Do you think the Gaming Industries attitudes toward Gender issues are Top down or bottom up

[Orinon]

Sorry for the messy headline, Its a complicated thought.
Simply put I hear a lot of different views and while Its not exclusively gender issues (tiptoe tiptoe) There is a somewhat limited view on game industry as a whole in what constitutes the gaming audience. It's been pointed out a million times, how many girls in games are eye-candy, how many homosexual characters are stereotypes how many white skinned handsome male protagonists?

The biggest Issue I find is a straw-man (simplistic) perception, often if someone brings up that the gaming demographic is mostly male many say it because said males are often sexist and they cite all the anonymous and vocal, and vulgar gamers. There's one issue with this argument it assumes that these Gamers influence all the decisions of publishers. I had this discussion and I tried to argue that its most likely publishers who are demanding that most games pander to a male audience so the industry seems sexist because its being run by business minded old men.

Thing was I got a wall of screams saying that EVERYONE is misogynistic in the gaming culture, That's obviously wrong.

SO the central question is this, Do you feel that the narrow scope is from larger publishers focusing on one demographic (top down), or do you think its an audience demanding only their interests being catered to?

You can of course think its a mixed bag, and you could reason there's more issues at play then mos perceive, the forum is open and I am expecting reasonable discourse trolling bullying is NOT a valid argument.

 

[Phasmal]

It's probably a bit of both, to be honest, but that's not a snappy answer so it often gets overlooked.

Publishers and industry folks are terrified of losing their money, and tend to go the `safe` route with established themes, pandering included.

And gamers are... well, gamers. Pushes towards being more inclusive have a tendency to trigger fearful backlash. I mean, hell, go into any conversation about women who play games on this website and I guarantee you it will take a page (MAYBE two) for them to start talking about casual gamers as if the two are interchangeable. So, if we're still struggling with the idea of core women gamers... yeah... maybe we have issues.

In short, it's a complicated issue we can't pinpoint onto one thing or the other.

Thing was I got a wall of screams saying that EVERYONE is misogynistic in the gaming culture, That's obviously wrong.

Really? From who?

Ok, I've been on the Escapist for years, and I always HEAR about these people who say this, but I've never seen them.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I understand the point you are trying to make here. However, publishers catering to a majority demographic is not an example of "top-down" mentality, it's bottom-up.

The top-down argument is that the game publishers are forcing "misogynistic" games (like GTA V) onto an audience that doesn't want them, when they should instead be forcing feminist or SJW-style games (Gone Home, Depression Quest, etc) onto gamers. Note that these people do not advocate for a change to a bottom-up approach. They don't want the industry to stop forcing games onto the market, they want to make sure the games being forced are the correct ones. The top-down attitude is "people should play what we tell them to play," with the "we" being SJWs and feminists. This argument assumes the audience has no influence and--critically--no taste. We're all just Tabula Rasa blank-slate sheeple who will play whatever is marketed at us.

The bottom-up argument is that games get made because they sell, so you have to make something people want to buy. Companies do research, playtest, market studies, and then make a product and try to sell it. Games that pander to the audience get sequels and copycats, games that don't sell die off and their developers fail. Under this argument, market acceptance is the final arbiter of a game's quality, not critics, journalists, or bloggers. This argument is unacceptable to SJWs because the audience routinely rejects the games they champion while choosing the "wrong" games like GTA V.

Here is a video that illustrates the SJW view perfectly, a "book burning" of GTA V:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51McaZrra7w&list=UU-yewGHQbNFpDrGM0diZOLA

According to the top-down viewpoint, if you change the type of games that get made and marketed, the audience will shift accordingly and there will be these sweeping and dramatic social changes. They see no danger in doing this because they believe the audience is incapable of choosing for themselves.

But with the bottom-up view, changing the type of games that get made would be disastrous. The audience would find their tastes are no longer being satisfied and they would go elsewhere. The companies would die and the industry would collapse. This is why people refer to SJWs as trying to destroy gaming, even if they don't realize they are doing so. Trying to change games into a vehicle for marxist and feminist propaganda would destroy the industry, because the audience will simply leave.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Hey cool it took exactly two posts for this thread to turn into frothy SJW paranoia. Oooh, they're forcing their wicked liberal agenda on us gamers! Look out! Look ooouuuutttt!

Developers and publishers pander to their most established demographic. The argument is whether or not there is a wider audience that could be reached if they weren't so myopically focused on one group.

Also something something SJWs and Feminists are trying to take over the world with their nefarious SISSY RAYS.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Hey cool it took exactly two posts for this thread to turn into frothy SJW paranoia. Oooh, they're forcing their wicked liberal agenda on us gamers! Look out! Look ooouuuutttt!

