Please show me where i stated that women in general aren't core gamers or where i made any comment about this assumption (which i didn't make in the first place) excusing exclusion of or hostility towards females.
Just because 45% of all people who play any kind of games on any device for any length of time a week are female doesn't mean that 45% of core gamers a female.
Yes, what a horrible world would we live in if females just played the games they are interested in. We should not rest until exactly the same number of females and males play every single core game and if we have to force females to play them (/sarcasm). As i said before, excluding females who want to play core games is bad, but if a female doesn't want to play core games, that's equally ok. How about we try to include the ones who want to play core games and just leave the rest alone?
If I asked you define "core" in this context (i.e. what is a "core game"), I'd put dollars to donuts you'll give a definition roughly analogous to triple-A titles: games by the major developers and publishers, with the biggest budgets, "best" developers, most market exposure, and largest communities and fan bases. To which I'd say, these games are largely developed, produced, and marketed for males. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, there's obviously a market for it, but there has been a clear trend over the last decade or so of triple-A titles as a whole becoming increasingly masculinized -- masculine themes and symbolism dominate, and games have become increasingly explicitly violent and sexualized (that's not to say women can't appreciate violence and gore, or sexualization, but that males as a gender tend to be more accepting of violent and sexually-explicit themes and imagery) -- and thereby exclusive of gamers who would purchase triple-A titles but are disinterested in the narratives, themes, and imagery they espouse (i.e. women).
You're confusing cause and effect. You're claiming females aren't "core" gamers because they don't want to play "core" games. Well, no shit Sherlock -- they're not being tapped as a demographic by triple-A companies in the first place! Has it occurred to you that maybe -- just maybe -- if triple-A companies tapped that demographic, more women would become "core" gamers?
In fact, even the language you're using is exclusionary. To say that there is a "core" of gaming implies that anything outside that is somehow on the periphery, an outgroup, and therefore safely excluded as a demographic.
The question is what a female power fantasy is. For males it's rather easy: saving the world through violence. Of course that is a extreme oversimplification, but if you look at male power fantasies (which are mostly shooters; or would anyone name strategy or sport power fantasies?), that what it boils down to. For females it seems less clear cut to me. But then again i'm male, so perhaps there is a typical female power fantasy and i just don't know it.
Look at the Young Adult genre or the Urban Fantasy genre. Both have a tendency to contain female protagonists more so than male ones. But especially the Young Adult genre because a lot of the books are becoming movies now. Look at the protagonist of The Hunger Games, Mortal Instruments, and Divergent. There really isn't much about those women to make them radically different from heroic male protagonists. But that has to do with the fact that heroic traits are heroic traits regardless of gender. On average there is more of a focus on the cooperation between the protagonist and supporting characters involved to take the big bad down. Also a larger percentage of the stories makeup will be dedicated to interpersonal relationships instead of the action. Sometimes love, but friendship and ones relationship with their family members are very often secondary plots. Of course it helps that loved ones are often still alive throughout the story so that a relationship can be developed alongside the action. Loved ones also have a tendency to be fighting alongside the female protagonist. A lot less of "I have to rescue my boyfriend" and more of "This damn alien invasion is putting a strain on my relationship with my boyfriend".
Thanks for the infos. Urban fantasy clearly isn't for me and i dislike the young adult genre in general (not because i think it's bad, i just prefer books aimed at adults), so stuff like this flies under my radar.
I think the solution is that more women need to be willing to be involved in gaming. many companies are clamoring to hire women, just there aren't very many willing to go into the industry. kinda like how there are so few woman mathematicians, scientists, etc. I am not saying there aren't a lot of women smart enough, jus not enough want to get into those fields.
The Hunger Games are indeed a wonderful example. It is popular with young girls. It features a strong heroine with agency (in contrast to Twilight, for example). Sure, there are elements that pander to this audience - the love triangle, the age of the heroine, the heroine keeping her innocence in terms of killing someone, and so on - but there's a lot more. It comments on serious social issues - and prominently so, not just in the background. A large portion of the story is about fighting, weapons, combat, survival, etc - readily convertible into pretty conventional Tomb Raider-Bioware-esque combat-dialogue-gameplay. No reason why a game like this shouldn't appeal to "male core gamers" as well.
Eh...Catching Fire might do better, but the first Hunger Games was honestly pretty boring. I mean when you get right down to it, MOST of the love that movie got amounted to "Well it's not Twilight!" And that's cool and all, but yeah, that movie took its SWEET time to get going.
