Monday, 7 July 2014

Out of the Sea - The Little Mermaid

Ariel is one of those Disney Princesses who simply can't catch a break. She's too modern for all of the "problematic" stuff to be written off as a sign of the times like Snow White, Cinderella or Aurora from their respective movies (all from before the 1960's), but on a cursory glance she is not seen as in control  or as positive compared to later princesses (when people aren't complaining about those anyway). If you have followed me for a while you hopefully know by now that I don't consider minimizing the awesomeness of our already existing female characters to be a positive attitude. 

I believe that the culture of negativity surrounding these characters is at least in part responsible for the lack of massive expansion of female protagonists in current media. After all, nobody wants to be seen as a horrible sexist, so artists might hesitate to create female characters at all out of fear of being labeled a misogynist (within the context of our current topic, imagine trying to create this beautiful movie with an inspiring female protagonist, only to have people on the Internet dismiss your movie because they insist one of the songs is about promoting rape*), furthermore, if you tell people enough times that women are always damsels in distress, even when you are actually doing it to criticize the concept, you run the risk of actually perpetuating in people's minds the notion that women are damsels in distress by further normalizing it. So instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater by exclusively focusing on the bad, I'd rather we look at awesome existing ladies, and build from there. So today I will be looking at the Disney classic "The Little Mermaid" and provide a largely positive voice for it. Obviously there will be some spoilers for The Little Mermaid.


Out of the Sea
Disney's The Little Mermaid


Ariel as a Heroic Character


When we first meet Ariel, she forgot about- and accidentally skipped an important concert in order to explore a scary shipwreck (if you are a fan of tying together Disney movies, you can pretend it's the sunken ship which carried the king and queen of Frozen's Arendelle, even though it looks somewhat different) in search of human trinkets. Her friend Flounder is clearly scared, providing a huge contrast with Ariel's look of confidence and excitement. Before she opens her mouth, she already establishes herself as an adventurer who is not overly concerned with her father's rules.

Ariel is a dreamer and a rebel. She takes full charge of her destiny, even if she doesn't always think the entire thing through before jumping at the call. She wants to explore new horizons and learn new things (even though her mentor of all things human is hilariously incompetent). She sets goals, empowers herself to pursue them through her dreams and she boldly sets out to achieve them, even if she isn't entirely sure how to do it. Her setbacks are temporary and only embolden her drive. Yet, her impulsive drive is also a cautionary tale as in her anger against her father she made a foolish deal with the sea witch. Still, through her own skills and the help of her friends she manages to overcome all challenges set before her.




Here's a typical scene which exemplifies Ariel's thought process. Ariel learns Eric has been deceived by Ursula into marrying 'Vanessa'. Before anyone else suggests any possible plan of action, Ariel has already jumped into the ocean intending to swim after them. Only after she made her own plans clear (although solely by action as she is mute in this particular scene), her friends jump into action too to help her. Sebastian drops barrels into the ocean to give Ariel something to hang onto and Flounder helps carry her to the ship. She gets help, but Ariel is the one driving the action.  

Ariel is the embodiment of "follow your dreams", not in the sense that she just sits around all day losing herself in daydreams (there's some of that too), but in a proactive way. She acts as if the background noise of her life are tapes from motivational speakers. She doesn't talk herself out of chasing her dreams. She doesn't sit around waiting for other people to give her permission. She's not scared of the negative consequences of her actions, she'll deal with those if and when they come up, because she knows she can deal with them.




Ariel's Character Flaws and Criticism


Overly criticizing Ariel for sending the wrong message with her impulsive behavior is also not entirely productive. It does clearly cause Ariel hardship through her deal with the sea witch, and this is clear to everyone watching the movie. So why is this aspect of her character only talked about from a strict "monkey see, monkey do" perspective? Role models aren't there just so we can emulate their behavior regardless of outcome, we can also learn from their mistakes. In this case: don't make binding contracts with fast-talking, obviously evil sea hags (insert charlatan of choice) who present you a poisoned gift while you are angry.

