Poll: Female gamers like to shop, play support roles, says developer

[razelas]

You do realize pink was not always considered the "feminine" color? [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html?c=y&page=1] This gender-color nonsense started back in the early 20th century.

Associating color with gender is a social construct, i.e. not based on biology or the physical world.

Totally agree with you; was hoping to make a joke about gender stereotypes.

P.S Fun fact take a baby wrap it in pink and people look at the baby and say,"She's so cute and she'll become a heart breaker" But if you take that same baby and put it in blue then you hear, "What a strong grip he has and he's going to play football for sure"

Though if you want to go deeper you could say that anything dominate is considered masculine and anything submissive is considered feminine on the sliding gender scale. This is why I still think colors, and clothing is nature as well as nurture as every human society in history has had a gender(or group) that was considered more dominant and one that is more submissive.

Good to see we're staying on topic.

Her point flew over my head.

*whoosh*

And yes, we still are on topic, since we are talking about social constructs based on sexism.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

P.S Fun fact take a baby wrap it in pink and people look at the baby and say,"She's so cute and she'll become a heart breaker" But if you take that same baby and put it in blue then you hear, "What a strong grip he has and he's going to play football for sure"

Heh. My usual response to either boy or girl babies is to call them cute. Or, if they're unusually alert, to comment on that.

Also, on the subject of Russian and women ... one of the most badass women of all time is Lyudmila Pavlichenko (spelling might be a bit off).
Now you'd think in a game that includes combat you'd want to have among your playerbase women who look up to a freakin' national heroine rather than the floozies going to nightclubs.

This is true. (And that spelling is a close enough Anglicization.)

In case anyone's not familiar with that name: WWII sniper, and a damn good one.

 

[Chiasm]

Now you'd think in a game that includes combat you'd want to have among your playerbase women who look up to a freakin' national heroine rather than the floozies going to nightclubs.

Which is why I am surprised the game took this stance, I mean having say gender stereotypes is one thing but making it in a way that you have no option one way or the other is kind of insulting to both men and women in my mind.

Heh. My usual response to either boy or girl babies is to call them cute. Or, if they're unusually alert, to comment on that.

Kind of like all puppies are cute but it's hard to tell rather to say "he" or "she" without some secondary factor like color involved. But ya babies don't really give you many options for conversation starters.

 

[OutforEC]

Any gameplay that is based on gender-specific stereotypes is sexist by definition. Including additional options based on gender is good; limiting options based on gender is not.

If you have additional options for one gender or another, aren't you limiting options for the other? I don't really understand the distinction.

Why do you assume that adding to one detracts from the other?

I didn't say it did. I said that if you're adding something to one and not the other, then the one which doesn't receive that addition is limited. It cannot use the options which were added to the other. You're just selectively adding rather than selectively subtracting to arrive at the same number.

The distinction you're making is one of semantic description. It's spin, double talk, newsspeak.

If you say "There are 5 options, but guys can't be 4 and girls can't be 5" (the situation with which you disagree), that's the exact same thing as "There are 3 options, but guys have the additional option of being 5 and girls have the additional option of being 4." (the situation of which you're in favor) It's the same thing.
In both situations, guys have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 5. Girls have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 4.

Same. Thing.

Different =/= Limited.

I don't understand the desire now-a-days to homogenize everything. Honestly, I'd love to see an RPG starting out with lore-defined gender roles introducing you the gameworld, with options further into gameplay to adjust it to more suit the player's desires. As the player learns about their 'place' in the world and the way in which they want to interact with it they could opt to do quests which further define them, adding increased customization and development and possibly changing their role all-together. Akin to the 'betrayal' quest from EQ2 (albeit less grindy and more story-based) before they went and caved in to the 'gotta have all the options all the time' crowd.

 

[PhiMed]

Any gameplay that is based on gender-specific stereotypes is sexist by definition. Including additional options based on gender is good; limiting options based on gender is not.

If you have additional options for one gender or another, aren't you limiting options for the other? I don't really understand the distinction.

Why do you assume that adding to one detracts from the other?

I didn't say it did. I said that if you're adding something to one and not the other, then the one which doesn't receive that addition is limited. It cannot use the options which were added to the other. You're just selectively adding rather than selectively subtracting to arrive at the same number.

The distinction you're making is one of semantic description. It's spin, double talk, newsspeak.

If you say "There are 5 options, but guys can't be 4 and girls can't be 5" (the situation with which you disagree), that's the exact same thing as "There are 3 options, but guys have the additional option of being 5 and girls have the additional option of being 4." (the situation of which you're in favor) It's the same thing.
In both situations, guys have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 5. Girls have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 4.

Same. Thing.

Different =/= Limited.

