Fair warning: this is
probably going to be the stupidest post you’ve ever read. Or if not the stupidest, then the one that’ll
draw discussion away from the topic and put me under (or on) fire. Or if not that, then at least make you wonder
what in the name of Paul Bunyan’s button-down flannel shirt I was
thinking. So to temper whatever rage and
disdain may come this way, let me start by bringing up Kamen Rider.
I’ve been checking out
bits and the pieces of it recently -- OOO, Fourze, and W especially, if those
words mean anything to you -- and what I’ve seen of the decades-long franchise
has been supremely rewarding, and supremely entertaining. What should ostensibly be a slew of big dumb
kids’ shows have shown a level of depth that no one would expect, and married
flawlessly to a spirit of fun and excitement.
To use a food analogy, there’s something to lick for a quick sugar rush,
but there’s a legitimate buffet to sink one’s teeth into. Although that’s probably not too good for the
stomach, but whatever. Totally worth it.
But the other day, a
funny thing happened. Well, not funny ha ha. More like funny because of a twist of fate. Of the non-destiny-altering sort.
Now, being an S-class
nerd I’d known beforehand that HeartCatch
Precure -- and as far as I know, most of the Pretty Cure installments -- have a lot of overlap with some of the
more…shall we say, “masculine fare”. And
HeartCatch encapsulates that nature
very intently: music that wouldn’t be out of place in Guilty Gear, fights that wouldn’t be out of place in Dragon Ball Z, and dare I say it a
procedure that wouldn’t be out of place in Kamen
Rider. (Or if you prefer, Viewtiful Joe.) Evil invaders, a call to action, a doodad
that turns a mere mortal into a distinctly-costumed hero, OTT fights, finishing
moves…you know, the usual.
I haven’t seen enough
of HeartCatch to make any sweeping
judgments about it -- although I will admit that at times, the show’s package
almost feels like something out of a fever dream -- but for what it’s worth, I
like it. I want to see more of it, even
if I want to watch Kamen Rider more
(because wouldn’t you know it, there’s a Bruce Lee-style Rider who transforms
with the power of disco). I don’t care
if it’s “girly”. I care if it’s good. And it IS good. It’s feminine, but in a sense it has no
shortage of manliness. I suspect this is
one of the few shows in the universe where the lead character worries about
looking like a doofus in class in one scene, and having a punch-up with a
house-sized demonic doll in the next.
Whatever the case, Kamen Rider and Pretty Cure have gotten me thinking about video games (even though
a gentle breeze is enough to do that). I
don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that KR and PC are inherently
different from one another, given how much overlap there is with their setup
and execution. But it’s something that’s
fed into a question I’ve been pondering over for a while. Something I’ve been nervous to think about,
because there’s a LOT of potential to get into some nasty territory. Still, I figured I might as well get opinions
from others. See where they stand on the
topic.
It should go without
saying that as games continue to evolve and come our way -- as games continue
to try their hardest to give us stories instead of just a chance at a high
score -- they have to give us more and better elements if they want our
support. The standards of many of us
gamers is on the rise; topics are getting discussed (however shakily), and
tolerance for the same old tricks is (hopefully) going to one day force devs to
stop banking on them so heavily. And of
course, one of the big topics is how women appear in games. How should they be portrayed? How should they appeal to others? How should they take the leading role? All questions worth considering.
But there’s an
underlying question that’s been niggling at me for ages now -- something that
makes me wonder if that’s the real (dumb) reason why getting women in games is
such an uphill struggle these days. The
question is: does being a strong female
character automatically deny being a feminine character?
The obvious answer to
that is no, of course not, and I'm an idiot for even thinking it. But the way games are now, I can’t help but
wonder if there are people out there who answer with an innocently naïve
“yes”. There may very well be people out
there trying to give gamers what they want, or what they think they want (or
worse yet, what they think we want). There’s a dangerous line of reasoning in
there; “Because gamers want high-octane action, we need to have characters that
are nothing but pure action.” Stupid as
it may be, I suspect there’s an association with women and inaction; if they
want to be in a game, they have to be willing to bust up a few space aliens. They have to be active, stalwart, and “can
play with the boys.”
Again, that’s not a
line of reasoning I agree with -- and I hope
to God it’s just me overreaching -- but I understand where it comes
from. We’ve long since moved past the
days when saving Princess Peach was just a thing to do, and that’s definitely a
good thing. But I’m not wholly convinced
that the answer we’ve come up with nowadays is that much better. Having a damsel in distress is no good, but I
can’t shake the feeling that the intent is to over-correct by leveling the
playing field. Games seem to have an
issue with sanding down identifiable character traits (see: every third game
released in the past decade), making them avatars for action and little
else. On one hand it’s a disservice to
female characters -- any character, really, but the female perspective is one
worth appreciating -- but on the other, it strikes me as an unspoken,
agreed-upon necessity by creators.
