if Anna S. (On my phone so hard go look up the spelling) were to make a video talking about how great of a job Nintendo is doing creating more playable females in their games. Or, at the very least, why not praise what has been done well alongside what was done poorly?
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
The same reason the film industry has the same problem; it's run by, not necessarily racists and or sexists, but cowards who want to take safe bets because they think so little of their main audience, white males.
The funny thing about it is that it's a really myopic and short sighted way of thinking. Making more games with better representation will eventually grow your audience, not shrink it. There are a lot of racist, sexist, white males in the world, sure, and a lot of them play video games, but not enough that their exodus from the gaming world would have a big impact on the industry like the industry thinks it will, or has convinced other small minded people it would. Especially since growing your audience to a wider variety of people would more than make up for the racist/sexist white males that refuse to play games/watch movies that aren't representing them or that they feel they "can't identify with" (that line always makes me cringe).
The funny thing about it is that it's a really myopic and short sighted way of thinking. Making more games with better representation will eventually grow your audience, not shrink it. There are a lot of racist, sexist, white males in the world, sure, and a lot of them play video games, but not enough that their exodus from the gaming world would have a big impact on the industry like the industry thinks it will, or has convinced other small minded people it would. Especially since growing your audience to a wider variety of people would more than make up for the racist/sexist white males that refuse to play games/watch movies that aren't representing them or that they feel they "can't identify with" (that line always makes me cringe).
ScatheZombie
Member
My wife actually got this (or rather, a older, similar incarnation of this) several years ago when we first entered the industry, which eventually lead to both of our first industry jobs.
flatearthpandas
Member
Seeing as Tomb Raider has managed to scrape up 6.5 million sales, I don't think the audience is as much of a hindrance to diversity as we might think.
It may be true that the sales potential is a little lower than with a white male lead, which may be unacceptable if few people in the industry are passionate about representing those minorities.
Yeah. The sad reality is that, while I don't think mainstream audiences will take to everything, I think they are more open than studios give them credit for. If you only INTRODUCE diversity into their products, with a well written story and characters, I do think most people would be open to it.
It's too easy too point towards failed projects, and say this is the result of them trying something different. The problem is, sometimes those projects were just bad to begin with (and it failing had nothing to do with being diverse or taking a risk).
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
That says a lot more about the market's consumers than it does about the developers.
shadowstar
Member
I know we don't think that. That's why it's frustrating to us the audience. They think so little of gamers that they go for safe bet for the most part.
Steve Youngblood
Member
The entirety of my point is that nothing is sacred. I don't agree with at all about distinguishing between which types of criticism is valid because I think basically any type of criticism can be valid. I've read your post and I don't agree at all that criticism about a game's mechanics represents a different, more tenable type of criticism compared to criticism of artistic choices. All aspects of a game come together to form the complete package, and if we think there's merit to criticism at all, then all facets of design can be challenged.
faceless007
Member
You took the one example in the list about something purely mechanical and ignored the 15 others I gave critiquing aesthetics like character design and art style and are acting like that's what the whole list was.
I'd assert that the more meaningful question is why there aren't more people choosing to create characters outside of that category.
Many of the questions and criticisms fielded by Feminist Frequency lean disconcertingly into the "less art, not more" category; many of their headlines and discussion roots imply criticism of the art being created, instead of looking into why other types of art aren't being created. In these terms, the answer is simple enough: Creators tend to produce work based on their own experiences, and the development field largely mirrors the technical field. For this discussion then, asking "Why are there so many men making games" is a very different thing from asking "Why aren't more women drawn into game production." The tone of those initial formulations has a strong effect on the resulting editorial tone.
