Care to explain what was so "stupid" about my post? We say that our industry needs to mature, but Ubisoft, one of the biggest companies in our industry, finds it necessary to sell their game, and a serious military shooter at that, using sex appeal, as if we are all indeed immature, horny teenage boys that squeel at the mere hint of an exposed breast.
Thanks pArkEr, but that was kind of my point when I posted it. Or maybe we just don't understand what you are trying to say?
Then again, it's very possible the publishers believed that teenagers are their largest target market, and aught to pull them in. Publishers, just as in the movie business, or any lucrative business, really, can be the driving force behind the decision which the development studio is then blamed for.
Also, god damned it, EVERYTIME I skim over the title my brain wants to say "Teenage m...utant ninja turtles." Then my brain corrects itself. Which is awkward when it happens while reading a sentence.
I think McD, as did I to be honest, misinterpreted your comment. You came across as criticising the use of that video in Echo's post, and since Echo's use of that video was entirely on topic and relevant, it seemed like an odd criticism to make.
Your follow up statement clarifies what you really meant, and I doubt McD would have responded in that manner if he'd understood that initially.
Edit - these forums be overrun by ninjas
Yeah, thanks Grim. I thought you didn't quite get the point of posting the video, as it was meant to be a literal example of the type of stuff we don't want in games anymore. Your explanation clarifies that though.
Oh, and I actually wanted the pic to say "Not sure if Sarcastic or just stupid", but I couldn't be bothered to edit it.
Also, I, for one, do squeel at the hint of a bare breast, but that doesn't mean I want them in ads or used in another ridiculous manner like the FJ Cruiser ad.
In the American blogosphere, you pretty much have two camps. The manosphere bloggers, and the feminist bloggers. Two extremes in terms of view, but it's very interesting reading about the emasculation of men in America. It's off topic, and I'm at work so I can't access the pages here. I'll try and remember to PM you the links later.I'd be interested as to what you mean by 'men are getting sidelined more and more'?
Here's her youtube channel. I had to pull it off my phone, so I couldn't find the exact one.I'm not sure I agree with the premise of that article (and if you could find the link that would be great);
Again, this ties in with my interest in the American blogosphere, so it's a bit off topic.
Yeah, but the way I see it is women in terms of this kind of violence, is that they are the last line of defence. Perhaps only once all other options have been exhausted, a woman will resort to violence. Men on the other hand are far more likely, and will far more quickly, throw a punch than a woman ever is. There's also societal expectations, so maybe that plays more of an influence on the way women react? I'd have to do more reading on it.If we're talking biology and we look at a variety of species who hold to a similar familial hierarchy as us homo sapiens, you'll find that far more frequently it is the female of the species who are hardwired to protect family, and will resort to fearsome levels of violence should their offspring be in harms way. I honestly have not read any data that states the human species is any different.
Maybe you wouldn't want to emulate these guys, but I can guarantee there are guys out there who do. You only need to look at the popularity of rappers (who openly flaunt their illicit lifestyle) to see how young men try to emulate these guys. Even if they aren't your stereotypical boy scout role model, they are still aspired to. Men can and do look up to an anti-hero.I don't think that we're in short supply of instances where this isn't the case, and the game has still gone on to perform well. GTA IV, Max Payne 3, L A Noire; there's been a definite shift toward protagonists who aren't always icons we want to emulate.
At the end of the day I am not disagreeing with introducing more complex issues to games, but as I pointed out in my previous post, a developer needs to see a return on investment, and as long as guys keep on throwing down cash for the Michael Bay equivalent of a game (such as Call of Duty), we aren't going to see to many art house/deep games (such as Journey).
However, a Byronic protagonist runs the danger of not appealing to those who find flawed "good guys" confusing, and irritating - people who expect and enjoy seeing their perceptions of people being portrayed "realistically".
Now, to be specific, a violent protagonist isn't a flawed protagonist per se. He's just a person who is defined by his violence. I think this may be who you are referring to, who the "rebellious youth" look to emulate - as they see the seemingly positive aspects of the negative traits, most specifically perceived violence and sexual capability/prowess, and thus generally overlook the actual flaws of a character.
Cole Phelps is a fantastic example, as a character who does things we find hard to understand and excuse, and is motivated by ultimately selfish reasons that drive him to be unpleasent things. He is a really, really interesting character filled with flaws that he hides away while proudly stating how he is a warrior for righteousness. And it's ultimately the conclusion of the game that redeems him - classic Byronism, fantastic narrative material, but not for the people who are used to, and desire more black/white material.
