Developer Intent: Worth asking about (warning: Sexism mentioned)

[Savagezion]

I just want to see consumers demand something, not reject something. At least this has some value in it for some consumers. If you pick up Catherine and see (White guys 18-30 ) you can go oh ok. It isn't a huge help, no. But I dig it. Mostly to have consumers push back. Perhaps the idea needs molding because I don't think it would get steam myself, but I am all about consumers talking about pushing back. Just don't get bloodlust and go overboard. WHich is easier said than done. It ain't nothing but channeled mob mentality.

I still don't see it as useful, because pretty much EVERY game would have `White guys 18-30` on it.
And that wouldn't be any indication of whether I'm gonna like it or not.

EDIT: To be honest it just sounds like a nice way of saying `this isn't for you so you shouldn't voice an opinion about it or expect to be heard`.

More than likely there would be a purple stickerthat meant every race and game companies would try to achieve a metacritic score of 80+, and M rating, and a purple sticker. That is how they would design the game, and it so wouldnt deserve a purple sticker. Well, technically it would. Then we all piss a fit about it. Then they ignore us, so we piss a fit again, and we hope we outlast them.

 

[gargantual]

I'm brand spanking new here, but I've always had an eye on gaming news and an ear on what gamers think about it. I've always wanted to bring this topic up but I don't want trouble. Please read the following with this understanding.

Time and time again, sexism and the way women are portrayed comes up and there are strong opinions from many different sides of the argument. I wonder, though, why there's an argument at all. It all comes down to developer intent, right? And all that needs to happen when a game is announced is to ask the creators who their target audience is and if they are looking to diversify their audience away from males ages 13-38. If the answer is no, FINE. We have an understanding and those of us that are not prioritized can adjust our expectations accordingly. If the answer is yes, that's even better. And the next question will be, of course, "How?".

I think most can agree that no one can force a creator to cater to their needs. Twilight was written for young women who were into that sort of thing. There weren't petitions about how the author didn't cater to a male audience because men knew that this book wasn't FOR them (even though they are free to enjoy it if it's their thing). The problem is, when it comes to games, many developers don't flat out state their intended targets and individuals have to assume whether or not a creator takes their demographic into consideration when creating. I feel that, since sexism in games is becoming such a hot topic, this SHOULD be a necessary step. Why is it that we don't just ask ahead of time? Why do we let that area of understanding remain ambiguous and grey and leave those hoping for the best utterly disappointed?

I'd love to hear some thoughts.

I think the industry is not as savvy as it could be with target marketing. Mainly because narrative driven action games, over the years, whose elements were catered to appeal to the male teen to adult demographic were played by all sorts of people with differing tastes, and based on sales numbers the industry felt it never really had to worry about 'political correctness' It wasn't much of an issue really until these past 3 years.

All this splintering in some cases might be genuine, and in others looks like internet opportunism. Because like media criticism of game violence, people see the game industry cow or struggle to weather harsh social criticism from politicians or 'pop culture critics'. They're learning that they have to lobby and stand up for themselves professionally.

Rockstar was in a sour emotional state when congress was taking Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to task over its sex animations (which were really implemented in some german guy's mod 'Hot Coffee), and Hilary Clinton was making public shaming statements in the press.

But I definitely think you're right. Everyone should have their niche and accept that titles will be made with elements that don't cater to them. If creators didn't have the ability to create avatars and worlds attuned to their worldview, but were forced to only design for people outside of their comfort zone, then their works would lack honesty. There are real-world social influencers for sexism, but I believe fiction has a built in disclaimer.

