Prospective Publishers Wanted a Male-Centric Remember Me

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Prospective Publishers Wanted a Male-Centric Remember Me

image

Dontnod Studios had a hard time finding a publisher for its female-fronted action game.

The videogame industry has an arguably negative relationship with gender. A large portion of the medium's audience is female and yet, more often then not, publishers and developers behave as though that half of the demographic is nonexistent. The majority of videogames are made and marketed for men, and some in the industry feel that female-fronted videogames are, by default, a losing proposition sales-wise. This is a bias that Dontnod Studios can attest to all too well. In the process of pitching its game Remember Me, several publishers turned the title down on account of the protagonist being a woman.

"We had some that said, 'Well, we don't want to publish it because that's not going to succeed," said Jean-Max Morris, creative director at Dontnod Studios. "You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that.'" Dontnod's experience is far from surprising given the sad prevalence of such attitudes in the gaming industry. In the past, some publishers have gone as far as forcing developers to change the gender of a game's hero, hoping to boost sales.

Despite these reactions, Dontnod refused to change Remember Me. "The world we were building was much more about emotion, intimacy, identity, and the way technology would intersect those. It just felt like the other side of the coin, the yin and the yang, and it just made sense to us that it would be a female character," said Morris.

Remember Me eventually found a publisher in Capcom. Even so, it's hard not to be flabbergasted by the persistent belief some maintain in the non-viability of female protagonists. Metroid, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Bayonetta; these are just a few franchises that have starred women at one point or another, and they certainly didn't suffer for lack of a Y chromosome.

Source: Penny Arcade

Permalink

This is the point I keep on making. It's not that most gamers don't want female characters (although of course there are always some), it's that developers seem to think that we don't, or that we won't buy games if they have them.

That's the problem when companies are designed around focus groups and "market research" rather than just trying to make a good game and then selling it. They keep trying to appeal to a statistic rather than actual people.

To be honest the only part of Remember Me that puts me off is that irritating hologram thing near her neck. The idea of one being there isn't bad, but the design draws the eye to it the entire time it is on screen. That, and the voice acting seems a little lacklustre.

Legion:
This is the point I keep on making. It's not that gamers don't want female characters, it's that developers seem to think that we don't, or that we won't buy games if they have them.

Agreed, if the game (and story/character development) is good I don't really think most gamers will give a shit about the gender of the character.

Tis a poor publisher that can't understand that there might be a point if the developer wants their character to be the gender they want that character to be.

Honestly I really don't know jack about this game but honestly if you want to sell the game you need to either sell the narrative or the gameplay. Gender does not matter. Makes me wonder though how the developer sold the game to the publisher.

Odd, I would have thought videogame publishers of all people could see the appeal of female fronts.
And behinds!

It's interesting because there could be some subconscious impulse that can effect sales, it's not unlikely that some of us scoffing at the sheer silliness of such a claim are influenced like this.

Obviously publishers turning down developers because of this is just bad and it only serves to stifle the industry further. It's very old fashioned thinking, and hopefully things improve as time goes on.

I do love to see females in lead roles and just generally being important rather than a burden. The damsel in distress thing is so god damn ancient at this point it's very tiring.

Seeing Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider game rise to the challenge was very refreshing I'll tell you that.

Publishers don't want to take risks?

What a shock.

A female protagonist, is a risk. Simply the case.

The majority of people on this forum are likely part of the "Core" gaming community.

We see games beyond box art and trailers.

The majority of people who buy games, are not us.

So, yes, the idea of spending a lot of money on a game that might not sell because, fact is, games with female protagonists don't sell as well, isn't exactly mind boggling.

Is it fair? Absolutely not.

But, until it's no longer the case, scarcely will preaching to the choir fix a damn thing.

Most men would think starring a female protagonist in a third-person game would help sales.

Apparently publishers arent most men. Assuming theres still any human left in them.

I find it funny how Publishers are always on about selling to as many people as possible, yet they only market games to one demographic.

The Lunatic:
Publishers don't want to take risks?

What a shock.

A female protagonist, is a risk. Simply the case.

The majority of people on this forum are likely part of the "Core" gaming community.

We see games beyond box art and trailers.

The majority of people who buy games, are not us.

So, yes, the idea of spending a lot of money on a game that might not sell because, fact is, games with female protagonists don't sell as well, isn't exactly mind boggling.

Is it fair? Absolutely not.

But, until it's no longer the case, scarcely will preaching to the choir fix a damn thing.

