[D'rek]

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

Tapper, on 12 March 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 March 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

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.

Y'know, I thought the same. And then I saw the sheer amount of body-mods (usually wit no censorship of the private parts and oversized boobs) and see through/ sexy armors that are downloadable, community-made mods for Skyrim. And they hit pretty good download numbers, too. The funny thing is that Skyrim is an intelligent game with a storyline that's actually fairly equal in gender portrayal as both males and females share jobs, function as antagonists, shopkeepers, smiths, et cetera.

EDIT: so it seems there is at the least a part of the gaming base that seeks to introduce sexualisation/ one dimensional portrayal of women as sexual objects/ pin ups into their games.
That's pretty disturbing and shows that even if developers move on, part of their fan base doesn't, sadly.

Yes, there will always be a segment that wants pin-ups in video games and will go to great lengths to modify games to satisfy the desire. Hell, I did it back when the "NudeRaider" mod came out for Tomb Raider 1.....but then again I was like 15 years old and CGI boobs were the best I could do - sue me.

The fact that the segment exists shouldn't deter those wanting to make a difference however. Since it's a self-serving community, I say let them do their thing. You're not going to stop it anyway, so as long as the original game content is making a shift from ridiculously dressed, weak and idiotic female characters then at least everyone else is better off.

Right. If the below terrible little ASCII graphics represent a spectrum of game appeal by gender, the goal is not to go from

M |o------------| F

to

M |------o------| F

ala you're not allowed to enjoy your toys because they are sexist! Everything must be as rigidly equal and balanced as possible or it is banned! All games must have ambiguously gendered protaganists!

The goal is to get to:

M |oooooooooooo| F

saturation of the market so that there is something for everyone. There will always be people who make and play games that don't necessarily depict women very favourably. There will probably also be the opposite, a niche sub-culture of people who make and play games that don't necessarily depict men very favourably. But when the balance and variety of games is, well, balanced, a person can choose an option other than {a} playing a game with awful depictions of women, or {b} not playing at all.

[LinearPhilosopher]

There is however a problem of putting it into practise. Case and point, institutionalising equality is it's own form of oppression. Given recent trends, as well as changing societal trends i'm sure we'll get to where drek is pointing at, at some point in the future. Bear in mind women have been marginalised for the vast majority of history and the gains they've made in 1 century alone are astounding. And i don't see this trend stopping either. Many individuals in this thread have already put forth examples of changes in games and in recent games, though i do look forward to part 2. Feminist philosophy has been on my radar for a while, however it's a difficult subject to approach from a male perspective as most women studies profs tend to be misandrists.

In regards to game companies having a responsibilities, (don't ask me to find the quote) i have a typical philosophical asnwer, yes and no. (go hegel!)
There are four levels of responsbilitiy for an organisation. In order for a higher level to be reached, the lower one must first be satisfied. In order of increasing level: making profit, lawful behavior, ethical behavior, philanthropy. *

In regards to making "feminist" video games, if a company was to make one for the purposes of making a profit then yes they would, but they are doing it with the intent to make a profit, not with the intent to make a game for the sake of pandering to feminists. It's only once you get past that age you can start thinking about the ethical level, ie that of having social responsbilities. The reason i bring up the pyramid is because ethics, and it's corrolary, respopnsbility are based upon power, that is the power to act. Only if you've the power to affect X can you make the case that you have a moral obligations to X (by virtue of causality).

Because of this fact, a company would have to have significant profits to justify making a feminist video game fopr the sake of making a feminst video game, However if a feminist video can be made, and has a reasonable chance to earn a profit, then yes there is a certain level of social responsibility that goes along with it. But that can only be ascertained on a case by case basis, so to say that video game companies ahve a social responsbility to feminst is a sweepingly false statement.

Therefore, yes and no.

*in this view, if a business cannot suceed legally it will break the law in order to gain an advantage. Hence the prioritisation. It's a behavior model not a normative model.

[Puck]

Assail, on 12 March 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Like I said to Illy earlier, if you're honestly looking at fictional character within a game, and basing your real world opinions off of them, you probably aren't sound of mind. Or would you say otherwise? So WHAT if women need to be saved in games? There is zero correlation between this and sexism within society.

