LINK!!!
With phrases such as
With phrases such as
AndI too, can do maths. I once mathed for England.
You can be sure that it is a good read, so why aren't you reading.Well, sir, probably because we’re straw men caricatures representing not individual decision makers but an entire ingrained social system that harms men just as much as it harms women, which we’ve been trained our entire life never to see, and must work every day to counter with our every thought, word and action, in order to build a much better world for all men, women, and non-binary gender people.
Comments
Second, the story for the game in question in the article is set in the future. A time where, presumably, women still exist and are still privileged enough to be allowed the opportunity to join the armed forces at the same level as men - as they are allowed today.
Third, do you ever question why a story requires all men? Why do you believe that it should? And why wouldn't you want to buck the trend and do something different? Get out of the box, for once. This is not about accommodating people. I am not a sub-species that needs accommodating and I can certainly do without your patronizing tone. This is about understanding reality. Understanding that media reflect reality. Understanding that media reflects the current status quo. Understanding that - as game developers - we have the opportunity to change what our chosen media is reflecting. And that makes us powerful indeed because society reflects media (it's a circular, chicken-egg situation).
We are story-tellers and we need to be responsible about the stories we tell.
There's this too. Just because a game is fun to you, doesn't mean its not doing a disservice to other fellow human beings on this planet.
Here's what I'm actually reading from what you've written;
"but no designer, writer or creator or any kind needs to be lectured to as to why they should start catering to women"
"Would it be nice if all our games had equal measures of men and women? Sure. Gonna happen. No."
"Just how cohesive a narrative do you think we can craft by being inclusive of women as well as men? I would love to accommodate everyone and their gender. The sheer scale of such an undertaking is beyond any writer or designer, or even that of the most ambitious team."
And written like that, it seems pretty darn ludicrous that people AREN'T considering women too, doesn't it? :)
Edit, addition after your second reply - it seems that you're solely taking offense to Brenna Hillier's approach and not to the issue at hand, which is somewhat contradictory to your first reply, where you appeared to be arguing against the inclusion of women in videogames and not against the article's author specifically. Perhaps in the way that videogame publishers making poor decisions about gender inclusion are being 'dealt with' by certain facets of the media calling them out on it? From what I read, Dammit was arguing the same point; it's wasn't sexist in its telling of the story because the story was an accurate representation of history. In your first comment you brought it up as a means of saying 'look, here's a story all about men and nobody called THIS sexist, did they? So this other story about men isn't sexist either'; when, in fact, they're quantifiably different. You can't compare an accurate historical re-telling of a sexist period in history with a creative fantasy futuristic setting and say that if one wasn't sexist, the other isn't either. They don't belong to the same group. I don't even know how you drew that fantastical leap of logic from Dammit's reply - all she pointed out was that, specific to the world wars and not any other time periods, women were not allowed to use weapons; thus it follows that Saving Private Ryan, being an accurate re-telling of a specific period in history, would need to comply to those gender roles in order to tell its story accurately. She said nothing about the capacity for violence defining her personal gender roles. It's not about accommodation if men don't need to be accommodated in the same sense - which, currently, they don't. That's what equality is all about. Why are there so many heated responses to male-dominated videogames? Because so many videogames are male-dominated. Why are there so few instances of outrage at female-dominated videogames? Because such things are so rare that when they DO surface in the media, it's in a 'hey, look at this groundbreaking new thing!' capacity (see all the fuss that was made of Remember Me, and how most female leads in video games can be listed off while barely leaving single digits whereas male leads are so common as to be uncountable). If there already existed an equality, no accommodations would need to be made.
And it's really nice of you to want to accommodate academics mechanics and astronauts. (No really, I think that's the first time I've ever been included as an academic)
But you see, being a farmer, or a zombie, is not really the same as being a woman.
I know this may come as shock, but around half the population identify as female. And unlike being an elf or a criminal it is sort of integral to who we are. Much the same as race and sexual orientation, even if race didn't get a nod in the list.
I am very pleased that you can use the words 'cohesive narrative' and have seen 'Saving Private Ryan'. You must really understand the demands of storytelling.
No one would ever dream of taking away your authorial control. I am also very happy to hear that most of your characters are women. (Shall I take a stab at what they are wearing?)
Some stories require all men, yes we know. The article linked, and it's follow up, does a good job of putting that to rest in fact, and explaining why this is not the case here.
I am so over being given a pat on the head and having narrative cohesion slowly explained to me. I will not be likened to a zombie or a farmer. We're not even a god damed minority group! As if that would have been an excuse.