Only there's so few games with female protagonists, and the ones that do exist usually get screwed marketing/budget-wise, that there's no solid data that states female characters can't sell.

Pity the developer isn't naming and shaming the publishing houses that demanded a protagonist sex-swap.

I can't forgive Capcom for ruining MML3 then cancelling their ruined version of MML3, or for refusing to give Darkstalkers a true revival, or for refusing to include R.Mika with any of the latest SF titles... But I'll be grabbing this game all the same. Maybe with the money I'll soon be saving by giving Bioshock Infinite a miss.

Here is the problem a publisher publishes a game with a male protagonist it bombs, well something was wrong with it. It was broken, the game sucked, everyone pirated it etc etc.

Publisher publishes a game with a female protagonist it bombs, it was because gamers are guys and no one relates to a chick.

synobal:
Here is the problem a publisher publishes a game with a male protagonist it bombs, well something was wrong with it. It was broken, the game sucked, everyone pirated it etc etc.

Publisher publishes a game with a female protagonist it bombs, it was because gamers are guys and no one relates to a chick.

gigastar:
Most men would think starring a female protagonist in a third-person game would help sales.

And as Gigastar said, the dad of an ex girlfriend of mine exclusively played with female characters because (surprise surprise) he found the female models more aesthetically pleasing than male models.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RIP Vault 101

You will be missed.

the immediate rejection by publishers was a surprise to me not because of its meaning but how straightforward they were with it lol...guess I shouldn't have felt any surprise

on another note, I don't find myself relating better with a female lead or anything, but admittedly the rugged brown-haired white man character isn't exactly a mirror image of myself either :p

Everytime I hear things like this, I sigh. I really don't think the gender matters at all.

Legion:
This is the point I keep on making. It's not that gamers don't want female characters, it's that developers seem to think that we don't, or that we won't buy games if they have them.

That's not completely true, though. Time and again, threads on here have given credibility to the logic. People who strongly prefer to play men or refuse to play as women do exist. And, I might add, in pretty large numbers.

Granted, this site is not the sum total of the gaming population, but I didn't claim it proved anything. Just that it lent credibility to it.

There was a thread recently asking people what they want improved next gen, every person and their dog said AI. I couldn't give two shits about AI, give me more female protagonists man.

And then when I tell people that publishers who actually own gaming studios have a tremendous amount of control over the creative process people think that I'm talking nonsense.

And when this game doesnt sell. (Im not buying it, it seems fairly boring to me) they will naturally blame it on a female protagonist.

I may have ninja'ed by the article itself, but yeh, the terrible performance of the Tomb Raider series shows game with female protagonists just don't work. Also, nobody liked Female Commander Shepard. Remember how much everybody complained when Bioware decided to put on the box art for ME3?

I'm actually kind of curious as to how they came to this conclusion. For past games, have playtesters been asked if they didn't like playing as female characters? Would anyone actually respond to that with, "yes?"

And it's not like they can know from experience--there aren't exactly a plethora of video games with female protagonist that were critically well received despite lackluster sales (In other words, games that weren't genuinely bad).

So, can we play the reverse-sexism card here? Because apparently men can't be emotional, intimate, and all that--at least according to this publisher? I call foul play on that! How dare you sir!

No, I'm kidding. I totally missed the fact that it's a female character. I mean, I realized she was female, but that thought had nothing to do with anything else. I just saw the game pop up on my Amazon suggestions and went, "What is that? I haven't heard anything about this." So I started digging. Been keeping my eye on it ever since. It looks interesting. Memory hacking could prove to be a wild ride.

I am utterly baffled by other companies' attitude toward female leads though. I just cannot grasp the mindset behind those beliefs. Of course, this could be because I prefer to plays as a female character than a male. Male characters always seem to have every girl tripping over their feet to get the male lead's attention, and that turns them into shallow floozies to me, which I find highly annoying.
It could also be because of the fact that I've never had even one girl trip over her feet to get my attention, so maybe I'm jealous? I don't know...and I feel I've lost control of this post. Leaving now.

If I remember rightly, according to the developer, part of the issue is that according to publishers, games with female leads have tricky romances. In their words "No dude is going to want to play as a girl who then kisses a dude."

To counter that example: Star Craft II- Heart Of The Swarm

This is Starcraft. You don't get much more popular than Starcraft. If a phenomenally successful series like SC can get players to project onto the character of a lovelorn female character, then there is nothing stopping games with rounded female characters achieving high sales.

