What is the inherent value in more varied characters exactly? You can make an amazing game with them and amazing game without them. They don't inherently make the industry or the games better.
What is the inherent value in more varied characters exactly? You can make an amazing game with them and amazing game without them. They don't inherently make the industry or the games better.
It's about the quality of the storytelling in the industry, not the game mechanics themselves, though some games do attempt to combine game mechanics with certain qualities of the main character, like in AC 3: Liberation, Aveline had certain outfits that changed gameplay mechanics when she wore them.
Isn't that obvious? How would the Witcher games be fun if every single character was a carbon copy of Geralt? There'd be no conflict, no plot, no romance (probably?) and Geralt wouldn't even be special or interesting.
Obviously this is an extreme example, but if characters in video games have no variation, then they are going to feel repetitive, worn-out and cliché. You may enjoy the exact same characters over and over again, but I think on the whole most people prefer some form of variety. Heck it's what makes the Roche/Iorveth choice interesting. If they weren't two different characters, the choice wouldn't have so much meaning.
Variety is the spice of life
In that case, I'd say that if there IS a gender breakdown, it's more likely to be because of necessity rather than preference, and I'm not sure that it would result in "good" vs "relatable".
I said last night (my time) that role-play can be "Be the character" vs "Puppet-master". The reality is that there tend to be a lot more movies, TV shows, games with male leads than female. That would, I guess, mean that there may be a tendency for men to be in the first group and women to be in the second. This is supposition, and I don't know if it's true or not, nor am I sure that it would lead to the outcome you said (Good vs Relatable).
And I don't know whether the chicken or the egg came first. These preferences, if they exist, would probably have been formed from movies and TV before videogames, and I don't know if the creators made more movies/TV shows with male leads because the audiences prefer that, or if the audiences accept it because that's the way they're made.
I'm not sure that I agree with you, and it's an interesting topic for another thread, but a bit off-topic for this one so I'm going to walk away from it right now.
No, I don't think I get this. Identifying with the character vs Empathising with the character doesn't automatically affect the second part of the role-play, the style of - "What would the character do" vs "What would I do". If you play it as "What would I do", then I'd agree that the result may be a Mary Sue, as that's the definition of the term, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to the negative aspects of that, a character who is unrealistically perfect. That still depends on the limits placed by the game's writer, and on whether that's the person you want to be in the game.
As far as Manic Pixie Dreams are concerned, the main character is still the main character, and the world revolves around him/her. I think the trope is more likely and common in secondary characters, especially LIs and companions.
Within any one game, I think that it would be difficult to see where introducing more-varied characters worsened the game (I'm not talking about the main character here, but about NPCs). And, industry-wide, introducing more variation among main characters opens up the market, brings in more players, and the more player-choice the better.
Where the idea of "we need more diversity" fails is when it's narrowly focussed - the main character in one specific game being criticised because there aren't "diversity" choices. In that scenario, there are far too many other factors in play.
And yes, I consider it totally ironic when a lead character is criticised for being a straight white male and therefore difficult to identify with, while ignoring the fact that he's also a mass-murdering wizard.
Last edited:
Anita Sarkeesian was never at any point working on Mirror's Edge 2.
--
for me, in most serious gaming companies and indie gaming companies (to contrast with... how should i call them? mainstream? casual? are those the terms?) such as CDPR, Supergiant Games, the devs behind Mirror's Edge there's no real issue with gender since the people who make the games are genuine about their storytelling. Literally, the only silly archaic gender stereotyping in the witcher 3 (that i can see so far) is that a magnificent witcher such as Ciri wears fashion high heels, which doesn't suit her profession at all. other than that, i'm 99% sure her gender and the genders of the other women in the universe aren't going to get in the way of their stories and personalities.
other companies such as ubisoft and their severe lack of female assassins throughout all of history will probably follow suit and be less ridiculous as time goes on. i think gaming is getting better-- probably better than a lot of other media present these days.
Last edited:
A week ago I always looked forward to visiting the TW3 forum. Ever since the resurgence of a locked thread there, I've somehow felt less and less energetic about posting. Not because I have anything against the resurgence of said thread, but because of some of the posts there. But, just like you say, out of morbid curiosity I always read through it.
