Task 3.1 Games Analysis

Analyse and compare the following games, looking at the representation of characters. Consider violence, body shape, gender, sexuality, and ethnic diversity, and discuss how these games and characters may be interpreted by an audience:

• Super Mario Odyssey

• Overwatch

• GTA 5 or Mass Effect - Andromeda

Things to consider:

• Are all characters represented equally within the games?

• Do you think the design of these games are appropriate for their audience? – Explain your answer.

• Do you think the characters should be more diverse in their design (shape, size, gender, sexuality & ethnicity)? – Explain your answer.

• Explain, Analyse and Evaluate saying what it is, what I think (opinion) and what others think (audience)

Super Mario Odyssey: (E - for everyone)

Gender: I believe that in Super Mario odyssey representation is quite equal as its a family friendly "E for everyone" there is no sexualization or at least intended. As its the first game in the series to show Mario having nipples, but its not supposed to be sexy, he's just an Italian plumber in some trunks. Same with Peach, she's not wearing and scantily clothing, she's a princess, wearing just normal clothing that any real life woman would wear. The designs are completely appropriate for the "e" in everyone to view. Also the characters are "characterized" and not supposed to represent real people. They are diverse with Mario being really short and round with him only being called Italian because of his accent and huge moustache and Peach who is just a tall fair princess. Now, you can argue that peach is a misrepresented female because she is depicted as too lady like but she is supposed to be and act like a princess. Character's sexuality isn't largely represented in Mario but this is a game meant for kids; they don't really care about love or character sexuality. It's supposed to be simple, the only part of sexuality that matters is that Mario is a guy and Peach is a princess (girl) and maybe Mario likes Peach and is going to saver her because he likes her. But it doesn't matter. The game doesn't need or warrant any multiple sexuality representation. However in Super Mario Odyssey there is a little bit of gender stereotyping, at least modern representation and forcibly going against stereotypes. In the ending of the game where both Mario and Bowser are fighting over princess peach's love, instead of the expected picking of Mario from Peach (as the hard working middle class Italian Plumber has worked his butt off travelling planets for the fair princess' love and to save her - its almost expected, especially since in the beginning of the game they were getting married) we're met with Peach not choosing either of them and changing from her usual fair maiden to a modern woman who doesn't need a man (other than those dozen times she needed rescuing). Personally I feel this end to be very forced and so do others and it feels out of place to at least the degree that it makes me feel annoyed that we didn't get the ending we deserved. The reason for it being out of place can be argued however as some believe that Nintendo's sudden stance on power to women could be the case but on the other hand Nintendo aren't really known for doing anything like this and it can be argued the ending is purely to make more Mario games and isn't any sort of political statement. There was some debate about it but it wasn't much of an out roar, although people were quite upset with the ending itself.

Ethnicity and Race: Race is also very open and and not really represented as the only character's with any human race representation are Mario and Luigi who are both said to be Italian: however in game there are real humans as Mario and Luigi aren't real "humans" with non human body proportions. Mario is Italian, but he isn't human Italian - the game plays into some Italian Stereotyping with the big moustache but that's about it. The only thing that makes Mario Italian is his accent. Over time the characters Mario and Luigi have lost their Italian Stereotyping as their character design has become its own original thing. Not a stereotype of an Italian, but of Mario. As the the stereotype of a big moustache isn't Italian, Its Mario Italian. He is Supposed to a small stubby cartoony character, lovable and a perfect mascot. His appearance is totally acceptable and no one really thinks overwise. He is an adored character of the series and there is no reason to change him; an iconic cartoony character, not meant to represent the real world. I think this works perfectly as he isn't connected to real life he comes out and has so much character with his "yahoo" or "waaaah" giving him a compelling charm that works well to his appeal. Especially since he's so goofy, with wacky proportions, he seems like so much more of an interesting character.

