Recently, Turtle Rock Studios Creative Director Phil Robb made some comments in an interview with Destructoid where he attempted to address the underrepresentation of female characters in the 4v1 multiplayer shooter, Evolve. Presently, three-fourths of the characters are male (counting the robot, which is referred to as “he”), with women who may as well be palette and gender swaps of their teammates. Maybe one more if you regard the Wraith as a female monster. But no matter how you add them up, male characters are the overwhelming majority.
This discrepancy between the characters’ genders wasn’t a move that was made on purpose, Robb claimed. He remained focused on the fact that the team wanted to "keep all their clothes on" when referring to the women in-game, as if that were truly something that mattered: "We didn't go for the whole Dead or Alive -- there's no boob jiggle or any of that bullshit." He also went on to confirm that he and the rest of the team at Turtle Rock have plenty more character ideas in mind for the future, with "a lot" of female character ideas for possible future DLC installments and more.
That's all well and good, but a keen emphasis on keeping women clothed and "decent" doesn't exactly equate to interesting female characters, and it only reinforces a problem that currently exists within the realm of video game narrative. Female character tropes are simply tired and boring. If you want to resolve the problem of "not enough interesting female characters," you have to get to the root of the problem, and that's challenging the preconceived notions of what's acceptable for female characters and what isn't.
If you've been paying attention, you've likely noticed that there simply aren't enough opportunities for different personality types to shine through. Either the writing simply isn't strong enough, or the writers are trying too hard to channel a certain “vibe” that doesn’t match up with the game itself. We can attempt to wave this notion away with a magic wand that points at Jade from Beyond Good and Evil, the new and "improved" Lara Croft, or (God forbid) Alyx Vance of Half-Life fame as the be-all and end all of what women in games should be, but all of these archetypes eventually boil down into the same boring, homogenous pool. Sure, they question themselves. They’re fighting on the side of “good.” They’re relatively inoffensive and conventionally attractive. That’s all you need, right?
Healers, vixens, cRaZy RaNdOm children, everygirl adventurers -- and our only concern is that there aren't any more cosmetic alterations for character models to make them feminine? Why aren't we worried about how benign and droll Elizabeth of BioShock Infinite is? Why weren't we focused on how Halo had to take the most clichéd route possible with a non-human "female" entity and shoehorn in a love story simply because Cortana took the form of a diminutive woman?
Perhaps it’s because in most cases, we’re just glad to take what we can get. With so many bland archetypes, when something looks even remotely different, we’re immediately interested. But it’s never really different, is it? Female warriors and soldiers usually come cut from the same cloth. When it comes to the battlefield, most female character options are purely cosmetic, devoid of unique personalities to begin with. The ones you can actually play as are few and far between. Aliens: Colonial Marines, despite being universally panned, did feature female soldiers, but neither one of them were particularly interesting or developed as characters. Take Kat from Halo: Reach, whose only distinguishing feature is her cybernetic arm. Other than that, she's practically interchangeable with her teammates, and makes for lazy nod toward gender diversity. It's easy to take roles already reserved for men and paint them differently, render them with a separate set of animations, and call it a day.
The answer isn’t surprising. Nothing really makes them different. Nothing sets them apart from the male commanders and captains from game to game. The male characters are usually the ones tasked with becoming the “chosen one” to lead the world into an age of peace and prosperity or surviving in a world that’s been decimated and left to ruin. They’re featured front and center on game covers and even marketing defaults to the man in the spotlight despite having little or no more importance in the grand scheme of things.
Women in games, as we all know, are tasked with coming to the side of the male hero when he needs a snappy sidekick and a reason to keep fighting. They’re love interests, meek healers who want to patch everyone up, dangerous vixens, and more, but rarely ever the stars of their own stories. And when they are, it’s still disappointing. I can’t say I’ve seen one exemplary female character thus far who I’d call remotely inspiring.
In the case of Evolve, at least, the fact that the female characters are available mainly for cosmetic purposes makes sense. It is, after all, a game that’s light on plot and big on multiplayer carnage. And yet, Left 4 Dead and its sequel still ended up with more engaging women than Evolve could muster, with Zoey and Rochelle seasoned with unique quips and character designs. Still, Evolve is a high-profile release with a hefty amount of press coverage, which invites for these types of questions to be asked.
They might be the wrong kinds of questions at this point, but anything that puts writers, designers, and developers on the path of better representation of both men and women in games is a good one in my estimation. Still, it’s going to take a lot more than a trope overhaul to correct things -- it’s going to take close examination of every game character that’s being written into our favorite stories, and for that we’re going to need a whole other piece entirely. Check back for the next installment, which will examine what’s wrong with character development as a whole, especially when it comes to the bland Everyman heroes gaming is so obsessed with.
-
Brittany Vincent posted a new article, Evolve and the Quandary of Female Characters
-
-
-
-
That's true, Brittany mentions that in the article:
In the case of Evolve, at least, the fact that the female characters are available mainly for cosmetic purposes makes sense. It is, after all, a game that’s light on plot and big on multiplayer carnage. And yet, Left 4 Dead and its sequel still ended up with more engaging women than Evolve could muster, with Zoey and Rochelle seasoned with unique quips and character designs.-
-
Id mostly agree with that. I think compared with Evolve (disclaimer, I havent played much past 3 or 4 hours of beta) L4D's characters and storytelling is much better and fit in nicely alongside the carnage without really getting in the way at all. It felt like the story was all written in subtext, in a good way. Also, I agree that the characters in L4D seemed to get equal uniqueness. Same for Evolve from what I saw.
