|
On November 20 2010 14:39 Zandar wrote: THAT is the real problem. Not skills. Not testosteron. Not competivity.
The problem is shame. If that was the only reason then we wouldn't have such a discrepancy between the amount of girls playing rts/fighting games on one hand and mmos/casual games on the other hand. I don't see why girls would feel ashamed saying they play SC or SF4 three hours every day, but suddenly it's ok if it's WoW or Aion. Ok maybe with mmos they can bullshit their way out by speaking about the social aspects of the game but that's it.
Most girls just aren't interested in games where you have to spend a lot of time practicing boring stuff (apm / macro / bo timings etc) over and over to get good. Granted, the grinding @ mmos is pretty dull too but you're often in a group and chatting with other people, it's very different from having to sit alone in the practice room of a fighting game for 3 hours straight just practicing your combos over and over, which is something you need to do if you want to get good.
TL;DR girls are less interested in rts/fighting games than in other kinds of games, and the few ones who do are less willing than guys to go through the boring training sessions that are required to make them great players.
TL;DR² girls don't enjoy practicing as much as guys do
|
It has been great to hear girls weigh in on this subject and I think this thread has reached a number of reasonable conclusions. Namely: the environment for gamer girls is a lot tougher than it is for guys.
I don't think the discussion is going anywhere anymore (and the whole biological argument is seriously annoying me), so perhaps it's time to take the next step and actually do something. I think TL ought to properly recognize and take pride in its female community and highlight all their contributions, whether it be tournament success, fan art, news/blog posts, tournament coverage/interviews, &c. There are a lot of ways girls contribute to the community aside from being "top players." Maybe start a Girl Power club? I TL is in a great position to promote female gaming since it is such a large and canonical part of the sc community, and having a strong girl community here shows that it can be part of the larger community rather than a separate community (as all-girl game sites are).
I hope to hear more from TL girls in the future. You guys are awesome. ^_^
|
On November 20 2010 18:49 mangoloid wrote: It has been great to hear girls weigh in on this subject and I think this thread has reached a number of reasonable conclusions. Namely: the environment for gamer girls is a lot tougher than it is for guys.
I don't think the discussion is going anywhere anymore (and the whole biological argument is seriously annoying me), so perhaps it's time to take the next step and actually do something.
I agree that this thread is probably winding down. Never expected to get so many replies especially from the ladies. Lots of interesting points in the midst of some less interesting ones as well. Thanks to a lot of the ladies who did post quite honestly about their experiences. It's actually been quite interesting hearing from people about the topic. I hope that if you're a girl and reading this and the rest of the thread that you realize for every guy who's gonna make inappropriate comments there's plenty of others who welcome you as part of the community! And I hope some of you do make it to some major tournaments in the future! I guess that's pretty much all I've got to say.
And of course.. If you guys have more to say don't let me stop you haha. But it seems that we've got to a point where basically the same arguments are being brought up just in a slightly different manner each time.
|
Just an observation I had tonight. Got a few co-workers together to play on the free-play weekend. One of which female, whom I also count as one of my best friends. I played with her (2v2 vs comp) as she seemed determined to play Zerg as her brother made her play Terran when she was little. Whilst Zerg giving her the hardest path of all the other who opted for Terran, she learned remarkably fast and quickly figured out how the tech paths worked and the mechanics she had to keep in mind such as creep spread and lava inject. Basically went from first game "okay now build drones, and an overlord and now try a spawning pool", too "build Anti air, BC's incoming" by the 3rd.
And to be honest, if she had the time, she could get very good very fast. But then again, as many other people there found, some people just liked building their base and making a cool army, the actual fighting bit just didn't appeal to them. As such I think it more depends on the person, rather than any actual gender as some males didn't like fighting to much either.
