Why are there still so many white men in video games
- Thread starter Kater
- Start date
- Status
Just to put some statistics on the table:
From Leonard (2003)
Other sources:
From Glaubke et al. (2001), so a bit old:
From Williams et al. (2009) - note that sports games were included in the data pool:
And why this lack of representation matters (again from Leonard, 2003):
From Leonard (2003)
Other sources:
From Glaubke et al. (2001), so a bit old:
From Williams et al. (2009) - note that sports games were included in the data pool:
And why this lack of representation matters (again from Leonard, 2003):
Angelus Errare
Banned
Good post.
Look, you can do anything you want to. Don't let anyone tell you differently.
There will be obstacles regardless of your race or gender, but you can't let those stop you. Even a slow, cheap computer is enough to get started.
Check your local colleges and see if any of them have Game Design classes. I've taken some classes at my community college, and it was a VERY diverse group. Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Men, Women, teens, twenty-somethings, all they way to 50 year olds. Not only is it a good way to learn about game design, and the industry in general, but you might meet some people you can potentially team up with for indie development.
Karsticles
Member
You're right. I saw your post, read it, and responded to Steve, all in the name of addressing your post without talking to you at all. Why be suspicious about nothing?
If it will put the matter to rest, I am playing Dark Souls and Destiny Alpha right now, both which do not allow you to pause. The latter has caused me multiple deaths, which is frustrating (but cannot be helped). It's a topic that is on my mind, along with autosaving.
The rest of what you said...we'll just have to part ways with the knowledge that we have differing opinions.
This is exactly why it's important to distinguish between artistic vs. non-artistic visions. Folks are only protective of the former. If you don't recognize this distinction, you get silly arguments like this.
We complain about DLC because of this
I'm not saying I don't understand why there's complaints for DLC. It's to show that gamers don't get to draw this line of what's acceptable to complain about and what isn't. If you're going to attack DLC( It's warrented in many cases) then understand you're going against the artists vision much like what you say in defense of white male leads.
You keep finding excuses to wave away statistics or data that you either find uncomfortable or that simply don't support your argument. Men do legitimately make up the majority of PS360 console gamers. Gamers overall are split nearly 50/50, and you see a legitimate 50/50 split in 3DS ownership, but the console ownership leaning male appears to be offset by greater female participation in the online/mobile space. (A 50yo Aunt playing Farmville counts when they add people up.)
You say you don't believe that white males play the most- but look at the numbers. The US is a majority white population. Europe is a majority white population. Those are the two largest markets, and with males making up the majority of non-Nintendo console owners, the math speaks for itself. Logically, they'd be the majority of console game consumers once you combine the two things. People aren't saying that they're the majority in order to claim superiority, they're saying it because it's true.
Many people can get into games/media that feature someone radically different from themselves without much effort. But many people can't do that as easily, and many people also actively want to be playing something that reflects their specific identity. Isn't that why we have these threads blow up in the first place? The problem is that we don't have the size and scale of a marketplace that we do for say, television, where there are a hundred channels offering a broad spectrum of targeted programming. Each game is a solo independent effort selling directly to consumers with a gigantic amount of risk involved. They're also trying to profit-maximize, and that leads to the risk aversion we see. When people bring this up, its in a positive sense, not a normative one. This isn't behavior you can really hope to change, because of it being motivated by self-preservation and self-interest.
But the genders are different. Yes, various associations are social constructs, but those constructs emerge from us and reflect us, even if the constructs are arbitrary. We start similar, but we diverge pretty drastically from that group of kids playing together as we grow up. Acknowledging that isn't an issue. It's only an issue when its used to try and stop people from acting outside of stereotypical boundaries, rather than as a baseline range of expected behavior. Most people fall within their gender's expected ranges to some degree. We're biological constructs, not pure rational beings made out of energy.
The video she linked in her tweet was about male lead characters in games from the trailers and announcements for games we have been presented at E3.
Smash Bros, Splatoon and Hyrule Warriors don't seem to have a distinct lead character, so that's why she probably, didn't mention it.
This right here. Thank you.