Anyways, back on topic, I sometimes think the whole "gender equality", "equal representation", "bla bla bla" situation is blown way out of proportion. The best solution for developers is to just be true to the characters they create. Is there a good reason story-wise I'm making my lead character a female? If there is and I think it really enhances the story, then why not. If there isn't and I'm doing it just so I can say the lead character's a strong, self-directed female then uh no I really shouldn't. What's best for the story is what's best for the characters. Or vice versa.
That said, does anyone know of any RPGs where male and female player characters have equally well-written dialogue that wasn't just copy-and-paste? You could switch genders in DA Origins but the dialogue/story didn't change much.
Try to not just look at one game and instead look at the whole landscape of games. When developers no longer need to pander to any demographic, they will be able to create more interesting characters and protagonists and as such, create additional interesting stories. And by pandering I include the stereotypical male/white/powerful hero which just panders to an established core audience.
That's not to say we can't have more established and already used hero archetypes in the future. Nothing wrong with a good old classical male hero. But I'll look forward to the OTHER protagonists that we haven't seen yet just as much.
About the highlighted part.
Why can't the story originate with the character? Why does a character always have to fit a story as opposed to coming up with a hcaracter first and then writing a story around them? I feel like a lot of people assume/prefer to write a story first and then see what kind of main character we will use but for me it's usually the exact opposite. MAYBE, I will establish a setting first. But at the very least the second step is to come up with my main protagonist and after that I will see what kind of story I want to tell through his/her eyes.
But it'd be interesting to hear from writers/developers throughout the industry on how they approach this. See what the most common approach is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_KYB_-zz8
Until this happened I didn't really care about the whole Sarkeesian/GamerGate fiasco but this kinda freaked me out. I have been gaming since I was 5 years old and it has also helped me get through some pretty difficult times. To see my hobby and my passion being threatened like this pisses me off. Now of course this is just a case in Australia but who's to say it's going to stop there? Who knows what these crazy people could do with our games if they gain more power in the US. I really like how they said that GTA5 was a woman beating simulator when in fact the game doesn't really care who you kill.
Until this happened I didn't really care about the whole Sarkeesian/GamerGate fiasco but this kinda freaked me out. I have been gaming since I was 5 years old and it has also helped me get through some pretty difficult times. To see my hobby and my passion being threatened like this pisses me off. Now of course this is just a case in Australia but who's to say it's going to stop there? Who knows what these crazy people could do with our games if they gain more power in the US. I really like how they said that GTA5 was a woman beating simulator when in fact the game doesn't really care who you kill.
Thank you for the reply, Mr Ginger!
I've written some stories (mostly film scripts) in the past and been faced with that problem before. When I first started out I was told to always stick to a certain story arc/structure, but after some experimentation I concluded that the better method was to create nuanced, well-rounded characters with a back-story, throw them into a pot, let their personalities interact/clash and see what the results were. This tended to give birth to far more organic stories that felt less predictable and more original/realistic. So I did this for a while. That's more or less similar to the approach you use, if I'm not mistaken?
However the last time I wrote was about, eh, two years ago. Since then I've studied some Victorian literature (books and plays) classics and they baffled me. All of them do a fantastic job of having characters/settings/dialogue that all serve to push the themes and story ever forward. But it's also very apparent that some characters in the stories exist only to aid the atmosphere or just promote the themes of the story.
In fact, sometimes the main characters are like this. For example the play All My Sons by Arthur Miller features an everyday man living comfortably off his business' income as a main character. After reading the play, I realized this is because Miller wanted to make the character very relatable to any man on the street (hence his being an everyday man) as well as show how he was trapped by America's capitalist system (business blablabla). This was backed up by analyses I read online later. And while I can appreciate this, the careful "character-crafting" of the main character contradicts what I taught myself years ago about writing.
Perhaps that's the reason I wrote as I did in my original post ("good reason story-wise I'm making my main character female"). After studying so many great works, I guess I just came to think that all the masters of their craft created their characters for the purposes of the story instead of the other way around. Glad to see that's not the case
But Mr Ginger, if you don't mind my asking further, how do you answer questions like "why did you make Johnny a boy?" I have no idea if you actually wrote Johnny so I'm just using him as an example (and also to link a bit to the topic whoops), but do you usually think about things like that when crafting characters? Or is for example making Johnny a boy not something you really think about? The (e.g.) godling is a boy because, eh, why not?