-
-
-
-
-
im with CRasterImage, I wouldn't call them "generic characters". Their backstories were generic, yes, as in they didn't have detail or a lot of uniqueness, just enough to make it feel like they fit in with the game in the fashion that the developers wanted. I think that's different than calling the whole character generic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other than quantitative representation, isn't that a good thing? I think the representation of women as strong, capable fighters is good.
I would argue that the problem with Halo: Reach's characters aren't that women are badly represented, it's that Halo: Reach's characters, in general, aren't that memorable.
-
-
It's nice to see an article on the shack a little more substantial and thought out than the 'Top 10 BasAss Women in Gaming' (http://www.shacknews.com/article/88274/shack-reels-top-10-badass-women-in-gaming ). Well done :)
-
-
-
Last I heard it's 16% of the US Army are women and they fill 95% of all the available roles (direct combat arms roles like infantry are still currently closed but are starting to open up for officers and schools like Ranger School opening for women). We do have women helicopter pilots including Apache attack helicopters so there are some combat roles women can get in.
In the overall military it's probably close to that same number and composition. There are women who command ships or fly combat aircraft but some jobs are still out of reach (submarines, SEALS, etc) but integration is inevitable. As much as there is push for it by politicians and women groups, there are the same who are against it, including women politicians and women groups.
-
-
I'll have to reread this article, because it says a lot that basically makes me wonder 'What are people looking for when it comes to female characters in games???' You get Jill Valentine, you get the new Lara, you get SAMUS!! You get (this is where I go my personal favorite game characters-not as popular though) Nariko and Kai from Heavenly Sword, you get Jen from Primal (old school, I know), etc, etc...but I feel like I keep seeing these types of articles on gaming sites. Then I think to myself, as a minority, why does it seem like I'm reading all these 'we need better female characters in games' articles, and hardly any 'we need better representations of asians in games' articles (for example)? What does that say about the gaming community? We care enough to post about women, but not minorities? Just sayin.
-
-
-
-
Oh I totally agree with you- but I didn't mean to say the x/y thing. I'm all for talking about this issue, but to me it's just not a good argument because of the minority issue. If I can name all these female lead, or awesome characters, but if you ask me about hispanic characters, for example, the list is shorter, it just seems odd we're talking about the issue that, imo, isn't as big of an issue...am I making sense? I think this article is saying we need better representations of female characters in games. I'm simply saying we need representations (period) of minority characters...but yes, both things need to be addressed.
-
-
There was an article just the other day about the issue of black representation in gaming, and I agree, it's an issue.
But the issues with women, who are fully half the potential (and by recent surveys, actual) audience for gaming, are more prominent now because people are finally starting to talk about and address it.
Given that race relations are, IMO, a good bit behind gender ones in most parts of the world, it doesn't surprise me that race hasn't become a huge issue yet, though I suspect it will as time goes on.-
First off, totally get what you're saying. I've been sitting here trying to think of what bothers me about this article. I guess I think of it like this-this article to me is like complaining about having the worst mansion on the block when there are homeless people congregated on the corner. I mean, I get there are issues to be addressed here, but as part of a completely under represented group I read this article and think to myself...'where's the Mexican Lara Croft? At least you have a Lara Croft!' I mean Lara Croft is HUGE. I certainly appreciate the (black) dude from The Walking Dead games, but I don't even remember his name. But I know Jill Valentine. I know Lara Croft. I know Bayonetta. I know Claire Redfield...these women transcend videogames. They're in anime, comics, movies, etc. How do you have all that and complain about how women are represented, when next to you is a group who is represented by a dude with a chicken in his afro, who dances (DANCES!) before attacking an enemy (FF13)? Give me ONE minority character I can put on the level of Lara Croft, THEN let's talk about how women are represented in gaming. Is that asking too much?
-
-
-
-
Don't worry buddy, itsgwc has you covered on diversity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCGyT5D7U7E -
-
-
-
What is the point of this article?
What kind of non-"cliched" characters would you like to see? An overweight feisty latino female cyborg that shoots churros lasers at the monster?
All of the characters in this game are cliches, a hunter, a tank guy, a dwarf looking guy, generic robot.
I understand the whole "we woman" thing is hot right now for all you bloggers and stuff, but please try to actually put some suggestions of what you'd want to see instead of just complaining about the lack of "cliched" female characters in a shooter with 0 story.
I could say the same about male characters "oh why are there no effeminate asian men in video games that don't sound like they're asian and don't carry katanas? why does everyone have broad chins or huge muscles "
Anyways, trash clickbait opinion piece.
-
-
-
-
I with you on this. Clover is by far my favorite character to play. In fact, the first time I saw her, my first thought was "dude, she has a chin that could break rocks." Nothing about here seemed all that impressive looking, and really she seemed pretty nondescript. And I stopped a realized I think the same thing about normal women I see, and was immediately impressed with their decision. I hope the Bonnie character turns out to be something similar.
-
-
-
-
The article starts out talking about # of female characters. Then ends with:
"In the case of Evolve, at least, the fact that the female characters are available mainly for cosmetic purposes makes sense. It is, after all, a game that’s light on plot and big on multiplayer carnage."
So, I don't know what article you read.