Kinda late adding in here, but just something I thought of when I saw this thread.
|
Harder to get a practice house for women too. Serious men usually turn them away because they tend to cause drama either intentionally or unintentionally. Can't provide source, but I remember reading a translated article for a korean clan (maybe TSL? don't know) that said in the header that women need not apply because they are distractions etc. obvious reasons.
|
I read a new scientist article that investigated gender stereotypes. They found that baby boys naturally played with cars and girls naturally played with colourful dolls. Without any outside intervention they usually choose those toys. Boys then grow up with better spacial awareness (linked to the ability to map an area in your head) which is a very strong advantage in maths too.
The brain is too complex to fully understand yet but there is definitely something about the male brain that makes it better at video games and it's not stereotypes; it's linked to differences in the brain from birth.
Now that's not to say Girls can't be good at video games. It's just far less likely.
|
Not to be sexist or anything. But is there anything that girls are better than boys at? I can't think of anything that girls beat boys in.
|
On November 20 2010 21:13 gakkgakk wrote: Not to be sexist or anything. But is there anything that girls are better than boys at? I can't think of anything that girls beat boys in. In Sweden at least, the girls have better grades in almost all subjects. I think the one exception is P.E.
|
On November 20 2010 21:33 ulf5 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 21:13 gakkgakk wrote: Not to be sexist or anything. But is there anything that girls are better than boys at? I can't think of anything that girls beat boys in. In Sweden at least, the girls have better grades in almost all subjects. I think the one exception is P.E.
Since when do grades realistically show something?
Girls just don't put enough time I guess.Have you ever seen a girl that plays 6+ hours a day and tries to improve constantly?If a lot of guys do it and not many(let's just assume there are some) then of course guys would be dominating.
|
On November 20 2010 21:13 gakkgakk wrote: Not to be sexist or anything. But is there anything that girls are better than boys at? I can't think of anything that girls beat boys in.
Plus, girls have cooties. I mean, GROSS.
More seriously, I think a lot of it comes down to simple numbers. Maybe 1% (.1%? .01%?) of all SC2 players are good enough and interested enough to try to become pro gamers. Boys (males? men?) playing SC2 outnumber girls (women?) by a margin in the thousands, probably. Maybe only hundreds. It makes sense that male progamers should outnumber female ones by a similar margin.
|
On November 20 2010 20:41 Frozenhelfire wrote: Harder to get a practice house for women too. Serious men usually turn them away because they tend to cause drama either intentionally or unintentionally. Can't provide source, but I remember reading a translated article for a korean clan (maybe TSL? don't know) that said in the header that women need not apply because they are distractions etc. obvious reasons.
I think that was WeRRa and it was pretty funny in a tasteless way, when that scandal came about.
|
On November 20 2010 10:47 mcc wrote:In serious circles it is more like million little debates about specific issues, and everyone is pretty sure that in most of them the hatchet falls somewhere in-between, they just argue exactly where. Yes, in social sciences and philosophy there are few that argue nurture all the way, but we can ignore them, they are harmless mostly data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" Of course in the end you can argue that even things that are called nurture are controlled by nature, because how much you can be influenced by society is again controlled by genes data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" , but this approach to defining the problem is pointless, so really the hatchet falls somewhere in-between, except some rare cases.
I'm kind of confused by your post, are you agreeing with me or arguing? My entire point was that in the nature vs nurture debate (in pop culture) people just assume there's an obvious answer to the question in favour of themselves. Where as the proper academic debate on the subject is as you've said.
|
I maybe have some other interesting addition to this discussion. My mother is a very good checkers player. It was played in her family almost every day amongst her brothers and her father. She played really competitively against them, always wanting to win. She took part in a childeren tournament and won the 1st prize. The local newspaper heard of it and contacted my mothers' parents. The reporters asked if their child would persue playing checkers more seriously and try some other tournaments. But the parents said "No" because they thought girls, at that time (+-1970) shoudnt be doing this kinda stuff.
