RHIANNA PRACHETT (TOMB RAIDER REBOOT WRITER) DISCUSSES GENDER/SEXUALITY IN GAMES

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention, Craze. I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'm not quite sure I've found an answer yet.

I've made lots of games, but I'm only now starting to get into writing well-characterized games. So, I'm a straight white guy, but I don't want to make all my characters straight white guys because that sounds boring, unrealistic and shitty. However I'm absolutely nervous about misrepresenting a character or minimizing them to a stereotype. Who am I to write about a girl? I don't know anything about what it's like to be a girl, or a black person, or a lesbian... I'd hate to offend someone because I didn't know what I was doing.

Does it matter? If we write a gay character, does that have to be an important aspect of his personality? In a perfect stereotypeless world, wouldn't we want it to be the opposite? Can we make a female character without focusing on her femininity, or is that just as bad? I don't know. I can say that if I was going to write about those specific experiences, I would rather just do the research, interview others who have lived those experiences, and create my character around that - rather than rely on what would inevitably be stereotypes from movies and T.V.

I do know what it's like to be human though, and despite our differences, I think we share certain emotional responses that transcend these boundaries. Things like falling in love, or protecting a child, or the death of a family member, or arguing with your best friend. I know what it's like to be in love with another person, and while love is something everyone experiences differently, I don't believe that love in itself is fundamentally different as a female or a homosexual. It's about feeling an unique, unbelievable connection with another person. I could be dreadfully wrong on this point, but I just don't know. I think we all owe it to ourselves to try and find out, and to develop characters around more than a single trait.

I'm gonna have to figure this out soon because my next game is about... love, I think, and about a whole bunch of different people that aren't just straight white dudes, and I have no idea what the hell I'm doing.

---

As an afterthought - I don't feel any more represented by Nathan Drake than I do any other character. I connect much more to a character's thoughts and actions than their white maleness... and for that matter I tend to connect with female characters at least as often as males, because males are too often portrayed as emotionless morons.

a developer who was talking about the fear he had of creating anything outside white male characters lest he be accused of racism or sexism. I think there is actually a genuine nervousness amongst developers about straying outside those familiar grounds

A brief aside and only tangentially related, but I see this excuse quite a lot. It's rather sad! Shout-out to people with similar fears: If you think the unbearably agony of someone calling you racist/sexist/a doodoohead/whatever is as bad or worse than experiencing the effects of racism/sexism/having a pile of doodoo on your head, I don't know what to say other than "grow a spine".

Having one of those is useful for many things in life, like walking or being a vertebrate. Especially in a professional setting, where developers should learn how to deal with criticism in general, and the fear of it shouldn't prevent them from doing things.

you’ve got a situation where female characters do get scrutinized more than male characters do, and in some ways can be seen as holding a banner up for female characters. A lot gets heaped on their shoulders. Lara Croft gets a lot more scrutiny than Nathan Drake does, as a female. Nobody talks about how well Nathan Drake is representing men, or male characters in games.

This situation exists because the vast majority of women in games are laughable, especially when compared to the men. So many end up as representing "all" female characters because there's just a disparity of numbers. There's fewer women than men in games, and the women who do show up typically are wrapped in a lot of baggage. Often sexualized, usually passive, far less agency than dudes, blah blah blah does anyone really want to listen to me go on about this?

Developers made this bed of handling women in extremely narrow categories, now they have to lie in it when people take issue. Nobody talks about how well Nathan Drake is representing men, but nobody makes game after game where your typical Nathan Drake is constantly shown as vulnerable and/or sexualized, as if that's just "expected" of men in dangerous situations or a normal state of affairs.

There's enough variety among men in games and they're treated as default by a lot of people. Women are the exception or the "other" option, and tend to stick out as a result. Hence the extra scrutiny. (Honestly, I wish people gave this kind of scrutiny to male characters too, but that's a separate can of worms.)

pratchett
with Lara, I wanted to make a human story. But I never wanted to forget that she was female either. And, I mean, certainly the way she reacts to things could be said to be more female as a reaction. I’m not talking about being scared, or being vulnerable. But the way she interacts with other characters, her friendship with Sam in particular…you wouldn’t see a male character holding the hands of an in-pain male character or hugging a dying male character.

Kotaku/Ron Rosenberg (executive producer)
This Lara feels more human, more real. That's intentional, Rosenberg says.

"The ability to see her as a human is even more enticing to me than the more sexualized version of yesteryear," he said. "She literally goes from zero to hero... we're sort of building her up and just when she gets confident, we break her down again."