I've already argued in the forums that the success of games like Tomb Raider and Metroid have already proven that games with female characters can be successful if they're good games and are marketed well. I would hope that Heart Of The Swarm would be the final piece of proof needed for that argument.

Publishers: The female gender now makes up a large chunk of the gaming demographic. It cannot hurt your sales to try and broaden your appeal, and to create characters who go beyond the white, 30 year old make demographic. Such games are already seeing stagnating sales, because over-familiarity and fatigue are setting in. Invest in good games with well written female lead characters, and you will be surprised at how little gamers are put off. Sarah Kerrigan has done nothing to diminish StarCraft's incredible popularity, despite being front and centre of the latest game. Tomb Raider is selling well. Hopefully Remember Me will turn out to be a good game, and start selling well too.

The business argument no longer holds up. Game sales are down anyways. It's time to start appealing to those other demographics, and seeing if that can't break the industry out of the slump it's in.

MrHide-Patten:
There was a thread recently asking people what they want improved next gen, every person and their dog said AI. I couldn't give two shits about AI, give me more female protagonists man.

So you're okay with braindead AI as long you have female protagonists? Can't we have both?

fozzy360:

MrHide-Patten:
There was a thread recently asking people what they want improved next gen, every person and their dog said AI. I couldn't give two shits about AI, give me more female protagonists man.

So you're okay with braindead AI as long you have female protagonists? Can't we have both?

I've personally never found AI an issue and I've never trialed their intelligence, so I can't say I care or notice. At the very least making good AI is a lot more complex than changing a characters gender, it's not like we're writing male characters very well either.

And the gender war continues. Stuff like this is ridiculous to be honest. Any publisher wants to have a say in elements of a game they are paying to put into the world. If I had to bet money, I would put it on they wanted to change more than just the gender of the character, but that is all we are presented with.

"The world we were building was much more about emotion, intimacy, identity, and the way technology would intersect those. It just felt like the other side of the coin, the yin and the yang, and it just made sense to us that it would be a female character,"

This is not a compelling statement for the need to concentrate on a specific gender. If they want a female protagonist, I'm all for it. I am not sexist, I don't see the need to confine a male or a female to specific roles in a game. While the genders the publishers wanted may have been driven by market focus groups, they didn't exactly say anything that says, this has to be a female character. Sticking to your guns is awesome, but I haven't seen any proof they aren't writing a male character with boobs, as of yet. If they are writing a female character with female traits, I can't wait to play this game. If they are writing a male character with boobs, I'm already pissed they are making a big deal out of this.

I don't care if the lead role is male, female, fish or fauna. Just make sure the character is well-written, relatable, etc.

Easier said than done, yea? To be honest, having a female lead shouldn't really be much of a selling point if she has no substance, otherwise you're just playing on the other bottom-end of an empty barrel.

>Make no games with female protagonists
>Claim nobody buys games with female protagonists
PUBLISHER LOGIC!

Legion:
This is the point I keep on making. It's not that gamers don't want female characters, it's that developers seem to think that we don't, or that we won't buy games if they have them.

That's the problem when companies are designed around focus groups and "market research" rather than just trying to make a good game and then selling it. They keep trying to appeal to a statistic rather than actual people.

Well, generally the statistic is an accurate representation of the actual people. Hence why the majority of people that go and see shitty rommance comedies are women, and the entire audience of Twilight is teenage girls (Yeah, I know...it probably isn't). Gaming did used to be a male dominant...thing. But that was a little over a decade and a half ago. And publishers seem to think that's the way it still is. They are using accurate statistic, just from the wrong millennium.

Baresark:
And the gender war continues. Stuff like this is ridiculous to be honest. Any publisher wants to have a say in elements of a game they are paying to put into the world. If I had to bet money, I would put it on they wanted to change more than just the gender of the character, but that is all we are presented with.

Would it be surprising if they did, and that was the only issue? Publishers and stuffed shirt types in creative realms are known for doing this, basically saying "we like it but if you could just change this one little thing we could really get on board!" and that one little thing is usually a fairly substantial change. The fact is, the person(s) that wrote the game thought it would be best to make the protagonist a female, and yes that is a big enough aspect to make a publisher pull away.

Sticking to your guns is awesome, but I haven't seen any proof they aren't writing a male character with boobs, as of yet. If they are writing a female character with female traits, I can't wait to play this game. If they are writing a male character with boobs, I'm already pissed they are making a big deal out of this.