Also, isn't the opposite scenario exactly what The Legend of Zelda franchise gets criticized for? Often major criticism is leveled against the stories of video games like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998) because princess Zelda, being the physical manifestation of wisdom, is a schemer who works against the villain from the shadows, waiting for the right moment to strike rather than being a female knight (her weapon of choice in the franchise being the bow and arrow plays into that personality by having her at a distance even when in active combat). For not actively handling a sword however, critics reduce her to being a "damsel in distress" and what they actually claim to want is a role model for little girls like a female Link (the playable protagonist of The Legend of Zelda, in case you are unaware) who embodies courage and who jumps at the call of adventure, even though he also acts without thinking (except here the negative consequences of his impulsive behavior are rarely enforced, he's even less of a cautionary tale). So why would a female Link be ideal when similar characteristics are vilified in Ariel? Ariel may not handle a sword, but she certainly has Link's spirit and courage.

By the by, when talking about literally being a hero fighting bad guys, I would prefer my daughter (or son) to take lessons from princess Zelda rather than Link. When, say, in a hostage situation I'd rather she calculate the risk and decide not to act for her own safety and make it out alive rather than her jumping in to be the hero. 



Still, Ariel's impulsive drive as well as her "getting saved" by the prince she loves (more on that later) gets her unfairly labeled as weak. She's hated (or at best extremely cautiously loved) because she's seen as a negative influence on young girls. Instead of looking at a girl who will shift Heaven and Earth if it means accomplishing her goals and dreams, they only see a weak princess archetype who only finds value in getting married to a man.
I personally do think that in these movies they could have stood to show a little passage of time between the final conflict and the marriage to better establish that these people did get to know each other better, but are we otherwise honestly going to vilify a girl for falling in love? Especially for a character who since had a prequel movie and a television show running for 3 seasons (31 episodes) clearly establishing that no, finding a husband was not the most important goal in this girl's mind. It was just one of the events in her life. Are all her actions and motives perfectly rational and positive? Of course not, but characters in fiction are not supposed to be perfect. Their flaws help make them distinctive and help drive the plot, that's what makes them characters rather than perfect little Mary Sues.

"When some English moralists write about the importance of having character, they appear to mean only the importance of having a dull character."
- G.K. Chesterton

Recently Frozen (2013) tried to poke fut at how absurd it would be for two characters to instantly decide to get married the day they first met, as one of the partners could possibly not be who they claim they are. However The Little Mermaid also made fun of that situation with Ursula expecting a foolish concept as love at first sight to fail while setting the rules for her contract with Ariel. She just underestimated Ariel's drive in getting Eric's attention and it happened to work out for them in the end. Not entirely by chance, mind you, Ariel had observed Eric being heroic when he put himself in danger to save his dog Max. She had clearly seen him as a good person  (and rescuing him afterwards might be an example of the Florence Nightingale Effect in action). If anything Eric was the unreasonable one by being instantly smitten with a girl who in his current state of consciousness could have been an illusion. He probably also should have had a bigger freak-out when he learned the two women fighting over him were actually mythical creatures.



Some people make the claim that the film also endorses that, in order to get a man, a woman has to shut up. Ariel gives up her voice as payment for legs because, according to Ursula, body language is much more important. Is it? It being "advice" given by the clearly evil sea witch who already revealed her diabolical plan to the viewer and who still keeps on mumbling to her pets how she's going to screw Ariel over should give you a hint on how helpful her advice is. Ariel being unable to talk is the entire reason why Eric is uninterested in her and why it takes a ridiculously romantic setting to have him even consider kissing her. Yes, it's rather allegorical as Eric is specifically searching for the singing girl who saved his life, and Ariel being mute rules her out as a candidate, but the idea is there. Eric doesn't want just any girl using her "body language", Ariel is clearly pretty enough, but he values the girl having a voice.



