The Imperfect Realism

There are a lot of theories on what direction should video games go for.  Some claim that there will never be a perfect Zombie game – whatever that might be – while others claim beloved characters in an action-horror game might end with the third installment.  Theories like these are great as it gets us to think about our video games and ways they can be improved.  It gives us the challenge of making a great Zombie game, or how to return to a beloved world of Necromorphs so we could get our limbs torn off (gamers are weird).  However, sometimes there are theories presented in our gaming culture that needs to be challenged, and recently the president of 2K Games brought one up in an interview:  The necessity of realism in video games.  Is realism a necessity?  I don't think so as realism in video games brings up the issue of limited technology, expenses, and may even conflict with the thesis of most video games.

Christoph Hartmann, 2K Games president gave a reason why realism in video games is important, as it could open up more genres of games.  Hartmann claims that video games are inferior to movies in terms of conveying emotions, possibly the connection via communication.  For example, we lack any empathy or emotional connection with fictional characters in video games due the limitations of realism in video games.

There is some parts of Hartmann's quote I disagree with, but I can also see where his example would enhance the emotional content of video games.  For starters, video games that have any realism do well in conveying emotions to us just fine.  Persona 4, a JRPG with anime-characters and little realism, encourages us to make emotional connections with the characters outside of dungeons to improve our gear; Bastion might get us to chuckle when the narrator says something witty, or spread a simple message on how pointless hate-filled war is when the world is dead; And BioWare was capable of getting a tsunami of emotion from their fans with the destruction of fictional transportation devices, the death of fictional races, and colored explosions in a matter of a 15 minute ending with Mass Effect 3 (Yes, I know this is fixed but it still got the fans emotionally involved).

But Hartmann does have a point that most video games have a tough time delivering emotional content to their audience, at least in a way similar to realism-based movies.  Video games suffer a lot from Masahiro Mori's hypothesis of the Uncanny Valley, where as something in the realm of robotics approaches realism but still has recognizable flaws, we reject it.  I think this is most obvious in the "dialog mechanics" of video games (like a BioWare or an Elder Scrolls game), as we'll see repetitive body animations for each character.  For example, a conversation in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion requires our character's face to zoom in radically towards a character's own face, so we can see all the oh-so-creepy detail of how they smile, twitch their eyes, or try enacting their best voice-acting towards you.  Dialog mechanics seem to be an ancient mechanic taken from point-and-click adventure games that hasn't been updated at all to convey emotion like what Hartmann is describing - but updating this mechanic might be expensive.

Based upon Mori's theory, the only way to avoid the Uncanny Valley in realism-based games is by removing subtle and major flaws.  Yet this is expensive on the gamer, developer, and publisher to perform.  For the developer, they have to exactly replicate the body proportions of a human body well, and then animate it well for each unique encounter so it could be realistic – and not do a creepy face-to-face conversation, which was fortunately fixed in Skyrim.  Publishers will have to make sure developers have the best tools to deliver this realism, and the best tools are not cheap.  Finally, realism games require lots of pixels and 3D calculations to perform, so gamers have to make sure they get the best (and expensive) graphics cards for their PC or the latest console if they want the latest realistic games.

But this also makes realism games a poor investment in the long-term, as technology and advanced skills will make the previous generation obsolete.  Back on the Super Nintendo, I thought Prince of Persia was the game with the most realism due to the smooth animation, yet it looks nothing like the realism games today.  The original Deus Ex was a masterpiece of RPG, Adventure, and First-Person shooter mechanics that is still perfect to this day; and yet, the models have not aged well at all when compared to its more pretty descendants, Invisible War and Human Revolution with their subdivision polygon-based models and advanced physics engine.

L. A. Noire is a good example of how realism could be used to convey emotion like a film, but also done poorly and being very expensive.  The game heavily relies on the player to judge character's by their facial features; which might not have been done well by some critics, but that was the thesis for this game.  The player needs to pay attention to any 'tells' the character might give in the dialog-mechanics, so they could call them out as a liar or accept they are telling the truth.  But, we only get realism from their face, which is grafted onto a stiff body that has some stiff, mechanical movements.  Finally, Team Bondi had to get several actors to voice the lines and then sit in a special room to record their face, so this form of realism can be displayed right in the video game.

Another flaw in Hartmann's comment about realism in video games cannot convey emotion to their audience like films do is assuming the thesis for video games are like films.  Folks, we have millions of dollars being spent on our video games; the most cutting-edge hardware used to run our video games; and lots - LOTS - of smart people work on these video games to deliver us great experiences.  And yet, most still seem to make a mistake I get annoyed with:  Video games are not films.

