Why Have Female-Only Characters in For Honor?
For Honor is a Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) video game where players fight against other players in a medieval-esque setting. Since the discussion was started when there were only twelve characters, I will discuss For Honor as if no new characters have been added since then. In For Honor, players choose to play as one of twelve different characters. Six of these characters can be customized to be either male or female, three can only be played as males, and three can only be played as females. The three female-only characters are the Nobushi from the Samurai faction, the Valkyrie from the Viking faction, and the Peacekeeper from the Knight faction. While the Valkyrie is as muscled as some of the male characters, the Nobushi and the Peacekeeper are a bit slimmer, although the armor for all three looks much the same as the armor for the male-only characters and is practical, not oversexualized. Some of the commenters in the forum discussion note that both the Nobushi and the Valkyrie are characters with a historical basis, or origin, while the Peacekeeper character is not. The Peacekeeper character is also widely believed to be one of the most powerful characters to play. I believe these are the reasons the Peacekeeper character is most focused on by people offended by the idea of female-only characters in For Honor.
The discussion I analyze focuses on the problem some players have with the female-only characters. I use three main connecting points to analyze this article. First, I will discuss short forms and abbreviations, specifically the ones used in the forum discussion, and in the game. Second, I will discuss the concept of neomedievalist gender practices as they relate to how some players perceive the roles that men and women ‘should’ have within For Honor. Finally, I will discuss the concept of the ‘big-D’ Discourse community and how the comments made in this discussion can affect how players perceive their own identity, and the identities of others.
CMC, or “computer-mediated communication” (Tagliamonte p. 1), involves a “diverse range of different registers” (Tagliamonte p. 3). Abbreviations, initialisms, and short forms, as discussed in Tagliamonte’s article “So Sick or So Cool?” (p. 12), exist in a variety of online settings, and are “the most often cited characteristics of CMC, undoubtedly because they are the most striking.” (Tagliamonte p. 12). Abbreviations, initialisms, and short forms are used mainly for speed and ease when typing, but I argue that they are also used to identify who belongs in a certain community and who does not.
In the forum discussion I am studying, the usage of abbreviations, initialisms, and short forms serves to make typing responses faster, and also to act as a gate between people who are more involved in the For Honor and GameFAQs communities, and those who are not. Abbreviations, initialisms, and shortenings assume that readers have knowledge and familiarity with the text(s) they are interacting with, and if readers do not have this familiarity, then they are effectively being excluded from the inner community until they learn the language that specific community uses.
In this forum discussion, there are instances of two separate communities’ language being used: the language that players of For Honor use and understand, and the language that regular commenters on the forum use and understand. The language specific to For Honor includes abbreviations for specific characters, as well as usage of the word ‘patch.’ Language specific to the GameFAQs forum includes the abbreviation ‘TC’ and references to ‘trolling’ and ‘bait.’
Language specific to For Honor in this forum discussion is easily seen in comments such as “it doesn’t bug me that pk is female,” and “using valks and pks.” The abbreviation ‘pk’ or ‘pks’ is used instead of spelling out Peacekeeper or Peacekeepers, while ‘valk’ is used in place of Valkyrie. Another instance of For Honor specific language is when a commenter says that “Especially since after patch, everyone” plays as the Valkyrie and Peacekeeper characters. Here, ‘patch’ means an update or fix to a game. However, the commenter is referring to a specific patch, which readers would only know about if they were also familiar with the versions and updates of the For Honor game; this comment not only assumes familiarity with For Honor, but also that whoever is reading has played For Honor for long enough that they would either have seen the effects of the patch or heard about it from others who had.
In addition to the language that is specific to For Honor, I also saw two instances of commenters using ‘main’ as a verb; “My Grandmother mains Shugoki,” and “I usually main a female character” simply mean that those people invest the most of their time into the characters that they ‘main.’ This is language that is not specific to For Honor, but video games as a whole. It shows that, generally, on forums about video games, people are expected to know the language that refers to video game specific things, like ‘main’ being used where ‘play’ could be; ‘main’ has a different connotation than ‘play’ does where video games are concerned.
On the GameFAQs forum, the abbreviation I saw a lot of was ‘TC,’ which stands for topic creator, the person who starts the discussion. Comments like “TC vanishes,” or “*holds nose and mimics TC*” were used with the assumption that readers of the discussion were already familiar with the style and language used on the forum. This may have to do with the fact that people cannot comment on forum discussions as guests or anonymously; you must have an account on the forum to start discussions or leave comments on discussions.
To fully understand this discussion, readers must be fluent in at least two different internet-based languages. Since there are so many different internet languages, and “conventions that are particular to each one” (Tagliamonte p. 28), readers who want to fully participate in the discussion must know the different conventions for each community. If a reader does not know these specific conventions, then they are effectively blocked from being a full part of the community. Similar to readers and players being blocked from a community because they do not speak that community’s language is when readers and players are blocked from fully participating in communities based on gender.