-
-
trash click bait.
if the author had bothered to do 5 minutes of actual research instead of being content declaring what 'should be' ex cathedra she would have found that games with primary female characters SELL FEWER UNITS:
“Using a sample of 399 box art cases from games with ESRB ratings of Teen or Mature released in the US during the period of 2005 through 2010, this study shows that sales were positively related to sexualization of non-central female characters among cases with women present. In contrast, sales were negatively related to the presence of any central female characters (sexualized or non-sexualized) or the presence of female characters without male characters present. These findings suggest there is an economic motive for the marginalization and sexualization of women in video game box art, and that there is greater audience exposure to these stereotypical depictions than to alternative depictions because of their positive relationship to sales.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586322/-
Therefore, the status quo shall remain forever. That is why Flight Simulators and Point-and-Click Adventures are the top selling genres today... (/sarcasm)
While it is a rationale for doing things that way, profitability statistics are is a poor excuse. (plus they is correlative, not causative). Make a great game with a female lead and maybe you will be a taste maker. Maybe you will create a brand like Samus for Metroid. It is a creative industry that floats from trend to trend. Create demand.-
" Make a great game with a female lead and maybe you will be a taste maker."
so who's going to front the cash for a riskier gamble to try and change buying patterns instead of betting on a known quantity? Are there charity investors funding game development & marketing in an attempt to shift people's tastes to achieve demographic diversity goals?-
Usually they just like to be known as investors or even angel investors. Investing is a risk and those who risk more sometimes get the bigger payoff.
Look at it as an untapped demographic even. That study references the number of casual games that have women protagonists is higher if not equal, it is the Teen and Mature games that are not. Also not surprisingly, this is a product area that has a predominantly male base.
Also, to more directly answer you question. Yes, it is called kickstarter. A taste shifting investor platform that, while it has its issues, is in response to the boring low risk investment strategies you think should drive a creative industry.
-
if there is a great big pot of money in the pockets of this "untapped demographic" that can be accessed via kickstarter, shouldn't this be a self correcting problem via entrepreneurial developers pitching projects for crowd funding to this starved audience?
why are people leaving this money on the table when the barrier to throwing up a kickstarter is so low?
and:
"the boring low risk investment strategies you think should drive a creative industry",
NO, I do not thing they SHOULD drive the industry, merely that they DO drive the industry, and to ignore them while trying to wish them away is pointless.-
Because the market is not optimized and humans are not rational actors.
People take convincing as with pieces like this article and only after a change social attitudes will you tap that market. McDonalds existed in the form we know today roughly in the 1960s. It took until 1979 for them to create the happy meal and tap an untapped market.
Money and demand are not like water flowing to gravity.-
"People take convincing as with pieces like this article and only after a change social attitudes will you tap that market."
who needs to be convinced? the investors? the customers?
and things "like this article" will convince them?
what about actual player preference data? such as that showing only 18% of players chose femshep, and that this percentage did not increase from ME2 to ME3? is that indicative of a strong untapped market demand?
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/07/19/bioware-says-18-percent-of-mass-effect-players-choose-female-shepard.aspx
http://www.pcgamer.com/mass-effect-3-infographic/
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
no, I am NOT "asking for... developers to only make games that are derivative,"
the author states:
"Female character tropes are simply tired and boring. If you want to resolve the problem of "not enough interesting female characters," you have to get to the root of the problem, and that's challenging the preconceived notions of what's acceptable for female characters and what isn't."
I agree it is necessary "to get to the root of the problem," however the root is not simply an absence of people "challenging the preconceived notions of what's acceptable for female characters and what isn't", it's because male led games make more money.
Producing yet another article demanding that videogame publishers & developers create games with more female leads 'because they should, damnit', without any consideration of why the economics of the market result in the status quo, as the author did in this post, is worthless.
so I am not "asking" for more derivative games, I am saying that derivative games keep getting made for a reason, and one cannot hope to effectively advocate for changing the status quo if one does not understand why it exists in the first place.-
-
It kinda sounds like you're saying 'do what makes money until the culture changes' without realizing that this is how you change the culture.
You're putting all the responsibility on the nebulous idea of the 'status quo' and none on the people producing content. Seems a little misguided to me, and the links you provide about Lego below seem to suss that out. They very specifically went against their own status quo to create a new product line catering to the female demographic, to seemingly great success.-
"It kinda sounds like you're saying 'do what makes money until the culture changes'"
once again, I am not arguing that people should 'do' this, merely that they will continue to do this.
"You're putting all the responsibility on the nebulous idea of the 'status quo' and none on the people producing content."
what "responsibility" do the "people producing content" have? to who?
why should any of them be expected to risk reduced sales, lower pay, & possible job loss from producing a riskier gender-bending title in the hope that it will be the one to change social attitudes?
-
-
-
"You may not see the profit in making options for characters like FemShep"
1) it doesn't matter if I "see the profit" in it, what matters is if the investors & developers do. I never said there was no reason to have any female characters anywhere, but that the lack of primary characters occurs for a financial reason.
