Nearly 80% of video game characters are male

[Shagger]

4 hours ago, m76 said:

Female leads were not anathema to gamers before 1996.

I find it laughable that people think that sexual attraction is a bad thing.

That said I never found Lara Croft's depiction in the early games attractive, I think it was just a bad design from the dark ages of 3D graphics. When your character budget is 150 polygons the best you can do is cones. What you call over sexualized I call idealized. Same as male heroes all had idealized figures unattainable to most average men. I didn't see that as a problem, so I don't know why is it a problem with female characters.

Heros should look like something to aspire to, not average dudes and gals.

 

 

Hero's are not defined by how attractive they are. That is nonsense I'm not gonna dignify with debating. It is true that the common pattern is for hero's to be attractive, but that's an unfortunate habbit of media. We live in a vain, superficial world that, whether you agree with it or not, is only interested in putting the most attractive people on the pedestal as heros. I do actually agree with you that enjoy the vision of a sexy character is nothing to be ashamed of, but it's important to separate that from what defines heroism, admirable characters and great fiction because those thing do not connect. They just don't.

 

I also get your point about how hears need to be someone to admire and aspire to be, but I think your image of a hero is overly simplistic and archaic, the kind of definition of what a hero was decades ago. Someone who was a paradigm of perfection in every way. They are all that's good and prefect and any deviation is simply not so.

 

Heros in fiction today are, and I say for the better, not at all like that. They are not defined buy who they are certainly not how they look, it's all about thier actions. What they achieve and accomplish. Hero's in fiction these days, and it has been like this for some time, are allowed to have flaws. They're allowed to struggle against the odds, not have it easy, go through trauma, make mistakes, be emotional. This is a good thing because;

 

1. It makes them more relatable and attainable, which is actually a stronger inspirational message in the end.
2. Creates room for more compelling stories.
3. Makes what they accomplish all the more admirable as they have suffered and sacrificed to get there, so thier deeds actually more heroic.
4. Leaves us as the audience more free to judge thier actions as justified or not. That builds strength in our own moral compasses and helps us define ourselves as the audience rather than just "behold perfection" and that be the standard. Don't question it.

 

Superman has his Kryptonite, but every hero need thier own version of it and it's done best when it's something more down to earth, yet complex. Batman is Bruce Wayne's escape from his privileged, yet lonely and dull life. He could just be a rich, brooding little asshole feeling sorry for himself, but chooses not to and that's what defines him. I could go on and on about this self-cantered, misogynistic, smart-arse man-whore and certifiable prick, or could talk about a brave, smart, dashing, determined soul doing whatever it takes to keep the world save from sociopaths and madmen, and they'd both be James Bond. You see, heros are heros by definition of thier actions. Hell, most superhero's are written as having a double life to literally separate who they are from what they do. It's blatantly obvious why this is such a popular trope. Humanising them whilst still making them amazing.

 

It's the same with villains. Just like how heros need imperfections, villains need admirable traits as well. Who wouldn't want to be as smart as Hannibal Lecter, we've all dreamed of having Darth Vader's power, I wish I was as witty as Freddy Krueger. The kind of capabilities and talents that could bring great benefits to world, but they choose to direct thier energy in a different direction, and that choice is critical. Without the choice, without the will, thier actions can't be evil. A storm my bring death and destruction, but nobody calls it evil or even hates it. Without that choice, a villain is little more than exactly that, a force of nature. You don't want to agree with a villain obviously, but it's important to understand them, otherwise there just not interesting.

 

Before anyone tries to trip me up given the topic at hand, obviously being a woman or LGBTQ+ or whatever is not a flaw, but with characters expressing the very human aspects of who they are that also helps heros become more complex and yet relatable. If, just for example, the hero is a woman and I still admire her aspire to be like her despite the fact that she has deal with struggles and the the bullshit that comes with it, that's an example of a well crafted character. I would much rather watch her movie or play a game as her than the exploits of Cpt Perfect destined to succeed right from the very start without cost. That would be bloody boring.

 

5 hours ago, The Blackangel said:

I agree with you for the most part. I can't say there is anything I disagree with, but I do have a somewhat differing view and a bit of insight.

I'm part of the LGBTQ+ community. Inclusion and invisibility is something we have fought for, for decades. We don't want to be seen as "gay people" or "transgender people". We just want to be seen as people. That said, it's a great leap towards that goal to have games like Tell Me Why that feature a transgender protagonist. But there is harm that comes with every game that features anyone from the LGBTQ+ community in a positive light. It brings out the conservatives and bigots, who intentionally look for us. It's like when the Westboro Baptist Church protests at the Renaissance Festival or a gay mans funeral shouting "God hates fags! All sodomites will burn in hell for your sick perversions" and other bullshit like that. It often puts under a spotlight, which singles us out for attacks, both verbal and physical. While I love playing games that put my community in a positive light, I am also very wary of buying them, even digitally online. If there is one bigot at Steam, that has a problem with me for buying >insert game< due to it having the LGBTQ+ community portrayed positively, then I could be in danger in many ways. We have to watch our backs more than a lot of people.

We want to be included. Male, female, both, neither, gay, bi, lesbian, and anywhere else on the spectrum. We just don't want to be singled out for an attack. That's the only time when inclusion has a chance of being bad in any way.

 

I hear you, and I can see what you mean by fighting for inclusion and invisibility. In the end, people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum are exactly that, people. Not better, nor worse. I truly understand that, but it's an unfortunate truth that a fight for inclusion and a fight for invisibility are, at least to some extent, in conflict with each other. You need people, the predominantly straight and cisgender general public most of all, to take notice of the fact there is inequality to bring about change, and that will inevitably bring attention onto campaigners as a separate, but just, force in the world pushing against the status quo. It seems very difficult to do that and blend into that society that needs to change and achieve that invisibility. Man, I don't envy anyone in that position, it must be a nightmare.