Capcom certainly do have women on staff, and they certainly should be expected to go to the relatively minimal effort of allowing a gender swap in a futuristic game which appears to cover their characters in full plate armour and give them minimal back stories. Deep Down doesn't appear to have any defining qualities that require no female characters (that would be a different and more complicated debate), this is literally just Capcom saving a bit of money and metaphorically lifting a middle finger to women who want to play a free-to-play Dark Souls derivative.
(And in doing so they are adding to an already vicious feedback loop of a poverty of female representation in games followed by less female audience engagement followed by less females pursuing game development as a career and so on... which I understood to be the damning conclusion of the article).
You're also implying that the psychological makeup of males and females is inherently and exclusively different. While both genders lean towards archetypal differences, those differences are not mutually exclusive - women can be (and often are) brave, heroic, strong, unfeeling - men can be (and often are) weak, cowardly, emotional. The whole crux of this male/female equality thing is that we're essentially not different. Men and women are capable of the same quirks and foibles. We're both people, and all it takes to write a convincing gender opposite to your own is an understanding of people. Grand speculation - I haven't even mentioned developers as a community let alone whether or not I like or dislike that notion, so I don't know why you even went there (especially after accusing Hanli of 'unnecessary extrapolation'!). I like FPSs. I like war-focused games. I get tired of never being able to play a female character. CoD is absolutely popular; so popular that the developers don't NEED to include women at all in any aspect of their development; and THAT is inequality, targeting a specific gender at the expense of another, and refusing to accommodate female players (and even males who want to play female characters). Again I hasten to point out, as others have done, that women aren't a minority group. We're not a minority gender, and we're so very close to not being a minority gender in videogames that the difference is negligible. At this point, given how invested women are in video games, there really is only one excuse for not considering women in the course of a game's design - 'I don't want to'. I... what? 'Protecting misogynists'? What? I'm writing as a female who would like videogames to be more female-inclusive. Where do you get 'protecting misogynists' from that? ('unnecessary extrapolation' again...) That's still entirely irrelevant to what Dammit was explaining about Saving Private Ryan, and you still haven't directly responded to that. Replying to that statement on its own though, I'd be more inclined to say that the most damning criticism (and indeed the one we're specifically talking about here) has been that there just aren't enough women in video games to begin with, before even getting to the nuances of their portrayal.
You're asking wouldn't we prefer having women portrayed accurately at a lesser frequency than having women portrayed more frequently but entirely inaccurate - in an ideal world, yes; but let's take this one step at a time. The first hurdle to cross is having women portrayed *at all* in videogames, since most men portrayed in videogames are also portrayed inaccurately; most male leads in videogames conform to socially acceptable standards of 'handsome hero' - muscular, tall, handsome, brave; but still vastly outnumbering female presence.
http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed
The point being that hardcore games (like Deep Down) didn't start out as primarily for boys/men. The market encouraged that to happen.
Obviously that's an oversimplification, but this isn't a case where the market is going to punish most designers when they represent women poorly or not at all. Passivity and market selection alone won't redress the gender imbalance in hardcore games (and I think you should be able to figure out from that article I linked why this is the case).
Games are interactive. Ergo, the character development carries a far higher burden than that of a media article or news story. Those are 5-30 minute arcs. We are talking about 10-100 hour story points.
I'm sorry if you think that a sensitive and caring man can write a multiple hour internal female monologue on your behalf. The sheer arrogance of that man would be immense. That is tantamount to a white person saying that he experienced racism because he sat next to a black person for a few years.
Women are portrayed in games - all the time. It is the portrayal that is often flawed. By stating that any portrayal will do, you give free license for designers to do exactly what they have been doing and hence protect misogyny. Hold them to a higher standard and don't back down from it.
If Capcom's gamble fails - then let it. They are a company and will follow the profit. If they don't, then tough for them. Very likely it is a test of the waters, anyway... That's what I said about Saving Private Ryan. WWII was replete with women from the frontline nurses, to the shipboard nurses, to the women in the factories... they were in logistics, radio operations, intelligence gathering... I'm not even going to get into the various resistance movements where they actually did carry weapons and get into direct combat and reconnaissance. I'm not downplaying anyone else's role - but that film, like any other, had to pick and choose its moments of depiction. Where there mainly men on the front? Yes. Where there only men? No.
That article mentions Angry Birds, Candy Crush Saga, Bejeweled and a host of other games. I mentioned Pokemon, Harvest Moon and so on. Each of those games is multi-million in sales and some of the best selling franchises from Nintendo are pushing the triple decades.
The market acceptance that you crave is a false one. It is the market once owned by EA, THQ, Sierra, Origin, Accolade, Atari, Vivendi and so on.
