Yeah I played KOTOR 2, but it was a long while ago. I played as the male, and only learned years later (~2013 or so), that it was intended that Revan was a female.

When playing a game, it the developers come out later (or even before release) and say, "Hey, this was the canonized version", that doesn't actually help unless the people playing the game actually hear about it. I was also 14 at the time, so for all I know, they could've had a huge marketing campaign informing gamers that the female choice and I probably would've missed it. But hey, if any relevant information is in the game itself, I'd probably see it.

But I won't play through the game a second time if there's no difference (and even then, the difference has to be worth playing a second time for), and if I don't know there even is a difference unless I play through it twice, it becomes almost a chicken-and-egg problem. The only solution is if I accidentally stumble across information on the internet (before I even start playing it), or if the game itself provides the information during the choice-making process.

This could be done by making the female character the default-selected one, saying "(Canon)", and the male character saying "Alternate version", if it's plot related.

But if it's not plot-related, and developers actually want players to replay the game a second time, this can be encouraged by, when development budgets permit, giving significant enough differences to their stories and the areas they reach (imagine if each had even a single unique planet they visited - that'd be worth a replay), or their abilities, that it makes a real difference and of value to replay.

Basically I have three preferred options:

A) Create the character and stick to it - either design around a female protagonist or a male protagonist, and don't give players a choice (I'm fine with this, even with female protagonists!). Mario, Link (in Zelda), and Masterchief are always male. Joanna Dark and and Samus Aran are always females (though Samus is a bad example). If this is the route a game is going, I'd like a few more well-designed female protagonists. (I don't game as much as I used to, so I might be outdated here - maybe there are more female protagonists that I expect)

B) Make there be no "cannon" character, like Morrowind, where the choice doesn't matter. In which case, I'll always play the male, and no harm done to anyone (the stories usually suffer slightly for that, so a story focused game might prefer (A) instead).

Or C) Make each choice basically be separate games - each character explores different areas (with overlap), and/or has different stories (with overlap), and/or has different abilities.

I understand for "epic" storyline-focused games that last one is less likely to occur, but in those situations, if you want to tell a story, and you also insist in giving a gender (or race) choice, and one choice is more "cannon" than the other(s), then do me a favor as a gamer, and inform me of it!

You can do so in text on the selection screen, but you can also use psychological tricks!

• Make the "canon" choice look cooler. Or make that choice have more eye-catching and appealing colors. (this is more subjective - different players would have different tastes, but you can try stuff like making the non-canon choices look bored on their facial expression on the gender selection screen, and maybe players will subconsciously choose the more 'interesting' one).
• Try making the alternate non-canon choice slightly desaturated, and the canon choice sharper.
• Make the "canon" choice the default, requiring the player to take action to select another option (KOTOR 2 might've done that, I'm not sure). On its own this isn't enough.
• Since eyeballs start in the upper-left corner, make the left character the canon choice.
• Since players are more likely (supposedly) to go down a lighted hallway than an unlighted hallway in-game, they might also be more likely to choose a brightly-lit character over a less-brightly lit character. Test that during development. Use a spotlight to select a character. When the spotlight is over the canon character, make the spotlight slightly brighter (subtly so). When the spotlight is off of the canon choice, make sure she is still visible (not in darkness), and maybe have something tiny clipped to her suit or whatever, that glows in the dark or is lit up, so it catches the eye even when that character isn't selected. Additionally, make the non-canon character much more heavily in darkness when not selected, with nothing eye-catching.
• Often on selection screens, characters move around slightly, shifting their weight around. When not selected, the non-canon characters shouldn't move. But when not selected, the canon character should still move.
• Make the "canon" choice scaled slightly larger, so she/he is a few inches taller. See if that affects players subconsciously.

Do some AB testing to see if any of that actually affects anything!

All this is to solve the real problem: You have the "real protagonist", who's a female, but lack the guts to (or are pressured by non-design interests to not) make her the sole protagonist. The real solution is to not give a choice, and focus on the one female protagonist (or the one male protagonist), or to make the choice actually not matter, so then you don't need to encourage any specific choice. But, failing that, you can try to use the psychological tricks (and outright informing the player ) that one choice is preferred.

Definitely don't make the two characters look like clones of each other (in this case, by their clothing), or I'll think their storylines are clones and the choice doesn't matter.

If the female one is the canon, don't name the female selection "Female <classname>" while the male is just named "<classname>". Make the non-canon choice have the qualified name. Even better is making the choice text read, "I want to play game how the designers intended (female protagonist)" vs "I want to play the alternate story (male protagonist)".