This is the problem with the thinking, I think. What, to you, would make a believable female character? Sure, there's shitty writing occasionally for female characters that make them seem unrealistic, but the idea that if they're masculine they're just a "guy with boobs" is a little problematic. All female characters have to be dainty and emotional? All female characters have to fill support or damsel roles? If they take charge, if they're a leader, if they are strong and courageous, if they're not obsessed with relationships, then they are "a guy with boobs"? This is the kind of thinking that spawned Samus in the Other M, someone who's a "protagonist" but still filled to the brim with negative feminine stereotypes.

To be frank, I don't know what is the DIFFERENCE between a videogame male character and a videogame female character. Other than the visual appearance (pixels?) and the voice actor I mean...other than that, there is zero difference because it's a fantasy world, a female can lift heavy stuff and pull awesome stunts just as easily as a male can. The weaknesses of real-life females when it comes to fighting wars fades away in fiction, as we have all seen in Bioware games like Mass Effect. After all, we play videogames to get away from the real thing!

So once you have thrown out all concept of "realism" based on the male and female anatomies, all that is left is good writing combined with a decent voice actor. There's nothing more to it, it's as easy as that! Why would be a publisher be so stupid as to make a huge deal out of it?

DVS BSTrD:
Odd, I would have thought videogame publishers of all people could see the appeal of female fronts.
And behinds!

This is frankly what I thought as well, so the thought behind saying "it has to be a male character" boggles me even more.

hentropy:

Baresark:
And the gender war continues. Stuff like this is ridiculous to be honest. Any publisher wants to have a say in elements of a game they are paying to put into the world. If I had to bet money, I would put it on they wanted to change more than just the gender of the character, but that is all we are presented with.

Would it be surprising if they did, and that was the only issue? Publishers and stuffed shirt types in creative realms are known for doing this, basically saying "we like it but if you could just change this one little thing we could really get on board!" and that one little thing is usually a fairly substantial change. The fact is, the person(s) that wrote the game thought it would be best to make the protagonist a female, and yes that is a big enough aspect to make a publisher pull away.

Sticking to your guns is awesome, but I haven't seen any proof they aren't writing a male character with boobs, as of yet. If they are writing a female character with female traits, I can't wait to play this game. If they are writing a male character with boobs, I'm already pissed they are making a big deal out of this.

This is the problem with the thinking, I think. What, to you, would make a believable female character? Sure, there's shitty writing occasionally for female characters that make them seem unrealistic, but the idea that if they're masculine they're just a "guy with boobs" is a little problematic. All female characters have to be dainty and emotional? All female characters have to fill support or damsel roles? If they take charge, if they're a leader, if they are strong and courageous, if they're not obsessed with relationships, then they are "a guy with boobs"? This is the kind of thinking that spawned Samus in the Other M, someone who's a "protagonist" but still filled to the brim with negative feminine stereotypes.

To address the first part: I would be surprised if they didn't want more creative input than just the character gender. They are not known for this, they are known for wanting to control most or all aspects of a property they are putting to market. They are not known to be sexist, they are known to follow focus groups and wanting to strengthen a connection between certain larger groups of gamers. That does, of course, mean that sometimes they want to change the character gender, which I'm not for if a female lead can be written like a female and not a man with boobs.

To address the second part: Men and women are more than just physically different. The problem with Other M was that Samus was never a man with boobs. Samus was someone who pressed forward and did what she needed to do. Gender never entered the conversation because she was a person who had strong gender neutral traits. Other M failed in that they gave her negative wishy washy female traits (reduced herself to be subservient to a male commanding officer and caring entirely too much what him and the other male characters thought of her). They destroyed her strong gender neutral traits in doing so. My favorite (and by that I sarcastically mean my least favorite part) is how she was frozen with utter fear in her first encounter with Ridley in the game, a character she had fought and defeated multiple times. They stupidly froze her with fear so she could overcome her fear and defeat Ridley, which was just weak storytelling on their part (what that whole game suffered from).

A person can have strong traits and be a strong character without gender getting into it. There are ways that men and women are strong that is the same. But the other part is that men and women have different goals usually, in a given situation. Some of that is going to be defined by their gender. There have been a plethora of books written about the differences of men and women beyond their obvious physical traits. One way is that women can be as aggressive as men, but the situations in which they display an aggressive nature tends to be different. Women, as a whole, tend to be aggressive towards other women, and not so much towards men. Men tend to be aggressive against a more varied group of people. If you write a female who is aggressive against everyone, then you have in effect written a male. If you write a female that is competitive against men in a serious and aggressive manner, you have written a male character with boobs. For an example, look at Lightning from Final Fantasy XIII. She is a man with boobs. It's just a fact that women usually have motivations that are different from men, even if the actions are the same. And you MUST adhere to some kind of female stereotype to distinguish them as different from men, just like you MUST adhere to some male stereotype in order to define a male truly male character. That means that you will have to represent how a women perceives a situation to be that would be different than a male interpretation, in order to distinguish them as different, in order to write a female character correctly.

