Anita Sarkeesian/Tropes and Women in Gaming

[alanschu]

Whenever I feel my feelings during a discussion going too high/becoming unproductive, I think of that quote and step back.

 

Stepping back I find can be good for gaining some perspective too.

 

I'd like to see some longitudinal studies to that one study mentioned in the Boston Globe.

 

 

I agree that "facts don't matter" when it comes to changing opinions, but I'm curious if, once the argument is over, they sink in a bit more (at least for some people) and people's opinions do actually change.  So while their study may have shown "Despite being presented facts, people steadfastly held to their beliefs" in the short term, I'm curious if it is still the case in the long term.

Edited March 25, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

Yes this is a triple post (though I can't edit my older posts anyways ), but a friend of mine pointed me to this and this is sort of the "Female in video games" thread (Mods feel free to separate if you want).

 

Jim Sterling had an interesting video here where he examines some of the recent controversy of female protagonists in games.

 

I agree with his assessment that it seems to be a "chicken and egg" argument.  Regardless of who is to "blame" I do, however, agree that it's an interesting problem and that it even exists in some capacity is rather off putting.

 

I know I find myself going "How can this be!?" when I hear about resistance towards female protagonists.  I won't argue that the possibility that some publishers are just being obtuse about the issue could very well be the problem, but when I hear about the focus groups wanting the Infinite cover, I go "Huh!?"  More datas and transparencies!

 

 

Thoughts?

[babaganoosh13]

I have always thought, and will always feel that Marketing's job is to take what's in front of them, and sell it. They should never have any say in what goes in to the product, or not. Universally, marketing departments seem to see what works, and copies it. Why? I think it's laziness. Once in a blue moon, someone comes up with a good idea, then everyone after that just copies it.

 

They should be saying "How can we sell this game with a female as a, or one of the leads?" Not "Female leads don't sell, get her out of there."

 

If there were more female leads, and those games are actually good, attitudes will shift over time. With more female gamers now than there were say 15 years ago, that transition should be even quicker and smoother now to help it along.

 

And I don't see how watching a man and woman kiss, makes one think they're gay regardless of who the PC is.

 

EDIT: And no worries about a quadruple post now!!!!!

Edited March 26, 2013 by babaganoosh13

[mute688]

Yes this is a triple post (though I can't edit my older posts anyways ), but a friend of mine pointed me to this and this is sort of the "Female in video games" thread (Mods feel free to separate if you want).

 

Jim Sterling had an interesting video here where he examines some of the recent controversy of female protagonists in games.

 

I agree with his assessment that it seems to be a "chicken and egg" argument.  Regardless of who is to "blame" I do, however, agree that it's an interesting problem and that it even exists in some capacity is rather off putting.

 

I know I find myself going "How can this be!?" when I hear about resistance towards female protagonists.  I won't argue that the possibility that some publishers are just being obtuse about the issue could very well be the problem, but when I hear about the focus groups wanting the Infinite cover, I go "Huh!?"  More datas and transparencies!

 

 

Thoughts?

I'm sorry, I couldn't actually watch that Jim Sterling video through to the end.  I gritted my teeth through to about the 6 minute mark and then gave in and closed it down.  I found him to be facetious with little to nothing to actually add to the discussion.  Like many commentators, he is supporting women in video games and the video game industry by demonising everyone who doesn't share his exact view, or even if they are simply not as extreme in their opinion.

 

He makes a huge issue of video game covers and publishers resisting depictions of female characters on the front of their games.  Really?!!  I have never, not once, in over 30 years of gaming, chosen to buy or not buy a game based on the cover art.  I couldn't even describe the cover art of any of the games I have bought in the last year.  Who here has based a purchase on the cover art?  Anyone?  Using the same facts and figures that Jim uses, namely, my opinion, I would say that this is purely a publisher issue and has little to do with commercial reality.

 

Jim then proceeds into a tirade against anyone who prefers a male protagonist.  The constant accusations of homophobia, the childish innuendo, the complete lack of anything of substance to say had me adding Jim to my mental list of people to avoid listening to in any circumstance.  Personally, I don't care what gender the protagonist is, but to deride the players of games that have male protagonists as homophobic is simply sensationalist and motivated simply by a desire to appear controversial.  Gamers simply have NO CHOICE in what gender characters the developers put in their games.  Even if a player prefers a male protagonist, how often has the lack of female gamers been blamed on the lack of female protagonists in gaming?  So what, it's all fine for females to not game because they prefer a female protagonist, they're just standing up for their rights, but god forbid male gamers prefer a male protagonist.  That's just homophobic!!

