Women gaming problems, solution discussion 1

[runic knight]

I know these are indie games with basically no marketing budget but they to their share of covering on internet. If every gamer was to point these games out to friend and associates word would get really far. There I go dreaming again.

I still love that the best advertising is word of mouth. But you have a great idea there.

We could start a steam group or something as a resource with great, inexpensive and resource-light games for just that reason. Also, would need to be advertised or have an off-steam connection since people usually only get steam if they are gamers already. Say what you will about angry birds selling out but damn if the game didn't do more to pull in new people to games then any of the big name releases of that year. Also, would help with community and multiplayer issues if the community was moderated. Hell, I am sure it might work to get regular gamers into it as well just being a resource for good, fun cheap games and a place to find people and clean servers to play at, if large enough.


Have other aspects to address, too tired to for now though. Just wanted to say I liked the idea and give my thoughts on how to implement it.

 

[runic knight]

Finally, because it was asked about.

Source: http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/december12010/index.html


Thanks to a post by Yuuki in another thread.

 

[keepsit100]

Read whole thread - lurker compelled to post
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

No one cares about you better than you.
I can't understand you because I am me.
Want a game you can't buy? Make it. Until you do, no one cares.
Certain ppl like to take industries, as opposed to create industries.
I know Mac makeup isn't trying to increase it's male market.
What it sounds like is you want me to make MLP of Duty for you. And I won't.
I spent the time to learn how to code. I respect my elders and the work.
Some of us remember being ostracized for the hobby by the same people who now want to be a part of it. Hard to forget.
This hobby is mine, I own it.
I generally like to ask certain groups of people how many games they BUY.
If you know what dolphin dive means, regardless of background or gender, we friends.
I don't care what my avatar looks like if I can kill something with it.
I don't care who sits behind the avatars in my game, as long as you can kill with power.
Life is hard.

Everyone is awesome, good day.

 

[runic knight]

Read whole thread - lurker compelled to post
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

No one cares about you better than you.
I can't understand you because I am me.
Want a game you can't buy? Make it. Until you do, no one cares.
Certain ppl like to take industries, as opposed to create industries.
I know Mac makeup isn't trying to increase it's male market.
What it sounds like is you want me to make MLP of Duty for you. And I won't.
I spent the time to learn how to code. I respect my elders and the work.
Some of us remember being ostracized for the hobby by the same people who now want to be a part of it. Hard to forget.
This hobby is mine, I own it.
I generally like to ask certain groups of people how many games they BUY.
If you know what dolphin dive means, regardless of background or gender, we friends.
I don't care what my avatar looks like if I can kill something with it.
I don't care who sits behind the avatars in my game, as long as you can kill with power.
Life is hard.

Everyone is awesome, good day.

You touch on some good points, makes some that make no sense and post some things that confuse all around.

No one is trying to turn CoD into MLP. Hell, I have said that any aspect that would force companies to do something just for the sake of inclusion is a bad idea. I also went over how come traits in games have a gender preference and that is not something we can change outright (they are mostly results of culture itself), nor would it be wise for a game to change them when they are the reason the game sells. When I mentioned traits like competitiveness and violence as examples in the first post I touched on this one.

No one is saying people have to make games a certain way, that was not the point of the thread in the least. Rather, it was to look into why the buying habits are the way they are along gender lines. And we have run across a number of reasons outside of simply personal choice. Thus it is borderline dishonest to present it as merely a question of who buys what now, or that if people want a certain game they need to make it themselves. Especially when you remember that the game industry is a marketplace, and a high enough demand will result in a product sough after, even if the demand is coming from people who can't and aren't making the type of game they want themselves.

That said, you do touch on well that there is a history to take not of in how people treated the hobby before and now. It certainly can create a possessiveness of it and a bitterness and distrust to the new people who suddenly changed their tunes now that video games are in. Further more when one sees that current trend of acceptance of games in the mainstream as just that; a trend. Look at other trends that were pushed into main stream and then forgotten, and the effects they had on the trends themselves. I think music makes fairly good parallels for that, with genre like Metal and Punk changing drastically as people try to appeal to a larger mainstream audience. Within those groups you also had the older core group who were resentful of the newcomers and posers too. Makes it harder to tell how much of the issue is one of gender because of gender itself and how much relates to gender simple because previous compared to current buying habits and that possessiveness and distrust born out of a hobby changing and being more accepted.

Make up is a good counterpoint actually. A product made with a gender in mind and used predominantly by one gender because of individual choice that is more influenced by cultural standards then not. The main problem here though is that make up isn't nearly as varied in audience as video games are. Women are already playing and targeted when it comes to puzzle, simulation and smaller games. As such there is a far greater chance to encourage overlap when they are already using a similar product then there is to encourage someone to use a product they haven't touched. And that is to say nothing of the the differences in why each product is used. Make up is designed to highlight attractiveness, something more culturally worried about (in that fashion) for women. Games are designed for entertainment and enjoyment, something universal.

 

[keepsit100]

Thanks for response, I am saying there are a fixed number of content creators in the field. I have a tendency to think that the game industry fixates on what I consider to be "nerd" subjects. ( I am nerd, no judgement) Space Marine, Lt Badass, OrcSlayer, etc. These things are the interests of the content creator. If another party feels that a new genre or gametype is needed. Go make it.

Making it as opposed to petitioning for another party to make it is the way to go. Who am I to tell developer X, who spent 12 years in the industry he shouldn't make his dream game? He paid 12 years, he has the right. Boobies or not.

In 12 years, miss developer X can make her own game. Or go indie today.

The first 2 comments relate to the people asking for someone to consider another person's point of view, I barely have enough time for my point of view. Your wants and needs are your responsibility alone.

Corporate world does not say, we have 60 people assigned to this project. Lets assign another 60 people to a new one.
They just take 30 people off the original, I have a problem with this across all industries, not just this one.

If you realize there is demand elsewhere, create a new company, don't move your company focus to another focus and diss yer core spending group. Core gamers could care less about a industry that doesn't affect them. Paring down my experience ( like assigning multiple actions to a single button because it's easy! ) in hopes to appeal to a new demo(graphic) because the publisher thinks I have no awareness, no self control, and will pre-order a game a year in advance of the strength of a pre-rendered video made by a dedicated production house.

Some people want to feel included with very little investment and there is a valid market in providing that want.
Some of us paid in money, time, and social standing to become included. This is not cool to me.

