Gender in Games: Week 4

For week 4's main subject topic we discussed gender in computer games. Before I begin the synthesis one of beginning observations of gender in games I have before reading the articles is how little female targeted games there are and if there is a female targeted game, the females are nearly always put into a very female stereotyped design or role (the damsel in distress; Princess Peach, the bimbo that always gets herself in the worst situations; Silent Hill, Fatal Frame, Dead Rising, or the promiscuous femme fatale;007 girls, the perfect mother teresa; Aerith, and the emotional drama queen;Jade Empire)? And if the character doesn't fit into one of our stereotypes of female behavior or roles then they are made up for in visual character design (for example a more voluptuous figure or maybe more revealing clothing; Tomb Raider, Heavenly Sword, any fighting game like Soul Caliber or Mortal Combat or Guilty Gear or Street Fighter)? Then there's the last category for female characters that don't fit into either category, but usually they are just back up and NPC characters for comic relief or game stuffing (characters designed just for the sake of having another character to choose from). Are the game designers conciously doing this to shape our idea of how women should be or just a reflection of feeding in to how our society expects our women to be.

Anyhow, the first article I decided to read was Playing with Fire: Trouble in Super Macho World? written by Gonzalo Frasca, which discussed and analysed Nintendos Super Princess Peach for the DS. Gonzalo main point in his article was pointing out whether or not the game should be praised for the first time in the Mario Franchise having Princess Peach as a protagonist instead of just a damsel in distress however enforcing female stereotypes. Most notably for example, how in Super Princess Peach, Peach's method of super powers is using her emotions against foes and to heal herself. Gonzalo also brings up from this that what actions you are able to do with a character in a game adds to another dimension of the characters personality. So not only is Peach's looks quite stereotyped (blonde, blue-eyed, pink dress, high heels, and a parasol, come on!), but her actions are also (intentional or not Peach comes across as a highly emotionally unstable girl).

I agree with Gonzalo in what he conclusionally states by saying that it is great to see more high production rate games targeted towards the female population but Nintendo can still do a better job in giving its female characters such as Peach more depth and personality in playable game actions beyond being bi-polar. However I won't blame Nintendo too much since Peachs persona has already long been established and to change it now would be bizzare. For example for me it would be the same as Apple all of a sudden deciding to change their white and sleek marketing look toward something more dark and punk like Hot Topic. Would Peach be the same Princess if she had laser eye beam powers? Now think, if you could think of a better super power for Peach that is less stereotyped but still within the boundries of her already built character persona what would it be? Honestly I can't really think of anything, but then again I'm not a team of people paid to build upon a already iconic character. On a marketing stand point, sure it's probably not a great message to be sending out to to pre pubescent girls but it's not as bad as making an iconic character out of character. Also I think that if anyone takes a game like Super Princess Peach seriously as an adult as something they strive to become then I think something is really wrong with them. Yes, children do imitate what they see from games to an extent but it's also normal for them to grow out of it (which is what is called play stage in sociology BTW) as well and distinguish it as just a game.

Now on to the next article I read which was Got Game by John C. Beck and Mitchell Wade Chapter 2. The chapter mainly was about how games influence on people (young persons especially) who play them and whether or not they really are influencing them in regards to gender roles, violence, and isolation. In aspects of Gender Roles, yes, males do show to have a more favor towards games with a "fast-twitch factor" (how the book describes them such as racing, sports, FPS, games etc.) while girls tend to favor more mind stimulating puzzles and quizes. But overall games seem to be an activity anybody (male or female) this day and age can pick up and not have it be abnormal in the bit least. Also the chapter also adds that games even allow more gender role experimentation without consequences like in the "real world" where you can't as easily see what it's like to dress up an avatar or take care of a baby or have facial hair. In violence no official word has been released proving once and for all violent games correlate with violent behavior. Except that data does show that crime statistics have dropped after the large introduction and popularity of games depicting violence. Isolation in games have been a worry for many non-gamers beliving it is a way for player to escape from the real world thus losing real world social interaction, but the chapters take on it is that gamers can differentiate what is the real world and what is just a game. Also that the large majority of youth actually play video games and so it really isn't such an isolating thing but rather normal. Many are using games as a way to bond as well with others.

