BruceVC

Objectified? Yes I would say there is a problem with objectification in games, but it is nothing to do with stylisation or what a character (male or female) looks like, it is more to do with how they are generally portrayed as unthinking brutes who solve every problem with their guns, fists or swords. It's a legitimate character archetype, just as over stylisation and realism in graphics is legitimate, but there needs to be more options other than slaughtering your way through every game. Our characters are objectified as chosen ones and special, despite their frankly (in game) sickening deeds, and fawned over with crude flattery and every character desperately trying to copulate with them, no matter their sexuality or personality. Characters are blatantly and hamfistedly ego stroked, and that is the objectification that I object to. Stylisation, whether of men or women I don't, it's a legitimate graphical choice and I wouldn't dream of enforcing my views upon anybody else. Just as I like the fine armours and armaments of the renaissance era that are due to appear in Poe, so I like the gaudy design of 40k's Adeptus Astarte's, neither are wrong. Edit: All this distasteful flattery does in my eyes is undermine enemies as pathetic and no challenge, make npc's nothing but fodder for the romancers and totally destroy the settings authenticity, but once again I would not campaign against it as it's just a game. A great variety will allow a choice for everyone. That's a good post, end of the day we have different definitions of how characters are objectified. I think the visual aspect is what matters more and of course how the character is portrayed, in other words a gay character that is completely licentious and doesn't show any other redeeming qualities. So I suppose I am talking about stereotyping. But I can see what you saying. Once again we have to agree to disagree. But thanks for explaining your perspective, I have found it interesting

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that. And people don't see anything wrong with Dragon's Crown, that's their choice, and they should be respected for that. They are in exactly the same position as you not seeing anything wrong with the demeaning depiction of women in Bioware games, whether they're trappings or not does not justify them. If you're going to be judgemental then you must also apply your judgements without any form of bias, no matter your personal feelings. Personally I say do not judge, it's not my place as i'm not without fault, I have no mandate from an electoral group and i'm not capable of being a final arbiter in anything. Leave it to the free market, if it sells then it will be made. Nonek did you read that article that Alan posted? In summary one of the points it makes is that there isn't really such a thing as a free market as what most people buy or think is worthwhile is driven by the marketing divisions of companies. So my view is why not make a game that doesn't objectify women or other groups. I've posted the link below so you can read it. http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed That is hardly pertinent to the discussion, that's the developers/publishers and markeitings fault, therefore it's pointless preaching to us to change their practices. The market has supposedly an even fifty percent split in its audience, so it's foolish to ignore that audience, if games are developed for that audience and of sufficient quality then they will sell...in theory. However nobody knows what makes a good game and what is offensive to a certain group, just as you are allright with all characters being portrayed in a demeaning way in DA2, somebody else has no problem with Dragon's Crowns stylisation. Where is the difference here? Simple it is your perception, you say that DA2 is not to be analysed only enjoyed, and yet Dragon's Crown is to be analysed and changed because you find it objectionable. There's a simple way to resolve this, don't buy Dragon's Crown, and let those who do enjoy it purchase it. Their enjoyment doesn't hurt you in any way surely and there is no reason to force your views on them, or them to force their views upon what you like, as we all know what is reality and what is fantasy. Indeed the mind is extremely proficient at seperating reality from simulation, thus accounting for the dreadful wrongness that occurs in our minds eye when the uncanny valley is explored. Stylisation is blatantly very far from reality and no one can argue that it is not, thus to express that the ridiculous forms of Dragon's Crown are harming the portrayal of women is to say that players are mentally unbalanced, not able to tell apart simulation from reality, and that no game can have any other style than realism. This is unreasonable and illogical. I would argue that players can tell simulation from reality, that they do not treat women like they treat pixels and they enjoy games for pure entertainments sake. As they should, that is their function. You have raised some good points and some I agree with. But I don't want this discussion to become fixated just on Dragon Crown, there are broader issues here. Let me ask you a different question, do you think there is a problem with women being objectified in some games? And do you think this should be addressed? Now I can guess what you going to say, you'll say " but the objectification of women in games is subjective, just like I don't think Dragon Crown demeans women and you think DA2 is fine " ( am I right? )