- You’ll ‘Want To Protect’ The New, Less Curvy Lara Croft

Another thing I find super relevant to discussions like "how well is this game representing X group of people?" - consider how many cooks are in the kitchen. Pratchett and Rosenberg both talk about this new, more human Lara Croft, but Pratchett talks about her vulnerability in a different way than Rosenberg, despite surface similarities like wanting a "more mature game" with vaguely-defined "human elements". What about the artists, the camera riggers, the sound designers, anyone with any input on how the final product could come across - what did they consider important to emphasize?

Rosenberg and Pratchett both claim the new Lara Croft is less sexualized than past, but really all they've done is reduce her boob size and give her some pants. She's still supermodel attractive, she still makes some pretty damn sexy sounds under stress, her suffering is still highlighted in ways that rarely happen with male characters. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest the majority of the dev team's attitudes are more in line with Jude's - they probably don't give a shit.

To a degree, I really agree with the idea that this "new" Lara Croft is more human in the sense of showing more human emotions, like fear in a dangerous situation. But to me this says more about male characters and what we're used to getting from them.

You can't look at it in a vacuum; far too often "humanizing" elements like vulnerability or empathy are only given to women characters, as if men are somehow incapable of having them. To go back to Nathan Drake, try thinking of an Uncharted reboot that takes the first part of the game to establish how weak and frightened he is before his goofy transition to a mass murderer. (Even as a child in Uncharted 3 he handled death better than Lara)

Since yeah, by the end of the game Lara is the "badass" Lara Croft people come to expect; even the enemies of the game react accordingly. And the basic idea that Pratchett talks about, "the enduring nature of the human spirit", is a solid one. I like that, and it definitely shows through in the game. It just shows through layers of awkward undertones, sexualization, and all kinds of baggage that male characters rarely, if ever, have to deal with.

As for Pratchett talking about the first kill and whatnot, really I find it hard to imagine any kind of compromise between "we want this person to feel more human" when the demands of gameplay turn them into a killer who takes no prisoners. Yeah, yeah, suspension of disbelief, but you could milk so much more gameplay out of nonlethal options like subduing the enemy or fleeing or surrender or all kinds of things way more interesting than "gun down entire island of people". "Empathy" doesn't mean much as a quality when the game code itself refuses to let players exercise it.

And the gay stuff - hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I'm gonna go sleep now, maybe give a serious response if anyone cares.

slashphoenix
Maybe the solution lies in thinking critically and carefully how certain aspects of a character's life would affect their personality. Stereotypical writing seems to come from laziness as often as malice.

Perhaps indeed... and no that's not mocking sarcasm or anything. (hey it's worth clarifying sometimes!) Writing characters is pretty easy; it's often overcomplicated. What might cause X to happen? How might Y affect Z? Make characters feel like they have agency vs. being author-controlled puppets. (even though they are)

Absolutely agree on the easier said than done part, but I still think "learning to take criticism, harsh or not" is an important dev skill even without regards to insert-ism-here.

With regards to representation, specifically, I don't think devs are getting so much pressure about having straight white dudes as protagonists that it's a matter of hundreds of people being out of a job if they fuck up trying something else. In the grand scheme of things, the industry and enough of the people who buy video games flat-out don't care. The people who DO care are often quite vocal about it, but I haven't seen boycotts based on issues of representation really damage a publisher or cause a game to sink. (Hey anyone feel free to bring things up, I haven't seen a lot of things.)

I understand the pressure and fear so many people have about hearing negative crit, but honestly I find myself having less and less sympathy for it.

Don't write people, make avatars.

I dunno man, it seems to me that a lot of games are moving away from writing for interactive fiction and into more directed storytelling (like you see in movies or novels). I mean, there is talk about giving female characters more agency blah blah blah but why isn't it just give the player more agency. Like penta said

"Empathy" doesn't mean much as a quality when the game code itself refuses to let players exercise it.

And yeah, the crux of my argument is that interactivity between the player and the game mechanics is the core focus of a game, and things like characters and story and graphics and whatnot are secondary. So, yes, gender studies in videogames is worth the debate, just don't forget the "videogames" part. Don't judge a character on whether or not the character has merit on his or her own, judge them on how well they motivate the player to play the game.

In the end, it didn't really matter whether or not you are playing as Pac-Man or Ms. Pac-Man. In Chess you use the almighty Queen to protect the vulnerable King. I am motivated to play the Queen because HER MOVESET KICKS ASS.

author=slashphoenix
Post.

Well, I'm not exactly saying it's NOT worth discussing, but we have discussed it so much that I guess we all know more or less where each other stands on the subject. And is the same stand that you'll see everywhere, really. I think is clear that the majority of gamers want more diverse, well written game experiences. But that's going to be a slow transition, no matter how loud we get about it.

Something I disagree with are some of the approaches to the issue. Every now and then you hear things like: "There's too many white, straight, male protagonist in games, so we need more black, lesbian girls." But diversity for the sake of "leveling the field" is not the right way to go about it... Neither is worrying about "misrepresenting" whole bunchs of people with our characters because it's not our job to represent people. Nor should people feel represented by fictional characters. (I think that speaks poorly of a person's self-image.)

