EPT'GTFO', New Documentary about Female Gamers - Page 45
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On March 13 2015 02:14 Plansix wrote: I understand that there is this idea that women are less interested in conflict based games. But there is little evidence to back that up beyond the standard "well why don't they buy them". I would also like to point out that a similar argument was used to prove that no women wanted to be involved with high school and college sports and that just proved to be flat out false. It's ridiculous to dismiss that as insufficient evidence. This is an organic market; if women want to buy conflict based games there is nothing stopping them. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On March 13 2015 02:14 Plansix wrote: I understand that there is this idea that women are less interested in conflict based games. But there is little evidence to back that up beyond the standard "well why don't they buy them". I would also like to point out that a similar argument was used to prove that no women wanted to be involved with high school and college sports and that just proved to be flat out false. So what is keeping women away from games like Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron? In case you're unfamiliar, these are grand strategy games. They're long-term endeavors in which you run a single nation for years, and have in-depth and realistic mechanics. A single playthrough of EU4 can easily take 100 hours. There are no characters, and little if any multiplayer. Meaning there's no problem with sexist depictions of women or angry 14 year olds making rape jokes. The game's are pretty much as gender-neutral as possible. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
I grew up in eastern germany and was born before the fall of the wall, guess how many women around here can beat my ass in chess (which is i hope competitive and complex enough for your elitist tastes). Women just like men can and will like complex games, if society gives them a decent opportunity to experience it as rewarding stimulation of the mind, during their formative years. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 13 2015 02:22 Millitron wrote: So what is keeping women away from games like Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron? In case you're unfamiliar, these are grand strategy games. They're long-term endeavors in which you run a single nation for years, and have in-depth and realistic mechanics. A single playthrough of EU4 can easily take 100 hours. There are no characters, and little if any multiplayer. Meaning there's no problem with sexist depictions of women or angry 14 year olds making rape jokes. The game's are pretty much as gender-neutral as possible. I think that same shit that is keeping me from Europa Universalis. I don't think those are the games people are really talking about. Its stuff like Shadow of Mordor or other character driven games. And I am sure there are ladies out there that would play Europa Universalis. I would even say that if we could get the total number of possible players that would enjoy it, it would likely be a 50/50 split. On March 13 2015 02:21 bardtown wrote: It's ridiculous to dismiss that as insufficient evidence. This is an organic market; if women want to buy conflict based games there is nothing stopping them. Except for an overwhelming market place that markets them directly at men. I mean seriously, there is a reason the major of barbie dolls are sold to girls. You can't argue that targeted marketing has nothing to do with why women don't buy some games. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On March 13 2015 02:25 Plansix wrote: I think that same shit that is keeping me from Europa Universalis. I don't think those are the games people are really talking about. Its stuff like Shadow of Mordor or other character driven games. And I am sure there are ladies out there that would play Europa Universalis. I would even say that if we could get the total number of possible players that would enjoy it, it would likely be a 50/50 split. Except for an overwhelming market place that markets them directly at men. I mean seriously, there is a reason the major of barbie dolls are sold to girls. You can't argue that targeted marketing has nothing to do with why women don't buy some games. You didn't really answer my question though. Why are EU and HoI, and other simulation games played mostly by males? Clearly it can't be sexism, because as I said, no characters means no sexist depictions. And limited multiplayer, and the sheer complexity, means no 14 year olds. The only thing I can think of is that women are just less interested in simulators. I suspect that idea is also a big portion of the disparity in games in general, but it's most apparent here. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote: You didn't really answer my question though. Why are EU and HoI, and other simulation games played mostly by males? Clearly it can't be sexism, because as I said, no characters means no sexist depictions. And limited multiplayer, and the sheer complexity, means no 14 year olds. The only thing I can think of is that women are just less interested in simulators. I suspect that idea is also a big portion of the disparity in games in general, but it's most apparent here. For the exact same reason I didn't own a barbie set growing up. Women are not marketed games in any way, so the most hardcore and obscure never reach them. The women that would like it don't even know it exists. They have zero exposure to the game, so they don't play it. | ||
|
Scootaloo
655 Posts
Let's look at the beginning of videogames, even before we had Pong or a NES, there was Dungeons and Dragons, the forebear of most of the RPG's we know today. I think we can all agree that D&D, with it's infinite customization is not sexist, if you're gonna encounter any sexist stereotypes, it's all based on the Dungeon Master, not on WotC for creating the game. What do we know about D&D, even to this day? That it's dominated by men, I actually run a D&D campaign, and just from my own experience, men have a far greater tendency to want to try to play it, whereas the moment you talk about the mechanics, any women who hasn't played an RPG before tends to be confused and put off, while men are much more likely to be intrigued and interested in figuring it out. Not to say there's no women in D&D, we've had the occasional female participant, but in my experience getting them in there to begin with is a lot more difficult. I also enjoy listening to D&D podcasts, and there you run into the same thing, I'd hazard to guess that about 90% of the groups consist of men, hell the only woman I've listened to recently was Iron Liz from Spoony's Pathfinder sessions, and she used to be a man. And while I wasn't alive in the 60's, based on the tropes that survive till this