A lot of methods of how to convey emotion in films will not work in video games.  Films require an audience to be sitting in theatres or sitting cozily in their couches, eating a bowl of popcorn or crying at the death of Bambi's mother.  Video games require players to pick up a controller and get engaged in the action, make decisions and overcome goals.  One is an active form of media, while the other is a passive form of media.

Could video games be inspired or influenced by films?  Yes, but think about what films inspire or influence our video games.  I'll bet you that the films we try to mimic in our video games are not even in the realm of realism.  Think about it:  We have a video game franchise that is the most expensive IP in the video game community based around cheesy 1980s action films; Superheroes taking on unrealistic supervillians in enclosed areas of Gotham City; and the promise of Khajiit on Elf homosexual action in our RPGs.  Hartmann claims we should strive for realism in video games, but is the thesis for these video games even in the realm of realism?  I don't think so, considering the library of games available to us.

Some years ago I ran into a person claiming Left 4 Dead 2 was a terrible game because it lacked realism for him.  The game was a series of linear corridors, with items conveniently highlighted and a health system where people can restore torn flesh from Zombies in seconds if they have a red medical kit.  In a way, he's right that Left 4 Dead 2 lacks realism, but claiming that this would make the game terrible?  Imagine if Valve wanted to make Left 4 Dead 3 with the Frostbite 2 Engine, pour millions of dollars into making the facial and body animations to make it as real as possible, and ignore the thesis of it being a fun co-op in favor of showing how sad the characters are over the death of Rochelle.  Would the Left 4 Dead series be better if it went for realism?  I don't think so as I strongly disagree that realism is a necessity to video games.

Female gamer and Discrimination

There are lots of people playing video games now than twenty years ago, each coming various cultures, races, and genders.  We have Japanese gamers who brought us memorable JRPGs like Persona 4 or love their visual novels.  There are European gamers that enjoy the simulation and micro-management of their sports along with the action-packed moments of being on the field.  And we have North American gamers that keep making video games that make any other race the bad guys.  However, while it is hard to find a game that is meant for women (outside of Otome games from Japan), I think most gamers in our community don't give any respect to our double-X chromosome players.  In fact, I think most of the younger gamers still question on whether female gamers exist, or even worse, give little respect to them.

The short answer to whether female gamers exist is yes, they do exist.  My sister got into gaming because of me and my brother.  Plus a lot of the games I grew to love as a kid on the Super Nintendo were picked out by her.  I really love Secret of Mana as a kid, and when my sister found Secret of Evermore I had a blast with that game.  When my sister found E.V.O.: Search for Eden, we both had months of fun finding a variety of creatures to make through a fairly linear action RPG.  We never did a lot of multi-player gaming in our youth, but we share similar interests and I occasionally talk with her to get input on game design ideas or a perspective from a woman on something in the gaming community.

I think, as a community, we're still ignorant of their existence.  A good chunk of video game history was predominately male-oriented, especially in its single-player era.  In commercials for old video games the target audience were men, and even today we still have generalizations that men still play video games.  Today there is an abundance of social games, yet rarely do we see who the other person looks like when we hop into a multi-player game - let alone respect them as a person, or anyone in general.

One reason where I think most female games get little respect from is the recognition of using them as main characters in video games, or even considered for 3D model assets in a game.  Jim Sterling stated that game developers rarely include female models in their video games for petty (it would be too expensive to make the models) or confusing (hit-boxes would be different, thus imbalancing the game) reasons.  I agree with Sterling that these two reasons he brought up are both dumb and confusing, but I think a bigger reason why we don't see so many female models (or female avatars) in our video games is the lack of respect for female gamers.

Earlier this year I was taking a 3D modeling class at my college.  We were given a question from our instructor on how to make a Call of Duty, shooter game but was meant to have female models along with male models.  Most of my class mates in this class were all male, and the answers they gave to this question just seems to lack any respect to women.  I remember one suggested smoothing out the torso on the sides and abdomen, so she could have a well-presented chest to show off her gender.  I find it odd that game designers want to emphasize the gender of a person in a military shooter of all places, when the thesis of these games are about fighting in a war.  It's like trying to recreate Saving Private Ryan but with more female actors that wear corsets into World War II than the traditional military uniforms the men wear.

