After giving it some thought, I've decided to impose some moderation on this thread.

Here's the rules:

* You can talk about anything to do with the original post - primarily Sarkeesian's list

* Anything involving game design is fine

* Anything touching on gender issues (and possibly other similar issues) generally is fine

* Broadly speaking, let's try and talk about what we're actually here to talk about: the issue of games, women, and what the implications of design and art decisions are

Conversely:

* Anything involving overt GG or anti-GG storylines is NOT fine - this is not and will never be that battleground

* Anything involving Twitter drama, journo back and forth, or allegations of wrongdoing are not fine

* Anything questioning the motivations or ethics of specific people is not fine

* Any 'meta-criticism' of the discussion itself is not fine ("this isn't a useful discussion", "we talked about this before", "there are more important things", "let's all focus on gameplay", etc)

* Stuff that is veering way off topic, like the societal intelligence discussion, are not fine

I will be proactively and retroactively editing posts in this thread to conform. (Save a few things that are hard to edit without damaging the existing flow of discussion.) No warnings or other per-user actions are being issued at this stage. Please PM me if you have concerns or questions.

Sarkeesian has an amount of mostly fair points, and developers and gamers alike should do well to hear her, but things like the tweet about Dying Light are a bit ludicrous and maybe a sign that the whole thing has become an "outrage-generating" business for her. She should try to steer away from that. What does she mean that they should be "embarassed" because "it's 2015" and they have a "damsel in distress" storyline? I'm all for strongly criticising the overuse of such plot devices, but not yelling at *any single* game/movie/book that happens to employ them! The "hero(es) that save person(s) in distress" is a pretty damn common storyline in every medium, even moreso in games, and I don't think she's arguing for removing that. So, is she saying that the only valid combinations are:

a) female hero, female person in distress

b) female hero, male person in distress

c) male hero, male person in distress

d) no, that's sexist

?

Really?? That's, as I said, ludicrous. Even if you're being completely fair, each of the 4 combinations is going to appear in 25% of the games that do the "hero saves people" thing. Say I want to make a sci-fi game where my hero must rescue a top scientist that has been abducted by evil aliens. Making the hero male, and the scientist male, is fine, but suddenly, if I decide to make the scientist female, I'm should be "embarassed" that I employ such a storyline in 2015? Please...

That said, if again we're being completely fair, the "female hero" kind of storyline should appear in roughly 50% of the games, and we all know that doesn't happen, so as I said, basically she's right.

The Dying Light example is notable as it's a story where the player character is rather powerless in the beginning and is rescued by Jade (a strong character), then "repays" this later when he has become equally strong. Now, this could be done badly, if Jade would become uncharacteristically weak or incompetent just for the sake of needing a rescue, but as far as I understand this is not the case. But to say this kind of growth dynamic could never be used with a male PC and female NPC would be kind of silly.

Also compare with X-Files, where Mulder and Scully regularly take turns rescuing each other. If only Scully would ever be allowed to rescue Mulder, the stories would become rather predictable and one-sided fast. Naturally, the opposite would also be true.

EDIT: games where the player character doesn't have a fixed gender (like Mass Effect) can avert this whole discussion, but obviously it can't be a solution for every game, as some stories really need a fixed protagonist, and the cost for a customizable PC can be prohibitive.

[Self-removed so as to not derail. Sent in PM, instead]

To me, the damsel in distress is actually a combination of two separate desires: Heroics (and recognition of said heroics), and 'winning the girl'.

And that's fair enough--but isn't it about time we expanded our uses of that trope such that the fantasy caters to people other than heterosexual men? What about having the male hero be out to "win the guy", or a female hero out to "win" either "the guy" or "the girl", etc.? At the moment the fantasy is given a rather limited scope, it seems to me.

I was breaking down the 'damsel in distress' cliche to show that it's actually two separate desires (or four, if you break it down to include the sub-genre of 'recognition' and 'winning the'). Though I can't think of any 'dude in distress' games, once it's broken down, you can actually find reverses of it that cater to other demographics. There's whole genres built around them. As mentioned, mostly that particular genre is 'girl winning guy' (or rather, 'girl window shopping from a half-dozen guys to choose who she wants'), but as that wiki article points out, there are even sub-genres targeted to, "guy winning guy" and ones that are targeted specifically at women who want "guy on guy" scenarios (probably analogous to how some men have fantasies of girl-on-girl sex).