I do like how they're kind of toying with the idea of "DOES Katniss really like Peeta or is this just part of the game?" One of the last shots where they're celebrating their victory and she kinda gives him the look of "Hehe, okay we won dude, we can stop pretending now..." was a cool touch.
And they really rushed through Rue. Like she's supposed to be set up as this important character whose death is supposed to have such a massive impact and all, but we barely got to know her/see the two of them interact all that much up until the point they killed her off, ann THEN all of the sudden the movie came to a screeching halt to bring out the massive pageantry of sad orchestra music and an elaborate, elegant grave scene for her and what not. And I couldn't help but sit there and think "this should be hitting me harder emotional than it is right now..."
I dunno. The Hunger Games was just 'okay' to me. And again, Catching Fire seems to really be running with sociopolitical stuff they were building up in the first film, so I think Katniss will be far more fascinating then.
As for Tomb Raider 2013...zzzzz...that's all I got for that.
I didn't claim it was a great piece of literature or cinema. I've only watched the movie and found it rather mediocre. But that is not relevant to anything I've said.
I am aware of the driving force of the market when it comes to games, but there is more to it then simple supply and demand [...] The idea was that the market only meets a demand it knows of, and that sometimes people don't realize they want something until they find it, as was the case with chunky sauces that no one knew they wanted. Increasing the range of the audience has a great chance of finding newer demands, some of which may even be the new big thing.
You seem to be looking for solutions that only come in the form of carrots for women, which frankly I think is off base. Women already are 45% of the gaming population, there is a recognized market for female-friendly games -- or rather I should say games that are friendly to traditional feminine gender roles (big point of distinction there) -- and many developers have already taken note and utilized the market. There's much room for improvement -- there's always room for improvement -- on the part of larger companies, which again will be a result of market forces applied to the companies in question and not any voluntary reform on their behalf. Companies operate with one premise -- provide a product that costs the least to make, and makes the most profit.
Not quite. As started before, there is more going on then just market forces driving how games are targeting their audience and how that audience responds. Now obviously I am not going to try to stop an audience who enjoys a certain type of game from playing that, that is just stupid. Instead I have been trying to examine more of the underlying aspects of why the market is like it is, beyond the simply ideas of supply and demand. As a result, things such as perspectives of the community by the common opinion, representation of the community by vocal members, conventional wisdom about gender and games, and industry business patterns all come up. So aside from trying to find ways to limit the negative effects of those aspects, I am also trying to come up with ways to increase new players into games they wouldn't normally try or traditionally give a chance. The reason it comes off more as a "carrots for women" thing though, is because there is less resistance for for males to go into the game types traditionally dominated by women (puzzle, sims, etc.) but there is when it comes to the inverse. That is the problem, the market is not pure in this case as there are factors influencing it based in community and perspective, and these factors in turn undermine the idea of supply and demand by promoting a notion that may or may not be true regarding the demand in the first place.
To draw a comparison, lets say you want more people to get their vaccines. Well, the first thing I would try to do, knowing that most people are aware of what a vaccine is, would be to fight negative campaign against them and the negative public opinion that is cropping up. Same idea, just with more of a gender slant here, as the negative public opinion is on that same slant.
In terms of community participation and visibility, first you must ask yourself, "is this even a community in which women really want to participate?". The statistic that 45% of people who play games are women has genuine shock value, because as gamers women are invisible except for the "gamer grrl" stereotype which is problematic in and of itself (mainly, that to increase their own visibility they act obnoxiously and pander to male stereotypes, which is ultimately a step backward for women in gaming). That's because the community is extraordinarily exclusionary, if not hostile, to women. That's where you need a stick to apply to male gamers who would otherwise exclude women each and every change they get -- game companies and service providers need to take a strong stance and let their customers know in no uncertain terms that garbage will no longer be tolerated.
This is a bit disingenuous. Yes, 45% of people who play games may be female, but there is a difference between those that play facebook aps and those that buy consoles and games on launch. No, this isn't a no true scotsman fallacy here, I am not saying they are not true gamers in the least, but even you have to acknowledge that there is a large difference between the costs and therefore the influence the sort of games women traditionally buy compared to those that men do. If that number was solely market forces, I would not complain at all. Problem is, there are factors applying to it outside the market that should at least be acknowledged and looked at. You yourself mention that the community is exclusionary to women, so surely that has to influence the sort of games chosen to play, therefore altering the demand for whatever types of game. Thus the triple A industry is considered the "core" group just because the large effect on gaming as a whole the massive money that core generates, even though we can't reliably claim it is solely market forces driving that core's direction when there are the other factors that create gender barriers that prevent a fair market from showing its true demand.
