GamerGate thread

[Karbuncle]

Also for what its worth im not saying that sales showing "male leads generate more income" should be taken as the gaming industries law of god, but that I don't believe the intent of the publishers from that article was sexist.

I too believe in creative freedom far more than profit margins... but it wasn't sexism.. if anything it was greed/business minded.

[Salodin]

But be fair, maz is actually equating the destruction of habitat and environment to having a male lead over a female lead in a video game. As a mod you can't see the bullshit in that?

[Mazmaz]

Tell me why we have female actresses.

[Karbuncle]

Tell me why we have female actresses.

Are you asking me to dig up the actual historical reasoning or are you asking me to guess? No sarcasm here, I'm not sure if I'm suppose to speculate or not.

Either way I fail to see its relevance on this subject matter.... This choice was (again, most likely, i can't speak with absolutes here) "We want more money out of this game", not "We want women out of this game". Christ thats it, there is a difference, if anything, again, the consumer holds most of the blame for making male lead games almost twice as profitable... or the developers for making shitty female leads. But, seriously for it to not be lost, I don't think these profit margins should be the undefeated law of god for game development.. but its not sexist to want more money by making the game lead a different sex.

[Melena]

Tell me why we have female actresses.

Uhh women have been in the movies since the early 1900's, with the first woman director in 1914, and first oscar win in 1929. I mean are you really going to bitch about actresses in the 1800's?

http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/20...n-in-film.html

[Penthesilea]

I think he means 1660 after puritanical English rule ended. You know 450 years ago

[Mazmaz]

I'm asking why we just take it for granted that women are lead protagonists in movies and other forms of entertainment, but we have to justify economically why they have to be leads in games.

[Melena]

I'm asking why we just take it for granted that women are lead protagonists in movies and other forms of entertainment, but we have to justify economically why they have to be leads in games.

Two completely different markets. How many women enjoy going to a movie, but don't play anything more than Candy Crush Saga on their IPhones? You are comparing apples to oranges and I can't believe this has to be spelled out for you.

[hey]

Also for what its worth im not saying that sales showing "male leads generate more income" should be taken as the gaming industries law of god, but that I don't believe the intent of the publishers from that article was sexist.

I too believe in creative freedom far more than profit margins... but it wasn't sexism.. if anything it was greed/business minded.

Unintentional sexism is still sexism.

[Karbuncle]

Unintentional sexism is still sexism.

A point I must disagree with, however you are free to feel that way.

[Charismatic]

Unintentional sexism is still sexism.

By definition, it is not.

[Zeb]

Unintentional sexism is still sexism.

A point I must disagree with, however you are free to feel that way.

By definition, it is not.

IMHO an intent vs action debate might serve to make an ok thread. I think this is where a lot of differences in opinions are coming from.

[hey]

By definition, it is not.

By definition, it is. If you want to do some reading, here you go: https://medium.com/@ninavizz/systemi...1-2297043ac6c1

[Karbuncle]

I'm sorry if this is my bias showing but i don't see how an opinion piece is proof positive vs a widely accepted and known definition of the term, and indeed all "-isms". I am not without reason though, and I appreciate you taking the time to find that, however. To touch on a subject in that thing

So, as a white person: It would be a blindness to my experienced social privilege that would have me question why a Black colleague can’t just cut off his neatly-coiffed dread-locks or afro, and have a more professional hairdo. Why a girl has to have such a distracting afro hairdo, and can’t just do something more pretty and normal with her hair.

We’re born with these symbolic associations via appearance, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but it’s our experiences accrued moving through life in these symbolic roles of privilege or subjugation, that inform our sense of context, self-awareness, and expectations of others through the same system of symbolic associations (aka semiotics) that we then act upon towards others in our adult lives. As bulldozers or as ballerinas, that’s where we can exercise our own choices.

These are the only things I find myself questioning when it comes to feminism and such, and in fact find myself questioning. Why is "X" look more professional or normal than another? Or why do Dreadlocks invoke more intimidation than an afro for some? subconscious fears and judgement based on appearance.