I'm not ignoring that fact. The customer will always get what they want, and they're always right. I fail to understand how you think something that is obviously a deep-rooted opinion (i.e. sexism) is going to be ousted by removing an age-old story arc that is completely harmless in it's design. You have some serious amounts of optimism if you really think that is going to be the linchpin that changes society.

I wasn't going to take more part in this thread than just following it, as I'm not enough into gaming for a qualified opinion, but I've got a word or two say about the above.

First off, the DiD trope is not as old as people think. The earliest stories humankind told were equal opportunities insofar as no gender was actively degraded, which is the case in DiD. So, how does that have any relevance to socienty? Atually, it's got a lot of relevance. Stories are the mirrors of the societies that created them and in turn influence those very societies. It's been proven over and over, and it's just how the human brain works, even yours, and to actively distance yourself from them (if such a thing were possible) would equal enstranging yourself from your own society so thouroughly as to not be able to be part of it. This 'deep-rooted opinion', as you call sexism, is what produced stories like the DiD in the first place. Ever since inventing them, people have used stories as a, more or less subconscious, guide as to how to behave, see the world and react to situations. These days the entertainment indutry has taken the place of those stories and as such is essentially a mirror of our culture and our views.

And to go further, I think you are kind of missing the point of this thread. It's about video games. They are part of our collective culture these days, and while they are not the focal point of it, they can't be ignored. Gamers, as evident here, do care about how the medium they like represent their views of the world, and if you are not interested in this or consider it a waste of time I honestly wonder what you are doing in this thread?

To put it even simpler: you can't solve world hunger by simply distributing food to everyone. You have to change the social dynamics that caused it to begin with, and some of these social dynamics are centuries old - so would you say it's a waste of time to try and change them, because 'hurr traditions are what they are'?. And in the case of sexism we have to change the things that subtly reinforce it instead of saying 'Now women are equal to men on the paper, so they are equal in everyday life, too.' That's not the case. Naturally, sexism will not go away by changing video games, but it can play a part in changing deep-rooted preconceptions in people who play those games. It may be a small part, but big changes happen to consist of a lot of small changes.

Also, I think the issue is less 'Make DiD go away and burn it!', but more 'Make games more diverse, so that everyone, man or woman, gets the opportunity to play the game they want to play.' But that's already been discussed much more coherent than I can word it. Hood knows ( ) I sometimes feel like playing a busty red headed barbarian in a chainmail bikini - but sometimes I also want to play a great female warrior that is all business and not reduced to women's most common superpower.


Sorry for going a bit off-topic.

[Khellendros]

Cliffy B, former main man at Epic Games, creators of Gears of War among other things, weighs in on Sarkeesian's project. The last two or three paragraphs are the most interesting I think.


http://kotaku.com/59...g-needs-to-stop

[dietl]

BalrogLord, on 12 March 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

In regards to making "feminist" video games, if a company was to make one for the purposes of making a profit then yes they would, but they are doing it with the intent to make a profit, not with the intent to make a game for the sake of pandering to feminists. It's only once you get past that age you can start thinking about the ethical level, ie that of having social responsbilities. The reason i bring up the pyramid is because ethics, and it's corrolary, respopnsbility are based upon power, that is the power to act. Only if you've the power to affect X can you make the case that you have a moral obligations to X (by virtue of causality).

Because of this fact, a company would have to have significant profits to justify making a feminist video game fopr the sake of making a feminst video game, However if a feminist video can be made, and has a reasonable chance to earn a profit, then yes there is a certain level of social responsibility that goes along with it. But that can only be ascertained on a case by case basis, so to say that video game companies ahve a social responsbility to feminst is a sweepingly false statement.

Therefore, yes and no.

*in this view, if a business cannot suceed legally it will break the law in order to gain an advantage. Hence the prioritisation. It's a behavior model not a normative model.

You say your business model is not a normative model.
Two things:
1) its not (not a normative model).
2) If it was: How exactly does this affect ethics? I'm speaking of the is-ough problem and stuff...
This is all off-topic so I won't discuss it here. If you disagree with me on this just think through the possibility that I might be right.

Your argument looks like this.
(1) Only if you've the power to affect X can you make the case that you have a moral obligations to X.
(2) Companies don't have the power to make a feminist video game.
.: Companies don't have the moral obligation to make a feminist video game.