Neomedievalist gender practices, as discussed in Stone et al.’s article “Accumulating Histories” (p. 108), are the expectations people have about “masculinity and femininity, chivalry, courtly love, and warfare” (Stone p. 108). These motifs, present in high-fantasy MMORPGs, “have strong influence over players’ actions” (Stone p. 108), both in video games and outside of them. The concept of medievalism also helps to explain how the decisions made by game developers and players influence and “shape gendered social practices” (Stone p. 108).
I would argue that these motifs also shape how players think of identity outside of games— both their own identity and the identities of others. Because “identities are realized in the context of local contentious practice” (Stone p. 109), people who play video games that represent only one group of people, or worse, represent stereotypes of a group, will eventually either begin to believe the stereotypes of a group are true, or they will feel alienated from the community that perpetuates those stereotypes.
One such stereotype is that the act of warfare and battle is “almost always framed as a male activity” (Stone p. 115). Expectations of masculinity being tied to warfare are very prevalent in MMORPGs and MMORPG communities — especially this forum discussion. We can see this in the comments that reference the idea of including female characters in For Honor as “silly” and unbelievable, because women are too weak, fragile, and the like to be as good in war as men can be. The top commenter starts the discussion by saying:
“I mean, it makes sense to have male-only characters because imagining a woman with a giant club is silly. But why should we be restricted to female-only characters? Let's face it, like 99.98% of warriors throughout history have been male. I don't know why I'm forced to be female if I want to play as a Peacekeeper. It's just silly. Basically, there are things in this game that women couldn't do. But there isn't anything in this game that only a woman could do. So it doesn't make any sense.” (emphasis mine).
Later, the top commenter asks: “Did I offend your girlfriends or something?” when other commenters note the original comment was sexist. Another commenter, further into the discussion, says this:
“I never play as females in war games. Men have been the warriors for 99.9 % of all battles ever fought, with good reason as they are the larger, stronger, faster, more enduring sex. The reason I can't play girls in war game is because it's just silly. I mean I have known many men to be tough, intimidating, and strong. Many men I would not ever want to have a problem with. However as a man that is 5'11 194 lbs. I have literally never met a woman who could hope to pose a threat to me, that and every woman in my life from my mom, sisters, to my fiance are the type of women to break a nail if you don't open the jar for them. So with my experience with women when I see one on TV with a sword I just can't take it seriously.” (emphasis mine).
Both of these commenters use language that is condescending towards women, like “silly,” as well as stating that women have never been warriors. This both drives away women players of For Honor from wanting to participate in the community, and reinforces the belief that women do not belong in warfare.
Warfare is expected to be for male characters, and when it isn’t, we can see that some players become offended and angry. These types of players see masculinity as naturally more suited to war, and expect the games they play to mirror that. However, in For Honor, players are forced (through the female-only characters) to accept that female characters do participate in warfare, and that female characters can participate in ways that male characters cannot. The type of player that is angered by female-only characters is most likely used to games where female characters are secondary to male characters, and if they are playable, they will be sexualized for the enjoyment of the male gaze. Even in discussions about For Honor, “female characters are unable to escape the expectation of being submissively feminine, even if they are as powerful as their male counterparts” (Stone p. 111, emphasis mine), which is what some people seem to be angry about. They want to play as one of the most dangerous characters, the Peacekeeper, but they do not want to play as a female character. Or, more specifically, they want to either play as a male character, or as a female character that is sexualized for their enjoyment. This, then, is the ‘problem’ with the female-only characters in For Honor: these three characters are not portrayed with “svelte and voluptuous” (Stone p. 111) figures, or “revealing armor and feminized actions” (Stone p. 111). The Valkyrie character is easily one of the tallest in the game, and her movements are that of a trained warrior in battle and not feminized at all. The Peacekeeper and the Nobushi are shorter and slimmer, but clothed in realistic (and concealing) armor, and again, their movements are not highly feminized. This is good representation, and it really matters.
Discourse communities, as defined in Steinkuehler’s article “Massively Multiplayer Video Gaming” (p. 40), delegate status and create identity in a space. When a person participates in a ‘big-D’ Discourse community, they come to “understand the world (and themselves) from the perspective of that community” (Steinkuehler p. 40). So, if one participates in a community that values and welcomes their identity, they will come to understand that they are valuable, and will feel good about their identity — as will others who do not share that identity. The same is true, however, for the opposite. If, like in this forum discussion, an identity is belittled and stated to have less value than another, people with that identity may begin to feel that they do not deserve to be valued, and that no one in the community does value them. Others in this community will absorb this way of thinking as well, and in time, the overall atmosphere of the community will shift into one that is unwelcoming of the identity that was originally belittled.
