Dolmen+, on 12 March 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:
Ornery Owl, on 11 March 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:
cerveza_fiesta, on 11 March 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:
To start, I agree in principle that women in video games could be portrayed in a less objectified, less sexualized, more equal light.
Dolmen+, on 11 March 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:
I don't think it makes sense to try "balance" the market with an influx of female characters that try right the wrongs of their male counterparts by being just as strong, fast and stoic. There should be differences. The tough girl shouldn't come across as a tough guy that got born female. she should come across as a woman with all the best of the gender adding to who she is as a hero.
This sums up my feelings on the issue neatly. Giving a choice between a male and female lead is a good start (as with ME series) and it's cool that they've taken the time to put such a choice into a popular video game, but Dolmen is right that it isn't enough. The FemShep and SirShep stories are essentially identical save the romantic options and choice of gender is largely irrelevant in the arc of the storyline. To be truly equal, ME should have had 2 very different storylines, one in which each gender approaches situations from a unique perspective, even if the eventual conclusion was similar.
That said, I tend to agree to an extent with Assail, in that we might read too much into video game companies' intentions. When it comes down to it, their goal is to make money, and there are 2 factors I see related to moneymaking that compete directly with truly gender-balanced video game production:
- There is an existing largely-male market, and it only makes good business sense to pander to one's biggest market first and foremost before trying to appeal to newer/smaller markets.
- Studios are always on a deadline, and struggle to fit meaningful storyline content into a compelling game without cost overruns in development. Under such pressures it is very convenient to avoid extensive backstory through the use of widely-known clichés - especially ones that lend themselves to the action-oriented gaming environment.
The first factor unfortunately comes with the baggage of DIDs and heavily sexualized female video game characters. Companies know sex sells to a young male audience and will continue to use that as a marketing device until it doesn't work anymore. The second factor justifies the choice of DID since it fits nicely with a goal/action-oriented video game mechanic. If you look at the second factor a level deeper, the studio is also spared the expense of explaining a male character's motivations for saving the DID, and the reason why the female was the one captured instead of the male, AND the reason why the villain is capturing the female to motivate the protagonist. It's just a storyline that makes sense to anyone that ever read a book or watched a movie, and it can be exploited to save effort. What's worse, swapping gender roles within the DID cliché just *feels* wrong in many contexts (eg. medieval fantasy) and requires a lot of effort to convince the consumer that it isn't just a token effort to appease a feminist audience.
Not to say this is what the studios *should* all be doing, or that there are no other options for developers, but the two factors I describe are strong motivators for a production studio and therefore are very difficult to overcome by anyone hoping for change. As with so many other contentious "status-quo vs. progressive approach" issues, those wishing for a new deal in video game gender equality need to identify economic factors that make their views viable, otherwise the industry will continue to ignore their point of view. The industry clearly has the formula figured out for the current audience (as evidenced by the billions in existing sales), and I'm sure would be happy to shift their stance if it opened up new markets without sacrificing the current one.
Anyways, I'm interested to follow
Sarkeesian's commentary and I hope she comes up with some tangible solutions in the end. Even if she doesn't it's a useful exercise to explore and generate awareness on the issue of video game gender equality so that other more solution-oriented individuals might take up the cause. That's the nature of research...each installment building on the last until a greater problem is solved. So to Assail's comment on it being a waste of time, I wholeheartedly disagree.
The market is already in existence though.
2012 Sales, Demographic and Usage Data: Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry
Women make up 47% of gamers. 25% of console players. 39% of PC players.48% of game purchasers.
That's a pretty significant "new market".
I'll give that it's a relatively recent development (maybe) but this didn't happen overnight.
These Stats are a shock to me tbh. My cousin is the most "hardcore" girl gamer I know of, off thread. She plays the Sims and Farmville. I have never thought that things had progressed this far with almost half the gaming community being female (at least in the more developed parts of the world). In my social circle games are things you play with the guys on a chill night at home, never with the wife or the female friend community. I find that really unfortunate as I think its one more type of fun available to a family or group of friends. Its not a substitute for a great night out at the movies or even a great day playing soccer on the fields but I think its a great option to have.
I have only managed to get the wife to play fashion games and tetris. Not as bad as it sounds tbh but I wish there were games that catered to both our tastes. Like the survey says most gamers are in the thirty bracket. Meaning some are married and/or with kids. I think Sarkeesians documentaries push the Gaming industry to recognize the fact that they need to appeal to both sexes aaand the varied arrangements both parties may find themselves in.
Those numbers surprise me too...but I think you need to go a bit deeper before you can say "it's a market".
