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

[Savagezion]

Man, people love to cry out "oppression".

As someone who normally plays a healer, or if unavailable a rogue. I'm like okay but...how incredibly sexist is this.

I mean really there isn't any other way to describe it. It's just blatant chauvenism.

Btw, unless I'm shopping for games, shopping is boring. :|

Again, one female that doesn't like shopping doesn't discredit the many. I have played MMOs with a lot of women. Hell, my whole org on Anarchy Online ended up consisting of like 4 guys and the rest were women. Do you know how many out of those women I can think of that didn't go out of their way to dress up their avatar? Like 3. You know how many guys I have played with that went out of their way to dress up their avatar? Probably like 5. That is a vast comparison too.

Also, of which I would say that classes are split closer to 70-30% of women prefer support over tanker. Men are usually around 60/40 in favor of tanker I would say.

I agree with these "guesses" (I bet they are based on some actual research and not someone saying "hey, I got an idea" in our overly political correct world.) this is probably more accurate than people here are giving them credit for. This is NOT chauvenism. This is trying to appeal to a mass audience based on the very things nature has instilled in us. Women generally have different interests than men and this game is trying to offer different things to each gender for appeal. The article even states that options will open as you level.

The reason Brink doesn't include female characters is because many on the dev-team didn't want characters bashing girls in the face when they're down,

What? Seriously?

LOL

That's just stupid. Next you will be telling me I can't garotte a female Night Elf. That would make me cry btw becuase it is my favourite activity. Some men need to stop defining what women can do based on thier own emotional reaction. Jeez.

But really I thought they said it was because of time constraints...

That is BS. This goes into female rights activists always bitching. Female abuse is a very hot button issue with women. Between that and rape I don't know which one they are constantly on the lookout for more. (In general) Bulletstorm makes you a rapist, Mass Effect is a porn simulator, and you could garauntee someone would be spouting that Brink is a woman beating proponant. Since Rapelay women's right activists have been all over video games looking for an excuse to lay some blame there.

Why would you want to shop in a game when you can go out and actually shop? I don't even like shopping! I see what they're trying to do but...no just no. Most people play games to be imerged in a world that can't really exist, not to do something they can do in real life.

And yet the Sims is a top selling title. I work with farmers a lot, guess what they play? People who are into cars and even race at the track on the weekends tend to enjoy racing games.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Every woman ever just prays to God every night hoping they can be a nurse one day. Fact.

This guy knows society. Let's nominate him for President.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Well firstly it's chauvenistic because it ASSUMES that all women like shopping. What is this the 60's? Will we get to do tailoring and cooking aswell? (lol)

Secondly as someone who, sadly, has been physcially abused by men at every stage of my life I am not offended by Brink guys stomping on female avatars. It's the same as a male orc beating on female gnome. It works both ways, that gnome can respawn and hand that orc his ass. If I get my butt kicked in Brink then it's my fault for being rubbish isn't it. Ironically as most female gamers will tell you we were more annoyed at the female avatars being excluded as we would being stamped on because we suck and got killed. Wouldn't it have been simpler for the Brink team to take out the stomping?

As for feminists complaining about it...well that's what equality is, isn't it. Equal rights for everything. We can't have it both ways. If the enemy capture women who have decided to fight on the front line they AREN'T going to treat us differently if anything it's going to be worse.

 

[Astoria]

Why would you want to shop in a game when you can go out and actually shop? I don't even like shopping! I see what they're trying to do but...no just no. Most people play games to be imerged in a world that can't really exist, not to do something they can do in real life.

And yet the Sims is a top selling title. I work with farmers a lot, guess what they play? People who are into cars and even race at the track on the weekends tend to enjoy racing games.

Yes but you can hardly call the Sims realistic. Almost everyone I know who's played it has done so to torture their sims. Car games, farming games ect though based on real life aren't realistic which makes them appealing. Unless you're going shopping in some futuristic mall with 50 floors and shops selling lightsabers I can't see it being all that interesting.

 

[Kotep]

Different people like to play things differently and that's fine, but I don't think anyone should be getting specifically locked out of any content for being a certain gender.

I could see possibly sorting things based on something like that (so maybe the store screen is at the top of the list for female players and the hunt screen is at the top for male players) but I'd still want to leave it customizable. In terms of classes, I could see presenting new players with a 'you might enjoy these' sort of thing where it shows them the classes they might like best but still lets them play other classes without having to work against any sort of gender bias.

But I think a better way to do it altogether would be to have a personality test. Preferably one that isn't completely transparent so people just figure out which responses go for the tank class or whatever. You take the test and it gives you, say, access to two extra classes that people of your personality type like to play. I think that someone's personality would be a better determining factor in this case than simply their gender, because I know guys who love to sit back and make sure everyone's happy and I know girls who want to RIP AND TEAR.

