Slashdot Mirror
Genderplay in Videogames
thenovacrisis writes "Game Girl Advance has an interesting article about the various female characters in videogames. She talks about the important balance between alienation and identification, the Aesthetics of Sexy Girls, and various MMORPGs. An interesting read for all." A lot of games are compared, and issues raised. Good food for thought for character design.
Metriod. Samus is both a complete badass and sexy to boot.
Has anyone else noticed that everyone in videogames is idealized? Men are all super muscular or pretty boys, girls are all tall and big breated. Videogames are meant to be an escape, not a acurate depiction of life, that is boring.
Looking through this article, I find myself wondering exactly what is going on that this is the first major posting such as this that I've seen. (Or maybe I'm not looking in the right places.)
Of course, games are generally a reflection of what the public demands, but have they also conditioned the public to expect sexy vixen heroines?
Another thing I find interesting is the inclusion of playing crossgender. I tend to do this simply because it helps me learn interaction skills on the other end and thereby get a better play experience all around.
The suggestion towards the end "Set up some rules and let the players play with both the gamespace and the genderspace, however they wish. Don't push girls away from games like Tomb Raider just because you're afraid boys won't like to identify with Lara. Don't insert gratuitous sex - or for that matter, violence. Make it *mean* something. Don't bind gender with too many built-in characteristics, but let girls be girls in your game. Allow a lot of different types of female characters, not just thin, pretty, busty ones." is a great one, and something I think might be incorporated into future RPGs and MMORPGs.
Ba.
Okay. First, I've read both articles and found both to be quite good reads. The Rez Vibrator article was great. The thing has no real obvious applicable shape other than what she did with it. It's like the company said: 'don't waste time on design, their stoners. They'll figure some crazy way to use it.' I don't think the article was any more than a that: an article. It wasn't exploiting the authors sexuality for hits or money.
Second, the genderspace article is NOT screaming in a neo-feminist way for 'equality'. It's simply making what I see as a very good statement about the assumptions and generalizations withing the industries character design. She is not shying away from T&A games, she is simply saying 'hey, girls play games now to, why not some good girl characters that alienate us less?'. She even likes the idea of DOA, it just doesn't appeal to her.
But, you could have RTFA.
Instead you chose to feel emasculated. I think that says WAY more about you than the issue of 'equality'.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
Jeez. I thought the /. crowd was supposed to be a bit intellectual, but most of the posts I've read about this thus far are mostly knee-jerk, anti-PC, mysogony.
The article isn't claiming that she feels victimized or 'whining' about the portrayal of the female body. It's actually quite good, IF you're capable of turning off your 'the world hates me for being a white, middle-class, male' alarms. Show some dignity and don't have a hissy-fit over a woman commenting on gender in games.
Getting to her final comments I think she has some well formed points, and I agree whole-heartedly:
"I don't want to see a shelf of pink boxes of "girl games". I just want to see better games in general - games which are more thoughtful, more provocative, more interesting, with better character design.
Something you hear over and over again in the research around what girls want out of games are themes like "open-ended" and "less-goal oriented" and "co-operative play". These are also the themes which most adult gamers seem to want, too. Talking with my friends who are game developers and designers, they don't want to see bouncy boobs, necessarily (although there's a place for that, sure); they want evolved gameplay, emergent gameplay - with great characters. Set up some rules and let the players play with both the gamespace and the genderspace, however they wish. Don't push girls away from games like Tomb Raider just because you're afraid boys won't like to identify with Lara. Don't insert gratuitous sex - or for that matter, violence. Make it *mean* something. Don't bind gender with too many built-in characteristics, but let girls be girls in your game. Allow a lot of different types of female characters, not just thin, pretty, busty ones.
The end result isn't just going to appeal to women, it'll appeal to a lot of people across the board who want smart, fun, engaging games."
Anyone who likes games can relate. This isn't femi-nazi rhetoric, so allow yourself to ponder it a bit before being a reactionary.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
A lot of people don't know about games like The Longest Journey.
And personally, I've never heard of Syberia.
The bikini-girl games are the ones that get a lot of press. TLJ, I never would have heard of if a guy at work hadn't had it and offered to let me borrow it.
Here's a novel idea, though.