Beyond even that, you mention that companies listen to our wallets. Very true, and is why I am offering "carrots" as solutions here, as the sort of games women usually play are cheaper (and therefore are seen as a lesser demand) then the bigger titles that are made to meet the demand of men. Because there is a smaller demand price(and in some cases none at all outside of advertisements), the market would largely dismiss opinions or demands coming from there.
Perhaps offer carrots to the community for accepting new players, be they universally new of new to a genre they don't usually play? Others have mentioned mentor programs and the like, so I can see how this might work if tied into game achievements or some form of resource generation, though hard to say based on and individual game.
And again, game companies who operate by the profit motive. If the status quo is the maximin, there's no need to change. Change, no matter how you put it, is going to have to start with the consumer. Yes, that means you'll have to say "no" to certain services or companies, but if those companies aren't providing positive experiences are you really losing out?
I'll agree, companies wont put the effort in themselves and only respond to the market demand most of the time (obvious conservative business practices not-withstanding, such as DRM where changes are slower). As such, my notion is to promote new players, or just new players to a particular genre, to be able to have a fair shake at things without secondary interfering aspects that only apply one way across gender lines.
My sisters don't play games because they can't figure out that the left stick controls the character, and the right on controls the camera. It's why if they ever play a game it's either the Sims, side scrolling platforms or mobile games. They're not a glowing example of feminine multitasking.
I can't either, doesn't stop me from enjoying them on PC and other genres on console. Though it does make me wonder why so many women, myself included, have troubles with that. I always thought it was because I grew up with PC shooters and consoles controls are worse and I couldn't adapt to a downgrade.
My sisters don't play games because they can't figure out that the left stick controls the character, and the right on controls the camera. It's why if they ever play a game it's either the Sims, side scrolling platforms or mobile games. They're not a glowing example of feminine multitasking.
I tried teaching a girlfriend the basics of the left-stick-right-stick control scheme once. It ended in a huge row. It's really hard to watch someone continually fuck up something that, to you, is as obvious and simple as breathing without trying to correct them.
I had the same problem with my uncle, who is maybe 55 and very out of touch with the controller and how it has evolved. You know what I found was really helpful? Fallout 3 tutorial. Yes it's long, yes it's arguably boring or at least not very engaging - but here's the great part: you don't get head-shotted 7 seconds in every time you reload. People make the mistake of trying to teach the "one to move, one to look" controller technique in games that put you in a pressure situation, and the resulting death, death, death, screw up, death is FRUSTRATING on top of the embarrassment of not knowing something that seems basic, but is actually really hard. I mean, not for us - we've been at it forever, it's actually pretty natural after awhile, but when it first came out... it was hard.
So I like the playpen area of Fallout 3 and the childhood area. No consequences for running into a wall 100 times. The hallways provide clear paths you need to learn to follow (rather than an open field or something to get totally lost in). Plus, it lasts as long as you need it to.
Give it a whirl next time you're trying to teach a controller to someone who is unfamiliar with one stick to look and the other to move.
Oh, and also: leave them alone with it for at least 30 minutes without you right there. Go get a beverage, make fancy drinks, start dinner, whatever, but let them NOT see you rolling your eyes and sighing every 10 seconds. Very discouraging and almost impossible not to do, since, as you pointed out, it's natural for you and hard to appreciate how hard it is for them.
The only solution I see is to just make more female protagonists in a better variety than boobsticks, and ass shots.
Women want power trips, too! And NPCs aren't going to deliver that!
More games could make the gender of their protagonists flexible too. It's not exactly like every game that features a fixed gender male protagonist has such a specific, tightly woven narrative that him being male matters that much.
Adding this as a quick thought. As a society, there is still an underlying aspect of "don't hit girls". I wonder if this, especially when it comes to competitive multiplayer fps games, doesn't somehow influence why female characters are rarer. Be it a customer reaction (say, slower to pull the trigger on a female model compared to a male) or just perceived reaction, would that influence company decisions? If female character death can be used for a cheap emotional plow (and boy, do they ever), then obviously they are aware of the unconscious difference of female versus male death and the effects they have on the player.
