Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

[Pyrian]

So what do you guys think? Is there endemic sexism within the game industry and feminists complaints are valid, or is it a storm in a tea cup?

I think they should get their say. I agree with some of it, disagree with other parts - heck, various feminists disagree with each other all the time. That's okay. That's good. It's good that there's a dialog, and that some things that otherwise wouldn't be examined, get examined.

I think a lot of people could stand to be more civil about it - to put it mildly. Personal threats of any kind are not an acceptable medium of debate, or any other kind of acceptable, really. But I also think there's a lot of other, milder incivility that frankly contributes to the attitudes that promote such behavior. I think that when we villainize people for having differing opinions, we encourage less restrained individuals to take it further.

I'm not saying that media critics should have veto power, or even any right to be paid attention to. But they absolutely should get to have their say. (And without threats, harassment, or other abuse.) And that's for the best, even if we don't always (or even often) agree.

 

[Timpossible]

As long there are people who use phrases like "our hobby" like in "not theirs": Nope. They should stay were they are and criticize the fuck out of games, gaming and gamers. Because such phrases show that "we" have still a lot of growing up to do. Can we please stop acting like Gaming is some sort of country club. Enjoy that people actually care enough about games that they actually think about them.

Look, here's the thing: The state of some parts of the gaming community (the usual portrayal of women) right now is like bad breath. It sucks to have, but it's kind of difficult to smell it yourself. So if I did have it, I would actually be glad if someone would point it out to me, so i had a chance to fix it.

And that awesome guy said pretty much everything that needs to be said.



And on another topic of TLOU/Ellie:
Yeah. To be honest: There are much deeper charakters in other Media. But she's written good enough to actually be called a charakter. To have some actual meaning for the player aside from cold gameplay.
I agree: Games still have a lot to learn. But hell: Games exist since around 40 years. As a Media to tell a story even less. Movies are around for far over a 100 years. Give Games some time and acknowledge the steps they take.

 

[Don Incognito]

All politics need to step off our hobby.

Let the content creators have full creative control of their content.

If you don't like female characters in sexy outfits or don't like repetitive male protagonists, don't buy the game. Let the sales speak for themselves if people want something different. If these games sell well, then people obviously want to play these games, don't tell them what they should or should not like.

You can't claim video games are art, and then try to censor it. Take your politics elsewhere.

Critique is not the same thing as censorship. Every art form has had been analyzed and picked apart by people. Games have gotten by with not getting these kinds of criticisms because no one regarded them as worthy of those criticisms. Real world issues are discussed in films all the time, why should games be different? Films did not evolve through box office hits, much of film evolved by creative people having discussions and taking risks. Rashomon did not do well at the box office but it's still an important movie, and we know this now because people talked about it. If games are indeed art then you can't deny them the right to be criticized.

There is a difference between criticism and censorship. Saying you don't like something is criticism, telling someone they can't put something in a game is censorship.

The only people who can censor games is the government. So maybe everyone should stop throwing around that word.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Every major art form has feminist critique. Admittedly it tends to be more refined then the younger gaming movement (to use your Lord of Flies example; it's less "Golding should have included more female characters" and more "How would the story be different if there were female characters"). But it still exists. This isn't a case of some hyper-radical fringe group specifically targeting "our vidya games" it's pretty much what every medium goes through as part of growing pains.

Hell, the video games feminist movement is pretty tame tbh. There are radicals yeah, but most of the controversial figureheads are at worst more misinformed then extremist. It's also improving, I found the newer TvW to be less misinformed then some of the earlier ones, and in general is better put together then the messier early instalments.

 

[Gatx]

I'm very reactionary and defensive when it comes to gaming controversies in that I'll typically side with gamers as the default until I learn more about the context, and even then I tend to be more sympathetic to the pro-gamer side of things.

But no, feminists most certainly do NOT need to "step off our hobby." If we want games to be accepted we have to accept criticism from multiple angles. Books and movies can be analyzed with a focus on gender portrayal so games shouldn't be any different.

At the same time I would expect anyone attempting such to be knowledgeable about games and not just talking out of their ass or something.

 

[Netrigan]

First, warning, I am a woman, but I am not a feminist. However, I have friends that are and I do read some blogs written by them, and I do like to read up on some of the girl gaming sites to get different perspectives.