 

[Keava]

Rpblem is not in the fact that supposedly a developer is reaching to female gamers. Problem lies in the fact that the developer limits the possibilities, separating the genders. Sure a game could have possibility of shopping/supportive activities, but why limit it to only female gamers, and same time not allow them to do the more 'manly' stuff?

As i see it, the developers job should be to provide options but ultimately it should be my decision which of those options im willing to try out and which i want to ignore. Is there any reason why i can't go shopping at one point and hunting at another if i enjoy both equally?

 

[Savagezion]

I'm sure it's an attempt to "reach out." The trouble is that it's a half-assed, ill-informed, borderline insulting attempt.

...seriously, shopping? Gimme a damn break. And unless your idea of "support roles" includes ret paladins, feral tank druids, and paragon-riftblades...

Strongly agreeing with you. Why should parts of the game not be avaliable to me simply because of my gender? This idea comes across as a stupid and lazy attempt to get more girls into the game. Besides this could throw a huge monkey wrench in the works of anyone who likes to play as the opposite gender.

Catch 22 in bold. If they try to cater gameplay towards typical female interests, they are being sexist. If they don't they are being sexist.

My question: How could they do this and not have it be sexist?

 

[Savagezion]

Why would you want to shop in a game when you can go out and actually shop? I don't even like shopping! I see what they're trying to do but...no just no. Most people play games to be imerged in a world that can't really exist, not to do something they can do in real life.

And yet the Sims is a top selling title. I work with farmers a lot, guess what they play? People who are into cars and even race at the track on the weekends tend to enjoy racing games.

Yes but you can hardly call the Sims realistic. Almost everyone I know who's played it has done so to torture their sims. Car games, farming games ect though based on real life aren't realistic which makes them appealing. Unless you're going shopping in some futuristic mall with 50 floors and shops selling lightsabers I can't see it being all that interesting.

Prime World isn't realistic. I can't go buy a shirt that gives me +5 strength, although that would be a lot better than working out. I'd also get some +10 Constitution Socks for my cardio. See what I mean?

 

[Gigano]

...
Well except apparently it forces you to be the gender your facebook profile lists you as or some such nonsense.

Well, that's a pretty idiotic constraint as far as I'm concerned then.

Although I suppose if one have any significant interest in this game it's not hard to change the gender on a facebook profile. Or otherwise just go with what the game offers - limitations on one's usual approach might lead to discovering some new playstyles.

Or simply write it off as being a production for those who prefer traditional gender roles in their games (or don't care about the issue at all). It's not like every production have to sell itself to all audiences (well, with the investments now put into AAA titles it is these days, but that's where all the bland in them comes from), and if fixed gender roles is part of their presentation of and vision with the game - bizarrely outdated and off-putting to many as it might be - then they should stick to it even if that makes it a niche production.

I for one won't be playing a game that caters to stereotypical conservative values (or use facebook for that matter). Just like I won't be playing Barbie Horse Adventure, which also targets a very different demographic than my own. But I sure won't question their right to exist and cater to specific audiences in full accordance with whatever vision the developer had for them.

 

[Astoria]

Why would you want to shop in a game when you can go out and actually shop? I don't even like shopping! I see what they're trying to do but...no just no. Most people play games to be imerged in a world that can't really exist, not to do something they can do in real life.

And yet the Sims is a top selling title. I work with farmers a lot, guess what they play? People who are into cars and even race at the track on the weekends tend to enjoy racing games.

Yes but you can hardly call the Sims realistic. Almost everyone I know who's played it has done so to torture their sims. Car games, farming games ect though based on real life aren't realistic which makes them appealing. Unless you're going shopping in some futuristic mall with 50 floors and shops selling lightsabers I can't see it being all that interesting.

Prime World isn't realistic. I can't go buy a shirt that gives me +5 strength, although that would be a lot better than working out. I'd also get some +10 Constitution Socks for my cardio. See what I mean?

But what's the use of that if you aren't going to be doing much fighting? It just seems to me like the game is drawing a line and is saying all guys like this and all girls like this which seems silly.

 

[megaraccoon]

well this is one game my gf wont want but then she still has'nt touched portal 2 cuz shes enjoying being sindel in mk9 too much. i swer she wake me up at 5 in the morning by screaming at me i'll do to her what cyber sub-zero did to sektor (wreck his shit up). but yeah i digress its totally stupid to have gender roles in games girls should be allowed to play however or whatever they like.

 

[Savagezion]

snip

Well firstly it's chauvenistic because it ASSUMES that all women like shopping. What is this the 60's? Will we get to do tailoring and cooking aswell? (lol)

No it ASSUMES more women will enjoy this mechanic than ones that won't.

