The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

e_e

Sin Eater wrote: »

The reaction to the feminist frequency videos goes to show just how immature and misogynist the "gaming" community really is. When Roger Ebert claimed a few years ago that Video Games could never be art, the reaction was actually quite positive, it provoked a lot of discussion, with many people suggesting examples of games that might rate highly as art. Sure there was some negativity, but he wasn't harassed, he wasn't abused, and he certainly wasn't threatened with rape and murder. But a woman dares to make some videos making valid points about sexism video games, and she gets harassed, abused, and threatened.

Yep, the level of absurd nit-picking, straw men and harassment show what an obnoxious "boys only" club so much of the gaming community is.

It's so ironic that the people who think that they are defending the games industry are actually showing the faults and exposing it to criticism further. "Gamers" are their own worst enemy sometimes.

House of Blaze

It's definitely true that there is a sizeable chunk of 'Gamerrrzzz' who are out and out cretins. And sarkeesian does make a lot of good points in her videos. Personally I think she reads a little too much into some of the earlier games (like mario being sexist) but on the whole what she does, and is trying to do is a positive thing for the industry which is being trashed by intellectually stunted, juvenile gobsheens.

But there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between the blanket labeling of games as x or y according to her own beliefs that in my view just doesn't make sense.

I mean if I look at something like the sopranos, which featured a violent, sociopathic, caucasian male criminal who displays backward, regressive, misogynist attitudes and within which, women are routinely treated as window dressing (one of the main locations is strip club), as objects to be controlled / possessed and otherwise brutalised for the sake of the plot and what do I see?

One of the most universally critically acclaimed pieces of television in the past 20 years.

Timmyctc

Sin Eater wrote: »

I'm pretty sickened by the treatment of both Anita Sarkeesian and the other lady.

The feminist frequency video game trope videos are interesting and make some very good points. I do understand that people feel defensive, but even the most hardened gamer has to admit that female characters aren't treated entirely well in the games. Some of her individual examples might be a bit off, for the most part she's quite correct. Even if she was totally wrong, she wouldn't deserve one millionth of the crap that is thrown her way.

The reaction to the feminist frequency videos goes to show just how immature and misogynist the "gaming" community really is. When Roger Ebert claimed a few years ago that Video Games could never be art, the reaction was actually quite positive, it provoked a lot of discussion, with many people suggesting examples of games that might rate highly as art. Sure there was some negativity, but he wasn't harassed, he wasn't abused, and he certainly wasn't threatened with rape and murder. But a woman dares to make some videos making valid points about sexism video games, and she gets harassed, abused, and threatened.

e_e wrote: »

Yep, the level of absurd nit-picking, straw men and harassment show what an obnoxious "boys only" club so much of the gaming community is.

It's so ironic that the people who think that they are defending the games industry are actually showing the faults and exposing it to criticism further. "Gamers" are their own worst enemy sometimes.

I don't understand why people think this is a binary thing. You aren't just "for her or against her" She raises some good points in her series. But that's it. She raises them. As Retro has pointed out a few times she doesn't look at how this effects the industry or how it could be changed etc. She just attacks it. Reactions about anything in the gaming industry should always be taken with a shedload of salt.

Certainly no one deserves the level of abuse the pair have gotten (I've been shouted down countless times on reddit for trying to defend ZQ) But Sarkeesian shouldn't have expected not to get met head on when she took the offensive in the video. The first few videos are stylised as Video Games "Against" women essentially which certainly isn't true. Another reason she gets flak and this I certainly agree with, is that she raised upwards of 100k to "Research these tropes and more" and has done a sub par job. Not even playing the games, using unsolicited "lets play" videos from Youtube. Using graphic designers pictures without asking and the worst, spreading misinformation about games. (Hitman being a big one)

The campaign against Assassins creed (Of which she supports wholeheartedly) was childish and utterly stupid imo. People come along and attack a game already into development complaining that they wont add a female playable character. An actual developer gives them a straight answer. The workload of the team would more than double. There are so many things to factor in. "Altering the actual story of the franchise, coding in mo-capping a female figure. Lines and lines of dialogue, clipping issues, artwork issues and more. All this of a game that is on a strict development schedule. So naturally the line that the 'media' runs with is "LAZY DEVs REFUSE TO ADD FEMALE CHARACTER BECAUSE 'It will double our work'"

She's looking to get Females on parity with males in the gaming world but she treats it as an Us V Them the whole time. Its a caustic attitude imo. I'd add more but I got super dizzy just now and think I'm dying of chinese food poisoning. xx

Remember me

J_E

w

Deleted User wrote: »

I've played Fez and seen Indie Game so I know a little about Phil Fish. An oddball to say the least. Is this just pointless drama yeah?

Absolutely.

To be fair though I think Anita Sarkeesian's videos are interesting to watch. I think it's pointless to point out minute fallacies on her part - we don't do it with any other game theory videos. The level of abuse she is receiving is atrocious and I don't know how anyone could honestly say it's her own fault. Frankly, it makes me embarrassed to call myself a gamer when I see the laddish, sleazy attitude a segment of male gamers have.

Timmyctc wrote:

An actual developer gives them a straight answer.