I think you're spot on in questioning how much of a role societal expectations play, and that's exactly why I queried you assumption. Are men genetically predisposed to be more violent, or are they more violent because of the society in which they find themselves? In communities were women are not expected to act in a subservient way, and I'm making a massive assumption here based on no data, but I'd be surprised if the instances of violence committed by woman was not significantly higher than in communities where women are viewed in the more traditional maternal manner.Yeah, but the way I see it is women in terms of this kind of violence, is that they are the last line of defence. Perhaps only once all other options have been exhausted, a woman will resort to violence. Men on the other hand are far more likely, and will far more quickly, throw a punch than a woman ever is. There's also societal expectations, so maybe that plays more of an influence on the way women react? I'd have to do more reading on it.
I think Kharrak responded to this far better than I could. I agree with you completely that men can and do still look up to the anti-hero, but let's be clear with our definitions here. There's no reason that particular stereotype can't be used in a game that still deals with complex issues. What better way of challenging gamers on pertinent issues, or placing them in scenarios that truly challenge their established preconceptions, than by getting their role models to lead them down that path?Maybe you wouldn't want to emulate these guys, but I can guarantee there are guys out there who do. You only need to look at the popularity of rappers (who openly flaunt their illicit lifestyle) to see how young men try to emulate these guys. Even if they aren't your stereotypical boy scout role model, they are still aspired to. Men can and do look up to an anti-hero.
I think we also need to understand why niche markets in any kind of media work. We don't simply glean an affinity for a game like Journey because it's a 'better' game, we migrate toward indie games precisely because they are indie; something different, a breath of fresh air. If games like Journey suddenly saturated the market, how would that change our opinions? It's the same reason that every 2nd person doesn't listen to Death Metal and read Proust. And that's also precisely why the Michael Bay's of this world actually do us more of a favor than we give them credit for. As long as Bay is around, we'll always have someone wanting to take risks, to take the road unknown, fighting to offer us something different.
It's a delicately balanced eco-system, let's understand the potential impact of the changes we are asking for before we go ahead and demand them.
Last edited by Grimnebulin; 16-05-2012 at 01:37 PM.
Anita decides to start a Kickstarter to raise $6000 to do a series of informative and thoroughly researched videos about how the industry handles women in video games. She creates a youtube video to explain why she's doing it. She allows comments on the video, knowing full well what kind of responses she'll be getting and using them to illustrate her point.
Now, you can disagree with her using Kickstarter to fund this, or even disagree about whether you think a series of such videos will make any difference. And yes, we all know the average level of intelligence of the average youtube commentator.
What Anita didn't expect, though, was this
She had her Wikipedia entry altered, her website hacked, and users even attempted to get Kickstarter to disqualify her campaign. Fortunately, more than 2000 people have supported her Kickstarter campaign and she's raised far more than her initial target.
No, our industry clearly doesn't need to grow the **** up, and obviously the way we've been portraying women in video games does nothing to affect our outlook outside of gaming. Nope, no problem here whatsoever.
What's even worse is that some of the comments on that Kotaku article is taking the by now traditional 'stop making such a big fuss over nothing' or 'sexism in gaming? There's no sexism in gaming?' stances.
There's really not much we can do until we can get those stubborn *******s to understand that there's a problem in the first place.
On more or less the same note,
CVG 'would' or 'wouldn't with yours, mate' E3 booth-babe feature causes a stir
I'd also like to link to this, as I don't think it's been posted here before,
The Escapist: Gender Games
Anyone else notice LazyGamer has been running FHM-like pieces as part of some of their articles?
Doing it for reals, or as a joke to **** off people who are already ****ed off about the CVG E3 booth babes feature?
Either way, it's bad form. It's a gaming site, not a modelling expo.
Is it really so bad if they put stuff like that on the site?
There is nothing wrong with a little eye candy.
I seem to be missing something here, most of this seems to be aimed at Ubisoft. What was the last brain-less shooter with explosions that Ubisoft made?
I agree games need to mature, have some content with more depth, or undertones, or themes that make the player think and/or use their brain more, but what happens when it's women objectifying women? Those models are women trying to earn a living being models, Leisure Suit Larry: MCL (hiss) flaunted how it was made by mainly women.
@Zoop, what games are you playing, that Homophobia is a problem? I've seen plenty of gay characters (MGS2+4, GTA series, Fallout series, Fahrenheit, that...cat girl from KOTOR, a bazillion JRPG's), Bioware even has love-interests in their games and I've never seen Homphobia.
It's more of a personal gripe. I still feel that it sends out a rather stereotypical image of gamers, though.
^reads "gaming news and review site" *doesn't have a clue what you're meaning -reads up -facepalms*
I agree Zoop. XD (but want to note my post wasn't about that)
Is it catering to that demographic? Yes, but then again, we also use male headers from time to time, as well as snarky political ones. I already got enough grief last year when I used Susan Boyle on the site for an ION.