And I'd recommend ignoring Sarkeesian/FF, OP. You'll probably be happier and get a more balanced view on this issue if you steer clear of her ilk.
...because most developers and the people who buy them are white men.
We are a civilized culture and conscious of the "imbalance" but in reality people are going to do what they are able to do. They should not try to do what they cannot and that is be or create what they are not.
I don't want white men artificially filling their games with women or ethnic variation to meet a perceived social quota because the results are insulting, all the way back to Barret from FF7. We know that women are often portrayed in games as heterosexual white men want or wish they looked in their fantasies.
As a black man myself I know and accept and am cool with this. I don't buy videogames for reality --- I buy and play them for an escape so quite honestly a fake world full of white men and barely clothed and gorgeous women doesn't really bother me and I don't take that back to reality. I don't judge reality based on videogames or videogames based on reality; they are different and very far apart from each other.
I am comfortable with the fact and knowledge that as more variation enters the industry, we'll see variation in games. It is happening. I was pleased to see Starhawk's main character or my dude in Telltale Game's The Walking Dead --- both even managed to stay clear of typical stereotypes of black men in media yet they sounded authentic.
The only game that made me wonder if there was a purposeful message being delivered was the original Uncharted. That was a very shallow Nathan and his pales shooting a looooot of people with dark skin. I do confess that that did grate on me after awhile. Knowing Naughty Dog better over the years I don't believe they had any bad intentions --- it was just a bit shallow in these regards.
We are a civilized culture and conscious of the "imbalance" but in reality people are going to do what they are able to do. They should not try to do what they cannot and that is be or create what they are not.
I don't want white men artificially filling their games with women or ethnic variation to meet a perceived social quota because the results are insulting, all the way back to Barret from FF7. We know that women are often portrayed in games as heterosexual white men want or wish they looked in their fantasies.
As a black man myself I know and accept and am cool with this. I don't buy videogames for reality --- I buy and play them for an escape so quite honestly a fake world full of white men and barely clothed and gorgeous women doesn't really bother me and I don't take that back to reality. I don't judge reality based on videogames or videogames based on reality; they are different and very far apart from each other.
I am comfortable with the fact and knowledge that as more variation enters the industry, we'll see variation in games. It is happening. I was pleased to see Starhawk's main character or my dude in Telltale Game's The Walking Dead --- both even managed to stay clear of typical stereotypes of black men in media yet they sounded authentic.
The only game that made me wonder if there was a purposeful message being delivered was the original Uncharted. That was a very shallow Nathan and his pales shooting a looooot of people with dark skin. I do confess that that did grate on me after awhile. Knowing Naughty Dog better over the years I don't believe they had any bad intentions --- it was just a bit shallow in these regards.
By that standard, wouldn't every game that actively moves to switch to a model of multiple race/gender options for a player character start falling outside the range of games she's looking at, resulting in "no progress" being made? It really feels like she's looking at a massive selection bias issue by picking the range of games that's most likely to pick the lowest-common-denominator option available.
Hmmm...my artsy fartsy opinion on games as art:
Games are art. But they are also an industry. And "artistic vision" means very little when your work is created for the sole purpose of being popular.
We call that Kitsch Art.
We won't see diversity for many reasons, and all of the reasons have to do with business, marketing and a lack of ethics and human feeling. Also there's a lack of true innovation in gameplay and art direction and story-telling because everything is so imitative.
In Art History, genre art caused everyone to retread the same few topics...and because of that a few rebellious groups (Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood) started breaking the mold. This caused romanticisms to die out in favor of realism (which focused on the contemporary meek) and Impressionism (which focused on contemporary leisure life)
Games are art. But they are also an industry. And "artistic vision" means very little when your work is created for the sole purpose of being popular.
We call that Kitsch Art.
We won't see diversity for many reasons, and all of the reasons have to do with business, marketing and a lack of ethics and human feeling. Also there's a lack of true innovation in gameplay and art direction and story-telling because everything is so imitative.
