Quantcast
Are women over-represented in video games?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Are women over-represented in video games?

Which of these MOST describes your view?

Women are over-represented in video games. 8 10.13%
 
Women have too much of a ... 4 5.06%
 
Both of the above. 7 8.86%
 
None of the above. I will clarify. Honestly. 60 75.95%
 
Total:79
SpokenTruth said:
Zkuq said:

You didn't ask me but his answer was fairly close to what I would have answered that I'll answer this from my point of view.

For me, the answer is immersion and believability. The female prevalence in Battlefield V simply breaks the immersion for me. Battlefield has a tone serious enough for things like this to break the immersion. Female characters aren't the only issue (personally I'm also quite annoyed by all sides having the same guns and the prevalence of fully automatic weapons), but so far, female characters seem to be the most glaring one.

I haven't played The Order, but if it has werewolves and sci-fi weapons, I'm already willing to bet it has quite a different tone than Battlefield.

Believability?  You get shot and keep running?  That's believable?  How many weapons are you carrying?  How many ammo types?  How far can you run without collapsing from exhaustion?  How can you drive/fly all those different vehicles?  But a women just breaks it all, huh?

OK, maybe I shouldn't have added that specific word at the last moment without thinking more about it - but I felt like simply stating immersion was lacking something. Anyway, yes - sort of. None of those things break immersion like female characters do (in Battlefield! - there are plenty of places for female characters where they don't break immersion).

The number of weapons you can carry is quite limited in Battlefield, and it's not that unrealistic either (in that it's humanly possible to carry that much stuff). Ammo types? Not sure what exactly you mean, but seems like I haven't noticed it, so it's probably not that bad (although it's possible there are certain ammo types that are worse in this regard). Running is practically necessary for gameplay to be fun unless you want your game to be very realistic, in which case putting stricter limits on how much endurance you have can still have a harmful effect if not executed properly. Being able to drive and fly all kinds of stuff? Actually I do mind that stuff a bit, but at this point, that's pretty deep in what Battlefield is.

Female characters on the other hand? They're there just to fulfill people's role-playing wishes with no gameplay purpose at all while going against history. To me, it feels extremely out of place in a Battlefield game. There are probably tons of games where I have absolutely nothing against female characters, but Battlefield isn't one of them. Mind you, female characters can have a place even in a Battlefield game if it's written very carefully so it makes sense. Make the story or multiplayer battles revolve around settings where female characters were prevalent and it's all good. As far as I know, resistances had some female fighters, and I think there were female soldiers in the Red Army. Focus on them, make it all interesting, and it's all good. Slap female soldiers on battles fought practically exclusively by male soldiers, and it feels like it was done just meet the current trends.



Around the Network

None of the above. I still hardly hear anything about great female devs and great female lead characters. Getting sick of the proverbial sausage fest.

Don't get me wrong, I love characters like Mario, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Link, Sonic, Crash, etc., but I like escaping with the likes of Shantae, Sash Lilac, Joana Dark, Samus Aran or Jill Valentine.



Some days I just blow up.

Zkuq said:
SpokenTruth said:

Believability?  You get shot and keep running?  That's believable?  How many weapons are you carrying?  How many ammo types?  How far can you run without collapsing from exhaustion?  How can you drive/fly all those different vehicles?  But a women just breaks it all, huh?

OK, maybe I shouldn't have added that specific word at the last moment without thinking more about it - but I felt like simply stating immersion was lacking something. Anyway, yes - sort of. None of those things break immersion like female characters do (in Battlefield! - there are plenty of places for female characters where they don't break immersion).

The number of weapons you can carry is quite limited in Battlefield, and it's not that unrealistic either (in that it's humanly possible to carry that much stuff). Ammo types? Not sure what exactly you mean, but seems like I haven't noticed it, so it's probably not that bad (although it's possible there are certain ammo types that are worse in this regard). Running is practically necessary for gameplay to be fun unless you want your game to be very realistic, in which case putting stricter limits on how much endurance you have can still have a harmful effect if not executed properly. Being able to drive and fly all kinds of stuff? Actually I do mind that stuff a bit, but at this point, that's pretty deep in what Battlefield is.

Female characters on the other hand? They're there just to fulfill people's role-playing wishes with no gameplay purpose at all while going against history. To me, it feels extremely out of place in a Battlefield game. There are probably tons of games where I have absolutely nothing against female characters, but Battlefield isn't one of them. Mind you, female characters can have a place even in a Battlefield game if it's written very carefully so it makes sense. Make the story or multiplayer battles revolve around settings where female characters were prevalent and it's all good. As far as I know, resistances had some female fighters, and I think there were female soldiers in the Red Army. Focus on them, make it all interesting, and it's all good. Slap female soldiers on battles fought practically exclusively by male soldiers, and it feels like it was done just meet the current trends.