No, I'm calling BS on that one. The developer got unfairly singled out for the comment but it was a bit of a copout. Surely it's very telling if developers aren't willing to make a female character on the basis of something like animations? If anything, it just shows that it's overshadowed by a male presence.

e_e

House of Blaze wrote: »

I mean if I look at something like the sopranos, which featured a violent, sociopathic, caucasian male criminal who displays backward, regressive, misogynist attitudes and within which, women are routinely treated as window dressing (one of the main locations is strip club), as objects to be controlled / possessed and otherwise brutalised for the sake of the plot and what do I see?

One of the most universally critically acclaimed pieces of television in the past 20 years.

If a feminist wants to do an in-depth critique of The Sopranos I'd say "have at it!" though. Actually it's funny that you bring this up because I do think HBO are guilty of pandering to their audience with completely arbitrary OTT sex and violence. I like The Sopranos a lot but I find that they go back to the same well too often that it becomes a little redundant at times. On the other hand though I can see the case being made for Carmela, Dr Melfi and Meadow being well written female characters too. It at the very least paints a richer and more nuanced world than most games out there.

e_e

Timmyctc wrote: »

I don't understand why people think this is a binary thing. You aren't just "for her or against her" She raises some good points in her series. But that's it. She raises them. As Retro has pointed out a few times she doesn't look at how this effects the industry or how it could be changed etc. She just attacks it. Reactions about anything in the gaming industry should always be taken with a shedload of salt.

I never said it's a binary "you're either on her side or not" though. I'm merely calling out some of the more exaggerated and frankly thoughtless responses to the series which read to me as "outsioder wants to destroy teh games industry!!!!" fear mongering.

Timmyctc wrote: »

She's looking to get Females on parity with males in the gaming world but she treats it as an Us V Them the whole time.

Completely the opposite to me, if anything she's look for solidarity in the gaming community. Her videos never call out anyone in particular or attacking a specific group, at the very mildest all they're asking is that "gamers" be more critical of what they consume which I think is something that is valid for fans of any art form. Yet people still manage to take this as some personal affront.

Potatoeman

e_e wrote: »

Just did. And?

It's just so odd.

e_e

Potatoeman wrote: »

It's just so odd.

Just read like any other comments section to me. The odd reasonable point lost in a sea of ****.

House of Blaze

e_e wrote: »

If a feminist wants to do an in-depth critique of The Sopranos I'd say "have at it!" though. Actually it's funny that you bring this up because I do think HBO are guilty of pandering to their audience with completely arbitrary OTT sex and violence. I like The Sopranos a lot but I find that they go back to the same well too often that it becomes a little redundant at times. On the other hand though I can see the case being made for Carmela, Dr Melfi and Meadow being well written female characters too. It at the very least paints a richer and more nuanced world than most games out there.

Exactly!

It's funny though that for example take hitman, which was called out specifically by sarkeesian for sexism surrounding the ability to murder women.

In absolution, the story is that the main character, imaginatively called 'Mr. 47' is called upon by his employers to kill his former handler, Diana.

Now if you follow the series you'll know that Diana is a far more 'developed' character than is 47. 47 is essentially a killbot whereas Diana is someone in a professional relationship with the emotionless killbot who grows to care about him and others. She displays plenty of agency (it is the exercise of her agency which actually forms the basis of the entire plot).

She:

"suddenly goes rogue, carrying out a catastrophic sabotage that includes publicly exposing the Agency. The Agency reforms under Agent Benjamin Travis; Travis assigns 47 to kill Diana and bring Victoria, a teenage girl in her care, to the Agency.

Shooting and wounding Diana in her home in Chicago, 47, rather than executing her, comforts the dying Diana, who gives him a letter and asks him to keep Victoria safe from the Agency."

So on the one hand we have a reasonably well fleshed out female character who acts of her own free will to effect narrative change, and on the other we have an emotionless genetically engineered killing machine who basically does what he's told for the duration of the game.

And yet because you havethe choice of killing some women in the game (for which you are in fact penalised, albeit in a small way) in addition to the scores of other male enemies / civilians it is deemed as sexist by anita, without any regard to the deeper narrative elements at play in the game.

Timmyctc

Cydoniac wrote: »

w
Absolutely.

To be fair though I think Anita Sarkeesian's videos are interesting to watch. I think it's pointless to point out minute fallacies on her part - we don't do it with any other game theory videos. The level of abuse she is receiving is atrocious and I don't know how anyone could honestly say it's her own fault. Frankly, it makes me embarrassed to call myself a gamer when I see the laddish, sleazy attitude a segment of male gamers have.

Why is it pointless to criticise the critic when what they say is critically incorrect? What was the point of her criticisms if not to stimulate discussions?

No, I'm calling BS on that one. The developer got unfairly singled out for the comment but it was a bit of a copout. Surely it's very telling if developers aren't willing to make a female character on the basis of something like animations? If anything, it just shows that it's overshadowed by a male presence.

You're oversimplifying what the Dev and I just said. If you think adding in a character to a game with the Story already written is a case of just animating a wee character (something that, in itself, is ****ing huge) then you've got some learning to do sunshine.

gizmo

Timmyctc wrote: »

I don't understand why people think this is a binary thing. You aren't just "for her or against her" She raises some good points in her series. But that's it. She raises them. As Retro has pointed out a few times she doesn't look at how this effects the industry or how it could be changed etc. She just attacks it. Reactions about anything in the gaming industry should always be taken with a shedload of salt.