So I went to go look up Bioshock Infinite getting bad reviews, and The Last of Us bad reviews for the sexist angle by feminists because I hadn't heard of that much backlash. Well, none on the BI, and only some of Last of Us. It was kind of like my surprise over people saying feminists were in a frenzy over Saints Row IV, I hadn't heard that either. I was expecting something huge, I mean, the way you're speaking I was expecting some sort of huge movement in the gaming industry where women were speaking out against Elizabeth and Ellie.

For the most part all I saw was general irritation that we couldn't play as either person. And most did say "the story may have not fit the narrative, yes, but come on, you got a great female character right there, and we still can't play as her? Why are you teasing us this way?"

Most women that have issues in the gaming industry is just the fact that sometimes they'd like to have some narrative from a different perspective. We're not trying to "take over your hobby" since we need to possibly step off it. There's nothing wrong with creating some new story lines. Why not have Nintendo do a Mario story where Peach is the main character going out to save Mario? Hell, at least it would shake up the franchise a bit.

From a writers perspective, it's lazy story telling. They fall back on the same tropes over and over again, and that's where it comes down to. Yeah, of course you can have it be another dead female prostitute in LA Noire, but wouldn't it have been kind of interesting to find a male prostitute dead? For that time period, think of the story that might have set off. Think about all the twists and turns you could have had with that.

It's not only sexism, it's being lazy and complacent because people will still buy the games. Hell, I still buy the games. But I have to say, it would have been kind of fun to see what kind of trouble I could have gotten into playing as Elizabeth instead of just Booker.

This is pretty much my experience. There's some low-level griping, but people complain about changes to the Halo pistol so I can't say it's some over-whelming thing.

When we get to actual feminist criticism of games. Well, for every feminist putting together a video or article or blog entry, we seem to get at least 10 guys complaining about feminists complaining about video games. I don't really recall seeing any thread here dedicated to criticizing games on feminist grounds, but I see about five a week from the Anti-Feminist Social Justice Warriors who want these women folk to stop saying things they don't like.

Sure, there's criticisms of the Clone Army in Assassin's Creed: Unity, but this is gamers bitching about gamer matters, not a Feminist assault on the industry. It's not any different from threads about lack of co-op when co-op was promised or Day One DLC or any of the other gaming issues which are constantly being discussed. Gamers have never needed feminists to complain about the size of boobs or Combat G-Strings... plenty of men find that stuff tacky.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

If only people would realize the simple laws of how consumers and products work:

#1 Does it make money?
#2 Is it legal?
#3 Is it a completely optional purchase?
#4 Is it safe i.e. doesn't cause any direct harm to anyone?

As long as "yes" is the answer to all 4 of the above, the product will continue being produced for the foreseeable future (#1 being key) regardless of what anyone says or does.

...they would quickly realize that feminists are completely harmless. They aren't going to take anything away.

Also within the feminist itself you will find a shit-load of opposing and conflicting views, so can people please stop referring to "feminists" as some kind of united army that is invading? They are a vocal minority. A very tiny minority. Treat them as such.

 

[Erttheking]

I always love this idea that games have somehow made it to the point where they rival other media in terms of storytelling and character. They can do things other media can't, but as far as character and writing go, they rarely reach dime novel/C movie status. TLOU may be the greatest game of all time[footnote]Never played it, I'm just offering this as a hypothetical based on the way people treat it[/footnote] but that doesn't make it significantly great compared to other media.
.

I think they can...depending on where you set the bar...Games might not compare to what we consider "high brow" but I think they hold their weight with the middle of the road stuff...not all of them, but the odd one.

then youre getting into the complicated area of "should games want to be like movies? or should they play tot he strength of their medium" I admit I'm pretty biased in this, because I like to write myself

and when it comes to stories, players are assholes and ruin everything, you can't drag them by the collar to pay attention (and nor should you really) so for me its hard to imagine a story that makes allowances for the ADD sociopaths we call "players"

that's why I don't see Red deads cutscenes as any "better" than Half life 2's "cutscenens without a camera" its all the same to me, or even worse your just sitting there watching sprites talk to each other...and text/audiologs have their limits

Yeah, I feel conflicted on the whole quality of writing in video games thing. I have no doubt that on average other mediums blow gaming out of the water, but I balk at the idea that the best written game is on par with a C rank movie. I mean come on, we have Persona 4. There are some games out there with really damn good writing. Fallout New Vegas, Planescape Torment, and as I said, Persona 4. There are plenty of really well written games out there. On average they suck, but there are gems in the rough.