Adding this as a quick thought. As a society, there is still an underlying aspect of "don't hit girls". I wonder if this, especially when it comes to competitive multiplayer fps games, doesn't somehow influence why female characters are rarer. Be it a customer reaction (say, slower to pull the trigger on a female model compared to a male) or just perceived reaction, would that influence company decisions?
Let me counterpoint this really quickly. For me, and most girls I know who play games, that's not a factor for us. If we're the heroine, we expect to "get hit" in combat - and do a lot of hitting back, harder, better, and on our way to some goal that we're all about. There's never ever been a sense for me, in the games I choose to play, of getting "abused" by the attacking NPCs, it just doesn't enter the mind. They are enemies. In or out of multiplayer, that stays the same.
It might be an issue for guys, I can't speak to that, but it hasn't ever been an issue brought up by any female game player I know or even any non-gamer female I have discussed such games with.
I did, however, stop playing one of the CoD multiplayer modes (don't remember which one, there are so many in the library) because for a few matches straight people were "tea bagging" and I found that offensive enough to stay away.
Adding this as a quick thought. As a society, there is still an underlying aspect of "don't hit girls". I wonder if this, especially when it comes to competitive multiplayer fps games, doesn't somehow influence why female characters are rarer. Be it a customer reaction (say, slower to pull the trigger on a female model compared to a male) or just perceived reaction, would that influence company decisions?
Let me counterpoint this really quickly. For me, and most girls I know who play games, that's not a factor for us. If we're the heroine, we expect to "get hit" in combat - and do a lot of hitting back, harder, better, and on our way to some goal that we're all about. There's never ever been a sense for me, in the games I choose to play, of getting "abused" by the attacking NPCs, it just doesn't enter the mind. They are enemies. In or out of multiplayer, that stays the same.
It might be an issue for guys, I can't speak to that, but it hasn't ever been an issue brought up by any female game player I know or even any non-gamer female I have discussed such games with.
I do recall that there was a study done that show the reaction to a female being harmed is different for a male then when a male is harmed. An evolutionary throwback, it still can have an effect that would change things and would effect competitive games (well, at least enough to cause bitching, when a fraction of a second difference in fire rate of a gun causes such whining, I can only imagine what this might do). Not sure if the study was horribly reliable, but it has remained in the background of public opinion as a reason for keeping women out of combat situations in the military. Given how FPS do try to rely on realism in the military, I can't help but wonder if it is somehow related.
Adding this as a quick thought. As a society, there is still an underlying aspect of "don't hit girls". I wonder if this, especially when it comes to competitive multiplayer fps games, doesn't somehow influence why female characters are rarer. Be it a customer reaction (say, slower to pull the trigger on a female model compared to a male) or just perceived reaction, would that influence company decisions?
I do recall that there was a study done that show the reaction to a female being harmed is different for a male then when a male is harmed. An evolutionary throwback, it still can have an effect that would change things and would effect competitive games (well, at least enough to cause bitching, when a fraction of a second difference in fire rate of a gun causes such whining, I can only imagine what this might do). Not sure if the study was horribly reliable, but it has remained in the background of public opinion as a reason for keeping women out of combat situations in the military. Given how FPS do try to rely on realist in the military, I can't help but wonder if it is somehow related.
Well, you're probably right to want to double check the reliability of the study (on any study, especially Video game related), and as I said - it may be an issue from the male perspective more than the female one. You point out though that it would be something relegated to competitive games or military themed games, and that's a smaller portion of games. Part of examining the topic at hand is to decide how large a portion of the video game offerings you are looking at and I feel like if it is reduced to military shooter multiplayer... that's really the most extremely male favoring section you can look at almost - that and fighting games. Probably would reduce the fruitfulness of the discussion to do that. This type of thing is not an issue in say an RPG or an Action Adventure or several other genres, and should probably be separated accordingly.
Adding this as a quick thought. As a society, there is still an underlying aspect of "don't hit girls". I wonder if this, especially when it comes to competitive multiplayer fps games, doesn't somehow influence why female characters are rarer. Be it a customer reaction (say, slower to pull the trigger on a female model compared to a male) or just perceived reaction, would that influence company decisions? If female character death can be used for a cheap emotional plow (and boy, do they ever), then obviously they are aware of the unconscious difference of female versus male death and the effects they have on the player.