I don't understand the desire now-a-days to homogenize everything. Honestly, I'd love to see an RPG starting out with lore-defined gender roles introducing you the gameworld, with options further into gameplay to adjust it to more suit the player's desires. As the player learns about their 'place' in the world and the way in which they want to interact with it they could opt to do quests which further define them, adding increased customization and development and possibly changing their role all-together. Akin to the 'betrayal' quest from EQ2 (albeit less grindy and more story-based) before they went and caved in to the 'gotta have all the options all the time' crowd.

You're literally arguing that a half-full glass and a half-empty glass are fundamentally different.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

"On the one hand, I don't think how you're allowed to interact with the game should be limited by gender. On the other hand, we constantly discuss how developers don't make an effort to reach out to women, and that's precisely what they're trying to do here."


Oh, yeah. Stereotyping genders is the best way to accomplish this. (sarcasam)

 

[PhiMed]

"On the one hand, I don't think how you're allowed to interact with the game should be limited by gender. On the other hand, we constantly discuss how developers don't make an effort to reach out to women, and that's precisely what they're trying to do here."


Oh, yeah. Stereotyping genders is the best way to accomplish this. (sarcasam)

I didn't say they were succeeding I just said they're trying.

Saying that "video games don't try to appeal to women" is a stereotype as well. It implies that themes, game play styles, storylines, and characters that are prevalent in the medium appeal only to men. Saying "women don't like that stuff" is stereotyping. I'm not saying they've got a good idea. I'm just saying that at least they've got an idea.

Don't be so needlessly antagonistic and saracastic without contributing anything, please. That's how people get reported.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well this is just so stupid, why would you lock off activities according to gender, just let people pick what the hell they want.

Maybe offer it as a preference list where they can choose, a small Fallout style psyche test to determine in which direction they want to go, but don't go limiting people for christ sakes.

 

[Sifer2]

Seems like a really weird concept. Part of it is true. In WoW I saw females most commonly play healers like Priests an Druids. Though there was also a lot of them playing Hunters cause they like Pets.

Making them go shopping sounds a tad sexist though. From what I have seen the Females like to do social stuff. They like to help whether its helping kill a monster or whatever.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Well this is just so stupid, why would you lock off activities according to gender, just let people pick what the hell they want.

Maybe offer it as a preference list where they can choose, a small Fallout style psyche test to determine in which direction they want to go, but don't go limiting people for christ sakes.

...I like this idea. Ask people a bunch of seemingly unrelated questions to determine their starting class. The only problem is the fact that the internet exists, so it would take all of three seconds to figure out how to get what class you want instead of the one chosen for you. (Which wouldn't make a HUGE difference, since the game in question lets you get new classes fairly early on.)

 

[OutforEC]

Any gameplay that is based on gender-specific stereotypes is sexist by definition. Including additional options based on gender is good; limiting options based on gender is not.

If you have additional options for one gender or another, aren't you limiting options for the other? I don't really understand the distinction.

Why do you assume that adding to one detracts from the other?

I didn't say it did. I said that if you're adding something to one and not the other, then the one which doesn't receive that addition is limited. It cannot use the options which were added to the other. You're just selectively adding rather than selectively subtracting to arrive at the same number.

The distinction you're making is one of semantic description. It's spin, double talk, newsspeak.

If you say "There are 5 options, but guys can't be 4 and girls can't be 5" (the situation with which you disagree), that's the exact same thing as "There are 3 options, but guys have the additional option of being 5 and girls have the additional option of being 4." (the situation of which you're in favor) It's the same thing.
In both situations, guys have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 5. Girls have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 4.

Same. Thing.

Different =/= Limited.

I don't understand the desire now-a-days to homogenize everything. Honestly, I'd love to see an RPG starting out with lore-defined gender roles introducing you the gameworld, with options further into gameplay to adjust it to more suit the player's desires. As the player learns about their 'place' in the world and the way in which they want to interact with it they could opt to do quests which further define them, adding increased customization and development and possibly changing their role all-together. Akin to the 'betrayal' quest from EQ2 (albeit less grindy and more story-based) before they went and caved in to the 'gotta have all the options all the time' crowd.

You're literally arguing that a half-full glass and a half-empty glass are fundamentally different.

What gives you the impression that I'm arguing? I just stated my opinion; you chose to see it as an argument.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

"On the one hand, I don't think how you're allowed to interact with the game should be limited by gender. On the other hand, we constantly discuss how developers don't make an effort to reach out to women, and that's precisely what they're trying to do here."


Oh, yeah. Stereotyping genders is the best way to accomplish this. (sarcasam)

I didn't say they were succeeding I just said they're trying.