I'll conclude with this statement about the difference between men and women by the female psychologist, Louann Brizendine:

The fear of discrimination based on difference runs deep, and for many years assumptions about sex differences went scientifically unexamined for fear that women wouldn't be able to claim equality with men. But pretending that women and men are the same, while doing a disservice to both men and women, ultimately hurts women. Perpetuating the myth of the male norm means ignoring women's real, biological differences in severity, susceptibility and treatment of disease. It also ignores the different ways that they process thoughts and therefore perceive what is important.

Baresark:

hentropy:

Baresark:
And the gender war continues. Stuff like this is ridiculous to be honest. Any publisher wants to have a say in elements of a game they are paying to put into the world. If I had to bet money, I would put it on they wanted to change more than just the gender of the character, but that is all we are presented with.

Would it be surprising if they did, and that was the only issue? Publishers and stuffed shirt types in creative realms are known for doing this, basically saying "we like it but if you could just change this one little thing we could really get on board!" and that one little thing is usually a fairly substantial change. The fact is, the person(s) that wrote the game thought it would be best to make the protagonist a female, and yes that is a big enough aspect to make a publisher pull away.

Sticking to your guns is awesome, but I haven't seen any proof they aren't writing a male character with boobs, as of yet. If they are writing a female character with female traits, I can't wait to play this game. If they are writing a male character with boobs, I'm already pissed they are making a big deal out of this.

This is the problem with the thinking, I think. What, to you, would make a believable female character? Sure, there's shitty writing occasionally for female characters that make them seem unrealistic, but the idea that if they're masculine they're just a "guy with boobs" is a little problematic. All female characters have to be dainty and emotional? All female characters have to fill support or damsel roles? If they take charge, if they're a leader, if they are strong and courageous, if they're not obsessed with relationships, then they are "a guy with boobs"? This is the kind of thinking that spawned Samus in the Other M, someone who's a "protagonist" but still filled to the brim with negative feminine stereotypes.

To address the first part: I would be surprised if they didn't want more creative input than just the character gender...

Well at that point we're just trying to speculate about things no one but the people involved could know about. Assuming that they had more problems than just gender is just that, an assumption. All I know is that it's not uncommon for publishers to feel that way about just one thing. The point here isn't that they denied the character because they thought she wasn't written well enough, but that she was dismissed because "female leads don't sell as much as male ones". That is ultimately what they care about, not the quality of the characters themselves. Just "how well can we sell this character?" It's not a sexist attitude but it is quite shallow and self-fulfilling, of course there aren't many high-selling games with exclusively female leads because publishers won't greenlight them because they don't sell well. Catch-22 at its finest.

To address the second part: Men and women are more than just physically different. The problem with Other M was that Samus was never a man with boobs.

That is precisely what I said. In an attempt to make a female character, the men who wrote her made her into one of the worst stereotypes of a woman. The stereotypes you seem to want to perpetuate, that females have different "motivations", like they won't do something unless it's to get a cute guy. And that brings us to the other point:

A person can have strong traits and be a strong character without gender getting into it. There are ways that men and women are strong that is the same.

True.

But the other part is that men and women have different goals usually, in a given situation. Some of that is going to be defined by their gender.

Aaaaand we're going into pants-on-head retarded territory. People's motivations are usually defined by their personal experiences and circumstances, and how they choose to react to those circumstances and how it develops and shapes their views over time. Gender can play a role in this, but only one part that overall experience, not the driving force behind it. Men and women can have the exact same motivations for their behavior. I don't know anything about FFXIII, so I'll reference Jack from Mass Effect 2/3 instead. She went through utter hell as a child, but was also granted with a massive amount of power as a result of that abuse, and when given freedom she's actively hostile to everyone she meets, even to people who try to help her, at least at first. This is because people have been horrible to her and there's no reason why she should act any different in her perspective. She's a bit annoying and juvenile and not that likable, but that's how I would expect anyone with her experiences to act, male or female.