That's going to be put to the test when CoD Ghosts comes out. It will be a benchmark in terms of the female presence in a highly competitive multiplayer environment, as there will be female soldiers. To my knowledge you can do anything to them that you could a male avatar, including close range melee kills, which in terms of CoD now has the similarly brutal animations of the Battlefield series. So now, we see on YouTube male soldiers getting knifed all the time and it's just a part of the game, but when the first video of a woman being knifed goes up, that's gonna be the turning point of everything. Will it be taken in the same simple context of being "part of the game", or is it going to be a negative with the media and politicos/religious buffs screaming "glorification" of violence towards women, or worse...some asshole on the internet just making said content for the very purpose of trying to show the "uselessness" of female characters. Sad as it is to say, there's a good chance that might happen because there are people out there who just simply have nothing better to do with their lives.
Adding this as a quick thought. As a society, there is still an underlying aspect of "don't hit girls". I wonder if this, especially when it comes to competitive multiplayer fps games, doesn't somehow influence why female characters are rarer. Be it a customer reaction (say, slower to pull the trigger on a female model compared to a male) or just perceived reaction, would that influence company decisions?
I do recall that there was a study done that show the reaction to a female being harmed is different for a male then when a male is harmed. An evolutionary throwback, it still can have an effect that would change things and would effect competitive games (well, at least enough to cause bitching, when a fraction of a second difference in fire rate of a gun causes such whining, I can only imagine what this might do). Not sure if the study was horribly reliable, but it has remained in the background of public opinion as a reason for keeping women out of combat situations in the military. Given how FPS do try to rely on realist in the military, I can't help but wonder if it is somehow related.
Well, you're probably right to want to double check the reliability of the study (on any study, especially Video game related), and as I said - it may be an issue from the male perspective more than the female one. You point out though that it would be something relegated to competitive games or military themed games, and that's a smaller portion of games. Part of examining the topic at hand is to decide how large a portion of the video game offerings you are looking at and I feel like if it is reduced to military shooter multiplayer... that's really the most extremely male favoring section you can look at almost - that and fighting games. Probably would reduce the fruitfulness of the discussion to do that. This type of thing is not an issue in say an RPG or an Action Adventure or several other genres, and should probably be separated accordingly.
Here's how you solve this epidemic of women problems in video games:
HIRE BETTER WRITERS!! ^_^
[/thread]
.....
Wait, you want more?
Oh alright, fine.
Here's the thing with me: It won't matter WHO the protagonist or antagonist of a film or show or video game is....if the overall product ultimately sucks.
And to prove it, I'm gonna blow your minds right now...
I'm about to make Twilight seem almost INTERESTING.
Whoawhoawhoaholdonholdon stay with me, I'm making a point here:
Twilight honestly COULD have worked if there was a better writer creating it. Bella Swan COULD have worked as Little Miss Whipping Girl she was if that was the POINT of Twilight. I mean when you get right down to it, Bella is an immensely fucked up character with intense self-esteem issues (probably depression) that can't accept love from anyone (when her new classmates basically threw her a damn parade in that one scene) until she meets Edward. She only hooks up with Edward because she feels like she OWES him...and Edward knows this. He's the abusive, possessive asshole that's taking advantage of this emotionally vulnerable girl that he can manipulate and keep around for himself as long as he wants. He does all the textbook Abusive Creeper techniques that we all know and everyone has talked ad nauseum about. For all the backlash about the sparkly sparkleness....Edward Cullen is VERY MUCH an emotional vampire and his victim is Bella.
Then you got Jacob, who (at least at first) treats Bella as an actual person. They have genuine conversations, they can talk about the mundane and the profound. They can shoot the shit and talk about their problems with one another, leaning on each other for support. Jacob and Bella are on the same playing field, they act like actual FRIENDS to one another. And when he finds out she's still hanging around Edward, yeah he's got every right to be pissed.
If THAT where the Twilight saga was headed, if the commitment was made to make Edward the flat out villain of the story and Jacob as Bella's support as she comes to realize just how much a POS Edward is, that could have made for a good Cautionary Tale story. Throw in the fact that the Vampires are kinda uppercrest snooty Eurotrash and the werewolves got the blue-collar Native American thing going on and boom, you got sociopolitical subtext. In TWILIGHT.
Heck you could make it more tragic by having her see just what kind of asshole Edward is, but still choosing him anyways because her level of self-loathing is just THAT bad that she feels she deserves someone like him (he's not the boyfriend she needs...but he's the boyfriend she deserves. lol git it? itz a batman funneh!)
