The Truth about Little Girls

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Lampdevil:

Men are ugly? Well, you're probably a heterosexual male. I think men are pretty damn nice to look at, myself. ;D Hurr hurr.

Psychologically speaking, the female face is more attractive to both sexes. That's what I meant by all women are attractive. Men aren't supposed to be "hot", which is why we're not held to the same beauty standards as women. We ARE however, held to our own standards (Ka-CHING $$). As for more attractive people being favored, that's just darwinism. We are genetically compelled to find the mate we find most attractive, to ensure that our kids will be attractive, and be sure to find a mate, etc. etc.

But I'm getting off topic. My point was (however over-enthusiastic I got about it), that games are supposed to be fun, and worrying about what sex your character is, just seems like it would detach you from the game. Maybe I can't say anything, because I'm a white male....BUT, do you know how annoying it is, to never be able to equip anything in your LEFT hand in videogames? I hate that. It may seem silly, but how is it different from not being able to play a girl, or a german, or a purple, tri-horned, seven legged, mutant girraffe? Screw gender and race. There is only TWO, non-accidental lefties that I've ever seen in games. Link and Sephiroth. There will always be something negative about a story/game/movie/whatever. The point is to focus on the positive and enjoy yourself.

Necrohydra:

My point? Fiction is fiction and reality is reality. Perhaps keeping the two separate might increase enjoyment of the fictional world a little more. Granted, this theory doesn't hold water as much with the realistic games our there.

Is that directed at the people playing the games or the people designing them ;-D

Seriously--how many fantasy worlds are there where the 'good' species keeps another species bound to them as some sort of second-class citizen?

Or how come talking about gender equality in a game evokes these kind of responses, but no one has ever criticized the Star Wars universe for being blatantly about freedom from racism, even in a galaxy far far away? I mean, no one knocks the Star Wars universe for the fact that the Rebel Alliance is totally equal opportunity and is made up of all kinds of species from Mon Calamari to Wookies, while the Empire promotes Galactic High Culture, and the only high-ranking non-human in the Imperial Fleet is Grand Admiral Thrawn?

Why is it almost anathema to show the 'good guys' in a video game as racists, but if they are misogynist, well, we're supposed to suspend disbelief? Why if someone wants to make a political statement along gender lines that's 'PC', but something as ham-fisted as the statement made against racism by the Star Wars universe where they club you over the head by never missing a chance to allude to the Nazis in creating the bad guys is perfectly OK?

By focusing on the negative, you are, in essance "not rocking the boat". The boat doesn't want you to ignore it and jump into the sea, swimming around merrily. The boat says you'll drown if you swim. The boat wants you to focus on the holes in the boat, so that you'll pay money to fix the boat. The boat wants you to not like the other people in the boat, so that you'll pay to make the boat bigger, so you can hid from the other people. The boat wants you to pay it to have a place to store your money, so you can keep paying the boat.

Fuck the boat. Go swimming. It's good for your heart.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Or how come talking about gender equality in a game evokes these kind of responses, but no one has ever criticized the Star Wars universe for being blatantly about freedom from racism, even in a galaxy far far away? I mean, no one knocks the Star Wars universe for the fact that the Rebel Alliance is totally equal opportunity and is made up of all kinds of species from Mon Calamari to Wookies, while the Empire promotes Galactic High Culture, and the only high-ranking non-human in the Imperial Fleet is Grand Admiral Thrawn?

Why is it almost anathema to show the 'good guys' in a video game as racists, but if they are misogynist, well, we're supposed to suspend disbelief? Why if someone wants to make a political statement along gender lines that's 'PC', but something as ham-fisted as the statement made against racism by the Star Wars universe where they club you over the head by never missing a chance to allude to the Nazis in creating the bad guys is perfectly OK?

Here Here!

McWipp:

But I'm getting off topic. My point was (however over-enthusiastic I got about it), that games are supposed to be fun, and worrying about what sex your character is, just seems like it would detach you from the game. Maybe I can't say anything, because I'm a white male....BUT, do you know how annoying it is, to never be able to equip anything in your LEFT hand in videogames? I hate that. It may seem silly, but how is it different from not being able to play a girl, or a german, or a purple, tri-horned, seven legged, mutant girraffe? Screw gender and race. There is only TWO, non-accidental lefties that I've ever seen in games. Link and Sephiroth. There will always be something negative about a story/game/movie/whatever. The point is to focus on the positive and enjoy yourself.