Later, when my mother was around 18 years old, free of her parents restrictions and still very good at checkers, she joined a checkers-club. Even tho she did very well in the club, beating senior members frequently, there was one thing that eventually caused her to leave the club: The male players just couldnt be serious when playing her. Many would try to ask her out all the time instead of focussing on the game. But the worst thing is, most players just couldnt handle being pummeled by a girl. They would laugh and talk smack when somebody lost to her: "Hah, being beaten by a girl, loser".
So another reason for the few female sc players to leave, is i think because male gamers don't accept them and don't take them serious.
|
The Polgar sisters are a great example of why more women don't do well in competitive games. Of course one of the reason is that women don't have the same competitive "spirit" as men, but that simply means there are less potential women gamers, not that there can't be. In the case of the Polgar sisters, their father decided to develop a way to bring up genius, quite literally. His approach to teaching Chess was based on pattern recognition (recognizing "good" and "bad" positions on parts of the board of various sizes) instead of series of sequential moves and general strategies. Of course, you need to know opening moves and endgame sequences, but these are more rote memory and experience, areas in which women are not inferior to men. But in pattern recognition, women are actually better in general. So the Polgar sisters did great. The oldest though maybe lacked the competitive spirit of the youngest and as such she stopped competing after being the first female to achieve the title of grandmaster.
Now, one may look at this and think, if women can do great in Chess with the right education, why not in other games? Let's take Go for example. Go is also heavily dependent on pattern recognition, but is much more complex than Chess. Opening sequences cannot be memorized as easily and the end game is pure mathematical heuristics (i.e. lots of calculation). Maybe, if someone could devise for Go a teaching system like Lazlo Polgar did for Chess (not going to happen anytime soon by the way), some women could get really strong at Go ; but I doubt it considering the end game that is pure calculation, for women are generally weaker than men in this regard as much as they are better at pattern recognition.
So this takes us to Starcraft. What are the defining characteristics of RTS games that make them different than Chess and Go? First, like the name says they take place in real time. Second, you do not have perfect information. Third, you need to manage both a static base and a moving army (divide time between macro and micro if you like). Base management should be no problem for women and with TossGirl we see that if it's not Flash like at least it isn't a problem. Micro shouldn't be a problem either on it's own. Women are known to be great at detailed work. After all, they've had thousands of years of experience sewing us men clothes. But we will see later how juggling the two can be very bad for women gamers.
So all right, before taking on the real-time aspects, let's get this information conundrum out the way first. This is where I think women really get the evolutionary short end of the proverbial stick. Who hunts food? Men. Who contends with dangerous situations day-to-day? Men. Who doesn't know when or where his next kill will to be or even if he'll come back in one piece? Men. Men have lots of experience with unknown situations and pressure situations. In general they will secrete lots of adrenaline at the dimmest hint of danger. They have evolved to cope with unknowns. This is why men can orient themselves better than women without a map. With a map, the playing field is leveled (as long as you know how to use it properly, which is a pitfall many women encounter simply because they never had an opportunity to learn). It is no wonder either that men are better at advanced math (real math, not simple equation solving which has more to do with pattern recognition). You could say the difference here is that women like to match known quantities together, whereas men extrapolate better (or simply more readily) based on incomplete information, while also having the added advantage that they aren't as uncomfortable with unknown situations as women are in general. Hence men take more risks. How many successful female VCs or traders have you seen lately? It's not like women are not trying to make a quick buck too. But like Virgil said, "fortune favors the bold".