But obviously that's not where it headed and we just got hacktastic nonsense. In fact I believe that's exactly why the Twilight hate got SO vicious after New Moon. The first movie just kinda came and went, but it was New Moon when it hit peak volume and never turned back.
(okay, so what was the point of that, The Dubya??)
My point is that I think we get too caught up in this idea of the Strong Female Character [http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters] and don't focus enough on the INTERESTING female character, or a PURPOSEFUL female character to your narrative. I mean, would anyone here really say that the Resident Evil and Underworld movies have "strong female characters"? Is Amy Adam's boring portrayal of Lois Lane in MOS really considered "strong" despite the fact she's still inexplicably pegged the generic love interest by the end of it all...all because she kinda sorta found her way out of Zod's prison thingy? Does Sucker Punch have "strong female characters" just because they're the ones running around punching stuff?
I mean is that the only way for a women to be "strong"; by their ability to throw and take a punch?
Honestly, skimming through all these essays, all you guys seem to be doing is just advocating for more generic Mary Sues to equal the amount of Gary Stus we already have in the interest of faux "equality". I believe that's a term called Counter Productive...
People come in all shapes and sizes and have a varying amount of unique personality traits and baggage that make them them. Some people are strong-willed, some people are weak-willed. Some people are headstrong and active, some people are doubtful and passive. Some people are loud and energetic, some people are quiet and docile. Some people have big egos, some people are super humble. Some people are greedy, some people are honorable. Some people are stubborn, some people are gullible. Some people are comfortable flaunting their sexuality, some people are more conservative with it. Etc. etc. etc.
You take those human traits, use them to craft characters that will fit in your world and the type of story you're trying to tell, and the rest will take care of itself. All this "social patriarchy/gender politics/45% of women are in Mitt Romney's binders" text wall nonsense you guys keep posting is just white noise to me, to be perfectly honest. The most timeless stories ARE the ones that are overall universal, NOT the ones that spend all day kissing up to this or that social politic focus groups. Tell me an interesting story with layered characters for me to explore and go on these explorations of the human condition with. As long as they fit within the fictional world I'm entering and do their part to make the experience worthwhile, I'm good.
The one and only problem is that we have too many lazy, shitty writers creating lazy, shitty stories. Let's talk about the apparent loss of solid storytelling fundamentals and how to fix THOSE problems. THEN everything else will start to improve.
But...I hadn't even gotten to portrayal yet though... xD
You do make good points here, some I planned to touch on when I got to portrayal. Bad female characters are a symptom of bad writing in general, not just a female issue but a universal one. Granted, the way the characters are effected may differ, but the overall problem is unisex.
It should also be noted that game type can have an effect on writing and by extension characters. Fighting games, for instance, are not known for deep characterization, so we should not expect much there for female characters when most of the males are the same generic archtypes as well.
Problems arise though when focus of a lot of triple A games (the ones most visible and least excused for poor writing) tends to be split among secondary aspects (cash shops, multiplayer, things like that) instead of towards a solid single player experience. Hell, some have even come out claiming single player is dead, showing you the amount of respect they have for the idea of an immerse story. I can see why a lot of the writing sucks.
Adding this as a quick thought. As a society, there is still an underlying aspect of "don't hit girls". I wonder if this, especially when it comes to competitive multiplayer fps games, doesn't somehow influence why female characters are rarer. Be it a customer reaction (say, slower to pull the trigger on a female model compared to a male) or just perceived reaction, would that influence company decisions? If female character death can be used for a cheap emotional plow (and boy, do they ever), then obviously they are aware of the unconscious difference of female versus male death and the effects they have on the player.
I really doubt this.
There might be a tiny unconscious difference, but I don't think so. I don't hesitate to pull the trigger on others in games that let you choose your gender, and I've not had anyone hesitate to pull it on me either.
Mostly I think gaming companies just don't bother thinking past `male as default` a lot. Not in a evil way just they don't consider anything else.
Also, with the community... I'd think I'd be more likely to be shot if I picked a female character. Not less.
Like... my boyfriend plays Trouble In Terrorist-Town a lot and uses voice. If I were to do that, I can almost guarantee I'd get shot more than him.
Maybe I should do that as an experiment?
Please show me where i stated that women in general aren't core gamers or where i made any comment about this assumption (which i didn't make in the first place) excusing exclusion of or hostility towards females.