Secondly as someone who, sadly, has been physcially abused by men at every stage of my life I am not offended by Brink guys stomping on female avatars. It's the same as a male orc beating on female gnome. It works both ways, that gnome can respawn and hand that orc his ass. If I get my butt kicked in Brink then it's my fault for being rubbish isn't it. Ironically as most female gamers will tell you we were more annoyed at the female avatars being excluded as we would being stamped on because we suck and got killed. Wouldn't it have been simpler for the Brink team to take out the stomping?

Once again 1 person doesn't override the entire market.

As for feminists complaining about it...well that's what equality is, isn't it. Equal rights for everything. We can't have it both ways. If the enemy capture women who have decided to fight on the front line they AREN'T going to treat us differently if anything it's going to be worse.

I agree. But we do want it both ways a lot of times. They can do anything a man can do and vice versa, but they don't want learn how to make sure the car has all the fluids it needs. Just like I don't want to pick out paint samples. Hell, some women will get mad or straight up ignore you if you even bother to try and help pick out paint samples. (substitute "paint samples" with anything girlie - and you know what I mean.) Our interest are different by nature. As well, as much as some women hate to admit it, we all do in fact have self imposed gender roles.

 

[Kotep]

My question: How could they do this and not have it be sexist?

Have it be based on something other than sex, like a personality profile. You could have a number of starting archetypes with different selections for each based on your personality. The kind of person who likes to take charge gets the class that'll go to the front lines, the kind of person who likes to help out gets support classes, the kind of person who likes to feel powerful gets a spellcaster, and so on.

It's a pretty vague example, but the implicit assumption with the gender/class thing is that girls act a certain way. Changing it to a personality test would help remove the bias.

Or hell, just have someone pick from a few different starting packages.

 

[Savagezion]

Why would you want to shop in a game when you can go out and actually shop? I don't even like shopping! I see what they're trying to do but...no just no. Most people play games to be imerged in a world that can't really exist, not to do something they can do in real life.

And yet the Sims is a top selling title. I work with farmers a lot, guess what they play? People who are into cars and even race at the track on the weekends tend to enjoy racing games.

Yes but you can hardly call the Sims realistic. Almost everyone I know who's played it has done so to torture their sims. Car games, farming games ect though based on real life aren't realistic which makes them appealing. Unless you're going shopping in some futuristic mall with 50 floors and shops selling lightsabers I can't see it being all that interesting.

Prime World isn't realistic. I can't go buy a shirt that gives me +5 strength, although that would be a lot better than working out. I'd also get some +10 Constitution Socks for my cardio. See what I mean?

But what's the use of that if you aren't going to be doing much fighting? It just seems to me like the game is drawing a line and is saying all guys like this and all girls like this which seems silly.

Who said girls wont be doing much fighting? The article didn't even say that women cant be tanks but everyone in this thread is assuming that. It didn't say women can't go on hunting activities together, it didn't even say what the rewards of shopping vs. hunting are. You may level up through shopping. We don't know anything about these mechanics. ALl we know is that if a girl visits another girl's castle it is a safe bet that they can go shopping shopping together at all times in the game. It is even alluded to that they can hunt later or something but it is vague as to when or how. Vice versa for guys and hunting.

It is saying that girls generally like this over "that" which happens to be what the guys tend to like more. That isn't sexist. It is probably observation. I ave have observed that myself. Hell, my best friend married his wife he met on an MMO. It irritated me because I lost a main party member of my hunting party because he had to sit in town and chat and shop for clothes. Seriously. That is the most extreme case I have but I have many similar cases. 3 weeks of dead time in my guild when the latest expansion brought out new clothing sets. This stuff is based on fact.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

They can do anything a man can do and vice versa, but they don't want learn how to make sure the car has all the fluids it needs.

That's pretty chauvenistic. I know loads of female bikers for example and they probably would be really offended by that.

You say my opinion doesn't matter when I'm commenting on something that's about as relevant to me as it can get as I AM A FEMALE GAMER then use sweeping generalizations to prove your point. If they think the majority of women will like shopping due to demographic studies then that's fair enough but don't restrict the rest of the women that hate it.

Seriously its astonishing to me that you give examples of your experience and tout them as fact when a female gamer right in front of you is saying you are wrong and you dimiss it as an anomolous opinion. I'm not saying just because I'm a girl im right on this but your outright dismissal of my opinion is irritating at best.

 

[Astoria]

Why would you want to shop in a game when you can go out and actually shop? I don't even like shopping! I see what they're trying to do but...no just no. Most people play games to be imerged in a world that can't really exist, not to do something they can do in real life.

And yet the Sims is a top selling title. I work with farmers a lot, guess what they play? People who are into cars and even race at the track on the weekends tend to enjoy racing games.

Yes but you can hardly call the Sims realistic. Almost everyone I know who's played it has done so to torture their sims. Car games, farming games ect though based on real life aren't realistic which makes them appealing. Unless you're going shopping in some futuristic mall with 50 floors and shops selling lightsabers I can't see it being all that interesting.

