by Anthony Murray
The game community is working towards creating an environment that is open and respectful to everyone. However, rather than waiting for the fruits of diversity to sprout, we are breaking out the frozen dinners because we’re hungry now. The inclusivity rush has presented us with an interesting problem: where do we draw the line between our values and our inclusivity?
This question gnaws at the minds of game developers, journalists, gamers, and personalities concerned about appearances over understanding. Afraid to formulate an answer, they begin to form circles where inclusivity meets their values. While some circles are friendlier than others, a contradicting perspective could find a person bullied, shamed, and isolated by labels.
Recently Nintendo announced Tomodachi Life, a quirky life simulator parody, for the West. The game was attacked when it was found that it didn’t support same-sex marriage. Rather than digging further into the reasons why this decision was made, some members of the press had very strong opinions about the “beating, bigoted heart of Nintendo.” Despite evidence explaining why gay marriage wasn’t implemented as a feature and could not be changed so close to launch, the offended circles accused Nintendo and those who defended them of bigotry and shamed them. Interestingly enough, the person who wrote the most balanced piece about the situation, taking the time to find the truth over reacting blindly, was a gay married man — a person directly affected by the situation. Are our values about marriage more important than including people that have differing opinions about a company? Or is the line gay marriage in games?
Earlier this year when Bravely Default was announced for the West, we received news that some of the character outfits would be censored. Those that cried censorship were labeled pedophiles and perverts in comments. As far as some were concerned, those against censorship were just trying to find an excuse to justify wanting to see sexualized young women and didn’t matter. Are our values about how a person is represented in a medium more important than including those that may actually care about censorship in games? Or is the line sexualization in games?
Everyone has a line, and we have to admit to ourselves that our inclusivity is shaped by our values. These values drive how we think, act, and pick our social circles. When applied to art, music, writing, and content creation, these values color our content. This is why welcoming people from all walks of life into the industry is important; having a broader palette of perspectives means that we can paint more diverse experiences and look at things from more angles.
Does this mean that circles are bad? Absolutely not. It’s human to surround ourselves with people that we feel safe around. In fact, having small circles can help reduce the noise of having a ton of people share the same space and create an environment for more intimate discussion.
But being complacent in our circles and allowing one perspective to dominate without opposition is unhealthy. We have to understand what makes us uncomfortable, defensive, angry, and the reasons why. We have to accept that while we may not be able to tolerate everything, we can respect a person’s right to have an opinion or create content, and that maybe, just maybe, we prefer and esteem people who think like us and accept us for who we are. Civil conversations, not knee-jerk reactions based on subjective values, are the foundation for creating thriving, sustainable, and inclusive communities.
Does this mean that we have to accept bigots? Well, that depends on your interpretation of the word. A bigot isn’t someone who has a strong opinion you disagree with; a bigot is a person who refuses to consider other people’s opinions to the point of being completely unreasonable. We must understand this difference as a community. If a person isn’t willing to consider the possibility of another opinion, that person is not worth your time. Why would you waste your time trying to reason with someone who doesn’t want to listen?
Inclusivity is making a color wheel out of perspectives, not making everything muddy. Inclusivity is about building bridges between circles without the fear of being treated like you can’t belong. Inclusivity is a seed that needs patience, love, and care to thrive in an industry that’s still struggling with its identity. If our inclusivity is based on the values of people who would rather shame than consider opposing perspectives, how inclusive are we really? And are we letting people draw lines for us?
by Anthony Murray
One day, a colleague asked me this question out of the blue:
“Apropos of nothing, do you know of any games where the low-level enemies (not the main boss or anything) are female?”
I kind of cringed a bit, and then asked her to define what “female” was. Her guidelines were “having a body shape which clearly denotes them as not male.”
At first I was like “Sure!” in my head. I thought about MMOs and a small library of games where there were some vaguely feminine low-level enemies. In MMOs, “feminine” enemies will spawn constantly depending on the area of the map you’re on, and you can kill them for loot/experience. But in everyday games, low-level female enemies are a minority relative to their male counterparts.
I knew the reason for this disparity, so I replied:
“It’s hard because the idea of killing waves of women-like enemies casually is kind of a big deal.”
In fact, I can easily think of games that made explicit design choices to limit/minimize violence depicted against women; God of War comes to mind first. But her response to that was:
“… the whole ‘don’t hit women because they’re the weaker sex’ is sexist to begin with, you know?”
She was absolutely right.