I agree with you on that we have a responsibility as creators. But how far does this responsibility goes? I hope you don't suggest we stop making games out of fear of misinforming people. Because you're going to "misinform" someone one way or another whether you want it or not. Like you pointed out, there are too many gullible people in this world... No. I believe the responsibility lies with ourselves and with critical thinking people only. People that can help us to improve our medium without blowing things out of proportion...

Like that Call of Juarez game. As a Mexican, I could play my "misrepresented minority" card and spout a lot of nonsense. But I doubt the game ever had the intention to "inform", much less "indoctrinate" its audience. So I can't , in a good conscience, hold it accountable of anything but being one lousy game... I love the idea that games CAN inform, but they all don't HAVE TO. Some games are just games.

Ah, but being silent and having no agency are two very different things, especially in a video game, where the player is invited to take on the role of a character. Empireonline rated Gordon Freeman as the #1 video game character, and provided the following justification:

It would be a disservice to Freeman's laconic charm to say he's void of personality due to never uttering a word - or being directly seen, save for the box art and glimpses in sister titles Opposing Force and Blue Shift. In keeping Freeman mute and unseen, Valve cannily laid the groundwork for a character that players can fully embody, enabling each would-be Freeman to shape Gordon's persona themselves.

There's a bit of Gordon in all of us, you see: noble, mischievous, intelligent and, beneath it all, a kick-ass action hero bubbling beneath the surface. Given a dozen third-person cutscenes and lines of snappy dialogue, Gordon Freeman may not be half the icon he is today. As it stands, he effortlessly sets the benchmark for aming protagonists and accomplishes it all in complete silence, with a crowbar in hand.

http://www.empireonline.com/features/50-greatest-video-game-characters/default.asp?film=1

So in short, yes, the player makes the character endearing through their actions, but in order for that connection to be made, Valve first had to painstakingly create the perfect silent protagonist to enable that point of empathy. Freeman's triumphs are the player's triumphs, and Freeman's design is a perfect example of how less is more.

I'm not sure why you have a low opinion of Spec Ops: The Line's narrative, seeing as it is widely (and deservedly) praised as one of the best stories in the genre, but I'd like to read your thoughts. On the subject of less being more, however, many of the conflicts between the ludonarrative and the embedded narrative can be solved by proper use of the aforementioned empathy between the player and the avatar. One of the reasons Spec Ops is so fantastic is because it 'tricks' the player into thinking that Walker is a typical, generic FPS protagonist, which allows the player to almost subconsciously associate his actions with their own, only for the story to jar the player back to reality when Walker demonstrates agency of his own, which by that time had allowed the association to set for so long that many players felt depressed or even physically ill as the narrative progressed.

A cheap shot? Maybe, but undeniably effective, as reviewer Yahtzee pointed out:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6021-Spec-Ops-The-Line

And, yes, it's true that Spec Ops definitely has ideas to share (not to mention some apparent dissonance between gameplay and story intent), but who's to say it's so wrong for a game to explore such complex issues while placing the player in a context where they must experience them first hand? It is, after all, one thing to discuss political problems from the comfort of our armchair; it's another thing entirely to actually be placed in a context where those issues are immediately relevant, and video games have the power to do just that, while no other media can.

Yeah, it does rather call attention to stereotypes, however unintentionally.

It definitely reveals a 'comfort zone'.

EDIT: On this subject, I've noticed that female characters in gaming seem to be organized into lists by 'badassness':

http://www.cheatcc.com/extra/top10badasswomenofvideogames.html#.UVOaoxxOTTp

Or, of course, sexiness:

http://www.cheatcc.com/extra/toptensexiestfemalecharacters.html#.UVOa5hxOTTo

While some of those characters are indeed complex and interesting, both lists are very clearly assembled with the, primarily male, gaming audience in mind. It's no secret that a great many female characters in gaming act either like femme fatales, or typical 'badass' heroes who just happen to be women.

It doesn't have to be this way, as there are still many examples of interesting, decidedly feminine characters in video games. April Ryan from The Longest Journey (one of the best-written games ever) is a multi-dimensional heroine who is both easy to empathize with and fascinating to learn about. The Boss from Metal Gear Solid 3 is nothing less than haunting, and is arguably among the most memorable and nuanced women in gaming. Likewise, Claudia and Heather from Silent Hill 3 are some of the most well realized female characters in a genre full of stereotypes, and Katherine Marlowe from Uncharted 3 has more menace in one line than an army of sexy vampires could hope to ever achieve.

I'm sure you guys can all come up with more examples of female characters who hardly ever appear in the above lists.

WELP WHAT A DOUBLE POST