When I was a child we never thought about girl games or boy games. Everyone plays mario. Murder sims are predominately played by dudes. And that's ok too.

Pure games ( geometry wars ) appeal to everyone. Murder games ( which I love unabashedly ) appeal to some groups. No group is more valid than any other. I could just as easily say "lowest common denominator gaming problems" when I see QTE's everywhere. Or no better AI than Fear in a decade.

Right now this is hot, so it's a big internet thing. When it is no longer, and some other pastime is overrun with new kids, what will happen to my hobby? I will still be here. That's the point.

 

[runic knight]

That is a pretty good break down in general, I got to admit. I agree with most of it too. The motivations behind what games are made, the limited resources making it harder to get anything that isn't targeting the largest paying out demographic, the decisions for game makers to make the games they want most of the time (excluding when publishers push for certain ideas, as someone has to want people to make shovelware, right?).

I suppose what made me finally make this thread and try to explore the idea is that I am aware that the current interest in games can either be longer lasting or just another trend that gets left in the dust with the countless others. I like the hobby, I been there for a while now, not planning on dropping it if and when it drops from public interest. As such, I don't want it to worse off after all this dies down. Not just in terms of quality of games, which is why I often protest habits I see as harmful, such as QTE, copy-cat game design, corporate greedy affecting games and so on. But I also don't want the community itself to be worse off afterwards either. It is easy to understand why there is a lot of backlash and resentment from core gamers. It is easy to dismiss their opinions and just say it is because they are entitled or sexist or short sighted. But if the interest dies down, they would be the only ones left keeping gaming alive again. Obviously they don't want to see it gutted out by corporate greed appealing to a base that may abandon the industry. The reason gaming is as big as it is now is because of the people who loved the hobby and paid into it and supported it. You have a good point that when compared to newcomers, that those people invested into it with time, money and even social standing would make them feel entitled to being catered to and entitled as defenders of the hobby. But with all industry, greed controls all and we have seen before how quick companies are to shit on the core for a quick profit grab. So resentment and bitterness at that leads to lashing out and fear of change and blaming everything for the problem. Not the right way to handle it, true, but perfectly human nature to expect it.


I guess in the scope of this thread, I just want to remove any barriers that are gender based that prevent people from joining or enjoying the games. Because of all the other aspects, gender has been tied to things and because of the ease at which the difference can be seen, they, at least in my eyes, are often scapegoated for the problems with games, to a negative behavior from the core community itself. Women were not a common sight before when games were not popular in the same way they were not a common sight in nerd culture itself. They are easily recognizable physically and even demographically. It isn't right they are targeted even if I can understand a good bit of the motivations and reasons it ended that way. I just would like to see that habit of the core community broken now before the trend fades in popularity and ideas are solidified as having been justified. Same with nerd culture as a larger entity and things like the backlash against fake gamer girls. I know that it is the "fake" aspect that is what drives the majority of the backlash, but it is being co-opted and confused and driven towards simply scapegoating a conveniently separated group.

We do have to understand what aspects do or do not appeal to women in general as an audience in order to understand which aspects we should try to change in the first place. As you said, if it is just that the game types don't apply to them, there is nothing wrong with that. And I would readily agree that changing a game for the sake of appealing to a different demographic is stupid if not borderline suicidal in any industry, when the change is away from somehting the most profitable demographic has responded to in the first place. You don't shit on the paying customers, even if the industry itself seems to forget that time and again in their greed. Still, there are other aspects to address on the topic concerning how the community itself behaves towards women or how the industry can make changes in other areas. Not to increase female participation by trickery or changing the product, just by increasing it by removing aspects that would otherwise repel or keep them out.


I've argued with other before about keeping the scope of the discussion more relevant to gaming itself and away from wide sweeping claims of blame or trying to paint the solution as one single aspect or gender's issue. I don't want the core gamers to not join the discussion because they are blamed as the problem in gaming when they have the most familiarity with the history and emotional response to how things have developed and can offer better insight into what solutions would work best and how each idea would be reacted to. Conversely I don't want the new comers run off because they are blamed for the state of gaming today when fresh blood is vital to any industry to survive, as well as just to avoid stagnation itself.

Eh, sort of lost the point I was going to make. Might be back later to re-edit and clarify things.

 

[broca]

So, after thinking about the problem, i have come up with something individual people with some dedication could do.

Where i live there are crypto parties from time to time, where people can learn from hackers how to make their communication safer and even bring their own pc or laptop to get help with setting stuff up. So why not make newbie parties where people can learn about gaming (what games are there aside from the AAA stuff, how to play them,...) and get help with setting them up. This could bring in both new gamers and help people who are unsatisfied with AAA but don't play the more diverse indie stuff on pc because getting them set up is too much work (something some people in this threat mentioned). I imagine it could also be quit interesting for parents who's kids play and who want to understand what they are doing.

While i won't do this, if someone else wants to, feel free

 

[Something Amyss]

Also, I don't understand about that whole "since it's digital we cant know numbers". It's exactly becouse it's digital that we can know numbers down to a single copy.

Well, not "we." The publishers can know the numbers, but they don't tell us. You see, we previously had multiple metrics from stores, consumer groups, and organisations which would give us numbers we could look at. Most of them were done with the express intent of information for the producers (devs, pubs) and shops/advertisers, but with digital sales, it's between the platform (Steam, GOG, Origin) and the publisher. The Devs might not even be in the loop.

But here's an example fresh in my mind from another thread. The former head of the studio behind Tom Raider (the 2013 game) said it recently cracked 4 million units. VG Chartz says it hasn't cracked 3 million. Now, there's some methodology issues, but they shouldn't come close to a million units difference here. Still, it probably has hit 4 million sales. I mean, both Steam and PSN have had sales on it relatively recently, plus whatever it already sold. Because there's no tracking of digital sales that is routinely reported.

The same guy could be lying. Gabe Newell could be lying when he talks about the growth of Steam each year. There's literally no way of knowing. They're probably not, but they could be. And how would we know?

This makes it hard for a consumer-based campaign of any sort to take root, because all the information is closed off.

Finally, because it was asked about.

That's lovely, but does it say anywhere on the site what their methodology and sources are?

I don't doubt for a moment women are a pretty small minority but without that sort of information, the chart is worthless.

Want a game you can't buy? Make it. Until you do, no one cares.