There's also the reality of videogames as a mass market product. Since the Feminist Frequency piece elects to focus on the big-box subset of videogames (rather including the variety of the indie market), it shouldn't be surprising to see simplistic-seeming, marketing based answers to these questions: For the US market, based on the 2010 decennial Census, 72.4% of all Americans self-identified as European American (analogous for the sake of discussion to Caucasian). Males are roughly half of the population. Being one of the largest identifiable groups to market to tends to have some influence on what is produced, and the number of men working in technical fields surrounding game production contributes further. I'm of the belief that as the demographics of the country shift, so will the output of game design. That being said, I'd like it to happen sooner rather than later, because there's a lot of fascinating personal and cultural experiences to draw on from non-white characters, regardless of gender.
None of this is to say people who don't relate to the current crop of characters should see this explanation and assume that makes it fine. Quite the opposite in fact, but the solution is more people creating new work, not instilling the cultural expectation that others should change theirs.
Many of the questions and criticisms fielded by Feminist Frequency lean disconcertingly into the "less art, not more" category; many of their headlines and discussion roots imply criticism of the art being created, instead of looking into why other types of art aren't being created. In these terms, the answer is simple enough: Creators tend to produce work based on their own experiences, and the development field largely mirrors the technical field. For this discussion then, asking "Why are there so many men making games" is a very different thing from asking "Why aren't more women drawn into game production." The tone of those initial formulations has a strong effect on the resulting editorial tone.
There's also the reality of videogames as a mass market product. Since the Feminist Frequency piece elects to focus on the big-box subset of videogames (rather including the variety of the indie market), it shouldn't be surprising to see simplistic-seeming, marketing based answers to these questions: For the US market, based on the 2010 decennial Census, 72.4% of all Americans self-identified as European American (analogous for the sake of discussion to Caucasian). Males are roughly half of the population. Being one of the largest identifiable groups to market to tends to have some influence on what is produced, and the number of men working in technical fields surrounding game production contributes further. I'm of the belief that as the demographics of the country shift, so will the output of game design. That being said, I'd like it to happen sooner rather than later, because there's a lot of fascinating personal and cultural experiences to draw on from non-white characters, regardless of gender.
None of this is to say people who don't relate to the current crop of characters should see this explanation and assume that makes it fine. Quite the opposite in fact, but the solution is more people creating new work, not instilling the cultural expectation that others should change theirs.
SousedLouse
Member
It happens because the threads just flow into one another.
For all the good vibes that the current narrative brings - that social change is happening right now, with real gains, supposedly by genuine, well-meaning, empathetic, socially aware people that are shaping the future with piercing criticisms - it's still just people drawing a line in the dirt for the right side of history before the dust has even settled. Bloggers, critics and journalists trying to set history as it's happening, and never really acknowledging any mistakes along the way unless there's an even bigger story to go along with it. And in a medium with little experience in critical analysis, no less. And reaction to that has been more varied, in my opinion, than posting in good faith and trolling. Some people are receptive to both the criticisms and the narrative, and so they at least try to discuss it; others ignore them, or pick and choose which is valid and which is not; and some see a discussion they thought had already been thoroughly discussed, with or without their input, being re-hashed again and just go off on it.
I've got to assume that, in addition to the trolls and the people with an ax to grind, there are some posters who just work themselves up into a frenzy over the thread titles alone because, to them, it's just the same old stuff. Or because the thread reminds them of some other thread that didn't go so well for them, a discussion with critical standards that they weren't aware of which completely frustrated them. For all we know, they might have held off on shitposting in other threads in an attempt to be civil, but posted in this one about how things are getting out of hand or whatever because they hit their limit. It would explain those situations where people waltz into the middle of a discussion and go after other posters for stuff they didn't even mention in that thread. And of course they don't care about whether other people read their post, because at that point it's just venting. Self-vindication is good enough sometimes.