Last edited:
@octavian123 this is australia you're talking about -- we censor games horrendously (to the point that the creator of hotline miami 2 gave his go ahead for australians to rip his game). on top of this, those shops you're talking about (Kmart and Target) cater to conservative middle aged mothers: not you, not me, not anyone who actually buys games.
so yeah, that whole fiasco with gtav is 1) typical of australia, we've done that a bazillion times in the past 2) about some shops that don't actually sell games properly -- the gender stuff is really a backdrop for our bullshit censorship.
so yeah, that whole fiasco with gtav is 1) typical of australia, we've done that a bazillion times in the past 2) about some shops that don't actually sell games properly -- the gender stuff is really a backdrop for our bullshit censorship.
Thank you for the reply, Mr Ginger!
I've written some stories (mostly film scripts) in the past and been faced with that problem before. When I first started out I was told to always stick to a certain story arc/structure, but after some experimentation I concluded that the better method was to create nuanced, well-rounded characters with a back-story, throw them into a pot, let their personalities interact/clash and see what the results were. This tended to give birth to far more organic stories that felt less predictable and more original/realistic. So I did this for a while. That's more or less similar to the approach you use, if I'm not mistaken?
However the last time I wrote was about, eh, two years ago. Since then I've studied some Victorian literature (books and plays) classics and they baffled me. All of them do a fantastic job of having characters/settings/dialogue that all serve to push the themes and story ever forward. But it's also very apparent that some characters in the stories exist only to aid the atmosphere or just promote the themes of the story.
In fact, sometimes the main characters are like this. For example the play All My Sons by Arthur Miller features an everyday man living comfortably off his business' income as a main character. After reading the play, I realized this is because Miller wanted to make the character very relatable to any man on the street (hence his being an everyday man) as well as show how he was trapped by America's capitalist system (business blablabla). This was backed up by analyses I read online later. And while I can appreciate this, the careful "character-crafting" of the main character contradicts what I taught myself years ago about writing.
Perhaps that's the reason I wrote as I did in my original post ("good reason story-wise I'm making my main character female"). After studying so many great works, I guess I just came to think that all the masters of their craft created their characters for the purposes of the story instead of the other way around. Glad to see that's not the case
But Mr Ginger, if you don't mind my asking further, how do you answer questions like "why did you make Johnny a boy?" I have no idea if you actually wrote Johnny so I'm just using him as an example (and also to link a bit to the topic whoops), but do you usually think about things like that when crafting characters? Or is for example making Johnny a boy not something you really think about? The (e.g.) godling is a boy because, eh, why not?
When it comes to characters, they can be a multitude of things, can't they? They can be a plot-device, they can be an amplifying glass, they can be the eyes through which something is illustrated or they can be the vessel for the reader. There's simply a lot of ways characters in a story can be used and none of them is less legitimate than the other, I am just thinking that each of them serves its own purpose.
Point being, if you craft a story and then only write in a gay man because you want to have a gay man in there, that's not good. If you write a story and then include a character that fits the universe and story and makes sense to be there and then, when writing his background, you realize he might be gay, then that's fine.
Similarily if we design a main character and make her female just because...well, that's what some people expect now, that's bad (Notice the "just"). If we however look at the landscape and think, hmm, female characters are in demand, let's see what interesting characters we can come up with, then that's not really a problem, now is it? Some people would still call this pandering, because the initial idea is sparked due to some current discussion or debate or controversy. I personally think, if you then go through the proper steps of creating a story, nothing has been taken away from it and all the debate was, was an inspiration for a new story.
As for specific cases in W3 like Johnny, you'd have to ask our Story team. Maybe @theta77 can shed some more light on that however.
Apparently, the most infamous gaming feminists: Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn are going to feature in a film about the GG controversy called GTFO.
http://gtfothemovie.com/
“96% of teen girls play games, and yet we have something like 10-12% women in the game industry overall. What in God’s name is going wrong?
Unfortunately the answer is, a lot of different things.”
When the first thing you read about the documentary is a deliberately misleading falsehood you know you're in deep trouble. What really needs to happen is a civilized dialogue between both sides of the barricade. The world only knows their part of the story and that's not fair at all.
That 96% figure is pulled straight out of her ass. Where are the sources? What is she reffering to? Hardcore gamers? Core gamers? Farmville and Candy Crush spammers? I imagine it's the latter but to an uneducated person this would be confusing and this is the audience they are targeting. There are not really a lot of girls that play core games like DOTA, TW or DA. The numbers are growing annually but most girls still look down on guys who play video games. I was probably the biggest nerd in High School and college (and was damn proud of it). What kind of guy in my situation would reject conversation with another person who shares my interests?