Amen to that, brother, amen to that. Us left-handed people have been treated like pariahs for as long as we've existed. Either we're treated as the devil incarnate (Then again, what wasn't in the middle ages?), or we're second-class citizens, forced to buy and use special scissors, getting the side of our writing hand smudged by what we write, and getting butter all over our fingers if we use the butterknife after a right-handed person.

And indeed, only Link and Sephiroth ever were left-handed as far as I know. And Link was changed to a right-handed person by the ever-present left-hand hating might of the US of A in the Wii version of Twilight Princess.

I want a game where I can play everything between an eight year old girl and a 70 year old man, switch which hand I use, decide what sort of weapon to use and how, etc.
Freedom and choices go further than age and gender, it seems...Huh. Never really thought about that all that much.
I wonder what other things like these are under-represented or badly represented in videogames?

Setting all the other stuff aside for a sec, McWipp...

McWipp:
BUT, do you know how annoying it is, to never be able to equip anything in your LEFT hand in videogames?

Actually yes, I've found myself (usually around 2 AM, after staying up all night, powered only by the 6 cans of caffienated soda that I've spent the evening consuming) playing a game and going "Wait, wait, why when I equip X item does it not overlap with Y item and why can't I...?" and then I get distracted, die, and decide to call it a night.

But, ahem. I do certainly focus on the positive, when I can! I'm pretty optimistic. I tend to enjoy myself with most of the games I play. And the moment I stop enjoying myself, or I find something that I don't like? I'm at least going to want to POINT IT OUT to someone. "Focusing on the negative", at least for a bit, and saying "Hey maybe you/we can do something?" will certainly cause more to happen than just ignoring it.

I'm a woman, you're a man. In the end, we've had different experiences, and the things that I really really want are things that, through no real fault or negative reason, a lot of men don't give a rat's patoot about. That's been a big part of this thread, really. "Well... I'm a man! So what's all this about, here, now? :D" Which in some ways makes me want to beat my head against my desk.

Oh, also...

McWipp:
We are genetically compelled to find the mate we find most attractive, to ensure that our kids will be attractive, and be sure to find a mate, etc. etc.

That's slightly incorrect. We seek out "attractive" features in a mate because "attractive" features are ones that imply that said mate will produce good offspring, and be capable of rearing said offspring. Large breasts imply "can keep the kids fed", strong muscles mean "can protect family"... and those "attractive features"? Symmetry. The particular balance of the face and body that humans find "attractive" is a sign of well-formed genetics/cells/traits, implying no mutations or congenital defects or tendancies to stick arms in woodchippers. Just wanted to clarify.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
So then you understand perfectly why some women want more female characters in games :-D

Seriously--think of your female analog: wouldn't she be the loudest voice in this discussion clamoring for more female characters?

Yes, but I would also understand that most of the video game market's demographic is young men, so while it would be nice if they made more female characters, I wouldn't hold them to any unreasonable expectations of my own.

Lampdevil:
That's slightly incorrect. We seek out "attractive" features in a mate because "attractive" features are ones that imply that said mate will produce good offspring, and be capable of rearing said offspring. Large breasts imply "can keep the kids fed", strong muscles mean "can protect family"... and those "attractive features"? Symmetry. The particular balance of the face and body that humans find "attractive" is a sign of well-formed genetics/cells/traits, implying no mutations or congenital defects or tendancies to stick arms in woodchippers. Just wanted to clarify.

So women are supposed to have large breasts and wide hips? Guys are supposed to be strong and good protectors? Oh my gosh, did you just stereotype men and women! *sarcasm*

Absolutely. Your positive is to change the way things are done, to make life more fun for people you've seen irritated by the status quo. Change is always good. I'm with you.

I was defending myself, and all other white males, who are assumed to have no clue what misrepresentation feels like. I'm also overweight. I get all the same "eww" looks from girls that women get from us.