If you're looking at the specific trope of ([Targeted to males] + [Male protagonist] + [heroics] + [[guy] [wins] [girl]]), it's hard to find examples (unless someone is trying to intentionally invert the trope). But if you're looking for examples of [Girl heroics] you can find a few small examples, and if you're looking ([targeted to females] + [[girl] [chooses (or wins) the] [guy]]) you can find whole genres. ([targeted to homosexuals] + [[guy] [wins] [guy]]) subgenres exist. If you're looking for ([targeted to females] + [female protagonist] + [heroics]) you could probably find a few examples if you looked, but that's where the real lack is.

It's the lack of ([targeted to females] + [female protagonist] + [heroics] + [not romance related]) that is underserved, and that there is probably a significant market for - it'd appeal to many men, myself included, to play decent female protagonists that aren't sexualized.

Metroid's Samus Aran is one example, but that one's targeted at males, and is mostly just a gender swap - or rather, as a silent protagonist, Samus's individualities and strengths as a female aren't explored. And in the two games they made her talk in to explore her character, they fell back on stereotypes and made the character uninteresting and bland.

Discussing this with my hardcore gamer sister, she actually disagrees that games should be "targeted" at any particular demographic, but rather targeted at niches of genre/gameplay/story/whatever, and not make assumptions about what demographics enjoy those niches, which I thought was a good point. Though I still think we ought to, while targeting non-demographic niches, keep in mind different demographics to make our games more appealing across demographics, and to remind us to make games deeper in, say, character interactions, character development, and plots (using this as an opportunity to make richer characters and plots).

You asked about whether it's time we "expanded" our use to cater to non-heterosexual men. Not only does such genres actually exist, but we were talking specifically of the 48% (more like 40%) mainstream female gamers. Now you switched to the 3.8% of the total USA population, which includes bisexual, homosexual, and lesbians (three separate groups who likely aren't interested in the same games except as a show of solidarity), and who knows how many of that already-small 3.8% are actually gamers? That's a small niche, which can be served by niche games. Yes, I'm sure they'd love to be served by a few >$100 million games, but until that niche is economically viable, it's unlikely to happen unless as a publicity stunt, or to get non-members of the niche to buy just to support the niche.

* Any 'meta-criticism' of the discussion itself is not fine

Could I ask for clarification on this point, please? For one thing, when you refer to "the discussion", do you mean this thread or the broader discussion of gender in games? If the former, does that include pointing out arguments that have been ignored by respondents?

(To explain myself, since these are moderator-enforced boundaries, I want to be confident of where they lie so that I can avoid stepping over them, but without being over-cautious.)

I was young when Thompson wanted to censor violent games, but I was majorly pissed while I watched worrying he would win.

I'm speculating here, but I suspect that Mr. Thompson was in a position of much greater individual power than Ms. Sarkeesian. While Ms. Sarkeesian may influence others, hers isn't the only voice out there--for one thing, there are other forum discussions like this going on, which may have their own influence on perceptions. Thompson, had he won his cases, might have been in a position to almost-directly influence the implementation of legal strictures on games.

Regarding the Twitter feeds, I don't want to touch on that too much since I don't follow Ms. Sarkeesian's feed, nor watch her videos, and so don't feel that I'm in a good position to interpret her position, but I'll note that it seems to me that people sometimes express themselves more vociferously on Twitter than they do elsewhere. (At a guess, perhaps it's a combination of the limitation on text-length and the immediacy of expression: one speaks in the moment, but is limited in how long one's message may be, and so somewhat may be lost in trimming down one's thoughts.)

I was breaking down the 'damsel in distress' cliche to show that it's actually two separate desires ...

Fair enough.

I was breaking down the 'damsel in distress' cliche to show that it's actually two separate desires (or four, if you break it down to include the sub-genre of 'recognition' and 'winning the'). Though I can't think of any 'dude in distress' games, once it's broken down, you can actually find reverses of it that cater to other demographics. There's whole genres built around them.

I don't agree that the romance games that you point out are reverses of the "damsel in distress" narrative, even broken down: action-heroics for which the romance element is only a motivator are quite a different experience to narratives in which the romance is woven throughout the game.

More to the point, do we have much reason to believe that people wouldn't happily enjoy games just like the current standard "guy rescues damsel in distress", but with the genders flipped?

You point out the fantasy of "heroics" and "getting the guy/girl at the end", but, even excluding non-heterosexuals, are men not capable of enjoying gender-flipped versions, and might women not share in such fantasies?

You asked about whether it's time we "expanded" our use to cater to non-heterosexual men.

...

That's a small niche, which can be served by niche games.