No. I don't think they're phrased as reasonable points, I'm not sure what your points are because of the ridiculous formation. 1. ****'em. As I'd say to homophobes who would have a problem with Temple of Elemental Evil or Dragon Age: Origins. People should mind their own business, the people "offended" are not the audience, most of the time they'll never experience the game because they're not the audience. Should we remove homosexuality, violence, politics, etc...? Someone is going to get offended by it. I get offended by stuff in games, but I'm not prissy and self-entitled so I just stop playing and not buy games by that developer. It's the opposite of reasonable to expect others to bend to your mores, that doesn't happen in a free society. 2. That's making huge assumptions in what will and won't dminish the actual enjoyment of the game. Also it's the decision of the developer what they want to make and it's the decision of the publisher what they want to fund. 3. A marketing company that consistantly gets it wrong won't last. You making silly comparisons to what I am trying to say, obviously I'm a liberal so I am opposed to any kind of discrimination and bigotry and that includes homophobia. In fact I often raise that same sex relationships should be an option in any implementation of Romance in a game in the interests of inclusivity. You should go back and read this discussion from the beginning because to be honest I'm going to keep repeating what I have said, sorry In summary You can make a game without objectifying women You can't say with absolute certainty that " fans want xxx" or "fans want yyy" because the marketing direction of a company influences what people think is appealing. Change the marketing and you'll change what people want. Its simple But I can say that some games and the way they portray certain groups of people are offensive to those people. There is no reason that this can't be changed

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that. And people don't see anything wrong with Dragon's Crown, that's their choice, and they should be respected for that. They are in exactly the same position as you not seeing anything wrong with the demeaning depiction of women in Bioware games, whether they're trappings or not does not justify them. If you're going to be judgemental then you must also apply your judgements without any form of bias, no matter your personal feelings. Personally I say do not judge, it's not my place as i'm not without fault, I have no mandate from an electoral group and i'm not capable of being a final arbiter in anything. Leave it to the free market, if it sells then it will be made. Nonek did you read that article that Alan posted? In summary one of the points it makes is that there isn't really such a thing as a free market as what most people buy or think is worthwhile is driven by the marketing divisions of companies. So my view is why not make a game that doesn't objectify women or other groups. I've posted the link below so you can read it. http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

That doesn't depend on that all, you may disagree with the conclusion of publishers that their games will have a primarily male audience and thus adding on top of that more content targetted at them is in their interests, but it doesn't rely on the potential gaming market as a whole, just games on an individual basis. The existence of Saints Row IV doesn't stop the next Sims or Animal Crossing game from existing. It results in bad games when a developer decides to target the broadest audience, the lowest common denominator, that's how certain developers do things but the developers that make good games don't. If there's a potential market publishers will exploit it, Bejeweled and The Sims show that, it doesn't require other games to be changed, it doesn't need to effect the existing industry, developers, and franchises. A new potential market should begin and grow alongside the existing market. I don't understand your point, I'll keep my comment simple. Lets say that there is a game like Dragon Crown which objectifies the female characters and the developers are happy with how the game is designed as they target a niche market that likes the fact how the women are portrayed. Do you not think that pressure should be put on them to change how they represent women in the game? That's an entirely separate point. This was in response to what people want in games, and that it's not necessarily a good thing for gamers or developers that were making games targetted at niches to try to chase a mass market. There's room for niches in the gaming industry. On your point, it's pretty simple. Female characters, as all fictional characters, are objects so cannot be objectified. They are made to serve a purpose, to serve the narrative, to provide comedy or titillation. Why should pressure be put on them to change? I believe that people can separate reality from fiction, the same arguments (often by the same people) are made about games and violence, and they're equally wrong. I don't believe it's right for me in a liberal society with freedom of expression to be sheltered from my entertainment choices. These games are fantasies, most of them may not be my fantasy, but I can empathise with people enough to not want to crush things they enjoy. Finally, I don't even believe the arguments about this are sincere, they're just rationalizations for disgust, like the people that get angry over homosexual acts in fiction or kissing on the street, it's insecure people feeling threatened. What about in a free society where people are offended by a game or its representation of characters? What about in a free society where developers can make changes to the game that won't diminish the actual enjoyment of the game but rather make people feel more comfortable with what they are presented with? What about a free society where we don't stereotype groups of people because the marketing engine of a company feels that's what fans want to see? Are these not reasonable points?

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that.

Guys I started watching Bitten, I'm only on episode 2 but its very entertaining. Its about Werewolves if you like that type of thing

Okay I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think Bioware objectifies the various female characters in a way that is offensive. Personally I believe that BW's suspension of disbelief is actually lowering your IQ while you're playing their games and then soon after you stop you realize how wrong some of the stuff was? I'm also guilty of falling for their trappings, but as part of their style they seem to appeal to emotion rather than logic which leads sometimes to irrational plots that are structured to achieve an emotional response. So whilst you are emoting you don't think clearly about things like how insane everyone in DA2 was. I genuinely enjoyed the narrative of DA2( I know they were lazy around components like dungeon design and monsters just appearing out of the air) and other Bioware games. Granted I didn't analyze it deeply but I generally don't do that with any game I play as for me its just entertainment, not inspiration or a book series like Game of Thrones. I also enjoyed the various characters and there stories so I guess we just have a different perspective on this one?

No I do think that lazy, stupid, unmotivated and incompetent slaves is offensive as a representation of characters in a game. I just don't think the women in Bioware games are like this.