When was the last time anyone read a book and thought..."man, I wish this character was (insert gender/race/species)". We don't. Mostly because it's already printed, and changing it would be a bitch. But it's also because we can't SEE the character. Our brain, whether we like it or not, projects an image of that person that we find desirable, or fitting. The problem with videogames is that the characters are already defined perfectly according to someone else's mind. But there they are, right in front of us, asking us to bond with them as a character. Excluding most RPG's of course, but as Yahtzee said, even they're getting so that you only get to choose your level of Grizzled Handsomness. I don't know where I'm going with this. Bleh.

Novan Leon:

Lampdevil:
That's slightly incorrect. We seek out "attractive" features in a mate because "attractive" features are ones that imply that said mate will produce good offspring, and be capable of rearing said offspring. Large breasts imply "can keep the kids fed", strong muscles mean "can protect family"... and those "attractive features"? Symmetry. The particular balance of the face and body that humans find "attractive" is a sign of well-formed genetics/cells/traits, implying no mutations or congenital defects or tendancies to stick arms in woodchippers. Just wanted to clarify.

So women are supposed to have large breasts and wide hips? Guys are supposed to be strong and good protectors? Oh my gosh, did you just stereotype men and women! *sarcasm*

Yes and No. As Lampdevil said before, stereotypes are a reptillian brain thing. We need to be able to conclude, and quickly, whether this other animal is going to eat us or not. It's part of being an animal. We also need to be able to decide, without thinking, that this person is an acceptable mate.

Lampdevil:

propertyofcobra:
This means that, even though it's a fantasy world, the extreme misogynistic nature of it still heavily spills into reality and annoys most people who aren't misogynistic themselves.

Yup. Just because a fantasy world exists doesn't mean that I have to buy in to that particular fantasy world. It's just fantasy, and it ain't real, but I ain't putting up with bad fantasy. Some things you can let pass, while others are so glaring that you just have to put the game/book/movie down and keep going. Anyone here ever hear of the Gor series of books? Wait, no, we probably shouldn't head down that path...

Although I'm fascinated by this mind-controlling chickens concept. Chickens are inherently funny.

Yeah, hence why I said my idea doesn't hold up so well when it comes to more realistic scenarios. When the characters look and act VERY similiar to human beings, that line between fictional and realistic becomes real blurry. If you're a lizard-man sumo-wrestling a crab/panda looking thing, it's much easier to pretend it's fiction than, say, you're a mid 40's business man murdering his overly-sexualized secretary with an AK-47. Just in my case, I'd gladly play a game with the first example, while I'd be a little iffy about the 2nd game.

In the end, it all boils down to personal prefences and individuality. No one thing will satisfy everybody. So, I'll agree with propertyofcobra and say "bring on the choices".

As for the mind-controlling chickens - I lost my train of thought 5 times while writing that post because I was thinking of how that idea would work out. Chicken psychic battles...

propertyofcobra:

Amen to that, brother, amen to that. Us left-handed people have been treated like pariahs for as long as we've existed. Either we're treated as the devil incarnate (Then again, what wasn't in the middle ages?), or we're second-class citizens, forced to buy and use special scissors, getting the side of our writing hand smudged by what we write, and getting butter all over our fingers if we use the butterknife after a right-handed person.

And indeed, only Link and Sephiroth ever were left-handed as far as I know. And Link was changed to a right-handed person by the ever-present left-hand hating might of the US of A in the Wii version of Twilight Princess.

Did you know that "Sinister", loosely, means "Left Handed"?

Novan Leon:

Yes, but I would also understand that most of the video game market's demographic is young men, so while it would be nice if they made more female characters, I wouldn't hold them to any unreasonable expectations of my own.

But "young men" is not identical to "demographic that will only play male characters."

Not to mention, what's wrong with holding people to unreasonable expectations? I mean, they got people to buy pet rocks in the 70s. Let's not act like all of a sudden the consumer is this fortress of stone when it comes to their appetites. If we could sell people a rock by putting it in a box and calling it a pet, I imagine we can sell people on a female character!