If that was even remotely true, there would be no real games market to begin with. Caring is what keeps content makers making content and consumers consuming.

I mean, it's a nice thought to put on your next needlework project, but it's fairly specious.

 

[runic knight]

Finally, because it was asked about.

That's lovely, but does it say anywhere on the site what their methodology and sources are?

I don't doubt for a moment women are a pretty small minority but without that sort of information, the chart is worthless.

Fair enough to question it, though you could simple send an email and ask if you are that concerned. Furthermore, the point of the graph was in response to a pointless protest in the first place. Hell, even you now agree.

The point initially made was that women, in general, don't buy CoD as much as guys. I could go contact the ones who made that graph, learn the methodology they used and return, probably weeks later, to fulfill your request but at this point I have to ask why bother? It seems like you are just trying to be contrary now, and I would be having this same discussion if the statement was "The sky is blue".
I agree with the statement. You agree with the statement. Therefore, for the sake of the conversation, we can both accept it as a working premises, even if only in the most basic sense: Women buy CoD much less then guys. If I was trying to make a case about how companies look at the data to determine how much effort to appeal to one gender or another, then yeah, I can see the point. But I don't know how they look at things, nor how they would judge that. All I know is that conventional wisdom, the data provided, the data of every similar graph I have seen before, and the habits of the industry itself all support the basic premise raised, that of women buying less CoD then men. The result of that being "therefore, they would want to cater more towards men, since they are the audience". Though even that is over simplification since the gender thing is only the overall trend based on individual choice based on the traits that make up the game having appeal to one gender more then the other according to studies that show women are less likely to buy/play/watch something with strong violence and yaddayaddayadda.

Want a game you can't buy? Make it. Until you do, no one cares.

If that was even remotely true, there would be no real games market to begin with. Caring is what keeps content makers making content and consumers consuming.

I mean, it's a nice thought to put on your next needlework project, but it's fairly specious.[/quote]
I thought they meant "If the game you want doesn't exist, no one cares that you don't have it." You know, the idea that if you want a certain thing, you will get farther putting the effort into making it yourself then trying to complain to others to make it for you (especially when you are asking for millions to be invested in your idea and you don't represent a market renowned for stability and dependability to the industry.

 

[Eve Charm]

Eh I mean with the smaller devs like atlus is a lot of their games will live and die by worth of mouth and you don't really see and hear female gamers telling other females about games they got to get. I hear stuff like minecraft and terraria or even stuff like call of duty but talking about niche titles I don't see it. You can't complain small company's don't try to make girl games tho, get prepared for a list...

My world my way, Steal princess, Code of princess, thereisa, touch detective 1 and 2, Witch's wish, Witch tale, just about all the Atelier games, The people that did the Item shop tale games, Fate extra, Jeanne darc. Whenever they try to target a game more at women, males are still buying it more...

 

[runic knight]

Eh I mean with the smaller devs like atlus is a lot of their games will live and die by worth of mouth and you don't really see and hear female gamers telling other females about games they got to get. I hear stuff like minecraft and terraria or even stuff like call of duty but talking about niche titles I don't see it. You can't complain small company's don't try to make girl games tho, get prepared for a list...

My world my way, Steal princess, Code of princess, thereisa, touch detective 1 and 2, Witch's wish, Witch tale, just about all the Atelier games, The people that did the Item shop tale games, Fate extra, Jeanne darc. Whenever they try to target a game more at women, males are still buying it more...

So it is just a lack of, perhaps, advertisement and awareness of games that may better appeal to women that is part of the problem? That does seem to work with all the other issues people have mentioned and raised. And would help fuel the whole spiral effect where games are made for guy because guys are the only ones who buy them because they are made for guys etc.

What would your thoughts be on a list or something of great games, inexpensive or easy to play without a strong computer/loads of money to buy a new console? A place where people can go to find games or even gaming servers and communities without having to wander completely lost in the web. Word of mouth would probably be the way it would be advertised.

 

[Something Amyss]

Fair enough to question it, though you could simple send an email and ask if you are that concerned. Furthermore, the point of the graph was in response to a pointless protest in the first place. Hell, even you now agree.

But that's not the point. I'm not the one using it as proof. I'm not so much concerned with it as I'd never seen it before. I am concerned with it being used as proof.

I'm one of those people who questions even the things that confirm what I believe. If something sounds too good to be true, it often is.

The point initially made was that women, in general, don't buy CoD as much as guys. I could go contact the ones who made that graph, learn the methodology they used and return, probably weeks later, to fulfill your request but at this point I have to ask why bother? It seems like you are just trying to be contrary now, and I would be having this same discussion if the statement was "The sky is blue".

Sky? What sky?

...That was a joke, for the record. For someone who wants an honest discussion on matters, it seems like maybe you shouldn't make accusations. The burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion, and if you don't see a point in demonstrating something, don't assert it as proof.

Would you be so quick to accept this graph if you disagreed? What if I hypothetically found a chart that demonstrated a causal link between video games and violent crime, but offered neither sources nor methodology. Wouldn't you want to know?

I ask that people who say things I disagree with provide things like reputable peer-reviewed studies and polls and statistics with transparency. It would be utterly hypocritical if I did not ask the same of this graph simply because I thought it was probably correct.

This is even more important because it dovetails with a question I've asked multiple times in this and other threads: how do we break down a base that doesn't wish to be identified? There's more than enough women online talking about how they don't want to be counted. How do you track down a base based on disclosure when they may not disclose?

Is it, in fact, the chicken or the egg?

I thought they meant "If the game you want doesn't exist, no one cares that you don't have it." You know, the idea that if you want a certain thing, you will get farther putting the effort into making it yourself then trying to complain to others to make it for you (especially when you are asking for millions to be invested in your idea and you don't represent a market renowned for stability and dependability to the industry.

So it's more feasible for an indicidual to invest millions and make a game than for a group to request a company do it? A company that is ostensibly looking to expand their market as virtually all companies in the industry are trying to do? I don't buy it.

Seeking companies to do this sort of thing isn't even remotely new. What makes video games so wildly different from other consumer products? There is little to no analogous concept elsewhere, especially in technical fields.

And honestly, let me ask you something: can you make a game?

I see you've complained about TES Online. Go make your own MMO. You complained about Man of Steel. Go make your own superhero movie. Why talk about on-disc DLC? By this model, they don't care if you don't like it. You even said "we have a problem." You complained about the Xbone and Microsoft in thread after thread. Why don't you make a better product? You hate on EA, so same there.