While reading chapter 2 I find that it echos my sentiments exactly as I had with the article on Super Princess Peach in that, as well as touched on some thoughts I had in a previous blog about how most gamers once playing a game recognise this "game reality" and never really mix it up with actual reality. Once the game is over it's really over, they don't really go and continue playing the game in real life after turning off the system. Just like with Super Princess Peach and how I said that once people grow up we tend to not really take the game seriously into our lives but rather it is just a game meant for our entertainment. We can cheat on our wives in The Sims but that doesn't neccessarily mean we are going to go out and cheat on our spouse in real life. It's just a game however we play. Yes there are those who for them games become their obsession and choose their escapist life over reality but those are few and far inbetween just like sociopaths(media just loves to publicize it though). And yes games do allows us to experiment things or atleast have a remote idea about things we would have otherwise have not known was like such as raising a child, being a hero or a villain, saving the princess, winning a soccer game, building a city, designing a house, dressing up, etc. But to go as far as blame games for causing people to have violent behavior I think is like blaming casinos for people having gambling additions. The resposibility should lay on the individuals not the items or activites their behaviors latch onto for excuses. Stereotypes in my opinion are defined by each individual, there are only there if you believe it's there and it is their choice to follow them or not. For example in Harvest Moon DS Cute you play a female avatar and she portrayed visually as a blonde blue eyed girl with long hair. Yes you can say the designers were stereotyping woman by making her have long blonde hair, when she could have had lets say short brown hair (Like Elle if you are familiar with Harvest Moon 64 on the Nintendo 64) or red short hair and a serious face (Like Nami from Harvest Moon A Wonderful Life on the Gamecube). But when I play I see a girl regardless of what stereotype she supposedly is following, because that's all she is to me, a girl. If she looked more like a boy, she would still be a girl to me nothing would change. In the game you can do everything the boy main character in Harvest Moon can. But neither thinking is entirely wholely "right". Each thinking is correct to that single individual. So shouldn't it be the individuals choice to follow the stereotype or ignore it?

Perils of the Princess: Gender and Genre in Video Games by Sharon R. Sherman, was out of all this weeks article the most frustrating to read which was prompted by the subject matter. Sharon's article analyzed the game Super Mario Bros. in terms of Marchen (the fairy tale format) and Myth (the format followed by real world common myths). Though half of what Sharon wrote I could say was valid points and analysis (mostly the hero's evolutionary journey in comparison to Mario's journey to save Peach), the other half was what I saw as (un?)intentional biaism from being so uninformed. Something I would typically see done in a high school newspaper by journalism students who take zilch time to actually research their topic. A good example of this was when she wrote that drug culture was a subtle role in some of the games, like Marios ability in some of the games to change size just like Lewis Carolls book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Super Mario Brothers Game Designer was Japanese (Shigeru Miyamoto) and so I highly doubt the use of mushrooms and the ability to change size was alluding to drug use since in Japan they weren't affected by the 60s drug culture as dominately as the USA at all. She also presented alot of opinions as if they were facts (which made it even more frustrating to read). Namely in page 8 & 9 of the article where she interviewed and quoted from serveral different boys and girls on the matter of sexisim and gender roles in games. She uses their quotes as if they give her side of the argument as validity without also actually stating hard evidence and facts for her theories/assumptions. The ironic and sad thing is I feel that it's writers like Sharon that just enforce the stereotype of gamer girls Sharon speaks of.

Gender in Video Games is always one of my favorite topics to speak about since I myself am trying to get into a statisticly male dominated field. And after reading all three articles I still continue to hold my opinion that what types of game produced and are popular really just show what type of society we have at the moment. Compare games from back 10 years ago or 20 years ago, and you can see a shift in what we see women and men portrayed as (not only in games but all forms of entertainment) and more freedom to choose what gender you are in games as well as how you express their genders (Fable 2 allows for cross dressing). Yes, some game men are still portrayed as the overly masculinized hulks and barbarians, but there are now equally a number of men portrayed as having qualities we would recognise as feminine in quality, and some characters as ambiguous. The same goes for woman, there are less and less damsels in distress waiting to be rescued and more independant woman figures propelling games. But there will always be some damsels in distress, bimbos, and scantally clad woman as well but isn't that what our society is made up of? A mixture of all types of people?