 

[Vudu]

Btw I'm not suggesting there be a rating on the box including color and specific age group the game is meant to appeal to. I just want them to tell us, upon inquiry and BEFORE the game is released, who they are catering to and if they are planning on diversifying (and if so, how). When "Remember Me" was being made, those behind it asked guys if they wanted be a female protagonist and the response was "nah, I want to be a manly man." Why on earth would they ask the guys that question? Of COURSE they would rather play as someone they more closely identify with and want to be. I would rather play as a bald, black, 8 foot Amazonian female. But that doesn't mean I CAN'T play as a gritty white male and still enjoy a game. No one will say that playing as Chel instead of Mel in Portal and Portal 2 totally ruined the experience. As long as the game is good, men can handle playing as whatever they have to. The developers should have has asked female focus groups what they WANTED to see and gone from there IF their intentions were really to include females as a targeted audience. Chances are, guys wouldn't have minded what women chose, even if it wasn't their top choice.

 

[Savagezion]

Btw I'm not suggesting there be a rating on the box including color and specific age group the game is meant to appeal to. I just want them to tell us, upon inquiry and BEFORE the game is released, who they are catering to and if they are planning on diversifying (and if so, how). When "Remember Me" was being made, those behind it asked guys if they wanted be a female protagonist and the response was "nah, I want to be a manly man." Why on earth would they ask the guys that question? Of COURSE they would rather play as someone they more closely identify with and want to be. I would rather play as a bald, black, 8 foot Amazonian female. But that doesn't mean I CAN'T play as a gritty white male and still enjoy a game. No one will say that playing as Chel instead of Mel in Portal and Portal 2 totally ruined the experience. As long as the game is good, men can handle playing as whatever they have to. The developers should have has asked female focus groups what they WANTED to see and gone from there IF their intentions were really to include females as a targeted audience. Chances are, guys wouldn't have minded what women chose, even if it wasn't their top choice.

Yeah it's my bad the sticker thing kinda lead things astray there. LOL, asking guys about Remember Me is pretty funny. They did the same thing with Tomb Raider. I think your last couple lines are gold. However, as a male, I would avoid games I knew where targeted solely at women myself. (Imagine the market diversified) I would own some, and even some on release, but my library would mostly stay on male or m/f games.

 

[Vudu]

Yeah it's my bad the sticker thing kinda lead things astray there. LOL, asking guys about Remember Me is pretty funny. They did the same thing with Tomb Raider. I think your last couple lines are gold. However, as a male, I would avoid games I knew where targeted solely at women myself. (Imagine the market diversified) I would own some, and even some on release, but my library would mostly stay on male or m/f games.

Catering to women doesn't mean making things girly though. I wouldn't touch a girly game. I can't even play JRPG's because I just can't take a warrior is a skirt seriously. Catering to women simply means...hmm coming up with a definition for that is actually tough. I think it ultimately comes down to what someone views as powerful and we have more than enough games that use female sex appeal as power. Catering to someone like me would ultimately just mean giving me a character that I saw as powerful. That may or may not be my own likeness. In Star Wars: TOR (back when I played), I played as a tanky fat asian guy named Phong. In Neverwinter, one of my characters is a white, red headed male halfling guardian fighter named Obrien. It's fun to play as characters that look like me and it's also fun to play as characters that look like the exact opposite of me. I don't need 'girl power' to be thrown in my face whenever I play a game. I just want my powerful character to have variety and creativity. I'm sure you'd buy a game that catered to me

 

[Bombiz]

Well that's it then. Instead of squabbling among ourselves about whether certain content is suitable, we can direct intent directly to the developers and force them to give us a direct answer to a very direct question. How do we force them? we make it a PR disaster if they choose to remain ambiguous. If they keep their answers general, we'd keep our questions more specific with "yes" or "no" being the only response they can choose from. The key seems to be to do all of this BEFORE the game comes out. That way there are no arguments about content and no excuses to be made about it either. This solution just seems so simple, I'm very surprised no one has ever done it before; Pressed for a clear answer on targeted audience.

you wanna explainf this line of thinking a bit more. Cause to me it just seems like your saying "your basicly saying answer my question directly or else i'll end you."