Sure there are 48% female game purchasers. But does the aggregate statistic simply represent units sold, or dollars spent, or percent of people polled who say "I purchase games"? Your source doesn't specify but it is a very important detail to a game studio trying to make money. If the studio specializes in (for example) action RPG games, chances are they are pandering to the male gamer population. I find it *really* hard to believe that studio would deliberately ignore 48% of game buyers unless those game buyers weren't buying the types of games the studio produces. You know what I mean? If, using dolmen's example, those female gamers are primarily interested in Tetris, farmville and mobile games, then that constitutes a massive risk for the studio to try and expand their specialization into the female market. It isn't necessarily lazy developers...it's responsibility to shareholders and good business practice.
Think of Venn diagrams. If the circle of "female gamers" and the circle of "female gamers who play action RPGs" have little or no overlapping area, then what use is there for a studio in pandering to a female audience? These guys spend millions on market research every year with focus groups, polling and all that stuff. I just can't accept that such an obvious chunk of the maket was somehow "missed" by all of the researchers all this time. It doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying the stats are outright wrong, just trying to dispel the notion that the female gamer and the male gamer are functionally equivalent from a business perspective.
Morgoth, on 12 March 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:
I've yet to see any numbers showing, even implying, that the customers particularly want games with the sort of old fashioned male/female seperation that seem to be at the heart of this discussion.
I think the billions in sales for the video game industry is evidence in and of itself that what they're doing *in general* sells. Whether gamers have a genuine desire for something other than the male/female inequality model of DID games is up for debate and research I think....but that's what we're doing here.
Morgoth, on 12 March 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:
Several posters here have pointed towards the argument that such things sell, or that they fulfill a demand which really is all the studioes should be going for. Leaving behind for a moment the whole argument about personal responsibility and the moral cowardice inherent in the profit for shareholders position, what do you base this claim that the sort of stories/presentations in question sell better?
I don't say they sell better, I say they obviously sell to an acceptable extent or else we wouldn't have a game industry at all. Maybe if the entire industry made a collective shift toward more gender balanced games they would make even more money...who can tell? Until it happens we won't know, and businesses are risk adverse, so it'll be tough to convince them of a better way. This is why I said that I hope Sarkeesian or her contemporaries can come up with some economic factors to support her research. I'd love to see more balanced and inclusive game content myself...but the business guys will want to see a clear economic benefit.
Also, regarding the "personal responsibility and moral cowardice" point, I think you have to be very careful there. Video games are creative content in the same way movies, books and TV shows are. The creators have free license within the confines of the law to do whatever the hell they please, and if the audience buys it then so much the better for them. Saying owners of game studios somehow have a moral obligation or responsibility to promote gender equality is like saying authors and movie producers do too. Does moral obligation for promotion of gender equality now all of a sudden mean romance novel publishers need to publish equal amounts of stories featuring male leads? Do romantic comedy movie producers need to put in equal parts of dick jokes with sentimental moments to appease both genders? Do action movie producers need to start plopping a couple of tough-girl characters in every unit of commandos? Maybe the audience would enjoy such things and those producers are free to explore the options, but saying they have a moral responsibility to explore gender-equality options is a bit of a stretch.
I think the more sensible thing is to accept the fact that male and female content consumption habits are fundamentally
unequal (the movie industry realized this a loooooooong time ago), and have producers making games tailored for female sensibilities and producers making games tailored for male sensibilities.
Where it makes sense, have game content that features gender equality. The DID doesn't
have to go away, because dudes like the idea of saving a DID from danger (and probably always will). If guys like that they should be able to consume that, and studios should be free to pander to that customer base.
Morgoth, on 12 March 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:
As for character design, which is one of my pet peeves, I think that's mainly a result of the sort of people whom are hired to do character design, combined -again- with the lack of skill among the writers. Do you buy games because it contains women in chain mail bikinies? Do anyone? I'm pretty sure the sales of Dead or Alive beach vollyball, or whatever it was called, speaks for itself.
Agreed here. Unnecessary oversexualization of female characters when there is no link to the game's plot is a cheap trick, and everyone realizes it. It is similar to using "booth bunnies" at a tradeshow. It can't be the only thing keeping people around and obviously there has to be a product of some value backing the display, but despite its cheapness it has worked well in the past. The world is changing however, views on women are changing, and I think it much more reasonable to point out moral shortcomings of developers in regards to character design. The scantily clad 1D female character should be a thing of the past IMO. It's not how men people in the 1st world view women anymore and developers would do well to abandon the stereotype.