Body Types and video games

[BruceVC]

Also, posting about this kind of thing here isn't going to affect or change much.

 

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"

 

[Gromnir]

Also, posting about this kind of thing here isn't going to affect or change much.

debate in a place like this is not about actual positive change to the industry. that being said, while some folks is clear incapable o' any kind o' personal growth, debate can result in the individual participants seeing the issue in new ways.  even folks who seem incapable o' admitting that they learned something may walk away with valuable insights gleaned from the diffuse rubble o' aggressive debate. 

 

or not.

 

as for the topic at hand, which we has been little involved with, we suspect that as graphics improve, breast size will, to a degree, shrink. in 1996, creating an appealing female character in-game were problematic. honestly go back and look at 1996 lara croft. kinda silly. sure the promotional art were a smidgen better, but to make a character demonstrably female, much less a female character that would appeal to 18-25 males, was not as ez as it sounds. so, lara becomes a wasp-waist holstein in hooters garb as much 'cause o' tech limits as anything else. even in bg games, look at the warhammer and other weapon sizes for pov. to makes a weapon look like a weapon, developers were forced to oversize, so why is people gonna get different treatment.  nowadays developers has far more options to be making a character look female w/o simply exaggerating female characteristics.

 

that being said, as we is talking 'bout females in mass-market visual media. we don't expect video game women to be any less sexualized  in video games than in tv or film. sure, you can have the rare real or even homely woman character, but given how important appearance is in developing character in visual media, the fugly woman character is gonna be so for a reason. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

 

 

But it does go both ways, but as the stuff here is insignificant it works in your favour so to speak as you're clearly not aiming to help save women or anything by posting here. Heh, though it'd be interesting to see how trolling is classed vs disagreement.

 

Eh, there's still value in discussing things, in my opinion.  Even if it just comes from having an improved understanding on the varying perspectives.  Even then, that a mind isn't changed immediately doesn't mean it eventually won't.

 

You could probably zip back to earlier posts of mine on this forum which would include me being confused towards a woman saying that she'd only be able to play Alpha Protocol if she could play as a woman, complete with me justifying my position based on my experience of "I have no problems playing a Lara Croft or something similar" as though her experiences and preferences should be analogous to mine.

[Malcador]

 

Also, posting about this kind of thing here isn't going to affect or change much.

 

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...

[Malcador]

 

But it does go both ways, but as the stuff here is insignificant it works in your favour so to speak as you're clearly not aiming to help save women or anything by posting here. Heh, though it'd be interesting to see how trolling is classed vs disagreement.

 

Eh, there's still value in discussing things, in my opinion.  Even if it just comes from having an improved understanding on the varying perspectives.  Even then, that a mind isn't changed immediately doesn't mean it eventually won't.

 

You could probably zip back to earlier posts of mine on this forum which would include me being confused towards a woman saying that she'd only be able to play Alpha Protocol if she could play as a woman, complete with me justifying my position based on my experience of "I have no problems playing a Lara Croft or something similar" as though her experiences and preferences should be analogous to mine.

 

 

Yeah, the value in that is probably either enjoying reading your own stuff or just practicing expressing the idea.  Both have some merits, especially the latter as that helps in later battles. 

 

Being only able to play a game if you can play as your gender is something a bit silly I find, ultimately your PC's avatar isn't experiencing anything, you are - your choices and the reactions that drive them (well for an honest rather than alternative exploring playthrough anyway).   I guess it's a matter of letting oneself go for a little while.  Fairly rare outrage over a game, mainly seen it for the Witcher games, myself.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Also, posting about this kind of thing here isn't going to affect or change much.

 

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

[alanschu]

Being only able to play a game if you can play as your gender is something a bit silly I find

 

For the most part it doesn't bother me.  But would I feel different if most games had me playing a woman instead?  I don't know, since that's not the case.  The latter is what I didn't really realize at the time.  That it doesn't bother me doesn't invalidate that it may be something that bothers someone else.  After all, I *do* still tend to play some level of a self-insert in a lot of RPGs.  It's just that, upon reflection, it's pretty rare that I'm not in some way represented if I'm giving a variety of choices.

 

Were the Alpha Protocol conversation happen today, my response would be different.  Having said that, for better or worse sometimes games are just going to have male or female only protagonists.  I don't think it should be mandated (nor do I think it is practical) that all games have a choice of male/female playable character.

Edited January 23, 2014 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

There is differentiation though between a 'blank slate' protagonist and playing a pre-determined character. You can't easily have Mikaela Thorton as an option because AP is specifically written with the set male protagonist in mind, not a blank slate one- if it were written with a female protagonist or option for both in mind then it would inevitably have to be written differently. Same if you allowed Lars Croft: Tomb Raider. And for certain games you're using someone else's creation too, as with Geralt. I'd play as Triss if it were an option or she had her own game, but I'd still have to concede that most would want to play as Geralt.

