|
On March 13 2015 05:36 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote:On March 13 2015 02:25 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2015 02:22 Millitron wrote: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. 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: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. 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. 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.
Is the scandal where they released the free DLC of great women in history and a section of their player base freaked out? I remember hearing about that a little bit.
|
On March 13 2015 05:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:36 ZasZ. wrote:On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote:On March 13 2015 02:25 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2015 02:22 Millitron wrote: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. 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: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. 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. 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. Is the scandal where they released the free DLC of great women in history and a section of their player base freaked out? I remember hearing about that a little bit.
That's the one. Not gamerdom's finest moment for sure.
|
I wonder where all these scandals happen, because i damn sure never ever hear of them.
But i also think that Reddit is totally unreadable and useless... So thats probably my fault 
|
On March 13 2015 05:36 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote:On March 13 2015 02:25 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2015 02:22 Millitron wrote: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. 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: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. 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. 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.
Alright then. I thought women were at most ~20%, just based on my personal interaction with some GSG forums.
Now I wonder how many women play IL2: Battle of Stalingrad, or Arma 3.
|
On March 13 2015 09:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:36 ZasZ. wrote:On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote:On March 13 2015 02:25 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2015 02:22 Millitron wrote: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. 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: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. 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. 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. Alright then. I thought women were at most ~20%, just based on my personal interaction with some GSG forums. Now I wonder how many women play IL2: Battle of Stalingrad, or Arma 3.
That might also be perception. If i don't have anything to go on, i always default to assuming they are male (statistics are probably on my side, and it doesn't really matter when talking to someone in a forum anyways). So if you assume that everyone who does not distinctly say he is female is male, your are going to think that there are less women around than there actually are.
|
On March 13 2015 09:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 09:17 Millitron wrote:On March 13 2015 05:36 ZasZ. wrote:On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote:On March 13 2015 02:25 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2015 02:22 Millitron wrote: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. 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: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. 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. 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. Alright then. I thought women were at most ~20%, just based on my personal interaction with some GSG forums. Now I wonder how many women play IL2: Battle of Stalingrad, or Arma 3. That might also be perception. If i don't have anything to go on, i always default to assuming they are male (statistics are probably on my side, and it doesn't really matter when talking to someone in a forum anyways). So if you assume that everyone who does not distinctly say he is female is male, your are going to think that there are less women around than there actually are.
English really needs a gender neutral singular pronoun. I'm a computer scientist, and this lack of functionality of the language really gets under my skin.
|
On March 13 2015 10:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 09:48 Simberto wrote:On March 13 2015 09:17 Millitron wrote:On March 13 2015 05:36 ZasZ. wrote:On March 13 2015 02:38 Millitron wrote:On March 13 2015 02:25 Plansix wrote:On March 13 2015 02:22 Millitron wrote: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. 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: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. 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. 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. Alright then. I thought women were at most ~20%, just based on my personal interaction with some GSG forums. Now I wonder how many women play IL2: Battle of Stalingrad, or Arma 3. That might also be perception. If i don't have anything to go on, i always default to assuming they are male (statistics are probably on my side, and it doesn't really matter when talking to someone in a forum anyways). So if you assume that everyone who does not distinctly say he is female is male, your are going to think that there are less women around than there actually are. English really needs a gender neutral singular pronoun. I'm a computer scientist, and this lack of functionality of the language really gets under my skin.
Male pronoun is the gender neutral choice.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
female pronoun is the gender neutral choice.
|
I'm pretty sure the gender neutral choice is male. Hence why everyone addresses a group of people as "hey guys" instead of "hey girls".
|
On March 13 2015 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
female pronoun is the gender neutral choice.
generic she is only used when most members of a group are female.
otherwise, if gender is not specified, generic he is usually used. At least as far as rules of formal English is concerned.
|
Canada11504 Posts
Well, functionally English has tended to use male words to mean everyone, hence we have the Biblical 'all men' refering to all people. But that's not exactly gender neutral in any sense of the word- Millitron is right, English could use another pronoun. He/she is awkward and annoying. I've seen 'they' used, but that is, of course, plural and not singular.
|
I am pretty sure people can just us whatever the fuck they want and no one will be harmed.
|
On March 13 2015 10:56 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
female pronoun is the gender neutral choice. generic she is only used when most members of a group are female. otherwise, if gender is not specified, generic he is usually used. At least as far as rules of formal English is concerned.
Except in some specific cases like planes. People tend to say "she went down" when planes crash.
Or when people refer to their home country or land, female pronouns are usually used except in some cases.
|
What should be neutral and what is used in practice as neutral are not necessarily the same thing. Referential language has style and politics like any other part of speech.
|
Canada11504 Posts
Eh, doesn't really matter. It was a stray observation by Millitron. No need to take the entire thread into pronoun territory.
|
On March 13 2015 10:59 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 10:56 wei2coolman wrote:On March 13 2015 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
female pronoun is the gender neutral choice. generic she is only used when most members of a group are female. otherwise, if gender is not specified, generic he is usually used. At least as far as rules of formal English is concerned. Except in some specific cases like planes. People tend to say "she went down" when planes crash. Or when people refer to their home country or land, female pronouns are usually used except in some cases.
that's because homecountries are referred to as "motherland", and planes/boats/cars are generally female names, when named. Falls under generic she usage.
|
Northern Ireland26734 Posts
I always found it odd that some objects took on pretty standardised genderised pronouns in English, given nouns don't have formal genders like in say, French.
You don't necessarily need more female writers to write decent female characters, you just need better writers. Anyway the market is clearly changing, both in terms of platforms, the rise of indie, mobile/tablet gaming and now a more public demand for other types of games. It'll be interesting to see what occurs going forward. It'll probably be for the worse for people of my tastes, but there'll always be good games out there.
|
i use the singular they; they enjoyed themselves tonight! etc.
|
On March 13 2015 10:46 QuantumTeleportation wrote:
I'm pretty sure the gender neutral choice is male. Hence why everyone addresses a group of people as "hey guys" instead of "hey girls".
in french, if you address 55.000 girls and a boy, you still call them "ils" (masculine 3rd plural)
top kek.
|
On March 13 2015 11:23 Wombat_NI wrote:
I always found it odd that some objects took on pretty standardised genderised pronouns in English, given nouns don't have formal genders like in say, French.
Nouns used to have grammatical gender in Old English.
On March 13 2015 04:48 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's an incredibly arrogant sentiment. The writers have their literal careers invested in making a product which appeals to potential customers. Back-seat drivers shouting just write better characters, on the other hand, are simultaneously lazy and naive.
The very worst thing which can ever be said about an incompetent hack is that he is an artist who tried to make something of value without success. Of course he should be defended, the real question is why he would be attacked in the first place.
The implicit explanation is; because we want better and more diverse games. And then, as always, you have to explain whose obligation it is to make these games - why someone deserves condemnation for either failing to achieve this ideal, or for targeting a different one. The artist is a free man, not a slave, not a government official nor a social worker. Why should he answer to anything else than his own vision and the company employing him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