Saving the Princess and the Buddy Dynamic


A lot is made of Eric saving Ariel in the final battle against Ursula and how this (again) makes Ariel out to be a weak character. Not only does this ignore the fact that Ariel saves Eric earlier three times (1: saving Eric from the sinking ship, 2: showing up with her animal friends to stop Vanessa/Ursula from marrying Eric and 3: making Ursula shoot Flotsam and Jetsam instead of Eric). Even during the final conflict, Ariel is primarily concerned with Eric's safety rather than her own. Furthermore it wasn't like Ursula had locked Ariel up in a tower and now Eric had to storm the castle to save her, no, Ariel had angered Ursula by killing Flotsam and Jetsam. Ariel has Ursula's attention as she was actively aiming to kill her, which allowed Eric an opening to put an end to Ursula. Eric did not win Ariel by triumphing over the monster, she was an active participant. Not to mention this was basically the first time in the entire movie Eric had any idea what was going on in the first place. Classifying the ordeal as a "prince saving the girl" is overly simplistic and an unjust rejection of Ariel as a heroic character in her own right.

H.P. Lovecraft presents:
Call of Cthursula!

Instead of this being a case of "the hero rescues the girl", I consider this one of the earliest examples of a sort of buddy dynamic (still trying to find a proper name for it, as "buddy" usually refers to two characters of the same sex) which in recent years has become very prevalent in Disney Princess films, where it's actually the male and female protagonist working together towards their goals. It's simply not about who rescues who anymore or which character is more powerful in the relation. Thinking of it that way presents the characters in the relationship as opposing parties rather than as the team they so obviously are.
What is important is that we have two people who have each other's back coming together through adversity. Ariel and Eric are both unique people who bring their respective abilities and knowledge to the table. They aren't just a couple, they are partners (and a true missed opportunity is that DisneyToon sequel movies and series based on Disney classics rarely play up this aspect).

Aladdin (1992)
Consider the following: in Aladdin (which came out in 1992, a mere 3 years after The Little Mermaid) a lot of the conflict is driven by Aladdin rejecting the help of princess Jasmine by not being honest with her out of fear she would reject him. He grows as a character once he learns to accept his own value, rather than the facade he constructed to impress others. When Aladdin and Jasmine work together (Jasmine is incredibly good at picking up on Aladdin's schemes and playing along with them), they managed to outsmart the violent shopkeeper and even Jafar. (For another non-princess movie with a similar setup released around the same time, consider Bernard and Bianca in The Rescuers Down Under (1990))

Ariel losing her voice when she gets on land is an important factor in all of this as it plays with the concept. Had she been able to speak, the conflict would have been instantly resolved as Eric would have recognized her as the girl who saved her and became infatuated with. Instead however, because of Eric's doubts about her being that girl, the two of them actually have the opportunity to get to know each other as people. Ursula makes the relationship between Ariel and Eric more powerful as she prevents them from instantly having their happily ever after. It was just rather foolish of Ariel to jump into it with a contract that had no chance of being cancelled and would mean her becoming enslaved by Ursula if it failed.
In this aspect, Aladdin's lies are essentially his movie's counterpart to Ariel losing her voice. They are both story elements that prevent both the male and female hero from working together and solving the conflict more efficiently, but they grow from the hardship that resulted because of it.



For Tangled (2010) Disney finally decided to actually market a princess movie in which this dynamic is made very clear from the start. A part of this was done by removing Rapunzel's name, the actual title of the fairy tale, from the movie in certain areas (my DVD & Blu-Ray boxes still call it "Rapunzel") to put the male and female hero on even more equal footing. Although because we live in an environment where female characters are instinctively valued less than their male counterparts, the writers also almost reduced Flynn Rider's role to comic relief to make Rapunzel an even more resourceful character. It actually works out for this movie so that's not a negative point against it, mind you, just an observation on how hard it is to create a positive female character in the eyes of critics, and Rapunzel still doesn't get the credit she deserves.  

Conclusion


If there's anything I want you to take away from all of this, it's the following: in a lot of situations it is very good to be critical of what's going on around you, of what people tell you, even your own thought processes, etc, etc. However there is absolutely nothing wrong with in your downtime just parking yourself in front of a movie or video game without constantly worrying about how what you see affects you (especially negatively). Having fun or having your heart warmed may not seem like the most intellectual of pursuits, but it might just make you a better, more caring person. Too much negativity poisons you too.