Developers and publishers pander to their most established demographic. The argument is whether or not there is a wider audience that could be reached if they weren't so myopically focused on one group.

Also something something SJWs and Feminists are trying to take over the world with their nefarious SISSY RAYS.

Ah, the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. Nice. Well, I didn't actually make the claims you stated here, so no harm done.

Watch the video I linked; the guy literally breaks a GTA V disc as a symbolic book burning moment, advocating for the destruction of games he doesn't like. That really speaks for itself.

In any case you are correct when you say the argument comes down to whether or not games would sell more of they weren't so "sexist" or whatever. Yet I think that argument is already settled. GTA 5 has sold over 30 million copies despite it being "horribly sexist and misogynist." I don't think there is a much wider audience than that. It shows the audience doesn't care about what the SJWs say they should care about.

Meanwhile, there is mountains of evidence that says targeting your AAA game towards women results in lower sales. If the mythical wider audience actually existed, eager for social justice propaganda games, then games like Gone Home and Depression Quest would sell gangbusters. But they don't.

 

[Avaholic03]

SO the central question is this, Do you feel that the narrow scope is from larger publishers focusing on one demographic (top down), or do you think its an audience demanding only their interests being catered to?

I'll go with "middle out". Game development is still very much a boys club, especially at the decision-making level. They're just following the rule, "write what you know". They know things from a male perspective. I'm sure it doesn't help that most of the executives are also male, so a male-centric game is appealing to them and more likely to get green-lit. I don't even think it's necessarily a conscious decision to make women feel excluded or objectified.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

How to word this?... We can't buy what's not out there. If publishers never make the games that address these issues somehow, we can't buy them, they'll never make money off them, and they'll never make them, ad infinit.
eventually we'll get somewhat token gambles like AC: Liberation, and AC:whatever that 2.5d game's gunna be called, and Child of Light, and games from Japan who seem to be more open to female leads overall (though generally they're like bayonetta, the cast of Senran kagura, the girls of DoA, and Onichanbarra(sp?) not that I personally have a problem with them.) and a rare western game that gets within a decent reach of AAA, etc. etc.

Before it crops up, and I know it will coz people think it's some magical answer, I'm gunna nip it in the bud. I have zero resources to invest in making my own game, so telling me that in the hopes I shut up is a no go. That and many other strong reasons.

Not that I believe voting with wallets means a damn. If a game's gunna sell well, it'll likely do so regardless of tackling gender issues, I.E. Battlefield, sports games, GTA. Voting with one's wallet won't matter so long as everyone else buying the game can keep it afloat, really.

Point is, I'd like the industry to have these "I don't care as long as it's a good game" people put their money where their mouths are while trying to welcome women into the industry with characters that are female in gender to try, and grow the industry so we do see diversity in characters since women, and men can react differently, as well as the same (like they're generally forced to in gender select games.) and actually support the game in getting word that it exists out there!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Ah, the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. Nice. Well, I didn't actually make the claims you stated here, so no harm done.

Oh. Oh! Are we...are we actually concerned with logical fallacies tonight? I wasn't aware! Okay let's get down to it then!

The top-down argument is that the game publishers are forcing "misogynistic" games (like GTA V) onto an audience that doesn't want them, when they should instead be forcing feminist or SJW-style games (Gone Home, Depression Quest, etc) onto gamers.

Mischaracterization of position, so this is your classic "straw man".

Note that these people do not advocate for a change to a bottom-up approach. They don't want the industry to stop forcing games onto the market, they want to make sure the games being forced are the correct ones.

Straw man again, and your repeated use of the insidious "forced" could be construed as poisoning the well or a subtle ad hominem.

The top-down attitude is "people should play what we tell them to play," with the "we" being SJWs and feminists.

And again, more of the same. Note that absolutely none of these "arguments" are substantiated in any way shape or form. Given this is an internet forum normally that sort of sloppiness is hand waved, but you've made it clear you are very concerned with proper argumentation.

This argument assumes the audience has no influence and--critically--no taste. We're all just Tabula Rasa blank-slate sheeple who will play whatever is marketed at us.

Yes, that straw man that you created and attributed to the group you have self-selected and attached a generalizing pejorative to does indeed suggest that.

PS - Bonus points for non-ironic use of "Sheeple!" Not too many people have the chutzpah to use that word and not feel immediately embarrassed.

The bottom-up argument is that games get made because they sell, so you have to make something people want to buy. Companies do research, playtest, market studies, and then make a product and try to sell it. Games that pander to the audience get sequels and copycats, games that don't sell die off and their developers fail.