Sexuality: In Super Mario Odyssey, as the game is marketed to everyone (including very young kids) the ideas of sexuality aren't explored. Because in context, they aren't important. Of course in real life, sexuality is such an important factor to people. But in the lands of the mushroom kingdom and all the places Mario explores, it just doesn't matter. He is a hero trying to save a princess. For what it does matter in SMO (super mario odyssey) Mario is trying to marry Princess Peach and in the end is competing with Bowser for her love. Showing us the audience that the character's are straight (at least). But it didn't receive major backlash: because Mario being straight doesn't change anything. You play the game to have fun and enjoy it, sure the aim of the game is to save the princess (or marry her) but either,or it doesn't change a thing. Especially it doesn't change the fun of the game. The game is fun so people play it. The lack of representation of other sexualities is seen as unimportant as it's not trying to mimic the real world, it's just supposed to be fun. You are playing as lovable, cartoony Mario. You aren't trying to see yourself in him, especially your sexuality. So in context, It doesn't affect the game so it is unimportant. You could say that is just my opinion, by try and explain why mario isn't gay is important to a 7 year old jumping on goombas. He doesn't care, so everyone else doesn't.

Violence: The violence in SMO is very stylized and cartoony in the way that it is completely the opposite of gory or violent. As in the game, and all the games the way you take out enemies is by jumping on their head. The most violent bit in the game is when you hit Bowser with Giant Boxing gloves - that come out of a giant top hat. There's not a single drop of blood and Mario doesn't directly kick or punch anyone. Enemies just squish and poof out. Which In my opinion is totally appropriate, there is literally nothing wrong with it. Technically speaking the game isn't non violent, however its so little "violence" (if you can even call it that) that slapping yourself seems more violent. It has such a friendly atmosphere and comes across so peaceful, I'd have no qualms if this was in anyone's hands. From the very young to very old: it's not "violent" enough to cause any problems. Parents think so too, with parents happily giving children any Mario game rather than a call of duty. It's rated E for everyone because there isn't any violence to warrant a higher rating.

Overwatch: (Pegi 12 / 12+)

Gender: Overwatch is a 12+ meaning kids the age of 12-15 can play it: I feel they stick to this very well. There is 0 on purpose sexualisation in Overwatch, the game is marketed to be a game for all people, different races, ethnicities, genders and sexualities all include. The game isn't made to be for everyone exactly, just made/marketed to not ostracize anyone away from their game. They don't misrepresent races or cultures, they don't sexualise women or disclude any sexuality for being different. They want for everyone to play their game, that is why they purposely don't dress up their female characters to be sexy or appealing to men. From a general point of view they do this well and keep gender representation in the game equal. If you are being nit picky, like some small few of the fanbase: they complain about a bit to much skin tight clothing here or there but nothing worth changing the actual game for: as they succeeded in their marketing and in creating the game equally as the offended were in the minority. However, personally I can see 2 instances of some misrepresentation or sexualisation. The first is more of my personal opinion and can be seen as being very objective as they slowly rectified the issue. Essentially, at the beginning of the game's launch The Females of the characters/cast were mostly of the same body type, slim and sexy. Depending who you ask you can see this an issue or not; personally I'm not one to care as I'm more interested in how cool or interesting the character's are (that I find more appealing than representation). However objectively speaking, most of the females were in fact wearing some skin tight wear and were of the slim and sexy variety. There was some coverage over this matter but it didn't gain any major traction. But in spite of only gaining minor attention, as Blizzard (creators of Overwatch) started adding more and more playable characters/heroes to Overwatch the female cast vastly improved in body shape diversity from muscled to chubby and even a robot centaur the distinction of the female character's looking mostly similar lost it's argument over time. The 2nd instance, was more of a small issue that blew up due to Internet notoriety. The character tracer had a small Emote that gained attraction due to people butting attention on how it showed off her butt. This was completely unintentional from Blizzard and due to the small voices of those complaining about it being echoed and amplified by the internet - Blizzard decided to remove the emote and actually make the character's butt smaller; essentially agreeing that they were in the wrong and had messed up, and did in fact over sexualise the character's butt and wanted to correct their mistake. Which was generally viewed as silly, but in the end killed the voice of those complaining about these "misrepresentations" which were just baseless outcries.