 

If only the bigotry you described just wasn't there, there would be no need for LGBTQ+ as a definition at all. We'd all be living life, judged only by our characters and actions. Unfortunately, we have to live in this world. I believe that this world can become that world, but reading your post has made me realise that that transition is not going to be nearly as easy as it first sounds. Thank you for opening my eyes a little.

[killamch89]

My question is why is it such an issue now. I mean their have been plenty of great female leads and vice leads as well - including female characters for the sake of "inclusion" without it making sense in the story always leads to revolt such as with Battlefield 5 and EA has never repeated that mistake. It's one thing if the game was centered around a female character or they had a leading role and they become the lead, the transition is much smooth but when you just inorganically throw in a new character and try to force them down the fanbase's throat is never going to get positive results.

[Shagger]

9 hours ago, killamch89 said:

My question is why is it such an issue now. I mean their have been plenty of great female leads and vice leads as well - including female characters for the sake of "inclusion" without it making sense in the story always leads to revolt such as with Battlefield 5 and EA has never repeated that mistake. It's one thing if the game was centered around a female character or they had a leading role and they become the lead, the transition is much smooth but when you just inorganically throw in a new character and try to force them down the fanbase's throat is never going to get positive results.

 

I find it interesting that you ask why this is an issue, to then bring up "inclusion for the sake of inclusion without it making sense" to then use Battlefield V as the example. You know, that time EA and Dice decided to have the characters equipped with artificial limbs that didn't even come close to existing in WWII, but everyone lost thier shit because "A WOMAN ON THE FRONTLIES! YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT! BECASUE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!". Yeah, I remember what was ACTUALLY stupid about that. Nobody took the narrative of a Battlefield game seriously for years until a woman appeared in the trailer, then suddenly that was all that mattered. It was one of the most hypocritical backlashes I've ever seen for a game.

 

The worst part about it was there actually was a justifiable means to the backlash that the haters could have used but didn't, and I'm going to explain exactly what that was right now. If they wanted to have a female character in the game based on WW2, why not take inspiration from the real examples of how woman served in combat during WW2 instead of making something up? The uprisings in Warsaw, the French rebels, the 588th Night Bomber Regiment of the Soviet Air force AKA the Night Witches (That would make a brilliant map for a Battlefield game btw. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look it up). Of course, I didn't see a single person say anything like that during the whole fiasco. On the contrary, most of them flat out denied stories of woman serving in the war, even the stories that were true. I know exactly why EA didn't want to base the female characters on real people, because that would mean basing the game on something other than the Western Front, something western media, not just in gaming, seems very reluctant to do. I described recently in a thread discussing Call of Duty Vanguard my frustrations with western media for never exploring anything in WW2 that wasn't the American perspective of the liberation of France, and Battlefield V is prime example of that. They wanted to have woman in the game, but they wouldn't dare do anything other than the liberation of France and post D-Day as if that's the only place anyone fought in that fucking war. Because they, as usual, didn't want to go anywhere other than the Western Front, the had to "make up" a woman to be in the war rather than take inspiration from the real history. But nope, none of the pre-pubescent, insecure keyboard warriors used this justifiable problem with EA and Dice's plan for the game against them, mostly because they too busy denying woman served in WW2 completely. Honestly, I was embarrassed to call myself a gamer during this shitfest.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Shagger

[The Blackangel]

Games being from the American perspective is something that has bugged me for years. Yes, I'm an American. Yes, I love gaming. But America is not the epicenter of the gaming world. There are gamers all over the world, some countries much smaller have a higher ratio of gamers. There are countries roughly the size of Missouri, or that would even fit inside of Missouri, that have a higher gamer ratio than the US. So why the hell is everything from the American perspective? @Shagger pointed it out perfectly. There were others involved in the liberation of most of Europe. My grandfather was part of the American regimen that helped liberate Auschwitz. He earned 5 bronze stars doing it. But he was right there beside shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers when all was said and done. So why isn't there a game like that that is straight from a British, or any European perspective?

Games just seem to cater more to the American market than any other when I sit back and look at it with the realistic games. I don't know of any other countries that lived the way we did in 1899, which was portrayed perfectly in RDR2.

[m76]

15 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

 

You see a lot of hero's that are larger the life characters, especially in video games. That's fine but it doesn't suit every narrative.  Take somone like Duke Nukem for example, you could argue that he's cut from the cloth as Lara.  He's an exaggerated caricature of everything a man wants to be.  Muscular, rich, surrounded by beautiful woman... You get idea.  But do really take him seriously?  No.  It's a character that wouldn't work in a game where your expected to get emotionally attached or invested.  He's a joke, and we know he's a joke.  The old Lara was the same.

Duke Nukem was a character from a 2D scroller with no real backstory. Lara Croft has a believable backstory. that was constantly expanded upon. I cannot even begin to describe how wrong you are to equate those two. And only because her waist is thin in a game with terrible graphics. You couldn't really make a subtle female figure with that kind of graphics hardware.  If that prevents you from getting invested in the story well, it's on you. Besides you are moving the goalposts. The article was only talking about the sheer numbers not how complex the heroes were. Back in the early 90s, most heroes backstory was 2 lines or none, male, female, or other.

15 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

Not every hero needs to be something to one aspires to be.  In many, and I'd even dare to say most narratives require a hero that's more down to earth a sympathetic.