 

[Something Amyss]

People are CONSTANTLY complaining whenever the main protagonist is a man.

Yup, if by "constantly" you mean "largely only on a few token major releases." As you get away from individual cases, the number of complaints drops off sharply, almost cliff-like. Of course, that belies the issue that the main reason there's a complaint isn't that every game must, but that so few games do. The rest wasn't hyperbole, it was an outright strawman.

No, I'm probably more of a humanist, but because it doesn't come up much in the threads, you know with Anita and Zoe slowly controlling the gaming community and putting in all the mind altering chips... sorry, I spoke too soon... it never really comes up.

That at best is adopting a different label describing the same behaviour. However, in practice both "humanists" and "egalitarians" tend to adopt their own pet groups, so that is the best case scenario. It's the equivalent of not believing in God but calling yourself an agnostic (instead of an atheist). I mean, you're free to label yourself what you want, but you are by all appearance virtually indistinguishable from the people you're trying to distinguish yourself from.

Back when I was in the states, I ran a big campaign to get out awareness for domestic abuse for men, as that's very under funded and often treated with triviality.

Something itself which is overplayed in severity based on some pretty doctored studies (for example, equating a slap to the face with hospitalising someone...because equal rights means everything ever is equal inseverity1!!!!!!!!!), but yes. An issue that can readily be addressed by, you know, a world where women aren't viewed as frail and delicate things. Still not seeing the difference....

I do believe in fixing the wage gap, but I also believe that that also entails looking at all the socio economic situations, not just women. African Americans, Hispanics, the under privileged white minority who lack education because they often come from rural areas and are unable to get access to scholarships and what not.

Feminists haven't been solely concerned with white middle class women since the early 70s, so....

Yeah, I'm still not seeing the distinction. It's like saying "I oppose slavery, but I'm not an abolitionist."

At any rate, when it comes to story telling, I think it would be fun just to get more narratives. The game I'm currently working on (badly), has a female protagonist. And I already know I'm going to end up facing some flak and be called sexist because it's a stealth survival game, and I'm not allowing combat. I can hear it now, why can't she fight? Is she too weak to fight? Well, no. They have armour and guns. She has a rock. She's too smart to fight.

I often hear imaginary criticism, too. The important thing is not to be ruled by things people aren't even saying. Maybe cross the bridge of criticism when you come to it.

The point is, it doesn't have to be just women.

But who said anything to the contrary? Who specifically said "it has to be just women?" Even She Who Must Not Be Named brushed upon racism. It isn't the focus of her videos, but she acknowledges it and is not in favour of it. Hell, most of the "feminists" being complained about are the so-called "social justice warriors," who according to the strawman arguments fight for literally everyone who isn't a cisthet white male.

I mean, maybe I too am rambling, but here's the thing: if you bring up general diversity, people dismiss it as not specific enough. If you get specific, people dismiss it for favouring a particular group or agenda. Both are excuses for "we don't want to deal with you." Women come up specifically in gaming so often because more and more women are involved in gaming, and the numbers are going up across virtually every part of the market. Christ, I offended someone a week or so ago by simply saying I thought there was room for everyone at the table. Everyone and/or anyone who wants to be involved. I address women most commonly because of the demographic size, but you will see me in threads on minority characters and LGBT characters as well. I've never particularly cared about child characters, but if that's something you want to talk about, that's fine, too. I'm not out to stop anyone.

Again, women get a lot of attention because they're roughly half the population, resent half the potential market, and are seeing significant growth even in non-casual/social markets (despite the immediate write-off). It's not because they're the only people we care about or the only market of consequence.

The last thing I'd note is it doesn't really matter how you frame the issue we're talking about something people want ti dismiss, don't want to deal with, or don't like. The latter seems weird, but there really are some people who seem very offended at the notion of ANYONE outside of the norm being a protagonist. If you change the term to "humanist," or "egalitarian," those terms will become problematic trigger words, too. Just like agnostic has started to do in the religion debate, or like "Democrat," "liberal" and "progressive" have.

Not only doesn't it change things, it sends the wrong message.

 

[mhb77]

Couple of quick thoughts on creative control and "censorship". While this is mostly about games it can apply to a lot of stuff.