 

I'm sorry.  I can't take anything that man said with any seriousness simply because of his extremism.  If he had any valid points to raise, it was lost behind his rabid frothing.

[Gorth]

I actually bought PS:T because of the cover art

[mute688]

I actually bought PS:T because of the cover art

 

Lol, buy 4 horse armour dlc's and all is forgiven. 

[alanschu]

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't actually watch that Jim Sterling video through to the end.  I gritted my teeth through to about the 6 minute mark and then gave in and closed it down.  I found him to be facetious with little to nothing to actually add to the discussion.  Like many commentators, he is supporting women in video games and the video game industry by demonising everyone who doesn't share his exact view, or even if they are simply not as extreme in their opinion.

 

I agree that he doesn't actually add much to the discussion.  He's more just saying "This feels wrong to me" and illustrating some aspects that boggle him about the situation.

 

I don't think he's demonizing people that don't share his exact view, however.  I mostly got the impression that the basic idea that a female protagonist as main character, or worse yet, on the box art, has the perception (for some reason) that the game will be hindered in sales.  He also mentions that games that surround women tend to have less marketing dollars available to them, but isn't sure if that's the cause of female protagonist games having lesser sales, or a result of female games having lesser sales.

 

 

 

He makes a huge issue of video game covers and publishers resisting depictions of female characters on the front of their games.  Really?!!  I have never, not once, in over 30 years of gaming, chosen to buy or not buy a game based on the cover art.  I couldn't even describe the cover art of any of the games I have bought in the last year.  Who here has based a purchase on the cover art?  Anyone?  Using the same facts and figures that Jim uses, namely, my opinion, I would say that this is purely a publisher issue and has little to do with commercial reality.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if most people buy their games without spending nearly the iota of research on it that we do.  I'll admit I have very little clue as to how much influence marketing has and how they can prove their decisions, but I know that Dragon Age's cover art was changed after tons of focus group testing that showed its original cover art was noticed far less than the white box with red letters (which actually stood out quite a bit).

 

 

Jim then proceeds into a tirade against anyone who prefers a male protagonist.  The constant accusations of homophobia, the childish innuendo, the complete lack of anything of substance to say had me adding Jim to my mental list of people to avoid listening to in any circumstance.  Personally, I don't care what gender the protagonist is, but to deride the players of games that have male protagonists as homophobic is simply sensationalist and motivated simply by a desire to appear controversial.

 

I agree that his tirade there at the end wasn't necessary.  I think I also get the point you are making regarding too much extremism.  I'm not sure if I agree, but all I have to go on is my own "I didn't take it that way."

 

I think it's a bit like CliffyB's article trashing the "Anita haters."  It can be easy to assume that Cliff is takling about anyone that disagrees with Anita, but he specifically is talking about those that got all petulant and vitriolic and effectively posted hate messages in response to Anita's kickstarter.  The way I took Jim's aggression was that it was more directed towards male gamers that, for some reason, undermine female protagonist prevalence because the mere presence of a female protagonist will lead the gamer to feel awkward and uncomfortable.  That is, if there are people that actually exist that justify publisher concern over "You can't have a male gamer playing a female character kissing a guy" then those are the people he's singling out.

 

Although fair enough if that point still bothers you.

 

It still come back to a chicken and egg problem, however, in my opinion.  If male gamers have a heavy preference on playing male characters, is this preventing more women from adopting gaming on a wider scale because of a lack of female characters to play?  It is then a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy at that point.

[mute688]

 

I agree that he doesn't actually add much to the discussion.  He'smore just saying "This feels wrong to me" and illustrating some aspects that boggle him about the situation.

 

I don't think he's demonizing people that don't share his exact view, however.  I mostly got the impression that the basic idea that a female protagonist as main character, or worse yet, on the box art, has the perception (for some reason) that the game will be hindered in sales.  He also mentions that games that surround women tend to have less marketing dollars available to them, but isn't sure if that's the cause of female protagonist games having lesser sales, or a result of female games having lesser sales.

 

Maybe it's more a matter of me not being familiar with his style, but as someone who hasn't watched any of his videos previously, his approach seems designed to attract a specific type of audience.  I consider myself a moderate in most issues and personally I was immediately turned off by his style of commentary.  He seems to be catering to an existing audience that appreciate that extreme style of commentary, which limits his ability to get his message across to a wider audience.  I know I won't be going back to see more of his videos.