This isn’t a problem
unique to video games, even if it’s a problem that has yet to be ironed
out. Characters can (and often should)
define themselves with their actions, so a character that doesn’t runs the risk
of being a bad character. That’s part of
the stigma of Princess Peach and other damsels, I’d bet; time and time again
she’s been kidnapped, and the most she could do was send letters and
items. Thing is, I suspect that in order
to fix that, a female character has to act more like a male character -- going
beyond just getting knee-deep in the action -- to avoid being considered
“weak”. That’s not to say that women who
kick ass are inherently bad; what I’m saying is that women (and men) who are only defined by being able to kick ass
are problematic in their own right.
Take Violet from Ultraviolet or Alice from the Resident Evil movies (both incidentally
played by the same actress). They’re
both women of mass destruction, but I defy you to describe their personalities
with at least three adjectives. I sure
couldn’t. Their personas start and end
with “badass”, and rather than being memorable for what they did, they’re
inherently forgettable for what they didn’t do: be human. It’s a problem that I suspect is being
duplicated by video games; in making Final
Fantasy XIII, Square-Enix gave us two monster-slaying ladies, but couldn’t
be bothered to go any further than their character designs and skill sets;
that’s especially worrisome when you consider that one of them started
out as a man. And the less said
about the treatment of some of these heroines to prove their mettle and
toughness -- hello there, 2013 Lara Croft -- the better off we’ll be. Adversity builds character, but you can only
go so far before it turns into a farce.
Just ask Jodie Holmes.
So what’s the solution,
then? Am I saying that from now on, in
order to gain respect and even a chance at being used well (or at all) in a
game, female characters have to wear bright colors and act emotional? No, of course not. That’s just silly. What I want is for some trace of femininity
to be a part of their character -- not in a way that demands a love for baking
and ponies, but in a way that emphasizes their humanity. Their personality. Their emotional spectrum. Their strengths AND their weaknesses. Their concerns, hopes, fears, and more. I want something that sets them apart from
others, be it in their game of origin or in games across the board. I want them to do it on their own terms, in a
way that’s believable, understandable, and enjoyable. (We can’t go overboard, lest we birth another
Alfina.)
That may seem like a
tall order for a medium that can’t even get a space marine right, but it’s not
impossible. I’ve seen it done
before. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance had Titania, who not only expressed
her care and concern for her comrades -- along with some good old fashioned
motherly scolding -- but was also one of THE most powerful units in the game
AND in the story. More recently, we’ve
been delighted with a character like BioShock
Infinite’s Elizabeth, who has the power to tear apart reality, but more
importantly sees no harm in dancing, singing, enjoying the sights, and using
crocodile tears to clock Booker when he least expects it. Nearly ALL the party members (male or female) in Persona 4 struggle with the concept of
femininity and the social norms surrounding them, and learning to accept or
reject certain concepts and assets is as much a part of the game as it is vital
to their characters. I know it’s kind of
cheap to bring up an Atlus game, but it was either that or invoke the spirit of
Beyond Good and Evil.
One of the most
interesting examples, if you ask me, is Juliet from Lollipop Chainsaw. (Note the
use of the words “most interesting”, not “best.”) It goes without saying that she’s THE
asskicker of the game, but she does so with a distinct and colorful style -- a
reflection of her personality and character via gameplay, as it should be. It would have been easy to make her
Mademoiselle Panty Shot and leave it at that, but there’s more to her than her
curves OR her zombie-killing capacity.
She’s sweet, but she’s
got a real mouth on her. She cares about
her boyfriend and family, but she’s clearly a short a few dozen marbles. She’s heroic in the sense that she’s trying
to fix the mess created by the baddies, but she’s flawed in the sense that
she’s more than willing to ignore her boyfriend’s pleas to satisfy her needs. She’s cheerful in spite of the zombie
apocalypse, but she’s cheerful in spite
of the zombie apocalypse. She’s a
juxtaposition of extremes just as the title implies. She’s a girl with a seriously demonic edge --
and at the same time, she’s a warrior with the sensibilities of a high school
cheerleader. I find it infinitely
interesting that a character that looks like
nothing but fanservice bait has some real depth to her. More so than plenty of other characters,
regardless of gender.