 

[Vudu]

Well that's it then. Instead of squabbling among ourselves about whether certain content is suitable, we can direct intent directly to the developers and force them to give us a direct answer to a very direct question. How do we force them? we make it a PR disaster if they choose to remain ambiguous. If they keep their answers general, we'd keep our questions more specific with "yes" or "no" being the only response they can choose from. The key seems to be to do all of this BEFORE the game comes out. That way there are no arguments about content and no excuses to be made about it either. This solution just seems so simple, I'm very surprised no one has ever done it before; Pressed for a clear answer on targeted audience.

you wanna explainf this line of thinking a bit more. Cause to me it just seems like your saying "your basicly saying answer my question directly or else i'll end you."

I'm saying that major proponents of any product lose major integrity when they answer questions about hot button issues like sexism and racism with ambiguity. Imagine asking a governor if he's for or against laws against domestic violence. If he is, that's great. If he's not, well then at least he can corner his audience. But if he leaves something like that a grey area, he loses all integrity, not winning over either side. All asking the question does is expose intentions. If their answer is direct, that's always good, regardless of the actual answer. if it dawdles in that grey area, then ones integrity will suffer (and so will sales). But no one prompts these guys with the direct questions though. We simply wait and see and either praise or complain about the outcome.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

The thing about any kind of art form (just for reference I will be treating video games as art for this discussion, not just a commodity) is that I refuse to subscribe to any kind of authorial intent. I couldn't honestly care less about what an artist tries to say. What I care about is what the art says on its own. The views behind it, its treatises on characters, its use of visuals, the ideas it tries to convey. Any sufficiently good piece of art should be able to convey these ideas on their own without the artist behind it saying "This is what it means..." Sure they can agree with certain audience interpretations and show support for them. Other times artists end up accidentally making an argument for something completely unintended. Art gives examples of the views of the artist that they didn't always intend. One example of this is, to use your example, Twilight, especially in the second book. While on the surface, Stephanie Meyer is righting self-fulfilling paranormal romances that were a dime a dozen long before her, only for an girls and teens. But if one looks closer you can grasp ideas that Meyer may or may not have intended. Ideas such as abortion is wrong, even when the mother is in mortal danger to the idea that women should make their entire lives about men. I don't claim these interpretations as the "right" ones, but they do help to put focus on the author and her ideas.

Another problem I have is intended audience. Frankly if intended audience was so important, we wouldn't have hits today like Adventure Time and Friendship is Magic. It doesn't take a specific demographic or age to necessarily see a character as well written. A character or story that is written well can find an audience anywhere, if it is allowed to. Movies like Lego Movie and Frozen were intended for kids, though I know plenty of adults who loved it (including me). But when something is poorly written and is meant to appeal exclusively to a single demographic, it often comes off as pandering. This is why the likes of Twilight are regarded with derision, because they are seen as pandering to the baser needs of the target demo. And when there is little thought that goes into this sort of stuff, we can read ideas or themes where there were none to be intended.

That is why people get worked up about sexism in gaming, because it more often shows a lack of forethought into how characters act or dress or whatever. I seriously can't think of any mainstream titles (without reaching) where racism or sexism were the intended ideals, but I can think of plenty where they are unintended consequences of pandering or lack of thought. With every mechanic, with every cutscene, with every plot detail, the developers should be asking "What does this say?" But often these things are often shoved aside, only given the barest amount of thought so as to amuse the audience. While it is all well and good to focus on making the games fun to play, it can't hurt just to engage in some introspection about what the work you are making says about itself or you as the creator, whether it be something profound or something rather innocuous. I would never ask for a work to be changed, but what I want is for the creator to just think about their work and some of its deeper meaning. Otherwise you could end up saying the wrong thing entirely.

 

[Something Amyss]

It all comes down to developer intent, right?

In a perfect vacuum, yes.