 

As for marketing dollars, let's not forget that up until a decade or so ago this was almost exclusively a male market which , in my experience, was consistently derided by my girlfriends and significant others.  Even today it is a predominately male market.  I don't expect publishers to spend significant marketing dollars on a niche female market, just as I don't expect the major cosmetics companies to spend significant dollars marketing their beauty products to men.  Neither is likely to gain significant return of investment.

 

The fact that publishers believe that games sell less with females portrayed on the cover comes as no surprise to me.  These are the same companies that tell us that people like DRM, everyone loves social gaming and that micro-transactions are a universally loved idea that enhance game-play.  I have little faith in the ability of publishers to understand their markets and unless we can get the data of these supposed studies, we can't know if they targeted specific age groups, genres, etc.  I could believe a study that said that CoD gamers aged 6 to 14 preferred gun toting, steroid enhanced male characters, but in my experience that doesn't apply to the adult gamers I've met across 30+ years of gaming, both male and female.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if most people buy their games without spending nearly the iota of research on it that we do.  I'll admit I have very little clue as to how much influence marketing has and how they can prove their decisions, but I know that Dragon Age's cover art was changed after tons of focus group testing that showed its original cover art was noticed far less than the white box with red letters (which actually stood out quite a bit).

 

We have two different criteria here.  You say that Dragon Age cover art was changed to increase visibility on the shelves.  This is totally different to adjusting cover content to match some supposed bias in gamers.

 

It still come back to a chicken and egg problem, however, in my opinion.  If male gamers have a heavy preference on playing male characters, is this preventing more women from adopting gaming on a wider scale because of a lack of female characters to play?  It is then a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy at that point.

 

 

This probably sounds rather harsh, but why is that a problem?  Why do we need to increase the number of women gamers?  I'm not saying I reject the idea of more women gamers, I just don't understand why the lack of women gamers is a problem.  It seems to me that the most vocal on the subject aren't women who want to game but can't because of the lack of female protagonists, but those who believe that we men are deliberately excluding women and they have an axe to grind.   Seriously, if you are a gamer, regardless of gender, unless you are a member of a large demographic, it's likely you feel ignored by the large publishers.  It's a result of mega publishers investing increasing amounts of dollars into safe projects and has nothing to do with misogyny or any of the other catch phrases being tossed around recently.

 

Sorry for the wall of text, I have some rare spare time and got caught up.    And the usual disclaimer: this is purely my opinion and has no basis in fact.  :D

[Amentep]

I actually bought PS:T because of the cover art

 

I bought PS:T last of all the IE games because the cover art didn't really appeal to me.  Unlike IWD and BG2 (which I bought based on playing BG1), I picked PST off the shelf and ultimately put it back.  The cover didn't appeal to me.  I went back and read reviews then went and bought the game because postive reviews and by that point I'd enjoyed IWD and BG2.  But that cover art really didn't do anything positive for me.

[Bos_hybrid]

 

I actually bought PS:T because of the cover art

 

I bought PS:T last of all the IE games because the cover art didn't really appeal to me.  Unlike IWD and BG2 (which I bought based on playing BG1), I picked PST off the shelf and ultimately put it back.  The cover didn't appeal to me.  I went back and read reviews then went and bought the game because postive reviews and by that point I'd enjoyed IWD and BG2.  But that cover art really didn't do anything positive for me.

 

I'm pretty sure I read an interview somewhere, about how some devs thought PS:T cover put people off the game.

[Gorth]

 

 

I actually bought PS:T because of the cover art

 

I bought PS:T last of all the IE games because the cover art didn't really appeal to me.  Unlike IWD and BG2 (which I bought based on playing BG1), I picked PST off the shelf and ultimately put it back.  The cover didn't appeal to me.  I went back and read reviews then went and bought the game because postive reviews and by that point I'd enjoyed IWD and BG2.  But that cover art really didn't do anything positive for me.

 

 

BG1 was the first one I tried. A colleague of mine back then (back in Denmark) had bought that humongous 5 cd game set and tried to sell me on the idea. Let me try it out for a few weeks after he had completed it. I don't think I made it out of Candlekeep at the time before boredom set in. Gave it back to him. When PS:T was released, I ran across it on a store shelf, staring at a face so ugly only a blind mother could love it and those orange/blue clashing colours... just bizarre enough to pique my interest. Took down the box, read the little text blurbs, bought it, played it, loved it. Bought IWD unseen when it came out, as well as the remaining IE games when they got released. Only went back and got BG1 for myself years later. Still my least favourite of the bunch

[alanschu]

We have two different criteria here.  You say that Dragon Age cover art was changed to increase visibility on the shelves.  This is totally different to adjusting cover content to match some supposed bias in gamers.