I'm not sure if you are aware that you are claming (2), you are at least implying it.
So...don't you think (2) is a ridiculous claim? It would only be true if there was a law that would prevent the companies from making one, which brings us back to your model. Given this: How could you denie that your model is normative.


As for the rest of the discussion:
Assail is wrong (sorry dude)
Everybody else is right ;-)

To go a bit more into detail. I like the video because it doen't say DiD is bad, only that it is a trope that gets used much too often. I'm all for change in the computer game genre, which is stuck in it's origins. Will they every stop producing the same damn game over and over again? The sad answer of course is: No. (couldn't find the sad smiley at first so: this is the consumer getting f**ked by the companies)

[amphibian]

For those of you wondering how this discussion has any legs on a Malazan epic fantasy messageboard, look at one of the top rated comments on the Kotaku article. Rhianna Pratchett, daughter of Terry and fine writer in her own right with experience in fantasy, comics and video games, is mentioned as being someone who actively works to depict women in awesome, agency-filled ways.

These things affect fantasy and what we read, as well as the video games we play.

It is a good idea to tell people engaging in bad behavior that they are indeed doing so, which is why Silencer's Mod-God talk to Illy and Assail yelling at each other in inappropriate ways was a good thing. It's why I will tell people who are saying racist, misogynist or other bad-flavored things in public areas that they're doing so and that it's not right. It gets me a certain amount of heat, but remaining fairly polite, picking out concrete things to criticize and having the facts or good examples to point to are great tools to effect actual change.

Which is why Sarkeesian, despite not being the greatest analyst or the best person to critique things, is doing a good thing here.

[Studlock]

I don't understand the whole 'women don't play as many games' as previously said according to http://www.theesa.co.../gameplayer.asp women make about 47% of the (very wide and varied) gaming market with adult woman (30% and is apparently the fastest growing demographic) having a bigger market share than teenage boys (17%). Even if only half of women played 'hardcore' games that's still probably equal to what teenage boys that are playing 'hardcore' games. This of course doesn't take into account the amount of girls paying 'hardcore' games. Either way that's a pretty significant part of the market to simply ignore to pander to childish 'manly' power fantasies which are apparently aimed at boys. To say that gaming is a 'boys world' is just not true and even if it was it doesn't excuse some of the nonsense that goes on with female characters because as grown ass men we should know better!

This post has been edited by Studlock: 13 March 2013 - 12:44 AM

[LinearPhilosopher]

dietl, on 12 March 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 12 March 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

In regards to making "feminist" video games, if a company was to make one for the purposes of making a profit then yes they would, but they are doing it with the intent to make a profit, not with the intent to make a game for the sake of pandering to feminists. It's only once you get past that age you can start thinking about the ethical level, ie that of having social responsbilities. The reason i bring up the pyramid is because ethics, and it's corrolary, respopnsbility are based upon power, that is the power to act. Only if you've the power to affect X can you make the case that you have a moral obligations to X (by virtue of causality).

Because of this fact, a company would have to have significant profits to justify making a feminist video game fopr the sake of making a feminst video game, However if a feminist video can be made, and has a reasonable chance to earn a profit, then yes there is a certain level of social responsibility that goes along with it. But that can only be ascertained on a case by case basis, so to say that video game companies ahve a social responsbility to feminst is a sweepingly false statement.

Therefore, yes and no.

*in this view, if a business cannot suceed legally it will break the law in order to gain an advantage. Hence the prioritisation. It's a behavior model not a normative model.

You say your business model is not a normative model.
Two things:
1) its not (not a normative model).
2) If it was: How exactly does this affect ethics? I'm speaking of the is-ough problem and stuff...
This is all off-topic so I won't discuss it here. If you disagree with me on this just think through the possibility that I might be right.

Your argument looks like this.
(1) Only if you've the power to affect X can you make the case that you have a moral obligations to X.
(2) Companies don't have the power to make a feminist video game.
.: Companies don't have the moral obligation to make a feminist video game.