According to your assessment, however, because she's a woman she should be more docile and have different motivations. The Jack in the game is just a guy with boobs, apparently, because she deviates from the mold set out by academics.

In the end, you're using sociological measures, which is the study of the group as a whole. Sociologists work in generalities, they have no other choice. But just as they study general trends in groups, their findings can only be applied to that group, not to any of the individuals in the group. Just because women generally act a certain way according to your "plethora of books" (binders full of women, anyone?), doesn't mean an individual character has to conform to those standards to be considered a proper female character. Psychology is the opposite, the evaluation of the individual and their behavior based on their own motivations, which tend to be very unique from person to person.

In fact it's the opposite, fictional characters as well as great real-life stories of real people are usually interesting because they deviate wildly from the norm. However, a well-written and believable character is one that has proper motivation for their actions, and often times this has nothing to do with gender. Bad female characters are ones like Samus in the Other M where ALL of her motivation has to do with her swooning over some guy, it's dependent solely on her gender as if that is the only thing that defines someone's motivations, which is a sexist viewpoint. And that is why this is also sexist:

It's just a fact that women usually have motivations that are different from men, even if the actions are the same. And you MUST adhere to some kind of female stereotype to distinguish them as different from men, just like you MUST adhere to some male stereotype in order to define a male truly male character. That means that you will have to represent how a women perceives a situation to be that would be different than a male interpretation, in order to distinguish them as different, in order to write a female character correctly.

Because you're saying men and women HAVE to have completely different motivations because of what is between their legs, when often times men and women do the same exact things for the same exact reasons. Sometimes they do have different motivations, but that's true of anyone regardless of gender. Saying that a woman HAS to conform to an assigned generality in order to 'be a woman' is absurd, and it sounds like medieval/Qunari logic.

Well, I'll admit I sometimes have a harder time relating to female characters, though I wonder whether that's due to my own frame of mind or more to writer's need to either portray women characters as either completely passive tools (with the one obligatory exception per work where she does something in order to show that "HEY SHE'S NOT COMPLETELY WORTHLESS YOU GUYS"), or conversely (and increasingly more common, or it seems to me) that all the women have to always be super-competent ultra-badass and very pointedly out-perform all the men in everything as some kind of weird attempt to prove how "not-sexist" the writers are.

Thinking about it, I can come up with a lot more examples of the latter from Hollywood than video games, but then I can't recall many games with female characters as the main protagonist that I've actually played.

(I said 'characters'. Chell and Samus (disregarding the game we don't talk about) have no character)

Candidus:
Pity the developer isn't naming and shaming the publishing houses that demanded a protagonist sex-swap.

I can't forgive Capcom for ruining MML3 then cancelling their ruined version of MML3, or for refusing to give Darkstalkers a true revival, or for refusing to include R.Mika with any of the latest SF titles... But I'll be grabbing this game all the same. Maybe with the money I'll soon be saving by giving Bioshock Infinite a miss.

I'm wondering if the reason that they don't "name and shame" is because they're just making this story up in an attempt to drum up a few more sales for a game that doesn't really look like it's going to be setting the world on fire.

hentropy:
snip

This is where the conversation gets into bad territory. Men and women are vastly different from each other. To deny that is just completely wrong. It's demeaning to men and women. If you can't acknowledge that simple fact, then you can't understand anything I have been talking about. This is exactly what psychologist talk about about when they say that the need to define men and women as the same and exactly equal in all measures prevents any meaningful understanding of the opposite genders in both real life and good story telling. You are so anxious to make this whole thing about how equal we all have to be at everything that you homogenize the sexes and that is what creates bad, uninteresting and characters that lack diversity. It would have been OK if Samus had some female motivation, but they turned her into the most needy character in the story. That is what broke the character, not giving her female traits, but destroying the gender neutral traits and strength by defining the female traits as her main features and motivations.

"According to my assessment...": You don't understand my assessment, you never will because you don't understand the simple fundamental differences between men and women besides their basic appearance. Men and women are driven differently, that is basic stuff. I never said driven by what's between our legs, but you choose to interpret it that way simply because you have to try and make them the same because that is the only way they can be seen as equal. Some of the differences of men and women are biology (testosterone vs estrogen), social (raised differently depending on gender) and outright physical (I'm far stronger, have thicker bones and denser muscle mass than any of my female counterparts). I'm not saying that I am better or that man is better, no one is, I'm just acknowledging they are not the same. They are not equal in a given situation. And that is what informs decisions and interpretation of the world, and why men and women are very different creatures.

 Pages 1 2 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