Ethnicity and Race/Sexuality: Race is pretty widely represented in Overwatch with many characters (heroes) that come from all different countries and places; some with real world connotations with races and ethnicities and some fantasy ones. Like having a Gorilla, a very smart gorilla. Overwatch's cast is very diverse and a lot of Overwatch's marketing is all about including everyone and having a diverse cast of playable characters in the team based shooter. So they marketed themselves as a game that represents everyone from everywhere: of course they don't have a character for every country but the general idea is there, they want to stay diverse and interesting. From a technical/gameplay standpoint with wacky characters to choose from to a more fan service and marketing stand point of inclusivity and making the game feel open. Personally I think they achieved this very well, with characters such as Tracer being a lesbian from England, Genji being a Japanese Cyborg Ninja and Junkrat being a crazy Australian explosives expert. From your cool American soldier to American cowboy, from Swedish dwarf engineer to German Knight. They have characters from all over the world and don't feel forced. They are quirky and well made with voice actors that back up their character designs. They cover white, mexican, asian, black etc they include a diverse cast by having them from all over the world. As it ties with their game of heroes from all over the world and that they wanted a diverse and interesting class. Some people complained how it was forced but the response to the marketing was actually widely endorsed as some felt that they were finally represented inside a video game character and others who really enjoyed the show of characters. With them slowly adding more characters in patches making a more and more diverse cast where you would become interested in these character's backstories and part to play in the game's story/lore. Achieving their goal and making the characters feel in place, wide representation and more importantly appropriate representation where they wanted it to be. While also keeping fantasy and sci fi elements to freshen the cast so its not so stuck in reality: its a game, made to be fun so they purposely focus their attention on accentuating the character and this is what makes it so good, wide representation is done well when it isn't forced and their race isn't a part of the character's personality. It's cool that Tracer is a lesbian, but even if she wasn't it wouldn't matter because it doesn't break the character (maybe some of her backstory or lore but) core gameplay wise she is still an interesting and well designed character. Personally I don't really care about Worldly representation, all I care about is if the character is cool or not and I'm saying they did it well because they focused on cool characters while retaining their diversity. For example: Doomfist is a super criminal from Africa, which is cool for black diversity, but It doesn't matter all that much as he's an awesome character. A collected villain who has a crazy metal "DOOM" fist of pure power. It's done well, they mix perfectly and there isn't any misrepresentation, the characters feel real while also staying interesting and cool.

Violence: The violence in Overwatch is very cartoony, as the game is a 12+ it's not meant to overly violent. For as non violent as people shoot guns get, Overwatch does it pretty well. It does this by having a cartoony artstyle. Flopping on the floor when dead and having no blood anywhere. The game isn't seen as violent as it's not projecting itself as violent. People use swords and guns and even a bow and arrow, but it's not seen as violent. It's a 12+, meaning 12 year olds are allowed to play it. It does this by staying cartoony, it's completely fine. It's essentially a fantasy sci fi game, not realistic and an idealization of this war ridden world needing these accentuated heroes saving the day by pushing a cart to the finish. The violence is unimportant and doesn't play much of a role. It's more than a Mario game, but the most violent characters in the game just shoot people more angrily. You're not killing innocents or anything of that manor, just heroes vs villains type of violence.

GTA V/5: (18-18+)

Gender: GTA5 is essentially a fantasy game, it's a power fantasy game, it's depicted in a realistic city with "normal" civilians but the game isn't realistic nor meant to depict real life. It's an exaggeration. Non player character wise women are men are treated equally in gtaV, as both can be as easily killed on the street by the player. However there are 0 roles in the story of any importance given to women, essentially meaning, women are irrelevant. Given more stereotypical roles in the game such as hookers on streets and a cheating wife for one of the playable characters. This created large backlash as many people (Who had nothing to do with games) saw that you could kill women and got offended, which in my personal opinion is stupid, because they aren't the consumers and as such Rockstar (the creators of GTAV) did nothing about it. The game still sold very well and was popular with men and women as it sold well to its consumers who wanted the power fantasy experience the game was giving. This doesn't change the fact however that many disagreed with the game and its place as a very violent, stereotyping, sexualising game which put it in a very negative light in the media's eyes, however it did incredibly well in the general game media as it's story and gameplay was something not new but refreshed and done very well. Personally, I don't find the lack of female representation in the story a problem as that is not what it's trying to deliver. It's a game about some crazy dudes, coming together to fight and rob banks. So the story side got backlash on its representation of women, but personally I see nothing wrong as they aren't specifically targeted as bad. There are prostitutes on the streets and normal women civilians, the fact you can kill women or sex workers is no different from killing police or men. Also with GTAV multiplayer you get to choose who you play as, guy or girl it doesn't matter. You can be your character and it doesn't matter. They are equal, mass murdering woman or man and there are many girls who play gtav who are completely fine with this. You can dress how you like, sexual or not, man or women. Also Roleplaying is a large thing in GTAV multiplayer and gta is the game where you get a power fantasy sandbox where people can be whoever they like, and do what they want and gta isn't afraid of showing this freedom. Rockstar aren't incentivizing anything you can do in the game as good or bad, just creating an enjoyable game where people can do as they want. Many people claim GTAV's problem is that women can't not be sexualised in it. However I beg to differ, as sure, of course the women in ads in this fake american city are going to be sexualised, its a saturated and accentuated version of the real world. However civilians aren't sexualised and especially in multiplayer where it's up to the player to determine how their character is represented it's the players choice. The sexualisation of women in GTAV, sure, is a bit distasteful but this is done on purpose, an exaggeration and spin on the so called "American Dream". That is the point of the game and it does it well. "big guns, big money and sexy women", a saturated world with an interesting story and very interesting characters. So yes many people were offended by it, but the people (including girls) who were already going to play the game weren't deterred by a few sexy women posters/title screens.

