9 ms·

There is nothing to support the author's typical feminist schtick of using diversity as a shorthand for blaming white men for the problems observed. Video games

by tnones 10y ago

There is nothing to support the author's typical feminist schtick of using diversity as a shorthand for blaming white men for the problems observed. Video games already have a diverse, demographically blind audience, that's why they're cheap mass entertainment. They're class and race-blind, and women do play them. Games can offer a free space to explore, play and excel, away from the judgement of real life, often with a completely arbitrary character. For the entire bottom half of society, that's very appealing, and it's not "pseudo-masculine nonsense". Relationship mechanics are popular with men too, with Mass Effect's crew of cameraderie and romance being a hugely popular AAA example. So popular, the lack of a respectful ending pissed off its fanbase, whose desire for meaning and depth then got spun into an accusation of entitlement and obsession. What we've seen the last 10 years is games have become more shallow, favoring gambling systems and skinner boxes over mechanics and systems. Ironically, it's mostly women playing these social and mobile games. In fact, it is hilarious that she talks of "rich, deep experiences" but then holds up "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" as an example in the very next sentence, which is literally a cash-grab celebrity reskin of an existing game. She complains that "we've stopped listening to each other", that the conversation is "evolving slowly" and that people don't think "women are human", but she pulls the same dehumanizing routine by painting the entire existing industry and its customers with the same tired old brush. Perhaps she should consider "that what [men] like is not less worthy nor boring nor wrong nor hard to understand". And if she wants "compassion and respect and fearlessness", she could start by practicing what she preaches.

dahart 10y ago
Does this article scare you? You sound very defensive. I'm sorry to inform you that we do have a culture problem that is well documented, and you have identified yourself as part of the problem. > Video games already have a diverse, demographically blind audience Do you have some data to support your assertion there? That would mean that the same number of men and women play games. Because I've worked in games, and the publishers acknowledge that games are biased toward young white men. The publishers have been trying to create games for girls, and the girls frequently won't buy or play them because, according to their research, boys won't play games oriented toward girls at all, and the feeling that girl oriented games are less cool actually gets adopted by the girls. Meanwhile games specifically and intentionally oriented toward boys outsell other types and continue to be produced. I've never seen a survey anywhere that showed equal or greater numbers of women playing games, and most surveys are trying to boost the number of women by including games that most young men don't play. This is simply not "demographically blind". http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/29/11539102/gaming-stats-2016-esa-essential-facts http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/29/11539102/gaming-stats-2016-... "60 percent of those who buy games most often are men, while the remaining 40 percent are women." http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essenti... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture#Demographic... "according to a 2011 study showing that 58% of gamers are male and 42% female." http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/who-plays-video-games-and-identifies-as-a-gamer/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/who-plays-video-games-... "Young men in particular play games and identify as “gamers.” Fully 77% of men ages 18 to 29 play video games (more than any other demographic group), compared with 57% of young women – a 20-point difference."
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  I notice your statistics are about things like "buys games more often" and "plays games and identifies as gamers (conjunction fallacy?). Those are things that videogame publishers care about a lot, I suppose, because they have to do with sales and branding. But they have nothing to do with the parent comment's assertion about the demography of videogamers as a whole. Poor minorities may just be playing less profitable games.
  - dahart 10y ago
    The definition of the demographics of games is the people who play games. What are you even talking about?
    - saint_fiasco 10y ago
      I know that is what you intended to talk about, but I'm pointing out that it's not what your sources are talking about. They are about who buys games, about who identifies as gamer (i.e. is more susceptible to marketing)
      - dahart 10y ago
        Only one of those four quotes said something about buying games, but you used plural language twice now. You drew a false pattern where none exists. The fact that the stats I provided shows the same gender bias no matter how you slice it - whether it's playing, or purchasing, or identifying as a gamer, means that the bias is robust. It is more evidence of the bias, not less. But, if you think the 4 links I posted are all wrong, feel free to actually refute it with some data instead of faulty logic. All gamers are susceptible to marketing, whether they buy games or play free ones, that is part of the problem. Our marketing system is oriented toward boys, it is reinforcing the cultural problem we have, you can't escape marketing or divorce the problem from marketing, because marketing is half the issue.
        saint_fiasco 10y ago
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
> it is hilarious that she talks of "rich, deep experiences" but then holds up "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" as an example in the very next sentence, which is literally a cash-grab celebrity reskin of an existing game. The sentence you refer to is calling attention to people sneering at that game. So you sneering at it is a bit weird. You're just supporting her point. I've heard it's a solid game, as you say it was mildly successful even before it had a big media franchise attached. Do you sneer at every TV show or movie tie-in? The Walking Dead by Telltale for example?
- tnones 10y ago
  The Kim Kardashian game is a hollow pay-to-win slugfest full of time locks, that made millions just by slapping on a celebrity face. If we are supposed to dislike video games that are boring and don't color outside the lines, as the author suggests, then that would be a pretty good candidate. The Walking Dead on the other hand is an expertly written, uniquely styled game, which is tied-in to its source IP pretty much in name only. It would've won awards without the branding just the same. Do you see the difference?
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    I can see differences, but when you sneered at the Kardashian game, the reasons you gave applied just as much to a Telltale Walking Dead game, or a Lego Batman game. So now you're clarifying that you're sneering at the Kardashian game because it's boring, and it made too much money from all the people who play it all the time.
    - tnones 10y ago
      Where are you getting this hate for IP tie-ins from? I was talking about game mechanics and _soulless_ cash grabs. The opposite of The Walking Dead and the Lego games. First off, the KK:H financial success isn't laudable, it's simply predictable and how companies like Zynga got rich off pilfering the creative ideas of others. All free-to-play gambling games, and gambling in general, make their money from a tiny subset of their audience who are addicted and spend enormous amounts of money to keep playing in the face of artificial barriers. The games rely on word of mouth via free players to reach those juicy targets. The celebrity face was the difference between just another copy-cat and a viral success with tons of media coverage. Second, to deride "pseudo-masculine bullshit" in search of rich meaning while considering Kardashian beyond reproach, that makes the author's already shaky premises particularly lacking in self-awareness. The game is the actual embodiment of vapid celebrity and appearance-obsessed femininity on top of being an archetype of soulless box ticking. But see, there's nothing _wrong_ with making games that play to stereotypical female interests either, if done well. Compare for example to the Desperate Housewives game, which is a Sims spin-off aimed squarely at female players who want juicy drama and catty social dynamics. It involves real storytelling, while the gamified aspects are only there to support the player agency. Those games already exist. The author instead preferred to spin a tale of female oppression at the hands of white men, while promoting her own unproven studio. Color me unsurprised.
edblarney 10y ago
Though I agree with what you say - I would say that the conventions of games are gender oriented. They are made by guys, for guys, and girls can play along. The 'mission orientation' - the 'guns/violence' - and 'sports' - while not exclusively a guy thing - they are definitely guy-leaning. Let me say it differently: if you took a totally random sample of girls and gave them each $100M to go off and build the 'best game for them' - they might look really, really different. I don't like the political aspect of 'isms' in games ... I really could care less. But I do think that there are pretty big differences between genders - on the whole.
- edblarney 10y ago
  To add: I'm not remotely making a political point, I'm not necessarily supporting the thesis of article, and I'm saying nothing about 'women in gaming' yada yada. I'm just saying: I think that especially console game themes are generally a little gender-skewed.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    Fully agreed. I did a stint @ EA a while back. At least amongst our team, our culture made state school party frats look like enlightened ones. One of the many "games/pranks" other devs would play was called cubicle cropduster. As you walked through the cubicle jungle, one would cropdust a colleague's area by silently evacuating a generous amount of methane. When you work people like beasts of burden, dont be surprised when the behavior becomes more, ahem, primal
- brador 10y ago
  Moat modern games are made to sell. If the buyers are looking for X then it makes sense that a business should provide them with X to turn the most profit. If females, or anyone, wants separate gameplay mechanics then they need to reward that with cold cash to build an economy and incentivize creation. Else it's all just words and forcing a square block into a circle hole. Cash is the only way to lasting change (see the mobile space for example).
  - 10y ago