1. Developers for AAA games don't actually have total creative control over their projects. The budgets for those games are so big that marketing will always get heavily involved. This is why there are about 10,000 protagonists that are white dudes with shaved heads. They don't look like that because 10,000 creatives all had essentially the same artistic vision, it's because some suits did focus groups of the "target demographic" and they all liked the angry shaved head guy. When developers try to move away from "safe" decisions about main character design they get push back from publishers (see Remember Me).

When people complain about the lack of diverse main characters it's not to interfere with the developers control of a project. It's to try to make it apparent to the suits that there are people who are willing to buy games with diverse main characters, so that hopefully when a developer wants to make a game with a diverse protagonist the suits won't try to interfere with the developers.

2. Criticism is not censorship. There is not much more to this, but 90% of the internet doesn't seem to get it. All that criticism does is contribute to the flow of ideas surrounding games, it can in no way force change. If you want "feminists to step off our hobby" or if you actively go out of your way to try to harass people out of the industry than you are in favor of restricting the free flow of ideas around games. That is much closer to censorship than a critique is and it definitely is bad for games.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I think that's a big assumption to make regarding the identity of people posing such a question. But at any rate, it's about allowing people the creative decision to use characters that suit the story. I for one really enjoyed Gone Home, so it's not like I am against interesting female characters in games or anything.

Sorry if it sounded like I was being overly aggressive. It's just that it is so hard to take the question seriously when it is normally coming from a group that is already pleased about gender representation, as the question needs to be answered by those who aren't.

Also, I wasn't trying to say that you were against good female characters. But it is sort of a situation where if it doesn't bother you that much that there are good female characters and it means a lot to certain people to have better female characters, then what is the point in fighting against it?

At any rate, games aren't democratic or utilitarian. The best work is always done when the creator makes what they want to make. Game design by focus group is creative suicide.

Having the freedom to make the game that you want doesn't remove you from criticism from people. No one's removing creative freedom here. We're voicing our opinion and, in some extreme cases, just not buying the game. We're perfectly within our rights to do that just as much as the developer is in their rights to make the games that they want.

I did ask/read, my point wasn't that I was ignorant of the arguments but that they all seemed like bullshit because the characters (as far as I could see) reflected pretty much every change that they had claimed to want.

The funny thing about these issues is that often times you either can't address everything at once or you realize new things as they come up.

It's also possible that people do appreciate the advancement but also have problems with other things. For instance, someone may love the way Elizabeth was presented in the narrative of BioShock Infinite, but they may have a problem that the gameplay often reduced her to a talkative vending machine that simply served the male protagonist. Sure, the narrative is very progressive in terms of female representation, but compared to games like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the relationship between the male and female leads in the gameplay isn't handled nearly as well. Now, I haven't personally read any serious feminist critiques of BioShock Infinite (just joke ones), so I'm not sure if that analysis is one that's ever come up, but at least it's one way in which you can find good and bad.

As a result, I wouldn't really assume that the game did everything they wanted just because it checked a few of the more notable boxes. Also, I wouldn't assume that anyone is saying the game is all bad, just flawed in some areas.

And does more female characters in games really fall under the heading of "better treatment of women"? This seems like a false equivalency to me.

I sort of lump the two together. While they aren't entirely the same, "more female characters" and "better presented female characters" often go hand-in-hand in this discussion. Keep in mind, the discussion isn't just "we want more female characters," it is also "we want these female characters to be better written and represented."

What I am saying is that it is meaningless to criticise an individual game for not representing a particular group in its characters. Sure, we can discuss the lesser amount of female main characters in games AS A WHOLE and say that we want more of them (this isn't even something I disagree with, by the way), but it is a complete non-argument to say that a game like God Of War for example SHOULD have more female characters, that they should be tougher or even that Kratos himself should be a woman, etc. God Of War is what it is because it's what the developers wanted it to be, love it or hate it. If developers make games based on tickbox criteria, they end up being insipid, lifeless things devoid of any energy, because the best art always happens when people make what they want to make. Sure a lot of what people make is shit, but they need the freedom to explore what they want to explore to have any chance of striking gold.

The problem is that you can't really look at the industry as a whole without focusing on specific games since those games all contribute to the overarching problem. Sure, if there wasn't an overarching problem, then games like God of War or Grand Theft Auto may not receive as much criticism, but when they are two of the most well-known franchises in the industry, you can't really have a discussion about female representation without bringing up the problems that those games have.