This. A million times this. We've established there's an issue and nothing would please me more than for us to move on to ways in which we can fix it. I've gotten into some rather heated debates on this one where, rather than supporting the idea of female-only game jams or competitive tournaments, I'm of the opinion they could prove counter-productive, fostering an us versus them type attitude in certain circles. Instead, I'd love to see inititives where existing female industry people get involved at various levels of education and show younger generations that there's a very valid and interesting career available to them in technology, not just game development. Hell, how about parents and teachers do it?

It's rather amusing when it takes a company like Verizon to produce a video like this.

Timmyctc wrote: »

Certainly no one deserves the level of abuse the pair have gotten (I've been shouted down countless times on reddit for trying to defend ZQ) But Sarkeesian shouldn't have expected not to get met head on when she took the offensive in the video. The first few videos are stylised as Video Games "Against" women essentially which certainly isn't true. Another reason she gets flak and this I certainly agree with, is that she raised upwards of 100k to "Research these tropes and more" and has done a sub par job. Not even playing the games, using unsolicited "lets play" videos from Youtube. Using graphic designers pictures without asking and the worst, spreading misinformation about games. (Hitman being a big one)

One point on her use of Let's Play videos, I've found the criticism of this amusing since it's a pretty clear cut case of Fair Use, no? Given the nature of the content I'm also not sure she's even obliged to reference every source.

Timmyctc wrote: »

The campaign against Assassins creed (Of which she supports wholeheartedly) was childish and utterly stupid imo. People come along and attack a game already into development complaining that they wont add a female playable character. An actual developer gives them a straight answer. The workload of the team would more than double. There are so many things to factor in. "Altering the actual story of the franchise, coding in mo-capping a female figure. Lines and lines of dialogue, clipping issues, artwork issues and more. All this of a game that is on a strict development schedule. So naturally the line that the 'media' runs with is "LAZY DEVs REFUSE TO ADD FEMALE CHARACTER BECAUSE 'It will double our work'"

This one bugged me. The people quoted were the Creative Director and one of the Level Designers of the project who each said some pretty silly things. There would have been some additional work required for playable female characters but they wouldn't have needed to duplicate the entire animation set. Additional voice acting probably would have ended up being the most expensive addition. The real reason there is no playable female character in the co-op context was, as most are probably now aware, everyone plays as Arno locally while they see the other players as variations of the character. That simply wouldn't have worked if some were female characters.

Timmyctc

gizmo wrote: »

This one bugged me. The people quoted were the Creative Director and one of the Level Designers of the project who each said some pretty silly things. There would have been some additional work required for playable female characters but they wouldn't have needed to duplicate the entire animation set. Additional voice acting probably would have ended up being the most expensive addition. The real reason there is no playable female character in the co-op context was, as most are probably now aware, everyone plays as Arno locally while they see the other players as variations of the character. That simply wouldn't have worked if some were female characters.

On that point. I get that the workload wouldn't have been the biggest thing in the world. But they are already on a deadline. The game actually as is, has been pushed back so its clear they couldn't handle additional work. Source

There are far more implications than the software side though. They can't simply shoehorn a female character in. There would be minor niggling dialogue changes required everywhere. Story changes but subtle and major. I assume there would be minor gameplay changes required somewhere, maybe not. Still. Was a silly campaign.

Clandestine

gizmo wrote: »

You mean this?

No, this:

J_E

Timmyctc wrote: »

Why is it pointless to criticise the critic when what they say is critically incorrect? What was the point of her criticisms if not to stimulate discussions?

It's the type of criticisms made and the things they criticise. Really asinine stuff like 'she wears earrings and lipstick, she's not a real feminist'. There have been some good deconstructions of her videos, mostly from women who aren't desperately trying to claw away at the video and providing a healthy, constructive criticism.

You're oversimplifying what the Dev and I just said. If you think adding in a character to a game with the Story already written is a case of just animating a wee character (something that, in itself, is ****ing huge) then you've got some learning to do sunshine.

Thanks, I know how animation and asset development works, don't need your patronising remarks. So, can you tell me why exactly females are significantly harder to animate or hire in for voiceovers? There's surely not a shortage of actors willing to do it.

BMMachine

Cormac... wrote: »

Has anyone here, be they male or female, or even people you know, actually ever thought "that's sexist" while playing a game?

yes plenty. and plenty of friends who have too, both male and female

Clandestine

Guys, another well known figure was just threatened on twitter!

http://i.imgur.com/CXH9XxN.png

Timmyctc

Cydoniac wrote: »

It's the type of criticisms made and the things they criticise. Really asinine stuff like 'she wears earrings and lipstick, she's not a real feminist'. There have been some good deconstructions of her videos, mostly from women who aren't desperately trying to claw away at the video and providing a healthy, constructive criticism.


Thanks, I know how animation and asset development works, don't need your patronising remarks. So, can you tell me why exactly females are significantly harder to animate or hire in for voiceovers? There's surely not a shortage of actors willing to do it.