by tnones 10y ago

dahart 10y ago

Does this article scare you? You sound very defensive. I'm sorry to inform you that we do have a culture problem that is well documented, and you have identified yourself as part of the problem. > Video games already have a diverse, demographically blind audience Do you have some data to support your assertion there? That would mean that the same number of men and women play games. Because I've worked in games, and the publishers acknowledge that games are biased toward young white men. The publishers have been trying to create games for girls, and the girls frequently won't buy or play them because, according to their research, boys won't play games oriented toward girls at all, and the feeling that girl oriented games are less cool actually gets adopted by the girls. Meanwhile games specifically and intentionally oriented toward boys outsell other types and continue to be produced. I've never seen a survey anywhere that showed equal or greater numbers of women playing games, and most surveys are trying to boost the number of women by including games that most young men don't play. This is simply not "demographically blind". http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/29/11539102/gaming-stats-2016-esa-essential-facts http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/29/11539102/gaming-stats-2016-... "60 percent of those who buy games most often are men, while the remaining 40 percent are women." http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essenti... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture#Demographic... "according to a 2011 study showing that 58% of gamers are male and 42% female." http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/who-plays-video-games-and-identifies-as-a-gamer/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/who-plays-video-games-... "Young men in particular play games and identify as “gamers.” Fully 77% of men ages 18 to 29 play video games (more than any other demographic group), compared with 57% of young women – a 20-point difference."