 

Eh, I see it as somewhat equivalent.  More importantly, I see it as "People are influenced by the cover of games."

 

 

 

This probably sounds rather harsh, but why is that a problem?  Why do we need to increase the number of women gamers?  I'm not saying I reject the idea of more women gamers, I just don't understand why the lack of women gamers is a problem.

 

To continue to grow the medium.  The more people that are interested in games, the greater the variety of games, and the greater the variety of influences in making games (as some of these people invariably end up creating games themselves).  This excludes the fact that there are people that want to play more women in games (whether they be man or woman themselves), as well as the simple idea that growing the market creates implicit risk mitigation (i.e. riskier titles become more plausible).

 

This may sound equally harsh, but why shouldn't we look to make gaming more inclusive?

 

 

 

These are the same companies that tell us that people like DRM, everyone loves social gaming and that micro-transactions are a universally loved idea that enhance game-play.

 

Aren't you just making the same universal, absolute statements that you are getting on Jim and others for.

Edited March 26, 2013 by alanschu

[Malcador]

Gaming being inclusive is bad because once you let all the unwashed masses in, well things go down. But more seriously, if by inclusive you mean it's not offensive to them or posing barriers in any way then sure, those who want to will naturally file their way in. That's a bit more passive than I've seen 'inclusive' used, say like in Engineering, but is a more sensible way to me.

 

Also Sterling is obnoxious

[AwesomeOcelot]

Is this opposite world? Publishers looking after the interests of an audience while developers are pushing to alienate them to expand into a broader market, that's odd. What if half of gamers are homophobic? Ridicule or demonize them all you want, they're products of society, it solves nothing. It's perfectly reasonable for a publisher to not want to fund a game from a developer that already has a large audience that is going to alienate a large segment of that audience.

 

Market growth isn't necessarily good for gamers or for variety, there's already been massive growth and always trying to go for new gamers, we've had massive growth in gaming. If anything publishers have gotten even more risk averse, the money is being poured in larger and larger teams. Niche genres have died, PC developers have started making console exclusives and multi-platform releases that are designed for console limitations and poorly optimized. I wouldn't say a wider market has resulted in more niche titles that are for me, it's been the opposite, until crowd funding.

 

Both positions are thinking about market share, not about gamers or games. Gamers are already being catered to hopefully, why would they want pressure to make games for potential future gamers so in the future some of them can make games for those people? Gamers don't need any more pressure, screw inclusivity, screw not being offensive, in any medium if a piece of art hasn't offended someone it's probably wasn't worth creating. I'm sure Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout: New Vegas offend a bunch of people, I don't care.

[Gorth]

To continue to grow the medium.  The more people that are interested in games, the greater the variety of games, and the greater the variety of influences in making games (as some of these people invariably end up creating games themselves).  This excludes the fact that there are people that want to play more women in games (whether they be man or woman themselves), as well as the simple idea that growing the market creates implicit risk mitigation (i.e. riskier titles become more plausible).

 

This may sound equally harsh, but why shouldn't we look to make gaming more inclusive?

We'll probably have to disagree on that one...

 

From where I'm sitting and having observed 30 years of gaming first hand, becoming more inclusive and trying to appeal to more people has been a decidedly negative factor. Increased reliance on safe formulas, risk aversion bordering on the paranoid, death of originality, attempts to cater for lowest common denominator, blandness, style over substance, out of control hype, joy killing tropes that have become so much a staple that people give you blank stares if you suggest making a game without them. So no, not everybody see the trying to cater to as many as possible as a positive thing

[mute688]

 

Eh, I see it as somewhat equivalent.  More importantly, I see it as "People are influenced by the cover of games."

 

From the couple of responses here, I'll admit I was wrong about the influence covers have on sales.  I don't understand it, but it apparently is a reality. 

 

To continue to grow the medium.  The more people that are interested in games, the greater the variety of games, and the greater the variety of influences in making games (as some of these people invariably end up creating games themselves).  This excludes the fact that there are people that want to play more women in games (whether they be man or woman themselves), as well as the simple idea that growing the market creates implicit risk mitigation (i.e. riskier titles become more plausible).

