It just had to happen again didn't it? I hope, by the end of this blog, more of you will begin to understand why people like me take Social Justice Warriors, Professional Complainers, and the colloquially termed Sh*t Disturbers to task whenever we get a chance to. When apathy is the rule of the day, we only have ourselves to blame when an end result becomes unfavourable to us all.
Today I'm going to talk about an "article" that complains about the gender, and race, of the protagonist for Watch Dogs Aiden Pearce. Here's a link to the article.
http://www.policymic.com/ar...
I'm going to cover this article in sections based on how many paragraphs there are before a picture or video, but right away you should notice the title. The author is starting off from a position that Watch Dogs should have had a female protagonist, likely only because it is the most anticipated game of the year and no other reason. Hopefully she isn't that daft and will actually have a legitimate reason beyond "just because."
Section 1: In this section the author makes repeated comments of how "familiar" or "cookie cutter" Aiden Pearce looks. The author states that Aiden looks "virtually identical" to several other characters from popular games and hints at this being a problem.
Right off the bat I have to ask the author one question.
Do you have eyes?
It's not without merit to state that many male protagonists share similarities, but to call them "virtually identical" makes me question if you are legally blind because only those who are would ever say something that ridiculous. Aiden Pearce looks like Joel from The Last of Us? So you're saying that Aiden Pearce looks like a grizzled middle aged man with a scruffy, greyish beard and a worn face? I don't see that at all, do any of you?
Based on the title of the article, I'm going to assume that the author is stating these claims to suggest that a woman would be a better protagonist than Aiden Pearce simply by virtue of not looking similar to other male protagonists. This is the most superficial "request" one could make and shows that the author doesn't care about the actual character, just that character's gender. Why? Just because of course. Well, I suppose to be fair we could say she's trying to argue for "something different" but so far it's merely on superficial grounds and not for the benefit of the game.
Section 2: This is what I like to call the Social Justice Myth Propagation section. In this section, the author uses vague statistics to prove a point she doesn't make, that being that any other race or gendered character would be better than Aiden Pearce.
In the first paragraph, the author comments on how Aiden was described as an amoral anti-hero, and that that's about as exciting as "a slice of white bread."
My issue with this is that the author automatically assumes that either a female character CAN'T be an amoral anti-hero, or that if she were then it'd be better than a male with the same characteristics... just because. So far there have been many subtle hints the author wants to make the claim that a female character of any other gender would be better, but no definitive and legitimate reason as to why.
The second paragraph is where the vague statistics come into play. The author first cites the ESA's "study" that states that 48% of gamers are female. First, I'd like to link you to that page o' numbers with that claim.
http://www.theesa.com/facts...
Overall, we see that the ESA isn't thorough with their numbers. They just plant them out there and expect people to take them at face value. Looking specifically at the 48% of gamers are female, we see that they didn't elaborate. This number represents a sum total of any ability to game. It doesn't say what percentage of those female gamers game on what devices, it doesn't say what percentage plays what types of games, and when you click on the link at the bottom that takes you to a PDF that has more information, it's still completely vague. When trying to find out how the study came to these conclusions, we see that it was based on a survey of approx. 2200 U.S. citizens.
This represents a HUGE problem that the SJW's and Professional Victims/Whiners of the world are guilty of and yet will never acknowledge. As Homer Simpson said in an episode of The Simpsons "people can come up with statistics to prove anything, 14% of all people know that." Rather than take an in-depth look into the stats being used, the author (like so many before and after her) just takes statistics at face value because doing so appears to reinforce her position. It doesn't.
Third paragraph is another stat paragraph that is just as vague, and irrelevant. Let's say the stats are true, for argument's sake, what does that mean? That because 48% of gamers are female, and that more black gamers spend more time per day playing games than any other group, Aiden should be a black woman? Ok, why? How does that benefit the game? How will the game be improved by catering to these statistics? These questions are always avoided.
The final paragraph slams all journalists for NOT complaining that Aiden Pearce is a white male and that they aren't doing so because of the anticipation behind the game. Yeah, because it has nothing to do with not creating a problem, or complaining about a problem that doesn't exist. It must be because of anticipation and PR. Afterall, we never see game journalists complaining about objectification (*cough*Dragon'sCrown*coug h*) or female under-representation even in games where a female is a main protagonist and done really well (*cough*TheLastOfUs*cough*) right?