Women are not sexual tools. They are, however, sexual. Every portrayal of a woman doesn't have to deliberately throw that away in order to be 'serious'. Which seems to have been part of the upshot of the article--it's not inherently evil that these things happen. There just needs to be an awareness that women are people. That even incredibly model-gorgeous women are people.
Okay, granted, I'm not one of them myself. I wear glasses and a size 15. I have hips. I even kinda like my hips. And what the gaming companies may eventually get is that there are women *like* me out there who'd pay through the nose for a character who was strong, deep, and not in the least bit asexual.
The thing about being a woman is that a woman is not somehow gendered but sexless. Trying to insist that we *should* be is no better than saying we should be sexy but mindless.
First, it's been brought up that Duke Nukem, with it's tight-shirted muscle man didn't offend guys the way Tomb Raider offended some women. However, Tomb Raider didn't present the option of paying male strippers. For that matter, you spend all of Tomb Raider starring at Lara read end, while you spend Duke Nukem starring at Duke's boot.
Next, on the whole issue of out-of-place sexuality in games, just think how many gamers were pissed by the Hot tub scene at the Honey Bee in Midgar in Final Fantasy VII. If it had been hot chicks in skimpy swim wear we probably wouldn't have heard as many complaints, but the instant male gamers are forced to deal with a hyper-sexed male game character, they freak.
On the whole issue that people go to games for fantasy, and expect fantasy style characters, I find mostly plausible. However, it breaks my suspension of disbelief when my knight's armor offers as much protection as my female assasin's bikini. Also, when you read classic (aka. good) fantasy and mythology, you don't find hot chicks, you get beautiful women. Helen of Troy didn't have the 'Ass that Launched a Thousand Ships'. Odysseus' Penelope kept well clothed. Tolkein's Arwen could sleep on her stomach. You can still have attractive female character, just try and follow the rules of human anatomy.
Finally, the comments that 'Teenage Males are the video game market' is absolute heresy, considering how many anime fans Slashdot has. You know how the cycle works:
- American Business declares that American's don't like Anime, so they put out a lousy translations with bad voice actors.
- People get pissed by the bad translation and voice acting and don't buy the video.
- Sales come in slow and American Business declares that American's don't like Anime.
Teenage males buy the games because the games are oriented towards teenage males.Having played both genders in Everquest, I have not found this to be true in the slightest. One of my main characters was a female cleric, which I role-played as the aloof, matronly high elf that seemed to fit a "priestess of Mother Tunare", and did not reveal my real-life gender to the other players. With that character, I formed many parties and led them into many adventures. Nobody ever questioned that "she" was in charge.
I can't help but think that the easy authority that the woman who wrote the article found when playing male characters had much more to do with how playing the male avitar influenced her attitude and behavior than anything else. She logged in with the expectation "I'm presenting as a male now, so they will respect my opinions more," and the resulting confidence resulted in a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The problems with the treatment of women in the game industry aren't new - the work environment for women at Atari was said to be worse than most auto body shops. If you've ever been to E3, it's humiliating - humiliating for me as a man, who doesn't need to have my libido pandered to in order to get me interested in a game (and who generally doesn't expect his libido to inform most of his other activities except, you know, sex.) To see all those bored models dressed in skimpy costumes is just a way of saying "we're an industry and culture completely dominated by the fantasies of frustrated adolescent boys! Don't take us seriously! And girls, just stand there so we can look at you!" It's a horrible, depressing message. It's no wonder that women don't go into the gaming-room, the entire gaming culture has essentially been hostile (and, yes, being the object of constant sexual and romantic attention is hostile, in its way) to women from the get-go.
I have nothing against a little pandering in its sector. If you go to a video store, there's an adult section. But it's not like the entire display rack is filled with bikini models. Pandering to sex drives should be a niche market, not a dominant theme.
If you can get past the comment about "phallic joysticks" (patently ridiculous, supposedly a joke, but didn't apppear to be) you're doing better than i did at first. Saying things like that shows a heavy bent towards a priapic mindset or a staggering lack of understanding of both history (of flight control sticks and video games) and ergonomics.
.. because I don't know if they did.