And to all my artist friends out there, even if I don't know you and will never meet you: don't let fear of negative criticism or the negative voices who find fault in everything prevent you from creating the art you want to create.

Screw your negativity, Ariel is awesome!


Links & References


Images from:
Disney's The Little Mermaid (1989)
Disney's Aladdin (1992)
Disney's Tangled (2010) Film Poster


* No, I'm not going to debunk that stupid "Kiss the Girl is about rape"-thing. It's bullshit alarmist quote mining on the level of playing music backwards for bad messages. 

Monday, 19 May 2014

Lara Croft


As you might have guessed from previous posts, I'm not a big fan of reducing characters to the single characteristic you take umbrage with.

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

Anita's Fanart Tomfoolery

Well here we are again. This morning I discovered another interesting revelation regarding Tropes vs. Women when an artist became aware of the project, and discovered she had contributed to it without realizing it.

UPDATE: I'll try to link to Tammy/Cowkitty's blogposts as this develops, which will be down below. In short so far there has been a small exchange between Tammy and Feminist Frequency, hopefully they'll work things out and as such I have nothing more to contribute to this topic. Now a few weeks later, Anita has apologized (although not without once again trying to paint her detractors in the worst light possible. Apparently it's our fault that Anita didn't do the right thing earlier) and done the right thing by removing the artwork.


Anita's Fanart Tomfoolery


So this promotional image is fairly familiar by now, right? It's the banner used during the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games campaign. We've got female characters from mostly promotional material from several different video game franchises lined up to show what the project is about.



Except it turns out the image of Princess Daphne from Dragon's Lair is not imagery from the game itself or promotional material for the game, but fanart created by Cowkitty in 2009 and used without permission for a commercial project. (Original image below in the sources section)




But let's not be too hasty. For all we know Cowkitty herself might have referenced from a piece of promotional material or a scene from the game, so to be entirely sure let's do an overlay to see how similar these two images are.


That's an exact match. So not only are your YouTube Let's Plays unsafe, there will also be no hesitation if you are an artist and you have an image Sarkeesian would like to use. Our gaming ambassador, everyone!

(NOTE: the following is not legal advice. It is based on a basic understanding between IP holder and the fan community)

You might be wondering: "But it's a fanart based on a copyrighted character. The original artist doesn't own the rights to the character anyway. How is this different from any of the other characters featured in the promo image?"

That doesn't take away the work put into crafting the image and the original touches unique to the artist. Copyright law might be a gray area when it concerns fanart, but there is more to it than just who the character belongs to. As such the artist still has rights when creating an image because it's their image. Those rights don't include someone else having the permission to take the work you put online to be used in a commercial project with the artist's watermark removed (it's also simply nice to ask before you take it from Google without sourcing). 
There's also still the issue that this was a paid project. The Tropes vs Women Kickstarter had $6,000 as an original goal, $158,922 as it's ultimate budget and apparently she couldn't even be bothered to ask anyone's permission regarding the content she stole.

How long until people finally hold her accountable for these things? This isn't about trying to undermine her arguments, this is about basic things regarding her questionable ethics and practices. Everyone makes mistakes, but please at least own up to them instead of trying to sweep them under the rug. The silence regarding all of these issues is more damning than the actual controversies.


Sources

Kickstarter: Tropes vs Women in Video Games

Cowkitty
Princess Daphne Artwork (May 06, 2009)
How do I deal with my artwork being stolen? (March 05, 2014)
Twitter (March 05, 2014)
You Stole My Artwork: An Open Letter to Anita Sarkeesian (March 07, 2014)
(Update & official response) You Stole My Art: An Open Letter to Anita Sarkeesian (March 07, 2014)
(Update #3) You Stole My Artwork: An Open Letter to Anita Serkeesian - RESOLVED (March 17, 2014)

Friday, 7 February 2014

On Sonic Boom

So because I'm not very fond of gaming journalism I apparently managed to miss all the teasers about the new Sonic the Hedgehog related animated series and its prequel game Sonic Boom until the teaser trailer and character reveals popped up yesterday on social media. So let's have a quick look.