Most narratives are about heroic deeds and achievements you have no hope of doing in real life. And for that you need a heroic character.

Not that being down to earth and attractive are mutually exclusive anyway.

[m76]

12 hours ago, Shagger said:

Hero's are not defined by how attractive they are. That is nonsense I'm not gonna dignify with debating. It is true that the common pattern is for hero's to be attractive, but that's an unfortunate habbit of media. We live in a vain, superficial world that, whether you agree with it or not, is only interested in putting the most attractive people on the pedestal as heros. I do actually agree with you that enjoy the vision of a sexy character is nothing to be ashamed of, but it's important to separate that from what defines heroism, admirable characters and great fiction because those thing do not connect. They just don't.

Being attracted to the characters makes games more enjoyable. If that makes me vain, then so be it. But superficial? No. It would be superficial if we judged them only on their looks, and not their deeds. This has nothing to do with real world heroes. We are talking about fiction, which is meant to entertain, and it does that better if the characters are attractive. That's all there is to it.  Nobody is trying to diminish real world heroes, or imply that if you don't look like adonis you can't be heroic IRL.

This seems to be an ongoing issue, that the so called progressives are trying to make fiction a mirror of reality. While most gamers prefer it as an idealized version.

 

12 hours ago, Shagger said:

I also get your point about how hears need to be someone to admire and aspire to be, but I think your image of a hero is overly simplistic and archaic, the kind of definition of what a hero was decades ago. Someone who was a paradigm of perfection in every way. They are all that's good and prefect and any deviation is simply not so.

There is a wide scale between perfect and completely mundane. The heroes journey can't even be completed or enjoyable if the hero is perfect the very failure many modern fiction is guilty of.

12 hours ago, Shagger said:

Heros in fiction today are, and I say for the better, not at all like that. They are not defined buy who they are certainly not how they look, it's all about thier actions. What they achieve and accomplish. Hero's in fiction these days, and it has been like this for some time, are allowed to have flaws. They're allowed to struggle against the odds, not have it easy, go through trauma, make mistakes, be emotional. This is a good thing because;

Well I see the opposite. Attractive but imperfect people, are replaced with repulsive (not necessarily visually), entitled, egotistic and infallible characters who can do no wrong. They never struggle, they beat masters at their own game with scant training. It's a complete farce.

12 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

1. It makes them more relatable and attainable, which is actually a stronger inspirational message in the end.
2. Creates room for more compelling stories.
3. Makes what they accomplish all the more admirable as they have suffered and sacrificed to get there, so thier deeds actually more heroic.
4. Leaves us as the audience more free to judge thier actions as justified or not. That builds strength in our own moral compasses and helps us define ourselves as the audience rather than just "behold perfection" and that be the standard. Don't question it.

Ironically the exact opposite is being done under the guise of inclusion. "Behold perfection" is exactly what they say, and if you dare to criticize you are called a bigot, misogynist, racist and so on.

12 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

Superman has his Kryptonite, but every hero need thier own version of it and it's done best when it's something more down to earth, yet complex. Batman is Bruce Wayne's escape from his privileged, yet lonely and dull life. He could just be a rich, brooding little asshole feeling sorry for himself, but chooses not to and that's what defines him. I could go on and on about this self-cantered, misogynistic, smart-arse man-whore and certifiable prick, or could talk about a brave, smart, dashing, determined soul doing whatever it takes to keep the world save from sociopaths and madmen, and they'd both be James Bond. You see, heros are heros by definition of thier actions. Hell, most superhero's are written as having a double life to literally separate who they are from what they do. It's blatantly obvious why this is such a popular trope. Humanising them whilst still making them amazing.

I'm not a fan of the whole superhero genre. No amount of suspension of disbelief can make those passable to me. So I really don't have any opinion on that. I think heroes are made relatable by their flaws and mistakes. Simply making them less sexy won't make them more relatable.

12 hours ago, Shagger said:

It's the same with villains. Just like how heros need imperfections, villains need admirable traits as well. Who wouldn't want to be as smart as Hannibal Lecter, we've all dreamed of having Darth Vader's power, I wish I was as witty as Freddy Krueger. The kind of capabilities and talents that could bring great benefits to world, but they choose to direct thier energy in a different direction, and that choice is critical. Without the choice, without the will, thier actions can't be evil. A storm my bring death and destruction, but nobody calls it evil or even hates it. Without that choice, a villain is little more than exactly that, a force of nature. You don't want to agree with a villain obviously, but it's important to understand them, otherwise there just not interesting.

Complex heroes are good, but nowadays it seems that writers go out of their way to justify the actions of villains, excusing them, or even painting them as victims.

12 hours ago, Shagger said:

Before anyone tries to trip me up given the topic at hand, obviously being a woman or LGBTQ+ or whatever is not a flaw, but with characters expressing the very human aspects of who they are that also helps heros become more complex and yet relatable. If, just for example, the hero is a woman and I still admire her aspire to be like her despite the fact that she has deal with struggles and the the bullshit that comes with it, that's an example of a well crafted character. I would much rather watch her movie or play a game as her than the exploits of Cpt Perfect destined to succeed right from the very start without cost. That would be bloody boring.

The problem I see is that as soon as they make a character from a "protected" class, they don't dare write any flaws for them, they make them seem perfect, which is the opposite of relatable.  There were great LGBTQ characters in fiction up to 5 years ago, that I could easily relate to and loved. Nowadays, they are all written completely unlikable, with no redeeming qualities. It's almost as if being from a minority automatically implies they need to be arrogant and filled with unbridled rage against the entire world.