Third Section: This section is actually completely irrelevant. The author is pinning the under-representation of women on Watch Dogs, and is again doing so specifically because Watch Dogs is the most anticipated next gen game currently. The author still hasn't, as of yet, provided any explanation and we are still in the "just because" framework of her argument.
The author pretends to know how game development evolves over the life cycle of a console but ignores the fact that many many risks are taken at the beginning of a console cycle in order to drive sales from NEW consumers. The core gamer is more likely to purchase a console from a new gen simply because he/she loves gaming, not necessarily because of any risks taken. Those are just bonuses. But new consumers need something to draw their attention, and that's where the risks apply.
Final Section: This is where the author shows her ignorance of the business side of gaming. No developer or publisher would ever say that it's "tough to justify including female protagonists in a game if you want your game to sell" unless history has proven that to be true. I have to laugh that the author used a picture of Lara Croft as a subliminal way of saying games with female protagonists sell. The reason that game sold has more to do with the game being "good" than it needing Lara Croft to make it good.
And ah, the token mentioning of misogyny and feminism, there you are.
Now it's time to enlighten the author a little bit of some things.
A lot of people love to use the "games are art" argument to criticize gaming as a whole of being guilty of some form of exclusion or under-representation or some other social crime. These people ignore the fact that, as art, the game is only subject to the desires of the artist and no one else. Games are also a business, and an expensive one at that.
Ask any artist or animator about designing women. Any of them CAN do it, that isn't the issue. The problem is that, with games, it's more costly to design women than it is men, especially because hair is one of the most difficult things to draw/animate. In a business where art has to make money, most would tend to pour their creativity in the aspects that won't cost them so much money, like gameplay or story.
So, while I understand that including women as protagonists in games doesn't immediately and inherently make any game worse, you haven't argued for why it makes any game better either. I find this article to also be very selfish, as the author focuses on Watch Dogs simply because it's an anticipated game. There is no reason given as to what having a female protagonist would do to benefit the game, the argument has been just one big "just because" case. You may not like that Watch Dogs has a male protagonist, but there's nothing you can do about it either.
I have to ask why so many people who want things in life, games, or whatever area only complain about the lack of these things and do nothing about it. No worthy goal has ever been accomplished by simply complaining about it not being accomplished until someone gets fed up enough to accomplish it for you. You'd all do yourselves and your cause a world of good by actually taking action rather than putting your social science degrees to work with whiny blogs.
Microsoft announced its financial results for Q3 of fiscal year 2026, including an update on its gaming Xbox business and more.
Not looking good. Hopefully Asha Sharma is able to turn Phil’s disaster around.
To me it's still quite remarkable how they can cash-in 5.3bn in revenue in a single quarter, since their hardware is basically dead.
The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.
Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.
15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.
These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse
The charity event will be streamed live from Gamescom in August.
Thanks to the slip-up of an artist working on the title, we now have more evidence that a new Injustice game is in the works.
The author who wrote that abysmal opinion piece is an idiot. She is basically repeating the same tired "view" that some vocal gamers always voice, but in a way that it sounds like they are trying to present the argument in a snobby movie critic's opinion. Let's have a look at some of her illustrious writing.
"He looks virtually identical to Nathan Drake in Uncharted, or Joel in The Last of Us, or Booker DeWitt in Bioshock Infinite, or John Marston in Red Dead Redemption, or … well, the list goes on. Video game developers either have an Adam Levine obsession or they're continuing to lazily cater to a perceived audience of straight white male gamers."
Saying that they look virtually identical basically equates to her complaint that there have been a lot of straight, middle-aged white characters in games. Oh the horror! She doesn't even count them as characters with their own morals, ideas, agendas, dilemmas, or backgrounds. No, no, no! She limits them on what their physical appearance is.
"Unfortunately, Aiden Pearce's cookie-cutter image keeps it from becoming the incredible game Watch Dogs could have been."
"The specific contours of Pearce's character are also snooze-worthy."
These statements are coming from reading a vague description from the developer and seeing Aiden's first appearance, but still ignoring the character as more than that. She presses the non-existent issue further by basically claiming that Aiden cannot appeal to female and black gamers because of his appearance.
"It's hard to know how well a game with a female protagonist can sell until you make one and market it as aggressively as you would any other title. There's no telling how a game with a female protagonist would perform if it had Watch Dogs' creative energy and marketing budget."
It would probably get the same reaction. Marketing is key when it comes to the success of anything. If a company doesn't advertise, then the public won't know about the product.