Substantiation?

But with the bottom-up view, changing the type of games that get made would be disastrous. The audience would find their tastes are no longer being satisfied and they would go elsewhere. The companies would die and the industry would collapse.

Ah, the first appearance of everyone's favorite, the slippery slope! No fallacious argument is complete without at least one INCREDIBLY slippery slope, and this one is a doozy. Industry collapse, no less!

This is why people refer to SJWs as trying to destroy gaming, even if they don't realize they are doing so. Trying to change games into a vehicle for marxist and feminist propaganda would destroy the industry, because the audience will simply leave.

Marxist! So the Marxists have joined the field alongside the feminists and the SJWs.

Also more slippery slope, more straw man, more poisoning the well, and bonus points for unabashed use of "propaganda".

Watch the video I linked; the guy literally breaks a GTA V disc as a symbolic book burning moment, advocating for the destruction of games he doesn't like. That really speaks for itself.

Cherry Picking, Hasty Generalization, Misleading Vividness...take your pick.

Yet I think that argument is already settled. GTA 5 has sold over 30 million copies despite it being "horribly sexist and misogynist." I don't think there is a much wider audience than that. It shows the audience doesn't care about what the SJWs say they should care about.

Argumentum ad populum, and also Faulty Comparison! Jesus Christ, it's like fallacy bingo in here!

Meanwhile, there is mountains of evidence that says targeting your AAA game towards women results in lower sales.

Appeal to tradition. Also completely unsubstantiated.

If the mythical wider audience actually existed, eager for social justice propaganda games, then games like Gone Home and Depression Quest would sell gangbusters. But they don't.

Faulty comparison again. I might add it is HILARIOUS that those are literally the only two examples you keep coming up with.

Naturally we must keep in mind the good old Fallacy of Fallacies, which is to say just because you put absolutely no effort into substantiating your argument, riddled as it was with fallacious logic and grotesque generalizations, that doesn't mean you're WRONG. Those are your views and you're entitled to them! If you're scared of Marxist propaganda and feminist conspiracies destroying the industry, that is your prerogative.

 

[Fappy]

-Snip-

God dammit, Guppy! It's midnight over here and I am trying to be depressed about my lack of creative motivation when you stroll on in here and make me bust a gut laughing. Seriously, you're going to have to pay my hospital bill. I am holding you liable for this!

 

[Strazdas]

Normally, i would say itis bottom up. after all, your going to release the game that you think will make you profit or your not going to be favored in next investors meeting.

However more and more lately we see publishers telling that we should enjoy bieng raped by their shitty tactics or that we are "playing thier games wrong" which implies that top-down approach exists at least to apoint, even if they fail to do it.

so i think its both. there are publishers that try to push their own thing fans be damned and then there are others that follow the fans and search for largest userbase.

I'll go with "middle out". Game development is still very much a boys club, especially at the decision-making level.

you mean like them:

these are the woman we should follow instead of some loudmoths on twitter.

 

[Dizchu]

Hey cool it took exactly two posts for this thread to turn into frothy SJW paranoia. Oooh, they're forcing their wicked liberal agenda on us gamers! Look out! Look ooouuuutttt!

Also something something SJWs and Feminists are trying to take over the world with their nefarious SISSY RAYS.

I think your supply of straw is running dry.

Meanwhile, there is mountains of evidence that says targeting your AAA game towards women results in lower sales. If the mythical wider audience actually existed, eager for social justice propaganda games, then games like Gone Home and Depression Quest would sell gangbusters. But they don't.

And so is yours.

Nobody wants "social justice propaganda games". What the hell is "social justice propaganda"? Look I hate SJW types as much as anyone but Gone Home is not an example of an "SJW game".

"Hurr hurr Gone Home isn't a game, you can beat it in 20 seconds". Gone Home is one of the humblest and least pretentious games I've ever played. Something tells me that its lack of pretension is seen as "pretentious" because the mundanity of the game is novel and at odds with the fantastical settings of most other games.

Depression Quest and its creator aren't comparable. Gone Home's designer worked on the DLC for Bioshock 2. Level design I believe. He and his team have legitimate talent and passion for game design. Depression Quest and Literally Who are the result of nepotism, attention-seeking and controversy.

Most people don't like games like Gone Home, I agree. But I think it's because it is unconventional not because it "panders to SJWs". Games like GTA and Call of Duty have wider appeal, but there's still room on the market for games like Gone Home and (ughghhh) Depression Quest.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think your supply of straw is running dry.

I will always have enough straw on hand to hold up a mirror to posts like the one I was poking fun at.