I used to do it all the time. I hate that mealymouthed Socratic bullshit people pull, for example - when they ask cloying, supposedly honest questions about a post, and then immediately follow it up with something that boils down to "well if you believe in [x], then shouldn't you also believe in [y]? You're basically on my side, you just can't see it yet!" No rhyme, no reason, no attempt to bridge [x] and [y] with logic, they'd just jump to the hypothesis they'd like the most. Every thread about inclusiveness used to attract the same posters, who'd use the same shtick, and it made my blood boil. Only reason I stopped was because I got tired of trying to undermine people that I essentially agreed with because they used a rhetorical device in a shitty way. And while I've stopped that, for the most part, it's only because I got physically exhausted about it. Some people can just keep on doing the same thing forever without stopping to think about whether or not it's worth anything in the long run.
Exactly, and this is why more minorities and women should go into game development.
And it doesn't take 'years'.
If you're willing to do the work, you can download Unity, learn a bit of programming, maybe buy a few cheap plug-ins, pay Apple $100, and release a game within 6 months. If you have some prior programming experience, it won't even take that long (I had a working version of pong within 24 hours).
The path to 'AAA' development is longer, but I know people who were hired by Epic after only 2 or 3 years of modeling.
I almost always assume characters in Japanese games are designed to be Japanese and not white, unless otherwise specified.
Characters like Neku Sakuraba and Ryuuichi Naruhodou were almost certainly conceived as fully Japanese, but most white people would probably see a white character, if all they knew about the character was the design. When Naruhodo became Phoenix Wright, the character's design didn't need to be changed because western audiences already perceived the character as white. It wasn't Phoenix's face or skin color that gave away the Japanese origin of the series, it was everything else.
Characters like Neku Sakuraba and Ryuuichi Naruhodou were almost certainly conceived as fully Japanese, but most white people would probably see a white character, if all they knew about the character was the design. When Naruhodo became Phoenix Wright, the character's design didn't need to be changed because western audiences already perceived the character as white. It wasn't Phoenix's face or skin color that gave away the Japanese origin of the series, it was everything else.
Karsticles
Member
Right, but if you want to dialogue with someone who disagrees with you on this, you need to first get them to agree as to what's sacred. That was my main point. You can't expect them to address whether game X should have Y number of males and Z number of females without agreeing that this sort of thing should be subject to discussion. Otherwise you're just going to continually butt heads. Or, rather, you will steamroll folks because they don't want to argue with a moderator - hahaha.
I think that feedback, which is distinct from criticism, is a better option when aesthetics are concerned. Nearly everyone is open to developer feedback on any topic.
I neither read nor addressed your post. Maybe you are confusing me with another person up half a page that did that.
Since you brought it up, though, take a look at your list. Of the aesthetic examples, many are feedback or discussion-oriented. For example, look at these three titles (just going by the titles - I'm not going to read all of the OPs):
"Are you happy with the "visual identity" adopted by modern Final Fantasy?"
"What art style would you prefer for Zelda U?"
"I WANT: Open world Zelda; core items from start; challenging, with skippable tutorial"
The first two are discussions - "How do you like this?"
The third thread is pretty clear: "I want this" - it's feedback.
I think I covered how these are different in my previous posts.
There are situations where people are defensive about aesthetic criticism. Example:
"Ugh, Blazblue could be a great fighting game if it weren't for all that anime shit".
Many, many BlazBlue fans will get frustrated with this person's post. "Go play another game", etc. are common responses. I think the results are fairly consistent across the categories I laid out.
Actually, out of all the OPs you found, I don't think any of them are critical toward purely aesthetic developer decisions.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I think it's worth noting that there's a giant chasm that separates the idea of what "making a game" entails between "can write code that compiles into something that can be 'played'" and having a position to influence design decisions on a major project. I mean, congrats on reverse-engineering a version of Pong -- a simple game that released decades ago that features no story, 3 moving objects, and simple graphics. But citing that experience to suggest that making a video game is within their grasp isn't really all that relevant of a response to someone who is disappointed that GTA V didn't have playable female characters.
Here's another point: Why do gamers get to complain about DLC? It's the developers vision therefore I guess we shouldn't get a say on it.