2) there is indeed a profit motive in creating some female characters, because obviously there are some women who buy these titles who make like it, but also because there is a large minority of straight male customers who prefer to look at a female form when playing:
“The researchers found that the men were more than three times as likely as the women to gender-switch (23 percent vs. 7 percent)... Because players see their avatars from a third-person perspective from behind, men are confronted with whether they want to stare at a guy’s butt or a girl’s butt for 20 hours a week. Or as the study authors put it in more academic prose, gender-switching men ‘prefer the esthetics of watching a female avatar form.’”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/13/world_of_warcraft_gender_switching_why_men_choose_female_avatars.html
3) "there are a lot of game companies that are taking the 'because they should, damnit' argument to heart"
the point of the article, I thought, was that there aren't enough of these in the authors opinion, combined with the critique that those that are making a point of including female characters are still often inadequate and engaging in a sort of tokenism - ie, "because they should" isn't getting it done.
(also your invocation of Call of Duty here is amusing: http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/26/7295887/call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-women-combat-warriors )-
It is hilarious how you get the same wording with two different interpretations in your stories.
In the Lego one, men taking third person roles in characters means that they don't need the "avatar" like girls do. Then for this study, men taking third person roles means they would rather objectify women avatars.
The studies don't impress me much. Seems you can take any finding in the difference between men and women and use it to explain how videogames have to be designed one way or another.
I still think the biggest problem with the appeal of videogames to women is cultural condemnation of hardcore videogaming as a hobby in most western cultures. Cultural pushing of girls to play with dolls was more the Lego problem than the actual design of the minifigs (they made their product more like dolls).
-
All these studies are from within the current landscape of videogames, and so I don't think they're very illuminating on this subject.
It's like saying in 1960 that cigarettes are selling like craaaaazy, so obviously that means people like smoking, right? What incentive do companies have to publicize the possible health risks of smoking and face potentially lower profits? People need to stop smoking so much if they want companies to stop marketing them.
#shackanalogies -
"I still think the biggest problem with the appeal of videogames to women is cultural condemnation of hardcore videogaming as a hobby in most western cultures. Cultural pushing of girls to play with dolls was more the Lego problem than the actual design of the minifigs (they made their product more like dolls)."
theoretically, is there any evidence you would accept as convincingly demonstrating that manifest difference in taste preferences, such as that shown for the minifigs, was not socially constructed?-
Newborns raised by robots exposed to Legos as their first toys. Might need fraternal twins of opposite sex to be absolutely certain.
Many child developmental studies are corrupted by the fact that it is unethical to do the blind studies necessary to really know. You just hope that if you do enough cross cultural studies you can eliminate cultural elements. That doesn't always work.-
-
Skimmed that second one since you identified it as key in the comments.
In the methodology they stated that they swapped out lincoln logs because they were not available in the UK, so they wanted something more familiar for the 3-8 year olds. So there was a lot of socialization already occurring. And, it found no difference in CAH boys for attraction to certain toys. Yet supposedly this story shows that an enymze makes girls want to play with dolls. To me, it seemed to show that a lack of this enzyme made forced toy socialization harder.
Certainly not enough to show that men and women are genetically predisposed to enjoy different toys. (apparently the paper makes room for "neutral" toys too).-
"Certainly not enough to show that men and women are genetically predisposed to enjoy different toys"
I'm just going to quote from the thing:
"Because it is generally unethical to manipulate
hormones prenatally in humans, much of the evidence
for hormonal influences on the development
of sex differences in human behavior has come from
investigations of naturally occurring prenatal hormone
abnormalities. Many of these studies have focused
on individuals with the genetic disorder,
classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH),
perhaps because it is the most common cause of
dramatic prenatal hormonal abnormality, occurring
in approximately 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 15,000 live births
in Europe and in the United States (New, 1998).
CAH is an autosomal, recessive disorder that involves
an enzyme deficiency (usually of 21 hydroxylase)
that results in reduced production of cortisol
and overproduction of testosterone and other adrenal
androgens beginning in utero. Because, due to
the enzymatic deficiency, there is too little cortisol to
activate the negative feedback response, the hypothalamus
releases corticotropic releasing hormone.
This in turn causes the pituitary to continue to release
adrenocorticortopic hormone, resulting in
overproduction of steroid hormones. Some of the
precursors that would be converted to cortisol are
instead made into androgen. This overproduction of
androgen continues unless the individual is treated
(Carlson, Obeid, Kanellopoulou, Wilson, & New,
1999). Girls with CAH have elevated levels of
testosterone prenatally (Pang et al., 1980; Wudy,
Dorr, Solleder, Djalali, & Homoki, 1999) and, as a
consequence, are typically born with ambiguous
(virilized) genitalia, involving varying degrees of
labial fusion and clitoral enlargement. They are
usually diagnosed at birth, sex-assigned as girls,
treated postnatally to regulate hormone levels, and
surgically feminized during infancy"
...
"These results suggest that the male-typical toy
preferences of girls with CAH are not caused by parental
encouragement of cross-sex toy choices or discouragement
of sex-typical toy choices. In addition,
patterns of reinforcement of sex-typed toy choices in
unaffected girls and boys are consistent with the actual
choices of the children, whereas this is not the
case among girls with CAH. These findings suggest
that parents attempt to promote female-typical
behavior in their daughters with CAH, and although
this encouragement may produce some effects, it is
not completely successful. In addition, these results
could suggest that prenatal androgen exposure limits
the ability of parental responses to influence some
aspects of sex-typed behavior."
-
Don't see where the quote contradicts me. The study certainly doesn't show that boys are genetically disposed to certain toys.
About girls, maybe it shows that. Maybe it shows that girls are conditioned to like feminine toys and when an enzyme is absent, conditioning those preferences is not possible.
