auntie pixelante › now we have voices

now we have voices

at indiecade in october, i gave a presentation entitled NOW WE HAVE VOICES: QUEERING VIDEOGAMES. it was recorded, but as i have been unable to get an answer from the indiecade organizers as to when the recording will be online, i present here the text and slides (represented as numbers in brackets – click on them to see the slide) of my speech. what’s missing is the question & answer session following my presentation and the amazing discussion that came out of it. (an audience member asked my opinion on a criticism he’d received on the way a game of his presented what, according to the critic, were false gender choices; as i answered, i realized i was talking to aaron reed, and that i was the critic he was referencing.)

also, here’s the text of a speech i gave in november at the sf art institute.

NOW WE HAVE VOICES

[1]

queer games are important. we’re going to stop and meditate on this slide for a moment. read it to yourself, mouthing it silently. or read it out loud. internalize it, absorb it into your mind-brain, allow it to influence the discussions and conversations you are going to have here at this conference and after you leave.

queer games are important. i think there are people who recognize that fact, because a number of queer games [2] were invited to be part of this games festival, to be recognized as being among the most important games of 2012. Or, rather, the most important INDEPENDENT games of 2012. Each of these games was, in fact, produced by a handful of people each. [3] almost all of them.

queer games, it may shock you to discover, are NOT coming from the mainstream videogames industry. that’s because the industry’s model doesn’t allow for them. that model is:

[4] straight white developers produce games [5] that straight white games journalists market to [6] straight white “gamers,” some of whom will be recruited to be the next generation of game developers and produce the next generation of the SAME VIDEOGAME for the next generation of straight white gamers.

this is the industry model, or, if you prefer, we could call it a VORTEX, or maybe a BLACK HOLE. but when i think of all the amazing things we COULD be doing with games, “prison” seems the most accurate.

naturally, a system that privileges only a small minority of people – in fact, the one group of people that has the least experience of oppression – is not one that’s going to produce art informed by a very wide range of human experiences or perspectives.

[7]

mainstream games are monolithic.

[8]

in fact,

[9] i wrote a book about it. [10] the most that the mainstream games industry has to offer queer folks is [11] tokenism.

mass effect presents a world where the bro-dude commander shepard is more thrown by someone claiming to believe in god than by a man casually speaking about his ex-husband. in this world, “gay” is a checkbox on a character sheet, a boolean, a binary bit, not an experience that greatly changes one’s life, identity, and struggle. token characters are not the product of queer experiences.

actual queer experiences offer perspectives on identity, on struggle, and on romance that could be entirely different. [12] my friend mattie brice wrote about this very thing: she argues that most straight games are interested only in the pursuit. once the girl (or if you’re playing a bioware game and you’ve hit the right checkbox, the boy) has been won over, the game stops being interested. whereas queer games tend to explore the actual dynamics within the relationship.

her sample games were christine love’s DON’T TAKE IT PERSONALLY, BABE, IT JUST AIN’T YOUR STORY and my ENCYCLOPEDIA FUCKME AND THE CASE OF THE VANISHING ENTREE, both games with tremendous names.

oh, and mass effect 3 was the control group.

games by queer people, people of color, people who aren’t able-bodied, people who are women – because in 2012, women are still a marginalized voice in the games industry – have a great deal of perspective and experience to offer an industry [13] that is incapable of producing games from those perspectives.

[14] so if mainstream games culture has no place for these perspectives, where do they go? [15] mainstream games having no space for them, marginalized people have to CREATE a space for themselves in videogames. and that’s exactly what they’ve done, by inventing new communities and repurposing existing tools.

[16] this is a program called TWINE. it was created in 2009 by a guy named chris klimas. [17] it’s a hypertext tool – chris used it mostly to make simple branching stories: click on a link, see another passage in the story. [18] this is what the program looks like on the inside. it doesn’t look like code, notice. the tech community is pretty famously misogynist, remember: women aren’t generally encouraged to pursue tech careers in the first place, and once they do, they’re discouraged from staying by a hostile culture of entitled men. [19] but twine doesn’t involve coding. it doesn’t require the author to create additional assets, like GRAPHICS and SOUND. and it’s free. if you can type a short story, you can make a twine game.

and queer and women authors, strongly discouraged from participating in mainstream games culture, have made twine their own.

i’ve been curating an ongoing list of twine games, [24] and what i’ve noticed is that most of the people who are making them are women, queer, trans, genderqueer. compare THIS [25] to this.

it’s an entirely different picture, a “videogames” that looks completely different. this “videogames,” informed by perspectives and experiences that are often very different from these guys’, deals with subjects [26] that are very different than those we usually see in mainstream games. [27]

communities like this exist because of the inventiveness of marginalized people and their will to be heard even when the system is committed to silencing them. [28] but they also exist because of programs like twine, because of free blogging services like twitter, because of the internet. all these things have contributed to the DECENTRALIZATION of the means to create videogames. and that’s what’s letting people outside the mainstream – outside the small minority who are allowed to make videogames – get their foot in the door.

the more people we allow to make games – the more people we EMPOWER to make games – the more voices we add to the chorus. and in a form that’s so homogenous, we need those voices so badly.