Almost everyone knows a huge part of why white male leads are the majority in gaming is because of the target demographic being the most popular.
At the same time, are these statistics completely accurate? I mean, are white men the majority of gamers? I don't believe that for a second. Gaming is huge to minorities, LGBT and women and yet it never seems like they're properly included in this market discussion of who makes up the gaming population.
We aren't just speaking about male leads but white male leads being the most popular. Not only that but because of the lack of diversity in gaming, one game with a female or minority lead bombs and suddenly people point to that as an example that they just won't work as leading roles in gaming and yet a women or minority leading game does well and nothing is really thought of it.
I think there's a lot more factors as to why those statistics are the way they are and I don't think it just comes down to "it's because white men play games the most". A lot of it to me comes down to the video game community still struggling to even accept women.
Things would look a lot different if women weren't shamed for liking things that aren't gender norms.
Almost everyone knows a huge part of why white male leads are the majority in gaming is because of the target demographic being the most popular.
At the same time, are these statistics completely accurate? I mean, are white men the majority of gamers? I don't believe that for a second. Gaming is huge to minorities, LGBT and women and yet it never seems like they're properly included in this market discussion of who makes up the gaming population.
We aren't just speaking about male leads but white male leads being the most popular. Not only that but because of the lack of diversity in gaming, one game with a female or minority lead bombs and suddenly people point to that as an example that they just won't work as leading roles in gaming and yet a women or minority leading game does well and nothing is really thought of it.
Just because a majority of that genre is male doesn't mean women still don't make up a good portion of it. It doesn't help that being a vocal gamer as a girl you get labeled as fake or only liking specific games which in turn makes other women not want to speak out and thus excludes women from the gaming company.
I think there's a lot more factors as to why those statistics are the way they are and I don't think it just comes down to "it's because white men play games the most". A lot of it to me comes down to the video game community still struggling to even accept women.
Certain behaviors in genders does not equate having different interests. We know that many products in media are gender constructs that have bred the idea that only men can like this and women this.
Things would look a lot different if women weren't shamed for liking things that aren't gender norms.
shadowstar
Member
But those in AAA development don't get to make the games they want. They also certainly don't get to design/direct/write the games they want right out of the gate. They get to collaborate with their fellow designers, artists, and execs to create a good game that will sell. This is often perceived as a game with a white male protagonist. Games are hardly ever made by one person or follow one single person's distinct vision.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
Let me get this straight. You consider Bayonetta a bad female lead. Bayonetta, who is confident to the point of being overwhelmingly so in her sexuality, whilst also being capable of overcoming any and all adversity.
Meanwhile, you consider Lara from the latest Tomb Raider to be a good lead. Lara, who is depicted as a fragile victim for a large portion of the experience, complete with fetishistic death cinematics and constant whimpering cries of fear in all set-pieces.
I certainly don't consider Bayonetta to be a very good female character, since she's basically depicted as almost without flaw, but Tomb Raider 2013's Lara is such a comically mis-directed attempt to craft an engaging female lead that it pisses me off to no end.
You gotta start somewhere, you don't start off with a 'position to influence design decisions on a major project". And of course, if you're an indie developer, you can generally make whatever design decisions you wish.
And I agree that GTA probably should have included a female character, and that any western game that features character creation should have options for different races and genders (I'd give Japanese developers some leeway on race however, since their games are usually targeting a Japanese population that is racially homogenous).
But for story driven games with a single lead? Let the artists/writers/designers be true to whatever their vision is. If you have a different vision, the only way to realize it is to create your own game.
And games don't solely have a male white protagonist...
It literally isn't this easy. I'm not sure this conversation really needs to go here, but not everyone can afford to get a computer that can do all these things, especially at younger ages. I know it's not directly related, but I'm in my last year of school right now and an overwhelming majority of the students in my classes are white guys. And
I think encouraging more women to get into computer science is definitely a step in the right direction. I'm not sure how much discouragement there is for men of color.