On Sonic Boom
Quick Thoughts on the Redesign.



Okay, why the bandages everywhere? Are their shoes in danger of getting wounded? What does Sonic need with a scarf? Why is Knuckles a steroid giant now?

Apparently they decided to make this separate from the main franchise, so even if it ultimately isn't very good, at least we'll still have the questionable quality of mainstream Sonic games rather than a complete departure from previous entries in the series (I'm looking at you, Tomb Raider). Known hells are better than uncertain heavens, right?

I was a big Sonic fan when I was a child and I still have a certain fondness for the series, but I also maintain a certain lack of expectations since we've been burned so many times since the Mega Drive days. Overall it doesn't look bad though. The setting looks inspired by classic Sonic the Hedgehog games. Amy and Tails look nice. Sonic looks okay in the trailers (looks like a bit of a conehead with spikes in the concept art). Only Knuckles is way too oversized for my taste. I'm also glad to see Amy bumped up to a more dignified position in the main team now and she has a lot of potential because of it, although we'll have to wait and see if she'll manage to live up to it.


Sonic Generations (2011)

Aside from a few annoying tendencies and a couple of games handling her badly, I always liked Amy Rose as a character. The only thing I really have a problem with in current Amy as a concept is that she rarely ever got the chance to stretch her legs beyond her obsession with Sonic. I hope they at least tone down that aspect of her personality.

Anyway, here's the reveal trailer for the video game.





What has me curious is a quick shot between 0:36 and 0:38. Screencapped below for your convenience.


All of our heroes fall through the floor of some kind of ruins. The guys fall flat on their faces (in Sonic's case literally), the girl lands on her feet and has a certain "look what a badass I am" on her face. Now that could just be the manifestation of Amy's new-found agility, which is awesome. However based on previous experiences I fear this might be the sign of a female character who has a chip on her shoulder about being a female in a group of male characters, which is when it gets annoying. After all, the goal is to put the girl on equal terms with the guys, not highlighting the difference by making it an obviously gendered issue.




In an interview with Polygon(1), Big Red Button team leader Bob Rafei revealed that Amy's redesign and inclusion was to make her a more capable character in her own right to make her more interesting for female audiences, and not just as a character designed by a bunch of men. That's of course a noble endeavor but historically that approach usually misses the point. After all, Sonic the Hedgehog has been a capable character in his franchise for 23 years and he's lying there with his face firmly planted in the ground.
Does moving Amy out of Sonic's shadow mean constantly having to show him up? Because that usually translates into an overall not very interesting character who has to do with token gestures of "capability" while the others still do all the meaningful work in the story. A truly badass character can afford to fall on their face occasionally because they don't need such token gestures of "empowerment". They simply are such because of their nature.


A real badass can get tossed around a bit.

So please, have Amy Rose be a badass on her own terms and not as a token portrayal for the sake of gender politics. She has had to wait long enough for a day in the spotlight.


Sources


(Images)
http://blogs.sega.com/2014/02/06/sega-launches-new-franchise-strategy-for-sonic-the-hedgehog-with-sonic-boom/?0=1
- Sonic Generations
- Avatar: The Last Airbender

1. http://www.polygon.com/2014/2/6/5387184/why-sega-handed-sonic-over-to-western-studios-and-gave-him-a-scarf

Monday, 20 January 2014

Player Character Customization

Having never played any of the Saints Row games before, I decided to check out the fourth installment last weekend when it was freely available on Steam. Having hours go by as if they were mere minutes I decided  a one weekend access wasn't enough for me and I bought the franchise pack. While playing I had some thoughts on a subject I would have liked to delve into earlier.

Also I would have talked about how much I enjoyed Remember Me but The Males of Games has me covered on that one and all I would have left to add would be spoilers on how much I enjoyed the story.  

What I'll be talking about here won't be how awesome I think Saints Row is, but about how I think it's a masterclass in customization which other game developers could take notes from and my thoughts on how customization relates to sexism. 