But, this is a GamerGate thread, perhaps I'll move this to feminism if I feel like yelling into a void in the wall later... aka I won't contribute to a derail past this point, but thank you for the time given thus far.

[BaneTheBrawler]

By definition, it is. If you want to do some reading, here you go: https://medium.com/@ninavizz/systemi...1-2297043ac6c1

This thread is about Gamergate. I expect the topic to remain gaming-related. I'm not reading a goddamn novel by someone whose prose is awkward just to figure out if you're on topic or not. Summarize, if it's on-topic. Explain how it applies to Gaming if it's not.

[hey]

it is not strictly related to gaming, but was related to the topic of telling game devs to change the gender of their character being sexist. My apologies if that's off topic.

[Talint]

Sqeenix seems to be much more willing, traditionally, to have female leads in their games as well. Not surprising to hear they were fine with it.

I genuinely hope we're not congratulating Squenix for being some sort of progressive publisher for female characters.

That's akin to celebrating pimps because they are for women in the work place.

[archibaldcrane]

Compared to the rest of the industry, I'd say Sqeenix is pretty solid in that department.

Compared to the "ideal" maybe not but I'll grade them on a curve under the circumstances.

[Lyall]

First, check this out. A retweet by the guy behind Feminist Frequency (because that is not Anita's brainchild, she is merely the posterchild to give it credibility because a cis white male talking about gender issues and equality is laughable).

https://twitter.com/adrianchm/status...439489/photo/1

The tweet says it all.

Secondly, Remember Me was an okay action game that sold, combined between PS3, Xbox360 and PC, approximately 500,000 copies. This article more or less sums up the same exact thing the other one linked does:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...e-protagonists

Pre-post edit: It's the same article linked from that article. Commercially, Remember Me was a bomb. It's got about a 70 on Metacritic. This was the box art.

Spoiler: show

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ver_art%29.jpg

I'm trying to find development costs and the like but am not having much success at work. Given how bold the dev was with Remember Me, going on and talking about wanting a strong female character, and how much respect it would earn them and how important and vital it was to feature a non-stereotypical female lead, it didn't amount to anything beyond integrity. While that's a big deal and I do applaud them for sticking to their guns, you can't blame anyone for not wanting to publish another "strong independent womyn who ain't need no man" video game from the folks who sold that game once, to mediocre critical acclaim and lacking a consumer interest.

As a counterpoint of sorts, I'll mention that the PSVita (a handheld console with admittedly poor sales figures) version of Uncharted outsold Remember Me 3:1, despite being exclusive to one company's handheld device. The obvious counter is that Uncharted is a franchise player that everyone knows, but Remember Me was billed as the same sort of experience from early previews.

But no, it's clearly sexist that people don't want to spend money on something historically proven to not make money. It's that sort of reasoning that turns people away from the side of modern-feminists; There's nothing wrong with saying "This does not make money, so we won't be making it." Making it out to be a huge deal because it involves a woman and therefor must be sexist is lunacy.

[Vandalhart]

I would just like to point out, in case it hasn't been brought up, that it could have been a situation where the game had already been into development and the company had invested time and effort into creating with a character's gender in mind. If that was the case, then going back and reworking a large portion of the game well into the process is likely going to be a huge cost.

I'm all for making games a little less male skewed in terms of character's gender, but it has to happen from the onset of the game. Some of these companies use a 2-3 year time frame to create games. To propose a gender change even a year into the process would likely cost a huge amount of money. It's not like they can just remodel a female/male model and throw it on the same rig and it'll work.

It would appear this was the case for the game in question. It's the publishers at fault here. It kind of makes me proud that Square Enix was so open about it and not forcing them to make changes, but I suppose after FFXIII and FFX-2 they probably don't have many issues with female leads.


I can only take what I've learned from experience where I work. Granted, making Video Slot games is a little different, but I do have a little exposure in terms of gender selection in a game. Some of the feedback we'd get from player panels is very hard to keep clear. You get a lot of conflicting information and it's not becoming any clearer over time.