As disjointed as my post is (sorry, my thoughts on this are all over the place today), I think my point is that for some of the people who care to see themselves represented more, just "going into" game development isn't as easy as it might be for some of us here.
sorry if this is a shitty post. Don't rip me apart too much <3
Is this the part where you spend 20 minutes putting together a list of like 15~ women that play the leading role in games with release dates spanning last year all the way back to like 1998?
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Every time Bayonetta comes up, I can't help but think of this character analysis:
http://obligatoryspiderqueen.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/b-i-t-c-h-bayonetta-in-total-control-of-herself/
http://obligatoryspiderqueen.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/b-i-t-c-h-bayonetta-in-total-control-of-herself/
faceless007
Member
No, it isn't. One is a superset of the other.
So you just happened to conjure up the rather specific and incongruous example of "I want to be able to pause", a subject that had not been mentioned once in the thread prior to my listing the same example in nearly identical phrasing? What a coincidence.
You're splitting an awfully fine hair between posts based entirely on your interpretation of tone and how strongly worded a single OP sentence is, as if that matters to the substance of the argument made within. A desire for games to change is a desire for games to change. Does it really matter that much if someone prepends "I would like" to the beginning of it?
Not that this really matters to what I was responding to in the first place, which is the idea that people should stop criticizing existing games and just make their own, which is a retort heard far, far more often on the subject of representation than it is in any other thread.
But fine, if you really want to split that hair, nobody is actually arguing directly "Developers should stop using white male protagonists entirely or else they are sexist." What many more are actually arguing is akin to "I want the industry to step outside the default stereotypes they've become used to and try to depict something other than a white male for a change." Feedback, no? That isn't criticizing developers or their decisions (at least no more than a general statement that capitalism is inherently status-quo-preserving is criticism).
Of course, the second statement invariably and frequently gets straw-manned into the first anyway.
Riposte
Member
On artistic vision and x criticism vs. y criticism:
I think there is a meaningful difference that is sensed, but not understood by those who separate these two types of criticisms (e.g., bad art design vs. bad female representation) and that's the hidden point of contention, not the sacredness of artistic vision. Arguments that I see spawn from this I think are tangential and confusing, pointless overall, so I choose to not engage the fallout of it. I think it's two things that are taken together, which may or may not make this hypocrisy understandable or even agreeable (I'll try to be neutral):
First, there is the sense of "what is the motivation behind the criticism?" Two people may be criticizing a game and challenging its "artistic vision", but their actions could be perceived differently depending on why they want change. It's sort of an awkward and accusatory thing to break down, but I believe its easiest to understand the distinction as whether videogames are the means or the ends. One side thinks "make the videogame better", the other thinks "use the videogame to make world better". Of course, it is more blurred than that, only very few people feel extremely about one side or the other, but this divide is what I think is the basis of why some criticism is treated different. The dismissive "shut up and let me play videogames" attitude is a blunt gut reaction to the encroaching influence of "noble" christian/humanist ideals on one's sinful pleasures. Enthusiasts may react negatively to these values as a means to keep the conversation focused on enthusiast values (i.e., "what makes a game good"). Even a minor encroach could be seen a challenge (on the internet when someone goes out of their to voice their apathy, they are usually not apathetic, but indirect). Another way of looking at it is how people are less bothered by criticism of one's craft than one's ideas (if a movie censors bad scenes to make the movie better, that's everyday business, but if they censor to prevent controversy, that in itself becomes controversial). Whether you think one side is crazy or not, I believe this at least points out some difference.
I'd like to consider an instance of wanting inclusive things for purely "selfish" reasons, such as wanting the protagonist to look a certain way simply because it pleases you or seeing diversity as a means to obtain novelty or complexity. This is a tricky thing and because it's so often packaged with "it's what right", the reaction is usually the same. I believe people begin and end by attacking the camp more than the argument, and that's certainly true for both sides.