They aren't significantly harder. It makes the overall project significantly harder. Its adding in an entirely unplanned set of assets, coding, tasks etc. Changing fundamental parts of the game's story. Dialogue throughout the game will have to be re-recorded to accommodate a female protagonist on top of writing and recording her dialogue. Increasing the budget by an undefined amount. I mean, the game has been delayed without the additional strain of shoehorning a female character in. How do you think
A) adding a Female protagonist would be so damn easy
they would have managed to get the game out on time with the additional demands of the above

J_E

It makes you wonder why it never could have been an option in the first place, although Assassin's Creed doesn't exactly have a record of regarding the majority of women as much more than hostages, whores, mission plots. You can't force a female into a game, but maybe the industry needs to reflect more on why they're in the current situation which to be honest, is sexist, even casually so. I'm pretty sure they could have pulled it off if they wanted. Citing 'too expensive' for an AAA company like Ubisoft? Sure...that must be it.

Timmyctc

Cydoniac wrote: »

It makes you wonder why it never could have been an option in the first place, although Assassin's Creed doesn't exactly have a record of regarding the majority of women as much more than hostages, whores, mission plots. You can't force a female into a game, but maybe the industry needs to reflect more on why they're in the current situation which to be honest, is sexist, even casually so. I'm pretty sure they could have pulled it off if they wanted, honestly. Citing 'too expensive' for an AAA company like Ubisoft? Sure...that must be it.

You're honestly just ignoring the truth and its sad really. The game is about a man and portrays his ancestors through history. Each one is basically another iteration of himself. ( Lots of Females in the ones I've played have been portrayed fairly poorly, not that any character seems to have any sort of personality in the games) Thats an issue you could raise rather than the faux outrage that the devs didnt accomplish an impossible task because some people who don't understand game development demanded it amid false cries of sexism.

Money is one of many issues I listed and the fact the game was delayed showed the devs were not ready for adding to their workload. You realise that these companies don't make games solely for the good of the customer. They make money from it and they aren't just going to exceed budget to shoehorn a character into a game that certainly doesnt fit.

I suppose you'd be 100% behind my upcoming campaign to get Tomb Raider to include a male protagonist in their new game. (I'm not starting the campaign until game is in production though.) They can figure out the logistics of how he fits into the story and all later.

shruikan2553

I've given up with the Anita videos. I expect far better than the crap she has been putting out considering the money she got for them. Its what you would get from some teenage girl who gets 5 views at most.

J_E

Timmyctc wrote: »

I suppose you'd be 100% behind my upcoming campaign to get Tomb Raider to include a male protagonist in their new game. (I'm not starting the campaign until game is in production though.) They can figure out the logistics of how he fits into the story and all later.

That's fairly immature, and I'm going to leave it at that, don't want to descend into a debate over it. Hoping gaming community as a whole grows up though, sometimes feels like being in one giant bedroom living at home with a PS1 reading some tweets online.

Timmyctc

Cydoniac wrote: »

That's fairly immature, and I'm going to leave it at that, don't want to descend into a debate over it. Hoping gaming community as a whole grows up though, sometimes feels like being in one giant bedroom living at home with a PS1 reading some tweets online.

Oh the irony is delicious.

Adamantium

Cydoniac wrote: »

It makes you wonder why it never could have been an option in the first place, although Assassin's Creed doesn't exactly have a record of regarding the majority of women as much more than hostages, whores, mission plots. You can't force a female into a game, but maybe the industry needs to reflect more on why they're in the current situation which to be honest, is sexist, even casually so. I'm pretty sure they could have pulled it off if they wanted. Citing 'too expensive' for an AAA company like Ubisoft? Sure...that must be it.

I wish I could =remmeber the youtube video I watched last week, but a study in 2011 was bandied about that read 53% of gamers are men, 47% of women. This was all over the internet and was seen as a watershed, "Look..Wow whole demographics that developers were ignoring that want to be catered and are not catered to"

What it and games journalists curiously and fatally omitted, didn't even care mention was that almost all of that 47% was women playing two games: Farmville and Candy Crush. Slot machines basically. He then drew up a scatter point graph of where gamers interests lied. There was little to no interest on women's behalf in in Rpgs, shooters, action adventure. They mainly played management type games and casino games.


The inclusion of no female characters to play as in Assassins Creed is an economic one, The market is not there in any any large size because women simply don't care about these games in any significant numbers that would increase business margins/profits, if anything it might well lower them for a market that is not there.

Hell Jade Raymond runs Ubisoft Toronto (a fine example of hard work that Zoe Quinn and Anita wouldn't be let into the same room as her, TRUST an actual games developer), you think her of all people wouldn't have wanted more female characters in AC, if it was marketable to do so?....cos they'd be there, but they're not. She doesn't let her agenda (if she even has any) because it's a business. Most men don't around trying to choke more male characters into rom-coms, because it's not natural to the story or setting been told

How many women do you think were actually running around been badass ninjas in 1700's revolutionary France? :rolleyes:

Women don't play the same games as men, different people like different things. And Thank God for that.

e_e

Timmyctc wrote: »

Oh the irony is delicious.

Repeating what you said earlier = irony?

J_E

Adamantium wrote: »

Women don't play the same games as men, different people like different things. And Thank God for that.