I repeat, I don't think any gamer would not welcome women in the industry. More developers is always a good thing as it increases the chances of better and more diverse games. Who would not want that? They are not opressed. The fact that they are getting so much money and attention is proof of that. These feminists do not want to take matters into their own hands. If they were as strong and independed as they claimed to be they would use all their influence and donation money to start an indie company made only of women programmers, artists and writers. That way they would prove by example that women are interested and competent in game development. Instead what we get is a documentary that will likely feature whining that men are opressing them when that is simply not the case. What a waste, that money could have been spent more productively. Even 500000k is enough to make a potentially great indie game and she made that in only a quarter.
The gaming world has enough problems as it is. They didn't need to shove their politics down our throats. I don't like it when my hobby is being threatened.
http://gtfothemovie.com/
“96% of teen girls play games, and yet we have something like 10-12% women in the game industry overall. What in God’s name is going wrong?
Unfortunately the answer is, a lot of different things.”
When the first thing you read about the documentary is a deliberately misleading falsehood you know you're in deep trouble. What really needs to happen is a civilized dialogue between both sides of the barricade. The world only knows their part of the story and that's not fair at all.
That 96% figure is pulled straight out of her ass. Where are the sources? What is she reffering to? Hardcore gamers? Core gamers? Farmville and Candy Crush spammers? I imagine it's the latter but to an uneducated person this would be confusing and this is the audience they are targeting. There are not really a lot of girls that play core games like DOTA, TW or DA. The numbers are growing annually but most girls still look down on guys who play video games. I was probably the biggest nerd in High School and college (and was damn proud of it). What kind of guy in my situation would reject conversation with another person who shares my interests?
I repeat, I don't think any gamer would not welcome women in the industry. More developers is always a good thing as it increases the chances of better and more diverse games. Who would not want that? They are not opressed. The fact that they are getting so much money and attention is proof of that. These feminists do not want to take matters into their own hands. If they were as strong and independed as they claimed to be they would use all their influence and donation money to start an indie company made only of women programmers, artists and writers. That way they would prove by example that women are interested and competent in game development. Instead what we get is a documentary that will likely feature whining that men are opressing them when that is simply not the case. What a waste, that money could have been spent more productively. Even 500000k is enough to make a potentially great indie game and she made that in only a quarter.
The gaming world has enough problems as it is. They didn't need to shove their politics down our throats. I don't like it when my hobby is being threatened.
Last edited:
@GingerEffect That was very illuminating, thank you very much. Really looking forward to experiencing The Witcher 3 in all its glory!
:hatsoff:
:hatsoff:
-Wall incoming-
Lots of interesting posts in here ... And it even encouraged me to add my position. Well, I think basically everything was said before. You can skip this post if you want. But you don't have to. And sorry for my bad English. Something happened to it yesterday while trying to following the advanced course with a terrible headache.
First of all, about female characters in video games. Or in the media, in general. It's not like females are only depictured as sex symbols, even though many feminists do claim that. There's a tendency, of course, but in the course of the last years, people started to include females in their stories as ... females. Human beings with all types of strenghts and weaknesses. As they were included before.
As for story-writing: Female main protagonists should be included, as it was said before, if it's not for the sake of some quotas having to be fulfilled. Story-writing should be always about the story someone wants to tell, if it's in a novel, a TV series or a video game. A protagonist should fit the story, just as a story should fit the protagonist. For me it's just another chicken and the egg thing, so when writers or devs want to tell a story about a female struggling with her environment, they should do it. When they're convinced a male protagonist would fit the story best, then that's their decision, and the best, story-wise.
When thinking about myself starting to write stories, I always chose a protagonist I could identify with, while telling a story I could imagine the character to get into. So when I was a little girl dreaming about horses, I was writing about a little girl dreaming about horses.
Naturally, that's different now. When coming up with a idea to write about, there is no real 'decision' wether the story will have a male or a female main protagonist, wether all those other characters will be male or female, if there has to be a certain percentage of males or females. It's just some stories require to have males or females as main protagonist to feel 'right' in my mind, but it's not like I'm writing a story about a male or a female person, I'm writing a story about a person, an individual. About his/her struggles, dreams, hopes etc. The sex is the last thing that matters, in case it matters at all.