In Art History, genre art caused everyone to retread the same few topics...and because of that a few rebellious groups (Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood) started breaking the mold. This caused romanticisms to die out in favor of realism (which focused on the contemporary meek) and Impressionism (which focused on contemporary leisure life)
muyricosuave
Member
Das racist
faceless007
Member
Another point on artistic vs. technical criticism. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often overlap.
Take the debate about 30fps vs. 60fps. When a game is 30fps, it's not because the developers forgot to click the "Render 60fps" button in the compiler before shipping, and it's not because they're lazy (I don't even work in the industry and I mentally cringe when I see how often "lazy devs" is thrown around). It's because the developers made a decision to target a certain level of visual fidelity and image quality for what they wanted the game to look like and it was deemed more feasible to reach that target at 30fps than at 60fps. Demanding that devs should prioritize 60fps would naturally ask them to compromise on what they want the game to look like -- their vision -- or force them to cut other corners to hit that target while keeping to the release schedule. Now, maybe you might argue that they shouldn't have to compromise at all and should instead spend X more weeks or months of development time optimizing and crunching to attain both goals so everyone wins. Except, of course, more dev time = more expensive = might go overbudget or need to be delayed, which publishers might not be willing to agree to, especially if there's no guarantee it will lead to enough additional sales to justify the expense.
In other words, if a game is 30fps, it's either because 1) it's a consequence of their artistic vision for the game, or 2) economic realities prevented them from doing it differently. And I keep hearing in these threads that it's unreasonable to critique the decisions of developers for either of those two reasons.
I say this as someone who very much prefers 60fps to 30fps and has a hard time playing games with noticeable frame drops. I'm not arguing at all that prioritizing framerate is the wrong thing to do. But it should be understood what the costs of prioritizing it are and how that can impact other areas of development.
Edit: Here's a blog post from Insomniac Games that goes into the subject.
Take the debate about 30fps vs. 60fps. When a game is 30fps, it's not because the developers forgot to click the "Render 60fps" button in the compiler before shipping, and it's not because they're lazy (I don't even work in the industry and I mentally cringe when I see how often "lazy devs" is thrown around). It's because the developers made a decision to target a certain level of visual fidelity and image quality for what they wanted the game to look like and it was deemed more feasible to reach that target at 30fps than at 60fps. Demanding that devs should prioritize 60fps would naturally ask them to compromise on what they want the game to look like -- their vision -- or force them to cut other corners to hit that target while keeping to the release schedule. Now, maybe you might argue that they shouldn't have to compromise at all and should instead spend X more weeks or months of development time optimizing and crunching to attain both goals so everyone wins. Except, of course, more dev time = more expensive = might go overbudget or need to be delayed, which publishers might not be willing to agree to, especially if there's no guarantee it will lead to enough additional sales to justify the expense.
In other words, if a game is 30fps, it's either because 1) it's a consequence of their artistic vision for the game, or 2) economic realities prevented them from doing it differently. And I keep hearing in these threads that it's unreasonable to critique the decisions of developers for either of those two reasons.
I say this as someone who very much prefers 60fps to 30fps and has a hard time playing games with noticeable frame drops. I'm not arguing at all that prioritizing framerate is the wrong thing to do. But it should be understood what the costs of prioritizing it are and how that can impact other areas of development.
Edit: Here's a blog post from Insomniac Games that goes into the subject.
Sole purpose?
Expressing my creativity and making games that I personally would like to play are more important to me than being popular.
Of course, it would be nice if the games were popular enough that I could quit my day job and express my creativity full time. But I'm not going to sacrifice my artistic vision to reach that goal.
Infinite Xero
Member
I would guess that it is because most of the developers and writers are white males and it's natural to design another person or thing similar to yourself.
shadowstar
Member
This is not different from any art. Every type of art has art for commercial purposes. Movies, music, and books are no different. There are some movies and books that are made for the sole purpose of art, but that is also the case of games (they just don't get press the same way those books don't).
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I can't speak for everyone, but sure, if one wants to identify with a character... that doesn't mean the character has to be a carbon copy of themselves down to hair pigmentation and the size of their calves. You were engaging in a fallacy called "reductio ad absurdum".