The level of generalisation in that post was pretty weak to be honest, next 5 female friends you meet who play games, ask them what they've been playing, doubt it's all that different. Embarrassing to see men post here so defensively against women. It's a big deal because male gamers choose to make it so, not because of women protesting in droves about it. You'd think they were another species or something, jesus...

I don't consider myself a feminist in the context of which it has been used in mainstream, or in an activist sense, but I can't stand the laddish environment that seems to surround gaming. Why do you think women aren't as visible as gamers? Go to any female Youtube LPer or thereabouts and the comments on the page are usually about what she's wearing or what she looks like rather than what she's playing. It's so embedded now that people can't even see it. It's fairly sad.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/1fqead/why_do_women_seem_to_not_like_video_games_as_much/cacrdr6

e_e

Adamantium wrote: »

The inclusion of no female characters to play as in Assassins Creed is an economic one, The market is not there in any any large size because women simply don't care about these games in any significant numbers that would increase business margins/profits, if anything it might well lower them for a market that is not there.

Only women are able to play games with female characters?

Adamantium wrote: »

Hell Jade Raymond runs Ubisoft Toronto (a fine example of hard work that Zoe Quinn and Anita wouldn't be let into the same room as her, TRUST an actual games developer), you think of her all people wouldn't have wanted more female characters in AC, if it was marketable to do so?....cos they'd be there, but they're not. She doesn't let her agenda (if she even has any) because it's a business. Most men don't around trying to choke more male characters into rom-coms, because it's not natural to the story or setting been told

Sounds to me that you're being an apologist for a lack of ambition and imagination within the industry.

Adamantium wrote: »

How many women do you think were actually running around been badass ninjas in 1700's revolutionary France? :rolleyes:

Yes because the Assassin's Creed games are pure realism. :rolleyes:

Adamantium wrote: »

Women don't play the same games as men, different people like different things. And Thank God for that.

An empty platitude that doesn't discount any of the points being brought up. Why do you continue to act like only women care about stuff like this too?

Potatoeman

Cydoniac wrote: »

It makes you wonder why it never could have been an option in the first place, although Assassin's Creed doesn't exactly have a record of regarding the majority of women as much more than hostages, whores, mission plots. You can't force a female into a game, but maybe the industry needs to reflect more on why they're in the current situation which to be honest, is sexist, even casually so. I'm pretty sure they could have pulled it off if they wanted. Citing 'too expensive' for an AAA company like Ubisoft? Sure...that must be it.

You can enlist men or women as your assassins in brotherhood.

e_e

I think the rom com analogy is surprisingly apt (not in the way you meant though) because it's a genre that far too often panders to a specific gender *ahem* when it doesn't need to much like surprise surprise, many games out there.

gizmo

Cydoniac wrote: »

It makes you wonder why it never could have been an option in the first place, although Assassin's Creed doesn't exactly have a record of regarding the majority of women as much more than hostages, whores, mission plots. You can't force a female into a game, but maybe the industry needs to reflect more on why they're in the current situation which to be honest, is sexist, even casually so. I'm pretty sure they could have pulled it off if they wanted. Citing 'too expensive' for an AAA company like Ubisoft? Sure...that must be it.

As I said above, the argument stemmed from the assumption that there are four males as the leads and not one female in the roster. This argument was fundamentally flawed as, as I already said above, there is only one lead, Arno, whom the local player always plays as. Technically speaking then, a female character would never have been playable. If the argument is that there should have been a female character from the start well that would have required a decent number of design changes and additional resources during development. Personally I'd rather see a game designed from the ground up with a strong female protagonist than be treated to a more homogenised lead character.

On that note, there was Assassin's Creed III: Liberation which stars Aveline, an African-French Assassin. The title was originally released for the Vita but has since been remastered in the AC3 engine and released on the PC, 360 and PS3. While it sold rather well on the Vita it seems to have sunk without a trace upon its re-release which is a pity as it would have been a great opportunity to show Ubisoft there's a definite market for a female-lead mainline entry.

Adamantium wrote: »

Hell Jade Raymond runs Ubisoft Toronto (a fine example of hard work that Zoe Quinn and Anita wouldn't be let into the same room as her, TRUST an actual games developer), you think of her all people wouldn't have wanted more female characters in AC, if it was marketable to do so?....cos they'd be there, but they're not. She doesn't let her agenda (if she even has any) because it's a business. Most men don't around trying to choke more male characters into rom-coms, because it's not natural to the story or setting been told

Raymond only started at Ubisoft on the AC series as a Producer, moving to Executive Producer on Assassins Creed II and following that, off the series. Either way, back then Patrice Désilets would have been calling the shots as Creative Director of the series. But yes, Raymond is a great example of a female in the industry in a fantastic position, now Managing Director at Ubisoft Toronto. Remember what did the rounds during the development of the first instalment of Assassins Creed though?

Adamantium wrote: »

How many women do you think were actually running around been badass ninjas in 1700's revolutionary France? :rolleyes:

Ignoring for a second that Arno is a fictional character, there's the obvious example of Charlotte Corday, an actual female assassin who was executed for the fact. :pac:

Adamantium wrote: »

Women don't play the same games as men, different people like different things. And Thank God for that.

Lots of women do play the same games as men. Here's what happens to a lot of them.