What I wouldn't like is if the choice does matter, but it's presented in-game as if it doesn't.

Or if the choice isn't supposed to matter, but one side of the choice had more effort invested into it.

I did see more marketing posters with the male Shepard, but there were definitely posters with the female Shepard as well. I guess it's true that the cover of the game had the male version and not the female version, but I feel that this might just be nitpicking. Honestly it's a game where the character can be anyone, not a specific person. You design the character the way you want it to look. I get the feeling that since marketing was marketing to males, they thought it'd be a better idea to have more males on the posters. Again, just my take.

If there is no real gameplay difference, and very little plot difference, then I don't feel it needs to be promoted equally (like Elder Scrolls games or MMOs where you create who you want). Only if there is a significant difference between them, then I, as a player, want to be informed of the difference so I can choose which I prefer (like Borderlands, where it gives a brief three-sentence overview of each character's different abilities).

It's the, "There's a canon choice but we're trying to hide it" that I don't get. Either there's a sole protagonist, or there's a superficial choice. But if I play a game, choose the male, and then am told later, "Heheh, by the way, we intended for you to play the female - that's what we were designing for.", I feel ripped off - even if there is zero difference between the two. It makes me feel like I might've missed a better experience, even if I didn't.

Imagine reading Lord of the Rings, and after you finish it, you found out that you accidentally read the watered-down American version where Frodo Baggins survives, instead of the original version where he falls into the volcano with gollum and the one ring, saving the land but at the cost of his own life. You didn't get the full experience the writer actually intended, and you wonder what you might've missed. It's a potentially frustrating feeling.

That's the problem for me, anyway. Otherwise, if both choices are equal, I don't mind if they slap the male on the cover. BUT! If they slap the female on the cover, I might think the female is the "designed for" choice and play her, even if she's not (and no loss!). I wonder if female gamers see the male on the cover, and play the male out of worry about missing the better experience. Solution? Put the villain on the cover.

This is less a problem in Morrowind, because you are choosing your gender, ethnicity, and hair color, at the same time. I have no expectation that my hair color affects gameplay, so I don't expect the gender choice to. Unfortunately, Morrowind also mixes in actual gameplay related choices (skills, what astronomical sign you are born under) at the same time as the non-gameplay related choices. And also, your ethnicity actually does affect the gameplay (but at least it tells you so, and how, during your selection!).

In Morrowind, it's clear you're building a character, not selecting a character. If I am selecting a character, how do the characters differ?

(I made up that thing about the 'american' LotR version, btw. You can stop panicking and searching wikipedia; Frodo doesn't fall into the volcano in any version)

With KOTOR, you are choosing your gender and your character class at the same time on the same screen. Does this mean the gender does or doesn't play a role? It doesn't say it does, so I assume it doesn't (beyond minor dialogue changes, and party interactions / relationships). In actuality, it doesn't... but the developers designed one role especially in mind, which makes me worry (after playing the game, or during the gameplay but after character selection) that I'm getting a subpar experience.

Her angle is that these console and computer games that are a work of fiction somehow contribute to sexism and misogyny in the real world.

I take it from your wording that you disagree with that assertion--is that correct? If so, how do you respond to the various points raised in this thread in support of it? (If you have responded to these points, then I may have missed your response or responses and so apologise, and ask that you link me to the relevant posts.)

For example, to quote myself:

First, as I believe has been mentioned already, there's the matter of the preponderance of such games making for a medium that can be a little unwelcoming to some women.

...

Second, there's the argument that media may affect perceptions, much as Servant of the Lord pointed out: simply put, if the majority of depictions of a specific group (in this case women) portray them in a particular manner, and especially if that portrayal supports already extant perceptions, then at least some portion of the audience may be influenced in the direction of that portrayal. If you doubt that media may affect perceptions, consider the effects of propaganda, which is, if I'm not much mistaken, this effect used intentionally.

It's been pointed out that the second issue in that quote may well be a feedback loop: sexist perceptions exist already, and sexist representations in games reinforce those perceptions, which in turn results in further sexist representations. (I can see a few potential mechanisms for that last step, although this is speculative on my part: such representations being seen to do well in the market; positive feedback being given for them; and people who have taken in those representations entering the industry and thus producing more themselves. There may be other mechanisms still that I'm missing.)

Well said, but it seems to me that these days, just because so and so says that this is "_____ist", it automatically is, and therefore should be dealt with. I don't think that everything is a result of an "ism", but even when it's just ignorance or immaturity, someone's gotta call it.