And this:

come on now, how hard is it to make a good movie?

Why aren't you making good movies then?

Why should the ladies have all the fun? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

I bet I know the reason:

You have a life.

Most of us do. I have two jobs and I write shitty novels on the side. I would like to be published for writing the stuff I love to write, so I'm running through submissions processes right now. I guess you could consider that three jobs. Not only do I not have the technical expertise to make games, I don't really have the time to learn. or apply such skills. I mean, I could take my time in the internet, but that's usually divided between writing and doing work while I also happen to be posting or whatever.

A lot of gamers have responsibilities and things they're already quite fond of doing. Women are really no different, are they? I mean, honestly, I expect you have better things to do, but it doesn't stop you from criticising things you don't like and insisting upon things you want.

I don't know your personal details beyond what I can extrapolate from The Escapist, but I'd assume you have hobbies, friends, obligations like most of the community. But if you think that this is a valid notion, why aren't you making your own movies, games, consoles, etc? Is the gaming industry going to "care" more about your complaints? Howabout the movie industry? Anyone called you for tips on Man of Steel? Dungeons and Dragons? I imagine not, but if so, feel free to put me in my place.

I tell you, there are movies I would love to make. Games, too. Hell, I've had a concept album going around in my head for over ten years now. Even if I could write a script (And I'm actually learning), it'd still be largely beyond the scope of what I could do. But I couldn't feasibly do that all in one lifetime, and I don't entirely want to. Games are a hobby, a medium where I want to be the consumer. We all have ideas we kick around we'd never follow to their end because they're impractical, or even dumb. But even if they're not, how much time and effort are we expected to put into creating our own media? Movies, music, books, games, television, paintings, statues? What about you? Do you have the skills? The resources? The vision? If so, why aren't you more hands on?

That sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[runic knight]

Fair enough to question it, though you could simple send an email and ask if you are that concerned. Furthermore, the point of the graph was in response to a pointless protest in the first place. Hell, even you now agree.

But that's not the point. I'm not the one using it as proof. I'm not so much concerned with it as I'd never seen it before. I am concerned with it being used as proof.

I'm one of those people who questions even the things that confirm what I believe. If something sounds too good to be true, it often is.

But, I'm not using it as proof at all, I am using it as a premise. Since we both accept the premise as true in the context of the discussion, I don't get the problem here.

This isn't an iron clad scientifically backed explanation of why things are they way they are. I don't think that is even possible when it comes to social behaviors within culture at large.

The point initially made was that women, in general, don't buy CoD as much as guys. I could go contact the ones who made that graph, learn the methodology they used and return, probably weeks later, to fulfill your request but at this point I have to ask why bother? It seems like you are just trying to be contrary now, and I would be having this same discussion if the statement was "The sky is blue".

Sky? What sky?

...That was a joke, for the record. For someone who wants an honest discussion on matters, it seems like maybe you shouldn't make accusations. The burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion, and if you don't see a point in demonstrating something, don't assert it as proof.

If I was making a serious claim, I would have to support it, and thoroughly. Being I am making an argument using accepted premises to try and explore the topic though, it comes off as being contrary for the sake of contrary.

If I said I had an invisible cat, I would have to prove that. If I was discussing a topic where an invisible cat was related, I could simply use it as a premise if the premise was accepted for the sake of the larger conversation.

Would you be so quick to accept this graph if you disagreed? What if I hypothetically found a chart that demonstrated a causal link between video games and violent crime, but offered neither sources nor methodology. Wouldn't you want to know?

I suppose, but only because it countered all other data seen. As a premise though, I am more then happy to roll with "women buy more CoD then men" if there is some purpose to be found from that. I would have to wonder what that would mean for many arguments about video games and women though, if so many purchase the product, it would undercut any notion about women not liking those sorts of games (as a general trend, of course) and would be baffling in the context of the industry as a whole.

I ask that people who say things I disagree with provide things like reputable peer-reviewed studies and polls and statistics with transparency. It would be utterly hypocritical if I did not ask the same of this graph simply because I thought it was probably correct.

This is even more important because it dovetails with a question I've asked multiple times in this and other threads: how do we break down a base that doesn't wish to be identified? There's more than enough women online talking about how they don't want to be counted. How do you track down a base based on disclosure when they may not disclose?

Is it, in fact, the chicken or the egg?

How can I word this...
When talking with friends about a general topic, do you often stop them mid-sentence in order to have them prove a premise? Yes, you'd be within your right to request it, as until the premise is proven, the argument based on it at still unreliable. But lets say you can't. Lets say the argument is based on data that is hardly iron clad. Like identifying members of a sub group where the definition of the group itself is based on individual definition. You could try to work a way to define the group (that the group would argue over), how to measure participation (that would be debated) and then the results of that. This is very true, but also very boring and, thanks to logic, very unnecessary.

Now for the time being, with aspects that are considered true by both audience and industry, I have no problem using for the sake of premises. They make good starting points for the discussion. I can use logic to figure out that, if the premise is true, it might behave a certain way. Hell, I can even make proofs that show that if the premise is true, the entire thing is. But for now we lack the final say on the premise, and you yourself mention the difficulty of getting solid data to work with regarding it. So rather then wait til we can, I decided to move on. Hell, assuming we get good solution ideas, we could theoretically go back and "prove" the premise true just by verifying that the solution worked. Like solving for X.

I thought they meant "If the game you want doesn't exist, no one cares that you don't have it." You know, the idea that if you want a certain thing, you will get farther putting the effort into making it yourself then trying to complain to others to make it for you (especially when you are asking for millions to be invested in your idea and you don't represent a market renowned for stability and dependability to the industry.

So it's more feasible for an indicidual to invest millions and make a game than for a group to request a company do it? A company that is ostensibly looking to expand their market as virtually all companies in the industry are trying to do? I don't buy it.

An individual does not have to invest millions. Keep in mind that when a company invests in a game, they expect a good return on it. They are not making a game for themselves alone so much as for an audience demanding it. Hell, they are often obligated by publishers to behave in certain ways or encorperate certain features.

And individual does not require that, does not require to spend millions on advertising, employee salaries, licensing or anything else. They can make the game they want if they put in the time and effort and if the resources to make it exist.