Adamantium

Cydoniac wrote: »

I can't stand the laddish environment that seems to surround gaming. Why do you think women aren't as visible as gamers?

You see there it is, why do games predominately played and enjoyed men have to change, just to cater a tiny and vocal internet demographic that doesn't correlate into actual sales in the real world. You think Jade Raymond and Hideo Kojima are break off in a wild bold direction on the whim of a half a dozen barely heard of internet personalities, jeopardizing and drawing the wrath of shareholders, hundreds of employees. It would be the height of madness and this wouldn't happen in any industry. Throwing away a large portion of the pie for the just the hope of something sweeter, that probably won't even turn up except in another video to criticise yet another equality issue in gaming. Will Anita be there holding Raymond's hand when she has to announce the yearly profits have taken down turn because of her notions, but hey that's ok we've our principles and the love of the internet community, it'll keep us going.

You talk about the number women in LP's but, then say women aren't visible. It has zero to do to with men, enjoy games just like us, nothing is stopping making feminist like overtones in Indie games, the AAA market has no reason to change because of economics of scale

Why do I think women aren't as visible as gamers?

Because women are not interested in the same breadth of genres as men at least the popular ones, so they sort of are not visible because well... they're not. I'm sorry there was more to it.

As long as everybody is enjoying them, and you're clearly an outlier in that you enjoy many of the genres that men do, but that most women I know simply think anything overtly violent is stupid and the like, without looking for the nuances beneath. More power to you.

J_E

Adamantium wrote: »

You talk about the number women in LP's but, then say women aren't visible. It has zero to do to with men, enjoy games just like us, nothing is stopping making feminist like overtones in Indie games, the AAA market has no reason to change because of economics of scale

Why do I think women aren't as visible as gamers?

Because women are not interested in the same breadth of genres as men at least the popular ones, so they sort of are not visible because well... they're not. I'm sorry there was more to it.

As long as everybody is enjoying them, and you're clearly an outlier in that you enjoy many of the genres that men do, but that most women I know simply think anything overtly violent is stupid and the like, without looking for the nuances beneath. More power to you.

This is a sad read. I would hate to be a woman in gaming nowadays. The same attitude is everywhere. It's like Gizmo's post completely flew over your head...

Adamantium wrote: »

Should have stayed in the kitchen
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYoCdiBZp2M#t=20

Stay classy, Adamantium. Maybe you should tell the most women you know to stay in the kitchen too.

BMMachine

Adamantium wrote: »

You see there it is, why do games predominately played and enjoyed men have to change, just to cater a tiny and vocal internet demographic that doesn't correlate into actual sales in the real world. You think Jade Raymond and Hideo Kojima are break off in a wild bold direction on the whim of a half a dozen barely heard of internet personalities, jeopardizing and drawing the wrath of shareholders, hundreds of employees. It would be the height of madness and this wouldn't happen in any industry. Throwing away a large portion of the pie for the just the hope of something sweeter, that probably won't even turn up except in another video to criticise yet another equality issue in gaming. Will Anita be there holding Raymond's hand when she has to announce the yearly profits have taken down turn because of her notions, but hey that's ok we've our principles and the love of the internet community, it'll keep us going.

You talk about the number women in LP's but, then say women aren't visible. It has zero to do to with men, enjoy games just like us, nothing is stopping making feminist like overtones in Indie games, the AAA market has no reason to change because of economics of scale

Why do I think women aren't as visible as gamers?

Because women are not interested in the same breadth of genres as men at least the popular ones, so they sort of are not visible because well... they're not. I'm sorry there was more to it.

As long as everybody is enjoying them, and you're clearly an outlier in that you enjoy many of the genres that men do, but that most women I know simply think anything overtly violent is stupid and the like, without looking for the nuances beneath. More power to you.

Barge pole

Timmyctc

Cydoniac wrote: »

This is a sad read. I would hate to be a woman in gaming nowadays. The same attitude is everywhere. It's like Gizmo's post completely flew over your head...



Stay classy, Adamantium.

Well if the last line is true, and the female gamers he knows aren't interested in what he says then I don't know why its a sad read. He's forwarding his opinion based on his experiences. You don't have to agree. No one does. Nothing anyone says here is absolute (despite what you may think)

J_E

Timmyctc wrote: »

Well if the last line is true, and the female gamers he knows aren't interested in what he says then I don't know why its a sad read. He's forwarding his opinion based on his experiences. You don't have to agree. No one does. Nothing anyone says here is absolute (despite what you may think)

It's a sad read because his attitude is loud and clear, and a quick scan of previous posts made it crystal. Nobody's taking his opinions away from him, but I sure wouldn't want them!

Adamantium

Timmyctc wrote: »

Well if the last line is true, and the female gamers he knows aren't interested in what he says then I don't know why its a sad read. He's forwarding his opinion based on his experiences. You don't have to agree. No one does. Nothing anyone says here is absolute (despite what you may think)

That bolded part, I never said they were gamers, most women I know are not and think games as a whole are a big waste of time, those that are gamers are only really been hardcore into Farmville, Candy Crush and the like and that's fine. But it ain't even close to AAA.


I just don't expect the game developers and shareholders to take notice en masse for something that is not happening on the ground among the mass market.
I don't understand how it could be at all termed misogynist or woman hater or anything like it, when all it is anecdotal evidence and some facts in terms of percentages.