Ethnicity and Race: Ethnicity and Race is actually done quite well in GTAV, it takes all the people you could think of in an American city (Asians, Blacks, Whites, the poor, the rich) and shows you the worst of them. It's indiscriminate in showing the worst parts of people and the stereotypes that come with it. Sure it may be offensive, but it portrays "the American dream", its not made to be offensive, its inclusive of all showing the bad sides. Some characters are blatant racists, other's are just normal black people. There are large contrasts in GTA as it shows you the stereotypical but also the real. You have heavy gangs and then your protagonist Franklin who is just a normal dude who happens to be black and how that influenced his life. GTA explores the ideas of identity very well, how environment affects people. With the tritagonists contrasting each other. The meth head Trevor, pot head Michael, and new guy Franklin, play off of each other as their largely varying backgrounds creates brotherhood and conflict. Rockstar aren't making the game racist but through subtle and not so subtle hints display the lives of these characters, especially Franklin as a Black man trying to get out of the slums and make money (even if it's through crime). Stereotyping is shown, but not used in an offensive way, but an eye opening way. With a game that's all about doing what you want it puts these ideas in your head about the world the character's are in and how their environment is the opposite of perfect. With the characters being portrayed in a very Realistic matter, with their mountain of problems coming from all areas of life. It's the fake American dream, based in reality bust accentuates all the worst parts, the real parts (the faults of society).

Sexuality: As the game is based on reality but is a major exaggeration, so too are the personalities of characters. Trevor, one of the tritagonists is a major drug abuser and a psycho murderer. But also technically pansexual, "any hole's a goal", the character is shown to be so crazy and based on his instincts that he would have sex with anything, often seen with prostitutes. Even when asked if gay, he says "he likes what he likes" showing his ambiguous sexuality. Compared to Trevor and Michael who are shown to be straight. There are also gay bars, and male prostitutes including gay and trans ones around the map. Rockstar aren't afraid of showing people of different sexualities, stereotyped or not. Because the game is a exaggeration on America itself, so are the personalities of characters to the point there are some characters who's personalities are literally being gay. In the context of the game, this works wonders. Showing the worst parts of stereotyping but this works well in the world of gta where everything is messed up. Sure when compared to reality it is offensive towards those of different sexualities, putting them in a bad light. But the point of GTA is to show everything in a bad light, no exceptions. Its not exactly in your face but you still see it around in the world, like it is in real life. The representation isn't exactly wrong, it's in line with the theme. being offensive. The game is an 18+, adults with an understanding of the real world and understanding that it is only a game, an artwork and visualization and supposed to play it because they can differentiate it to our own world. Representation of sexuality was never really a thing in GTA as in Multiplayer the world is your oyster and you can do and be what you want. Roleplaying servers full of people acting out whatever, be yourself, no one cares. It was only Sexualisation of women that people had a problem with.