Juliet is just one of
many possible examples, I’d say. Not
every character has to be like her, but she does show what can be done when a
character is allowed to a bit of self-expression in the medium. As I’ve said before, games express themselves
by way of their mechanics -- combat, most of all. That isn’t automatically a bad thing, of course,
but at this stage, when there are scores of tinkerers trying to give their game
an “epic” tale. It’s not enough to scream “ACTION!” and leave it at that. Strength and weakness are things worth
valuing. The fight is important, but so
is the reason behind the fight -- the person
behind the fight. That’s not to say
that femininity is inherently weak (anyone who’s had or seen a mother in
action, myself included, can attest to that); no, it’s the qualities of
femininity that can make for a stronger character overall, precisely because
there’s a level of thought beyond “kill the baddies” or “endure and survive”.
It’s enough to make me
think about something tangentially related.
To be honest, I’m a guy who appreciates a manly character; being able to
play as (and lose with) Haggar was one of the main draws for me to play Marvel vs. Capcom 3. Manliness is something to be admired, but as
with all things, it’s something that has to be used and added in
moderation. There has to be something
there besides just the spectacle or the basic skill set. Otherwise, the manliness is hollow. A character might merely end up as “okay”
just by being able to zap a bunch of aliens -- but a great character is one
that has charisma while zapping aliens.
There’s something to get attached to beyond just the action itself.
One of my personal
experiences -- by which I mean biggest surprises -- came from Far Cry 3. I gave the game a shot not knowing what to
expect, but I walked away from it with a positive impression. I’d say that’s partly because of the
(unfortunately-named) lead, Jason Brody; the first part of the game shows him
scared and at wit’s end, whimpering and panting as he should. But later on when he’s reunited with one of
his friends, he actually ends up bursting into tears. It came as a surprise, but it didn’t hit me
until later when I went to go grab some hot dogs; I suddenly thought to myself,
“Holy hell, did that guy just show some emotions?” He did indeed. And it was so refreshing, especially since
I’d just come off of Halo 4. A male character allowing himself to
cry? Letting himself be afraid? Not being in total command of the situation
to the point of indifference? That’s the
bee’s knees right there!
I’m not about to
conflate things like fear and sorrow to femininity. But if nothing else, I’d like to think
there’s an emotional freedom -- one mixed with a sense of stability -- that
shouldn’t be ignored. There’s a concern
for the self, for others, for the rules, and for the world that doesn’t have to
automatically be a weakness. Nor does it
have to just be about things that are traditionally considered girly, or
inherently something associated with women.
Just think about some of the most-beloved games to come out in the past
year, like BioShock Infinite, The Last of
Us, and Telltale’s The Walking Dead
-- all of them put a younger sidekick in your midst, and came out stronger
because of it. (Granted my understanding
is that barring TWD, those were more
about protecting the “child” instead
of nurturing them, but it at least
shows that a parent/child relationship can be explored in games.) What I want most is for characters to be free
to find and define their own strength, on their own terms. And I want them to do so independently from
their fighting prowess.
I get the feeling that
the games industry associates femininity with weakness and masculinity with
strength, even if that’s just a fat load (or, I dearly hope, me jumping to
conclusions). But I think the
terminology, the definitions behind the mindsets, need to change. Maybe instead of strength and weakness, we
should use “hardness and softness.” One
of them is partly about taking on challenges with gusto and force, but has an
obvious harshness that harms friend and foe alike. The other is partly about being able to
perceive the nuances and niceties of life -- all the better for protecting it
-- but can struggle against major odds and challenges. The mix of the two is important, regardless
of the gender. The mix of the two, and
the balance that results, can make for a phenomenal character. Stalwartness as well as sensitivity. Endurance as well as expression. Conviction as well as compassion. That’s something the industry should aspire
towards.
I’m willing to assume
that some of you reading this are thinking that, even if my ideas are airtight
(and that’s a big if) there’s no way what I’ve suggested will be viable for a
wide audience. The dudebros and kiddies
and whatnot want to play as Coolly McCoolerson; may the feminine touch be
damned. That’s a concern, sure, but
that’s no excuse. Putting out “the next
big thing” isn’t about caving to audience interests or expectations. True success may very well come not from
giving the people what they want, but giving them something they didn’t even know they wanted. That’s the clincher. That’s how we’re going to take the industry
to the next level -- as consumers, and as its future creators. And if getting girly is the key to that evolution,
then so be it. That’s a future I’ll
gladly welcome.
And that’s the end of
that chapter. Now do something important
and go watch some Kamen Rider. It’s the only way you’ll get context for
this:
Hmmm. You know, now that I think about it, there's probably another topic I could bumble my way through. But let's go ahead and save that for another day.
Yeah, I heard about that...although I have my doubts that it'll stick. If they keep it up, then I won't bat an eyelash (even if others are collectively punching their keyboards with fury). If they don't, then it'll come and go as "that one time Brian died." That'd be my guess, at least.
ReplyDeleteThen again my doctor says that any more emotions toward Family Guy besides apathy will apparently kill me, so...yeah. I'm probably not the most neutral party on the subject.