The video game community doesn't have a good history of respecting female gamers, unfortunately.  Earlier this summer a game designer made a Flash game where gamers can beat up on Feminist Anita Sarkeesian, due to her project on talking about tropes in video games towards women in general.  Earlier this year Aris Bakhtanians, the coach of a Tekken game was made infamous with his defense that sexual harassment and the fighting game community are the same thing.

Bakhtanians later apologized for his words, but I think one sliver of truth found in his words is that in the fighting game community, no one likes you.  I think this applies to a lot of gamers in our community, and it makes it very hard for anyone to admit their interest into joining our culture.  There have been lots of gamers and smarter people than I am telling us that we need to be nice and respectful of others - which are later met with trolls and griefing behavior.  I won't get into that argument here, but I do have a message to female gamers:  Keep on playing your favorite games.

I would have loved taking that 3D modeling class again, with that same question, but getting the opinion of female gamers on how to properly represent the women that our defending my country (along with male gamers).  I think the only reason why my class had so many male gamers is female gamers gave up on their favorite games due to the discrimination or sexism they encounter when sharing what they love.  I know it's hard to push through that kind of discrimination, but we already have memorable women like Anita Sarkeesian admitting their love for the gaming community.

I'll be the first to admit that the game community is full of bullies.  Like what Bakhtanians said, we're jerks to each other to possibly establish some feeling of superiority.  I think it's a male thing that I never figured out in my youth, or maybe it is feeling like they have to lash out at others to make themselves feel better.  I know that I've been a bully to my sister a few times.  But she kept on playing the games she likes, and I strongly encourage any female gamers out there to continue doing this as well.  Keep telling us that we're disrespecting your gender in videos, blogs, or through forums.  Keep reminding us to make strong, female avatars in video games, or even include female models in multiplayer games.

I don't deny the existence of female gamers since I grew up with one in my house for years, but I shake my head in shame that I'm associated to a community that assumes women need big boobs to serve in fictional war games.  As the game community gets larger and larger, we'll eventually make games that get women interested, but might be quickly pushed aside due to dicks being dicks to them.  I hope female gamers out there don't give up that easily, as I would like to find more games like Secret of Evermore or E.V.O.: Search for Eden that is appealing to bother genders.  We'll only end the sausage-fest in the game community if female gamers give up on us.

Defining an RPG

Giving definition to something makes it easier to interpret what the object is to another person.  If I said an animal broke into my room, then that could be interpreted as a cat or an African elephant being in my room.  Defining an object is a necessity for communication, and yet, I see a lot of people struggle in defining what an RPG is, or what RPG elements are.  In some cases it's like the definition for Discrete Mathematics, where gamers could look at something and say, "Yeah, that's an RPG," but don't go any further since the definition is so vague.  Why do we call some video games a RPG while others are not?  Why do we consider Mass Effect more like an RPG than, say, Mass Effect II or Dead Space?  Similarly, what are RPG elements, and why do they pop up in so many video games that are not RPGs?

Before I can answer what an RPG is, I would have to define my view on what game genres are.  Outside of RPGs, we have games classified as action, strategy, and adventure games.  We further classify these games in sub-genres such as first person shooters, real time strategy, or horror games.  Most of us could look at a horror game like the Silent Hill series and say, "Yeah, that is a horror/adventure game."  But how do we recognize this, and define it differently from an action-horror game like the Dead Space series?

I'll look at three games that have action elements to explain this.  The games used in this example are any Mario game on the NES, Starcraft on the PC, and any Call of Duty shooter game.  Now why do I consider these games having action elements?  You could say that Mario and Call of Duty are action games - but Starcraft?  That is a strategy game!  But you would need to respond fast by sending your troops to attack a Zerg horde in Starcraft.  And the 'action' tag doesn't fully describe the difference Mario has with Call of Duty.  A Mario game is about timing your jumps and moving across platforms, while a Call of Duty game is about aiming down a gun and shooting bad guys.

The two key words from above are "action elements."  What are these?  I think of them as the raw challenge a game delivers to provoke an experience for the gamer.  An action game focuses a lot on reflex-based challenges:  Timing your jumps right; getting perfect accuracy with an AK-47; and responding fast when your bases are being attacked.  Each of these challenges require quick reflexes from the player, but further define the game from being unique towards the other.  The Mario games on the NES are "platformer" action games due to the necessity of timing your jumps; whereas Call of Duty is a "first person shooter" action game that requires precise accuracy with a gun.