It gets worse further on, though. The writer states about Tomb Raider: "I never played this game" and then goes on to say "Eidos, you really blew it - you alienated all the girls who would have *loved* this game." Excuse me, but how do you know? You never played it, remember? Maybe the gameplay wouldn't even have been of the sort that girls enjoy? I've never played Tomb Raider either, so I certainly won't bash Eidos for "blowing it" in any aspect of its gameplay
Following along she makes a good point about the DOA Volleyball game, but then blows it with a rant about a barmaid in Baldur's Gate. Okay, I don't know about you... but when I play some game with medieval feel I expect my barmaids (wenches) to be ditzy, busty, and generally exactly like the description she gives. It sounds like a perfect fit in that kind of game to me. Guess what, sluts and whores are real and they are a part of the collective group of women on this planet no matter how embarassed you might be about it.
Also, who the hell is "Justin"? I have a hard time taking an article seriously when the writer talks about random third parties without any introduction. (I do know who Justin is from reading other stories on the site, but I might as well not from the article. it's bad writing.)
Moving along I see another thing which frustrates me. She makes a comment about the genderless trolls of Tolkien's world and how they are "inherently male." Okay, fine, let's say I take that at face value (I don't, if something is genderless than it is genderless). Then she goes on to say that she "would like to see more experimentation with genderless or gender-ambivalent characters" Well, which is it? Pick one, please.
Okay, other than that she doesn't trip up. However, I have another major gripe with this article and another point which keeps me from taking it seriously. She never mentions the "male stereotype" that is just as easy to find in videogames. Main characters are always buff and bronzed, always fighting their way through situations. Very rarely if ever will you find a male protagonist in a videogame who is a scrawny 5'2" pasty-faced kid with glasses. Or a chubby awkward boy. The main characters as adults and children are idyllic, and anything that diverts from the stereotypical perfection is villainous or sinister (evil genius plotting destruction) or comic relief (fat person struggling to keep up, always wanting to eat).
She really blows it here. Instead of taking the issue of female stereotyping and the overall shallowness of most videogames (I agree with her) and using it as representative of the greater problems with the total lack of realism and sensibility she totally ignores every other slight to every other class of people because, in typical human fashion, she portrays the injustices as directed primarily at her chosen group of identification. It's a very human thing to do, but also extremely frustrating for someone trying to find some subjective analysis and critique where it is sorely needed.
At any rate, if she had just been up front about wanting some more intelligent, realistic, and more engaging games to go with the testosterone infused ones I think this article would have read much better. However she didn't, and the article (and her cred) suffers because she attempted to take a good point and emphasize it with good evidence (ample in the world of gaming) but instead beat it into the ground with some bad examples and a terribly shallow view. It's a definite shame.
you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
"Pandering to sex drives" is a dominant theme in everything in western culture. Its perhaps done in a slightly 'classier' fashion than the game industry in most other cases, but only marginally so, and in fact the more I think about it, not at all. Just look around. Look at a typical magazine section in a store. Almost all of the womens' magazines (e.g. Cosmo, Femina etc) feature sexy, photoshopped women wearing almost nothing. And so do almost all of the (adult) mens magazines (FHM, GQ) etc. So do the magazines for teenage girls. So do the magazines for bikers. So do the porn mags (of course). So do the photography magazines. So do the frikkin comics! Look at television and movies - most of the shows are full of sexy women, and many of the shows don't even try to pretend that they're not just displaying sexy women to attract viewers. Yes, go into a video store and really take a look, you will find that MANY of the non-adult shows are flaunting beautiful women (and NOT just the obvious movies like Blue Crush). Look at the music industry, almost all our female stars are damn sexy. Look at their music videos, they all have to dance around wearing practically nothing, grabbing and touching their breasts and genitals and writhing sexily. Even trade shows in other industries (e.g. mining/defence) have their "booth babes" - some shows may do it slightly classier than others, but a booth babe is a booth babe. No matter how classy she is dressed, you know she is only there for one reason (and its not for her knowledge about the mining or defence industries).
Everybody does this, EVERYWHERE in society, and nobody sees it as out of the ordinary, having long discussions about it on sites like /. In fact, the field of computer games stands out as being quite singular in the fact that people do see it as something unusual (and in some cases see it "as a problem", like this website).
People still seem somehow awed by the idea of sexy women in computer games. Get over it, the whole of western culture is fascinated by boobies. To make a fuss over the fact that this would apply to computer games too just seems prudish (and thus a bit immature) to me. Think about this, does society consider mags like GQ "immature"? No? Then why are tits in computer games considered "immature"?