Uh huh... okay. I guess I can be contemptuously dismissive of your posts then, by your own logic (hint: that'd be wrong too). Funnily enough, Anita's activism has actually had an impact in the industry.
Of course it'd be better to have more diversity. I'm really not a fan of the bumbling husband/dad trope at all. So I don't know how you're "using my argument against me".
To use pretentious-sounding Latin again, this is a "Tu quoque" fallacy. If someone used a terrible argument on you, that doesn't mean you get to use a terrible argument in return. That only makes the world stupider.
*yawn*
Change is slow but it's happening. It's certainly better than not doing anything at all.
Wow, is that really what you think this is about? Anti-intellectualism? *facepalm* When someone says "if you aren't happy make your own games", and we protest by saying it's a bad and unreasonable argument, we aren't being anti-intellectual at all. No one has said that it's bad to learn how to make games or that they shouldn't make their own games. It's like saying that if you're sick of the bumbling dad trope in TV (like the one mentioned above), "go make your own TV show". Sure, maybe some can do that... but it's hardly reasonable to expect everyone who has a problem with the overuse of this trope to go out there and make their own TV show. Instead, opening a discussion about this trope and criticizing it openly might gradually change TV shows and the next generation of sitcoms might feature it less (or not at all).
Seriously. It's not that hard to write characters that are different from you... is it?
Yeah, I have no idea how these two ideas can be reconciled.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
I guess "agenda" is an inherently dirty/pejorative word.
Oh yes. My favourite one is "why do you hate sex/fun?" or "you must be a prude".
Good thing she mentions games and characters she likes all the time, then.
Then you would be the equivalent of any artist who stunted innovation. And a lot of artists did prevent innovation because they felt the pursuit for perfection was more important than the pursuit for artistic exploration.
you're going to be stuck making the same game and same stories you love so much, until you find out that there is more to see and tell.
Yes.
maquiladora
Member
By that logic every game being developed by them would be games about being game developers. If they can somehow use their imagination to create bizarre fantasy worlds, alien planets, beasts, robots and magical spells in elaborate detail then putting a bit of effort into mixing up gender and race with their characters more often shouldn't be too difficult.
Difference is, there is no "bizarre fantasy world" demographic in our society, no "alien planets" paying taxes, no "beasts" walking through the malls.
These things are fake and nobody is offended if you don't portray them properly.
So, according to you, making art to be popular is bad, and not making art to be popular is also bad!?
And making what I would personally like to play doesn't mean remaking "the same game and stories I love so much", or giving up on artistic exploration, quite the opposite actually. I'd add innovation to genres that have been stagnant for at least 10 years.
faceless007
Member
It's not that people don't understand this. We all understand this perfectly well, thank you. It's that people don't accept the premise that being a for-profit corporation is a get-out-of-jail-free card to engage in any behavior they want. And I suspect that most gamers would actually agree with me, because if we can't criticize profit-seeking behavior, that we can't criticize DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and crappy new gameplay "features" designed to "expand the audience" and forced multiplayer and motion controls and trying to shut down used game sales and walled gardens and forced online marketplaces and region locking and pay-to-play multiplayer and pay-to-win games and microtransactions.
So it it OK to criticize profit-seeking behavior or not?
No, you would be an un-innovative artist, at least that is how I interpreted zeldablue's post.
And I agree with zeldablue on that.
Ugh that moment of when you write a lengthy response only to accidently delete it.
But let's follow more in line of what you're thinking of: Art style. Why should that be acceptable to attack but not lack of representation?
How exactly is it silly? this is once again an example of drawing the line at what you can or can't complain about.
But let's follow more in line of what you're thinking of: Art style. Why should that be acceptable to attack but not lack of representation?
I believe you then. If you truly seek innovation in gameplay, design or storytelling then I'm really happy to hear that.
Though outside of the indie scene, developers can't risk that type of freedom. They've said it, we've noticed it, and there isn't much denying that their budget has stunted deviation and innovation from the norm.