The problem is, this is the real world and the real world is messy. People want what they want and it's not limited to the wimminz or the negroes or the homer sexuals wanting to raid the treehouse and whatnot. It's also the straight white brown haired teens who are supposedly the bread and butter. If creative intent is the end-all, then there is almost nothing to discuss in gaming. Of course, eve nthat assumes no publisher interference, no focus groups, no compromises by developers. These things happen all the time, however. It's only when it's done for women/people of colour/gays that it's really widely complained about. Or if EA does it, but EA could cure cancer and the internet would be ablaze with complaints that EA hates doctors.

I think most can agree that no one can force a creator to cater to their needs.

Except publishers, patrons, employers....I think you get the point. I mean, the ideal that creators should freely create is nice, but it belies a world where money is needed and a reality where even the likes of da Vinci and Shakespeare sold themselves. And when you create a product for commercial consumption, that opens a new can of worms.

Twilight was written for young women who were into that sort of thing.

That didn't stop the male audience from BAWWWWWWWWWING about it being the worst thing since the atom bomb. Again, this was seen as okey dokey by the general public, too. When men cry that they're not being catered to, it's no big deal. When women cry that they're not being catered to, it's demanding special privileges. Right now, people are lamenting that one of the biggest movies of 2013 was not made with male audiences in mind and the depths of Hell this will take cinema to. Why, since Catching Fire came out, we've had almost half a dozen major movies released not primarily targeting boys or men.

There weren't petitions about how the author didn't cater to a male audience because men knew that this book wasn't FOR them (even though they are free to enjoy it if it's their thing).

Actually, you can find a bunch of petitions on various topics from making it less of a chick flick to banning it outright. How much is serious and how much is just stupid people on the internet being stupid? I don't know and I don't really care. I looked it up to see if you were right. You're not.

Of course, the other issue at hand here is that Twilight is still a minority. Books "for girls" in the mainstream are considered niche, same with movies. The idea of a blockbuster targeting "not men" is astonishing. If you flipped the roles, you might see more "petitions." In fact, all you need to do is come up with a couple of big (games/movies/whatever) catered to girls to see the boys lose their heads.

I feel that, since sexism in games is becoming such a hot topic, this SHOULD be a necessary step. Why is it that we don't just ask ahead of time? Why do we let that area of understanding remain ambiguous and grey and leave those hoping for the best utterly disappointed?

So, say 80% of devs say they're making games for straight white boys between 13 and 18. Or 90. Or 95. Do you think women, especially women who like games, will just say "oh, okay, fair enough" and move on?

I think you may have missed the major reason this shit comes up.

I'd love to hear some thoughts.

Me too, but my brain scanner is broken.

If almost all books were aimed at women, you would have a point.

If women could have nice things without men throwing a fit, he'd also have a point. Not quite the same point, but a point no less.

I'd even accept it if makle and female responses were met with some sort of parity (even though there's a disparity in media representation). Alas, women talking about this get ridiculed, While men are free to dog on "women's media" and treat the exceptions to the usual "boy's club" rule as the end of literature/film/civilisation. Why? Because we're supposed to care about what men think.

I'm fine with not being catered to.

A shame you pitched an argument in which you indicated the people who are being catered to behave differently. At this point, whether you are fine with being catered to no longer matters. And I'm not even sure where the context came from in this case.

But I judge games on an individual level.

By that logic, if all games excluded you, would you be fine with it because you're judging each game on an individual level?

Well, I suppose at least the honesty from the gaming industry would be refreshing....

 

[Saetha]

To be completely honest here, I don't get the "Why don't games cater to women? why do they always cater to men? I'm a girl gamer and I want a game that caters to ME!" argument either. First of all, if you're a girl gamer who feels pushed out of gaming because there's nothing catering to you, how did you get into gaming in the first place? If the hobby sickens you so much, why did you continue to pursue it, to the point where you've integrated into the community enough that you can point out nothing caters to you?