I didn’t really read it closely enough to see how it related to each toy or neutral toys. I don't think you can read it broadly to say that genetically boys and girls are predisposed to like certain toys. At best it suggests that if you go in wanting that conclusion. It suggests that non-CAH girls are genetically disposed to toy choice socialization as well if that was the hypothesis you wanted to support.-
and what about the third study?
"Mirroring the marked sex difference in infant interactions and children’s toy preferences, male monkeys interacted significantly less with plush toys than did female monkeys. By contrast, males and females interacted with wheeled toys comparably, displaying no reliable sex differences. As is the case with sex differences in children’s toy preferences, only male monkeys showed a significant preference for one toy type over the other, preferring wheeled over plush toys. Unlike male monkeys and like girls, female monkeys did not show any reliable preference for either toy type.
...
It is apparent from both Alexander and Hines’ (2002) study and our results, however, that monkey toy preferences, no matter their direction and magnitude are unlikely to result from specific adult socialization or from the formation of gender schemas. Monkeys live in a socially complex world with substantial maternal support, but differential maternal treatment of males and females is limited to maternal retrieval in response to infant distress and physical inspection of their infant’s genitals (Wallen, 2005). Sex differences in maternal treatment do not include preventing their male or female offspring from engaging in opposite-sex typed behavior or in encouraging them to interact with specific objects (Wallen, 2005). While social context certainly affects the developmental environment of males and females, it is unlikely that it determines the basic predisposition to engage in specific patterns of sexually differentiated behavior such as interest in infants or rough and tumble play. In the case of rough play, it is likely that females voluntarily limit their participation, not because males exclude them, but because females don’t find this style of play particularly attractive. Evidence in support of this view comes from female rhesus monkeys prenatally exposed to elevated androgens late in gestation and who look completely anatomically female. Even though they cannot be physically distinguished from females and do not look like juvenile males, they still show male-like levels of rough and tumble play compared to control females (Goy et al., 1988) suggesting that the sexual differentiation of play reflects sex differences in activity preferences and not social constraints on play. Thus we think it unlikely that monkey toy preferences reflect socialization processes, maternal or otherwise. That sex differences in toy preference have been found in two nonhuman primate species, albeit differing in direction and magnitude, demonstrates that such preferences can occur without the necessity of positing any specific socializing influence,, a principle that may also apply to the development of children’s toy preferences. "
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I like where your head is at, Uber, but I think we need to go a little further.
Why don't developers create more games with female protagonists? Because male leads make more money.
Yes, but now we must ask WHY? Why do games with male leads sell better? What makes a female lead more of a financial risk?
This topic does not end in economicsland, we need to take a left at social issuesville. We need to understand the motivations and desires of not just the market, but of the consumers who are shelling out their money.
-
I agree!
perhaps this could be informed by looking at another medium with the opposite trend - publishing:
"It’s no secret that lots of women work in publishing. But just how many more women work in publishing than men? In PW’s recent Salary Survey (Aug. 2) one statistic stuck out: 85% of publishing employees with less than three years of experience are women. So, while everyone knows there are more women than men working in this field, that statistic raises the question: is an almost all-female publishing industry bad for business? Does it matter?"
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/44510-where-the-boys-are-not.html
"Women read more literature than men do,but literary reading
by both groups is declining at significant rates.
■ Only slightly more than one-third of adult American
males now read literature.
■ Reading among women is also declining
significantly, but at a slower rate."
Literary Reading by Gender:
2002 - Men: 37.6%
2002 - Women: 55.1%
http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/RaRExec_0.pdf
why did publishing, which was previously dominated by men, reverse, becoming dominated by women?
why are men fleeing books as a leisure activity more than women?
-
-
"When it comes to fiction, the gender gap is at its widest. Men account for only 20 percent of the fiction market, according to surveys conducted in the U.S., Canada and Britain.
By this measure, "chick-lit" would have to include Hemingway and nearly every other novel"
...
"Theories attempting to explain the "fiction gap" abound. Cognitive psychologists have found that women are more empathetic than men, and possess a greater emotional range—traits that make fiction more appealing to them.
Some experts see the genesis of the "fiction gap" in early childhood. At a young age, girls can sit still for much longer periods of time than boys, says Louann Brizendine, author of The Female Brain.
"Girls have an easier time with reading or written work, and it's not a stretch to extrapolate [that] to adult life," Brizendine says. Indeed, adult women talk more in social settings and use more words than men, she says.
Another theory focuses on "mirror neurons." Located behind the eyebrows, these neurons are activated both when we initiate actions and when we watch those same actions in others. Mirror neurons explain why we recoil when seeing others in pain, or salivate when we see other people eating a gourmet meal. Neuroscientists believe that mirror neurons hold the biological key to empathy.
The research is still in its early stages, but some studies have found that women have more sensitive mirror neurons than men. That might explain why women are drawn to works of fiction, which by definition require the reader to empathize with characters.
"Reading requires incredible patience, and the ability to 'feel into' the characters. That is something women are both more interested in and also better at than men," says Brizendine."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14175229-
Good grief.
This half science stuff. I keep hearing this stuff from my friends with boys in elementary schools. Apparently it is an entire gender unfit for reading and writing. I guess this is payback for centuries of oppressing women.
Why is it that women can point to studies about men in math and can claim it is garbage because culturally girls are dissuaded from math centric careers, but this stuff about boys being genetically predisposed to be anti-literature is celebrated.
