Gender-specific animation…?

Gendered animation might be stupid in many cases but that doesn't negate the need for sexed animation in many (especially realistic) styles.

It's true a lot of people overestimate the sexed difference for mannerism and body language, almost all of those differences are only caused by people following gender stereotypes. But that doesn't negate a different physiology (that goes beyond just skeletal structure) and centre of gravity.

There's also many environment and story settings where adding gender non-conforming characters requires narrative adaption as well. Which means more work for writers and programmers. I personally would love more gnc characters and there's many games I never bought because the game wasn't interesting to me if I couldn't play as a lesbian. So I do get being disappointed by a lack of options, but at the end of the day just buy another game and maybe politely tell the developers why you didn't buy theirs.

(Seriously, more people who care about diversity need to put their money where their mouth is and actually buy the indie games that cater to them)

And not having the time or money to add a diversity option, even sometimes if it just a re-skin and not new models and animation from the ground up, is sometimes a valid excuse. Just because some lucky developers never had to cut features or prioritise away options they were aware some people wanted doesn't mean it never happens.

One thing questioning or critiquing (when it's justified, mind you), but a lot of people are jumping on the "you don't have X in your games\fiction, this means you hate X!" line of thought with frightening eagerness. I remember too well the shitstorm about some Czech developers apparently being racists because their mindbogglingly faithful to being historically accurate game set in a medieval eastern Europe didn't had any African-americans in it.

Regardless, saying "If they say they can't afford implementing a female character then punch them in the head" is neither a questioning nor is it a critique.

This is the simplest boil down to it.

And then understand that not EVERY demographic is going to be happy with every game. Economics is a guiding force in all of this...developers don't have an infinite well of time and resources. So if Developer X chooses to channel their efforts towards a certain slice of the market, that's their decision.

Only economics will change what's a profitable demographic to chase.

I never really understood that position as well, to be honest.
I wouldn't refrain to buy a game I'm interested in if I found out that the main character is female.
I wouldn't refrain to buy a game I'm interested in if I found out that the main character is Asian.
I wouldn't refrain to buy a game I'm interested in if I found out that the main character doesn't have ginger hair.
I wouldn't refrain to buy a game I'm interested in if I found out that the main character have moral values that don't align with mine (Although in this case - usually).
I wouldn't refrain to buy a game I'm interested in if I found out that the main character isn't a human.
Hell, I probably wouldn't even refrain from buying an interesting game if it would carry a disgusting anti-intellectual and offensive message "science is bad" or "we shouldn't go in space".

Those things are all sound so minor in comparison to stuff that usually gets me interested in the game, I can't quite wrap my head around dropping it because of that. It's like "I'll pass this because it doesn't have enough color yellow in it".

Well, it's not like I care about playing as a lesbian in every single game there is (that's a common misunderstanding when this topic is brought up), usually it's either:

a) immersive non-linear rpgs, with a player insert character, where romance is either a huge part of the game and/or there's unlockable content gated behind your character being into someone of the opposite sex.

b) most kinds of dating or romance simulators (although ofc there's exceptions, like parodies such as Hatoful boyfriend and I would consider serious games with great story as well)

c) games with a lot of sexual content, kinda, tbh I'm not sure if should count this since I do enjoy games like Catherine. I guess this one depends a lot on tone and context. And it's probably understandable that some kinds of sexual content is an absolute deal-breaker. Like I will never touch "Ladykiller in a bind" (even if looks hilariously bad to make fun of) because it was promoted as a lesbian game with only consensual sex, despite portraying a man raping a woman to "turn her straight" as "successful" and "sexy".
(Fun fact: I managed to avoid buying the game and seeing the (hidden, unskippable) rape scene, because the art's so bad I didn't realise the characters were supposed to be women)

I probably don't have to explain why some games in the last category are unappealing to me. As for the first two, they're just not fun (most of the time) to me if I have to play as a heterosexual. Maybe it's not fun because of the homophobia I have to deal with in real life (with is not insignificant thanks to queer-activists joining ranks with old-school homophobes in trying to force lesbians to like dick), maybe it's because of personal unpleasant experiences or something else.