So what makes an RPG?  To be honest, I think a lot of current games borrow so many challenges from RPGs or mix them in with challenges from other game genres that finding a vanilla RPG is tough these days.  We classify Diablo as an RPG, but also an action game since it requires reflexes from a player.  BioWare claims they make RPGs, yet they rely on dialogue puzzles from an adventure game or use action elements for the combat of their game.  Bethesda's Elder Scroll games have a similar hybrid RPG like BioWare games, but also give the player a choice in completely forget the main story so the player can go explore somewhere else in the game-world.

Like other games, we'll have to look at a previous generation of a game to find a definition.  We call Halo a first person shooter action game because it's based around similar challenges found in old games like DOOM or Wolfenstein 3D.  So for me, I look at an old RPG to find what kind of challenges define it, and what better RPG to look at then the grand-daddy Dungeons and Dragons?  Probably the closest game in our generation like Dungeons and Dragons would be Dragon Age:  Origins - closest, but not exact.

Picture Dragon Age:  Origins with its party and inventory management, and character development.  The game is close to a vanilla RPG like Dungeons and Dragons, but it needs to be modified.  First, take out all the pre-generated characters that BioWare gave us and replace them with rolled up characters the player makes along with their Grey Warden.  Next, remove the real-time combat with turn-based combat so characters taking turns based upon initiative order.  Finally, reduce the dialogue puzzles of the companions and NPCs and crank up the challenges of exploration.  Now you have a vanilla RPG, one that emphasizes party and inventory management, character growth, exploration, and turn-based combat.

A similar question that could be addressed here is on defining RPG elements, and why they show up in so many video games that are not RPGs like Dead Space or God of War?  Similar to "action elements" defined earlier, "RPG elements" are taking the challenges of an RPG and putting them into a game that doesn't rely on those challenges.  God of War and Dead Space are action-based games, but they require the player to upgrade their items so they do more damage or open up combos.  RPGs tend to have a challenge of building a character that suits the player's style in a game, so they could solve any challenges the game gives them.

Most video games released today are hybrids of several challenges from various game genres.  Dead Space has challenges from shooter-based games, RPG elements with upgradable gear, and exploration challenges from an adventure game.  Similarly, while Starcraft is labeled as a strategy game, its technically a real-time strategy game that relies on challenges from action games.  So a video game that claims to have RPG elements might borrow some challenges, but not every challenge from an RPG.

We all have ways of defining video games from each other.  Nothing is set in stone defining what an RPG is, unfortunately.  For me, I define games based upon the challenges provided with them, so I think of RPGs having the challenges of character development, inventory management, and turn-based combat.  I also think video games borrow so many challenges from RPGs to add more depth to a game.  Such as how Dead Space borrows the challenge of inventory management and character growth of an RPG, but not the turn-based combat or party management.

Ouya Could Revolutionize the Game Industry

I always wondered how the game industry would change if open-source developers came in and made games for us.  There are open-source games, such as roguelike games like "Nethack" or other freeware games.  However, these don't get much publicity or awareness to the public since they are distributed for free, or made by indie developers with knowledge that they'll never make money off of them.  Tablet and mobile gaming seems to be changing this mindset with games being launched on the Android market, but now this might be coming to a console – probably the first open-source console.  I see a lot of great changes that could come with the release of "Ouya," but there are also some concerns I have with its future.

I believe that the features Ouya presents on their Kickstarter page will open the doors to a lot of people considering gaming as a hobby or career, and that is an awesome thing.  I have stated before that the barrier to games was often held up due to the prices of these games.  But with the cheap (or even free) games of tablet or mobile games, a more broad audience of people could share their love for a game with us.  If the Ouya could deliver games that are cheap or free like the mobile games, but could have the hardware most triple-A games rely on, then it could bring people together in our own living rooms.

I'm not alone in thinking this would be a great thing.  Mojang, developers of Minecraft, shows an interest in the potential of Ouya.  "If OUYA delivers on the promise of being the first true open gaming platform that gives indie developers access to the living room gaming market, yes that is a great idea," says Mojang.  Top it off with the Kickstarter for the console nearly hitting $4 million dollars as of this writing - and still growing - and it seems pretty clear that a lot of people are excited about this.

There is one big concern I do have with Ouya.  I'm sure the people working on the device will deliver as promise, but my concern is with their competitors:  Nintendo, EA, Activision, Sony, and so forth.  I admire the Ouya for being open for any kind of developer to mod or allow any kind of software to run on this console - but I'm concerned that this will open it up for emulating games that might not be intended for the device.  Imagine if you could play exclusive games like "Gears of War" or "Uncharted" on the same device.  Or later on you want to put in a GBA emulator so you can play "Pokemon Ruby" or "Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga" on the console.  Certainly things like these would be possible, but I'm not sure the publishers and console-owners would be happy with this.