This guy is right. Marketing has changed because consumers are now given a very loud and powerful voice. We are given the power to stand against things that make companies greedy or unethical. We should continue to exercise our powers so we aren't taken advantage of. Whether it's DLC or fees or lack of representation, we have the ability to fix things in our interest.
What should for-profit corporations aim for instead? How much profit is fair?
Kadayi
Banned
Seconded. Great sober posts, which is what are needed for these discussions.
So, following your creative vision based on your own life experiences and making what you'd like to play makes you an "un-innovative artist"?
Someone tell Shigeru Miyamoto that.
Well you made it seem as though games that sought popularity through imitation over innovation were ideal.
If your game actually seeks to tell a different story and follows a new type of game design, then your not making "kitsch art."
I think Catherine is an amazing game...and it stars a white/Japanese male with very few females represented. I think the story is great because it is personal, new and relatable for both men and women who fear commitment/marriage, adulthood and change. On top of that the gameplay is out of this world and I don't think anyone else could have thought of those brilliant puzzle designs.
Myamoto is not really all that innovative. Yeah, sure, he makes games based on established genres with a certain twist to them like Pikmin but what true innovation for me means is that you create something outside of the expected, maybe a new genre of games , something never seen before.
Myamoto is still an important figure in gaming though and I really like his work so I don't fully disagree with you that it's also important that we have some people who just want to make games based on established franchises and genres and/or personal experiences.
I don't think any story writer/teller should alter the meaning or vision of their story just for the sake of appeasement . If the author wrote the role for a certain white male or envisioned the character as such, then they shouldn't have to kowtow to any special interest groups or other people's own sense of equality or lack thereof.
That being said, if a game has multiplayer or co-op that has no impact on the story or really no bearing on what the characters/avatars have to look like, it really can only help the game makers to offer as many choices to the player as possible.
Recent complaints I've heard include the lack of a female assassin in the new Assassin's Creed, the use of a female hostage in Rainbow Six: Siege, and the race and sexuality of the villain in Far Cry 4. Haha it's kinda funny how all of those are Ubisoft games.
As far as Assassin's Creed, I have no idea if the 4 characters shown in the trailer and gameplay are integral to the story, if they are, refer to the first paragraph. If they aren't, the player should be given more choice as to the avatar they use, the Wolf Pack mode in previous Assassin's Creed games feature co-op gameplay that allow for the use of female character.
As far as Rainbow Six, we have no idea (as far as I know) if there is a male hostage in other levels or the story behind this female hostage so I can't really comment too much on it.
And lastly, Far Cry 4. I read comments of white oppression and the character possibly being racist etc. I also read comments about the character being gay and people being against that for whatever reason. My general feeling about this is that, maybe the character is white a oppressive (he isn't white) and maybe he is gay and even flamboyantly so, if that's the case, I find nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with telling stories that contain unlikable or evil characters (this is of course referring to the comments about the character being oppressive and racist) in all forms of storytelling. Audiences are mature and intelligent enough to see it for what it is, a character written to evoke a certain feeling.
If you felt that way about the character just from a picture with absolutely no context, maybe the artists and character designer did a great job. But video games as a medium for storytelling don't need to be censored or appease special interest groups. But again, I feel this way about any form of story telling and to a bigger extent, about free speech. You might not agree with what is being said, but the person saying it should be allowed to say it, as long as it doesn't incite violence or oppression of a person of a group of people. At the same time when the avatar you're controlling really doesn't have a story to impact etc, there is no harm in giving choice and it can only serve to benefit your game really.
TLDR: Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't truly diversity.
That being said, if a game has multiplayer or co-op that has no impact on the story or really no bearing on what the characters/avatars have to look like, it really can only help the game makers to offer as many choices to the player as possible.
Recent complaints I've heard include the lack of a female assassin in the new Assassin's Creed, the use of a female hostage in Rainbow Six: Siege, and the race and sexuality of the villain in Far Cry 4. Haha it's kinda funny how all of those are Ubisoft games.
As far as Assassin's Creed, I have no idea if the 4 characters shown in the trailer and gameplay are integral to the story, if they are, refer to the first paragraph. If they aren't, the player should be given more choice as to the avatar they use, the Wolf Pack mode in previous Assassin's Creed games feature co-op gameplay that allow for the use of female character.