But a bigoted view, even if held innocently or ignorantly, is still bigoted; "isms" aren't necessarily consciously held or enforced, it seems to me.

I get the feeling that since marketing was marketing to males, ...

But isn't that part of the problem? Why did they think that the game was more "for males" than "for females"?

... they thought it'd be a better idea to have more males on the posters.

Again, even presuming that the game was targeted at males, why would they believe that males would respond better to having males on the posters? As a guy myself, I find that idea a little insulting, actually.

I get the feeling that since marketing was marketing to males, ...

But isn't that part of the problem? Why did they think that the game was more "for males" than "for females"?

... they thought it'd be a better idea to have more males on the posters.

Again, even presuming that the game was targeted at males, why would they believe that males would respond better to having males on the posters? As a guy myself, I find that idea a little insulting, actually.

Like I said, it's just my take on what they were thinking. I'm not sure why they did that, to be honest. The other possibility is that marketing might just be incompetent, which I think is another possibility we might be neglecting.

I take it from your wording that you disagree with that assertion--is that correct? If so, how do you respond to the various points raised in this thread in support of it? (If you have responded to these points, then I may have missed your response or responses and so apologise, and ask that you link me to the relevant posts.)

My view is if games don't contribute to violence and crimes in the real world then they can't contribute to sexism and misogyny in the real world. I am a firm believer that people learn to be sexist and misogynists from daily interactions with people they look up to (be it friends, family, or someone else) and not from playing games based in fiction. I see it as nothing more than the usual "blame games for societal problems" while ignoring the fact that these problems existed before video games were ever in existence. Even if every medium (movies, music, comics, video games, books, etc.) became this utopian representation of men and women the world will still be full of people that are sexist, misogynistic, misandrists, racist, etc.. Look throughout history and you see stories of people who started out normal and started to change out of anger, vengeance, and fear. I'm fine with developers wanting to change their games, but truth is that there are games that have portrayals of strong women of which Mass Effect, Tomb Raider, and Bayonetta are the mainstream examples. I also view Resident Evil series to have a great run of strong portrayals of women. I don't view a game having oversexualized women to be a negative thing. In truth I don't view any of the eight things she listed to be a negative thing, but rather artistic choices of the developer that she is giving a negative spin. As I pointed out, when my wife gets hurt and winces in pain, it sounds orgasmic and the only pain noises I would say don't sound orgasmic are the ones where the characters are just flat out screaming in pain. I consider it a form of censorship because of the fact it is an artistic choice for most of them, but to expect an person to change their artistic choice just because I don't like it is (again, to me) censoring them.

My view is if games don't contribute to violence and crimes in the real world then they can't contribute to sexism and misogyny in the real world. I am a firm believer that people learn to be sexist and misogynists from daily interactions with people they look up to (be it friends, family, or someone else) and not from playing games based in fiction. I see it as nothing more than the usual "blame games for societal problems" while ignoring the fact that these problems existed before video games were ever in existence.

I agree, but I don't feel that this lets games off the hook for lazy writing or stereotyped characters - whether it's gender (m/f/t), race, whatever. I think we can make an argument that games can treat all of these things like adults, without having to claim that it's to make a difference in the real world. I personally feel that better treatments of these things make for better games with more depth that might even sell better than they would have otherwise. That has enough value to be worth pursuing, without need for external scare tactics.

It's worth noting that a variety of popular literature, television, and movies struggle with the same issues.

My view is if games don't contribute to violence and crimes in the real world then they can't contribute to sexism and misogyny in the real world.

In that case, do you believe that propaganda is ineffective? That would seem to work by more or less the same mechanism, used intentionally: depicting members of a specific group in a way that aligns with a specific perception (in the case of propaganda this would presumably be whatever perception the propaganda-maker wants to encourage).

Note: I'm not saying that games are propaganda, any more than any representative medium is; I'm saying that they--and all representative media--can have a similar effect. Or more accurately the other way around: that propaganda is this general effect "weaponised". I'm not saying that developers are, in general, attempting to shift perceptions via problematic depictions of women.

I don't think that games not contributing to violent actions is a strong argument against them affecting perceptions. By analogy, if someone were to see one person fighting with another, that doesn't necessarily make them much more likely to go off immediately and fight someone else as well; on the other hand, if people keep telling someone that a particular person is horrible, then they're more likely to see that person as horrible.