My biggest concern would be Nintendo.  Nintendo has a "Spanish Inquisition" like view with anything that allows people to open up and play their games for free.  The R4 and R4-like devices are examples of this, Flash cartridges which could play ROMs of Nintendo DS and any Gameboy game on a Nintendo DS with no modding to the console.  Recently Nintendo was celebrating their first "victory" of a person being arrested for selling an R4 device in Japan.  In the same country, an anonymous teenage boy was arrested for offering tips on how to use software to open up a Wii console for homebrew games.

Nintendo is against the R4 device because they believe it encourages piracy - and they are right, considering the R4 device could be considered as an open-source peripheral.  I think the R4 device is a fascinating device that could let people bypass the restrictions console-owners and publishers place on indie developers to make games on a target hardware, but I can also recognize that these are used to emulate games downloaded for free.  Going back with the Ouya, this is the "elephant in the room" it has to be concerned about.  Someone out there will make an emulator for a console that will rob the sales of these video game titans, and they will have no remorse when they file a cease and desist order against Ouya.

I can definitely see the Ouya being dragged into the bloody, horrible war of piracy due to how open it is, but I can also see it being a strong message.  Being able to gather nearly $4 million dollars in just two days of its nearly month long campaign has to make some publishers and console-owners aware that this is exactly what us gamers want.  We're not looking for games that require complicated controls or could shower us with millions of pixels per nanosecond - we're looking for games that are easy to get into and play with our friends, family, and loved ones.  Developers want to easily make games for a wide audience to enjoy, without jumping through numerous red tape to get their game on a target platform.  And, like the R4 shows, we gamers are willing to put down $99 so we could play the games we love at a cheap price.

I believe a lot of great things could come to our game community if software and hardware were opened up to us.  Developers could create survival/multiplayer games on the Ouya that could rival "Silent Hill" or "Dead Space" in terms of experience, while offering it to us at a cheap price everyone could (possibly) afford.  The Ouya could bring open-source games to our living room in a cheap, easily affordable way to share with our friends or family.  But, this depends only if Nintendo, Activision, EA, or others don't release their lawyer hounds and shut down this console.  At least, that is one concern I have when the Ouya is available to us.

Feminists and Gamers

Earlier this month there was an admirable documentary being made about a specific group of characters in video games, yet met with much backlash from the gaming community.  I'm talking about Anita Sarkeesian's "Tropes vs. Women Video Games" documentary that is meant to analyze how stereotypes in video games towards women are discriminatory and won't encourage women to pick up the game.  Her Youtube video discussing this documentary was hit by a lot of anonymous people—presumably male gamers—that said vile things about her and women in general.  I admire Sarkeesian's attempt at making a documentary like this as I do believe women (and other minority figures) in video games are stereotyped or inferior, but I think Feminists and game designers could work together at resolving this issue, instead of criticizing each other.

We no longer have games being made (hopefully) that are as offensive to women as the Atari's "Custer's Last Stand" game.  Now we got Femsheps from the "Mass Effect" series and Jade from "Beyond Good & Evil" as possible role models of women in video games to look forward too.  However, Femshep is not advertised so much compared to the male version of Commander Shepard when looking at the marketing for the "Mass Effect" series (thanks EA--another reason why we hate you), and Ubisoft hasn't released a single hint of a sequel to "Beyond Good & Evil" to keep Jade fresh in our memory.

One of the biggest complaints women have with female characters in video games is their objectification—or commonly the sexual objectification of them.  Fighting games are especially guilty of this, such as most of the female cast in a "Dead or Alive" video game, or how Ivy in the "Soul Calibur" series doesn't wear much armor to protect her well-endowed chest.  Philosopher Martha Nussbaum has stated a few qualifications need to be met if a person is objectified, such as:  The thing (i.e. target object/person being brought to question) lacks any agency; the thing is owned by another; if the thing is permissible for destruction or violation towards it (i.e. being destroyed).

Sexual objectification is similar to the definition Nussbaum gives, yet it also serves as stating that the "thing" in question is meant to only exist in the world for sexual satisfaction towards another group.  I think this perfectly describes most of the female cast in "Dead or Alive," especially when there was a "Dead or Alive: Extreme Beach Volleyball" game released on the Xbox that just has the female cast running around in bikinis and licking ice-cream like a cheap soft-core porn game.  The majority of gamers in our community is still male, and sex does sell if you consider how much money the porn industry still makes.  So, I'm not surprised that games like "God of War" or "Tomb Raider" exist in a way that is more appealing towards men than women gamers.