I don't expect people to agree but we're on a gaming forum and we probably tend all heavily biased in our love of games. It is sad how most people won't try something new and intriguing out, but we can't force people to like things because we say so. That's pretty fascistic.

Nintendo is supposed to have broad gender appeal but look:



I read Gizmo's post and I have to add something: the fact is the number of male assassins in 1700's france would have been so small as to be non-existent among the general populace. You can't claim you want complete realism in games/stories and then expect to turn selective when the creators intentions don't match up with the fantasy some people want (and yes I recognise the irony of saying that about an AC game)

Adamantium

Cydoniac wrote: »

Stay classy, Adamantium. Maybe you should tell the most women you know to stay in the kitchen too.

I don't see how a person handling a live grenade and almost killing a crowd of trainee police officers in Brazil has anything to with the relatively calm setting, if somewhat hectic surroundings of a cosmopolitan games developer in Toronto.

I didn't realise the world was so homogenous, thank you for letting me in that secret :rolleyes:

J_E

This just posted this evening!

e_e

e_e

Adamantium wrote: »

I don't expect people to agree but we're on a gaming forum and we probably tend all heavily biased in our love of games. It is sad how most people won't try something new and intriguing out, but we can't force people to like things because we say so. That's pretty fascistic.

I loathe this attitude so much. It suggests that making money is the most honorable thing to do and that insecure, narrow-minded idiots should be the ones who have the final word on how games should be. Arguing against a problematic status quo is NOT fascistic, if anything it's the current state of gaming that is more so especially with the bitterly entitled attitude of so many "gamers" themselves. I mean do I really need to point out once more the disparity in responses to when a girl says something about video games than a guy?

Also just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's free of criticism and that everyone is totally satisfied with it. There's a difference between a lot of spending money on something and thinking it's what's right for the industry. Case in point: I bought Watch Dogs just to see what all the fuss was about, a game with a downright terrible story, characters and some backwards ideas about justice.

gizmo

Adamantium wrote: »

You see there it is, why do games predominately played and enjoyed men have to change, just to cater a tiny and vocal internet demographic that doesn't correlate into actual sales in the real world. You think Jade Raymond and Hideo Kojima are break off in a wild bold direction on the whim of a half a dozen barely heard of internet personalities, jeopardizing and drawing the wrath of shareholders, hundreds of employees. It would be the height of madness and this wouldn't happen in any industry. Throwing away a large portion of the pie for the just the hope of something sweeter, that probably won't even turn up except in another video to criticise yet another equality issue in gaming. Will Anita be there holding Raymond's hand when she has to announce the yearly profits have taken down turn because of her notions, but hey that's ok we've our principles and the love of the internet community, it'll keep us going.

See here's the fundamental flaw in your argument, you don't need to be a female or a feminist to want to see greater diversity, where appropriate, in video game protagonists. Nor do you need to be either to want to see better writing for non-playable females in games or just better representation of females in games in general. You look at "change" in this context as a fundamentally bad thing when it is absolutely not.

Let me come at this argument from a slightly different perspective for a second. Mirrors Edge was one of my favourite games of the last generation. One of the reasons I enjoyed it so much was because rather than playing as the typical gruff protagonist of SquareJaw McGoatee, you played as Faith, a physically capable, independent and not-overly sexualised female. It felt utterly refreshing, probably far more than it should have. Now, as we're all aware, Mirrors Edge wasn't that much of a commercial success for a few reasons. The problem with using your logic, is that you're essentially implying that EA would have lost sales because it starred a woman. This potential scenario says more about the male gaming audience than it does any subversive feminist plot to change games for the worse.

Thankfully I don't think this is the case but, regardless, what these people are asking for isn't for games to "break off in a wild bold direction". What they're asking for is something that will make games more palatable to not just them but to everyone who plays them. I mean did the Bond series suffer when Judi Dench took over as M? Would the Millennium series of novels been better if the protagonist had been a male? Would Terminator 2 have been a better movie if John Connor had just left his mother in hospital?

I mean ****, Ellen Ripley.

Adamantium wrote: »

I read Gizmo's post and I have to add something: the fact is the number of male assassins in 1700's france would have been so small as to be non-existent among the general populace. You can't claim you want complete realism in games/stories and then expect to turn selective when the creators intentions don't match up with the fantasy some people want (and yes I recognise the irony of saying that about an AC game)

Two points here. No one said we want complete realism, that's a complete straw man. You made a joke about there not being many female assassins during that period, I replied with perhaps the most well known. On that note, can you name me one notable male assassin from that period?

Kirby

I can't say I disagree with Adamantium's sentiments here and I feel you are castigating and attacking him for the reality of the situation....something outside his control. You cant will it to be different by attacking him.

If I think of all the people in my own life, most of them play games regularly. I personally know only one woman who games regularly where I know dozens of men.

The simple fact is that like ANY industry, women will see greater representation in gaming when their numbers warrant it. It's a male dominated pastime. That's the reality of the situation and as much as a person may wish it otherwise, its the truth.

Burning Eclipse

Kirby wrote: »

The simple fact is that like ANY industry, women will see greater representation in gaming when their numbers warrant it. It's a male dominated pastime. That's the reality of the situation and as much as a person may wish it otherwise, its the truth.