We can see this belittlement in the comments that refer to female characters as ‘silly’ and not to be taken seriously, but also in a more specific example. When a commenter on the forum states that she is a woman, and happy to see female characters:
"As a female myself I am happy to see female classes in the game! Sure in the past it was a "male Eccentric" battlefields however what about Joan of Arc...? I am happy I can be a female on most of the classes that aren't male only! Getting irritated over the fact that there are female only classes is stupid, female players like myself play this game too! Plus its a video game so logic is out the door mostly sure its based on our history and whatnot in the end of the day it's just a video game."
another commenter immediately retorts with a condescending response designed to make her comment seem ridiculous:
“Sorry, I must have missed that. What gender did you say you were? Once more for the record.”
She doesn’t respond, but I think we can safely assume that she was bothered — at least a little — by the attitude of the other commenter, especially since she was so reasonable in her comment, and was mocked when she simply wished to contribute her thoughts to the discussion. The effects of comments like this are already apparent in this discussion; commenters who were of the opinion that female characters were ‘silly’ felt more comfortable expressing that view than commenters who thought female-only characters made sense and were important.
It is subtle, but every commenter who was in favor of there being no female-only characters stated their opinion very bluntly, usually without apologizing. In contrast, the commenters who argued that female-only characters made sense and were needed did so in either a roundabout and more passive way that left room for both sides to be ‘right,’ or did so by using facts drawn from outside sources to objectively prove that at least two of the female-only characters truly could be only female in regards to the character’s history or origins. The research that the commenters cited was about the Valkyrie character, based on the Valkyries of Norse mythology, and the Nobushi character, based on Onna-bugeisha (in history, female warriors of Japanese nobility). The Peacekeeper does not have a historically significant reason for being female-only, which is perhaps why the Peacekeeper is the most complained about out of all three.
The comments in this discussion create a space where those who identify as women are less welcomed than those who identify as men. Comments like these also influence some women not to use voice chat in games, or to withdraw from interacting with the community both in video games and in spaces such as this forum.
On a larger scale, this seems to happen with many women who speak up, bluntly and without apologizing, about sexism and other problems with video games and gaming communities. Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are examples of this; Sarkeesian is harassed and threatened for posting YouTube videos that discuss stereotypes of women in video games, and in 2014, the Gamergate controversy began with Quinn being mentioned in a blog post and then subsequently harassed.
Through analyzing this forum discussion, I can more clearly see the effects that language specific to a community, the expectations people have about masculinity, femininity, and warfare, and participating in a Discourse community have on people’s participation in a discussion. By knowing the language specific to both the GameFAQs forum and language specific to For Honor, commenters demonstrated that they belonged to both communities. The expectation that masculinity belongs more in warfare plays into commenters’ anger about the concept of the female-only characters. Both of these concepts combine to form a Discourse community (the forum discussion) that, overall, indicates to viewers what the community accepts and what the community’s values are.
In this specific forum, there seemed to be two ‘sides’ to the discussion, and therefore two conflicting sets of values and views. On one extreme, some commenters were angered at the inclusion of female-only characters in For Honor, and called it “silly.” On the other extreme, there were some commenters who brought in knowledge from outside sources to objectively prove that two of the female-only characters could never possibly be male characters, namely, the Valkyrie and the Nobushi. Interestingly, both of these types of commenters cited history in their reasons for supporting the side of the argument they did. The commenters who supported female-only characters cited Norse mythology and Japanese history as the origins of two of the female-only characters, while the commenters angered by female-only characters cited the ‘fact’ that the vast majority (“99.98 %”) of warriors in history have been men. This is proved wrong by the origins of the Valkyrie and Nobushi characters, but the commenters who were against female-only characters didn’t seem to care or even take note of these historical references.
The concept that proved the most interesting and helpful in this analysis was the last one I discussed: the concept of a ‘big-D’ Discourse community, that focuses on “kinds” and “people” (Steinkuehler p. 39). This concept really helped me pull together the other two, and see how they both affected the communities that participated in the forum discussion.
Works Cited
GameFAQs: Why have female-only characters? For Honor message board, 4 March 2017, https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/168620-for honor/75067818.
Steinkuehler, Constance A. "Massively Multiplayer Online Video Gaming as Participation in a Discourse." Mind, Culture, and Activity, vol. 13, no. 1, 2006.
Stone, Jennifer C., Peter Kudenov, and Teresa Combs. “Accumulating Histories: A Social Practice Approach to Medievalism in High-Fantasy MMORPGs.” Digital Gaming Re-imagines the Middle Ages, Routledge, 2013.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. "So Sick Or so Cool? the Language of Youth on the Internet." Language in Society, vol. 45, no. 1, 2016.
___________________________________
Megan Medo is a junior pursuing a Baccalaureate of Arts in English with a concentration in Rhetoric and Linguistics.