Saying that "video games don't try to appeal to women" is a stereotype as well. It implies that themes, game play styles, storylines, and characters that are prevalent in the medium appeal only to men. Saying "women don't like that stuff" is stereotyping. I'm not saying they've got a good idea. I'm just saying that at least they've got an idea.

Don't be so needlessly antagonistic and saracastic without contributing anything, please. That's how people get reported.

I could try to shove a square shaped block into a circular shaped hole of simiular width, but not many people would compliment me for trying.

"video games don't try to appeal to women" When did I ever say anything of the sort?

Don't go on your little crusade with me.


Let's see, I said that stereotyping is not the best way of doing this.

With a hint of sarcasam, as is a part of my mannerism.


How you got your little rant of suggesting I'm stating "games don't appeal to women" is beyond me.


But it doesn't matter if they have an idea. A bad idea is a bad idea.

Just like suggesting the idea of fixing women being oversexualised is to draw them all covered up so you can't see any of them is an attempt to solve the problem, but it's still a bad attempt.

 

[Erana]

For all the girl gamers I know (IRL) including myself, we play supporting roles because being the cleric means you get more socialization. Its not about some sort of societal role "Weak people do this, real people do this" nonsense.

"since telling female gamers that they are only allowed to be support for the men doing the real fighting would be a huge mistake"

OK, No. I just read the article and... URGH. I caught myself literally facepalming and dragging my hand all the way down my face as I read it subconsciously.

No one who speaks about women that way really respects us as people. How fucking hard is it to differentiate human beings from generic societal roles?
I'm just sick of it. If the same logic was applied to the male demographic they were looking for in this game, the client for male players would be covered in beer and strippers.

That being said, cosmetic options and character customization are great for social games. That being said, a certain other game so frequently mentioned in the game media these days has proven quite clearly that character customization is not just a girl thing.

 

[PhiMed]

"On the one hand, I don't think how you're allowed to interact with the game should be limited by gender. On the other hand, we constantly discuss how developers don't make an effort to reach out to women, and that's precisely what they're trying to do here."


Oh, yeah. Stereotyping genders is the best way to accomplish this. (sarcasam)

I didn't say they were succeeding I just said they're trying.

Saying that "video games don't try to appeal to women" is a stereotype as well. It implies that themes, game play styles, storylines, and characters that are prevalent in the medium appeal only to men. Saying "women don't like that stuff" is stereotyping. I'm not saying they've got a good idea. I'm just saying that at least they've got an idea.

Don't be so needlessly antagonistic and saracastic without contributing anything, please. That's how people get reported.

I could try to shove a square shaped block into a circular shaped hole of simiular width, but not many people would compliment me for trying.

"video games don't try to appeal to women" When did I ever say anything of the sort?

Don't go on your little crusade with me.


Let's see, I said that stereotyping is not the best way of doing this.

With a hint of sarcasam, as is a part of my mannerism.


How you got your little rant of suggesting I'm stating "games don't appeal to women" is beyond me.


But it doesn't matter if they have an idea. A bad idea is a bad idea.

Just like suggesting the idea of fixing women being oversexualised is to draw them all covered up so you can't see any of them is an attempt to solve the problem, but it's still a bad attempt.

I didn't say you said that. I said in my original post (you know... the one you responded to?) that critics often say that. Perhaps you should read the original post in its entirety rather than editing it so that you can make a snide remark.

Also, maybe you could watch or read <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2505-Sex-in-Games>this, and <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2868-True-Female-Characters>this, and <link=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2471/soapbox_args_and_how_to_appeal_to_.php>this, and <link=http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Real-appeal/2005/05/21/1116533572111.html>this, and <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/3150-Solving-the-Sexism-Situation>this (I could keep going) and then tell me who's "on a crusade". I made a statement that I understand how they might be responding to criticism that game makers don't try to appeal to women (an accusation full of stereotypes in its own right, but regardless), but that I didn't think it was a good idea. You edited my OP to pieces and said that they were supporting stereotypes. Then, when I reiterated my original point, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I did nothing of the sort, but I reserve my right to look at things in context rather than reflexively and hatefully responding to the last sentence you wrote.

You came in angry and hateful. You've continued that trend. Reported.

 

[PhiMed]

For all the girl gamers I know (IRL) including myself, we play supporting roles because being the cleric means you get more socialization. Its not about some sort of societal role "Weak people do this, real people do this" nonsense.

"since telling female gamers that they are only allowed to be support for the men doing the real fighting would be a huge mistake"

OK, No. I just read the article and... URGH. I caught myself literally facepalming and dragging my hand all the way down my face as I read it subconsciously.