day, the gender of the writers of the books and such, I'm inclined to say the percentages where also heavily in favor of men, if not more then modern day because back then it had a far greater stigma of nerd's attached to it. What does this all mean? Do women on average not enjoy complex mathematically focussed mechanics? Do they simply not have the time for it, being more occupied with other, perhaps more socially focussed matters? What we do know is that men and women's brain's tend to work differently, greater focusses on specific areas, women tend to excel in the social and men in the abstract, considering this it's pretty easy to see that women most likely just don't get the same kind of satisfaction from a D&D session as a man does, and by extention, complex or "core" videogames in general. And about the AC series, specifically the guy talking about how the racial diversity really improved that game. You couldn't be more wrong, let's take a quick trip through the series protagonists shall we? Al'Tair, was bland as all hell, first game in the series, they where still kinda going on the PoP formula, I don't think we should blame them too much. Ezio was the first character they made that was actually interesting, in fact, people liked Ezio so much Ubi made 2 more games around him, we could go through his personality traits, scoundrel, noble, womanizer, but I think we can all agree that for a videogame character, he had a pretty deep personality and arch. Conner, the one who for some reason here is called "a breath of fresh air"? Just because he's not white? Is the only important feature for you race? The kid has almost no personality apart from brooding and being native american, if you can even call a cultural background a personality trait, his father, who you play briefly at the start displays more personality in the one or two hours you play him then Conner over the course of the entire game (and IMO the game would have been massively improved if we got to play that crazy old Templar instead of his whiny son). Next one was Edward from Black Flag, which everyone loved because he was a scumbag that had very little morals and stayed that way throughout most of the game, a pretty uncommon trait for your usual AAA protagonists, but, oh my god, he was white. Can't comment on the new french guy, gonna wait a bit longer 'til playing that game though due to the massive bug fest, didn't play Freedom Call either, seemed like a short DLC not worth the effort of reinstalling the original game. Either way, of the 4 characters I've went over here, the most racially diverse are the most boring, Connor and Al'Tair, because of their focus on their cultural background and having to play it safe with them, because we wouldn't want some kind of outrage now do we? You have to play it safe when making women, or any kind of minority, because one wrong step and you can suddenly be called a racist, while you can make your white main character a raping pirate scumbag and be completely fine. Edward and Ezio where interesting because they actually took risks with them, Ezio was relatively benign, about to the levels of a James Bond, while with Edward they went full out and just made him a character we havn't seen as a protagonist in a while. Now imagine what Edward would have been if he was turned into a female character, they would constantly have to emphasize how much of a strong independent women she was, how she had strong morales despite being a pirate (like was the case for the female pirate in that game) or maybe she wouldn't even be a pirate and just be some generic freedom fighter character, protecting the seas like some godamn renaissance superhero. I'm actually considering playing that PSP ported one with the female protagonist now, just to see how much of deep and rich character the usually already cliché heavy writing team of the AC series turnd her into. Also, CK2 REPRESENT! | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote: You didn't really answer my question though. Why are EU and HoI, and other simulation games played mostly by males? Clearly it can't be sexism, because as I said, no characters means no sexist depictions. And limited multiplayer, and the sheer complexity, means no 14 year olds. The only thing I can think of is that women are just less interested in simulators. I suspect that idea is also a big portion of the disparity in games in general, but it's most apparent here. where are you getting your data on the gender distribution for those games? edit adding: what percentage of a different do you mean by "mostly male" players? a rough estimate is fine. 60/40? 70/30? 90/10? | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
"the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument. Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10877 Posts
Women can be hardcore gamers if they want and there are plenty of games that are in no way sexist. Women play? Nice. Women don't? Wtf has that to do with me/my hobby. There are plenty of things way less Women do than Men (and vice versa) and i don't see why we should try to "forcefully" change that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 13 2015 03:31 Velr wrote: I would just argue, why should i care? Because i seriously just don't. I care about equal pay and all that shit but about this? Why should I? Women can be hardcore gamers if they want and there are plenty of games that are in no way sexist. Women play? Nice. Women don't? Wtf has that to do with me/my hobby. There are plenty of things way less Women do than Men (and vice versa) and i don't see why we should try to "forcefully" change that. Well the article points out that the women who are trying to get into gaming are being harassed, so that part might have to change. And to be clear, the harassment goes well beyond being called names over voice chat. That is just where it starts. | ||
|
Darkwhite
Norway353 Posts