And secondly, why DOES something need to cater to you, anyway? Video games sure as hell don't cater to me, but I've been playing them since I was little. I've grown up with them. I think they're pretty fantastic, even in their current state, and the big AAA companies aren't exactly falling all over themselves to cater to young white girls - but it doesn't bother me. I can enjoy a game no matter who it's "targeted" at. I can play a grizzled, cliche old soldier in Deus Ex or a cutesy, cartoonish villager in Animal Crossing and not really care if they're male or female or a six-armed space alien. That's what I don't understand. Why are so many women apparently completely unable to accept and enjoy "male-targeted" games - and why I do not share that inability?

So... I mean, in some cases (The hair example you posited, OP) I can understand needing to know who a product is for, but for video games? For any piece of entertainment? It's for whoever can enjoy them. I don't know why people have to make it more complicated than that.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Eh, I get what you are saying. At the end of the day, if the developer came out and said:

"I am making this game for horny teenagers who want to see a hot chick in barley any clothes run around shooting things"

or

"I am making this game for both males and females who enjoy exploration, but the combat wasn't the focus."

or even,

"I am making this game for women, so it's full of girly stuff and pink"

... Just to clarify, I am a guy so I have no damn clue what a girl would want out of a game. I can't comment on that, so I chose to go with joke. Perfect.

Anyway, if every developer said that, then a lot of arguments and such would be settled. Again, to make note, just because the developer makes it for someone does not mean it can only be bought by them (case in point: My Little Pony.) I would prefer this much more to the current state of "WE MUST SPREAD UND BUTTER OVER ALL OF THEIR WALLETS!" It's kind of like kids ad's:

Buy this GI Joe, for awesomely manly boys!
Buy this Beach Barbie, for the coolest popular girls!

If people start to complain that too many games are being made for one category, then why? They are not stopping you from playing the game, and it's their choice to make it. The easiest way to get more categories to open up would be the same way as it is now: buying them. That's why kickstarter actually works, and might I say space games have made something of a massive comeback.

At the end of the day, the industry would be the same, just minus a lot of the lies.

And as a note, people hate Twilight because it's shit. Really, at the end of the day it wasn't the romance etc. that people ragged on about, but more the whole sparkly vampires and so on. People hated MLP because a number of fans would use and reference it non-stop. People also hate Call of Duty, which if isn't geared towards men, I dunno what is.
There's hate all around us. Some people just don't like some things. And that's the way ah huh ah huh it is. I personally can't stand certain animes, but many others love them. Each to their own.

 

[Saetha]

Twilight was written for young women who were into that sort of thing.

That didn't stop the male audience from BAWWWWWWWWWING about it being the worst thing since the atom bomb. Again, this was seen as okey dokey by the general public, too. When men cry that they're not being catered to, it's no big deal. When women cry that they're not being catered to, it's demanding special privileges. Right now, people are lamenting that one of the biggest movies of 2013 was not made with male audiences in mind and the depths of Hell this will take cinema to. Why, since Catching Fire came out, we've had almost half a dozen major movies released not primarily targeting boys or men.

There weren't petitions about how the author didn't cater to a male audience because men knew that this book wasn't FOR them (even though they are free to enjoy it if it's their thing).

Actually, you can find a bunch of petitions on various topics from making it less of a chick flick to banning it outright. How much is serious and how much is just stupid people on the internet being stupid? I don't know and I don't really care. I looked it up to see if you were right. You're not.

Of course, the other issue at hand here is that Twilight is still a minority. Books "for girls" in the mainstream are considered niche, same with movies. The idea of a blockbuster targeting "not men" is astonishing. If you flipped the roles, you might see more "petitions." In fact, all you need to do is come up with a couple of big (games/movies/whatever) catered to girls to see the boys lose their heads.