"Watch Dogs doesn't seem to be a game with misogynist content that will arouse feminist ire..."
Then why complain that the lead isn't female?
"...but it is a prime example of a game whose generic protagonist is worthy of interrogation and criticism."
Ah, there's the justification of her agenda. Overall, her article is pointless drivel that is too often repeated these days. The same argument was just made for homosexuals in games, but what people like the author don't realize is that you cannot take a pitchfork to a person's throat and expect they will change something for the sake of inclusion of a particular person.
I'm a straight, Spanish male in his mid-twenties. Do I think that including protagonists of different backgrounds will help video games evolve? To a point, yes, but it has to compliment the narrative or theme of the game. As someone who is very adamant with his own writing of science fiction, fantasy, horror, and all things fiction of the real world, I more often than not go with what is first in my head when visualizing a protagonist. That has resulted in a plethora of different characters, but it's because I (as a writer) feel that it is congruent to the story as a whole; however, their physical appearance is just one dimension of the protagonist and I take that into account. Others (like the author of the linked article) don't and would rather turn attention to a character's appearance instead of looking at them as an entire person. You shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but some people can't help it and would rather make it an issue.
Having a woman protagonist in Watch Dogs would have been neat... but it wouldn't have impacted the game all that much either. Also, the world is fictional. It doesn't have to pander specifically to any gender or race or what have you. Why don't Hollywood blockbuster flicks ever get this kind of flack?
This has nothing to do with watch dogs but I do believe it's on topic as it is also a case of people complaining about exclusion.
Mario cart 8 has been accused of racism.
http://www.gamnesia.com/new...
I'm pretty familiar with the mario universe as I'm sure most gamers are, to my knowledge their are only 2 human characters, mario and luigi.
The princesses and rosalina are from the mushroom kingdom a kingdom which is very racially diverse, from dinosaurs and turtles to mushroom inhabitants and ghosts and most of these races are included in mario kart 8.
Considering the game lore it's a VERY inclusive game.
Wario, waluigi, the baby versions of mario and luigi cannot be of a different race than mario and luigi since 2 are evil clones and the other are their younger selves.
There is literally no logical reason to include any other human race at all in the mario universe, the story doesn't call for it. If say a black person (I don't use African American since not all black people are in fact from america) was to be included it would be as the "token" black guy and in my opinion that's much more offensive and racist and also offensive to the mario lore.
Dragonknight calls the people who write these articles warriors for social justice but I disagree, if they did their research into the video game world's that they try to tear apart with their opinions they would realize the truth of the matter. Mario has only 2 characters who are human (if you don't count clones) and they are brothers, the fact that they are both white is neither strange or offensive but the author chooses to try to be offended anyway.
This isn't the act of someone looking for social justice in fact I say it's the opposite. It's the act of someone who is looking to see hate where there is none in order to make money off people who get angry or outraged by this perceived hate (via clicks and advertising).
Someone who stokes the flames of controversy in order to turn an easy buck is not only spreading hate but they are also being exploitative, they are using racial tensions and social outrage to their own benefit and frankly the minorities of the world deserve better than to be exploited in this way.
Kudos to the author of this blog, very good write-up.
I for one am getting sick and tired of people saying things like "There isn't enough female protagonists", or "There isn't enough black protagonists", or "There isn't enough gay protagonists". And anytime there is female characters, black characters, or gay characters in a game, apparently they aren't female, black or gay enough to count for anything.
Not long ago a writer at Kotaku had an article saying that there wasn't enough gays in videogames. And he said that in Mass Effect 3 you could choose to have your character be gay, but he argued that wasn't good enough. Seriously?
Even if the main character in WD was a black gay female, these people would complain to no end about how that character isn't black enough, female enough, or gay enough.
The bottom line is, these people simply use this as an excuse for their own insecurities, failures and shortcomings. If they don't get a job, they go and rage on the internet about how it was because of their gender, skin color, race, or sexual preference, not because they were horribly under-qualified and bombed the interview. And it's these people that are tearing our world apart and are largely responsible for all the segregation in our society. Because instead of seeing a person as a person, they see them as white, black, gay, straight etc. And a person get bonus points if they fit a certain criteria.
The way I see it, if a game's story calls for the main character to be black, female or gay, then so be it. But I have a real problem with people trying to force a main character to be female, black, or gay just because these people believe they are underrepresented in video games.
If the character is written well and is compelling, who gives a shit what race/color/ethnicity they are? Jesus.