Player Character Customization
In Which I Fawn Over Saints Row & Defend Boobs




On Player Customization



One of the main reasons why I thought buying Saints Row The Third after instantly loving Saints Row IV was a no brainer was when I learned the customization menu was, with only minor differences, the same thing. Meaning I could play as exactly the same character I had grown attached to over those first few hours. Not only does playing as a character you designed yourself increase how much fun it is to play said character, it could also make the player overlook flaws that might otherwise be a deal breaker (or in my case buy the game without knowing anything else about it at all).

Also the fact that I didn't have to pick a name means I didn't spend the first 3 hours of the game thinking of one.



My version of the Boss / the President

What is especially praiseworthy in the customization is that you not only get to pick the Boss' race or gender, but also the Boss' personality (which is essentially extra options which allows for different voice actors). This means that different personalities will react differently to certain situations. This in itself massively lengthens replayability just to see all of the different Boss' reactions.

I would have liked to see something like that implemented in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. I thought it was very grating that we could pick as our character model practically every male character from the Star Wars universe, but somehow even 1 female skin would break immersion (likely because the voice actor was male). If you went out of the way to make all those extra models, why not go the extra mile and make the NPC dialogue more gender neutral and record a female voice actor as an option?

Heck, with games involving romance you'd have a lesbian couple for extra progressive points (or homosexual when we get there).

Small selection of available suits and outfits

A few months back we had people outrage over how Grand Theft Auto V doesn't have a female protagonist. While I think those outrages are often hyperbolic and unnecessary, the fact that GTA V doesn't have a female protagonists is a big reason why I'm currently not interested in getting the game (not that I hold it against the game, it just lacks one of my preferences). The last GTA game I played was San Andreas (and currently still am playing now that I own it on Steam), but I don't see how the stories of the GTA III games would be in any way harmed if they gave more options of playing a more customized character.

A side effect of having the same game for both genders also means we accidentally stumble on the philosophy writers/directors such as James Cameron have picked up, in which for a good female character you simply write a male character and change the pronouns (you know, because women happen to also be human).
A certain colorful character would probably label this problematic as "a man with boobs" even though she just got done criticizing gender specific signifiers but whatever, let's not bring unreasonable people into this when we don't have to.



On Sexism and Boob Backlash


Saints Row IV is one of the few recent major game releases that, to my knowledge, has avoided the often ridiculous outrage from the now infamous social justice crowd. As such I'm not sure it's a wise move on my part to use it as an example, but here we go.

Here's a comparison of a female Boss with a default body type (0% in skinny, fat and strength), with the sex appeal slider at different intervals (the slider also exists for the male Boss and it controls the size of his bulge).


Now yes, in the last image the Boss' breasts are hilariously oversized and they jiggle around in a way that would make Dead or Alive Xtreme blush (not in the least bit because DOAX' jiggle physics have yet to meet our friend gravity and it actually looks okay here). A lot of the people complaining about sexism in video games would undoubtedly classify that image as sexist, even with other options available.
No, I haven't heard their specific opinions on Saints Row, but I think it is a reasonable assumption they would make that argument given their concern about what's up on the walls in your private bedroom in "how to be an ally to women" lists, the uproar about optional bikini packs or the fact that they all know well enough what Dead or Alive is about but still can't figure out they don't have to buy those games.

My thoughts? If you object to it being in the game at all or to people wanting to play as that kind of character, you aren't being progressive, you are being a bully and you are shaming people for their sexuality. I will back you completely for the inclusion of things such as sliders to reduce breast sizes, certain options that reduce content which might make you uncomfortable or entire games featuring what you want, but I cannot possibly back you just because some people like what you don't. Your offense does not take away their right to enjoy it no matter how many statistics you think you can cough up.

Fact: some people like sexualized content. If they didn't, all those nude patches and half the content over at nexusmods wouldn't exist.

You don't? That's fine. If there isn't right now, there should definitely be enough stuff you can enjoy. However you can campaign for it without shaming other people for what they like. It's not entitlement to women's bodies, they aren't even women's bodies, they are sprites and polygons on a screen. By definition the thing objectified is an object and not a person. Forcing that set of polygons into a highly sexual outfit is just as much forced on it as it is to put them in absolutely any other situation.