Now that there are more of those cool girls and moms and little sisters playing games, why shouldn't some games have non-sexual female video game role models?

There's no reason why not. Which begs the question why this woman thinks it good to waste everyone's time writing this boring essay about replacing games with lifeless little girls when she should be pestering the developers.

We don't make the games! If there's an audience out there, she should make herself useful by writing on one of these women's forums complaining to and encouraging them to pull up a voice, not on The Escapist taunting us male gamers that we're all immature, misogynistic pigs.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Necrohydra:

My point? Fiction is fiction and reality is reality. Perhaps keeping the two separate might increase enjoyment of the fictional world a little more. Granted, this theory doesn't hold water as much with the realistic games our there.

Is that directed at the people playing the games or the people designing them ;-D

Both. I mostly enjoy games that have nothing to do with a realistic setting. And I wish they'd incorporate more outlandish ideas sometimes in their setting. I completely agree with your ideas on a setting where the "good guys" have socially acceptable ideas that are considered horrible in our civilized society. And I don't mean in the "Hh, the kobolds are slaves. It's not right. We should change it," sense. I mean in the "Kobolds are slaves. That's what they are," sense. The sense that things we may find horribly wrong are not only integrated parts of society - that's how the society is driven, and no one says otherwise. Why do ficitional worlds have to follow OUR rules? Can't the developers make up their own?

And even further off topic - I was just thinking how if you replaced an Imperial Officer's badge with a swastika, and change the color of the clothes from green to tan, that they'd look almost EXACTLY like a nazi.

McWipp:

Novan Leon:
So women are supposed to have large breasts and wide hips? Guys are supposed to be strong and good protectors? Oh my gosh, did you just stereotype men and women! *sarcasm*

Yes and No. As Lampdevil said before, stereotypes are a reptillian brain thing. We need to be able to conclude, and quickly, whether this other animal is going to eat us or not. It's part of being an animal. We also need to be able to decide, without thinking, that this person is an acceptable mate.

Ahahah, yes. We modern humans have the brain capacity to make judgements beyond those primitive hunter/gatherer reactions. I know that I like skinny dudes that play video games, and I prefer guys that enjoy spicy food, and maybe are a little hippy like, and blah blah blah too much information that no one actually cares about. We've all got personal standards above and beyond (or even entirely different) from the stereotype.

At least, I hope we do. I really, really do.

And Terramax! Long time no see!

Which begs the question why this woman thinks it good to waste everyone's time writing this boring essay about replacing games with lifeless little girls when she should be pestering the developers.

Why "waste everyone's time?" I think it was a pretty good expenditure of effort, if it got everyone having this conversation. Ideas are shared to encourage the proliferation of more ideas. If you don't LIKE those ideas, well cool, but plenty of us don't think it's a waste of time.

"We don't make the games?" Hey, don't developers come here? And how do you know that there aren't future developers here? And also, talking about feminism on a forum where everyone else is also a feminist? While it'll sure make you feel damned good and all feminist-y, it's essentially intellectual circlejerking. You've gotta take those ideas and show 'em around to other places. Conflict is good! Conflict is how we learn.

Necrohydra:
As for the mind-controlling chickens - I lost my train of thought 5 times while writing that post because I was thinking of how that idea would work out. Chicken psychic battles...

War Chickens! With armor and little spurs on their feet! And chicken farming would be a noble and highly sought after line of work, and and and I bet that the most powerful and influential of all Chicken Masters would be able to control whole flocks to do his bidding! ...just.... what that bidding would be, I'm not sure.

This is extremely silly. I like it.

Terramax:

We don't make the games! If there's an audience out there, she should make herself useful by writing on one of these women's forums complaining to and encouraging them to pull up a voice, not on The Escapist taunting us male gamers that we're all immature, misogynistic pigs.

I'm sorry--I missed the part where the author taunted us male gamers that we're all immature, misogynistic pigs. Can you please point that out? ;-D

McWipp:

Yes and No. As Lampdevil said before, stereotypes are a reptillian brain thing. We need to be able to conclude, and quickly, whether this other animal is going to eat us or not. It's part of being an animal. We also need to be able to decide, without thinking, that this person is an acceptable mate.