 

[The Blackangel]

Ok, I'm withdrawing from this conversation, because I don't see factual statements being accepted any time in the future on this subject.

[Shagger]

OK, @m76, before I get stated I do, in fact, know better than to debate with you because I know this is going to go. I'll question you viewpoints, nothing more and nothing less, but you'll register it as a personal attack on you when all I'm doing is challenging your views. I know what I should do is follow @The Blackangel's example and ignore you, but I wanna try this one more time in the hope that you do have the capacity learn, see a new perspective and respond like a rational human being. I'm doing that because I know you're a smart guy and I haven't given up on you yet.

 

On 8/24/2021 at 9:44 AM, m76 said:

Being attracted to the characters makes games more enjoyable. If that makes me vain, then so be it. But superficial? No. It would be superficial if we judged them only on their looks, and not their deeds. This has nothing to do with real world heroes. We are talking about fiction, which is meant to entertain, and it does that better if the characters are attractive. That's all there is to it.  Nobody is trying to diminish real world heroes, or imply that if you don't look like adonis you can't be heroic IRL.

This seems to be an ongoing issue, that the so called progressives are trying to make fiction a mirror of reality. While most gamers prefer it as an idealized version.

 

It's not the people you rather unjustly labelled as a negative element in society called "progressives" pushing the idea that fiction needs to mirror reality, fiction does mirror reality, or at least any fiction worth a damb dose. I say that because if fiction didn't connect to real world emotions, experiences, social tropes and relationships people share in the real world, there would be nothing to connect fiction to ourselves as people, it would have no impact. It doesn't have to be a blunt, literal reference to connect with us, it can be more metaphorical, buried by the overtones of the world crafted by the creators imagination, but it will be there.

 

If all great writers and creators of fiction gave an aspiring creator one piece of advice, I reckon the vast majority would say the same thing. Write what you know. And because creators can in the end only be inspired, whether it be directly or indirectly, by the real world I could say that it's not even possible to have fiction that doesn't mirror reality. Did you know, for example, that J.R.R Tolkien based the Battle of Hems Deep in The Lord of the Rings on the real Battle of Vienna in 1863? From the attempts to destroy the walls with explosives to the cavalry charge to beak the siege and win the battle at the end, it's almost exactly the same. Nobody accused Tolkien of "hitting to close to reality" or told him to "keep real world references out" of it because he was just doing what good writers do. Write what he knew. We was a veteran himself and knew history, so those two things were a big inspiration for him even though his books weren't exactly documentaries. If you deny the simple truth that fiction reflects reality and pretend the connection is not there, it's little wonder you've become so superficial, immature and vain about it, not to mention how stubborn you are in your denials.

 

If you still not convinced, let's try looking at it in a way more specific to a hero and how a hero in fiction is a reflection of reality. A hero's deeds are heroic in fiction need to be comparable to something considered a heroic deed in the real world, otherwise how could you even consider it heroic at all? For example, let's say saving someone from a burning building. That can happen in fiction just as easily in real life, and you said so yourself, "Nobody is trying to diminish real world heroes, or imply that if you don't look like adonis you can't be heroic IRL.", so why would it be such an issue for you to offer the same admiration to a fictional hero for doing the same thing just because they didn't float your boat? The last time I encountered logic like that was when I was a teenager arguing with some girl who insisted a boyband (I can't remember specially what boyband, but I remember they were god awful, even by boyband standards) sounded good because they were nice looking. That, for some reason, being easy on the eyes made them sound better. So you see, you bring to this the logic of a teenage pop fan. I'm not stupid, I know how vain the world of pop music is, I'm just saying that, for me, that whilst I looked at the Spice Girls as a teen and thought "Yeeep!", but that didn't make "Wannabe" any easier to listen to. 

 

On 8/24/2021 at 9:44 AM, m76 said:

There is a wide scale between perfect and completely mundane. The heroes journey can't even be completed or enjoyable if the hero is perfect the very failure many modern fiction is guilty of.

 

On 8/24/2021 at 9:44 AM, m76 said:

Well I see the opposite. Attractive but imperfect people, are replaced with repulsive (not necessarily visually), entitled, egotistic and infallible characters who can do no wrong. They never struggle, they beat masters at their own game with scant training. It's a complete farce.

 

Well, tell me what movies your movies your watching, games you're playing, books your reading and TV series you're watching because you're not picking them very well. The alternative is that you're talking complete nonsense because hero's have changed. Men are more emotional and conflicted than they used to be woman are more stern and wilful. Nobody's saying you have to like these changes, but how on earth you don't see them is beyond my understanding. Just look at how different Sean Connery's James Bond is to Daniel Graig's, for example. Now, I don't know if you for some reason can't see it, refuse to see or if you're just making up this false truth about how hero's have changed in fiction to strengthen your position here, but something sure as hell isn't right. We may just have to agree to disagree because I just see what you're talking about.

 

On 8/24/2021 at 9:44 AM, m76 said:

Ironically the exact opposite is being done under the guise of inclusion. "Behold perfection" is exactly what they say, and if you dare to criticize you are called a bigot, misogynist, racist and so on.

 

Again, where are you getting this idea that people are painting what you refer to as "protected groups" as perfection? Not only is that straight up bullshit, it's not what people within those "protected groups" even want out of thier represented/inclusive characters. Don't take my word for it, go ask them yourself, and the best news yet you don't even have to look beyond this very thread. If what your claiming is true the backlash would be coming from those groups, not from where we all know the complaints about inclusion (not lack of inclusion) actually come from.