Just to play devil's advocate here, perhaps if women had a greater representation in gaming, the number interested in gaming would reflect that. It's not a glib comment, but likely a reality. My 12 year old daughter plays games fairly regularly (less than she used to however), but I can see her interest wane because as she gets older, its clear that developers are making games for her male classmates, not her.

e_e

Kirby wrote: »

I can't say I disagree with Adamantium's sentiments here and I feel you are castigating and attacking him for the reality of the situation....something outside his control. You cant will it to be different by attacking him.

But all he's saying is "this is the status quo", it's an utterly irrelevant point when it's the exact thing that many people who play games are against. It's a lackadaisical "this is the way things are, deal with it" argument that silences the conversation. It's also Adamantium speaking on other people's behalf when they clearly feel differently to him. As if everyone who buys the latest AAA title is 100% satisfied with the way gaming is.

mewso

There are several silly arguments here that are getting rather tiring:-

More men play games than women so male protagonist etc. - Tomb Raider for one disproves that so claiming it's a business decision to stick with a male protagonist is weakened somewhat imo and yet I think if a development team decide to make a game with a male protagonist then that is their choice. I don't know if its productive to wail at developers for making this decision instead of asking why they are making it and how we can influence thinking in this area.

Look at the abuse X got when they said something about sexism in games - Most posters have said they don't agree with this behaviour so can we stop throwing it out there as a response to an argument? If we can move past it and treat it like the white noise it is we can start addressing the real problems and somewhere down the line if and when attitudes change these people will be in the minority.

Male gamers treat female gamers with disdain - a la those two lovely cartoons. Maybe there are some immature gamers out there who might treat women like that but I could make some cartoons about male gamers being completely tongue tied in the presence of a girl gamer or one about several teen male gamers trying to chat the girl up. Think up any derivative cartoon to lampoon being a teen in general. It's unfair to level this at some of the posters here if you ask me. Perfectly amusing cartoons. Don't get me wrong.

In so many ways a lot of what folks are saying here on both sides have valid points but to my mind these things are not the real problem. Why are there less female gamers? Why are there less female developers? Does rescuing a princess make me think of women as inferior? Does it make a teenager think of women as inferior? If we work towards encouraging women to play games will that have a more positive effect than attacking developers for not developing with them in mind?

We are at the point now, thanks in part to Anita no matter what you say, where we are aware of the tropes. It's surely time to discuss why they are there, how negative they may or may not be and how to change attitudes where they need to be changed. Forget the trolls please. They are a symptom of a problem. The problem needs to be addressed without any regard to these idiots and they will eventually fade away.

Evade

I had a thought about the whole gaming culture thing this morning. Is it possible it's reached a tipping point of so many people where it's just no longer a thing any more? Billions of people watch movies but there's no movie-goer culture is there?

Penn

Games shouldn't be forced to cater to women.

Games should aim to cater for everyone, without being unnecessarily dismissive or disparaging of any groups of gamers, regardless of how much of a minority they may represent.

nesf

Evade wrote: »

I had a thought about the whole gaming culture thing this morning. Is it possible it's reached a tipping point of so many people where it's just no longer a thing any more? Billions of people watch movies but there's no movie-goer culture is there?

For years it's been argued that the term is meaningless by now. The sub-culture is so fractured and diverse that grouping them together is like tossing Micheal Bay fans in with the Jean Luc Godard enthusiasts into the same box and trying to make generalised comments about them.

Sarky

mewso wrote: »

Look at the abuse X got when they said something about sexism in games - Most posters have said they don't agree with this behaviour so can we stop throwing it out there as a response to an argument? If we can move past it and treat it like the white noise it is we can start addressing the real problems and somewhere down the line if and when attitudes change these people will be in the minority.

Ignoring it won't make it go away. Abusive people need to be called out on their behavior. If you ignore them, minority or not, they'll shout louder than anyone else, and be treated as representative of everyone as a result. This sort of abuse IS a 'real problem', because too many people are just treating it like white noise and not standing up to it. Simply not agreeing with it isn't enough, if it was we'd all have solved it a decade ago. Despicable little sh*ts flinging the kind of abuse they've been flinging are not acceptable, regardless of what this person allegedly said or that person allegedly did, and the rest of us need to actively stand against it because it's not going to sort itself out. Something as simple as a tweet of support to @femfreq will do more to combat sexist f*ckheads than ignoring it.

e_e

mewso wrote: »

Forget the trolls please.

If only it was so simple though. We can't just sweep death/rape threats, harrassment and a general disdain for female voices in gaming under the rug as trolling. That's to ignore the problem, I agree with a lot else of your post but we need to talk about gaming's most rotten aspects to try and come to some solution (if there even is one).

To quote Charlie Brooker: "It's worth examining shit sometimes to see what's wrong with the body as a whole."

e_e

Here's an idea: If "gamers" really see the likes of Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn as a threat to gaming why don't they just ignore them? By continually making a mountain out of a molehill (the irony is they'd level the same arguments to Anita who's approach is very mild and non-confrontational at best) they are exposing the culture of video games to criticism further. The "trolls" (for serious want of a better word) are only validating them further.