Second, is this about the game or the environment the game exists in? With this thread's topic, this scenario usually plays as follows (in comically simple form): "This game has a white male protagonist, boo!" "Does that make the game worse?/What's wrong with white people?" "No/Nothing, but there is too many white people" "Is that this one game's fault?". This, unlike the above case, is not limited to controversial topics, extending to there being too many/too few of certain genres. Basically the clash here is analyzing a game versus combating trends, whether this one videogame is the means or an end.
Basically, I think dismissive attitudes toward certain videogame criticism is a misunderstanding of what one feels with confronted with certain ideas and the argument is a waste of time because of that (dancing around arguing about arguments instead of confronting them). Unfortunately, even if understood, I don't think it makes anything more resolvable. It just becomes a more direct ideological (philosophical) issue that words on a message board can't resolve. I was going to write more and better (usually I try to predict counter-arguments), but then I got bored, sorry.
I think there is a meaningful difference that is sensed, but not understood by those who separate these two types of criticisms (e.g., bad art design vs. bad female representation) and that's the hidden point of contention, not the sacredness of artistic vision. Arguments that I see spawn from this I think are tangential and confusing, pointless overall, so I choose to not engage the fallout of it. I think it's two things that are taken together, which may or may not make this hypocrisy understandable or even agreeable (I'll try to be neutral):
First, there is the sense of "what is the motivation behind the criticism?" Two people may be criticizing a game and challenging its "artistic vision", but their actions could be perceived differently depending on why they want change. It's sort of an awkward and accusatory thing to break down, but I believe its easiest to understand the distinction as whether videogames are the means or the ends. One side thinks "make the videogame better", the other thinks "use the videogame to make world better". Of course, it is more blurred than that, only very few people feel extremely about one side or the other, but this divide is what I think is the basis of why some criticism is treated different. The dismissive "shut up and let me play videogames" attitude is a blunt gut reaction to the encroaching influence of "noble" christian/humanist ideals on one's sinful pleasures. Enthusiasts may react negatively to these values as a means to keep the conversation focused on enthusiast values (i.e., "what makes a game good"). Even a minor encroach could be seen a challenge (on the internet when someone goes out of their to voice their apathy, they are usually not apathetic, but indirect). Another way of looking at it is how people are less bothered by criticism of one's craft than one's ideas (if a movie censors bad scenes to make the movie better, that's everyday business, but if they censor to prevent controversy, that in itself becomes controversial). Whether you think one side is crazy or not, I believe this at least points out some difference.
I'd like to consider an instance of wanting inclusive things for purely "selfish" reasons, such as wanting the protagonist to look a certain way simply because it pleases you or seeing diversity as a means to obtain novelty or complexity. This is a tricky thing and because it's so often packaged with "it's what right", the reaction is usually the same. I believe people begin and end by attacking the camp more than the argument, and that's certainly true for both sides.
Second, is this about the game or the environment the game exists in? With this thread's topic, this scenario usually plays as follows (in comically simple form): "This game has a white male protagonist, boo!" "Does that make the game worse?/What's wrong with white people?" "No/Nothing, but there is too many white people" "Is that this one game's fault?". This, unlike the above case, is not limited to controversial topics, extending to there being too many/too few of certain genres. Basically the clash here is analyzing a game versus combating trends, whether this one videogame is the means or an end.
Basically, I think dismissive attitudes toward certain videogame criticism is a misunderstanding of what one feels with confronted with certain ideas and the argument is a waste of time because of that (dancing around arguing about arguments instead of confronting them). Unfortunately, even if understood, I don't think it makes anything more resolvable. It just becomes a more direct ideological (philosophical) issue that words on a message board can't resolve. I was going to write more and better (usually I try to predict counter-arguments), but then I got bored, sorry.
- Status