No one who speaks about women that way really respects us as people. How fucking hard is it to differentiate human beings from generic societal roles?
I'm just sick of it. If the same logic was applied to the male demographic they were looking for in this game, the client for male players would be covered in beer and strippers.

That being said, cosmetic options and character customization are great for social games. That being said, a certain other game so frequently mentioned in the game media these days has proven quite clearly that character customization is not just a girl thing.

I agree completely. I think they're going about things entirely the wrong way. I do disagree, though, about them "not respecting women as people". I think they've taken criticism from the gaming community to heart, but come to the wrong conclusion. Game makers are often accused of ignoring women in their design. They're also told they're guilty of making games that are uninteresting or even alienating to females.

In this case, you've got a firm full of mostly dudes trying to think of what would appeal to women, and it's just coming off bad. They're doing unintentionally sexist stuff in order to make an attempt at inclusion. I'm much more inclined to give someone who makes a faux pas in earnest a pass than someone who makes a bigotted remark because they're dismissing females entirely.

Honestly, though, I think that this may sound a lot more extreme than it actually is. There may be a loss in translation of the interview, and a lot of game play innovations sound terrible when they're in the early stages of inception. Maybe they'll tweak this in a way that will make it add to gameplay. If not, then it's a misguided experiment and it'll die quickly.

I just thought it was an article that would spark interesting conversation. Thus far, I've been mostly disappointed (not in you... others).

 

[PhiMed]

Any gameplay that is based on gender-specific stereotypes is sexist by definition. Including additional options based on gender is good; limiting options based on gender is not.

If you have additional options for one gender or another, aren't you limiting options for the other? I don't really understand the distinction.

Why do you assume that adding to one detracts from the other?

I didn't say it did. I said that if you're adding something to one and not the other, then the one which doesn't receive that addition is limited. It cannot use the options which were added to the other. You're just selectively adding rather than selectively subtracting to arrive at the same number.

The distinction you're making is one of semantic description. It's spin, double talk, newsspeak.

If you say "There are 5 options, but guys can't be 4 and girls can't be 5" (the situation with which you disagree), that's the exact same thing as "There are 3 options, but guys have the additional option of being 5 and girls have the additional option of being 4." (the situation of which you're in favor) It's the same thing.
In both situations, guys have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 5. Girls have 4 options: 1,2,3, or 4.

Same. Thing.

Different =/= Limited.

I don't understand the desire now-a-days to homogenize everything. Honestly, I'd love to see an RPG starting out with lore-defined gender roles introducing you the gameworld, with options further into gameplay to adjust it to more suit the player's desires. As the player learns about their 'place' in the world and the way in which they want to interact with it they could opt to do quests which further define them, adding increased customization and development and possibly changing their role all-together. Akin to the 'betrayal' quest from EQ2 (albeit less grindy and more story-based) before they went and caved in to the 'gotta have all the options all the time' crowd.

You're literally arguing that a half-full glass and a half-empty glass are fundamentally different.

What gives you the impression that I'm arguing? I just stated my opinion; you chose to see it as an argument.

(Sigh) okay...
<quote=Phimed>You're literally arguing asserting that a half-full glass and a half-empty glass are fundamentally different
That better?

 

[Savagezion]

I see why they would do this as well. It more has to do with what that demographic does tend to do when playing an MMO. This is a great example of everyone I know that dates on an MMO:

Women can get all puffy and call sexist all they want with this decision but it is based on truth. One person who doesn't do this does not discredit the entire market. As the tail end of the article says they have yet to say you can't be tankers. Just that as far as activities in MMOs go they have noticed that each gender tends to spend their time focusing on different aspects of the game.
As far as I am concerned this is too little information to be shouting "sexists" especially when it was a decision made based on feedback from the gaming community.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think he needs to do some research on male and female gamers before he opens his big trap. For something that sounds as iffy as this unless he has research to prove this isn't going to blow up in his face I'm skeptical.

 

[Catalyst6]

I'm male, and I love support classes. Especially spy, engi, medic classes. I'll leave the rest of the shmucks to do the pointing and clicking.

I do wish that this stereotype was broken. I don't always want to kill things, sometimes I just want to sit back and chat. Or, god help me, go shopping for something.

Maybe I'll dress my character up in a dress just to stick it to the devs.

 

[Xixikal]

Hey now, we don't ALL like to shop.
Well I do... but i'd sooner go to a shooting range with my bestie than go to the local shopping centre for retail therapy.
Support roles?! What rubbish. I don't know any girl (myself included) who'd settle for the backseat. We cradle our beloved shotguns and sniper rifles just as tenderly as the guys, and wield them with like-minded bloodthirstiness.

This guy, he's just a-trollin'... or he better be...
(gear up, ladies, we gonna teach a man a lesson)