Seeking companies to do this sort of thing isn't even remotely new. What makes video games so wildly different from other consumer products? There is little to no analogous concept elsewhere, especially in technical fields.

It isn't that it is new, it is that the demand is not as refined. You are talking about a game you want. That is a personal thing if you want it done right. You'd need personal touch and control or accept that you wont get what you want exactly. The more people adding their funding, the less likely it will be exactly what you sought. And the more money they give in, the greater force trends will have when trying to satisfy people. If more people who contribute like something you don't, they may get it because of that.

And honestly, let me ask you something: can you make a game?

I see you've complained about TES Online. Go make your own MMO. You complained about Man of Steel. Go make your own superhero movie. Why talk about on-disc DLC? By this model, they don't care if you don't like it. You even said "we have a problem." You complained about the Xbone and Microsoft in thread after thread. Why don't you make a better product? You hate on EA, so same there.

And this:

come on now, how hard is it to make a good movie?

Why aren't you making good movies then?

Why should the ladies have all the fun? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

I bet I know the reason:

You have a life.

Most of us do. I have two jobs and I write shitty novels on the side. I would like to be published for writing the stuff I love to write, so I'm running through submissions processes right now. I guess you could consider that three jobs. Not only do I not have the technical expertise to make games, I don't really have the time to learn. or apply such skills. I mean, I could take my time in the internet, but that's usually divided between writing and doing work while I also happen to be posting or whatever.

A lot of gamers have responsibilities and things they're already quite fond of doing. Women are really no different, are they? I mean, honestly, I expect you have better things to do, but it doesn't stop you from criticising things you don't like and insisting upon things you want.

I don't know your personal details beyond what I can extrapolate from The Escapist, but I'd assume you have hobbies, friends, obligations like most of the community. But if you think that this is a valid notion, why aren't you making your own movies, games, consoles, etc? Is the gaming industry going to "care" more about your complaints? Howabout the movie industry? Anyone called you for tips on Man of Steel? Dungeons and Dragons? I imagine not, but if so, feel free to put me in my place.

I tell you, there are movies I would love to make. Games, too. Hell, I've had a concept album going around in my head for over ten years now. Even if I could write a script (And I'm actually learning), it'd still be largely beyond the scope of what I could do. But I couldn't feasibly do that all in one lifetime, and I don't entirely want to. Games are a hobby, a medium where I want to be the consumer. We all have ideas we kick around we'd never follow to their end because they're impractical, or even dumb. But even if they're not, how much time and effort are we expected to put into creating our own media? Movies, music, books, games, television, paintings, statues? What about you? Do you have the skills? The resources? The vision? If so, why aren't you more hands on?

That sounds like a double standard to me.

Actually, I am trying to work on making a game. Granted I suck and I know my limited ability will end in failure eventually. As such I accept that the games that are made will not meet the standards I want exactly. That is the price of convenience, the decline of quality after all. I mod games, it offers a middle point I can agree with if I want an experience closer to what I seek. For movies, there are always fan made ones, hell I could participate in them and have my say influence things a little bit there.

The point of "Make it yourself" is that the less one puts into a project, the less it will be catered to them. I hate a lot of games. I hate a lot of movies. I hate a lot of books. If all I put into the project is the price of admission, I am not putting anything into the project but supporting the end result. If what I like is liked by others, then that can be enough. In your case, you are not the majority opinion and it is not enough. You are fighting contrary the opinions of the majority who support the same project. As such, which is the better option? Bashing your head against the wall trying to get that to change or finding another project to support where your voice will have a stronger infleunce?

There is a reason when people use the "make it yourself" argument, they don't often mean it as you have to make an entire game solely on your own (though some people have practically done that). They often mention kickstarters and the indie scene. Those are places where the majority pull is different, where you can more easily find projects you want to support and who in turn can be more influenced by your voice without the hordes arguing against them.

The way you present it comes off as you think the only existence of something is as a large Triple A title sort. And I get it, hell, I want to see the sort of games I want in full blown, excessive money spent to make it look pretty glory. But that isn't going to happen unless your opinions are the same as the majority. Superman is going to be an over the top explosion-fest now because that makes the most money. Games are going to be dirty and brown and cover based a lot. And if all I looked at was the large scene, it does depress the hell out of me.

I suppose the wording of it is probably antagonistic, which does not help. But there are options and alternatives people can go to to get games closer to what they want. There are games out there that people barely heard about. If you want the one you want, you can't expect the majority of the largest industry to agree. This is not because of women. This is because majority rules when it comes to what a company will make.
When it comes to complaints about skimpy models or stupid stories or testosterone driven protagonists, many agree and complain right alone with it. Hell, I would love variety. But I know the main market is less likely to have that. I know sometimes I have to look at kickstarter and toss a few bucks someway, or dig through the indie titles on steam, or play around with art assets and modding programs. It is not because the industry is against me, it is not because of my age or race or gender. It is because the traits that are seen as the most profitable in gaming are not always the ones I want to play with. Sometimes I have to help make it myself.

 

[Something Amyss]

But, I'm not using it as proof at all, I am using it as a premise. Since we both accept the premise as true in the context of the discussion, I don't get the problem here.

You used it as proof OF the premise, there's a difference.

This isn't an iron clad scientifically backed explanation of why things are they way they are. I don't think that is even possible when it comes to social behaviors within culture at large.

You ranted at me for multipel pages that this was about looking at why things were the wayt hey were. Try a single standard, friend.

If I was making a serious claim, I would have to support it, and thoroughly. Being I am making an argument using accepted premises to try and explore the topic though, it comes off as being contrary for the sake of contrary.

Except I explained myself. Once again, you choose to ignore my words to insist that I'm doing something for some other reason.

I suppose, but only because it countered all other data seen. As a premise though, I am more then happy to roll with "women buy more CoD then men" if there is some purpose to be found from that. I would have to wonder what that would mean for many arguments about video games and women though, if so many purchase the product, it would undercut any notion about women not liking those sorts of games (as a general trend, of course) and would be baffling in the context of the industry as a whole.

The premise was already there. Posting graphics, charts, and studies goes into the "proof" territory. Don't post these things unless you are willing to treat them as assertions.

When talking with friends about a general topic, do you often stop them mid-sentence in order to have them prove a premise?