I'm not sure if you are aware that you are claming (2), you are at least implying it.
So...don't you think (2) is a ridiculous claim? It would only be true if there was a law that would prevent the companies from making one, which brings us back to your model. Given this: How could you denie that your model is normative.

oh dear, i confused normative with positive. I apologise. That's rather embarasing of me. It's a positive statement by virtue of some empirical research (it's from a textbook i disposed of ages ago so can't find sources : )and it's logical foundation. A corporation for example cannot act ethically if it can't even satisfy the requirement of acting according to the word of law. Or put it another way, if a corporation can barely comply with laws will it be in an position to consider the wider, social, ethical ramifications? The answer is no.This claim is pretty evident to me.

2) that's an incorrect phrasing, if it was to put it in syllogism format, 2 would be )some companies don't have the power to make feminist video games, therefore some companies don't have a moral obligation to create feminist video games

Also there are not any laws that DIRECTLY prevent companies from making games, but there are plenty of indirect laws. Taxes for example, game projects are funded by post-tax cash flows. Whatever cash flows leftover from taxes are cashflows that can be used to making games. If your company is publically listed you also need to have audited financial statement prepared in accordance with IFRS (international financial reporting standards), not a cheap endeavor by any stretch. Finally there's the liability side of things and various other regulations a company may be subject to that bite into cash flows and reduce funds available for future projects.

And your final point, it's a positive theory, used to derive a normative. Example: the fastest way to get from toronto to niagara is to take the 406-QEW-401. therefore If you want to get from niagara to toronto in the shortest amount of time, you ought to take that route.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 13 March 2013 - 01:39 AM

[King Lear]

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 March 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

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.

Oh I agree that the statistic includes tetris and bloody farmville but I doubt I think that women play those games exclusively to the extent that you might . It should probably be noted that it's is an ESA survey that's published annually, so if the industry are not prepared to ask themselves those questions, why would it be hard to imagine that 50% of the market is being ignored? That market is clearly still buying games, in spite of problems with them, and it's been growing steadily so there's no major monetary incentive to do anything at all.

I am wondering what games you think women don't play? You can go off Dolmen's example if you like, but I'm much more comfortable with my own experience (what with it being mine and all) which involves women playing playing across the spectrum of games and no fucking farmville. Up to 40 percent of MMO players are female (in the US anyway, also shame about the stupid headline.). Places like Fat, Ugly or Slutty show (sans collected data though ) there are women who are playing FPS games like Borderlands and CoD etc etc on a regular basis, and, actually, most of FUoS's submissions are Xbox submissions. FPS probably have the lowest proportion of female players, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a non-significant percentage either. Not that I can find any information either way

In any case, I don't think wanting decent representation can be construed as "pandering to a female audience". I could be misconstruing what you're saying here, but what exactly does this pandering involve? Even if the number of women playing a game is zero, constructing female characters as three dimensional human beings who don't need rescuing, or a rape/rape attempt in their back story to show their strength or whatever the hell it's suppose to show/needing to be rescued _again_, or just having vaguely functional armour in a game that's supposed to be about hitting people with swords is a good thing if only for the fact that it reduces harmful and idiotic messages about women being absorbed by the audience.

Fucking farmville...

[LinearPhilosopher]

also relevant but less lenghty.

[Tattersail_]

Just going off people I know. My own experience. Not stats. Not anything else but where I live and who I know.

I play xbox and have 2 girl friends and 47 boy friends. One of those girl friends is my wife, the other is a wife of a boyfriend. This could be due to me not asking other girls for their x box gamer tag. However, looking at my wife's friend list she only has one girl friend on their too and more boy friends. So I am on the x box daily, if not me then my wife. The other girl we know is never online. Nor is her husband.

Okay, next facebook. I am yet to see a girl friend on my facebook comment on an x box game or any game of it's kind, ps3, pc etc. Lots of male friends do. No girls do. YET, they play Candy Crush, Bejewelled, Word Feud, Chess etc. I play against them. It's cool, I have the app's on my phone. I get regular Draw Something requests, and Song Pop requests and the 4 pictures requests. From a multitude of different girls at different ages. Should I post a status asking them about x box? I don't thinki i'd get much of a response. However I know this is probably the wrong market anyway. People are secretive so how do I know who is on a forum, or what they like to do in the privacy of their own homes? I don't. Without prying and why would I do that? It could be construed as flirting or stalking and I'm not into neither. Not when it could lead somewhere anyway.

