We've collectively missed the point: Representation and Videogames

If I may have the mic for a moment

Everywhere there are “controversial” “topical” and “important” discussions going on about a greater equality of representation of genders that aren’t male, sexualities that aren’t heterosexual, races that aren’t white and religions that aren’t atheist or Christian. That’s great! For too long games (but really mass-produced, highly profitable media in general, for the most part) have represented and reflected a heterocentric western male viewpoint, but, and this but is the reason for this post, not enough people are talking about the actual quality of representation, and from my perspective; unless a character is well portrayed their inclusion can only harm the cause of those who wish to be represented.

Now, I'm going to take an example from another medium (film) to most clearly explain my point, but it applies equally to videogames. In Big Hero 6, a recent animated film from the folks at Disney there are 3 side characters and much of the films humour comes from 2 of these characters. One is an effortlessly cool, slender (kind of important to the point I'm going to make, otherwise not particularly important), strong and rebellious white woman and the other is a barrel chested strong looking, slightly effeminate black man. Now, there is nothing wrong with either of these representations as they stand, however there is something very wrong with repeatedly creating humour out of taking the largest physical (human) character in the film and repeatedly having him act in the most effeminate or cowardly (the film also conflates these two traits; fairly problematic in it's own right, but not really my point) way in order to get a laugh (the implicit bias they play off of here is of course the stereotype that physically strong men are also masculine or brave).

This negative portrayal, though subverting a stereotype, actually reinforces the initial stereotype through this being the source of humour. By making it a joke that the strong black man is effeminate and scared is a terrible portrayal; especially given that kids are the primary audience. The white, cool, rebellious and slim girl however has the same trope spun on its head; it's supposed to be funny that she drives more aggressively than the safety focused buff black guy next to her. Thus, although her portrayal certainly isn't perfect, the humour from her scenes arises out of her strength and bravery (the implicit stereotype being that as a slender woman we would not expect said strength from her) her representation in the film is far more positive than that of her strong male counterpart. (Again, I would like to stress that her representation is far from perfect either).

Similarly in all other forms of media, naturally including games, the quality of representation is important; in a fighting game it's wildly inconvenient to be wearing skimpy outfits; so boasting scantily clad female fighters is rarely a step in the progressive direction that some claim it is; even if the other male characters might be overly muscled, their appearance is empowering, while nothing about low cut bikinis makes me for one feel powerful. In first person and third person shooters featuring attractive women desperate to throw themselves upon the typically straight male protagonist is not a positive portrayal. Furthermore companies who arguably feel obliged to put in non-hetero-white-male characters (for whatever reason, be it moral or monetary) often commit what I view as one of the most offensive sins against the parties in question; defining them by their sexuality/race/religion/gender etc. If you're going to put in a character who is for example Muslim; I think companies should first ensure that they do not define the character by their religion; (but also to maintain it as a part of their identity). Don't get me wrong, I know that is an incredibly difficult task; but with games that put such ridiculous amounts of money into their creation at least a little more should go towards a more capable writing department than most have. Bioware is an excellent example of a company that actually cares about their writing and even if they don't always hit the mark they are far more consistently good to excellent than most.

All of that goes without even talking about the issues of the protagonist's role in the lives of these NPCs, in Half-Life 2 (A game I absolutely love, so I don't bring it up lightly) Alyx Vance is a strong and capable companion but also equally strong and capable when alone for the most part. Occasionally, however, she is overpowered in situations where you aren't there to protect her (of course this is arguably a pretty minor fallacy as she rescues you in the beginning). This is partially to suit the story of course, and I tend to think that despite being a character deliberately made for the protagonist to like she's actually over all a pretty strong representation of and for women as well as people from mixed race backgrounds, she isn't exoticised as a curiosity to any perceptible extent and yet her cultural and familial heritage are still important to her identity. Regardless though, the framing of your (through the conduit of the silent protagonist; Gordon Freeman) power being indomitable, while hers isn't, is not an equal representation. Arguably other male companions in other games aren’t portrayed equally either; I’m not arguing that her representation is weaker for her gender; rather that the role of the playable character and the NPC is not equal  to that of the protagonist even when (again, in my eyes) the character is portrayed positively.