I get what you're saying, but saying that someone is not "trying" to be sexist but is nevertheless sexist anyway is not much comfort. I generally don't put any stock in Sarkeesian's views on this...and while I would like to see more interesting female characters in games, I don't think it's sexist that there aren't as many right now. But that's just my opinion, and I welcome others.

I'm not really trying to say that these people are sexist, just that otherwise great people can have wrong ideas. The thing is, we all live in a society where women aren't politically, culturally, or economically equal to men, and no one, regardless of gender and political leanings, can grow up in that kind of culture and not pick up on some of the gender stereotypes that exist. The point of having the discussion isn't to say, "You're sexist and you need to stop being sexist." I'd imagine a true sexist wouldn't really care for that. The fact that feminists are trying to have a discussion is a sign that they at least respect the developers as rational people that just need to be alerted to ways of analyzing their world views that society just doesn't really present them with.

The fact that some of the stereotypes inevitably show themselves in the games that are made makes talking about the games a good starting point for the discussion. It is not, however, an attempt to start accusing people of being sexists and misogynists. It is about getting people to question stereotypes that they probably didn't even realize that they had. But having them doesn't make them a sexist. It makes them like all of us: People that are trying to navigate a culture that throws many ideas, some of them good and some of them bad, at us.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

I am a feminist (I firmly believe women are people) and I am a gamer (I play lots of video games--mainly RPGs, action, and strategy--and tabletop RPGs and board games). Gaming is "my" hobby, as much as it is yours. "You," whoever you think, "you" are, don't own the hobby. The "invasion" as I guess, unfortunately, some folks see it, has already happened. Women, men, intersex and genderqueer persons, white people, persons of color, LGBTQS persons -- people of all these demographics play gamers. We are all gamers. I am what a gamer looks like. "You" may be too. So may anyone else.

But I'm not going to "step off" OUR (yours and mine) hobby because it is in fact my hobby. And I will let developers, politely and civilly, what I am looking for in a game.

I will defend people's rights to express what they want to see in a game, whether I personally agree with their desires or not, as long as folks express their desires civilly, without hateful speech toward other human beings. I will defend anyone's right to do so safely without threat of bullying or harrassment. There are people being frightened out of their hopes for fear of their family's safety right now, and that's terrible -- that's not what discussions of video games should result in, and that means everyone truly pushing for good treatment of other people, whoever they are, need to stick around and speak up. The only people I want to step off of MY hobby are the people who cannot discuss said hobby without resorting to threats, bullying, namecalling, and verbal assault, whether they label themselves "feminist" or "MRA" or "George" or what-have-you. I'll add that as a feminist, I am very distressed when other self-labeled feminists say hateful or hurtful things as much as when it comes from anyone else. Feminists like any other group aren't some big scary hivemind all with the same ideas--we all are individuals who take different approaches to things, some perhaps more effective or agreeable than others. In the end, I personally believe all people should just treat each other decently. If someone is incapable of that regardless of what "side" they're on, then they're out.

And I do not see constructive, civil, criticism of gaming as the same thing as hating gaming or gamers. And even if I criticize a game or an aspect of a game industry, that does NOT mean I think that game in its entirety is bad, the industry in its entirety is bad, or that people who plays games are bad people. I do not, for example, think that just because some poorly characterized females exist in games (and they do) that all gamers hate women or are trying to hurt them. And I think few people from my point of view (female, feminist) believe that. Pointing out where I think there is poor characterization or what have you (whether about women or not) isn't about me saying GAMERS BAD. Not at all (especially because I'd be condemning myself). It's just about what I think about that one aspect, to take home about what I might seek out in a game in the future. Same goes for anyone else.

We often critique, both positively and negatively, the people and things that we love. For example, when I was a child, my parents have sometimes criticized or tried to correct some poor behavior they thought I had; sometimes they were ham-handed about it and sometimes they did it effectively; sometimes what they wanted to see me change was a good thing for me to change (I needed to speak with better manners), and other times it was irrelevant (they hated that I wore torn jeans for awhile), but all of that criticism was out of love and wanting me to do better, and I acknowledge that. A true friend or family member will tell you when you're wrong. I will be a true friend to the hobby I love and let the industry know when I think they've got it wrong. They will or won't listen to me, and that's alright whatever they do--they have to figure out what feedback's important and what's irrelevant. But if I offer any criticism, it's out of the fact that I enjoy the hobby and only want to see it get better. It doesn't mean that I want games to change tremendously or for everyone to feel welcome. And if you disagree with what I want to see changed -- that's alright, as long as you're polite and civil in your disagreement. That can only spawn good and helpful discussions.