Okay, umm... so have you ever considered the idea that people disliked Twilight because they genuinely thought it was bad literature? Your implication in the first post is that only men disliked Twilight and that they "bawed about it like it was the worst thing since the atomic bomb." Uh, no, plenty of women thought it was tripe, too. And there's a reason for that. It was tripe.

Secondly, don't you think you might be cherry-picking a little? Hunger Games was generally well-received, and it's "for girls" ostensibly. It's got a female protagonist, at least. But by your logic, it should've been mocked and ridiculed as a "chick flick," yet it was a four-quadrant success.

And thirdly, actually, Twilight's success heralded a massive influx of books aimed at girls. As did the Hunger Games. No really, to the point where I jumped at every book with a guy protagonist because I was sick and tired of Bella and Katniss clones. Seriously, go to your local bookstore, poke around in the YA fiction section, and tell me how many "girl books" you see. Hell, girls actually get their own section of books, really. That's not a luxury afforded to boys. Combine that with the fact that the (admittedly slight) majority of authors are female and... well, actually, I'd say that books, especially books aimed at teenagers and children, blatantly favor women.

As for why less of these books enter the mainstream, well, good luck dictating what does and does not become popular. But that doesn't nullify the fact that they're there.

 

[Chemical Alia]

In art, a work is not judged by the creator's intent. The artist is responsible for communicating his intent effectively. If the intent is misred, that is the fault of the artist for failing to do so.

Subtlety, ambiguity, these are all tools that the artist can use to hold the viewer's interest and raise questions and ideas, and a good artist wields these tools effectively. And a respectable artist won't complain when nobody "got his message" or "got it wrong", and will instead learn from that to improve his visual communication of ideas. The artist can't stand in front of his painting for every viewer and explain what was going on in his head and what it's about, so the work must speak for itself.

I look at video games in pretty much the same way.

 

[Phasmal]

There aren't plenty of triple A mainstream games that cater to women.
And I don't even need to be catered to, I just want to be not actively pushed out.

How are you being "actively pushed out" is anyone slapping the games out of your hands every time you go into a video game store? There is nothing stopping you from purchasing a game apart from you, you know, not buying/wanting it.

How did I know someone was going to quote me being overly literal? Ah, it is the internet.

Yes, there is nothing stopping me from buying a game. Congratulations. Truly we are 100% equal.
There's no backlash against female gamers from a whiny boy's club, developers treat us as just as important as the male audience, and women are not often reduced to crude stereotypes in games.
I also see that pigs have begun to fly.

Now, rather than we get into a silly squabble I'd rather avoid, perhaps we could think that I wasn't being 100% literal.

 

[JimB]

It all comes down to developer intent, right?

No. Intent is impossible to measure, and it can only be inferred from action. I am considerably more interested in outcome than in intent, and there is a very low upper limit to how many points I will award someone for "having his heart in the right place" or whatever homespun defense you want to level. To pick an extreme example, you might not have meant to shoot me in the leg, but nothing about what you intended to do will stop my bleeding, will it?

 

[Maximum Bert]

I really dont get what is being asked here you want games to state their demographic like 13-35 white males with dosposable income. People who dont game very much but sort of know their way around a pad african american men age 35 and a half that sort of thing?

I dont ever see that happening on a global scale some games do it already like some books and films do it may not be written on the box but its marketed heavily towards certain people such as through niche sites that cater to such people. As for the mainstream games they are marketed towards a demograpic as well just more loosely because they want to entice as many others as possible saying its for this group is almost as saying its not for anybody else and shock imagine the horror of being a boy and liking a game thats labeled for girls could your pride take such a bruising (yeah sarcasm).

I dont really see any reason they should state their intended demographic if they dont want to, just describe the game and let the people decide if they fall into the demographic let them say what they enjoy not dictate (if not enforce) what they should be enjoying and digesting. People who buy a lot of games do research before buying for the most part and those that dont buy a lot of games are just going to stick with the few that have been marketed to them well and arent going to be bothered by who or what the majority of games proposed demographics are anyway.

