VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
It's confusing to me because I'm trying to think of an example in a game where anything was added "for the sake of it".
It's confusing to me because I'm trying to think of an example in a game where anything was added "for the sake of it".
Interesting read but it seems to ignore the fact that from very early on, games appealed to males with or without marketing. From there, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Males were the target of games BECAUSE they latched on to them more than females so developers began making and marketing games toward that desired demographic and it snowballed.
Only recently has gaming diversified more, mostly because of Facebook and Mobile gaming, in my opinion, accidentally drawing a number of females in without really trying to. The numbers are now growing but core gaming is still dominated by males and will continue to be the prime target for games. Maybe it'll change some day; there is definitely a bit of a shift going on. But long story short, the stereotype exists because it is true and there is money to be made. I certainly view games as being for both sexes, generally and moreso now than ever before.
Hmmm...interesting.
When the first games were coming out, were they marketed towards men? Were they marketed at all? Or did men just have more interest?
Did Pong or Space Aliens or ET (dunno if these are good examples of early games...lol) target men or did more guys even play those games? If so, did the industry get it's shape from there?
Hmmm...interesting.
When the first games were coming out, were they marketed towards men? Were they marketed at all? Or did men just have more interest?
Did Pong or Space Aliens or ET (dunno if these are good examples of early games...lol) target men or did more guys even play those games? If so, did the industry get it's shape from there?
And then to follow up:wiki said:Iwatani attempted to appeal to a wider audience—beyond the typical demographics of young boys and teenagers. His intention was to attract girls to arcades because he found there were very few games that were played by women at the time.
Shortly before release, Stan Jarocki of Midway stated that Ms. Pac-Man was conceived in response to the original Pac-Man being "the first commercial videogame to involve large numbers of women as players" and that it is "our way of thanking all those lady arcaders who have played and enjoyed Pac-Man."
It's confusing to me because I'm trying to think of an example in a game where anything was added "for the sake of it".
I don't know what "adding females for the sake of it" means.
Can someone explain?
A few aisles over, in the video game section, there is a similar marketing story that Maida has yet to learn. Unlike in the toy aisles, she won't find an expansive selection of video games for boys and an equally expansive selection for girls. Most "girls' sections," if they exist, are lined with fitness titles and Ubisoft's simplified career simulation series, Imagine, which lets players pretend they're doctors, teachers, gymnasts and babysitters.
As for the boys section there isn't one. Everything else is for boys.
"Generally speaking, it did not occur to any of the companies I worked for that they should be looking at female audiences for games," she says. "It was always, 'Oh of course girls don't play games.' I got that so many times. 'Of course girls don't play games why are we going to waste money on this audience that doesn't exist?'
"Where in fact, the nonexistence of the audience was a self-fulfilling prophecy. When we did Purple Moon, one of the criticisms we got was 'Why do you need special games for girls?' I was like, 'Dude, everything else is for boys and you don't even know it. You're taking it for granted all this time.'"
But Romero points out that if we go back to fall 1993, two significant things happened in gaming. One is the release of Doom, which heralded the start of the male-dominated first-person shooter genre. The other, in the same year, is the launch of Myst, which had an overwhelmingly female player base. "Myst dominated the charts, and we don't say games are dominated by women," Romero says. "So I've never felt that way. The Sims has more female players than it has male players, but I don't use those statistics to paint all of games."
In fact, the 1990s is filled with exceptions. There's Tetris on the Game Boy, which was popular with both men and women. Tim Schafer's LucasArts adventure games perform well across the board, demographically. Sim City was more popular with women than it was with men. By the end of the 1990s, we already had Bejeweled.
"Maybe our perception of the problem is the problem, rather than there actually being a problem," says Ian Bogost. "We're not looking at diversity in the marketplace. We're looking at where there isn't diversity and we're saying those games are the most valid games."
Bogost explains that certain categories of games are more visible to the mainstream public because of these moral panics because they're the recurring images in the news whenever the media talks about video games. The result is whenever video games come up in conversation, those are the games that people associate with the medium. People forget that other games exist.
That the concept of "girls don't play games" exists even among children in schoolyards today has less to do with the actual numbers of players as much as it has to do with an idea that was heavily circulated from the '90s through television commercials, magazine ads, video game box art and the media.
This is all to say that drawing a direct causal relationship between biological sex and the use of an entire technological medium is incredibly simplistic in and of itself. The use or not of such a medium is overdetermined by so many different inputs (including hormones) that it is negligent to point at some correlation and immediately leap to a conclusion. There is not, by default, some supposedly natural response by such a large subset of humanity to a technological medium.