A fair point, I think. And to be honest, I think that I lost track of one of my own previous points in my argument there: again (and as your sister pointed out), the idea isn't to make games targeted at women (or homosexual men, or whoever), but rather to improve representation in games. In the case of the "damsel in distress" plot, that may mean having fewer (no, I'm not saying none) such plots, or having more such plots with different sets of sexes.

Discussing this with my hardcore gamer sister, she actually disagrees that games should be "targeted" at any particular demographic, but rather targeted at niches of genre/gameplay/story/whatever, and not make assumptions about what demographics enjoy those niches, which I thought was a good point.

Actually, I think that I largely agree with your sister, and especially with her point on not making assumptions about which demographics might play a given game.

The only thing that I might quibble over is that I don't much like setting a genre at the outset either, if for different reasons: I'd say to write a good story, create good gameplay, etc., regardless of what genre (whether gameplay, story, or whatever) it might fit into. For one thing, setting a genre at the outset can constrain one, causing one to miss paths that might have produced a better game by virtue of following the path laid by the chosen genre. Further, as a general principle of development, I'm inclined to worry about genres becoming ossified by virtue of becoming the starting points of game designs, rather than (as I feel is more appropriate) post-hoc categorisations.

Any time I want to find a game that uses a trope either in the entire game or just a section of it I go to TvTropes.org. Yes they started out just listing tv shows that used the tropes, but have expanded to include other mediums.

Dude in Distress http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DistressedDude

They even look at the tropes in terms of Feminist Frequency http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Webvideo/FeministFrequency

More to the point, do we have much reason to believe that people wouldn't happily enjoy games just like the current standard "guy rescues damsel in distress", but with the genders flipped?

I think that'd be enjoyable; I'd enjoy playing them if they're done well.

While we can't find many (or any?) games that are a direct reversal of one specific trope ("damsel in distress"), that doesn't automatically mean no games cater to females. Obviously there are some dumb games like "Barbie vs Hellokitty Shopping Adventure!" (not a real game), but those games likely don't actually appeal to females unless they are under 10 years old. What I mean is, there are genres that are popular with women that are targeted at women. So the industry as a whole aren't completely ignoring them - it's the >$100 million AAA games that are (mostly) ignoring them (despite women also playing those AAA games).

It's interesting that so many guys, young and old, have watched My Little Pony. Myself included, though not fanatically. The reason for this, I think, is because the characters, while seemingly cliched on the surface, are actually richer and deeper than most, so they stand out amidst the a lack of creativity elsewhere.

Honestly, I've read and watched alot more children books and shows recently, because it seems to me there are a new generation of writers who, unable to get multi-million dollar budgets given to them for mainstream movies and shows, are able to get the funding for writing children's shows, and putting real creativity into those worlds and characters.

I'm not saying all cliches should be avoided either (anymore than tropes should be avoided - they are tools to use), but that a cliche on its own, does not make a character. At least, not a very deep one.

You point out the fantasy of "heroics" and "getting the guy/girl at the end", but, even excluding non-heterosexuals, are men not capable of enjoying gender-flipped versions, and might women not share in such fantasies?

Absolutely - I'd enjoy playing more good female protagonists, and I'd be willing to play even romance-focused ones. I've read, and enjoyed, several of Jane Austen's novels (and the better movie versions) - which are female protagonists falling in love with, or winning over, the males. What I especially loved about those, is all the characters were flawed in different ways. The men and women all had human flaws, even the side characters, most also had good strengths as well, and the characters weren't stereotypes or cliches. Pride and Prejudice was especially good at that and, in my opinion, even sets you up and then reverses the flaws in the female protagonist and the male she despises who, "against my better judgements" has fallen in love with her - it's done really well (she seems prejudiced against him, and he's prideful and snobbish, but as it develops you realize she's prideful and snobbish and he's prejudiced against her - or rather, they are both equally prideful and prejudice, but it swaps the focus of which of their flaws are in focus).

That's what we need in games, IMO. Richer characters, all around. Once we have a wider variety of richer characters, instead of two-dimensional cookie-cutter characters, I think it'd naturally occur that greater diversity in character ensembles, protagonists, and antagonists, will come out of it.

There are some interesting characters in games, but it's usually the interesting characters in the midst of a cast of cliches, and even the interesting characters often lack depth.