This may sound equally harsh, but why shouldn't we look to make gaming more inclusive?

 

I see no evidence that growing the market has in any way produced a greater variety of games over the last decade.  Quite the opposite in fact.  As publishers have moved from actually being publishers to being producers of product while investing increasingly larger amounts of money into those products, the variety in games has diminished.  Growing the market may eventually lead to risk mitigation, but it's immediate effect is to take on more risk.  The growth of the market requires investment in risky ventures.  This is why none of the large publishers is attempting to grow their customer base into niche markets.  They consider it to be too much of a risk.

 

Why shouldn't we make gaming more inclusive?  Because to those investing in the industry, that inevitably means making each game more inclusive.  We are seeing the results of doing exactly that now with the vast majority of AAA games becoming mediocre, bland copies of each other.  I can't think of one innovative AAA title that has released in the last 12 months.  Obviously it is good investment as the publishers continue to invest in these same bland games, but as a gamer I have no interest in the games I play becoming more inclusive.  If inclusion actually meant a wider variety of games, I'd cheer them on.  What it actually means is games that need to appeal to a wider audience so must not be controversial or raise issues that some may find offensive or even uncomfortable.

 

Aren't you just making the same universal, absolute statements that you are getting on Jim and others for.

 

You disagree that those are the types of messages that publishers are disseminating?  They aren't true, but when has that stopped a PR department?

Edited March 27, 2013 by mute688

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The problem with making games "more inclusive" is that translates to "insert X to appease group Y" in the publisher's thought process. Like many have said, this often means games will blend together and become more homogeneous rather than diversify.

 

Also, the games I play are already inclusive IMO. I play RPGs, which have well-developed female characters and often provide the ability to play a strong female character. The PC can be almost anything you want them to be in RPGs. RPGs don't need someone like Anita(whose whole crusade seems to revolve around Nintendo platformers) to tell them that women are not portrayed well in them.

 

Oh and I just watched Archer and finally realized where AwesomeOcelot's avatar is derived from. God damn that show is ****ing great.

[Chaz]

Well, I see that the topic hasn't advanced much, not surprising since we're playing the "ignore the opposing arguments" game, so I thought maybe I'll share someone else's critisism, and while I dont agree with all the points she made I think it's a very good watch.

 

 

[AGX-17]

I'm pretty sure I read an interview somewhere, about how some devs thought PS:T cover put people off the game.

Well, I sure wouldn't have bought the game based only on the information "it features a mummified chimpanzee with dreadlocks."

[Monte Carlo]

If this woman is the best that the Feminist Blitzkrieg can offer then old grognards like me can sleep easy. Although I would IP ban, identify and humiliate the idiots who have threatened / bullied / been vile to her. Or is that White Knight sexism? I don't know, I find this stuff confusing nowadays.

 

Oh, and she looks hawt in those glasses. Am I allowed to say that?

[Meshugger]

"Feminist Blitzkrieg"

 

Don't worry, those glasses definately gives her the "sexy librarian"-look. Rawrrr!

[Chaz]

If this woman is the best that the Feminist Blitzkrieg can offer then old grognards like me can sleep easy. Although I would IP ban, identify and humiliate the idiots who have threatened / bullied / been vile to her. Or is that White Knight sexism? I don't know, I find this stuff confusing nowadays.

 

 

Right on!

 

[TrashMan]

I honestly find I don't give a damn anymore.

 

I don't really care about covers and I want people to just make game for the love of it and I'm again ANY pressure to try to influence them to do X/Y.

I really couldn't care less what your agenda is or what your goals are - wether you want to incite homophobia/sexism/racism/religiophobia or fight against it.... I don't care.

 

Let the poeple create the games they want. If they suck or I disagree with it  I won't buy it, if I like it I will. Simple.

 

We live in a day and age where everoyne LOVES to play victim and point fingers and is easy to offend and at hte same time completely uncaring on whom he offends. People need to start growing some backbone and stop gettnig offended over everything and in other peopels names.

 

Free speech and tolerance cannot exist if you only tolerate people you agree with, regardless of criteria. In other words, tolerating "intolerant" and "evil, stupid" people (from a certain point of view) is the price of freedom of speech.

[Malcador]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

 

Apparently someone's trying to silence RPS...or something. I dunno.

[Fighter]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

 

Apparently someone's trying to silence RPS...or something. I dunno.

 

There is a misogynist horde at the gates. Have you not heard!?

Edited April 7, 2013 by Fighter