So, to my mind, I don't see the point in all those discussions about the need of strong female characters as main protagonists in video games. If you think there are not enough - okay, go, change it. Make a good game, telling a realistic story with a female main character. I'm sure there are many stories to be told.
If you think, there are too many male protagonists because devs may think their target group is mainly male, and it wouldn't be a wise marketing decision to develop a game with a female protagonist for gamers have to identify with the character they're playing in one or another way - so what?
For me, gaming is about the story, not about the playable character's sex. I want to have fun while I'm playing, I want to enjoy the setting, the story, the somewhat reliable protagonist, everything what makes a good game. I can relate to both males and females, when they're well written, and I'm convinced a game with a horrible story, an unreliable setting and poorly-written characters will remain an unplayable game, and no female main protagonist would change that.
I consider this to be slightly off-topic, but it's the same with all those recent discussions about gender equality in language - as well as I see no point in exaggerated controversies about the lack of female main protagonists in video game industry, I can't see a point in those ... Did anyone ever consider the possibility this development, which could be constructive in its core, could lead to the oppression of males? Just because they were on top of the society for so many years? A lot has changed in recent years. And a lot is still to be done to reach gender equality. Take equal pays, for instance. However, this is more like general criticism of feminists trying to profiliate themselves with IMO minor problems. Like female protagonists in video games. The lack of women in gaming industry. It's a fact, yeah. But how many girls really like gaming? Like 'real' gaming? I'm not into gaming industry, so I can't assess if there are more obstacles for women to get into than in any other industry. I believe not, but I'm not sure about it. What I can be sure about is this:
But yeah, I agree with you there. Most girls even look down to me, saying 'Woah, never thought you're one of those gamers' like it's an illness or something like that. Watching stupid TV series is socially accepted among 17, 18, 19 year old girls, I think, gaming isn't that much.
So, yeah, enough digressing. I love good games like we all do, featuring a female main protagonist isn't necessary for developing a good game, if you ask me, as no one complains about thousands of good novels and stories with male protagonist. And I'm convinced something like quotas (which would be the only consequent way to ensure a certain number of female protagonists in gaming, of female devs etc.) wouldn't change anything in the way of thinking of some people who still believe women are worth less than men. They would just be the first step towards the oppression of men (I read an interesting story set in an alternative universe dealing with that problem, concentrating on the use of language).
Controversies like that don't improve gender equality, as we're asked to make even more differences. So, where's the point in that? Why can't we accept everyone as an equal human being, regardless of sex, interests, social status, religion, etc.? Oh, I forgot. Human nature.
Lots of interesting posts in here ... And it even encouraged me to add my position. Well, I think basically everything was said before. You can skip this post if you want. But you don't have to. And sorry for my bad English. Something happened to it yesterday while trying to following the advanced course with a terrible headache.
First of all, about female characters in video games. Or in the media, in general. It's not like females are only depictured as sex symbols, even though many feminists do claim that. There's a tendency, of course, but in the course of the last years, people started to include females in their stories as ... females. Human beings with all types of strenghts and weaknesses. As they were included before.
As for story-writing: Female main protagonists should be included, as it was said before, if it's not for the sake of some quotas having to be fulfilled. Story-writing should be always about the story someone wants to tell, if it's in a novel, a TV series or a video game. A protagonist should fit the story, just as a story should fit the protagonist. For me it's just another chicken and the egg thing, so when writers or devs want to tell a story about a female struggling with her environment, they should do it. When they're convinced a male protagonist would fit the story best, then that's their decision, and the best, story-wise.
When thinking about myself starting to write stories, I always chose a protagonist I could identify with, while telling a story I could imagine the character to get into. So when I was a little girl dreaming about horses, I was writing about a little girl dreaming about horses.
Naturally, that's different now. When coming up with a idea to write about, there is no real 'decision' wether the story will have a male or a female main protagonist, wether all those other characters will be male or female, if there has to be a certain percentage of males or females. It's just some stories require to have males or females as main protagonist to feel 'right' in my mind, but it's not like I'm writing a story about a male or a female person, I'm writing a story about a person, an individual. About his/her struggles, dreams, hopes etc. The sex is the last thing that matters, in case it matters at all.
So, to my mind, I don't see the point in all those discussions about the need of strong female characters as main protagonists in video games. If you think there are not enough - okay, go, change it. Make a good game, telling a realistic story with a female main character. I'm sure there are many stories to be told.