saint_fiasco 10y ago
I notice your statistics are about things like "buys games more often" and "plays games and identifies as gamers (conjunction fallacy?). Those are things that videogame publishers care about a lot, I suppose, because they have to do with sales and branding. But they have nothing to do with the parent comment's assertion about the demography of videogamers as a whole. Poor minorities may just be playing less profitable games.
- dahart 10y ago
  The definition of the demographics of games is the people who play games. What are you even talking about?
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    I know that is what you intended to talk about, but I'm pointing out that it's not what your sources are talking about. They are about who buys games, about who identifies as gamer (i.e. is more susceptible to marketing)
    - dahart 10y ago
      Only one of those four quotes said something about buying games, but you used plural language twice now. You drew a false pattern where none exists. The fact that the stats I provided shows the same gender bias no matter how you slice it - whether it's playing, or purchasing, or identifying as a gamer, means that the bias is robust. It is more evidence of the bias, not less. But, if you think the 4 links I posted are all wrong, feel free to actually refute it with some data instead of faulty logic. All gamers are susceptible to marketing, whether they buy games or play free ones, that is part of the problem. Our marketing system is oriented toward boys, it is reinforcing the cultural problem we have, you can't escape marketing or divorce the problem from marketing, because marketing is half the issue.
      - saint_fiasco 10y ago

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

> it is hilarious that she talks of "rich, deep experiences" but then holds up "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" as an example in the very next sentence, which is literally a cash-grab celebrity reskin of an existing game. The sentence you refer to is calling attention to people sneering at that game. So you sneering at it is a bit weird. You're just supporting her point. I've heard it's a solid game, as you say it was mildly successful even before it had a big media franchise attached. Do you sneer at every TV show or movie tie-in? The Walking Dead by Telltale for example?

tnones 10y ago
The Kim Kardashian game is a hollow pay-to-win slugfest full of time locks, that made millions just by slapping on a celebrity face. If we are supposed to dislike video games that are boring and don't color outside the lines, as the author suggests, then that would be a pretty good candidate. The Walking Dead on the other hand is an expertly written, uniquely styled game, which is tied-in to its source IP pretty much in name only. It would've won awards without the branding just the same. Do you see the difference?
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  I can see differences, but when you sneered at the Kardashian game, the reasons you gave applied just as much to a Telltale Walking Dead game, or a Lego Batman game. So now you're clarifying that you're sneering at the Kardashian game because it's boring, and it made too much money from all the people who play it all the time.
  - tnones 10y ago
    Where are you getting this hate for IP tie-ins from? I was talking about game mechanics and _soulless_ cash grabs. The opposite of The Walking Dead and the Lego games. First off, the KK:H financial success isn't laudable, it's simply predictable and how companies like Zynga got rich off pilfering the creative ideas of others. All free-to-play gambling games, and gambling in general, make their money from a tiny subset of their audience who are addicted and spend enormous amounts of money to keep playing in the face of artificial barriers. The games rely on word of mouth via free players to reach those juicy targets. The celebrity face was the difference between just another copy-cat and a viral success with tons of media coverage. Second, to deride "pseudo-masculine bullshit" in search of rich meaning while considering Kardashian beyond reproach, that makes the author's already shaky premises particularly lacking in self-awareness. The game is the actual embodiment of vapid celebrity and appearance-obsessed femininity on top of being an archetype of soulless box ticking. But see, there's nothing _wrong_ with making games that play to stereotypical female interests either, if done well. Compare for example to the Desperate Housewives game, which is a Sims spin-off aimed squarely at female players who want juicy drama and catty social dynamics. It involves real storytelling, while the gamified aspects are only there to support the player agency. Those games already exist. The author instead preferred to spin a tale of female oppression at the hands of white men, while promoting her own unproven studio. Color me unsurprised.

edblarney 10y ago

Though I agree with what you say - I would say that the conventions of games are gender oriented. They are made by guys, for guys, and girls can play along. The 'mission orientation' - the 'guns/violence' - and 'sports' - while not exclusively a guy thing - they are definitely guy-leaning. Let me say it differently: if you took a totally random sample of girls and gave them each $100M to go off and build the 'best game for them' - they might look really, really different. I don't like the political aspect of 'isms' in games ... I really could care less. But I do think that there are pretty big differences between genders - on the whole.

edblarney 10y ago
To add: I'm not remotely making a political point, I'm not necessarily supporting the thesis of article, and I'm saying nothing about 'women in gaming' yada yada. I'm just saying: I think that especially console game themes are generally a little gender-skewed.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  Fully agreed. I did a stint @ EA a while back. At least amongst our team, our culture made state school party frats look like enlightened ones. One of the many "games/pranks" other devs would play was called cubicle cropduster. As you walked through the cubicle jungle, one would cropdust a colleague's area by silently evacuating a generous amount of methane. When you work people like beasts of burden, dont be surprised when the behavior becomes more, ahem, primal
brador 10y ago
Moat modern games are made to sell. If the buyers are looking for X then it makes sense that a business should provide them with X to turn the most profit. If females, or anyone, wants separate gameplay mechanics then they need to reward that with cold cash to build an economy and incentivize creation. Else it's all just words and forcing a square block into a circle hole. Cash is the only way to lasting change (see the mobile space for example).
- 10y ago