 

Ideally games would make allowances for both sexes being playable with a realistic amount of variance, but most of the time dialogue for a male/ female choice RPG is identical except for the pronouns, romances potentially and maybe some flavour. And there is a (completely understandable) tendency in those games towards defining the character, whether male or female, by their role- Warden, Knight Commander, The Sheperd; as a way of channelling decisions into set categories. If you don't make the differences significant enough- ie the female option plays exactly or almost exactly like the male except for appearance- you risk trivialising the whole thing, basically what the initial complaint was. If you do make them significantly different it'll cost.

 

I do have sympathy for women who are interested in gaming who dislike being forced to play males most of the time, certainly more than I'd have for someone complaining about it not being Lars Croft. But that is what happens if you're a minority/ niche grouping, you don't get as much targeting as the mainstream.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Zoraptor

[alanschu]

 

 

But that is what happens if you're a minority/ niche grouping, you don't get as much targeting as the mainstream.

 

Agreed, and it's sort of a chicken and egg problem I find.  So really one way to change that is for those that want it to let people know.

[Zoraptor]

I'm not sure about chicken/ egg. There are inherencies, for want of a better word, where certain things appeal more to men (in general) than women (in general) or vice versa. If there were a magic formula to appeal to both equally then it would be used, but as it is you often end up appealing to neither or less overall, rather than more. 

[Blodhemn]

There is differentiation though between a 'blank slate' protagonist and playing a pre-determined character. You can't easily have Mikaela Thorton as an option because AP is specifically written with the set male protagonist in mind, not a blank slate one- if it were written with a female protagonist or option for both in mind then it would inevitably have to be written differently. Same if you allowed Lars Croft: Tomb Raider. And for certain games you're using someone else's creation too, as with Geralt. I'd play as Triss if it were an option or she had her own game, but I'd still have to concede that most would want to play as Geralt.

 

Ideally games would make allowances for both sexes being playable with a realistic amount of variance, but most of the time dialogue for a male/ female choice RPG is identical except for the pronouns, romances potentially and maybe some flavour. And there is a (completely understandable) tendency in those games towards defining the character, whether male or female, by their role- Warden, Knight Commander, The Sheperd; as a way of channelling decisions into set categories. If you don't make the differences significant enough- ie the female option plays exactly or almost exactly like the male except for appearance- you risk trivialising the whole thing, basically what the initial complaint was. If you do make them significantly different it'll cost.

 

I do have sympathy for women who are interested in gaming who dislike being forced to play males most of the time, certainly more than I'd have for someone complaining about it not being Lars Croft. But that is what happens if you're a minority/ niche grouping, you don't get as much targeting as the mainstream.

Agreed. A spiritual successor to AP with a female lead sounds pretty great though. The marketing campaign would probably have to be sexy though, with decent sized melons to maximize sales. 

[alanschu]

I'm not sure about chicken/ egg. There are inherencies, for want of a better word, where certain things appeal more to men (in general) than women (in general) or vice versa. If there were a magic formula to appeal to both equally then it would be used, but as it is you often end up appealing to neither or less overall, rather than more. 

 

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.

Edited January 24, 2014 by alanschu

[AwesomeOcelot]

hat 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).

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.

Edited January 24, 2014 by AwesomeOcelot

[BruceVC]

 

hat 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).

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?

[Zoraptor]

 

hat 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).

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.

 

 

Yep. There are computer games targeted at women primarily, if you tried to alter them to make them appeal (equally) to men as well you run the risk of alienating your target without achieving your aim, the same is true in reverse. It's like turning Robocop into a romantic comedy to try and attract women. Most women won't like it, and the previous target audience will go "what the asterisks?!?!?" at best. Same if you take some romantic comedy and try to turn it into an action extravaganza. A nice broad set of discrete choices in products works fine, and there's nothing wrong with targeting a specific audience- in principle, at least, and assuming it isn't a really obnoxious or dangerous niche.

 

The question as to whether the prevalence of such directed entertainment reflects underlying reality or is a result of self reinforcing bias is a good one, but like many good questions there is no way of answering it with any certainty. There's a plethora of reasons for products, especially games, to fail and isolating which is the reason is problematic. Given that there is a lot of targeting in most entertainment forms (less maybe in music) it does suggest that that is the most successful strategy on an economic level. Niche products catering to smaller targets do occur, but most often at a premium (eg cable TV, Matrix games too, arguably), and they often fail.