Violence: Violence is obviously the worst offender when it comes to GTAV, but it is objectively not that bad. As the game, and in turn violence is a large over exaggeration, saturation and accentuation. With killing police, civilians, military, prostitutes (literally everyone - except children). The violence is equal as you're in the American Dream with drugs money and guns where you can use any manor of weapon including Rocket Launchers and Mini guns to kill whoever you want. This has a large drawback of essentially being psychotic: being able to kill loads of civilians and run away from police scot free. The audience is 18+, mature adults who understand right from wrong. The exaggerated world of GTA is an over representation of the American dream, all the flaws and problems that are the American dream and the society they build themselves upon. The excessive violence is the showing of the crazy and flawed characters of the game. It's a sandbox, a dream to do whatever you want. The understanding of how unreal it is is so important to understanding the message/s of GTAV, the real characters, and their unrealistic actions. Is such a large contrast. But at the same time, this is a game with god mode cheats. there are parts that aren't supposed to mean anything and that are just supposed to be fun. The violence is part fun and part meaningful. Many people found the game disturbing how you could just kill any old civilian, any one was a target and you could, stab, shoot or blow them up until their blood flew out. There was no grotesque gore, but the act of mercilessly killing anyone was something that many found a problem, and that people thought would be an influence on the people playing it. But the point of the game was for people to live this American Dream, and do whatever they wanted "inside the game". To differentiate the game from reality and not be limited. The multiplayer was a larger expansion on this sandbox of creative freedom with races and different gamemodes to have fun with others. Even if it meant killing eachother for fun. There was nothing special about it, it just was very free and did it well. Within the game, the violence is done very well. As bank robbing movie esc murderers, its over the top. Large kill sprees and explosions. You can literally steal a tank and drive it round the streets. A movie esc scenario, based in reality. People hated the violence in the game due to it's ties with reality and how it was a "bad influence". Personally, I think the game is masterfully made, from a gameplay perspective of open sandbox and freedom with weapons, vehicles and game modes but a story telling standpoint, with environments that tell half the story and the actions you input as the player not feeling meta or out of place in the context of the game.

Comparison:

Personally I think that all of them do a very good job at having appropriate representation within the games. All of them have their own hiccups and bumps whether big or small as a game is never perfect and can have criticisms, some major problems. But in the end it's in the eye of the developer to create the experience of the game that matches well within their context and can finalize their artistic piece to show to the public. Whether it be for gameplay, or deeper meanings. They all do well in creating a good experience.

With in my opinion, SMO and Overwatch being very similar, in representation: as even though they are technically opposites. One is a game all about not having anything to do with large representation as it doesn't matter, It's just cartoony Mario and the Fun of his adventure and the game as a whole while the other focuses on diversity to include everyone in having an interesting cast that creates fun gameplay in a cartoony environment while staying connected to the real life players. One is saying inclusion isn't important to everyone it's all about how fun the game is and the other is saying let's include everyone so everyone can enjoy our game and have it be fun. They are both executed well and where Overwatch had small hiccups both were fun and cartoony games that anyone could enjoy, and many did. They both were widely popular within large communities. With Overwatch lasting many years as a team based shooter(still going) and Super Mario Odyssey being one of the most well received Mario games ever gaining large attention as it's focus on fun and gameplay innovated above the others in the series.

However there is also a noticeable trend, As a game gets closer to the real world and real world representation: the more problems occur and more people have problems with the game. It doesn't matter where it comes from:, customers, fans, reviewers or media. Games such as GTAV that hold themselves close to the real world in representation come with their own problems as they show things like mass civilian violence: people can view this in many ways, some a bad influence, some wrong, some as it doesn't matter, and some just view it as "good gameplay". As it starts to intervene on real societal and human aspects/issues or messages then there are more people who can view at it differently and more difference in opinion. With gruesome real life themes, it can stir up different emotions in people. A lot more than any cartoony game like Overwatch or Mario. As the tritagonists are represented as essentially real people. But even with all of it's questionable scenes, GTAV is one of the best selling games of all time. Because it is so well made and hand crafted. It can be like the real world in many ways, but in the way it combines elements of reality and fantasy that bring out its simple but effective gameplay to new heights. Questioning morality, what's right and how we as a player feel. To make people look and know what they are doing, there are no messages of good or bad. Because they know it's a game and doesn't matter. A sandbox make your own experience, experience yourself experience with multiplayer. A world of a distorted reality. This is why so many people had issues with it but also so many people loved it. Because of the reality.

Where SMO shows nothing and focuses on fun, Overwatch focuses on diversity and intertwining it with the fun/having no effect on it and GTA V focuses on all the bad parts, the reality and diversity in our own society. Its like the good, bad and the ugly but instead the None, the All and The Reverse.