 

(Sorry @The Blackangel, it's not my intention to draw you into this, I just to show this guy how blind he really it.)

 

On 8/23/2021 at 3:15 PM, The Blackangel said:

I'm part of the LGBTQ+ community. Inclusion and invisibility is something we have fought for, for decades. We don't want to be seen as "gay people" or "transgender people". We just want to be seen as people. That said, it's a great leap towards that goal to have games like Tell Me Why that feature a transgender protagonist. But there is harm that comes with every game that features anyone from the LGBTQ+ community in a positive light. It brings out the conservatives and bigots, who intentionally look for us. It's like when the Westboro Baptist Church protests at the Renaissance Festival or a gay mans funeral shouting "God hates fags! All sodomites will burn in hell for your sick perversions" and other bullshit like that. It often puts under a spotlight, which singles us out for attacks, both verbal and physical. While I love playing games that put my community in a positive light, I am also very wary of buying them, even digitally online. If there is one bigot at Steam, that has a problem with me for buying >insert game< due to it having the LGBTQ+ community portrayed positively, then I could be in danger in many ways. We have to watch our backs more than a lot of people.

We want to be included. Male, female, both, neither, gay, bi, lesbian, and anywhere else on the spectrum. We just don't want to be singled out for an attack. That's the only time when inclusion has a chance of being bad in any way.

 

On 8/24/2021 at 9:44 AM, m76 said:

I'm not a fan of the whole superhero genre. No amount of suspension of disbelief can make those passable to me. So I really don't have any opinion on that. I think heroes are made relatable by their flaws and mistakes. Simply making them less sexy won't make them more relatable.

 

The only sensible thing you said in that entire post, but no comeback on any of the points brought up, so I'm just gonna assume that you didn't want to admit I actually right there.

 

On 8/24/2021 at 9:44 AM, m76 said:

Complex heroes are good, but nowadays it seems that writers go out of their way to justify the actions of villains, excusing them, or even painting them as victims

 

There's a big difference between helping the audience sympathise with the motives of a villain and painting the villain as a victim or condoning them. You're not a stupid man, you know the difference.

 

On 8/24/2021 at 9:44 AM, m76 said:

The problem I see is that as soon as they make a character from a "protected" class, they don't dare write any flaws for them, they make them seem perfect, which is the opposite of relatable.  There were great LGBTQ characters in fiction up to 5 years ago, that I could easily relate to and loved. Nowadays, they are all written completely unlikable, with no redeeming qualities. It's almost as if being from a minority automatically implies they need to be arrogant and filled with unbridled rage against the entire world.

 

Strange, a few chapters ago you were claiming that inclusion of "protected groups" were being written as too perfect to make them look more heroic, now all of a sudden members of the LGBTQ+ community are being portraited as "arrogant" and "fuelled with rage"? You can't even keep you own position of this straight! The thing is I think I know exactly what character it is you're referring to (Ellie, TLOU Part II) and we both know her rage and the fuel for her hatred and anger had nothing to do with her orientation. I'm not gonna go into what those motivations were because spoilers and the thread has nothing to do with TLOU, but you know what I'm taking about. Not to mention that's only one character. I admit that's an assumption and I could be wrong, but either way you still don't back any of this up with examples. If you're gonna say that all gay characters these days are written such a specific way, you have give an example of what you mean and explain how those traits, be it positive or negative, tie into that characters sexual orientation, otherwise what you're spewing is some unfounded and, quit frankly, quite bigoted nonsense.

 

Before you say it, I'm not "calling you out" on that unfairly. Only a couple of weeks ago somebody posted something on the forms claiming that a decrease in deportations in America was causing COVID to spread. I told that person to back that up or I'd have to consider the post unfounded and racially incentive and would be deleted. This person couldn't do that, so the post was removed. Let me make it clear, I'm not threatening to do the same thing to you or your post, I'm just pointing that out for my sake before you claim I'm treating you unfairly. And not for the first time, let me make it clear I don't believe you're homophobic in any way, I'm just saying if your going to say something like that it's better to back it up.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Shagger

[Reality vs Adventure]

17 hours ago, m76 said:

This seems to be an ongoing issue, that the so called progressives are trying to make fiction a mirror of reality. While most gamers prefer it as an idealized version.

That idealized version is what the problem is. Because it usually reflects what they think or what they want the majority of society to think or see as idealized. There are cultures past and present that would rather see a busty character. Ancient Greeks idealized overweight women for example. Idealized versions through the decades have also cast many other demographics as villainous or simply left out, just as society itself has left many people out of equality.

But you make a good point of how maybe people, I wouldn’t say progressives, try to make fiction a mirror of reality. To me that is amazing how they can do that while keeping the work of fiction. Doesn’t it make things seem so much more real or believable if let’s say, magic wasn’t just some godly blessing, but maybe have some realistic physics or chemistry behind it to make everything seem real. Look at Malazan Book of the Fallen, I’m sure you would agree the magic and gods there are used in a way that seems realistic. And an apocalyptic world is a fantasy setting where fiction is a mirror of reality, but destroyed and with zombies. And to make the virus believable is the challenge of keeping the realism there.

To mirror that reality using demographics in a work of fiction, well why not? If the characters are human, why not? Aren’t humans used as characters a mirror of reality? Then it should also be free to have everything that comes with it; ethnicity, LGBTQ+, weight, height, hairy, balding, glasses, as well as the personality traits. Otherwise they can use fairies and dwarves in all the games. I’ve never seen a black dwarf. So just make all characters the perfect white dwarf and hairy females so there won’t ever be any controversies right?