[BruceVC]

 

I'm not sure about chicken/ egg. There are inherencies, for want of a better word, where certain things appeal more to men (in general) than women (in general) or vice versa. If there were a magic formula to appeal to both equally then it would be used, but as it is you often end up appealing to neither or less overall, rather than more. 

 

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

[alanschu]

The question as to whether the prevalence of such directed entertainment reflects underlying reality or is a result of self reinforcing bias is a good one, but like many good questions there is no way of answering it with any certainty.

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.

[BruceVC]

 

The question as to whether the prevalence of such directed entertainment reflects underlying reality or is a result of self reinforcing bias is a good one, but like many good questions there is no way of answering it with any certainty.

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

 

 

[alanschu]

Well, it is complicated because at this point it's probably reasonable to say that that is what the target audience wants.

 

 

Although I also think that there's a perception issue, to the point where developers/publishers and even some marketers believe their own buzz and go "that's what they want" even if it may not necessarily be something all that sought after.

 

But people are also fluid. I mean, Call of Duty is something a lot of people want, but most posters on this board, I'd argue, want little to do with that type of game.

[Zoraptor]

Pretty sure I read that article when it was linked by RPS (Sunday Papers?, or someone in the comments maybe). I don't really have much in the way of rebuttal to it since I actually agree with a lot of its basic premise and the points it makes. But imo two other things have to be acknowledged- marketers aren't infallible, there are plenty of failures in the gaming industry to prove that; but also that if marketers are so good that they can sell ice to latitudinally advantaged ethnic groupings then if there were a way to market games effectively to both men and women then there would be such games, as they'd be a licence to print money. As it stands you tend to have identifiably 'male' games and identifiably 'female' games too, as the article notes, and they do tend towards being dissimilar games in immiscible genres, there's no sensible way to have 'Farmville of Duty' or 'The Grand Theft Sims'  or 'DooMMysT' and appeal to both markets. 

 

Personally I don't really want 'CoD' or 'Dragon Crown', I want an in depth and rewarding gaming experience gained from challenging and engaging gameplay, an equally engaging story (if appropriate) with 3 dimensional characters and a consistent and well though out visual style. But I am reticent about making any implication that people who do like them do so due to marketing. It isn't just that I don't think it's true- I think that most CoD players genuinely do like it- but also that I think it's not a constructive position even if it were true. Telling someone they only like something because it's been marketed to them or because they're a walking stereotype will just annoy them and come across as preachy sanctimony, and Activision or whoever won't have a Road to Damascus moment while their game is a licence to print money. Plus of course, even if 'Dragon Crown' got more realistically proportioned women it'd only be treating the symptom if they're still just demure window dressing as opposed to alluring window dressing.

[Nepenthe]

I dunno, I'm under the impression that Bioware games are some of the more popular games among people of both the male and female persuasion. I'm also under the impression that laydees tend to enjoy a lot of the aspects of the games that get panned, say, here... But admittedly, it's been a long time since I've partaked in RPG discussion anywhere else and I'm just going from memory.

[Nonek]

It seems that way to me too, but then again Dragon Age 2 features Isabella whose character is equally as sexualised and ludicrous as any in Dragon's Crown but is also personality wise an insulting depiction of women in general. But yes i'd generally agree it's up to the developers to produce a variety of body and character types in their games, from the over stylised to the uncanny valley, and then let market forces decide what they want. If the characters and games are good enough then they will be bought, whether by men or women.

 

So it's all up to the developers and publishers, there are supposed to be more and more women in gaming, time for somebody to step up to the plate and cater to them with characters like Kreia, Cass, Philippa Eilhart etcetera, whom are smart, self motivated and powerful.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

Isabella whose character as equally is sexualised and ludicrous

 

 

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

[HoonDing]

Isabella looks like the Elf from Dragon's crown, with the difference that the Elf didn't forget to wear pants.

 

[Nonek]

Sorry but to me i'm afraid that Isabella is worse Bruce, i've pointed this out before and don't really wish to say it again but she wears a shirt into the the combats which occur every ten feet in Kirkwall, a shirt which doesn't provide enough enviromental protection to ensure she doesn't catch hypothermia, she's an utterly ridiculous character stylised in much the same manner as the Elf Drudanae shows from Dragon's Crown. This along with her passivity, idleness, stupidity and willingness to enslave herself for no good reason to the protagonist is an insulting depiction of a woman.

 

Personally if I were crusading for better female role models i'd use her as what not to do, along with the supposedly "strong" guardswoman who is incompetent and needs help courting. 

 

Edit: I also feel that there's nothing wrong with Dragon's Crowns art style, it's massively over stylised for both men and women but that is not in any way a bad thing. It's internally consistent and colourful, everything in the world is similarly designed, and if one objects to that then simply don't purchase it.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nonek