Going on to family. I have two sisters. One is in a relationship, no kids, works in the police, her partner in the fire brigade. In her spare time she goes the cinema a lot, the gym a lot, and nights out. She does not play games, although her fella does play the PS3.

The other sister has a partner and two kids. Both under 11. She loves playing the Wii but only with the kids. She wouldn't play it just her on her own. She has just bought an x box for her son. He doesn't play it that much, he is normally outside playing football or on his bike. He isn't interested that much at the moment. Her daughter is also into her bike, and swing ball and other stuff than playing games.

My mum liked playing Zelda on the Wii, and owns a 3DS. She loves the Professor Layton games, and has played every single one. Same with my wife actually, she likes the DS or liked the DS a lot. Once the 3DS came out the enthusiasm of the DS went away because games like professor Layton only came out on the 3DS (which is why my mum has one, my dad went to get the game for her and they told him it isn't out on the ds, so he bought her a 3ds instead).



What is my point? My point is that from my first hand experience I see people of the female variety enjoying fun games that do not have any time commitment. Which is fine and I will play with them if they want me to. I hope this makes sense, it's fucking busy in work and the post kind of got dragged this way and that. I think my original point got lost somewhere.

[Tattersail_]

By the way, same goes for my wife's friends. She has 5 hard core friends who are there for each other and make sure they treat each other on their birthdays. None of these are gamers. they don't even talk about games.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Ornery Owl, on 13 March 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 March 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

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.

Oh I agree that the statistic includes tetris and bloody farmville but I doubt I think that women play those games exclusively to the extent that you might . It should probably be noted that it's is an ESA survey that's published annually, so if the industry are not prepared to ask themselves those questions, why would it be hard to imagine that 50% of the market is being ignored? That market is clearly still buying games, in spite of problems with them, and it's been growing steadily so there's no major monetary incentive to do anything at all.

I am wondering what games you think women don't play? You can go off Dolmen's example if you like, but I'm much more comfortable with my own experience (what with it being mine and all) which involves women playing playing across the spectrum of games and no fucking farmville. Up to 40 percent of MMO players are female (in the US anyway, also shame about the stupid headline.). Places like Fat, Ugly or Slutty show (sans collected data though ) there are women who are playing FPS games like Borderlands and CoD etc etc on a regular basis, and, actually, most of FUoS's submissions are Xbox submissions. FPS probably have the lowest proportion of female players, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a non-significant percentage either. Not that I can find any information either way

In any case, I don't think wanting decent representation can be construed as "pandering to a female audience". I could be misconstruing what you're saying here, but what exactly does this pandering involve? Even if the number of women playing a game is zero, constructing female characters as three dimensional human beings who don't need rescuing, or a rape/rape attempt in their back story to show their strength or whatever the hell it's suppose to show/needing to be rescued _again_, or just having vaguely functional armour in a game that's supposed to be about hitting people with swords is a good thing if only for the fact that it reduces harmful and idiotic messages about women being absorbed by the audience.

Fucking farmville...

I don't think or say that women play only tetris and farmville. I'm saying *if* that 47% of gamers statistic is women playing only tetris and farmville, then there is little economic incentive for studios specializing in action RPGs or FPSs to pander to that audience.

Pander: Gratify or indulge


Meant it in its literal sense. Pandering to a female audience in my context means creating a game that appeals to a female audience and provides the unique aspects they seek in a game by virtue of being female.


Anyway, I wasn't arguing with you or your stance at all, and there may well be a recently-appearing untapped market of girl-gamers that the industry is just slow to recognize. I was just pointing out that "47% of gamers" is a decidedly uninformative statistic when you're trying to relate it back to a company's motivations for/against building a) more balanced games, more female-oriented games, and c) greater depth to female characters in general . The same 3 things that in varying amounts fill in the spectrum D'rek so aptly describes above.

Key in my post is that last sentence.

me said:

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.

Studios will have to get creative in producing games that pander to the extremes AND everywhere in between.

[Silencer]

Are you sure "pander" is the right word, though?

Quote

pan·der
/ˈpandər/
Verb
Gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).
Noun
A pimp.
Synonyms
verb. procure
noun. procurer

Maybe you meant "cater"? Or "appeal"? Pander just seems a bit...demeaning? >.>

[cerveza_fiesta]

Yes, substitute whichever word you prefer.