That's the thing about stereotypes influenced by biology--their mostly about passing on your genes. Not living a happy or rewarding life. Let's face it--our stereotypes are more likely to lead us to living a nasty, unhappy life that results in one offspring that hates us and smothers us with a pillow for the insurance money than that of a childless Einstein or Michelangelo.

Lampdevil:

Ahahah, yes. We modern humans have the brain capacity to make judgements beyond those primitive hunter/gatherer reactions. I know that I like skinny dudes that play video games, and I prefer guys that enjoy spicy food, and maybe are a little hippy like, and blah blah blah too much information that no one actually cares about. We've all got personal standards above and beyond (or even entirely different) from the stereotype.

At least, I hope we do. I really, really do.

Oh, we do. But we have to THINK about it first. You don't automatically know you like guys who like spicy food, like you know where your feet are, and what to do with them.The problem with higher brain fuctions is that they're slow. That's why they don't control breathing, and nerve arcs and such. While higher brain functions are important, necessary, and fun...we'll never get rid of that reptillian Threat/No Threat function. It's just too damned useful. It goes WAY back before hunter/gatherer humans. It has just unfortunately survived into modern society, where we don't need to know if someone is going to eat us.

It's a money thing. I'm convinced publishers and producers are like sociopaths, except instead of having no guilt, they are completely devoid of taste and originality. (X) product made money. Money good. Imitate (X) product. Money for me! As girls get introduced into games as characters, it'll increase more and more, as publishers copy and copy popular games.
It's not right, but it's what it is. And arguing right and wrong, and what is and isn't, are two VERY different things.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

That's the thing about stereotypes influenced by biology--their mostly about passing on your genes. Not living a happy or rewarding life. Let's face it--our stereotypes are more likely to lead us to living a nasty, unhappy life that results in one offspring that hates us and smothers us with a pillow for the insurance money than that of a childless Einstein or Michelangelo.

Sadly, yes. But survival ain't about happiness, and you can't fight survival.
Well....you can, but you won't....survive?

I think this serves to highlight another flaw in the industry: The either-or mentality of genres that dictates that a game MUST either be a bloody gore-fest with bullets and/or swords, or a frilly kitten-petting sim with pink horsies and incomprehensible fashion shows.

A little girl character would be great for a Myst-like game of adventure and discovery. There was no violence in Myst (none perpetrated by you, anyway), and it was absolutely brilliant.

McWipp:
Sadly, yes. But survival ain't about happiness, and you can't fight survival.
Well....you can, but you won't....survive?

Who's survival? My genes? I'm not my genes. I admit, I may survive a little longer if I keep getting to sleep with hot chicks just because I'll have a really good reason to live, but, I don't think there's any way in which mating with hot chicks will extend my lifespan, you know?

Whatever my genes may be up to in 100 years, *I* will not survive. The hotness of the women I mate with will do nothing to change that fact, ya know? Personally, I'm more likely to consider my success in the cultural evolution game--i.e., my effect on cultural development--a form of 'survival' than my success in the biological evolution game, right?

Who would you rather raise: a kid with your genes who's a piece of trash and rejects everything you stand for, or an adopted kid who is a great person and picks up your ideas and spreads them to the rest of the world?

Sylocat:
I think this serves to highlight another flaw in the industry: The either-or mentality of genres that dictates that a game MUST either be a bloody gore-fest with bullets and/or swords, or a frilly kitten-petting sim with pink horsies and incomprehensible fashion shows.

A little girl character would be great for a Myst-like game of adventure and discovery. There was no violence in Myst (none perpetrated by you, anyway), and it was absolutely brilliant.

Okay, ignoring that I personally couldn't stand Myst for over ten minutes before I had to go do something more fun with my time (like hit my hand with a hammer repeatedly)...
Games are based on conflict, at the core. Games that lack conflict, such as "girly" "kiddy" games with fashion shows and pink pretty ponies, are generally excruciatingly boring and are barely considered games by most people.