Every company in the article's history of 'maleness' has been taken over, has failed or has been forced to restructure in some way. Therefore the market is finding its balance.
If you read the article the only survivor is Nintendo and the new EA which is scrambling to find its place in the new demography.
Capcom is an old company from 'back in the day' - they will always hearken back to their roots. I don't blame them for that. If you look at Taito, Namco, Bandai, Tecmo, Kemco, Koei and so on - only Capcom still soldiers on in its original form.
I'm a novelist, among other things, and I've written plenty of male leads and characters that have been accepted unquestionably as accurate, believable male leads. I've read books with fantastic female leads written by male authors. There is no question as to whether or not a man can write a multiple hour internal female monologue on a woman's behalf - it is absolutely possible and has been done many, many times.
Your 'white person > racism' analogy is only relevant if we're taking about a man writing accurately on a woman's perspective of misogyny. Which we're not. We're talking about writing people. Unless you believe that the colour of a person's skin dictates what kind of person they are - and that's a whole different kettle of fish right there. Very few videogame stories touch on topics like racism and gender inequality, because they don't need to - that's not the stories they're telling. So the experiences relevant to specific genders or races in those regards are absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
I feel what we have here is a slight difference in the range and depth of characterization that we prefer. Are games (and most other media for that matter) a tad shallow? Sure. As I stated and seem to be defending repeatedly, it is difficult to get depth from the game medium at this time. I like my characters whole - which means they tend to have issues and histories - yeah, race and gender among others - because that makes you who you are. Skirting around those does not make my life any easier, but then it's not supposed to.
Do I like the representation of women as it stands now? No. Do I think we should settle for some visual adjustment and 'male gaze' amendments? No. Do I think men should write or design with no female assistance? No. All the women I know are way too complex, and we would just end up with silly little stories. Of course, I like that complexity (heaven help me with that :)), and would like it explored... that could just be me though.
Obviously there are a lot more games that are targeted at females in 2014 than in 1990 (or rather targeted at everyone in the examples you mention). And there will be more all inclusive games in the future (THIS IS GREAT!). But that doesn't mean that the majority of AAA games that are targeting a male audience (sometimes at the cost of a diminished experience for female players, as is the case in Deep Down) are okay today. Surely?
I mean you seem to be saying that: doing a common but unethical thing now IS okay because in the future fewer people will do it. That seems to me what your "market equilibrium" argument is. So you're saying that because they've been misrepresenting, or underrepresenting women, for a long time it is okay by you that Capcom excludes women from Deep Down entirely? (at a marginal cost saving to Capcom)
I think your problem is that you don't know why representation is important, or can't grasp the feedback loop that the original article describes or don't care about the effects. And I don't think that this forum has the remit to prove these things to you.
Here's how it basically works: no-one can stop you from making cheap and dangerous products. You sell them. People buy them. There are systems in place to prevent or warn people not to buy them. These systems, whether societal or governmental take time to implement. In the mean, you keep selling. People keep buying or not depending on a variety of factors. Eventually, the market decides how much risk it can take or the extraneous laws and credos stop you. You then have a choice to amend your product or run away with the cash.
Games are a product like any other. If Capcom wants to mess around with societal norms then they can do so. The logic above applies.
Here's the problem: you think that by shouting louder you can solve the problem. Not so. There is always someone that shouts louder than you and does not share your values. Over the course of the last few years a very vocal group of gamers has managed to shout very loudly and get games changed to the way they want. Those games have been "misrepresenting, or underrepresenting women" among other things. You want to play shouting matches with them now? You already lost.
We do not function outside the rules of society - again, and I have said this several times, there are mechanisms to control situations like this.
Games are not a special case, or some unique entity to be protected. This was the case a few years ago when games were this niche product catering to niche tastes. Now games must play in the big, scary world where real people live and do not like it when things like Sandy Hook happen.
So, yes, it is fine if companies do whatever they feel like - because there are consequences. All the marketing in the known universe will not spin that.
Look, how recently did sneaker companies start making specific shoes for women? See what I mean? The system does function, in its own bizarre, messed up way. Was it unethical for Nike to make only shoes for men? Ethics and business... I do not work at a corporate for certain reasons.
And if the "very vocal group of gamers" did succeed and managed to "and get games changed to the way they want" (which I don't think is an accurate assessment), then doesn't that prove that the original article raising these concerns is possibly a transformative action in itself, and is one of the consequences of Capcom behaving in a way that we don't like.
In which case shouldn't we be cheering the original article on? But instead you've defended Capcom's decision (as necessary for their art), as well as claimed that there is no point blaming them because they'll be punished eventually.
@njc Capcom can't be both guilty and justified in their actions. Maybe you should think a little more on how you actually feel about this.