Mid-sentence? No. Fortunately, this is the internet and can be dealt with more readily than a casual conversation, and you've never actually been stopped mid-sentence here. Unless someone's been spying on you and actually phoned you up mid-typing of a sentence. This is a terrible analogy.

An individual does not have to invest millions. Keep in mind that when a company invests in a game, they expect a good return on it. They are not making a game for themselves alone so much as for an audience demanding it. Hell, they are often obligated by publishers to behave in certain ways or encorperate certain features.

But we weren't talking about corporations. Don't shift the goalposts.

And individual does not require that, does not require to spend millions on advertising, employee salaries, licensing or anything else. They can make the game they want if they put in the time and effort and if the resources to make it exist.

Only if their aspirations are quite low.

It isn't that it is new, it is that the demand is not as refined. You are talking about a game you want.

Just like every moviegoer and game player and book reader and....

People aren't even asking for games to spec. They're asking for some fairly broad things like "woman who isn't just a device for moving boobs from point A to point B."

You've had more specific rants in the aforementioned movies bit, why are your wants okay?

Actually, I am trying to work on making a game.

And what about your movies? You justify your investment being small and argue you are the majority, yet you bitched about multiple movies and apparently were the minority in at least some cases. Again, why are you so different?

The point of "Make it yourself" is that the less one puts into a project, the less it will be catered to them.

Of course, that's pointless, as people aren't asking for much specifics in terms of being "catered to." It's also a change in directions.

Bashing your head against the wall trying to get that to change or finding another project to support where your voice will have a stronger infleunce?

Depends on if there are other projects. That's the issue in the first place.

The way you present it comes off as you think the only existence of something is as a large Triple A title sort.

No, but it's a big part of the industry and a big trendsetter, something close to what you actually said in response to me so you're obviously aware of it. Try to address that honestly, rather than deliberately misconstruing me.

Triple A gaming is a big part of the industry. I'm guessing you know that. Therefore, it's a big part of this discussion. It's also a point of comparison here: this can easily be compared to other entertainment media and gaming doesn't come off looking good. And "go back to the indies" is an attitude that also doesn't look good. And yet, there is perhaps the greatest disparity between our indies and our mainstream. A few games cross over, but not a significant number and a lot of them are obvious as to why they were the exception (dumping a major bank account into one, for example). collaborations short of the corporate structure are still at risk and still out there in the minors. And, of course, the earlier corporate comparison compared to the misrepresentation of my beliefs on triple a gaming is another case of playing both sides against the middle.

You've shifted the meaning of "make it yourself" to the point it has no actual ties to the phrase. There's making excuses and there's bending over backwards in apologetics. It's not antagonistic so much as a completely dishonest argument.

And hell, you're free to have your own definitions. But when you speak to others, they're probably going to use them as they generally apply. When we were younger, I had to bail my brother out for using the word "******" in front of a black kid. He didn't know what the word actually meant. The kid still took it that way.

You may think "Make it yourself" means something different from what it normally means, but that doesn't change anything. well, I suppose you could contact Merriam-Webster and get them to change the definition. Point being, you're chaning the wording post after post to try and make it sound less inane, and now you've done so beyond recognition. You cannot follow your own logic and rationalise your own complaints. And you completely ignored about 80% of my argument and twisted about ten more.

As long as the disparity between mainstream and indie lasts, "make it yourself" is an incredibly specious argument. It's always somewhat ridiculous, but in a medium so overcome with disc-based, console titles, restrictions on who can actually market, what can count as what, yeah, it becomes a bigger issue. Most games of ANY stripe are discarded in the indies overall.

But seriously, and let's see if you can answer this with a straight answer:

Is it really that unreasonable to expect at the bloody LEAST parity with other media?

Gaming makes the comics industry look good for crying out loud.

 

[runic knight]

But, I'm not using it as proof at all, I am using it as a premise. Since we both accept the premise as true in the context of the discussion, I don't get the problem here.

You used it as proof OF the premise, there's a difference.

No. It is just the premise. It is the "if this is true" part of the argument, which all parties seemed to have accepted as true already. It was never meant as anything more but a start to an examination of why certain behaviors in the industry would be.

This isn't an iron clad scientifically backed explanation of why things are they way they are. I don't think that is even possible when it comes to social behaviors within culture at large.

You ranted at me for multipel pages that this was about looking at why things were the wayt hey were. Try a single standard, friend.

I ranted at you several pages back because this thread was about looking at why things were the way there were at a scale that could be addressed by or attributed to gamers. I see that even after all that, you still did not understand that was what my problem with your post was. This here, where I don't think it is possible to scientifically explain the whole of culture at large, that is part of why I didn't want the discussion to be on culture as a whole. A sub-group, especially one that is younger and based around a hobby is infinitely easier to understand then the complex web and history of modern culture at large. And as you see, this slice is still pretty much beyond us.

Except I explained myself. Once again, you choose to ignore my words to insist that I'm doing something for some other reason.

The hell are you talking about here? I'm saying that the premise of "girls don't buy CoD as much as guys" is just that, a premise. You are going off on a tangent about me needing to verify the premise, and I am asking why when it is just a premise we all already accept (and has both data and conventional wisdom behind as well). I stand by my statement, getting that concerned about the validity of that premise is as pointlessly off topic as derailing a conversation on invisible cats until we prove the cat is there.

The premise was already there. Posting graphics, charts, and studies goes into the "proof" territory. Don't post these things unless you are willing to treat them as assertions.

You asked for it though. I humored your pointless derailing of the discussion to address your complaint about the lack of verification of an accepted premise.

Mid-sentence? No. Fortunately, this is the internet and can be dealt with more readily than a casual conversation, and you've never actually been stopped mid-sentence here. Unless someone's been spying on you and actually phoned you up mid-typing of a sentence. This is a terrible analogy.

Ok, whatever. Do you stop people mid-discussion to tell them to prove their premise? Do you stop the flow of the discussion to point at a premises accepted by all involved and tell them to prove it, ignoring the context or the point of the premise in the first place?

But we weren't talking about corporations. Don't shift the goalposts.

This was an explanation of things. As is my habit, I like to explain the reasons why to the best of my understanding.
Here, my point was that an individual does not have to invest millions because they are not expecting millions in return (like companies do). Thus, it is incorrect to claim they have to. Is that clearer? Or could I just have said "False: The cost to make a game is not millions, but is determined by creators themselves and how much they wish to invest into the game usually based in how much they expect in returns."

Only if their aspirations are quite low.