Okay I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think Bioware objectifies the various female characters in a way that is offensive.

Sorry but that's not accurate, you can't seriously compare how Isabella looks to the sorceress in Dragon Crown. They not even in the same league

Your " first Uplay game ".....I'm happy and sad. The little bird is leaving the nest and taking its first nervous flight in the big bad world. Don't worry I'm here for you if you get scared But I'm confidant you'll be fine

Just curious if you had a chance to read over the (longish) article that I linked? It was just interesting to hear the recaps from some marketers and how video games were in many ways marketed as a family thing in the Atari days (although the Atari days pretty much killed the games industry. Is this a contributor?). Nintendo, in the wake of that, decided to focus very specifically on making the game a toy for boys, and catered their marketing towards that particular demographic. As an aside, now that I think about it, most of my experiences with the Atari console was actually in a family setting as my babysitter (when I was 4) would pull it out and we'd play games together with the 6 of us (my babysitter, her husband, her son, her daughter, and my brother). It's also interesting that (as Bruce echoed, as I read his post too), at least according to the testimonials from some Atari developers, the idea of "this is a game for a boy/girl" was kind of foreign, although there was a bias towards male developers as the science/engineering bias still existed then. I would love to somehow set up an experiment to see if the one marketer could make good on his word (claims that he could make it so men wanted to buy tampons and that it wouldn't be impossible to make the next Call of Duty a game that was highly sought after by women - note that he doesn't say universally sought after by men and women). Obviously he's a marketer and has confidence in his craft, but I mean Santa Claus' image is ubiquitous because Coca-Cola made it so, or when that little girl went viral as she expressed confusion as to why girl toys are pink and princesses. I know some people do think that pink, for example, is innately more appealing for women (I remember discussing this very topic on this board with a poster), but it's not something I believe. That said, "games for boys" and "games for women" aren't made in isolation, and will still have the other cultural influences. This is why a future Atari CEO can suggest that a woman programmer would equip them for making games about interior decorating and cosmetics. I've just sent your article to some work colleagues who are gamers and its amazing how even though they agree with the my basic sentiment around how women don't need to be objectified in games they still don't seem to get the point around how marketing drives and influences what people want So they say for example " yes Dragon Crown is wrong but that's what the fans want" I say " but the fans want that because that's how the game has been marketed " " yes but that's there target audience" " yes but there target audience wants something because of the influence of marketing" " yes but you can't change what the fans want" "actually you can, it involves changing the marketing strategy" and so it goes on

That would depend on whether or not perceptions have biased developers and publishers to believe their own marketing that there really just isn't a potential market of women playing video games (I do think this is the case and I do think that it is a problem, especially as budgets have gone up and made people risk averse). I actually just read this interesting article which details some of the evolution of how games have been marketed since the Atari days. It examines the idea that maybe our perception of the problem is the problem. Okay that is a really good article and I encourage everyone to read it, in summary for me the article raises some excellent point that include Our thoughts are manipulated by the power of marketing so we think that the status quo is normal and acceptable but in fact its what some company wants us to believe as that is how a particular company feels it needs to generate revenue In the 70's and 80's there was no gender based targeting of audiences I have to quote the sexist comment below, this would be unacceptable nowadays. He was referring to Carol Shaw a developer at Atari "Ray Kassar, who would later become president and CEO of Atari, remarked, "Gee, now that Atari has a female game designer, she can do interior decorating and cosmetic color-matching games!" He laughed. Shaw rolled her eyes. When Kassar left the room, her fellow game developers turned to her: "Don't pay attention to him," they said. "Just do whatever you want." The reason why people think that certain games are only for men is because of the marketing engine Games that cater for women and men can be very financially viable I understand that in the 90's most gaming companies in order to generate revenue decided to target men, I get that and I have no issue with it. But we are now living in a more enlightened age where equality and representation of other groups is important. All I'm going to say is if a company feels that they can only make profit by objectifying women as that is what there target is then there is a fundamental problem with this perspective. Of course this doesn't apply to all gaming companies. I am not being a prude, I think games like Dragon Age 2 with a character like Isabella is fine as she offers diversity to her personality and motives during the game. But I fail see how any company can't make a game nowadays with all the tools at there disposal that represents men and women in a fair way that isn't offensive

