While i can't speak directly to Handmaids Tale because i'm not familiar with it. I will disagree with one aspect about the GOW fiction, the idea that that when a woman shows up on the battlefield early on in GOW because she's infertile - ergo now useless - i think is that if you only see it that way. It's always came across to me that they're trying to paint a very desperate picture, it's not like the men of the cog (does anyone not get the message when you hear people are part of the 'cog') can just walk away from conscription. Apparently they need more kids, and if they can't do that then they need her at the front with the men - that's what I thought at least.
It's why in GOW3 i found it rather clever how they made the inclusion of women at the front. As similar things have happened in real life in places like Russia, China, and Israel where there were not enough men then they started needing women. Same thing is happening right now in Syria with it's civil war.
Yes it is indeed twisted, and apparently the cog haven't figured out how to mass produce test tube babies, but it seems like what they need women to do.
no one can really be afforded an escape from that scenario in an apocolypse.
I get that you find it's lore really creepy and offensive. I'm fine with it, in it's logic it makes sense if you really really wanna emphasize how desperate the human situation is.
If i could give an example of a much lauded piece of fiction that always made me feel really awkward about, it was Y: The Last Man. Where basically adrocide (death of all males) happens.
I'm just saying, that really twisted settings can still make for good fiction. That's all.
I think something many people are not getting or liking is maybe that games are still first and foremost a commercial art, much like movies. They cost multi-million dollars to make, to advertise. You've got lots of people who'se jobs are on the line that your next game pays the bills and grows the company for the next game.
I think when people at these companies talk about sales, they're going by what the numbers are telling them. They can figure out who is actually buying their games and who isn't. Because again, if you can't pay the lights, nobody except whoever bought your game is gonna give a rats behind about artistic vision or integrity.
If Epic was some non-profit developer then there is no excuse NOT to make a female protagonist in a game like Gears of War. But they're not. I often hear how 43% of gamers are women, but that's considering the total audience under the umbrella of gaming. and were talking - often in these articles - the triple AAA big budget games. who'se audience is STILL primarily male. Even in a game like Bioware's Mass Effect 2 doesn't do nearly as well as shooter #3000, and even with the option of playing a female (who is often considered the better voice acted of the two) was only played by 20% of those who picked up the game. I'm not saying deny the option at all, but that's a whole new set of models, testing, voice work to make essentially two games nearly carbon-copy of each other (that's a lot of extra work for 20% - even if many of the people at Bioware themselves preferred Femshep). Then you got female-only series like Beyond Good and Evil and Mirror's Edge (both games that i love btw) and they either tanked or didn't do as well as expected - and we are STILL waiting for sequels to those games. Only major reason Tomb Raider took off was because she was not just a woman but also a sex symbol (ever think why some guys make that comment "i'd rather look at a woman's behind for x hours"?) . Metroid is the very odd exception and even then they've screwed her up once or twice.
I would look to the smaller players who are up and coming to push the diversity, long before i look to Epic, EA, Activision, Sony and the others. But when one or a few of them finally make it work, you'll see the rest will follow.
People are arguing about principals and what's right, and please believe me - i get it - i'm a minority too and i'd like to see more different protagonists. Again, people forget, that it is a business, and you gotta pay the bills. These companies are big enough to try to figure out who is their audience and who'se gonna ACTUALLY go out and buy the game.
I'm just talking about the money aspect here, i'm not even talking about when people wanna bring up sexism, racism, bigotry in portrayals, which seem like a mobius loop of someone somewhere is gonna make a big stink. meanwhile if you carbon copy the treatment to the typical white male lead the complaint is she's a stereotypical 'bad ass' chick who'se just a guy in female form. Again a mobius loop of complaints (abusing what are supposed to be very powerful words), from people who probably didn't even buy the game...
except if you treat them realistically in the scenerio you run the risk of people complaining that they're too weak and that that makes it sexist.
It cuts both ways, someone somewhere is gonna complain and push the "sexism" button.
One of the most highly liked female leads in games (among women and men) - Femshep, has near identical dialog as Maleshep, and does the exact same actions and choices as Maleshep. so does Femshep still fall under your view as "just acting like a man"?
that's the problem with making a female or minority lead. someone somewhere is gonna cry sexism, racism, bigotry. and i'm saying as this an Arab Muslim, who just KNEW people were gonna complain when like LittleBigPlanet had some Quranic verses in one of the songs.
That IS the reason why you see so many young white male seemingly hetero leads. Because it nets the most consumers, and it catches the least amount of crap.
I'm not saying i like it, or agree with it, but i can see why they are gunshy about it.
Usually what gets me is if it's a really awesome figurine/statue. Just something sentimental for gaming. Like Ezio (AC2), Cole (inFamous 2), Drake (Uncharted 3). Those have been the ones i've been most pleased to have sitting on my counter near my games. but there's also only so much shelf-space so i'm being selective with it. But that's all it is, and if i really want it on my geeky-space then that's where it'll stay.
it isn't even about that though. It's how the audience will recieve it, that's where his comment about not being financially successful. you can do everything right and still come out with a net loss - all because people do not see the Gears of War brand as really female centric - even if there are female casts involved crucial and ancillary kind. at least that's what i think.
doesn't mean i don't think it could be good though, doensn't mean i personally woudn't play it.
I just wanted to share my favorite romance, at least one that really got to me, was Tali from the Mass Effect series. I just love that character so much and was very pleased to see her be with you the whole way through the trilogy.
Got a soft spot for the smart, unconventionally attractive (for the longest time you never see her face yet i still felt drawn to the character), and still a little shy type. Even with her own character faults.
I mean it's settings, and some of it's historical set ups are accurate except for the whole Assassin involved. It's a cool setting, and how many action adventure games set in history - that do historical settings more fleshed out then the AC series?
very eloquently written by Tom McShea, don't often find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with him. but I always appreciate diversity of opinions.
That isn't to say i think games should rest on their laurels, no way.
Just i found myself enjoying a wide-array of games. my two favorite shooters last year were Spec Ops the Line and Call of Duty Black Ops 2, both very entertaining but for two very different reasons. and i really enjoyed Mass Effect 3 (ending aside), Journey, Walking Dead, and Papo Y Yo, for doing interesting things or having interesting characters. Then you got the more historical games like Assassin's Creed 3 and Liberation that i really enjoyed well.
Like i said don't rest on your laurels, keep pushing the envelope in new and different ways.
SaudiFury's comments