On March 13 2015 01:18 RuiBarbO wrote: Now this is an interesting question. Art and the public, what is the relationship? I think you might be oversimplifying somewhat. After all, "leveraging social pressure against the artists"---it seems like you're treating artists as a group of people who develop their art in a bubble where there are no social expectations, and then "shaming" is what happens when that bubble pops and society comes flooding in. But a pretty strong argument can be made that every phase of art---from its conception to its execution to its dissemination---is full of societal input. This helps explain why art often appears in historical trends, as reflections of historical events, and there's literature out there (art as cultural product) which covers this in greater depth. Is it really appropriate, then, to begin this hypothetical scenario with "if an artists creates a female character with astronomical breasts," as though that's where everything starts? Or should we also ask, "why did this artist create a female character with astronomical breasts?" Some interesting questions arise from this. For example, we may note that a trend in many games is women with unusually large breasts. Perhaps the artist in question played one or more of these games (League of Legends is pretty popular, I hear) before drawing this large-breasted character. Perhaps it was even the case that these games inspired this character. We begin to see a social trend reemerging in art. Some social trends are problematic or disempowering for certain social groups. This much seems safe to say. If an artist draws inspiration from and reaffirms a problematic social trend, is it really best to say nothing at all? Or is it better to voice criticism? Obviously there's a distinction between criticism and then just shouting someone down, but I think the question still stands. If an artist draws a picture, that's all he has done. Does the picture have a power to compel another person to do something nasty? Very unlikely. If it does, is it the artist's responsibility? No. Do layers of indirection, social trends, change this? No. On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change. Men should feel free to keep making games for men and about men. People who want to make other games should feel free to make those as well. People who want to see these games should support the women already in the industry or back the kickstarters they find appealing. The only thing I ever see anybody having a problem with, is people blaming men making games for men about men for the lack of diversity. | ||
Falling
Canada11504 Posts
The only thing I ever see anybody having a problem with, is people blaming men making games for men about men for the lack of diversity. What if games for men about men and by men also means better characterization for the female characters? That sentiment has been expressed multiple times by men on this thread- Millitron for instance has troubles with lazy writing as do I. Are so-called man games intrinsically lazy? I don't think so. There have been brilliant storytellers and there have been hacks since forever. I see no reason to defend hacks under the umbrella of 'well, it's a man game, of course the characterization is lazy.' Hacks are hacks and incompetence is incompetence and should be identified as such. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 13 2015 04:48 Falling wrote: What if games for men about men and by men also means better characterization for the female characters? That sentiment has been expressed multiple times by men on this thread- Millitron for instance has troubles with lazy writing as do I. Are so-called man games intrinsically lazy? I don't think so. There have been brilliant storytellers and there have been hacks since forever. I see no reason to defend hacks under the umbrella of 'well, it's a man game, of course the characterization is lazy.' Hacks are hacks and incompetence is incompetence and should be identified as such. I would say that games could use more female writers and editors to allow for better written female characters. Much like any writing, its hard to write from a perspective you don't have without help. One of the best writen games of the last 5 years is the Last of Us and it was written by a women. The uncharted games also had good writing(same writer). The industry could just work on hiring more women for roles like that and the problem would naturally work towards a solution. In short, you get better written female characters by having more women writers. Same with model designers and so on. PS: Before people quotas are bad, one of the ways that companies deal with a lack of diversity is through hiring interns from the group they are trying to bolster in their ranks. That way the best folks rise through the ranks as positions open up. It works is almost every industry. PPS: Off topic, but Wonder Woman's new look is dope. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11504 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6090 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
I prefer skyrim's approach to characters but not all games can be that way, for instance a superman game has to have superman as the hero for obvious reasons. Things are going to stay this way as long as males are the main demographic. Maybe young female gamers will aspire to become game developers since current developers will follow the money. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:07 oBlade wrote: Right, then conversely, if the writing is shit it's not a women's issue as such? Its an issue because the the characters who seem to suffer most are the female characters. To be fair, a lot of writing in video games when it comes to minorities and other cultures is pretty shallow and not super in depth. Sometimes its just flat out bad. Its not a huge problem, as most video game writing is similar to that of action movies. But the criticism is still valid. Farcry 4 is very loosely based on the Nepalese Civil War and its a great game. But if you listen to the Idle Thumbs podcast, one of their listeners is from the region(which is awesome) and said the provided a very shallow, touristy look into their culture and the issues caused in the war. And since Ubisoft decided to set the game in that area and use that culture as the backdrop, so can take the criticize of their depiction. The listener also confirmed there were Rhinos in the region and they would total fuck up a jeep if you pissed them off. And to be clear, I love Farcry 4, but I am not above criticizing its writing too. Games as a whole are very young medium and only in the last 10 years have they really started to dig into these complex issues. And we as fans need to grow with the medium too. Its ok to look at something you like and say "Eh, this could have been better." If the people who made the game are good creators, they will take that to heart and make a better game next time. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote: You didn't really answer my question though. Why are EU and HoI, and other simulation games played mostly by males? Clearly it can't be sexism, because as I said, no characters means no sexist depictions. And limited multiplayer, and the sheer complexity, means no 14 year olds. The only thing I can think of is that women are just less interested in simulators. I suspect that idea is also a big portion of the disparity in games in general, but it's most apparent here. Actually, as part of the recent "Women in History" "scandal," Paradox revealed that women actually make up about 40% of the playerbase for Crusader Kings II, which is a lot higher than most games. I would assume the percentage is relatively similar for EU4 and other of their grand strategy titles. I'm not sure why you used them as an example of games women don't play. | ||
| ||