17 hours ago, m76 said:

Ironically the exact opposite is being done under the guise of inclusion. "Behold perfection" is exactly what they say, and if you dare to criticize you are called a bigot, misogynist, racist and so on.

‘Behold perfection’ that is a clear example of what we have already been seeing in all entertainment. No prejudice intended, but the perfect golden boy, the good looking, strong, moral, straight, white, clean, male, has been waaaay overused. That is the landmark of ‘behold perfection.’ And when I criticized that in the past in the Star Wars topic you called me a racist. So that swings both ways. The fact is, my criticism of ‘behold perfection’ has more weight to it because we all have witnessed it get overplayed through the years.

17 hours ago, m76 said:

The problem I see is that as soon as they make a character from a "protected" class, they don't dare write any flaws for them, they make them seem perfect, which is the opposite of relatable.

That is the same thing I have been saying about the ‘golden boy’ which is an outdated ‘protected class’ ‘behold perfection’ and ‘idealized version’ of the same gender, ethnicity, roles, etc. that in reality have been repeated over and over over the years to the point that it is simply cheap now. We are criticizing the same thing, but our eyes simply are seeing through a different lens. And you are trying to hold onto something that doesn’t reflect a worldly public opinion.

17 hours ago, m76 said:

It's almost as if being from a minority automatically implies they need to be arrogant and filled with unbridled rage against the entire world.

I get what you are saying about how some characters of a different demographic come across as aggressive and angry at the world, my shit don’t stink sort of thing. That does happen sometimes, but that also could be a misunderstanding from the creators of whatever the medium of entertainment is. It is a misunderstanding, mischaracterization, and out of touch intention, sometimes intentional and other times not so by their role given. It is the creators who are doing that and their out of touch syndrome. And they have the right intention, but sometimes hurt those groups of people by simply not understanding HOW they should be as a character or represented so to speak.

[m76]

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

OK, @m76, before I get stated I do, in fact, know better than to debate with you because I know this is going to go. I'll question you viewpoints, nothing more and nothing less, but you'll register it as a personal attack on you when all I'm doing is challenging your views. I know what I should do is follow @The Blackangel's example and ignore you, but I wanna try this one more time in the hope that you do have the capacity learn, see a new perspective and respond like a rational human being. I'm doing that because I know you're a smart guy and I haven't given up on you yet.

If you didn't want to be hostile you should've just skipped this entire preface. You are dismissing the idea that you could be wrong even a tiny bit.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

It's not the people you rather unjustly labelled as a negative element in society called "progressives" pushing the idea that fiction needs to mirror reality,

They have a negative influence on society, so it's not unjust to label the self identifying progressives as a negative element. Those negative influences create division, hate, and most sadly segregation.  But I'm not going to go further into that here as that is irrelevant to the topic. If you need to self identify as a progressive, you probably aren't really progressive.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

fiction does mirror reality, or at least any fiction worth a damb dose. I say that because if fiction didn't connect to real world emotions, experiences, social tropes and relationships people share in the real world, there would be nothing to connect fiction to ourselves as people, it would have no impact. It doesn't have to be a blunt, literal reference to connect with us, it can be more metaphorical, buried by the overtones of the world crafted by the creators imagination, but it will be there.

 Fiction is based on real world themes and topics. But if it were to mirror reality exactly it wouldn't be fiction. It's called fiction because it is fictional as in the opposite of real.

I'm assuming you are working up to the part where this will explain why  we need to count the number of female characters in fiction like they were numbers in a spreadsheet. Because so far this seems irrelevant to the topic.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

If all great writers and creators of fiction gave an aspiring creator one piece of advice, I reckon the vast majority would say the same thing. Write what you know. And because creators can in the end only be inspired, whether it be directly or indirectly, by the real world I could say that it's not even possible to have fiction that doesn't mirror reality.

Write what you know is good advice, but it doesn't mean you have to write your own life's story. It just means that it is unwise to go into detail when writing about topics that you are not familiar with. For example if I'm writing a book it would be ill advised for me to write about the process of bomb making because I know nothing about it. But I can learn about it, or call in experts.

I still don't know where is this going however.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

Did you know, for example, that J.R.R Tolkien based the Battle of Hems Deep in The Lord of the Rings on the real Battle of Vienna in 1863? From the attempts to destroy the walls with explosives to the cavalry charge to beak the siege and win the battle at the end, it's almost exactly the same. Nobody accused Tolkien of "hitting to close to reality" or told him to "keep real world references out" of it because he was just doing what good writers do. Write what he knew.

That is called being inspired by real world events. Tolkien' does not write about Ottomans and Hapsburgs fighting, but Dwarves, Elves, Orcs, etc. So it does not mirror reality, it takes and reinterprets it for its own purpose. If this is what you mean by mirroring reality, that's entirely different. But then why are we counting the number of female characters? Obviously we can't count orcs, so we already strayed from reality, why do we need to adhere to some arbitrary representation of female characters?

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

We was a veteran himself and knew history, so those two things were a big inspiration for him even though his books weren't exactly documentaries. If you deny the simple truth that fiction reflects reality and pretend the connection is not there, it's little wonder you've become so superficial, immature and vain about it, not to mention how stubborn you are in your denials.