As for saying your demographic is for children well thats asking for trouble theres no quicker way to not sell your product to children of a certain age than by telling them something is for them.

 

[CloudAtlas]

It all comes down to developer intent, right?

As others already said before: Not quite. The outcome matters, not the intent. I don't want to say that intent doesn't matter at all. But have you ever heard a delevoper openly state that, for example, he intended to cater to sexist preferences in his audience? I doubt it. When asked about it, they'll usually evade, deny, plead ignorant or give some lame excuse no matter how questionable the content. How are we supposed to tell how honest such statements are? And how dubious have these statements of intent to become until we don't have to believe them anymore?

We do not owe them the benefit of doubt - they have to earn it. And some developers, like BioWare, did earn this benefit, and as a result you'll find people tend to be much more forgiving about the misteps they make.

 

[Bombiz]

Well that's it then. Instead of squabbling among ourselves about whether certain content is suitable, we can direct intent directly to the developers and force them to give us a direct answer to a very direct question. How do we force them? we make it a PR disaster if they choose to remain ambiguous. If they keep their answers general, we'd keep our questions more specific with "yes" or "no" being the only response they can choose from. The key seems to be to do all of this BEFORE the game comes out. That way there are no arguments about content and no excuses to be made about it either. This solution just seems so simple, I'm very surprised no one has ever done it before; Pressed for a clear answer on targeted audience.

you wanna explainf this line of thinking a bit more. Cause to me it just seems like your saying "your basicly saying answer my question directly or else i'll end you."

I'm saying that major proponents of any product lose major integrity when they answer questions about hot button issues like sexism and racism with ambiguity. Imagine asking a governor if he's for or against laws against domestic violence. If he is, that's great. If he's not, well then at least he can corner his audience. But if he leaves something like that a grey area, he loses all integrity, not winning over either side. All asking the question does is expose intentions. If their answer is direct, that's always good, regardless of the actual answer. if it dawdles in that grey area, then ones integrity will suffer (and so will sales). But no one prompts these guys with the direct questions though. We simply wait and see and either praise or complain about the outcome.

Because game designers have absolute control over right? And being a Game Designer is the exact same thing as being a Governor or Politician right?
if they don't answer the question directly they should be hounded for it. They're not always in control of their product. I also don't see why him not answering that question would automatically make them lose all integrity.

 

[Voltano]

Well, it's true that a game developer (or an author, or a film director) can specify their target audience during creation of a game. However, I think a lot of game developers tend to make "assumptions" about their target audience then trying actually understanding them.

I'm a white male that might be the target audience for these games, but I don't find a lot of the bulk of triple-A games appealing towards me. The target audience is always generalized as a white male who likes guns, slutty women and "Michael Bay" explosions. To me that is a developer trying to make assumptions on my interests (i.e. I like guns), my sexuality (i.e. I like thinking about humping too much) and that I like gasoline being lit up (i.e. explosions). I have some interests related to these, being heterosexual, but I tend to favor high-fantasy settings versus modern settings, and I like playing as a mage character than as a hulking barbarian.

The other problem about "assuming" their players will only like X is that it sends a poor message about Y group. Technically, "Team Ninja" is perfectly fine with making their "Dead Or Alive" games with scantily clad, under-aged, jiggling boobs on a stick -- I mean 'their' women for their game. Certainly a lot of guys might be drawn into it for sex appeal, and some fighter fans might enjoy the series. But it also sends a message that all women wear skimpy outfits or fight in a sexualized manner. This can trigger unethical behavior from X group towards Y group in the form of sexual discrimination, either because group X feels justified because the game states it, or because group X is saying that group Y needs to loosen up. Anyone remember Aris Bakhtanian?

Developers are free to make any game they want to any target audience. That doesn't mean they always have a good idea of what their target audience might like, and might say something that offends another group, or makes a specific group have a wrong perception on another group.