I'm not really sure why and I don't think it really matters, because it doesn't change the fact that it's just not fun for me. So it simply doesn't make sense to spend my limited time and money on games were I'm forced to play a straight character in way that hinders my enjoyment of the game.

And in escapism, romance and/or role playing games that are specifically centered around freedom and player choice I think it's reasonable to ask for things like same-sex romance options. Doesn't mean all games need to have to them or that it's okay demand it from developers in rude or inappropriate ways. But I think it's okay to ask for (politely! please stop with twitter harassment and shit -.- ) and then buy the games that choose to cater to my demographic.

I do understand that this is a (unfortunately very valid) concern in high budget games where the player would have to play as a gay character. When I'm talking about representation there's a reason I focus smaller more niche games and player choice games where a straight player would have the option of never even flirting with someone of the same sex.

I don't fully agree with the argument you seem to be making to only look at economics and expected demographics. Too much of those analytics relies on past data and an over emphasis on only surveying the currently active (and actively pandering to) player base. This creates a feedback loop were other demographics never get considered.
And yes I have worked as game tester, been in focus groups and at industry events, (tho only smaller ones for full transparency. I do see how these loops get created).

Going for an underserved new or more niche demographic is always a risk but so is going for an already oversaturated demographic. I haven't even seen any reliable data which of these is the bigger risk, there might too many variables in each individual case tbh, but success stories do keep popping up.

For example, Undertale and Huniepop were definitely boosted by people who loved the representation (or in Huniepop's case specifically lesbian/bi-women who loved to get some fanservice aimed at us for once and a surprising amount of straight women who preferred the lesbian route). Both of these would almost surely have been successful regardless, but adding the same-sex romance was still a financial win.

I do think the latter option is probably easier and I don't hold it against any studio if that's what they chose. But I also know I lot of people who are open to the first "higher risk - higher reward" option don't go for it simply because they didn't think of it. So I think reminding people of the underserved demographics is a positive as long as it's done in an appropriate way.

This is really starting to get off subject but here

Oki so several things,

I think you're confusing "small audience" with "niche audience" the furries are much more widespread then people give them credit for- maybe cause they still kind of have to be in the closet for most "cultured" societies.

Second. I find it really strange at this idea that a target audience will get "tired" of the desire that they have- yes, it's true some things come in fads for the general public- vampires had there hay day, then zombies, now one could argue medieval times. But the actual "target" audience- that is, the people who are watching BECAUSE they like vampires or zombies- will always be looking for media with vampires and zombies. Those are your target audience and those will always be "niche" but their size will continue to vary over time.

People continue to say that everyone is having "superhero fatigue" and yet the marvel movies are doing fine making money. HELL transformer movies kept making money even tho no one apparently liked them. Its probably NOT because this fatigue is rampant and everywhere but because of two things- there is something about it you like IE you're a fan of vampires- superheroes- ext. so your gonna watch it anyway to get your fix. Then there's something called brand loyalty. You create a connection and you choose to believe that what you are consuming from this person or this company is worthwhile and worth the consistent pledge of money for the satisfaction you get from their product. These two groups of people are always going to be your backers and always going to be the people that you have to be concerned with first and foremost when making whatever product your making. They are how you have enough money to patch in a 4th romance option that is also pansexual. If your Role-playing vampire game has a really bad story and bad gameplay and really lackluster vampire lore. No one is prob gonna care that you spent more of your time and money on that pansexual character with a unique walking animation- if everything else is falling apart.

That's not an argument I'm trying to make.

The simplified version is that games that make money create the formula(s) that other developers mostly will follow. Demographics create the formula and are then catered to by the formula. The "loop" you referred to, is definitely real but it exists in all media.