Gone Home is one of the humblest and least pretentious games I've ever played.

Gone Home has lesbians in it, and Grampy needed at least TWO examples of "social justice" games in order to constitute his hypothetical deluge, so that was enough to qualify it I guess.

these are the woman we should follow instead of some loudmoths on twitter.

According to the third annual Game Developer Census by Game Developer Research, which covers North American game companies, the games industry employed 44,806 people in 2009.

I count 24 women in the photo helpfully entitled Actual women in the Videogame industry. I'm guessing any not accounted for by this picture can be reasonably assumed to be Fake women.

I'm not good at maths, can someone good at maths tell me what percentage that works out to?

Also, who are the loud moths on twitter of whom you speak? I've never heard from a moth before and I'd actually be really interested in their input on the subject.

 

[Dizchu]

Gone Home has lesbians in it, and Grampy needed at least TWO examples of "social justice" games in order to constitute his hypothetical deluge, so that was enough to qualify it I guess.

I never understood why people that hate Gone Home think that journalists gave the game good reviews solely because it had an LGBT theme. I think many journalists overrated the game but because there were lesbians? Please.

I count 24 women in the photo helpfully entitled Actual women in the Videogame industry. I'm guessing any not accounted for by this picture can be reasonably assumed to be Fake women.

In defence of that person's point, I doubt laypeople will be able to name 24 designers of any gender. The 24 women in that picture have had key roles in making some of the most beloved games of the last few years. Do you want a comprehensive list of every female designer?

 

[kilenem]

I think there is a problem with gender and race reputation in Video gaming but I that some games don't get proper respect from gaming journalist for doing things correct. Also some games don't get in trouble for being racilly incentive. I say racially incentive instead of racist because sometimes when a character is based off of stereotypes its not based off of hate but based of things people see in the media.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

In defence of that person's point, I doubt laypeople will be able to name 24 designers of any gender. The 24 women in that picture have had key roles in making some of the most beloved games of the last few years. Do you want a comprehensive list of every female designer?

Nahhhh, I just find that picture funny. Particularly as it's frequently thrown up as either a rebuttal to the argument that the industry is still overly male-centric, or as a demonstration that gamers revere "good" female developers as license to continue heaping shit on the ones they disapprove of. You'll notice there's no Hepler in that list, despite the fact everyone and their dog knew her by name when that picture first started making the rounds.

PS - I liked Gone Home too, for much the same reasons as yourself, although I thought the game was woefully over-priced and deceptively marketed.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Maybe,

As long as they keep making games that I like I don't give a fuck.

 

[Bombiz]

Thing was I got a wall of screams saying that EVERYONE is misogynistic in the gaming culture, That's obviously wrong.

Really? From who?

Ok, I've been on the Escapist for years, and I always HEAR about these people who say this, but I've never seen them.

these are the woman we should follow instead of some loudmoths on twitter.

Also, who are the loud moths on twitter of whom you speak? I've never heard from a moth before and I'd actually be really interested in their input on the subject.

From me own personal experience these type of people only exist on tumblr. The 2 main examples of this that I can think of is one 18 year old pansexual ( according to their profile info) who actively made fun of and stated their hatred for cisgendred people. and another who I think was a 12 year old (at least what I gathered from their posts it sounded like they where 12) who made posts such as "lol i hope you die if your cisgendered" and " if your cisgendered unfollow"

these people for me usually are no different then the people who say Gay people aren't people and refer to the Iraq war as "The Great Crusade"

 

[BloatedGuppy]

these are the woman we should follow instead of some loudmoths on twitter.

Also, who are the loud moths on twitter of whom you speak? I've never heard from a moth before and I'd actually be really interested in their input on the subject.

From me own personal experience...

Sir you are taking all the joy out of pointing out an amusing typo.

 

[Phasmal]

From me own personal experience these type of people only exist on tumblr. The 2 main examples of this that I can think of is one 18 year old pansexual ( according to their profile info) who actively made fun of and stated their hatred for cisgendred people. and another who I think was a 12 year old (at least what I gathered from their posts it sounded like they where 12) who made posts such as "lol i hope you die if your cisgendered" and " if your cisgendered unfollow"

these people for me usually are no different then the people who say Gay people aren't people and refer to the Iraq war as "The Great Crusade"

So... like, nutters that you have to go looking for? Okay. Not really a problem then.

And I LIKE tumblr, where else am I supposed to drool over pictures of my favourite celebrities?
Moving swiftly onwards, I'm disappointed, I thought this thread had some potential and tried to respond reasonably but people seem to just want to use it for their old grudges.