A good example that came up earlier this month is when Anita Sarkeesian, host of Feminist Frequency, posted a video to her Youtube channel about a documentary she wants to start that analyzes how women are stereotyped in video games.  The comments and like/favorite attributes of this video indicate the violent backlash from the gaming community against such a video.  Some of the comments toward here are just vile and horrendous, and as a gamer myself I'm offended that crap like this represents me to women.  A lot of ignorant people stated their ignorance in the comments to that video, because, in my view, they felt like they were being attacked by Anita or other Feminists.

To loosely quote Richard Schaefer, minority groups tend to be more defensive of their status in society than a majority group.  Feminists are a good example of this as they have a LONG history of discrimination from men (majority group).  Glass ceilings; sexual objectification of women for men; and the portrayal of women relying on men (a "thing" that lacks agency or is owned by another) are common examples of this.  Minority groups tend to defend or oppose discrimination like this targeted towards them, such as what Martin Luther King Jr.'s entire life work represents towards African Americans.  However, sometimes minority groups get defensive in violent or discriminatory ways, and that is what I think we're seeing with the comments towards Sarkeesian's video.

Gamers are a possible minority group.  China and South Korea are leading a campaign right now against young gamers in their country to rid them of "Internet Addiction," where they play to many video games on their phones or at Internet Cafes.  Hollywood portrays gamers as violent, immoral people that relish in the suffering of others or using people as sexual objects, such as the film "Gamer."  Scholars/politicians and gamers constantly butt heads against one another on whether violence in video games is harmful to children, and video games should be censored along with pornography.  The violent backlash against Anita's video was a possible defense-action minority groups do when they feel they are being attacked.  Does this justify their actions?  No, it doesn't, but it might show that either side doesn't understand each other.

I respect both views in this scenario, though I think this is a violent mess.  On one hand I do agree that women are objectified—sexually even—in video games, similar to how Sarkeesian believes the same way.  On the other hand, I don't like the generalization that every gamer is a sexist person that plays video games because they are lonely and want to beat up or rape women being applied to me.  MovieBob has chipped in his usual way by explaining Anita and other Feminists view to gamers, but he also states that he has to be "smug and dismissive" in explaining this to us gamers.  The approach to this problem sounds like a horrible logical conclusion from a "Mass Effect" game:  Let's be a dick to group A, so group A won't act like a dick to group B.

I respect Sarkeesian (and to a certain extent, MovieBob) desire to voice out this problem, though I also think examples of how video games being made that don't objectify women need to be shown as well.  Ernest Adams' proposed a theory of "player-centric" view in game design, where a game is designed to tailor to a specific, target audience.  Games like "Dead or Alive: Extreme Beach Volleyball" are offensive and misogynistic towards women, but the target audience is meant for men and not women.  Other games like "Diablo III" are targeted towards gamers that want to collect loot or explore dungeons, not to gamers that want an intellectually engaging story with "role play opportunities" from a BioWare game.

I think the best way Feminists could express this desire to have more games appealing towards their gender is, well, to make their own games.  Sony with "God of War" and Gearbox with "Duke Nukem" franchises already earn money with their possible sexist characters, so they may not make them more appealing towards women (and it would conflict against their character as well.  Kratos being nice?  Duke Nukem having a monogamous relationship?).  But there are several indie game companies to turn to that are looking for work, or even game designers right out of college (like me) that are looking for a game to hone their skills on.  Imagine if there is a game where a woman has to protect a relative from a sick, governmental program by sacrificing herself ("The Hunger Games"); A "prequel" game before Half-Life 2 where the player plays as Alyx Vance helping refugees from the Combine; Or a good "Metroid" game with a strong Samus Aran character (not "Other M")!

I would love to see more video games that have diverse characters with more depth than just another white, heterosexual male #357 to save a day with another gun again.  However, while I think it's important to recognize these tropes, it would also help to recognize that some people still like these characters for their tropes (being a heterosexual male, I can agree with this).  But that doesn't mean we can't make games for women, and it doesn't have to be a stereotypical "girl game" like Barbie or "Cooking Mama."  Everything I heard tells me that the "Hunger Games" book/movie is okay, and even if I know it's bad, the "Twilight" series does show that women are interested in fantasy themes in their stories.  I would love to make a game that is appealing towards women, or work with Feminists like Anita Sarkeesian in the future to make a game that avoids these tropes.