EDIT,

I get it now. Pander does imply some condescension and is a bit demeaning. It's actually totally appropriate when you're talking about feeding the male appetite for sex objects in games. When you start talking about appealing to the other gender, then your choice of words is certainly more appropriate.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 13 March 2013 - 12:38 PM

[MTS]

As KL said, the representation of women amongst gamers in general is irrelevant for the presentation of women in games. The fact remains that apart from a few notable exceptions women are hyper-sexualised and relegated to the background in the vast majority of games. Even if there were no female audience this is a problem that should be addressed, if only for the fact it presents a harmful image of women.

In any case, I don't think the economic motive is really as important as you claim. When developers are making and marketing a game they make a conscious decision to descend to the lowest common denominator when it comes to depicting women as sex objects. The concept artist draws the character, the project leader ok's it, the animators animate the character and the company markets it. It passes through every stage of development without ever being questioned as a gratuitous portrayal. The Extra Credits video above made a good point that Lara Croft was originally written as a very strong and well-developed character, and played as such in-game. The promotional material hyper-sexualised her however, to the point where she became a tawdry sex symbol for male gamers. In my mind that was an entirely unnecessary step, and it was a conscious one. Yes, they focus group and do market research and all that, but I have a hard time believing that a truly significant portion of gamers would have refused to buy the game because Lara had a normal breast size and wore practical clothing. If it was marketed competently then people would have bought it, plain and simple. Sex sells, sure, and sexualisation is fine in gaming as in all media (as many have noted), but it's the conscious decision to go over the top that is the problem, and developers as a whole need to get past it.

Now, I'm not suggesting that all companies that do this are sexist pricks, for they are surely not - even the Starfox Adventures example, of creating a game with a female protagonist (Krystal) and then switching the lead to Fox McCloud may not have been a decision based on the assumption that a male character would resonate more with the audience, but that making a Star Fox game would generate better sales due to brand recognition, as Ubisoft did with Far Cry 2 and 3.

[Dolmen 2.0]

BalrogLord, on 13 March 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

also relevant but less lenghty.

Both these Videos are exceptionally well thought out.

In the first video I like that the authors boiled it down to two determining traits, while not crossing any boundaries listed in thread, for a successful female character. My mind switches immediately to Glitch from Wreck It Ralph or Merida from Brave. I, as a male, could still Identify closely with both women because the struggles they face stem from a society structure I can understand. Ontop of this and detracting nothing from my male interest both characters revel in being somewhat different but still part of the female gender. nothing about them was inaccessible, nothing about them was made me think any less of them.

D' made a great example of what a better game industry would end up catering for. I personally agree with the outlook that companies have profit margins in their interest at all times thus active investment strategies that help the female gamer market explore more options with less offensive material seems in everyone's interest.

In connection with MTS post above I also think minds need to be changed, particularly minds making key development decisions. I wonder if things like Sarkeesians documentary ever find their way to the eyes of the men, and/or women in charge of taking game development to the next step. There are plenty of female main protagonists that were saved from the hands of sexualized marketing. is it as simple as having a more saturated female workforce in the gaming industry?

This post has been edited by Dolmen+: 13 March 2013 - 04:22 PM

[worry]

MTS, on 13 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Now, I'm not suggesting that all companies that do this are sexist pricks, for they are surely not - even the Starfox Adventures example, of creating a game with a female protagonist (Krystal) and then switching the lead to Fox McCloud may not have been a decision based on the assumption that a male character would resonate more with the audience, but that making a Star Fox game would generate better sales due to brand recognition, as Ubisoft did with Far Cry 2 and 3.

Yah, we can't guess 100% of the motivation (nor should we assume there's only one factor), but we can say that while making it a Starfox title ups its recognition and star power, what the hell were they thinking turning Krystal into a passive, sexualized prize? I'm sure you'd agree that even the unconscious decision to do this, in the midst of a business decision to make it a Starfox title, is unfortunate (to put it mildly). Point being, one can be cognizant of all the factors that go into making a game (or a movie, or any other highly bureaucratic art-meets-commerce format) without letting the problematic stuff off the hook. (BTW, I'm not arguing this as if it's the opposite of what you said, just a springboard).