Next, RTS games are real-time, another area where women must give the evolutionary edge to men, albeit not as much as with coping with imperfect information. Many mistakenly believe that real-time means multitasking, but that is false. What it means, in an RTS game, is task-switching (in fact, I am not sure you could design a competitive RTS game designed around multitasking playable only with mouse and keyboard. Maybe some form of management game like The Sims, but not an RTS and neither an FPS for that matter. No wonder both recreate situations of war). So, in RTS games in general and in Starcraft in particular you have to switch between macro mode and micro mode and do it fast. Men are good at that. For example, here's the daily routine of the primitive man : stalk the prey, get caught, now switch to run-for-your-life mode pronto ; and don't forget to yell and warn others on your way out! Or, switch to kill mode if you have the opportunity: load the bow, don't lose the tail, watch where your clan mates are, check for possible obstacles, plan retreat route just in case, make dinner plans, shoot the arrow, miss, pursue while reloading, hop over a fallen tree and wham! right in the thing you were hunting. Good. Now take it back to camp with you 10 miles somewhere in that general direction while the sun is setting down. Don't forget wood for the fire and a flower for the missus on your way. Alright, now you can play Starcraft and win some games for once! Now, ask a women to play WoW and talk to you at the same time. She will be glad to gossip and recount her whole day while organizing a raid and crafting things and watching auctions, etc. She may even be able to do all that while playing Starcraft, but then don't be surprised when she loses.
|
"women don't like what they can't control"
forgot where this was from but its so true
|
On November 20 2010 23:50 Bidouleroux wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The Polgar sisters are a great example of why more women don't do well in competitive games. Of course one of the reason is that women don't have the same competitive "spirit" as men, but that simply means there are less potential women gamers, not that there can't be. In the case of the Polgar sisters, their father decided to develop a way to bring up genius, quite literally. His approach to teaching Chess was based on pattern recognition (recognizing "good" and "bad" positions on parts of the board of various sizes) instead of series of sequential moves and general strategies. Of course, you need to know opening moves and endgame sequences, but these are more rote memory and experience, areas in which women are not inferior to men. But in pattern recognition, women are actually better in general. So the Polgar sisters did great. The oldest though maybe lacked the competitive spirit of the youngest and as such she stopped competing after being the first female to achieve the title of grandmaster. Now, one may look at this and think, if women can do great in Chess with the right education, why not in other games? Let's take Go for example. Go is also heavily dependent on pattern recognition, but is much more complex than Chess. Opening sequences cannot be memorized as easily and the end game is pure mathematical heuristics (i.e. lots of calculation). Maybe, if someone could devise for Go a teaching system like Lazlo Polgar did for Chess (not going to happen anytime soon by the way), some women could get really strong at Go ; but I doubt it considering the end game that is pure calculation, for women are generally weaker than men in this regard as much as they are better at pattern recognition. So this takes us to Starcraft. What are the defining characteristics of RTS games that make them different than Chess and Go? First, like the name says they take place in real time. Second, you do not have perfect information. Third, you need to manage both a static base and a moving army (divide time between macro and micro if you like). Base management should be no problem for women and with TossGirl we see that if it's not Flash like at least it isn't a problem. Micro shouldn't be a problem either on it's own. Women are known to be great at detailed work. After all, they've had thousands of years of experience sewing us men clothes. But we will see later how juggling the two can be very bad for women gamers. So all right, before taking on the real-time aspects, let's get this information conundrum out the way first. This is where I think women really get the evolutionary short end of the proverbial stick. Who hunts food? Men. Who contends with dangerous situations day-to-day? Men. Who doesn't know when or where his next kill will to be or even if he'll come back in one piece? Men. Men have lots of experience with unknown situations and pressure situations. In general they will secrete lots of adrenaline at the dimmest hint of danger. They have evolved to cope with unknowns. This is why men can orient themselves better than women without a map. With a map, the playing field is leveled (as long as you know how to use it properly, which is a pitfall many women encounter simply because they never had an opportunity to learn). It is no wonder either that men are better at advanced math (real math, not simple equation solving which has more to do with pattern recognition). You could say the difference here is that women like to match known quantities together, whereas men extrapolate