[29] in a form that’s so dominated by senseless, gratuitious violence, it took a game like [30] LIM, by merritt kopas, a simple, abstract game about colored squares, to remind me that violence in videogames can be harrowing, can make me FEEL, can connect with my own fears and struggles and experiences. violence doesn’t have to be chainsaws and aliens and sniper rifles.

LIM is a game about a color-changing square in a world where most squares are either brown or blue, and react with hostility when your color doesn’t match theirs. by holding a button, the player changes color to blend in with the squares that are closest, though this causes the player great psychological stress, and it becomes difficult to maintain the illusion indefinitely.

[31] it’s such an abstract game that i am reluctant to diminish its power by ascribing any one meaning to it. but to me, as a trans player, the metaphor i see is one about passing, about being slippery in a world of rigidly defined genders who will smother, silence, or destroy what doesn’t fit.

it is the kind of experience straight, white, able-bodied cis-gender men are LEAST equipped to give us. and our games, our form, the boundaries of our experience would be smaller, dimmer, without games like this. the more voices speaking, the more games begin to look like you, and me, and all of us.

for lack of voices, all we would have is silence.

i leave you with my closing thought:

[32]

posted 1/12/2013 at 4:20 pm under mine
permalink rss feed trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment

13 comments

Spencer wrote:

Thank you for this.

1/13/2013 at 1:07 pm | permalink
Cameron wrote:

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE

1/13/2013 at 10:14 pm | permalink
musicman wrote:

funny, I don’t even play mainstream games. I play mostly indie/art game, or flash games. I don’t have enough patience to involve myself in playing something too long

1/14/2013 at 9:50 am | permalink
Arthur De Martino wrote:

As a youngster who is aiming at independent gaming developtment who focus his works on particular groups that aren’t the straight white gamer (My most successful game was a tabletop “Memory RPG” for the 70-90 demographic, the other one was a tabletop wargame for people who never cared or played a tabletop wargame) I agree and disagree with the text.

Yes, I agree that mainstream gaming is nothing but some big companies trying to grab the biggest sum of money they can so they cannot innovate or try anything different than the thing they did once in a lifetime that made their money. (The text has this to say about this notion: “straight white developers produce games [5] that straight white games journalists market to [6] straight white “gamers,” some of whom will be recruited to be the next generation of game developers and produce the next generation of the SAME VIDEOGAME for the next generation of straight white gamers.” – In my opinion is wrong. I’m the living proof that it’s wrong, but I’m actually going to provide a better counter point.) but that’s it. They aren’t doing because Gabe Newell or any other developter doesn’t care about the queers (English isn’t my first language so if “queers” is ofensive, I apologize) women, trans, or any group outside their target demographic, but their corporate culture.
See, they are pressured into doing the same game to the same people and ride that train until the cows go home. Why do you think the average gamer age went up? Because they are still chasing the same people, who happen to be straight white males. For in the corporate notion, were the ones that embraced their games (It’s their notion, I think it’s safe to say they are wrong no?).

Evidence is everywhere, the very fact we get yearly Call of Duties and other action games were you are this big white dude murdering the brown aliens mounth after mounth sends the message loud and clear: “We are afraid! Let’s play it safe.”.

No wonder it’s up for the small guys to explore this uncharted territory of different type of games, and while I find it inspiring, interesting and even beuatiful the initiative of making games about your experiences, your difficulties, I also find a bit weird claims such as: “my friend mattie brice wrote about this very thing: she argues that most straight games are interested only in the pursuit. once the girl (or if you’re playing a bioware game and you’ve hit the right checkbox, the boy) has been won over, the game stops being interested. whereas queer games tend to explore the actual dynamics within the relationship.”

Mass Effect is a bad game when it comes to human relationships. It’s the true. It sucks.
However there are straight games that are all about the relationship, and they don’t really end when one is formed. Then again most of the examples that come to me are Visual Novel porn games, making them in the Western independent developter discussion taboo.

My conclusion is that we should work together regardless of who we are to make good, interesting games, about any subject because the Mainstream is too scared to lose money to do so, not because who they are.

1/15/2013 at 8:56 am | permalink
iceburg wrote:

Most games are not about relationships (in the romantic sense). Yes, Mario wants to save the princess, but the game is about the platforming. And Tribes or CounterStrike is a competative FPS. And the Elder Scrolls is about exploring a world and advancing your character’s skills.

The question I want to ask is what you have to say about games made by LGBT developers that are not about relationships. Does the developer’s orientation or gender or race or religion still have an effect on the game, even when those are not the focus? You bring up Lim, which is an interesting example of what this might look like.

I ask because I want to make a video game. And I am gay. But I don’t (currently) have anything to say about romantic relationships. I like your presentation, but I don’t know where I fit in. “Indie” developers are doing amazing things, regardless of orientation, to counter the direction of AAA games. Do LGBT developers make different kinds of games? Can they make different kinds of platformers, different FPS’s, different open world games?