The player controlling that set of polygons however is a real person with feelings, opinions and preferences. I do not see any road that leads to meaningful progress that excludes the feelings, opinions and preferences of a large part of the population in favor of those of fictional characters. Excluding this portion just because you think they've had majority input for long enough isn't progress, it's being terrible from a different angle.
This is why I think customization is an essential key to solving our current social justice crisis in a more meaningful way than the random outbursts against things we don't like we've been having so far. Customization  is one of the advantages video games bring to the table over other forms of media and it gives everyone the option of creating who they want to play as, just so long as the different sides are willing to put up with the mere options being in the game. Censorship and social shaming for stuff you don't personally like just makes you into a bully.


Oh look, I found the bondage shop!
And now I'm going to continue taking over the city / destroy the alien empire.

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

Friday, 15 November 2013

A Diverse Cast of Characters

On Tumblr there's a couple of images going around showcasing video game mascots from the late 80's to now, and how apparently every single one of modern gaming mascots is a 20-35 year old white dude with short hair, a stubble and a scowl with the exception of Chell from Portal 6 years ago. So I'm going to take the time to do some ranting of my own.


A Diverse Cast of Characters
A Rant to an Invisible Fanbase


Okay, I don't disagree with diversification in gaming but the people arguing in favor of it really need to clean up their act. The "We Can Do Better Than This" on one of the images itself is fairly innocuous, but a couple of blogs spreading the images complain about there only being 1 female character and have the line "THIS IS NOT OKAY" underneath them. Yes, I want more diversity in video game protagonists too, but the apparent lack of diversity doesn't annoy me nearly as much as its opposition pretending we have to start from scratch in fixing it.




So ... presenting a list of 8 characters as representative of the last 10 years of video game "mascots". Right. Five of which I managed to avoid because they are from games I haven't even played.  

Okay, elephant in the room number one: none of these previous characters have gone away. Only Raziel is really starting to drop into obscurity. A lot of the others even had major releases in the last year. You can't really mourn women being archaeologists when you could last be one in March of this year. Or how about that Nintendo crossover fighter coming up that features literally half of the characters from before the early 2000's?

Cole MacGrath, Nathan Drake, Marcus Fenix and Chell could arguably be considered mascots, but I think for the BioShock franchise the Big Daddy has more of a right to call himself a mascot (but he's evidently too interesting for this list). I had to look up what the guy from The Last of Us' name is, I guess marketing has put too much emphasis on the female character Ellie. As for Soap MacTavish ... really? He might be the main protagonist of the 3 Modern Warfare games but while actually playing the first Modern Warfare (in which he's actually the main player protagonist), he might have as well been a bar of soap for how much I actually learned about him. I hardly call that mascot material.

Like I often said in previous posts, this is once again people giving free advertising to the things they don't like to see and pretending the good things don't exist, just so they can give more weight to their complaints. You can just as easily fill up those 8 slots with 8 athletes from the covers of sports games released this year alone and say it is not okay that all these jocks are filling up gaming protagonists. That's not even a stretch considering the average FIFA game sells at least thrice as many copies as The Last of Us did.


The Supposed Market

Mass Effect was indeed marketed with that particular representation of Commander Shepard, but the problem there is that we are talking about a game that allows for character customization. The female version of Commander Shepard turned out to be so popular that for Mass Effect 3, she was also put in the spotlight. So on one hand I'd grant Shepard mascot status, on the other I have reservations about calling a character a mascot if he doesn't necessarily appear in the game at all. Especially since this list seems to already mix up mascot with player protagonist.


Inclusion of Female Commander Shepard in Marketing


The effect female Shepard's popularity had in the attitude shift in marketing is also emblematic of what happens when enough people actually do speak up. I said it before and I'll continue to hammer it in. The people publishing these things want to make a profit above all else, they are perfectly willing to change their strategy if it means more money in the bank. You aren't going to change them by attempting to pull the ground beneath them. You have to highlight what you do like and ask for more of that.