Games are based around having fun, and to most people, an adrenaline rush in a safe and structured enviroment brings them great fun. A videogame is as safe and structured as you can get, and danger/reward/whathaveyou in games will bring you plenty of adrenaline.
To most gamers, there has to be some sort of conflict or there is little reason for the game.
The Myst games always reminded me of those books that win the nobel prize that are about people in a white empty void contemplating existance. It might be interesting and artsy and silent and slow, but it's also mind-numbingly boring to most people.

I don't believe that a young girl would work well for, say, Halo because logically, a little kid wouldn't be able to lift those guns, let alone fire them with proper accuracy, and it would all just be stupid and weird.
But what about the Deception series (latest installation named Trapt for the PS2) as an example instead? In most of these games you're a teenage girl anyway, and your arsenal is limited to "use traps, if that fails, run like hell". I do not believe that the Deception games would suffer at all from the main characters losing eight years of age and becoming 8-10 year old little girls, aside the simple fact that the enemies would seem extremely heartless to all try to kill said girl in various violent ways.
Of course, a young girl is optimal in many ways for horror games too. Anyone remember the original Clock Tower, for the SNES? Good god, you're a 12 year old girl running away from an 8 year old boy, who killed your best friends and who wields scissors that are as big as HE is. Your arsenal here makes the ladies of Deception look like the Doom Space Marine by comparison, your arsenal here is literally just your legs, pure panic-induced bursts of strength and the occassional container of bug spray. Clock Tower is a game that would have SUFFERED if you played as anything BUT the young, scared little child.
Maybe we need a few more games like that?

Unrelated sidenote: Cultural Evolution is extremely bogus and mindblowingly stupid, please, nobody mention it again.

Yeah, but then you get into the argument of which IS more important. Cultural survival or genetic? I don't think that has an answer. Is it more important for human society to keep progressing? Or is it survival of the genepool at all costs, beyond when society collapses under its own weight. That's getting into philosophy territory, which, while I'll happily debate all day about, is not really about "The Truth about Little Girls".

Sylocat:
I think this serves to highlight another flaw in the industry: The either-or mentality of genres that dictates that a game MUST either be a bloody gore-fest with bullets and/or swords, or a frilly kitten-petting sim with pink horsies and incomprehensible fashion shows.

A little girl character would be great for a Myst-like game of adventure and discovery. There was no violence in Myst (none perpetrated by you, anyway), and it was absolutely brilliant.

Mmyup. We're adults now, you see! So our games have to be MATURE. And we mature, well-seasoned gamers have no business playing KIDDY GAMES without the graphic violence and realistic modeling and guns and stuff! */scarcaaaaaasm*

Personal preferences may dictate that you prefer games closer to one end of the violence/passiveness spectrum than the other, but it's a spectrum! There's lots of room for stuff in the middle. It's not one or the other, and there's a lot of room to do a lot of different things... if y'know, anyone cares to go and do those different things. A Myst-like game is just one of the places that different gender choices and conceptions could be tried, yes yes. :)

propertyofcobra:

Unrelated sidenote: Cultural Evolution is extremely bogus and mindblowingly stupid, please, nobody mention it again.

People have been mentioning it all over this thread, without actually using the word. Every time someone says 'games are X because of demographics/economics/etc.' that's an argument about the evolution of human culture.

I'm...thinking we're not using that phrase in the same way. Sounds like you're referring to something more specific than I am.

Just to clarify. Are we talking about how and why games ARE made, or how and why they SHOULD be made? 'Cause those are two different things.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

propertyofcobra:

Unrelated sidenote: Cultural Evolution is extremely bogus and mindblowingly stupid, please, nobody mention it again.

People have been mentioning it all over this thread, without actually using the word. Every time someone says 'games are X because of demographics/economics/etc.' that's an argument about the evolution of human culture.

I'm...thinking we're not using that phrase in the same way. Sounds like you're referring to something more specific than I am.

Anytime someone is using "darwinistic" means to get to their goals, they're using the bogus and stupid idea of Society being a miniature version of extremely simplified evolution, where "most adapted to the enviroment" is replaced with "more ruthless, cruel, cunning and powerful".
Social Evolution in the way I use the phrase could probably be better called "Social darwinism", where if you're stronger and more willing to "do what it takes" to get to the top, you're more worthy of being there than everyone you step on to get to that point.