Prime World isn't realistic. I can't go buy a shirt that gives me +5 strength, although that would be a lot better than working out. I'd also get some +10 Constitution Socks for my cardio. See what I mean?

But what's the use of that if you aren't going to be doing much fighting? It just seems to me like the game is drawing a line and is saying all guys like this and all girls like this which seems silly.

Who said girls wont be doing much fighting? The article didn't even say that women cant be tanks but everyone in this thread is assuming that. It didn't say women can't go on hunting activities together, it didn't even say what the rewards of shopping vs. hunting are. You may level up through shopping. We don't know anything about these mechanics. ALl we know is that if a girl visits another girl's castle it is a safe bet that they can go shopping shopping together at all times in the game. It is even alluded to that they can hunt later or something but it is vague as to when or how. Vice versa for guys and hunting.

It is saying that girls generally like this over "that" which happens to be what the guys tend to like more. That isn't sexist. It is probably observation. I ave have observed that myself. Hell, my best friend married his wife he met on an MMO. It irritated me because I lost a main party member of my hunting party because he had to sit in town and chat and shop for clothes. Seriously. That is the most extreme case I have but I have many similar cases. 3 weeks of dead time in my guild when the latest expansion brought out new clothing sets. This stuff is based on fact.

I never said it was sexist (even though it sorta is), just silly. If they've designed this game to those 'facts' (and you can't say that girls like shopping more with absolute certainty) then it seems they're trying to appeal to everyone and that's just not gonna work. A random girl is not going to walk past, see this game and think 'oh I'll buy that because I can shop in it'. I can't see a lot of gamer girls being the shopping type so advertising the shopping part seems kinda pointless. People are jumping to these conclusions because of the way the game has been worded. If this isn't how the game is then I think they need to reworded it better.

 

[Savagezion]

My question: How could they do this and not have it be sexist?

Have it be based on something other than sex, like a personality profile. You could have a number of starting archetypes with different selections for each based on your personality. The kind of person who likes to take charge gets the class that'll go to the front lines, the kind of person who likes to help out gets support classes, the kind of person who likes to feel powerful gets a spellcaster, and so on.

It's a pretty vague example, but the implicit assumption with the gender/class thing is that girls act a certain way. Changing it to a personality test would help remove the bias.

Or hell, just have someone pick from a few different starting packages.

Yeah, I think that is a nice system. However, I see no reason why tanks or hunting being more easily accessible to males is sexist or biased. Men are physical built and capable for almost twice the strength of a female. Compare stats of the strongest men to the strongest women. Women's bodies, however, are more agile in design whereas male bodies are more cumbersome and "hulking".(Fun fact: A women's agility actually gives them an advantage over a stronger opponent in wrestling if they know how to utilize it.)

To me, exploring these differences between genders is a positive. Sexism is a part of nature itself and when not used oppressively offers a good opportunity for us to explore both sexes strengths and faults. But everybody loves to shout that they are being oppressed so we got a loooong way before that will happen if ever. I don't see this as an oppressive gesture. I see it as a company honestly trying to appeal to as many people as possible, not trying to offend as many people as possible and I think the former can be done tastefully. Not a person here has played the game, but merely read a loose guesstimate of the design process with probably a good dash of speculation thrown in.

EDIT: But like I said, I do like your idea. I like it even better if you wwere able to somehow merge the two.

 

[Valdus]

My question: How could they do this and not have it be sexist?

By not having the game elements change based on gender. Though personally I think trying to cater for a specific gender at all is sexist (since such train of thoughts tend to devolve into "well this gender thicks/acts this way so....)

 

[Kotep]

Physical differences in real life shouldn't impact how someone plays a game. I can be just as aggressive in a game world whether I work out every day or can barely lift ten pounds. While men might be stronger on average and women more agile on average, the wide spread of both makes making any sort of broad statement difficult.

I think what the developers were getting close to noticing (but stopped short of) is that perhaps it's not gender that influences playstyle itself, but that women are more likely to have a personality type that means that they're interested in support roles and so on. But just like with physical attributes, there's a really broad spectrum of personality. It just so happens that there's a slightly larger representation of supporter-type personalities among women and a slightly larger representation of tank-type personalities among men, which leads to the statistics saying that men play tanks more and women play supporters more.

The problem is going from that to 'males will get more tank roles, women will get more supporter roles' is that it doesn't take into account the variation in personality which has a far greater impact on someone's actions than their gender--even if there happens to be more of a certain sort of personality in one gender.

In the end, it seems sexist because it's saying that if you're male, you are aggressive and will want to rush in and beat things. But some males won't want to rush in and beat things, because they're not aggressive. It's far less presumptuous to let someone self-identify with a personality type than it is to decide that someone likes playing a certain way because of something that actually has little to do with how they play.