And I think along with your point about how much it doesn't really matter whether the female audience is there or not (they are there, of course, regardless of individual anecdotes) -- and I don't mean to sound like a broken record -- is that treating the male audience like they all want the same thing is just as problematic.

I haven't watched those two videos yet, but I will today. But to Dolmen's final question, I don't think it's that simple, but I do think it's as simple as starting there. There are some issues there too, even in terms of practicality like disproportionate male presence among jobseekers. But I just read an interesting article about etsy.com, and how 80% of its customers are female yet behind the scenes it was like 95% male engineers. They made a decision to change that from the ground up, and accomplished growing the female proportion by 500% and also just growing the workforce in general (and in the meantime, attracting both highly qualified men and women with this new tactic). Diversity isn't just a pipe dream, it's reasonable, feasible, and indeed, potentially profitable. http://www.fastcolab...amics-workplace

[dietl]

BalrogLord, on 13 March 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

dietl, on 12 March 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

oh dear, i confused normative with positive. I apologise. That's rather embarasing of me. It's a positive statement by virtue of some empirical research (it's from a textbook i disposed of ages ago so can't find sources : )and it's logical foundation. A corporation for example cannot act ethically if it can't even satisfy the requirement of acting according to the word of law. Or put it another way, if a corporation can barely comply with laws will it be in an position to consider the wider, social, ethical ramifications? The answer is no.This claim is pretty evident to me.

I agree with you in a way as I think that laws should be founded on ethics. But that's not always the case. This is not a "logical foundation" but one that depends on this assumption.
But your model doesn't only concern the law-ethics but also the profit. You (and most companies) put profit first not for logical reasons but because you want to. There is no logical reason why this should be the case. There is nothing wrong with companies that put ethics first.

2) that's an incorrect phrasing, if it was to put it in syllogism format, 2 would be )some companies don't have the power to make feminist video games, therefore (*) some companies don't have a moral obligation to create feminist video games

BalrogLord, on 12 March 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

But that can only be ascertained on a case by case basis, so to say that video game companies ahve a social responsbility to feminst is a sweepingly false statement.

So you want to weaken your claim that it would be a "sweepingly false statement". At least you admit that some companies have a social responsibility. Those companies that can afford to risk creating a "feminist game", like every major company in the field! (And by "feminist game" I mean a non-sexist game, because that seems to be a more fitting descrition. "Feminist" has too many negative implications in the view of many people. )

But given this isn't it the case that all companies should make non-sexist games? So the major companies have a moral obligation to do so because they can (as we showed above ;-) [If you don't agree you have to tell me what you meant with (*)]). But the smaller companies should make non-sexist games because there is no financial risk in this. The major companies are good at making the same boring game again and again. The smaller companies can't compete in this "genre", because they can never make boobs look as big as a major one ;-) So the only way for a small company to make any big profit is to make a niche product and hope for its success.
Ergo: Big and small companies should make non-feminist games.
I know this is not a perfect argument but I hope it makes clear that to say that making a non-feminist game is impossible/unreasonable/stupid for companies is ....... a sweepingly false statement!


And your final point, it's a positive theory, used to derive a normative. Example: the fastest way to get from toronto to niagara is to take the 406-QEW-401. therefore If you want to get from niagara to toronto in the shortest amount of time, you ought to take that route.

An argument is normative if at least one sentence in the premises is normative. Your theory is normative trough and through. Every buisness model is normative by definition.
Your example doesn't have a normative conclusion. Just writing 'ought' doesn't make it so. 'Ought' implies that you have a choice concerning your action ("Only if you've the power to affect X can you make the case that you have a moral obligations to X (by virtue of causality)") but in your example you don't. The sentence must be rephrased:
"therefore If you want to get from niagara to toronto in the shortest amount of time, you must take that route."

For in fact you can't not take that route if you want to go the fastest way. And this is positive statement.

This post has been edited by dietl: 13 March 2013 - 10:25 PM

[LinearPhilosopher]

dietl, on 13 March 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 13 March 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

dietl, on 12 March 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

oh dear, i confused normative with positive. I apologise. That's rather embarasing of me. It's a positive statement by virtue of some empirical research (it's from a textbook i disposed of ages ago so can't find sources : )and it's logical foundation. A corporation for example cannot act ethically if it can't even satisfy the requirement of acting according to the word of law. Or put it another way, if a corporation can barely comply with laws will it be in an position to consider the wider, social, ethical ramifications? The answer is no.This claim is pretty evident to me.