And if someone tries to scare me away from my hobby that I love because for some reason they decide I don't belong here? That's only going to strengthen my resolve to stick around.

As it is, I won't "step off." I will continue to stand beside you as a fellow gamer, and be proud of who I am and of OUR hobby that you and I and all people here share together (warts and all). So I hope you get used to me and other feminist gamers being here, because we are not going anywhere. Now let's go have some fun and play games.

/thread

No, really, /thread. I'm sick to death of dumbasses acting like the "evil feminists" are "coming to take our games away". Jim, Bob, everyone who has a brain has already pointed this out.

 

[Ichiro Oogami]

Here's why I think the reaction to feminist critiques of games is so vociferous:

1) Fear that feminist critique will lead to a climate of repression. As MysticSlayer pointed out, feminists critique video games to "(get) people to question stereotypes that they probably didn't even realize that they had" in an attempt to create change. A developer would then go "maybe we shouldn't put X in; it could be sexist or exclusionary." But if such a sentiment becomes widespread, "Maybe we shouldn't put X in" becomes "You must not even suggest X or you're fired. We denounce such bigotry!" Conservatives who work in Hollywood often have to hide their conservatism if they want to keep getting work; only the big names can afford to be open about it. Universities often have "speech codes" that harshly punish non-politically correct speech. Several people have been fired for saying things on Twitter that weren't PC, even if they weren't insulting.

This sort of oppressive climate is no different from a law against non-PC speech. They don't want creatives having to fear for their jobs just because they made, or spoke in favor of, a game that doesn't put a check mark in all the diversity boxes. They don't want it so that someone who makes such a game is considered a bigot who needs to be run out on a rail. The unspoken assumption behind "X trope/game/what-have-you is sexist" is that it should not be made because it somehow promotes hate or bigotry.

2) Racialized insults. Oftentimes, I see the term straight white male thrown around like a slur. These, along with the "dudebros," are supposed to be the "bad" guys of gaming that must be defeated if there is ever to be true inclusion. To the types that use this meme, only the Evil White Male is holding back the inevitable progress of gaming with his degenerate, rapacious ways. Advancing the medium, therefore, means not catering to their tastes, which are inherently seen as disordered or sickening by the SJW types.

Naturally, people don't like being cursed for their race or their sex, so they respond quite angrily. To add insult to injury, those who proclaim the inherent evil of straight white males often pride themselves on their anti-racism...while being racially hostile. It's an inherently hypocritical position to take, and the complainers know it.

/-/-/

That's how I see this matter, anyway.

 

[McMarbles]

What matters is whether or not this is going to start affecting the quality of the games we get in future.

Out of curiosity: Is this wondering if games will get better for everyone or get better only for you. I'm not trying to call you out as an egotist, but more often than not when I hear this "will games get better" question in these discussions, it almost always comes from the perspective of an individual who, more often than not, is a man who isn't a feminist and, as a result, probably doesn't understand how the changes being called for would make games more enjoyable for a very large group of people.

I think that's a big assumption to make regarding the identity of people posing such a question. But at any rate, it's about allowing people the creative decision to use characters that suit the story. I for one really enjoyed Gone Home, so it's not like I am against interesting female characters in games or anything.

At any rate, games aren't democratic or utilitarian. The best work is always done when the creator makes what they want to make. Game design by focus group is creative suicide.

I don't think we have to worry about the AAA-industry suddenly switching to game design by focus group.

Because that's what they're already doing.

The thing is, their focus group consists entirely of the people already buying their games. And that just isn't healthy.

 

[carnex]

I don't think we have to worry about the AAA-industry suddenly switching to game design by focus group.

Because that's what they're already doing.

The thing is, their focus group consists entirely of the people already buying their games. And that just isn't healthy.

Nope, they try different things from time to time. It just didn't pay off so far, that's the problem. When a game with different mechanics or different something else hits the gold, everyone rushes in. Indies and AAA publishers. I just didn't happen yet. And to be honest they don't try all that hard or often but when average AAA game spends more than 100.000.000 USD on development and marketing combined I can see why they are not all that adventurous.