I'd also like to introduce one more complication into the mix, and I do so willingly acknowledging my own ignorance on the subject: is there, in statistically meaningful surveys, a general consensus that young women after puberty do actually stop playing video games? We can all obviously produce heaps of our own anecdotal evidence on the subject, detailing how our friends lists on XBL, PSN, Steam, etc, consist mostly of males, how none of the young women we knew in middle school and high school talked about video games at the time, etc, but these are, for very blatant reasons, irreparably biased.
The biology argument you prefer works the exact same way. In fact, so much of the social-constructionist argumentation that proliferated through the 80s and 90s was specifically focused on opening space for human freedom or agency (however conceived) against the perceived desire of sociobiologists to naturalize the present political state of affairs and deny the possibility of alternative social formations.
Because videogames tend to be very openly competitive and very action-based, I think it's plausible to assume that videogames as well are inherently less interesting for different genders in different stages of life.
I assumed that games = AAA console/PC games. In fact, as I said before, mobile is where the gender split is most balanced. And I wouldn't be surprised if more recent studies would show that in mobile, teenagers of both genders play pretty much the same things, so it's not like girls stop playing, but maybe they stop playing console games.
But this is part of the problem: it's not realistic to expect the AAA industry to invest AAA money in games targeted at women. The Wii can be seen as a huge, failed, experiment at truly expanding AAA gaming. How many of those non traditional gamers who bought the Wii went from Wii Sports to more complex and deep gaming experiences? Judging from the very low attach rate of the Wii, I'd say not many. Right now, that same audience is on mobile and tablets, spending even less. Even worse, this audience seems to be extremely unpredictable: why did Candy Crush had such a success and thousand of other similar games didn't? Why did Farmville beat all the other similar games? To make things worse, no one seems to be able to retain this audience and make them buy the next product. How can we expect traditional gaming companies to spend marketing money on such a target? The traditional male gamer spends a lot of money on gaming, has no problem buying costly new hardware and is fairly predictable when it comes to taste and preferences. Blaming marketing for not targeting women, when the female audience does not seem to be interested in or interesting for AAA developers, seems ridiculous to me.
And we need to stop dismissing games like Angry Birds, Solitaire, Minesweeper, Candy Crush, as not games. They are games. Own that.
What is that assumption based on? Clearly not on the highest selling video games in the market right now.
What is that assumption based on? Clearly not on the highest selling video games in the market right now.
I don't seem interested in AAA games sometimes, who cares whether they transition to a certain specific type of game that you play? Men and women (of all ages) flock to adventure and puzzle games alike, they just don't have as big an advertising push. I don't play RTSs or simulators which are often the "more complex and deep gameplay experiences". Some of the highest selling games are simple. I don't think anyone should care whether people are moving from simple games to complex games.
Huh? CoD has fairly consistnetly been the best selling game every year for the past few years, and the main reason for its popularity is its multiplayer. The most played game on Steam is Dota 2, which is entirely competitive based. I believe League of Legends is currently the most popular game period in terms of daily players, and it's of course competitive based. If you look at yearly charts you'll usually find two CoD games and multiple sports games. Which of course are all competitive based.
Huh? CoD has fairly consistnetly been the best selling game every year for the past few years, and the main reason for its popularity is its multiplayer. The most played game on Steam is Dota 2, which is entirely competitive based. I believe League of Legends is currently the most popular game period in terms of daily players, and it's of course competitive based. If you look at yearly charts you'll usually find two CoD games and multiple sports games. Which of course are all competitive based.
What about the mobile games?
It means "let us stick with white heterosexual male characters as the implicit default for the sake of it and please don't rock the boat".
Seriously though, it's a ludicrous argument, because of course characters aren't just put into a game or a narrative without any justification or reason - and having people who aren't necessarily white, heterosexual, or male doesn't actually require any further (arbitrary) reason for being in a game, just like white, heterosexual male characters don't need any reason or justification for being in a game.
Did anyone ever think "of course, it could only be a white heterosexual guy that kills zombies in RE4!"?
That Coca Cola Santa thing is a myth. Retelling it doesn't present the author in a good light.
It's funny how no one ever says "this white heterosexual male character is totally shoehorned in, must be trying to fill some quota", eh? Dat privilege, I guess.
It means "let us stick with white heterosexual male characters as the implicit default for the sake of it and please don't rock the boat".
Seriously though, it's a ludicrous argument, because of course characters aren't just put into a game or a narrative without any justification or reason - and having people who aren't necessarily white, heterosexual, or male doesn't actually require any further (arbitrary) reason for being in a game, just like white, heterosexual male characters don't need any reason or justification for being in a game.
Did anyone ever think "of course, it could only be a white heterosexual guy that kills zombies in RE4!"?
Can we get some sources for that statement?