Women Fantasize Too: Why We Need Better Representation in Games

The roles of female characters in games has been a topic of conversation among feminists and gamers alike for years, but the issue has gained steam in the past two years, partly because of Anita Sarkeesian’s video series “Tropes vs Women in Video Games.” The series, which launched in 2013 in an effort to explore the most common uses of women in video games, has caused contention between people both inside and outside the gaming community, particularly among those who denied the fact that women were misrepresented in games and who felt like Sarkeesian was trying to slander the gaming community and culture by bringing these issues to light.

[SaveFerris]

What about games like Remember Me, Mirror's Edge, and the Dead or Alive series?

[mixelon]

.. I'm not sure DoA counts as "better" representation, haha.

But Remember Me and Mirrors Edge were very positive. Nobody denied there being some representation already.

[Ohohoho]

"I'm not sure DoA counts as "better" representation, haha."

Interesting. Are you implying that there are not women with large breasts that dress provocatively?

[SaveFerris]

'Research has even proven that female players find empowerment and appeal in female characters who are physically strong and attractive.'
I believe the fighters from DOA match the above statement.

[mixelon]

Ohohoh: Durrrggggg.. Seriously?

No, I'm not suggesting there aren't girls with large breasts who dress provocatively. Good representation does not equal - "there are some girls here, we're done!"

Saveferris: it's more nuanced than that. "powerful and attractive" isn't all it takes. Later on in the same *paragraph* - "One participant said, “It’s that I want [a sexy character] to be my own fantasy, not the male player’s fantasy." DoA's girls have virtually no appeal to most girl players. The article was about diversity, DOA has very little.

[hazelamy]

yeah, but look at the struggle the developers had to get Remember Me made with a female protagonist like they wanted,the same with their new game, Life Is Strange.

all but one publisher wanted them to change the gender of the main character.

[Ohohoho]

"Why We Need Better Representation in Games."

Gaming as an entertainment medium is young, but is still older than most gamers who game today. There are thousands upon thousands of games with all kinds of representation.

Now, the title makes a statement, that women fantasize too, that is both a moment of Captain Obvious, and at the same time doesn't understand a key aspect of fantasy.

Fantasizing can, but doesn't chiefly mean creating a representation of yourself in a fictional world. The idea that representation must be a process in which a random, 185lb, red headed, lesbian woman is the protagonist in fantasy kinda eliminates the fantasy part of it.

Representation in this instance is highly subjective, and creates a no-win scenario. It's also factually inaccurate.

Studies have shown that the majority of gamers actually don't care about representation. They care about good games with good ideas. The representation narrative was fabricated by people who were not and don't intend on being gamers at all.

Fantasy and escapism are about experiencing things you don't have the opportunity to, or flat out can't, experience in reality. Making fantasy mediums move towards realism removes the very purpose they've always had to begin with.

I'd ask Ms. Shonte Daniels a few questions.

1. Do you think people are incapable of experiencing the story of someone that isn't a direct avatar of themselves and enjoying it?

2. Why is it so important to you to place importance on sex, race, or sexual orientation. Especially for fictional characters, and especially when in the Present Day, activists claim to be actively trying to remove the separations and divisions between peoples?

3. Do you understand why tropes are tropes and what a trope actually is? Ms. Sarkeesian really doesn't, and she's not actually advocating for "more complex female representation." Someone who does so actually presents solutions, Ms. Sarkeesian just has lists of grievances and shuts off all communication.

And finally.

4. Do you really think a fictional character, who has no actual life and thus has never experienced any part of reality, should not only be created to fit an ideological checklist, but also comport itself as though it is a member of that ideology?

The interesting part of this article is this...

"Research has even proven that female players find empowerment and appeal in female characters who are physically strong and attractive."

It cites a study done in 2007 that has many issues. One such issue is the idea that games are used to create a gendered self which is entirely preposterous. I don't have the room to go into all the problems, but I do want to link a particular study that pretty much entirely refutes this study.

http://www.digra.org/wp-con...

That study comes to the conclusion that gamers don't care about representation. They can, have, and will continue to play as anything. This makes the implication that those that DO care about representation are A) Not part of gamer culture or B) Have a different agenda which they are attempting to use gaming to further given that gaming is the most interactive entertainment medium in existence. There are many many many studies that prove that gaming has no actual real world impact on behaviour, so the people who are trying to use gaming to push an agenda to change social behaviour to fit a particular narrative are actually wasting their time.

[hazelamy]

1: many male gamers seemingly aren't.