Society likes to go through and label things as "for boys" or "for girls." Rather than fighting that, we are looking for genetic reasons that something is predisposed to one or the other. Yay "science."
-
it needs to be added that despite the vastly larger female readership, and majority of female publisher employees, the overall number of prospective authors is majority male, but this differs by genre.
Urban fantasy/paranormal romance, has more female prospective authors than male, and Young Adult genre fiction is dominated by female authors.
http://www.torbooks.co.uk/blog/2013/07/10/sexism-in-genre-publishing-a-publishers-perspective#more-10359= -
-
Not impossible, but environmental conditioning can change protein and enzyme production as we are finding out, so genetics itself is not always determinative either.
You start putting people on a supposedly genetically predefined cultural environment, it may not be more than a self fulfilling prophecy.
Our whole discussion conveniently ignores LGTB as well. By your method we will need to isolate the genes for the enzymes that produce like or dislike of certain products to determine what types of things should be marketed to them.-
"genetics itself is not always determinative either"
you said "predisposed" earlier, which is indeed the point. it's not a light switch for the sum total of one's behavior, but that also doesn't mean every meaningful behavioral difference is purely the result of cultural conditioning.
also, the focus isn't entirely on the particular genetic makeup of the individual, a lot of it appears to result from hormonal exposure during gestation.
"By your method we will need to isolate the genes for the enzymes that produce like or dislike of certain products to determine what types of things should be marketed to them."
what?
that biological factors may influence general behaviors is not at all the same thing as declaring lockstep predictions of specific product preferences for every individual, just that it can lead to distinct trends across populations that could result in meaningfully different consumption patterns and resultant production choices as marketers suss them out over time.
"Our whole discussion conveniently ignores LGTB as well."
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Last time I checked evidence showed homosexuality had biological causes, and I'm not sure how that is relevant here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html-
The LGTB thing just means that we shouldn't really be talking in genitalia here other than for convenience. By your standards it is more about specific gene expression that should be translated into marketing. Granted as you said, that can be done with averages and not the minority exceptions.
Men and women are going to have biological differences. I am not going to deny that, but when it comes to cultural products and trying to explain how we interact with them, eliminating culture from the equation to reduce it to correlation in the chemistry we currently know and then design culture around it...
...it just sounds like a bad idea.-
-
I want to recommend a book called Brain Sex to you both:
http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Sex-Difference-Between-Women/dp/0385311834
talks about gender development from the moment of conception in the womb through adulthood, various experiments and statistics, etc. Good read. -
We have this problem in science and psychology with the Nature vs Nurture debate. It shouldn't be Nature VS Nurture but Nature AND Nurture. They kinda dance together on the dance floor, yes one may be the lead but it is not set in stone.
I agree we should not eliminate one or the other, since it is impossible to properly observe one without the other.
Uber, the publishing post is fascinating! Books, which are seen as a passive medium, has a vastly different demographic than video games, an incredibly interactive medium (barring The Order *BA-DUM-TISH*).
Back in college we read a study about erotica and the differences in consumption between the sexes. Females prefer erotic literature while males prefer erotic videos.
Now this isn't an excuse for me to talk about our preferred perversions, but this is an excellent insight into what vehicle we like to consume our media.-
“Uber, the publishing post is fascinating!”
thanks!
From everything I've read I don't think it's a difference in preference for interactivity per se, rather a difference in how the games are constructed & play out.
There clearly are examples of games that are extremely popular (and profitable) with females, but they look significantly different from those that are extremely popular with males.
http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/kim-kardashian-game-mints-glu-mobile-43-million-in-three-months-1201352883/
I was dead serious about the Lego example, but I guess I need to specifically focus on what I find important about it – the difference between the boy's preference for linear progression, objective criteria of completion (picture on the box), & display of mastery; and the girl's preference for rearrangement, and self-directed storytelling:
“We asked an 11-year-old German boy, ‘what is your favorite possession?’ And he pointed to his shoes. But it wasn’t the brand of shoe that made them special,” says Holm, who heads up the Lego Concept Lab, its internal skunkworks. “When we asked him why these were so important to him, he showed us how they were worn on the side and bottom, and explained that his friends could tell from how they were worn down that he had mastered a certain style of riding, even a specific trick.”
The skate maneuvers had taken hours and hours to perfect, defying the consensus that modern kids don’t have the attention span to stick with painstaking challenges, especially during playtime. To compete with the plug-and-play quality of computer games, Lego had been dumbing down its building sets, aiming for faster “builds” and instant gratification. From the German skateboarder onward, Lego saw it had drawn the wrong lessons from computer games. Instead of focusing on their immediacy, the company now noticed how kids responded to the scoring, ranking, and levels of play—opportunities to demonstrate mastery.
…
Lego confirmed that girls favor role-play, but they also love to build—just not the same way as boys. Whereas boys tend to be “linear”—building rapidly, even against the clock, to finish a kit so it looks just like what’s on the box—girls prefer “stops along the way,” and to begin storytelling and rearranging. Lego has bagged the pieces in Lego Friends boxes so that girls can begin playing various scenarios without finishing the whole model.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/lego-is-for-girls-12142011.html
a Call-of-Duty-like prestige system that has been employed by dozens of multilayer games seems wonderfully designed to appeal to (and profitably exploit) the identified male preferences for displays of master & linear progression against an objective standard; but it provides nothing for girls that enjoy “stops along the way,” to engage in “storytelling and rearranging” of the toy's pieces. In fact it seems flatly at odds with it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is the actual intent to marginalize anyone though? I think there's room for all of it--I mean I would prefer to see the highly-sexualized stuff reduced to a minority, but if you look at all other kinds of media, it never really goes away. If there's a way to make money by creating more games that are gender-neutral or more female-friendly, and I'm certain there is, then we'll see it come to pass.