You want a game to fit your nitch, fine. You want a multi-million dollar blockbuster to fit your nitch, then you are unrealistic. Keep in mind, a nitch title is made lower aspirations because they don't traditionally sell well. If it doesn't sell well, don't expect companies to put the effort or money into it.

I'll grant you it can suck if you can't get a game you want, but I hope I misunderstand your complaint here though, because if you really are going to complain about the games you want being made but not having the same aspirations as, say, a CoD game or a Final Fantasy or whatever else, then that is just... I hate to use this word but, entitled. It sounds like you think the sort of game you want with the traits you desire deserves the same treatment as a proven money making cash cow like the Triple A usually pushes though.

Just like every moviegoer and game player and book reader and....

People aren't even asking for games to spec. They're asking for some fairly broad things like "woman who isn't just a device for moving boobs from point A to point B."

You've had more specific rants in the aforementioned movies bit, why are your wants okay?

It is not that my "wants" are more or less ok, it is I am not trying to be morally indignant about getting what I want from the market. I'd like a lot of things. I want a lot of things. But I know damn well that some of them are not popular enough to warrant the blockbuster treatment. Hell, "no more lazy writing" is high up on that list, which covers "plot device characters". But that takes effort, which takes money, which games are reluctant to set aside for when gameplay and graphics have been what sells games the most and they are already dumping millions into those elements.

You want a product better suited to your taste. Your taste and what the general public is willing to accept are different. I am sorry, but this is a feature of the capitalistic society as a whole, not just games. What sells well will be made again. What you want has a poor history, I hate to put it so simply but there it is. What you seem to want has not sold well for starters and will not be given the same star treatment as a company dependent title will. What makes more money will be given more, what makes less will be given less. Deeper stories and compelling characters are only now starting to get worked on as they are being more purchased. As that grows, the plot device woman and other tropes will be used less. You can not force the change when it is your voice against the business sense, no matter how stupid you think their decisions are.

And what about your movies? You justify your investment being small and argue you are the majority, yet you bitched about multiple movies and apparently were the minority in at least some cases. Again, why are you so different?

Again, because I am not getting all morally indignant that the big movie and game companies dare not cater to my will. I don't call them sexist or racist or anti-my-religion when they don't, not even if the decisions relate to those topics. I don't call Blockbusters Anti-Atheist or Anti-Jewish just because they tend to have Christian main characters. I know most of the nation is Christian, so of course they will more likely respond to the largest market base.
Also, I take the time to look into what I buy or watch, thereby making an informed decision that though small, can still give my voice into what products I want in hopes that supporting the ones closer to the ones I like means they get closer with the next attempt.
Because I am not willing to make a full movie for myself, I have to rely on others, and that means there is an ever greater chance that what they make will cater to what the most people want simply because the creator may want money and it sells. Simple stories churned out of formulaic plot devices and tropes has sold remarkably well, thus more are made. But I take the time beforehand and decide if I want to pay to watch it, and thus don't support the end result, which is a drop in the bucket towards the changes I want, but it is all I can fairly do about a preference like any movie or video game is.

Of course, that's pointless, as people aren't asking for much specifics in terms of being "catered to." It's also a change in directions.

I had a snarky reply here but honestly, what are you trying to say with this one? That people aren't clear about what they are asking for? That each one has a slightly different opinion so no one person is catered to, but rather a nebulous effect?

Depends on if there are other projects. That's the issue in the first place.

That is an issue that can't be addressed then. I could argue that damn near every project under the sun is out there to support, but that just ignores the underlying point you seem to over look. You can't force someone to make a project. Therefore if a project is not being made, then there is not enough demand/support for it. There is no force stopping projects from being made, merely not enough reason to make them to the creators who do.
I don't see how this is a problem so much as a "that sucks" sort of thing. I liken it to the lack of jetpacks hamsters. Sucks they are not made yet, but there is either not enough demand not enough money, or just not enough support. Or what we have at the moment is close enough for most people to accept it and support that, though that is pretty much "lack of support" due to the nitch being mostly filed.

No, but it's a big part of the industry and a big trendsetter, something close to what you actually said in response to me so you're obviously aware of it. Try to address that honestly, rather than deliberately misconstruing me.

Deliberately misconstrue you...This coming from the person arguing that an accepted premise needs to be proven? Or that saying comparing a game made for an individual to a multimillion dollar game made for a huge audience is not a fair comparison? Yeah, sure, whatever. I'll just reply the way I always do...

Triple A gaming is a big part of the industry. I'm guessing you know that. Therefore, it's a big part of this discussion. It's also a point of comparison here: this can easily be compared to other entertainment media and gaming doesn't come off looking good. And "go back to the indies" is an attitude that also doesn't look good. And yet, there is perhaps the greatest disparity between our indies and our mainstream. A few games cross over, but not a significant number and a lot of them are obvious as to why they were the exception (dumping a major bank account into one, for example). collaborations short of the corporate structure are still at risk and still out there in the minors. And, of course, the earlier corporate comparison compared to the misrepresentation of my beliefs on triple a gaming is another case of playing both sides against the middle.

Gaming does not need the Triple A market, at all. It existed before they came to power, it will exist after they die off. Just because they are the current face means nothing when it comes to what you want made. The Triple A is as large as it is because it sells well. It sells well because it makes a product that the people will buy. The reason the product is not what you like is because what you like is not what sells best.

What is made is what sells. Most of the time, sometimes a Wii shows up and restarts the cycle of copycats and cash grabs.

Games do not need multi-million dollar budgets. They do not need Over-the-top processor requirements and graphics that make reality look bad. They do not need stories. They can literally be a single press of a button.
I mention the corporate element because they represent the market the clearest. They represent market behavior and react accordingly. Games that make money are copied. Games that do not are forgotten. This is highly related to popularity and popular opinion. What is popular gets more money because it will make more money. What you want is not yet popular enough to make them change.
You want a triple A game that suits your tastes it seems. You wont get it. No, I shouldn't say that. There have been many triple A games that seem similar to what you seem to want, as companies do take risks with new ideas every now and then. But they will never be treated like a CoD or a Halo. Those sorts of games make or break companies. The dump money into them at excess. You expect them to not try to do it in a way that has shown to work before? You are asking them to risk the cost of a "triple A" title to meet what you want. and I know what you will say, you will say that it is something simple and small and they are stupid to leave the potential audience and money laying there and I will nod and agree and go "you are right, they should do this or that or the other thing" but then I will still have to re-explain that it doesn't matter in the least because of the history of attempts that have failed and the need for the companies to keep their current audiences happy.