We have a lot of people complaining about what they don't like, but these same people vanish in smoke when they actually get what they claim to want. Are you out there and do you actually want these things or are you just here to complain about sexism? The Internet exploded when it was revealed publishers didn't want to publish Remember Me because a female protagonist wouldn't sell (Link broken). Instead of all the blogs chewing these publishers up, a more convincing counterargument would be the game's massive success.

Except that's not exactly what happened.

Remember Me vs. Duke Nukem Forever

No, I don't consider it a fair comparison between Remember Me and Duke Nukem Forever. I just want to show Remember Me couldn't even scratch at the sales of a widely hated game. This is hardly a rare occurrence. Games with a female protagonist do very often sell worse than games with a male protagonist.

The Castlevania games on DS shows the same strange phenomenon quite clearly to a certain degree. These games are all similarly rated and fairly similar in gameplay style (so I won't entirely rule out gamer fatigue), nevertheless its sales numbers are strangely ordered by player character. Solo male protagonist at the top, both male and female protagonist in the middle with only a slight drop in sales, and a larger drop with a solo female protagonist. This is especially strange, when at the time of release, Order of Ecclesia was widely praised for breathing new life into the franchise. They even cross-promoted the game by having main character Shanoa as a roster fighter in the Wii game Castlevania Judgment.




Sure, every time you mention things like this it will be pointed out that the lack in sales have to do with a lack of marketing budget or the game being released at the wrong time. However it also showcases how this huge supposed untapped market really isn't there, or at least not visibly so. After all, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic didn't become a powerhouse of a franchise among adult males because Hasbro started marketing to them. They simply showed up when a few people discovered it was actually pretty good and its popularity spread through word of mouth.
One of the few times I can remember when this happened anywhere recently in the gaming community with a female protagonist is with Bayonetta, after it was sold at a reduced price and not profitable enough anymore to be picked up for a sequel until Nintendo decided to bite.




Yes, there is the occasional game that really manages to do decently out of the gate like Portal, Mirror's Edge (you know, that low-hanging fruit a certain colorful character keeps parading as the best games ever) and Tomb Raider, but exceptions aside the problem is not just a one-way street solely to blame on marketing or developers not trying. For there to be effective marketing, there needs to be a visible market.

And I again want to reiterate: I also want more variety in the mainstream gaming community. I also think the quality of white male characters has dropped to exceedingly bland. I love strange ideas for player characters. I love female player characters. I just tire of seeing lots of people complaining while I seem to be the only one walking to the store to actually pick up these games. It's the annoying cycle of people yelling at me because I'm supposedly on the wrong side of the fence while I'm actually investing my money on the things they claim to want while I'm the one watching it all fail. Boy, that was one hell of a sentence.



Ignoring the Indie Market

Unless there's something to chastise the indie scene for, it often goes largely unnoticed when it comes to positive examples. No, we'd rather directly force the big budget triple A developers on top to instantly drop everything they are doing and cater to our sensibilities. The problem with doing it like this is that we are tearing down existing infrastructures for what is essentially a gamble on their part. 

So with my suggestion above to highlight the things you like, how about you also help cultivate the little guy? After all, a triple A developer doesn't magically fall from the sky.

This ...
... also started out like this.

So instead of complaining that Nintendo isn't drastically altering its formula right away to accommodate a solo playable Princess Zelda, is it too much to ask to put some of that effort into showing some support for an existing game inspired by The Legend of Zelda that already has a female protagonist?

Ittle Dew (2013)

I mean, why are we approaching these issues as if we absolutely need to redistribute a very finite amount of resources? Is it honestly that impossible for several different groups and fanbases to coexist together that we must tear down what other people enjoy instead of building stuff of our own? Diversity isn't just a tool to bludgeon other people with. Diversity includes the norm and things you don't like.

Now in a few hours Contrast will be officially released. I got my pre-order waiting to unlock. So how about we stop complaining and finally put our money where our mouths are?




While you're at it, go check out Blood of the Werewolf. It's not normal I can easily break into top 10 on leaderboards.