In Pride and Prejudice, every side-characters are also fantastic and made real (but not defined by) their flaws and strengths. And the characters you hate, you love to hate. They aren't annoying, like some videogame or movie characters, they are flawed, and you love to hate them for their actions that result from their flaws. I think almost any character in a show or game or movie that annoys you, as the consumer, is bad writing. If a character is annoying, the character should be annoying to the other characters within the game, but not annoying to the player. The player should be able to enjoy every character, the villains, the protagonist, the party-members, the plot characters, the side characters, everyone.

To clarify, when I said "gender-swapped" earlier, I was derogatorily meaning when someone takes a male character and, without changing anything, just copy+pastes the entire character into a female, or vise-versa. Gender-flips can be done very well or very poorly. Just taking an entire character and saying, "Uh, but now she's a guy" without actually revisiting the nature of the character, can result in flat characters (no changes). But if you revisit the nature of the character, it can either result in stereotyped characters (cliched sexist changes) or it can result in much-desired deeper characters, because it forces you to think about the character's history and background, and how that has defined the character's personality, nature, desires, and skills.

Doesn't have to just be gender swaps either. Could be ethnicities, cultures, occupations, or anything else that, in real life, adds to and influences someone's character. If the differences are ignored entirely, or cliche'd up, it can ruin a character. Or, it can be treated as an opportunity to revisit the nature of the character, and make the character richer and deeper.

The only thing that I might quibble over is that I don't much like setting a genre at the outset either, if for different reasons: I'd say to write a good story, create good gameplay, etc., regardless of what genre (whether gameplay, story, or whatever) it might fit into. For one thing, setting a genre at the outset can constrain one, causing one to miss paths that might have produced a better game by virtue of following the path laid by the chosen genre. Further, as a general principle of development, I'm inclined to worry about genres becoming ossified by virtue of becoming the starting points of game designs, rather than (as I feel is more appropriate) post-hoc categorisations.

Yea, I definitely agree with that. Leave the classification of the game to the players, journalists, and (to some extent) your marketers.

Most video games are just using tropes that have been around forever in other mediums. Sci-fi games takes a lot from pop scifi in books and movies, fantasy games take a lot from fantasy books and tabletop games. And of course they can borrow from a ton of other genres as well. And these older mediums already tend to cast different kinds of characters in specific roles, with specific expectations from the audience.

Unlike other mediums, games tend to simplify use of tropes since the stories in them are usually not as deep or nuanced as in books or movies. And I can see why. A typical novel (avoiding picture books) is just words. You need very good writing in a book to grip an audience in picturing the characters, their motivations, and the setting. Movies and TV have visuals, and appealing to your sense of seeing lends a crutch to the story. Video games add both visuals and interactivity, so now the writing can be even less capable, needing a proper wheelchair and still get by. Story is more of a supporting role here, and not always necessary. Thus you can have a cliche barebones plot that is still working for the player because the gameplay itself is very fun (like Shovel Knight).

So when it comes to casting characters in a way that don't appear patronizing or degrading to a certain demographic, this is not the actual problem. It's a symptom to a problem. You'd need a reason to have complex characters, and that would be a story that demands complex characters. You need a deep story and/or lore to support an ensemble cast of rich characters. And just as important, you need a proper motive to integrate a deep story into the game.

My counterpoint to that is, there are cases where the designers do want to deliver a story for a cinematic experience, but it can get to the point where too much time is spent on the story and then reality hits with limited time and budget done to improve other aspects of the game which are fundamentally broken. How is the premise for the game set up? How much suspension of disbelief is required? Not all games need to be cleverly written, unless that is how you are marketing the game, or the player already expects it. Sometimes, though, good writing does ironically save a game from being bad if the gameplay is generic and uninspiring.

On Jack Thompson, he wanted to win at least one case against video game developers. He stated his logic saying that you'd need just one victory to "open the floodgates" for more game censorship. Since he never reached that point, it's unseen or unproven if winning court cases would actually work. The only time game censorship progressed further were from the actions of politicians.

BHXSpecter

I've left sites for insulting me and quite a few for insulting my wife and son. I'm done with industry because I'm not going to sit around wondering what next dev or programmer will insult me or my family just because they don't like my concerns or views. I refuse to subject myself or my family to that.

There is a lot of noise on internet, I learned it ever since I connected to it. You realy need to not force this experience to consideration when someone says , for example, a disagreement with you, or questions you, or, sounds less polite than your presentation (which is realy polite and distinguishable).

On topic.

I personaly too do not understand your fundamental refusal of the critic towards stereotype of female heroes/audience in games production that have been mentioned, and did not spot any reasoning to explain your intensive proposition on that.