2: equal and identical are two very different things, you can be equal yet still different.
it's a very blinkered view if you think that being equal means they have to be like you.
pushing for better representation isn't about making everybody the same, it's about embracing the differences.
not just accepting the differences, but celebrating them.
after all, the world would be a very boring place if everybody was the same.
not everybody is like me, but that's a wonderful thing, they have a different perspective, they see things differently than i do, they might see things i miss or consider unimportant.

and you might ask gamers why sex is so important, as when there's an article about how half of gamers are female they say that women only play casual games and therefore aren't real gamers.

like the anger they feel at sites that say "gamers" are dead, i mean, who are these sites to tell you you're not a "gamer"
that's fair enough actually.
but then they then turn around and say the exact same thing to women and girls who game.

and no real world impact?
tell that to the girl who had the courage to come out to her parents after playing The Last of Us.

how many people who work at NASA do because they watched Star Trek?

games don't influence behaviour in that a sane person won't go on a murderous rampage after playing a violent game.
but they, like other media, do have an effect on people.

you know archery got a lot more popular with girls after the Hunger Games movies came out.
couldn't be that these girls were inspired by a fictional character could it?
because according to you, that's "entirely preposterous"

maybe back in the days of Pac Man you could argue that games had no social importance, but these days games touch on so many issues that really matter to people.
sexuality, religion, personal freedoms, personal responsibilities, the good and bad governments can do.
just some of the many issues games have covered.

all these "no politics in games" arguments, you're just reducing games to the level of childrens toys.
that's demeaning to gamers and the developers who make these games.

and it's telling the developers what they can and can't put into their games, which is what so many gamers claim to be against.

and aren't you pushing an ideology?

[Ohohoho]

1. All male gamers play as someone other than themselves every single day, so all male gamers are capable of it. You sound bitter.

2. Equity and Equality aren't the same thing either, yet you're arguing equity as though it is equality, making a "it's about the numbers" argument and not concerned at all with quality. Having a game with a purple female platypus doesn't automatically make a game better than if it had any other kind of character. There are no numbers suggesting that an equity shift would mean better games and more sales and that's why the equity argument will always fail.

I'm asking why sex is important in a game. Women are not half the gaming population, those numbers are misrepresented and inflated in many ways. I'm asking why it's so important to project your sex, your race, your entire identity onto a fiction character designed to offer you an experience you normally can't have. I can't be, for example, a large talking cat that can throw fireballs in real life. I can be that in Skyrim. And when I'm wearing armor, my character's sex then becomes completely irrelevant as everyone looks nearly identical in armor and my character doesn't talk.

No one said that those women aren't gamers. Everyone said the study is misrepresenting the truth, grouping together various sub groups of gamers into one to try and push a marketing scheme. That's actually what those studies were designed for. They weren't designed to make a statement about female gamers from a gender politics point of view, they were designed to push certain marketing strategies that publishers wish to go forward with but need justification to present to shareholders.

Yes, no real world impact. The courage she had was in her the whole time, and she'd have eventually come out regardless of The Last of Us' existence or not. The only way you can say that TLOU had an impact is if her parents were also gamers and it influenced their acceptance of her or not. Following your logic would lead to legitimizing already debunked claims like gaming causes school shootings.

[Ohohoho]

I don't know, why don't you ask them if they watched Star Trek or not? How many work there absent of watching Star Trek? How many would have worked there if Star Trek never existed? There have been countless studies showing that media does not impact life unless a pre-existing personality or mental disorder is already present.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You don't get to say games do and then do not affect people.

It is preposterous. Did Twilight cause girls to go out looking for vampires and werewolves to date? That's your logic.

Games don't have social importance unless the game is specifically designed to have social importance. Inserting social importance into all games is wrong, creates a situation in which you're likely to insult a team of diverse individuals, and is looking for problems.

The "no politics in games" argument doesn't reduce games to toys, you're doing that by refusing to accept the idea that entertainment doesn't have to have a political message. No politics in games is making games what they are. An entertainment artform designed to foster fantasy and escapism. You want politics, become a politician.

No, no one that's saying "no politics in games" is telling developers what they can or can't put into games. It's always been telling people like you why you can't shame and insult developers for the games they choose to make and what they want to put in them. No politics in games means no agenda pushing, shaming, and essentially new aged bible thumping to force games to be what you want them to be.

If there is an ideology of "let developers make what they want and you have the choice of whether or not to buy it", then I'm certainly guilty of pushing that agenda.