Yes, it is fine for criminals to steal. By their nature they are criminals. It is not fine for you to steal if you are not a criminal, unless you want to become one. The act of stealing changes your nature, your categorization.
Ok, I'm laughing right now about you shouting with them :)
(I'm being rhetorical, obviously it still matters that there is a victim, and therefore obviously the act of stealing wasn't fine) Why would you laugh at me for that? Surely a game developer self identifying as being part of a group that is trying to improve the gaming experience for 50% of the world's population isn't absurd.
(In fact I might be a bit late to the party to realize this... doh)
Nobody is suggesting that. Yet that seems to be all that he's saying it is possible to achieve, given his perspective on creative writing. Tokenism is one of the problems that is pointed out by feminist analysis, it's a thing that better representation is fighting against.
Where does that huge misconception come from? Who assumes that anyone wants more token representation?
P.S. It's possible to learn new things in order to create stuff. I've had to learn new kinds of maths to write certain algorithms, yet nobody's arguing that I couldn't do so convincingly because I'm not personally a lambda expression... Maybe one of the new things everyone should focus on learning is what sexism and patriarchy are actually like and what impact they have on humanity as a whole.
Do not elevate the discussion to presume guilt or victims. That may be a natural tendency in emotional arguments, but there is no evidence of guilt, victims, crimes or any such thing here. Redress is a legal issue when victims are concerned and is catered for as such. Women in gaming is currently a market-related, societal issue. It has not currently reached the stage when legal intervention is required.
I said exactly the opposite.
Mathematics is not a belief system. If you a devout Christian, go and change your beliefs to Buddhism or Islam. That is the equivalence of altering an ingrained cultural or psychological belief - not learning math.
How do you feel about feminism as a concept?
Do you feel that gender representation in games is equitable and realistic?
Do you think that there are other ways for women to be represented in games as anything other than tokens?
Perhaps in answering these simple questions we can start trying to bridge the gulf of misunderstanding that's obviously at the root of this thread.
I found these after this little spat, but they hold up:
http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/84
http://dailyemerald.com/2014/02/06/gamers-call-for-evolution-of-female-representation-in-video-games/
http://www.examiner.com/article/change-of-mindset-is-required-to-better-represent-women-and-minorities-media
http://www.batteredjoystick.com/2013/10/20/analyzing-female-roles-in-japanese-gaming/
The references might no longer be current in some, but the principles are sound. If what you want is an appeal to authority - there you go. However, bear in mind that fallacious reasoning can stem from authoritative sources as well.
Linkbomb all you want, you're still going to have to explain how it's relevant to the points you've been making. You have yet to address the central misunderstanding I've pointed out across all your posts. I can't see how any of the articles you've posted (and the first one doesn't even contain any actual content - whut?) do anything other than continue the call for better representation of women in games - which is exactly what people in this thread have been arguing FOR that you've been arguing against by insisting that any representations made are going to be somehow token and nothing else.
What are you trying to say? You're certainly looking a lot like a troll right now...
Also: What about @WelshPixie on this very thread? She's writing for games. You realize we're talking about Capcom here? Are you really suggesting that Capcom is unable to find a writer that can write a good female character? (or at least one that is as good as their male characters)
There are a lot of good reasons to have good female characters in video games. One of them, and a really big one, is so that female players can enjoy the game more (i.e. "concern for the player" or "design").
I expect that since you are a man you cannot imagine what it like to not see your gender represented, or see it poorly represented, in an entertainment medium you consume. From what I gather, it isn't nearly as nice as good representation.
If that goal (that of fostering better experiences for female players) wasn't explicitly stated here its only because it is so very obvious that it shouldn't need mentioning (like we don't need to discuss the workings of gravity when we ask to borrow someone's ladder).
And yes there are other less obvious reasons as well for disliking Capcom's decision. Like improving the gender balance within the video game industry. Like giving children (male and female) fewer misconceptions about gender roles. But giving female gamers better games is at the forefront (in my mind).
1. What's wrong with ranting about something that's not equitable? Clearly there's a serious amount of education that needs to happen around this topic and writing about it is a good way to get more information out there. The fact that people who don't want to hear more about it have an easy "Oh, they're just ranting feminists" escape is just another indicator that more education is sorely needed.
2. The whole point of the original article (and many of the articles that @njc has confusingly linked) is to make publishers aware of how they're quashing that opportunity. Capcom has to hire people and/or create incentives and marketing support for games that don't exclude women and have better characters in general. Who exactly produces that work is meaningless, the important part of the argument is that that work be actively pursued by those holding the purse strings. In order to do that we need to make noise (and before you say we also need to make games, that's happening too, noise still needs to be made).