There is a very fine line on the suspension of disbelief. And if your userbase don't get pulled from excessive weapon, running or a little more modern than should weapon but gets by a single female on it, them you as dev should be careful exactly to not do the ones that impact most of your players the wrong way. Everything else is more like people trying to get high ground.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Saeko said:
Well, not really, and anyway i like play girl character so i don't mind.

But what i found over represented is beautifull perfect men & or girl, nobody want play with ugly ppl or fat or anything, or even white hero is over represented.

I want to play as an ugly character! They need more to be more represented! Almost all of human characters are way too pretty and that need to change.

As with OP, I agree with that, but there are also bad examples such as battlefield, but even that is made much bigger fuss than it is, I don´t know why its so important for some people :/ internet I guess.



Are there to many females in gaming no are there to few women in gaming doubtful, considering most AAA gamers are male. Some of the highest anticipating games nowadays start female lead (TLOU 2, BFV, Tomb Raider) so I don't think women are that much under represent, considering the main demographic of AAA games. Why devs make more male characters I guess because most devs are male. Its easier to make a male avatar and most of the time. Perhaps we will see more female leads in the future hell perhaps it will become a 50/50 ratio in a few years. Even then I don't think woman leads are over represented. Although I do think BFV inclusion of a woman was rather poorly executed especially with that prosthetic. Chances of finding a woman on the front where very low let alone one with a prosthetic arm.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network

I tried to get through the OP but only managed two paragraphs. It was just hyperbole where you act like you know what everyone else on these forums is thinking. "Do you really and seriously feel that women are over-represented in this medium? Because practically every time I visit, there's some shithole thread whining and BSing about precisely that still active on the main page." So, what, you made a shithole thread to whine and BS about it?

You've already made up your mind, why even bother with this?



OMG not again....

No. Women are not over-represented in video games. No one said that. Just because a lot of think DICE is fucking pandering to SJW's with how they are handling BF5, doesn't mean we are some sexist monsters.

Now quit it.

edit: it's clear as day, so much so that I refuse to believe that you and others genuinely don't understand, rather than being deliberately obtuse. I think you will find yourself right at home at resetera. No, seriously.

Last edited by flashfire926 - on 03 September 2018

Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

flashfire926 said:

OMG not again....

No. Women are not over-represented in video games. No one said that. Just because a lot of think DICE is fucking pandering to SJW's with how they are handling BF5, doesn't mean we are some sexist monsters.

Now quit it.

edit: it's clear as day, so much so that I refuse to believe that you and others genuinely don't understand, rather than being deliberately obtuse. I think you will find yourself right at home at resetera. No, seriously.

It's pretty clear that the OP is creating a strawman argument in order to frame the discussion in a way that allows them to attack others.  I don't even have a problem with the Battlefield thing and I can see that women being "over-represented" has nothing to do with the situation.  

This thread comes across as a purposeful misrepresentation.



vivster said:

@Jaicee
Art and fiction is not and should not be about equal representation so this question is moot.

Calling something over or under represented is suggesting that there is a right amount of representation, which is false.

Within an actual individual work of art, sure, there is no "right" amount of representation. That's absurd. For one, there's no way to measure it, for another, doing so would limit art in absurd ways.

That said, representation in art can matter in the sense that it would be just if everyone had equal access to all artistic mediums, and equitable access to platforms by which to show that art to the world. A woman may have no interest in telling stories about women, may want to make something with an all or mostly male cast for whatever reason, and that's her business. However, if society systematically makes it difficult or impossible for women to make art or distribute art, then the woman will be at an unfair disadvantage to make her art or show it to the world. So how many characters in a work are female, male, black, white, gay, straight, etc. doesn't really matter, it matters that the artist gets to make the art as they see fit, regardless of how closely the demographics of characters in the work match the real world. However, if getting into the industry that makes the art and markets it to audiences systematically excludes people based on things they can't help like their sex or race, that's pretty unfair, wouldn't you say? This doesn't mean that you have to hire female actors, directors, programmers, designers, etc. to meet a quota, it means nothing more than that a world that gives everyone a chance to produce and promote art based on the merits of the art rather than the demographics of the artist is a better world than one that doesn't afford everyone that chance, and if possible, we should work towards making the better world a reality.



I'm not sure they're either over or under-represented is the correct way of putting it. For example, fighting games usually have a roster split of about 3 men to 1 women nowadays. Obviously, that's not parity. However, one can argue that the correct number of women in a typical fighting game trying to determine the world's strongest should be zero. There's no woman in the world that can hang with the upper echelon in MMA, boxing, or any other fighting sport of the kind. There are certainly women who can beat the living tar out of most men, but they're not on the same plateau of the world's elite.

However, there is a market to add women into these games anyway. And so Chun-Li and Sonya Blade get added to the rosters and are soon joined by many more. They're no where near the equal in numbers, but it's hard to say that they're underrepresented.

What's the correct number? Ultimately, that's probably up to the developer in trying to decide what's best for sales. Other genres are much the same.