If you think, there are too many male protagonists because devs may think their target group is mainly male, and it wouldn't be a wise marketing decision to develop a game with a female protagonist for gamers have to identify with the character they're playing in one or another way - so what?
For me, gaming is about the story, not about the playable character's sex. I want to have fun while I'm playing, I want to enjoy the setting, the story, the somewhat reliable protagonist, everything what makes a good game. I can relate to both males and females, when they're well written, and I'm convinced a game with a horrible story, an unreliable setting and poorly-written characters will remain an unplayable game, and no female main protagonist would change that.
I consider this to be slightly off-topic, but it's the same with all those recent discussions about gender equality in language - as well as I see no point in exaggerated controversies about the lack of female main protagonists in video game industry, I can't see a point in those ... Did anyone ever consider the possibility this development, which could be constructive in its core, could lead to the oppression of males? Just because they were on top of the society for so many years? A lot has changed in recent years. And a lot is still to be done to reach gender equality. Take equal pays, for instance. However, this is more like general criticism of feminists trying to profiliate themselves with IMO minor problems. Like female protagonists in video games. The lack of women in gaming industry. It's a fact, yeah. But how many girls really like gaming? Like 'real' gaming? I'm not into gaming industry, so I can't assess if there are more obstacles for women to get into than in any other industry. I believe not, but I'm not sure about it. What I can be sure about is this:
Maybe it's just the people at my school, because I've met a couple of other girls enjoying video games while being abroad (or it's for the reason I talked with them for longer than two minutes because we shared similiar interests aside from gaming), but out of approx. 70 people we are like two or three girls interested in gaming (could be even less), with at least half of the boys playing video games more or less regularly. I remember one guy started to talk to me just because he found out I'm playing video games just like him, as before there were simply no topics we could discuss to start a conversation at all.
But yeah, I agree with you there. Most girls even look down to me, saying 'Woah, never thought you're one of those gamers' like it's an illness or something like that. Watching stupid TV series is socially accepted among 17, 18, 19 year old girls, I think, gaming isn't that much.
So, yeah, enough digressing. I love good games like we all do, featuring a female main protagonist isn't necessary for developing a good game, if you ask me, as no one complains about thousands of good novels and stories with male protagonist. And I'm convinced something like quotas (which would be the only consequent way to ensure a certain number of female protagonists in gaming, of female devs etc.) wouldn't change anything in the way of thinking of some people who still believe women are worth less than men. They would just be the first step towards the oppression of men (I read an interesting story set in an alternative universe dealing with that problem, concentrating on the use of language).
Controversies like that don't improve gender equality, as we're asked to make even more differences. So, where's the point in that? Why can't we accept everyone as an equal human being, regardless of sex, interests, social status, religion, etc.? Oh, I forgot. Human nature.
Just to quickly correct one minor flaw in the argument. Ciri is not a witcher.
so she can wear heels whenever she damn please. She was a Rat after all I would make the counter-argument that developers already are capable of not pandering to that core audience (as long as they're not working for a company like EA that forces them to use market-analysis anyways.) In fact, I would go so far as to say the only way to change the industry standard is to make interesting characters that don't pander. You certainly aren't just to change it by making more diverse characters "just because." That's how you end up with characters that are flat and boring like Aveline from AC3 Liberation. They have to be interesting, likable characters in their own right.
And yet here you are, telling me that making unique, diverse characters is pandering unless what? How do you define this if you are not involved in the actual creation? How can you know a character is created to pander or is created because that's what the devs wanted to do (and if it is a flat character, maybe they just failed to execute that). And let's be perfectly honest here...a lot of the typical video-game heroes are about as interesting as a re-skinned potato.
EVERY character should be interesting (likeable is debatable, since we also want characters that are utterly hated). I don't quite understand why this is brought up here as a counter point to me saying characters should be diverse as if, somehow, thinking about characters outside the box makes it less likely that they are interesting.
So yeah. Developers need to be able to not pander. Neither to loud groups yelling for "different" characters to be included just because, without regard to what the story is supposed to be, nor to people who demand the opposite. Right now, that's not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is.
That GTFO documentary is unfortunate. That's the kind of stuff scaring women out of the industry, not some conspiracy theory about sexism lurking in every corner. It must make gender relations more difficult if that kind of tension is there. Not saying it doesn't happen, just saying the claims of its prevalence aren't backed by facts. As to women in gaming, I always found the notion they aren't welcome as patently absurd. Guys generally want more women in everything.