As far as Rainbow Six, we have no idea (as far as I know) if there is a male hostage in other levels or the story behind this female hostage so I can't really comment too much on it.
And lastly, Far Cry 4. I read comments of white oppression and the character possibly being racist etc. I also read comments about the character being gay and people being against that for whatever reason. My general feeling about this is that, maybe the character is white a oppressive (he isn't white) and maybe he is gay and even flamboyantly so, if that's the case, I find nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with telling stories that contain unlikable or evil characters (this is of course referring to the comments about the character being oppressive and racist) in all forms of storytelling. Audiences are mature and intelligent enough to see it for what it is, a character written to evoke a certain feeling.
If you felt that way about the character just from a picture with absolutely no context, maybe the artists and character designer did a great job. But video games as a medium for storytelling don't need to be censored or appease special interest groups. But again, I feel this way about any form of story telling and to a bigger extent, about free speech. You might not agree with what is being said, but the person saying it should be allowed to say it, as long as it doesn't incite violence or oppression of a person of a group of people. At the same time when the avatar you're controlling really doesn't have a story to impact etc, there is no harm in giving choice and it can only serve to benefit your game really.
TLDR: Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't truly diversity.
Am I supposed to take you seriously?
...Most of my favorite game characters are usual Asian, Android, Robot, Alien and or sort of Mythical Creature.
Outside of Fighting games, where nationalities are usually well represented...not alot of games really show you the different walks of life. I would be more open to seeing games about other cultures but realistically speaking, since either Americans, Europeans, and Japanese that make most of the games that we play...it's not very likely we'll see a game that's not outside of the current norm.
Outside of Fighting games, where nationalities are usually well represented...not alot of games really show you the different walks of life. I would be more open to seeing games about other cultures but realistically speaking, since either Americans, Europeans, and Japanese that make most of the games that we play...it's not very likely we'll see a game that's not outside of the current norm.
Roland1979
Junior Member
Funny how some GAF'ers post a few examples as proof that it's all good in game land. If you have to use a multiplayer beat em up such as Mortal Kombat it becomes even more pathetic. The thread isn't about whether there is not a single game with a black or female lead. It's just a fact that, by far, most are not. And yes, it would be ideal if that would change.
The fuck am i reading. Is this real life?
lol
I can't tell if this is written by someone young or uninformed enough that they don't understand why it's a silly thing to say, or a deliberate troll made with the window-decoration of being a real post.
Vermillion
Banned
I can almost agree with her. But I'm personally not going to ignore black male inclusion either... so I'm not going to pass over Franklin in GTAV as just "dude."
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
I don't know how many game storylines you've played through, but 99% of them aren't following an auteurs Hemingwayesque vision of portraying what it means to be a man; they serve the same role as porn film scripts do - to provide a loose explanation to setup the next bit of action.
And the only reason the majority are about straight white guys isn't because that's explicit authorial intent - its because they're written by people who it doesn't even occur to do anything but default white guy protagonist.
There are exceptions, even in the AAA space, but you could honestly hotswap a completely different character into the narrative and it would make very little difference.
Wow, I don't know how to respond to this. I can only assume you are very young, and don't understand the history of gaming or Miyamoto.
You might want to take a look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigeru_Miyamoto_gameography
The man either created, popularized, or revolutionized most of the genres listed there. In fact, no one man has created more genres than him.
That's how I feel about his projects in the present btw. Of course he introduced a lot of ground-breaking gaming experiences in the present and I won't deny his importance to the history of the gaming industry.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
The diversity overall has been getting better over the years, but incessant whining for more clicks/attention however from the other side doesn't go away either.
soulassssns
Banned
Reading threads like this make me wish I could go back to when I was 10 and just play games because they were fun.
Roland1979
Junior Member
If all of your characters are white males then that isn't exactly creative to begin with.
Can't we at least wait until we get some proper pictures of the protagonist before we complain that he "doesn't look asian enough" ?
If you don't care, you can still continue to play games just as they are now.
- Status