I agree with you in a way as I think that laws should be founded on ethics. But that's not always the case. This is not a "logical foundation" but one that depends on this assumption.
But your model doesn't only concern the law-ethics but also the profit. You (and most companies) put profit first not for logical reasons but because you want to. There is no logical reason why this should be the case. There is nothing wrong with companies that put ethics first.

actually there is a logical reason why such is the case. Because with the epception of NPOs the reason an organisation exists is to make profit. Without profit the firm goes bankrupt. Hence profit is the first consideration because without profit, you don't have a company. Now if a company can't make profits without breaking laws there's something wrong here but that's a separate issue.
Milton friedman also made a very good case for this issue :http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html


2) that's an incorrect phrasing, if it was to put it in syllogism format, 2 would be )some companies don't have the power to make feminist video games, therefore (*) some companies don't have a moral obligation to create feminist video games

BalrogLord, on 12 March 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

But that can only be ascertained on a case by case basis, so to say that video game companies ahve a social responsbility to feminst is a sweepingly false statement.

So you want to weaken your claim that it would be a "sweepingly false statement". At least you admit that some companies have a social responsibility. Those companies that can afford to risk creating a "feminist game", like every major company in the field! (And by "feminist game" I mean a non-sexist game, because that seems to be a more fitting descrition. "Feminist" has too many negative implications in the view of many people. )

But given this isn't it the case that all companies should make non-sexist games? So the major companies have a moral obligation to do so because they can (as we showed above ;-) [If you don't agree you have to tell me what you meant with (*)]). But the smaller companies should make non-sexist games because there is no financial risk in this. The major companies are good at making the same boring game again and again. The smaller companies can't compete in this "genre", because they can never make boobs look as big as a major one ;-) So the only way for a small company to make any big profit is to make a niche product and hope for its success.
Ergo: Big and small companies should make non-feminist games.
I know this is not a perfect argument but I hope it makes clear that to say that making a non-feminist game is impossible/unreasonable/stupid for companies is ....... a sweepingly false statement!

i did put the word feminist in italics though it's possible i got lazy. i do agree with your rewording, I'm going to stop you at "like every major company in the field". Do they have the capital to make games absolutely. However a company attains profit from pursuing projects. All projects have varying levels of risk. The thing to be considered is that a company needs profits in the present and the future. Lets for the sake of argument assume a game has to make a decision between game a (chauvinistic video game) and b (feminist video game). Im doing this to help illustrate my point.
Now assuming cost, profitability, risk are all the same and that a and b are mutually exclusive, companies should choose b. They have a moral obligation to do so.
However if those variables change, for example a has a lower risk and higher profitability then they should choose a as they need to make money to survive. The feminist game can wait till another day. I bring cost as a varaible as suppose cost in a constraint, that they only have x amount of money available. They have to prioritize However assuming the company can afford to throw money away then yes absolutely they have a responsbility to society.

This however does not take into consideration their responsbility to owners/debtors which makes this issue even murkier. But for the sake of argument i hope this clarifies my point.

And your final point, it's a positive theory, used to derive a normative. Example: the fastest way to get from toronto to niagara is to take the 406-QEW-401. therefore If you want to get from niagara to toronto in the shortest amount of time, you ought to take that route.

An argument is normative if at least one sentence in the premises is normative. Your theory is normative trough and through. Every buisness model is normative by definition.
Your example doesn't have a normative conclusion. Just writing 'ought' doesn't make it so. 'Ought' implies that you have a choice concerning your action ("Only if you've the power to affect X can you make the case that you have a moral obligations to X (by virtue of causality)") but in your example you don't. The sentence must be rephrased:
"therefore If you want to get from niagara to toronto in the shortest amount of time, you must take that route."

For in fact you can't not take that route if you want to go the fastest way. And this is positive statement.

Efficient market theory and positive accounting theory are positive business models

i'll accept your point on normative for the purposes of this thread. I don't think its really relevant to the topic and we shouldn't get too side tracked. That being said i wouldn't mind pursuing this further in pm if you're ok with it.