Just because 45% of all people who play any kind of games on any device for any length of time a week are female doesn't mean that 45% of core gamers a female.
No. If we boil down what i wrote it comes to: "45% of all people who play any kind of games are female" is not necessarily equal to "45% of all people who play core games are female", which seems not that controversial to me. The sentence you quoted makes no claims about how many females are core gamers (i believe it to be less than 45%, also i can't say how much lower as credible numbers are lacking). I also fail to see the connection to me allegedly making excuses for exclusion or hostility.
Eacaraxe said:
broca said:
Yes, what a horrible world would we live in if females just played the games they are interested in. We should not rest until exactly the same number of females and males play every single core game and if we have to force females to play them (/sarcasm). As i said before, excluding females who want to play core games is bad, but if a female doesn't want to play core games, that's equally ok. How about we try to include the ones who want to play core games and just leave the rest alone?
If I asked you define "core" in this context (i.e. what is a "core game"), I'd put dollars to donuts you'll give a definition roughly analogous to triple-A titles: games by the major developers and publishers, with the biggest budgets, "best" developers, most market exposure, and largest communities and fan bases.
And once more you are off the base. For me core gaming is everything that's not casual gaming, whereat i use the wikipedia definition of casual ("can have any type of gameplay, and fit in any genre. They are typically distinguished by their simple rules and lack of commitment required in contrast to more complex hardcore games. They require no long-term time commitment or special skills to play, and there are comparatively low production and distribution costs for the producer.") So while AAA gaming is included, many indies are as well and even some mobile games.
Eacaraxe said:
To which I'd say, these games are largely developed, produced, and marketed for males. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, there's obviously a market for it, but there has been a clear trend over the last decade or so of triple-A titles as a whole becoming increasingly masculinized -- masculine themes and symbolism dominate, and games have become increasingly explicitly violent and sexualized (that's not to say women can't appreciate violence and gore, or sexualization, but that males as a gender tend to be more accepting of violent and sexually-explicit themes and imagery) -- and thereby exclusive of gamers who would purchase triple-A titles but are disinterested in the narratives, themes, and imagery they espouse (i.e. women).
Look, we are mostly on the same page here. When someone wants to play core games and is put off by stuff like female representation or harassment that's a problem and has to change. But for me being inclusive to females who already want to be or even are core gamers is much more important than changing games so more females are interested in core games in the first place. Or to say it another way: a female that wants to play but is put off is a problem, but a female that isn't interested in core games in the first place is not.
Eacaraxe said:
You're confusing cause and effect. You're claiming females aren't "core" gamers because they don't want to play "core" games. Well, no shit Sherlock -- they're not being tapped as a demographic by triple-A companies in the first place! Has it occurred to you that maybe -- just maybe -- if triple-A companies tapped that demographic, more women would become "core" gamers?
And once again: i did not claim that females in general are not core gamers, just that the number you have given for all gamers are most likely not transferable to female core gamers. I know this is a shock to some, but males and females are different on average in their interests (for whatever reason), so while it is possible and even likely that a stronger commitment on games for females leads to more female core gamers it is equally possible that it does not. So instead of concentrating on people who might want to become core gamers one day, why not concentrate on the females that already want to be or are core gamers?
Eacaraxe said:
In fact, even the language you're using is exclusionary. To say that there is a "core" of gaming implies that anything outside that is somehow on the periphery, an outgroup, and therefore safely excluded as a demographic.
But that's my hole point! We should exclude casual gamers from the discussion about core gamers because they don't want to play core games. Once again: not playing core games is not a bad thing, i'm not trying to say that all females are casual gamers or that we should ignore females who want to play core games. But why isn't it acceptable that females who don't want to play core games don't want to play core games?
The only solution I see is to just make more female protagonists in a better variety than boobsticks, and ass shots.
Women want power trips, too! And NPCs aren't going to deliver that!
More games could make the gender of their protagonists flexible too. It's not exactly like every game that features a fixed gender male protagonist has such a specific, tightly woven narrative that him being male matters that much.
Yeah, but depending of who you ask (or listen to on this forum) this is not enough. Part of the problem of making female representation better is that there is no female hive mind to agree on what making better actually means. Is a sexualized character a problem or not? Where to draw the line? Or are sexualized chars okay as long as applies to males and females equally? Are more female characters enough or does writing them need to change too? Are tropes a problem? Should they be completely vanish or just be less regular? And so on...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