better (or simply more readily) based on incomplete information, while also having the added advantage that they aren't as uncomfortable with unknown situations as women are in general. Hence men take more risks. How many successful female VCs or traders have you seen lately? It's not like women are not trying to make a quick buck too. But like Virgil said, "fortune favors the bold". Next, RTS games are real-time, another area where women must give the evolutionary edge to men, albeit not as much as with coping with imperfect information. Many mistakenly believe that real-time means multitasking, but that is false. What it means, in an RTS game, is task-switching (in fact, I am not sure you could design a competitive RTS game designed around multitasking playable only with mouse and keyboard. Maybe some form of management game like The Sims, but not an RTS and neither an FPS for that matter. No wonder both recreate situations of war). So, in RTS games in general and in Starcraft in particular you have to switch between macro mode and micro mode and do it fast. Men are good at that. For example, here's the daily routine of the primitive man : stalk the prey, get caught, now switch to run-for-your-life mode pronto ; and don't forget to yell and warn others on your way out! Or, switch to kill mode if you have the opportunity: load the bow, don't lose the tail, watch where your clan mates are, check for possible obstacles, plan retreat route just in case, make dinner plans, shoot the arrow, miss, pursue while reloading, hop over a fallen tree and wham! right in the thing you were hunting. Good. Now take it back to camp with you 10 miles somewhere in that general direction while the sun is setting down. Don't forget wood for the fire and a flower for the missus on your way. Alright, now you can play Starcraft and win some games for once! Now, ask a women to play WoW and talk to you at the same time. She will be glad to gossip and recount her whole day while organizing a raid and crafting things and watching auctions, etc. She may even be able to do all that while playing Starcraft, but then don't be surprised when she loses.
I just can't believe that whatever biological factor there may be won't be washed away through practice. If you find someone who won't run away from a Kespa BW slave house and will diligently practice each day for years, this training will make the brain do whatever it needs to do for Starcraft.
There will of course be a difference between players in the end, but my gut feeling is, the percentage of impressive players would be comparable between genders. That gut feeling comes from... in discussing science stuff in work groups at university, I occasionally find someone that makes me think, "crap... what he/she just now said was genius... I need to make sure to not miss anything of his/her ideas in the future." I don't see a significant difference between men and women in finding someone to latch onto for inspiration at work. Looking at a persons character is most important, imho.
Imagine if the thread title would instead be "Discussing the lack of top black starcraft gamers". What would you write then? What would be your explanation?
|
Girls aren't stupid. Most of them play games of fun instead of trying to be competitive.
My GF (playfully) mocks me every time I care about my ladder performance and comments on me "taking a game much too seriously". And you know what? She's right. I could do so much more useful stuff in the time I spend with honing my build timings or practicing a certain matchup.
And while I'm usually good at the games I play - meaning I could beat most other people playing them or perform better - my GF has more fun playing the games she plays, because she doesn't mind others being "better" than her (WoW) or others winning (racing/sports games on the Wii).
Deep inside us we all know that, yeah, we love our hobby, but in the end it's a timewaster like all other games. And except for the likes of Day9 or IdrA, gaming will never change our life, will never be something else than a past-time activity. Most girls seem to know this inherently and will never prioritize games the way guys do.
|
On November 20 2010 03:03 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 02:33 SovSov wrote: Hate to sound sexist but it's true, there's a reason women are always behind men in mostly everything they do (when it comes to competition of any sort, academics, what not), and it's not just because "women are treated unfairly". Human women were designed to be the nurturers and optimal mate-finders, men were designed to protect and impress.
Fact of life. You mention academics: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-dominate-higher-education-at.html
Most women i've encountered seem to be better than most guys at just sitting down and studying hardcore.
Coincedently women i've encountered in WoW are pretty good at grinding hardcore as well. Just like they're good at doing the dishes...
lololololol!
(Don't get your titties in a twist i'm just jokins!)
|
You have to realize that shooting, war, strategical thinking and shit is a boys hobby, not that many girls are into it, and even fewer are so into it that they want to be good, and even fewer get that far.
Also, girls grow up fast, mature faster, games just isn't as appealing, it's childish.
|
Why is this still open? Just on this last page alone is so many stupid arguments based on opinion...
|
|
|
|