I guess that ultimately the intent doesn't matter if the end result is some sort of marginalization. :( I guess I don't know what the answer is.-
-
" And it's important to understand what that study is actually saying vs how people want to interpret it to reinforce their own biases."
man, it sure would be great to actually get a nuanced examination of the study & broader market trends in, say, the body of a well researched article on gender roles published on an independent video game news site.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The characters in Evolve & Halo Reach could have been replaced by a talking sack of potatoes and nothing of substance have been lost.
I think that's what's "upsetting" people - by claiming the female characters are bad in these games it's implying the male characters are good or even tolerable, when it reality all of the characters in these games were equally shitty.
-
-
-
It's easy to take roles already reserved for men and paint them differently, render them with a separate set of animations, and call it a day.
I don't get it. Isn't that the definition of gender equality? They do all the exact same stuff, get treated the exact same way, except they're a different gender? To me this sounds like "I want to be treated differently, but don't treat me differently". I'm not trying to be an ass; I genuinely don't understand the intent of this complaint.-
-
-
So the author is complaining that female characters are being given toxic masculinity because the designers are too lazy to give them toxic femininity?
If we're treating genders equally, then when we're handed two skins of the same role we shouldn't be able to tell which gender it was originally designed for. I mean, if you start with the assumption that soldiers are supposed to be males, and that a female soldier must be a clone of a male because you can't tell the difference (other than the skin), then that's just starting with a bad assumption.
-
-
-
Articles like this really brings out the Toxic Masculinity amongst shackers
http://chattypics.com/files/iPhoneUpload_6fqg4skupt.jpg -
-
I got caught up in a discussion above, but I concur that this article certainly doesn't deal with my perception of characters. For example, Elizabeth from Binfinite (requires spoilers).
I definitely had a few eyerolls with Elizabeth. When they had her cut her hair and rip her shirt for little reason it seemed like contextless objectification. But with the reveal that she was your daughter, it seemed almost like the developers wanted to trick you into objectifying incestuously? Then she killed you after you agreed to it. You were also shown that she would rain death on everyone based on your example if you did not do something about your fatherly relationship to her. In fact, there is actually little about Booker that matters outside the context of Elizabeth. So other than being stereotypically drawn to be attractive with obtusely large eyes, it didn't seem like she was safe an bland at all. Perhaps disturbing and revealing of the objectification of women in games in a meta design way, but not bland.
I also think that you ignore pretty much every female character (NPC or not) in Borderlands to make this assessment stick. They even manage some odd and not attractive NPC women. -
-
-
-
-
Nice article! It's good to see something with some depth, even if not everyone will agree with it; hell, especially because not everyone will agree with it. It could be criticized as not adding anything new to the discussion about women in games that has been going on for quite some time already, but I think another perspective from a woman who games has value; certainly more than a top ten list or something.
I look forward to the next installment, although the teaser about it suggests it probably should've been first. I'd imagine that a lot of the issues that people in this thread are bringing up are going to be addressed there, anyway. Most characters in games just aren't that well written, period. The past few years have been great for the indie development scene, but most games--especially AAA titles--revolve around killing shit and not dying. There's a basic lack of creativity there.
I'm curious if you think MMOs do characters well. Any critique you could level there against female characters could also be made about male characters. Gnome women in WoW, for instance, are not really sexualized at all (even if they are "cute", just like the male characters). Tauren women are the same way. In EverQuest, Trolls and Ogres were both equally hideous whether you played a male or a female. But really, these games offer all kinds of options for you to create your own character, to explore the world and write your own story.
Oh, and this is super pedantic, but it reads like someone hit the thesaurus a little too hard with "pithy" being used to mean "small" in that introductory paragraph. I imagine that this article is going to get rolled in to the women-in-games discussion and be read more than the usual shack article, so it might be worth changing it to something less awkward. -
This may surprise some of you if you've seen my posts in the past supporting feminism, gender representation, etc. (but it really shouldn't since like anyone, I'm open to a wide variety of perspectives and opinions) but that being said, my first response after reading the article is... wait, what? o_O
First, I FULLY AGREE that the representation of women in games is generally low and limited; even when there are multiple or even many women in a game, they tend to suffer same-face syndrome or have very similar bodies (identical in some cases, but virtually always modelesque). The women in Evolve have a bit of the body similarity thing going on (even the Wraith, who has feminine curves, very H.R. Giger).
But secondly, I am hard-pressed to see Evolve as an effective example of this systemic problem. This comment about Evolve's female characters: "with women who may as well be palette and gender swaps of their teammates" baffles me: there is no character in Evolve like Maggie, not cosmetically and certainly not with the same back story. Val feels a little like a Calhoun from Wreck-It Ralph, I suppose... and Caira is a little boring. But each of them, including Wraith, is quite unique when compared to the male characters, in personality and skills and story and gameplay and so on. The claim that they are merely cosmetic shifts is... very confusing to me.