Nobody said fiction can have nothing taken from reality. Actually, all fiction is derived from reality, because that is the only thing we know and can draw upon as humans. I said it does not need to be a mirror image of it.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

If you still not convinced, let's try looking at it in a way more specific to a hero and how a hero in fiction is a reflection of reality. A hero's deeds are heroic in fiction need to be comparable to something considered a heroic deed in the real world, otherwise how could you even consider it heroic at all? For example, let's say saving someone from a burning building. That can happen in fiction just as easily in real life, and you said so yourself, "Nobody is trying to diminish real world heroes, or imply that if you don't look like adonis you can't be heroic IRL.", so why would it be such an issue for you to offer the same admiration to a fictional hero for doing the same thing just because they didn't float your boat? The last time I encountered logic like that was when I was a teenager arguing with some girl who insisted a boyband (I can't remember specially what boyband, but I remember they were god awful, even by boyband standards) sounded good because they were nice looking.

I can't offer the same admiration to a fictional hero, because I know it's not real. I'm not saying a non heroic character becomes heroic if they are good looking. I'm saying that if I have to choose between an ugly hero and a beautiful hero, I'll always chose the latter. while all their other characteristics are exactly the same. It's a simple matter of preference. Because it is fiction it is not real, so we can do anything, so why make them ugly, it literally makes no sense.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

That, for some reason, being easy on the eyes made them sound better. So you see, you bring to this the logic of a teenage pop fan. I'm not stupid, I know how vain the world of pop music is, I'm just saying that, for me, that whilst I looked at the Spice Girls as a teen and thought "Yeeep!", but that didn't make "Wannabe" any easier to listen to. 

You invented this argument and now you are arguing against it, great, I'm not even needed here, because you can argue just as well with yourself.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

Well, tell me what movies your movies your watching, games you're playing, books your reading and TV series you're watching because you're not picking them very well. The alternative is that you're talking complete nonsense because hero's have changed.

There are numerous examples, but I'll just stick to one from each genre. For a TV Show: Star Trek Discovery. Michael Burnham is anathema to every value of star trek, and the federation. But when I criticize the character and the show I'm instantly labelled as a racist and/ or a sexist. When it has nothing to do with either. The only thing it has to do with is that they are written an unlikable and arrogant character who goes against the values established by the story so far.

Then among movies let's use Star Wars Force Awakens. Rey does not go through a hero's journey she is just awesome at everything she tries automatically. She uses force suggestion without any training, a feat that took Obi Wan half his life to master. She even holds her own against a sith lord in battle without ever training in the ways of the Jedi or handling a lightsaber. This is what we call a Mary Sue character. But when the movie got criticized rightly it was "all those toxic manbabies".

And among animations let's use something recent: Masters of the Universe revelations. They lied to people about the show's nature saying it will be focused on he-man, then when it wasn't and people got angry rightfully so it was the toxic fans fault again. But even when we look past that the real hero of the show Teela is represented as an arrogant egotistic, self absorbed character, who is just awesome at everything, and better than he-man himself.

Let's see a game. For example Uncharted Lost Legacy. All negative characters are male in it, and even the few male characters who aren't villains are represented as these dudebros. And the two perfect female heroes are awesome at everything and regularly exchange feminist talking points between each other.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

Men are more emotional and conflicted than they used to be woman are more stern and wilful. Nobody's saying you have to like these changes, but how on earth you don't see them is beyond my understanding.

Egotistic, arrogant, does not equal wilful and stern. If you are now going to say that there were no wilful and stern women and weak/emotional men in fiction before recently I'm just going to quit right here, because it means you actually created a fiction that you pretend is reality. 

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

Just look at how different Sean Connery's James Bond is to Daniel Graig's, for example. Now, I don't know if you for some reason can't see it, refuse to see or if you're just making up this false truth about how hero's have changed in fiction to strengthen your position here, but something sure as hell isn't right. We may just have to agree to disagree because I just see what you're talking about.

Yes they are different. And surprise surprise I think Daniel Craig is a terrible James Bond, he doesn't fit the bill.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

Again, where are you getting this idea that people are painting what you refer to as "protected groups" as perfection?

Because you can't criticize them without being called a bigot or an ist. So you just have to pretend that they are perfect.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

Not only is that straight up bullshit, it's not what people within those "protected groups" even want out of thier represented/inclusive characters.

That's the first thing you are completely right about. Because it is all fake, it is not aimed at the actual minorities. it is aimed at white woke progressives smelling their own farts about how virtuous they are, the likes who start counting the exact number of women in games like the writers of this hitpiece.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

Don't take my word for it, go ask them yourself, and the best news yet you don't even have to look beyond this very thread. If what your claiming is true the backlash would be coming from those groups, not from where we all know the complaints about inclusion (not lack of inclusion) actually come from.

The complains about lack of inclusion comes from white liberals for the most part. Who even attack actual members of said groups if they speak out against their brand of inclusiveness. It's my way or the highway with them.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

The only sensible thing you said in that entire post, but no comeback on any of the points brought up, so I'm just gonna assume that you didn't want to admit I actually right there.

if you paid attention you'd have known that I agree, I mentioned the heroes journey multiple times. Every hero needs its kryptonite.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

There's a big difference between helping the audience sympathise with the motives of a villain and painting the villain as a victim or condoning them. You're not a stupid man, you know the difference.

I know the difference, but progressive hollywood writers certainly don't as there were multiple instances in progressive shows excusing villains for henious acts.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

Strange, a few chapters ago you were claiming that inclusion of "protected groups" were being written as too perfect to make them look more heroic, now all of a sudden members of the LGBTQ+ community are being portraited as "arrogant" and "fuelled with rage"? You can't even keep you own position of this straight! 

LOL, they don't intend them to be arrogant, but that's exactly how they come out. They can still be infallible while being egotistic and filled with hate. But of course to progressives indiscriminate hate against things like white man is virtuous so that's a positive for them.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

The thing is I think I know exactly what character it is you're referring to (Ellie, TLOU Part II) and we both know her rage and the fuel for her hatred and anger had nothing to do with her orientation.