3. No, the onus is not on women creators to "fill the gap", it's on all of us to help create a more equitable system in which better representation for all is possible and call bullshit on the misguided arguments that uphold sexist thinking. It's not helpful to demand that people who are actively discriminated against by both the specific systems of game development as well as wider systems of society be the only people to create meaningful work while at the same time working harder to overcome the obstacles that personal privilege doesn't allow you to see.
Beyond "Stop talking or I'll keep confusing you all", I can't make out what your message actually is now. Are you really saying that we shouldn't be debating this topic in a game development forum? Why does it matter that people aren't journalists (quite a few of us are, actually, but again - relevance) beyond creating a reason not to talk about something?
I'm sorry, but I don't see this "active discrimination" you're talking about. I see a slowly changing society (for the better - and this is purely due to very active efforts of active women over the last 50 years - not the ranting ones) and lazy writing, poor judgement, maybe insensitivity, etc. (which is sad, but unfortunately true). But, calling this discrimination (IMHO) is the same as someone playing the racist card whenever the chips does not fall their way.
I have also not claimed the onus to be on women creators, nor have I made any statement about the women here. I have merely pointed out how great it would be to see more women designers/writers rise to the occasion and show us how to do it right (yes, show - not tell). I'm just concerned that the ranting is sending to opposite message to those who you want to educate, and may harm the efforts/reputations of women who has faught so hard for the world we are living in now. There are simply better and more effective ways to influence than to rant, that's all.
If you exclude the exceptions (like capcom, etc, which will never really go away) and countries where there are "actively" being discrimitated against women, I believe that there has been decent progress and that women are actually in the position to shake things up of their own accord without being pampered like little girls - well, that's based on women I know, who will kick the ass of any corporate mogul any day. Maybe I'm just fortunate to see this in action in a very competitive environment every day.
[in case any of this gets misread - I am an active supporter of feminism, so take my message from that perspective please]
My earlier comments are more specifically about female storyline characters - which if done unwisely, just to be PC, could harm women more than help them.
Whereas there is evidence that suggests that the video game industry has become far more aware of gender representation in the last few years due to articles and videos similar to the article in the original post.
I'm really don't think there is a practical basis for asking feminists to shut up and transform society silently. That sounds like an environment incredibly hostile to transformation.
(And I'm really not convinced that you are a good judge of what is ranting and what is useful information. Clearly the original article was revelatory at least to @Karuji who posted it. Labelling that information that he received possibly harmful ranting doesn't seem like a useful argument, it really seems like you're trying hard to dismiss something you aren't comfortable with without debating the content).
That action can achieve things doesn't prove that talking about action (or publicly demanding action) achieves nothing.
If you think that talking about action can achieve nothing (or very little) then why would places like North Korea or Apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany ban literature that didn't conform to their views?
(That's a rhetorical question, the answer being that they were afraid of the effect of ranting, which is at least weak evidence for the argument that there is a positive effect produced by "ranting")
You do realise that @njr's responses here (and to some extent, yours too - although I'm cool with chalking that down to misunderstanding/overzealous warnings) have actively chased women away from commenting, right? That's why I got involved - it was an ongoing thing on my twitter feed yesterday.
Pulling this directly from an article I wrote that referenced the PA article;
From a sample of 669 games that had protagonists with clearly discernible genders, only 24 had female protagonists, and most of these were in the Action genre. Only one of those 24 was a RPG. From those 669 games, only some 300 offered a gender choice on character creation.
Zatkin then looked at a three month period of game-sale data chosen to encompass initial sales and to negate the effects of end-of-the-month releases. What he found was that across those three months, the female-lead games did not sell as well as those that were male-only. Another piece of interesting information that was gleaned from the research; games that offer both genders on character creation have better reviews than games with male-only leads, but the games with male-only leads sold better. During those three months, games with an exclusively male hero sold 25% better than games with an optional female hero, and 75% better than games with an exclusively female hero.
A quote from the original PA article; Zatkin's theory is that games with female leads are considered niche because they're thought to directly target female videogame players, which is (in the eyes of publishers and marketing departments) a small audience. But from the ESA's 2012 survey, 47% of all players are women, and women over 18 are one of the videogame industry's fastest growing demographics. Adult women represent a greater portion of the game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent).
Given those findings, you just can't say things like 'market equilibrium' and 'bad designers will get shunted out of the market'. If DontNod's experiences with Remember Me are anything to go by, and if you define 'bad designers' as 'designers who choose not to consider female interest in gaming', bad designers are being actively encouraged by publishers to continue pushing bad design.