blaydcor said:
You ever take any reading comprehension tests back in middle school? I'm guessing not. The article says "Strong female leads= Edgy, clever, and desirable" what the writer is lamenting is that "strong" female characters are now always made: clever, edgy, but, ultimately, nothing more than eye-candy for sex-starved male gamers. Basically, in lieu of actually attempting a real, deep, developed character, female leads are simply created as leather-clad babes who are nevertheless always ready with a witty one-liner or smarmy non sequitor. And (though I don't like the article overall, at all), I agree. Female protaganists are as cookie-cutter predictable as any other penultimate videogame archetype (like the grizzled space marine or quiet-and-young-but-determined-and-so-on-blah-blah-blah JRPG hero). |
Thanks, but that doesn't make the whole point any less moot. Actually, you're a touch off-base: they never even go on to describe what's wrong with most of the characters cited, except for the fact that they are women (like Faith, who was actually decried for not being sexy enough). Faith is no more an example of "careful marketing" than the Boss is, the Boss who they cited as being a major offender and part of the problem. You know, the best character Kojima ever created.
They aren't even just naming female leads - some of the leads they're naming aren't even in games that have come out yet (like Lightning), but others aren't leads at all. They're not offended by the women being played up as any one particular stereotype, all the characters cited are radically different from one another (mentioning the Boss and Alyx Vance and Samus in the same breath as Eidos' Lara Croft is a joke), and they've managed to pigeonhole all of them just owing to the fact that they have vaginas.
That's a boys' club mentality, and yes, you are perpetuating it in the defense of their outlandish hogwash.