No, I'm not. From the games that are accused of being woke, TLOU2 is the least woke. TLOU is not trying to virtue signal or pass judgement either way. It just represents as all fiction should. The rage there is not random undirected anger against an antire group or some pretend systemic oppression, but has a cause.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

I'm not gonna go into what those motivations were because spoilers and the thread has nothing to do with TLOU, but you know what I'm taking about. Not to mention that's only one character. I admit that's an assumption and I could be wrong, but either way you still don't back any of this up with examples. If you're gonna say that all gay characters these days are written such a specific way, you have give an example of what you mean and explain how those traits, be it positive or negative, tie into that characters sexual orientation, otherwise what you're spewing is some unfounded and, quit frankly, quite bigoted nonsense.

Admittedly LGBTQ representation is not an issue with games yet, most games can only be accused of being shallow and tokenizing in this regard.  I'm tired of all this negativity anyway  so I'll cite a positive example. in outer worlds Parvati and her romance with Junlei. It's one of the best overall romance storylines in any game.

18 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

Before you say it, I'm not "calling you out" on that unfairly. Only a couple of weeks ago somebody posted something on the forms claiming that a decrease in deportations in America was causing COVID to spread. I told that person to back that up or I'd have to consider the post unfounded and racially incentive and would be deleted. This person couldn't do that, so the post was removed. Let me make it clear, I'm not threatening to do the same thing to you or your post, I'm just pointing that out for my sake before you claim I'm treating you unfairly. And not for the first time, let me make it clear I don't believe you're homophobic in any way, I'm just saying if your going to say something like that it's better to back it up.

To think this topic was supposed to be about female representation. How did we get from there to homophobic?

[Shagger]

1 hour ago, m76 said:

If you didn't want to be hostile you should've just skipped this entire preface. You are dismissing the idea that you could be wrong even a tiny bit.

 

I don't even need to read beyond this sheer hypocrisy. Ever since you arrived here there has been no narrative that's correct except your own, no haw far fetched or controversial,  not matter how many of us see flaw in it. When challenged, you become a victim and it's really getting old.

 

Seriously, why are you here? Let me tell you, if the purpose to convince us that your way seeing thins is the way it should be seen, that you speak the one and only truth then are wasting everyone's time, including your own. I've admitted I'm wrong plenty of times, and I'm about to again.

 

22 hours ago, Shagger said:

... but I wanna try this one more time in the hope that you do have the capacity learn, see a new perspective and respond like a rational human being. I'm doing that because I know you're a smart guy and I haven't given up on you yet.

 

See? I was wrong. I should have given up on you ages ago, you are beyond hope.

[m76]

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

I don't even need to read beyond this sheer hypocrisy. Ever since you arrived here there has been no narrative that's correct except your own, no haw far fetched or controversial,  not matter how many of us see flaw in it. When challenged, you become a victim and it's really getting old.

 

Seriously, why are you here? Let me tell you, if the purpose to convince us that your way seeing thins is the way it should be seen, that you speak the one and only truth then are wasting everyone's time, including your own. I've admitted I'm wrong plenty of times, and I'm about to again.

 

 

See? I was wrong. I should have given up on you ages ago, you are beyond hope.

Passive aggressive as ever.

Modus operandi:

1. Present unreasonable premise, painting the debate partner as a complete idiot if they were to refuse your premise
2. When inevitably they refuse it claim you were right all along: they are idiots indeed
3. Act the victim and bask in your imaginary glory without even addressing actual points raised

If you are so afraid to have your viewpoints challenged don't start a debate about them. And more importantly quit wasting my time. At least have the common courtesy of honestly addressing my points like I did yours. But if that's too much to ask, then I guess there is no point in takling to you going forward. Because a wall would be a more rewarding partner.

Edited August 26, 2021 by m76

[Shagger]

13 hours ago, m76 said:

Passive aggressive as ever.

Modus operandi:

1. Present unreasonable premise, painting the debate partner as a complete idiot if they were to refuse your premise
2. When inevitably they refuse it claim you were right all along: they are idiots indeed
3. Act the victim and bask in your imaginary glory without even addressing actual points raised

If you are so afraid to have your viewpoints challenged don't start a debate about them. And more importantly quit wasting my time. At least have the common courtesy of honestly addressing my points like I did yours. But if that's too much to ask, then I guess there is no point in talking to you going forward. Because a wall would be a more rewarding partner.

 

It's ironic after all this talk about mirrors that you think you're writing about me, when you just written a perfect description about yourself. I know how smart you are and I know what you trying to do, get under my skin, but it won't work. Now, as a mod, I'm telling you get back on topic.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Shagger

[StaceyPowers]

On 8/25/2021 at 2:00 PM, m76 said:

And surprise surprise I think Daniel Craig is a terrible James Bond, he doesn't fit the bill.

I've only read one Bond book, but I actually thought Craig played the closest fit to the original character Ian Fleming wrote about.

[Heatman]

On 8/22/2021 at 7:52 PM, StaceyPowers said:

Here is an article discussing a study on diversity in video game characters.

https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-80-video-game-characters-are-male-according-new-diversity-study-1616389

“Nearly 80 percent of video game characters are male, according to a new survey by gaming website Diamond Lobby. Over 100 games from 2017 to 2021 were surveyed, including 10 of the highest selling games from each of the respective years.”

I have to admit that is actually a larger percentage than I thought.

Seriously, I find it very difficult to believe this survey research result statistics because it looks over stretched to be true. How's that going to be possible with over 80% male characters, it sounds absurd.