Because we’re so sensitive and selective about this topic, we create a weird circular discussion. By saying that women can’t be killed arbitrarily en masse like their male counterparts, we’re saying women are sacred and untouchable for some “unexplainable” reason. This feeling is evident because anyone who would approve killing massive numbers of women in games would become known as the most sexist monster in our industry. Through such perceptions, we unconsciously reinforce the negative stereotypes of women in most media; they are valuable because of their biology and are restricted to being pretty, submissive, pure, and protected because anything else would be absurd!
Even though there have been many people screaming for “equality” in games, I haven’t seen anyone brave enough to address something as simple as killing a multitude of female enemies in a mainstream game. I don’t blame developers or publishers entirely for this; I mean hell, who wants to be that guy/gal who approved the “woman slaughter simulator,” even if the violence were “balanced” among the sexes? So we take very small steps. Sure, she’s a female enemy, but she’s also a seductress, monster, ghost, possessed, indoctrinated, or something that allows players to justify her death, thus feeding off bad stereotypes about sexuality. In our attempts to take one step forward, we unconsciously take two steps back.
We do support one type of thinking, though; we have the guts to kill women for “narrative reasons” to motivate the player/character to go on their journey. And only recently we’ve begun talking about this and caring about that specific representation. Does anyone see how sexist this is to women and men? Doesn’t anyone remember that equality comes with the good and bad of being treated the same and that you can’t pick and choose?
For example, why aren’t males killed for narrative reasons nearly as often as women, especially early on in games? The only games with this dynamic that I could think of are war fantasy games — your Call of Duty or Gears of War-like games. War has always been a niche that appeals to a lot of males, not just because of the nature of its violence or tactics — war fantasies allow males to be honest about how they feel and to have a sense of meaning. If you can kill your enemies, work cooperatively with others, and die with honor on the battlefield, you have value. You can cry for your comrade who died without fear of judgment while simultaneously honoring their sacrifice through battle. It’s the fantasy of being broken down and reminded of your lack of value/status, only to be built up to rightfully earn it.
The war fantasy tends to be innately powerful and impressionable upon males, especially young boys. Like little girls who worry about their weight and are measured against unrealistic standards of beauty, little boys worry about their usefulness and value to society and are measured against unrealistic standards of doing something to prove that they matter. So the issue isn’t solely that women are commonly stereotyped as prizes, achievements, and cheap plot devices in games; it stems from something deeper than that.
As a society, we’ve internalized the idea that a male without status is a male that is disposable. If an unnamed male dies arbitrarily, we rarely have the same innate gut reaction as we would if an unnamed woman dies. We subconsciously think to ourselves that if he wanted to live, he could have tried harder. Sure, his family and friends would feel devastated, but in the eyes of macro-level society (and the player that wants to progress), who cares? If we need another hero, another soldier, or more cannon fodder, some other dude will gladly replace him — period. I mean, aren’t males supposed to be built for war, violence, and death? What does this say about us and the gendered stereotypes we subconsciously transfer into our works?
That’s why we can have games with endless waves of “male” enemies and not bat an eye. This idea has become so normal that no one really cares if men or women slaughter other males arbitrarily. We may say that the encounters are boring, repetitive, uncreative, or even interesting and exciting, but at the end of the day it’s not about the maleness. However, change the sex variable, and all of a sudden many would be up in arms. “You can’t kill women like that,” they may say. “Killing women carelessly is only feeding into male-power fantasies and sexism,” others may say, without realizing what’s wrong with their statement. A woman should have the choice to be anything she wants to be, whether she is a low-level enemy fighting to defend an evil empire or a strong, resolve-driven hero taking up a sword and shield because she wants to save the world. Her sex, gender, looks, or anything else should not matter.
So let’s throw these things away. If we have to create, destroy, sympathize and be heroes, villains, allies, or enemies, let me experience it through the lens of men, women, LGBT, minorities, or whoever else in games from both sides. And if you have a problem with any human being in particular dying arbitrarily, or suffering through their experiences based on surface things and not due to the reasons the game decided to pursue certain mechanics, themes, or situations for needless killing (i.e., throwing characters under the bus to drive its experience forward for the sake of doing it), we have a problem. A problem that will hold us back as developers, players, and as an industry that’s working toward fully embracing everyone and treating everyone the same.
Anthony “Mister Armory” Murray is a game designer with a fascination for all things game development. His goal is to provide practical pieces of information to aspiring game developers and to lend a helping hand to those that he can as he moves through the industry. Follow him on Twitter (@misterarmory) and check out more of his writing on his personal website.