1/17/2013 at 9:59 pm | permalink
HideyHoe wrote:

I agree with mostly what you said-
and I’ve been saying this for the past seven years- the mainstream videogames market has become a case of “same old, same old”- and it really takes independent developers willing to risk it to produce something innovative.

My pet fetish has always been 4X games, management games, and so on- and in this case, the ground has been thin pickings- a sim city there, and a civilisation here.

It’s in that case, that I really enjoy the current resurgance of indies due to things like the HIB, increased aviliability of development software (i.e. twine, gamemaker, flashdevelop, stuff like this), and of course, the alpha/kickstarter funding model.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need more diversity in the field- (not just in videogames, but in things like tech and science too- though this is another story.)
Like you said, the diversity of people is one way to break the cycle of the same sort of people making the same sort of games because they think the same sort of way about the same sort of things.

A few of my favourite indie games have been/are being developed by differently abled people- and I will welcome with open arms more and more of this diversity.

1/18/2013 at 10:15 am | permalink
mks wrote:

*snaps finger equivalents*

1/18/2013 at 10:01 pm | permalink
Neil Collins wrote:

More games, from more people, adressing different subjects. Everyone wins with diversity, even white male players.

1/21/2013 at 5:09 pm | permalink
Hazel wrote:

I’ve been mulling on this subject for a few days now, and I think I finally know how to proceed. Thank you for posting about this.

3/5/2013 at 6:19 am | permalink
Jonathan May wrote:

Hi,

I just wanted to say that, although I agree Mass Effect’s approach to romance could certainly be critisised, the inclusion of “background” gay characters in ME3 seemed incredibly well-placed to me. I feel Bioware should be praised for not shoving it down everyone’s throats, as though it was some political statement to include gay characters. Give them their due in that regard! And while being gay inevitably does give certain people different perspectives on life, so does being born 10 years older or younger, having a private education, having 2 parents etc etc. For many people, these other factors may have a far wider influence on them. So I don’t see why ME3 characters should be discussing being gay and how it affects them, which is what I interpreted you as saying. I think that would in fact be counter-intuitive to what their placement represents. Seamless integration. Gay characters, as with people, shouldn’t be seen as different. For a lot of people, sexuality is not what defines them or their perspectives on life.

Jonathan

3/9/2013 at 4:56 pm | permalink
Robin wrote:

I’m a ‘straight, white, able-bodied cis-gender m[a]n’ and I wholly support this post.

Challenge the status quo, question the traditional gender roles, make people think. I can’t think of a better way to get to where we need to be as a race – accepting and open-minded. We can’t be proud of what we are (as either people or as a people) unless we’re telling anyone they can’t do what others can do.

Keep it up.

4/1/2013 at 1:23 pm | permalink
Robin wrote:

CORRECTIONS:

“We can’t be proud of what we are (as either people or as a people) *if* we’re telling anyone they can’t do what others can do.”

Kinda shooting myself in the foot with a massive message-ruining typo like that. My excuse: I rewrote that a million times.

I apologize!

4/1/2013 at 1:27 pm | permalink
J DeSales wrote:

As someone who does not develop games and has no experience in computer science, there is little authority in what I’m saying. Still, I feel like the largest hurdle to games that address things outside of the white, cis-male heterosexual experience (or engage with the white, cis-male, heterosexual experience in a way that actually considers gender or race as a category that influences those people’s development) is market capitalism. Games, or rather “mainstream” games, require huge investments of time and money and this cannot be accomplished without a corporate investment structure. And because of that, investors and developers will demand products that can be sold to as broad an audience as possible.

Would a writing and programming team that was made up of all non-white, non-cis-male, and/or non-heterosexual people produce works with less casual racism, sexism, and homophobia? Probably. Would they be able to make games that focus on their issues? I highly doubt it. There simply isn’t an audience for it.

And that’s not to say that only white, cis-male, heterosexual people play games, by no means, but that the vast majority of people don’t want to spend their time considering such issues. And furthermore, most people aren’t interested in paying rather large amounts of money for such products. Maybe you have more faith in people than I do, but I seriously doubt there is a large enough audience to support a “mainstream” game (which I assume is a AAA game?) about gender, race, or sexuality.

Television and films are more likely places to break through – the cost to produce and release a mainstream television series or film are both lower than the financial and time investment necessary for a mainstream game and the cost to the audience is substantially lower as well.

But in this culture and in a capitalist economy, I cannot really blame companies for aiming for the lowest common denominator. That doesn’t make it right, not at all, but it is the way that capitalism will force them to behave. And, other than eliminating the free market and financing game writers and programmers to make art regardless of its marketability, the only other option seems to be to work within a culture that is open to considering nebulous, challenging ideas. So, smash capitalism or foster a more intellectual culture, simply having more diversity making games won’t matter if the people paying for it want a marketable game.

4/10/2013 at 11:40 am | permalink