Like mentioned before, the potential of small developers to create a smaller game, for a smaller demographic, can demonstrate a marketable formula to follow but it's not gonna equate to replacing an existing big release formula until it's proven economically viable at that level. And even at that...proven solid enough that future game's potential failures can't be "blamed" on the inclusive factor.

It's not a judgment against people wanting more representation of ANY type. But just like the OP topic, if the change requires additional finite resources and doesn't have a clear and measurable affect on profits... The best hope for change is gonna be small incremental change.

Have you heard of decision fatigue? A diluted market with a focus on pandering, rather than making a story firsthand and leaving the target audience as a secondary priority, is basically that "too many marmalades to choose from" example. Except in this case, all the marmalades look so shit that people begin to wonder if they even like marmalade, and get a little ashamed to admit they do around other people.

Case in point, the anime industry has gone down a slope of pandering to straight male anime fans. The more fanservice they throw in, the more they alienate other groups and the more they drive parts of their target audience to insanity as they practically BEG producers to just cut the shit and animate good stories instead. The only ones who will still seriously be consuming it if it continues down this path are desperate loners that don't care about plot as long as they can see some tits jiggle.

This is not to say sexual content is bad, or that sexual content is pandering, or that only sexual pandering is bad. Sexual content can be good. Pandering rarely is, as something existing within a product in a way that suits the story isn't pandering but simply good writing.

When you make a good story firsthand and skip the pandering, making it attractive to more than just one target audience usually isn't that difficult. A good writer can easily do it, and a good director can easily give directives that help the rest of the team follow. Most of the time it doesn't cost so much more time or money as people make it out to be because time and money is NOT the problem. Creatives not wanting to do it is also not the problem. The problem is investors and mainstream producers being afraid it will scare away consumers because of some analytics that are caught in the very same feedbackloop that @liquidlilium described.

Thankfully, we live in a day and time where it's easier to publish independent content and rise as a small company in the entertainment industry. Basically, I think it's bs that mainstream companies rarely think outside the box and that their idea of making their content attractive to other groups or look less phobic is by adding random token characters (which is not representation, it's pandering. Whether it's attempted pandering to progressives, or pandering to people who don't want to feel guilty, varies). But can we force them not to? Nah. We can just call it bs and then try to produce something better. But we DO have every right to call it bs lol

I'm aware it exists in other media. That doesn't have anything to do with my point. Companies driving loops into the ground and failing to bring in new people is a problem in other media too.

If anything this is an argument to encourage more smaller projects so the industry doesn't become too stagnant which can eventually lead to another market crash.

New formulas don't always have to replace old ones. Ideally they should exists alongside each other in some cases and merge to create better formulas in others.

Innovation means some companies will have to take risks without a guaranteed reward.
The game industry would not be what it is today if there weren't developers willing to put artistic vision over maximum profit and risk-taking that sometimes initially backfired (like Virtual Boy and WiiU leading to 3ds and Switch).

Again- brand loyalty- you stick to the first thing you find, or you just keep buying the brand your mum bought from the store. This is that feedback loop that is made within the consumers and not the company. Both sides have it.

Boy I love it when we use people’s sexuality as a statistic as If gay people and straight people don’t have different taste In entertainment. all gay people and all straight people totally abide by the same system of games to buy, only straight people by rpgs and only gay people by puzzle games. stop using them as a statistic outside of dating sims please it’s really disheartening. People have personalities/wants/needs outside of their sexuality.

The anime industry is in the dumpster for more then just “pandering to straight people” it’s dying because they don’t know how to deal with an increase of anime being made so people work 70+ hours a week just to actually die of exhaustion or suicide because the work load is too much- along with sevral other Massive issues that their industry is going through.

Just like “we didn’t have enough money for extra walking animations.” It’s much much much much more complicated and insulting to that industry to water it down to “pandering to straight audiences”