It might be worth mentioning that I'm not arguing in favour of removing "problematic" portrayals; indeed, I suspect that, if they were no longer the usual case, they would in general cease to be problematic in this context. (I realise that this may not be what Ms. Sarkeesian is saying, but again: she's just one voice in this debate.)

The other possibility is that marketing might just be incompetent, which I think is another possibility we might be neglecting.

Hah, fair enough, and good point!

In truth I don't view any of the eight things she listed to be a negative thing, but rather artistic choices of the developer that she is giving a negative spin.

The problem I think is that for AAA games, sexist portrayal of women is not really an artistic choice, it is more a default. Actually, it seems like more of an artistic choice when developers stray away from that path - if they include a more diverse set of less sexualised women.

I don't particularly have a problem with people picking controversial aesthetics for artistic purposes, but I don't think that is what is happening in general.

I consider it a form of censorship because of the fact it is an artistic choice for most of them, but to expect an person to change their artistic choice just because I don't like it is (again, to me) censoring them.

I think your definition of censorship is fairly unique, I don't think it adds clarity to the discussion.

Even from the the original article you linked:

I recently listened to the media critic Anita Sarkeesian describe eight things she'd like to see changed in video games.5

And:

To be specific, she was describing "eight things developers can do to make games less shitty for women."

Probably the most explicit call was:

She spelled out what she wants to see done, what she thinks game developers should think about doing differently.

Suddenly, your post goes in a different direction:

I don't think she is requesting anymore, but actually expecting all devs, AAA and indies, to yield to her list.

I fail to see this jump from suggestion to demand. I may want cake, without necessarily expecting to get it.

My biggest concern is do you think, with the recent Intel and Mirrors Edge 2 incidents with Sarkeesian, she will end up getting her way and censor games?

I can't find anything definitive about this alleged incident, there appears to be lots of noise about "removing" her from the development team, set against counter claims that she isn't on the team.

Overall, I have no idea how we both read the same article and took away such vastly different messages. There is a huge gap between the generally accepted meaning of "censorship" and the kind of activism that Anita Sarkeesian is involved in.

As I'm late to this thread:

So I wanted to get opinions on this list.

Looks like a reasonable starting point for any game developer, umm, trying to "make games less shitty for women"?

Thaumaturge, you saying propaganda made me remember this pic I saw back in December that I forgot about until now.

https://androlphegax.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/b5m9popiqaaoga4.jpg?w=601&h=601

Promit, the question is then, who do we get onto for that? Is it the designer or a writer that is being lazy? It definitely helps if the publishers would stop denying games for having female protagonists and start allowing it. Trying to remember what game it was just recently that had a female character lead and kept getting turned down due to that fact, but finally saw the day of light when a company agreed to publish it female protagonist and all.

Promit, the question is then, who do we get onto for that? Is it the designer or a writer that is being lazy? It definitely helps if the publishers would stop denying games for having female protagonists and start allowing it. Trying to remember what game it was just recently that had a female character lead and kept getting turned down due to that fact, but finally saw the day of light when a company agreed to publish it female protagonist and all.

Without writing the extended essay on that subject which lives in my head, ultimately what it comes down to is:

1) Historically, these things don't even cross designers' and artists' minds. It's sort of preprogrammed that the world will be saved by a white guy. I think we've made a lot of progress in the last couple years in terms of expanding the way people are thinking about these issues - the comic book world has been through similar growing pains recently. The unfortunate backlash is that writers are making minority characters for the sake of having minority characters, as if anything other than the 'default' needs to be justified.

2) Publishers are risk averse. Call of Modern Gears 4: Castle Explosionstein used a white guy protagonist and pulled in X million which was a big hit for us. If we change the formula then all those buyers might leave and hurt the bottom line! And this reaches well beyond gender and race into issues of game design. Like you said, sometimes publisher meddling prevents the designers from exploring the wider world of options.

A game is a creative effort, but it's also hundreds of people and tens of millions of dollars. One does not simply break 'the formula' because it's the creatively bold direction to go. That's how a lot of the people calling the shots see it. I don't agree with the thinking, but that's the dynamic at play... and they don't like when we programmers tell them how to sell the games ;)

This is why, by the way, I tend to be wary of critics and journalists who haven't worked in the industry proper. Don't get me wrong - they have every right to write and say whatever they like. But it's often folly to think that the design team or artists or programmers were just being lazy/sexist/racist/whatever. But being in the trenches lends some fantastic perspective on the kind of cluster!@#$ it is to for a game to get from concept to master, particularly in these days of large teams and enormous budgets.