Ultimately though it's not a large risk for companies to include NPCs that don't conform to the norms some people expect from the medium. It would, however, be a significantly larger risk to have the protagonist as, say, transgender. Big game companies might not be evil in the same way some people claim they are, but they none-the-less have to appeal to the largest possible audience. There's a pretty good reason (money) that almost every FPS/TPS videogame cover looks practically the same. So as much as the companies aren't necessarily putting in these characters purely for greed's sake; they certainly don't treat them the same way they treat their protagonists. Want an example of a great protagonist that arguably was something of a risk for the devs? Look no further than possibly my all time favourite character in a game; Clementine.

A very young black girl is pretty far from the white teenage male most games seem to target and yet season 2 of Telltale's The Walking Dead game was a resounding commercial success. With a character as well written as Clementine (not to mention acted; given the current discussion around voice actors in video games Melissa Hutchison deserves a great deal more praise than it seems she or her colleagues receive) it's not hard to see why. In creating a protagonist that is physically weak, small and holds a middling amount of social power in the group it would have been easy to define her character by her age or vulnerability; but instead she is defined by her incredible force of will and her maturity beyond her years (with a clever nod or two to your time as Lee in the first series and the lessons you taught her in this time). Since playing the second season when I hear the word "badass" it's not Rambo's face I think of, it's hers.

That's the way I want characters to be represented.  

That's the way it should be.

Let's just hope more devs think so as well.

5 Scientific reasons "Clickbait" is making you less intelligent

 1) They're spoon feeding you. Numbered lists as commonly used by clickbait articles break down information into short and easily digestible chunks; acclimatising your mind to shorter sentences, smaller words and creating an environment that requires little active critical thought. Essentially the abundance of clickbait and the lack of longer form articles leaves you with a lower tolerance for articles that require more attention.

2) The content doesn't matter. The headline, photo and ads are the real meat of a clickbait article; the article is only there to provide an excuse to exploit their audience and deliver them too advertisers. This isn't true of all cases; sometimes an ordinary article will be named in a clickbait fashion to garner additional attention, but true clickbait is generally what makes up for gaps in longer-form content or a lack of income.

3) It's all the same. Clickbait follows a pretty well established formula for getting views; exploit fears (either to make you scared of something you wouldn't have been or to down play common fears) use numbers (numbers break down information; exploit a fear of missing out on information and gives the audience an idea of how long the article is) and challenge or be seen to oppose dominant ideas (Health professionals hate this simple trick, 10 reasons why the Beatles weren't a good band etc.).

Again, going back to the second point, the content does not matter, your emotional reaction is what they exploit; regardless of how you react to the information it's the strength of the reaction that makes you click, either to see your view justified or to feel righteously indignant. Click on the scrappy image I made below to get an idea of the general structure a lot of clickbait follows.

4) Outrage and controversy sells. People like Nicole Arbour aren't just bumbling into stupid controversy accidentally; it's calculated and considered. Her comments and views are nasty, oppositional and attack one particular group for no other reason than to advance a healthy-centric notion of superiority based on ones size. By dividing opinion and deliberately sparking controversy she created for herself a great tool of promotion; people argued with eachother over the video; giving it further views.

Of course this isn't only done for what I personally think are negative purposes; Anita Sarkeesian went from broader criticism of movies and TV shows to focusing on "Tropes vs. Women in videogames". I'm a big feminist and while I don't always totally agree with everything Sarkeesian says her overall perspective on videogame tropes as arising out of patriarchal norms is scathing and broadly speaking a very important message. To push her (and mine, for the sake of further revealing obvious bias on my part) views further she exploits the defensive nature of many people that play games to generate, maintain and utilise the opposition she gets. While her critics might argue that, for example, titling a video "25 invisible benefits of gaming while male" is an attempt at a cash grab; I would argue that it's more about pushing awareness further. So, to be clear, not all clickbait is inherently bad, but you've got to critically look at why something is being pushed in that form.

5) It's probably not true. Clickbait frequently describes it's content as scientific, but rarely has any basis in fact. You might have noticed by now, but I'm talking out of my arse at the moment. But none of that matters for websites; it's far more profitable to publish an inaccurate article and apologise later than to publish an accurate one because the site has already garnered its revenue, and people are far more likely to click on something that has some supposed value to it.

So. This post really was a bit of an experiment. One was whether using clickbait techniques in naming would garner a higher view count. Another was to see how people react to deliberately exploitative and false content, there is no scientific proof of anything that I'm saying (or at least nothing I've seen or based arguments off of). I put a little more effort into this than I might have were it an actual clickbait article and I didn't want the thing to be really awful just for the sake of experimenting with form and content, but this isn't going to be a regular thing.