Well, I'd have to watch it again, maybe I missed something. My memory goes like this tho: The two guys are discussing it in front of a plane. The one says "Would you tell him?" The other goes "Right before the jump?" First guy looks at the ground kinda going "umm..." - nothing clear cut there. Guy could've left the letter and jacket hoping for what happened to happen, to happen. Not sure that was clear cut either. But certainly could have been unintentional...was just assuming since the previous scene made it seem like the first guy wanted to tell him but could've been hesitant to directly because of his convo with the other dude. At any rate, I'm not trying to bash the show or say it's a bad show. It just doesn't seem to work for the way my memory works I guess. I'm the sort who remembers there's a big cherry tree and a picket fence on the street corner but won't remember the name of the street, what a guy at a party was wearing but not their name or specifically what they said during a 20 minute convo, and I'm utterly terrible at remembering/learning from dialogue alone (listening to dry lectures, for example - won't recall a thing...). I need more visual representation of a character/more time with a character to make them resonate in my brain outside of knowing what role they serve in the plot (main chr, guy-who-lost-his-brother, commander-guy, etc). Which doesn't have to be "action," but dozens of faces running by at lightning speed with nothing for me to latch onto other than people telling me their names once (exaggeration, but you get my meaning I hope) and I can get lost. I bet if all the actors were cats you would remember them

That doesn't depend on that all, you may disagree with the conclusion of publishers that their games will have a primarily male audience and thus adding on top of that more content targetted at them is in their interests, but it doesn't rely on the potential gaming market as a whole, just games on an individual basis. The existence of Saints Row IV doesn't stop the next Sims or Animal Crossing game from existing. It results in bad games when a developer decides to target the broadest audience, the lowest common denominator, that's how certain developers do things but the developers that make good games don't. If there's a potential market publishers will exploit it, Bejeweled and The Sims show that, it doesn't require other games to be changed, it doesn't need to effect the existing industry, developers, and franchises. A new potential market should begin and grow alongside the existing market. I don't understand your point, I'll keep my comment simple. Lets say that there is a game like Dragon Crown which objectifies the female characters and the developers are happy with how the game is designed as they target a niche market that likes the fact how the women are portrayed. Do you not think that pressure should be put on them to change how they represent women in the game?

I don't know Malc if I can get you to agree with my perspective and embrace various social issues that would be a huge victory. As I mentioned before sometimes its just about giving someone a different perspective, so now next time you buy a game maybe you buy a game a game that doesn't objectify women...small steps Malc ...small steps...."Rome wasn't built in a day" Well, I guess it helps to aim ridiculously low to make it worth doing... Malc your cynicism makes me laugh

I don't know Malc if I can get you to agree with my perspective and embrace various social issues that would be a huge victory. As I mentioned before sometimes its just about giving someone a different perspective, so now next time you buy a game maybe you buy a game a game that doesn't objectify women...small steps Malc ...small steps...."Rome wasn't built in a day"

Stealth/Assassination-based RPG starring EASILY the more interesting of the two protagonists from Of Orcs and Men, a goblin, no less? Yes, please! On a worrisome note, the stealth in Of Orcs and Men was pretty pitiful, but that game was more built around turn-based-ish solo co-op combat than anything else. Seeing as this game is being built entirely around stealth, I'm hoping Cyanide (and Spiders?) completely revamp the stealth. One of these years Cyanide is going to put out something really special. They've always had great ideas and ambitions and they've always come up short. Maybe this time everything will come together? Please? Pretty please? Now, if you'll excuse me, I must think unsexy thoughts, lest my co-workers give me strange looks. This does look good, hopefully they will put more effort into the linear maps and lack of decent exploration area's in the last game

Makes sure you communicate it as coldly and efficiently as possible - just up, throw it at them and done. Given that you're presenting something I'd imagine you also have something worth saying. Unless you have a burning need to waste your time, I suppose Don't mean to pile on the criticism Malc but I present all time as part of my job and your methodology doesn't support the principles of good presenting etiquette in any respects. But it did make me laugh with its absurdity... "adopt a feeling of disdain for your audience....

That's a good video and one of the few times I agree with Jim Sterling. He echoes one of my points in this thread, certain games objectify women. Men are not objectified but if they were like women we wouldn't be very happy. I like the way he brings in this concept of men being idealised, it makes sense

Thanks. Or this one: http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/278/e/c/band_of_brothers_banner_by_social_iconoclast-d5gthsa.png The only characters I can think of that are missing from either of those pics are David Schwimmer as Captain Herbert Sobel and Peter O'Meara as 1st Lt. Norman Dike. Sobel appears in the beginning episodes as well as later on. Dike appears in later episodes (particularly "The Breaking Point" at the Battle for Foy) and is infamously incompetent. I can't wait for the next series: MASTERS OF THE AIR: The Mighty Eighth Air Force. http://mightyeighth.org/ I didn't even know this was coming, its exactly what I enjoy watching. I imagine its going to be sad ....

I'm watching the second season of Banshee and just like the first season its absolutely entertaining. Its produced by HBO so expect adult themes but if you haven't seen it before I recommend it

maybe you could make some kind of wall chart to help others? Like this? Nice one

Funny enough I have heard that logic before but I don't think it really works for most people because we tend to believe in something and enjoy our time on earth.. we can't really meaningfully convince ourselves that life is pointless?