McWipp:
Is it more important for human society to keep progressing? Or is it survival of the genepool at all costs, beyond when society collapses under its own weight.

But what do either of those two things have to do with me? I'll be dead by the time most of that happens.

Like you said, this is philosophical territory, because we're not actually arguing about which is more important--we're talking about the definition of 'me'. Am I just this consciousness? Or am I in some sense human society? Or am I a little lower than the angels, endowed with an eternal soul, in which case the only important thing is how much I love Jesus or something?

The problem with talking about human society is that we're not even sure what that word 'human' means, you know?

propertyofcobra:

Social Evolution in the way I use the phrase could probably be better called "Social darwinism", where if you're stronger and more willing to "do what it takes" to get to the top, you're more worthy of being there than everyone you step on to get to that point.

Yes, it probably could, given that (as far as I can tell) your definition of Cultural Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

EDIT: By the topic I mean 'video games', not this philosophical crap which seems to have cropped up. :P

Also, people seem to think boys won't play games with a girl as the main character. I could go into detail about why this is, but it would be tl;dr and I'm hungry.

McWipp:
Yeah, but then you get into the argument of which IS more important. Cultural survival or genetic? I don't think that has an answer. Is it more important for human society to keep progressing? Or is it survival of the genepool at all costs, beyond when society collapses under its own weight. That's getting into philosophy territory, which, while I'll happily debate all day about, is not really about "The Truth about Little Girls".

We do seem to have gotten a bit off-course. Constantly. About all sorts of different topics.

I gave the article a re-read, just to get things fresh in my mind. And the idea behind the whole "make a game with little girls" was a sub-category of the "make different portrayals of women" chestnut. While the latter has certainly been discussed over and over and over in no end of settings, I think this is the first time that the proposed answer was "little girls."

The reason, as stated in the article? Sex heavily influences the average portrayal of women in games. Either a woman is blatantly sexy, or subtly sexy, or absolutely goddamned horrifying instead of sexy (and that's why she's so horrifying). Men can be portrayed on-screen in an entirely sexless fashion. Sure, there are plenty of guys with rugged good-looks, and then there's Square-Enix's male casts, and that guy in the Witcher sure seems to be getting an awful lot. But men are often allowed to just... be, without any expectation that they also exist to be oogled.

If the "problem" could be solved by taking sex out of the equation, then the core proposal was to make games with little girls as playable characters. That was the original article's conceit. I think even the article admits that it doesn't entirely pan out, due to issues of vulnerability and deconstruction (that were discussed up-thread, ie. survival horror where you play a young girl would be really scary.) It's still an interesting goal.

I'd like to step back, though, and point out that the writer also mentioned old women! What say you folks to that? :D

propertyofcobra:

Social Evolution in the way I use the phrase could probably be better called "Social darwinism", where if you're stronger and more willing to "do what it takes" to get to the top, you're more worthy of being there than everyone you step on to get to that point.

Ahh see--I wasn't using it in that sense at all. Notice I never made reference to whether my adopted offspring spread my ideas with an inquisition and a crusade, or through water parks and music that brings people together a la Wyld Stallions.

Rodge:
Also, people seem to think boys won't play games with a girl as the main character. I could go into detail about why this is, but it would be tl;dr and I'm hungry.

Get food and come back! This thread is already waaaaaay deep into tl;dr territory. A little more won't hurt.

McWipp:
Just to clarify. Are we talking about how and why games ARE made, or how and why they SHOULD be made? 'Cause those are two different things.

I think both. I think the questions are:

1) Are games made the way they are for sexist reasons?

and

2) Even if games are made the way they are for non-sexist reasons, does that result in games that nevertheless have a sexist impact?

and you could even say:

3) What exactly is a 'sexist reason'? Is just making games that sell sexist if they sell *because* the demographic is sexist?

and

4) What about all that is lamentable? What do we wish was different? Can we make it any different?

To which I answer: pet rocks.

If we can sell people a rock by putting it in a box, we can sell people anything we put our minds to selling them.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here