Third, I was also confused by the comment: "He remained focused on the fact that the team wanted to "keep all their clothes on" when referring to the women in-game, as if that were truly something that mattered" On one hand, I understand your point on how efforts to maintaining some perspective of 'perceived decency' certainly doesn't make up for poor character writing and design, but to imply it doesn't matter, when there's so much overt sexualization in games, I thought it was refreshing to be see female heroes dressed practically (but yeah, about Val... it's unlikely that a skin-tight jumpsuit is standard-issue CIG9 apparel).
So fourth, I'm not going to argue that 'everything's fine' with Evolve because I think we can always strive to improve. I'm disappointed to hear about how we didn't get Nikola, because Markov and Hyde don't feel that different to me... but that being said, I don't want Markov to go anywhere. I love that crazy Martian. I'm already hoping the new Hunter DLC adds more female characters, maybe even Nikola herself (but like all DLC, I wish it could have been in the original game). I'm just not convinced it should be the focus of the argument.
Lastly, I likely agree with the rest of the article. I'm at work and I'm sorry to say that I skimmed the parts that read as rhetorical arguments I already agree with: the problem with female characters as bland archetypes, lazy or stereotypical writing around female characters, and so on. I'll read it more closely when I'm not at work in case there's anything I can add. Leading with critique of Evolve that I don't think was very accurate really distracted me from the greater points of the article. Even though I think I got (and agree) with the gist in the end, I think it was a misstep that confused and even angered others who read it.
All the same, thanks for writing the article and tackling the issue. We definitely need discussion about it, even when it means critiquing games we love.
I love Evolve. -
-
-
-
-
as a side note, and i've noticed this for a long time and suspect it's true for others here as well, to me Chatty feels a bit "hivemined-ish" to the point where i can read most comments and it not wonder who wrote it, it just seems to fit as a response i would expect from The Chatty especially when i read a five or six line subthread of coherent reponses and jokes, as if they were all written by two people back and forth, but then I see that each one was a different author and i never would've guessed!
This relates to the article in question because I think maybe most of us didnt see the new author name, we just think of it as written by the Shacknews Hive-mind(tm) and react as if there's been a back-and-forth, a repertoire if you will, for years now. As if the author would be used to this from us.
i dunno if that makes sense, but i think it's fun and interesting to think about. People on the internet dont have faces but maybe if we pretend they do we could include more "constructive" in our "criticism"
-
-
Not to throw more fuel on the fire, but honestly at worst this does read like click bait, at best it seems poorly researched. There are better choices of games to poke at for this issue than Evolve. But I imagine Evolve was picked because it's new... well that's fine but then make the article about something else about Evolve.
Sure, there aren't an equal number of females and males in Evolve, but it's better off than many other games from the last decade.
Sure, the characters aren't super interesting in Evolve, but they're not supposed to be. They're supposed to have just enough flavor to give a little flair and styling, and then leave the the player alone.
Also, it seemed like many of the example you listed of (relatively) major female charaacters "not being interesting enough" were actually great characters, some of the best in gaming. Alyx Vance, for my money, is one of the best written characters in any game I've played. I'd argue Karan Sjet is a major character in the Homeworld series even though the player barely sees her, but that's OK because it's an RTS. The fact that I still remember her is partly due to Homeworld being a great game overall, but I think is more to do with her admittedly brief story was engaging and interesting. In fact it's impressive how interested they got people in that story (and for me the character of Karan Sjet) considering you get it all from about 5 minutes of intro cinematic.
The argument that these female characters aren't interesting enough falls flat when you really compare them to male characters. Who remembers the lead character to any Battlefield or CoD game? Who cares? Maybe we'd remember them more if the lead was female (and reasonable well done as a character). A female lead in the next Battlefield game, with the best writing they've ever done (not a high bar), and some respect for the character (no bikini), could very well get people to actually care a little bit about a Battlefield protagonist. They'd have to be careful because the internet is watching, but it could be done. And I dont think it would be that much of a financial risk.
I nearly forgot Samus Aran. When the game was released everyone assumed she was male until they got the right ending. Nowadays of course we all know she's female because the internet. And peole love her, maybe a little b it because she's female, but mostly because she's awesome, and her games are awesome.
Battlefield or CoD should make the next player character female and not tell anyone, they just have to find out when the game starts, or maybe switch to a female PC like after the tutorial or a few levels in. Emily Blunt's character in Edge of Tomorrow seems like she would be great for an Advanced Warfare CoD game (disclaimer: i havent seen it).
ok... im done rambling -
-
-
-
-
-
-
i havent gone to bluesnews much, but i think i understand what you mean. I dont mind link news at all. in fact i used to read the news page here because i liked it like that. i wanted to know what interesting stuff was going on in games, i didnt care who wrote what i just wanted to know what it was. nowadays i get all that from chatty posts.
meanwhile the news page posts the simplest of the simplest guide articles for games that just came out (which id rather go to gamefaqs or google for) or top # lists that i could care less about. either that or poorly done opinion pieces. exactly what i would call click bait.
not all of it's bad, but i find myself reading far less off the news page than i used to. speaking of wich what happened to the sales roundups?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I don't think the article made strong arguments either. But I do agree with where the article was heading. Claiming that the article exists only to draw hits, is the fallback position of any person who disagrees with an article. Right now, there are people who think that Bill O'Rielly was untruthful in his reporting of the conflict in south america. Therefor, any article about the subject is just seking clicks.
It is sort of the default argument. "I don't like what you are saying, so I will claim you are a bad person for saying it."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-