The indie scene is where I go to find creativity, change. More variety, but at lower quality. They are not better or worse games, just different. Some I like more then full titles.

You've shifted the meaning of "make it yourself" to the point it has no actual ties to the phrase. There's making excuses and there's bending over backwards in apologetics. It's not antagonistic so much as a completely dishonest argument.

Heaven forbid I explain my understanding and use of the term, and why I refer to things like kickstarter when I do make it, in a way that is contrary to what you assume I mean it as. That is not dishonest, that is trying patiently to explain that what you think I am saying is different then what I am trying to say.
You have just told me I am dishonest for trying to explain that the phrase means something different to me. I am so glad you know me better then myself, please, go on and, how did you put that before? Ah yes, deliberately misconstrue me.

And hell, you're free to have your own definitions.

Except when I am being dishonest?

But when you speak to others, they're probably going to use them as they generally apply. When we were younger, I had to bail my brother out for using the word "******" in front of a black kid. He didn't know what the word actually meant. The kid still took it that way.

Thank god that we possess this wonderful thing called language that allows us to explain our thoughts and ideas in more then just a single way, therefore allowing discussion and understanding, explanation of misunderstandings and personal definitions. Well, if we are allowed to use it that way.

You may think "Make it yourself" means something different from what it normally means, but that doesn't change anything. well, I suppose you could contact Merriam-Webster and get them to change the definition. Point being, you're chaning the wording post after post to try and make it sound less inane, and now you've done so beyond recognition. You cannot follow your own logic and rationalise your own complaints. And you completely ignored about 80% of my argument and twisted about ten more.

Make it yourself. Make it happen. Contribute to the creation of. Help facilitate the invention of. Cause it through your own actions.
The idea is to help make it a reality by putting forth effort into it yourself.
If you have such an issue with the phrase, if it bothers you so much you would compare my usage of it to the word ******, then fine. Substitute it to what I have explained it as. Do you have the same problems about having to put forth effort above and beyond the usual customer to get a product more closely aligned with what you want? Does the idea of contributing yourself to the creation of a product that does not have a market demand bother you?

As long as the disparity between mainstream and indie lasts, "make it yourself" is an incredibly specious argument. It's always somewhat ridiculous, but in a medium so overcome with disc-based, console titles, restrictions on who can actually market, what can count as what, yeah, it becomes a bigger issue. Most games of ANY stripe are discarded in the indies overall.

It is your fault that you think lesser of indie titles, not mine. The disparity is market created, the money willing to be spent on a title, nothing more. What is popular gets more money, bigger budgets, flashier graphics.
It is also their popularity that allows the companies to add all the negative DRM and the like as well, as they have a strong enough customer base who is willing to put up with it. One of the reasons I like some indie titles more, or stick to classics when it is time to replay games is not having to put up with that bs.
I feel like I am repeating myself now. I feel like I am trying to explain why you can't have your favorite ice cream flavor in a big 5 gallon pail because it just is not demanded that much, and you are dismissing that you can still get perfectly fine ice cream in the small containers.

I can't change the capitalistic society in which we live nor the market forces that guide these decisions. I never wanted to try and distinctly wanted to avoid having to get into a deep discussion on it because it is beyond gamers acting as gamers to address except within the game industry itself.

But seriously, and let's see if you can answer this with a straight answer:

Is it really that unreasonable to expect at the bloody LEAST parity with other media?

Gaming makes the comics industry look good for crying out loud.

Ask the question fairly.
"Is it really that unreasonable to expect at the bloody LEAST parity with other media when comparing apples to apples"

We have that. Compare a blockbuster game to a blockbuster movie. Violent, over the top, women less likely to be in it, have a major roll or be anything but a plot device or damsel. Compare a game like DOA to a grindhouse homage exploitation film. Compare one of the millions of abandoned forgotten titles designed to appeal to women with the millions of shallow attempt to market to women in film. You keep trying to paint the triple A industry as somehow worse then film or comics, yet for the most part, they are only just as bad. If you point to a dragon's crown, I am sure their are all sorts of films out there with actual nudity (something infinitely rarer in games by the by) with more going on under the hood then just being a skin flick (to be a fair comparison since Dragon's Crown is a decent game).

The only case you can try to make (and I could gladly tell you to prove but wouldn't bother) is that the numbers are different in amount of games that are compared to the amount of movies or film. And, forgoing that you wont and can't actually prove that fairly, for the sake of discussion, even if I accept the premise for the sake of the discussion (cause I like having actual discussions rather then getting ornery about double checking the facts obnoxiously like I am trying to disrupt the discussion) then it still would not matter because the simple supply and demand aspects of the industry itself reveal what sells and what doesn't and the simplest goal of any company is to make money (sell stuff). Hell, I'll support the idea by mentioning the cost of games in the triple A industry is so high to the point it limits the amount of games thereby decreasing the chances of other games being made besides the bigger name titles or games more likely to succeed. So even if, and this is a big if, the gaming industry as a whole, or even only represented by the triple A industry, was put side by side with an equivalent cross section of another medium, and it showed itself somehow worse in terms of female representation and portrayal, it still would only show what the market itself wanted, not what the industry wants. As has been seen as recently as the XBONE, what the company or industry wants will be superseded by what the audience wants if it threatens the profits in the end.





-----
Please, if nothing else, even if you spent the entire post replying point for point, stop and read this and try to understand where I am coming from for this entire thread.
-----




-sigh-
Now, to tie this back to the topic I made at the start. This all means that it would require a strong audience demand to get the sort of changes you want, and that it will be slow as it fights established conventions. But one way that can help things along is by increasing the variety of the player base. You noticed how much time I spent in this thread trying to come up with ideas to do that, right? And you noticed how I did not want to touch on how women are portrayed too much and instead concentrated on increasing participation? This is all why. A larger, base with more variety means more money for companies and more variety in demand. This would mean both more games made that aren't copies and a larger audience aware of them so they are less likely to fail.

In the end, I do think we have a similar end goal here. I think we do want the same general ideas and the end of the same annoying trends. I just feel I have to stress how best to do that and why it is the best means to do so. That in turn involves a lot of business understanding apparently.