Extra Credits talks about gender sterotypes in game mechanics.

[happyninja42]

He could have had that point, but really Extra Credits rarely ever makes a well laid out, concise conclusion, instea dopting to focus on the entire issue along with often-times useless 'anecdotes' from the 'industry expert' James (who's top credit is being the CEO of a no-name indie studio). They should have focused on why women are attracted to games like Kingdom Hearts and Portal and how we can make more games like that without falling into gender stereotyping,

They already did discuss this actually, though it wasn't those games specifically, and was in a discussion about hidden object games as a genre. What James discovered was that those games also had a high rate of female protagonists, and usually involved stories about mothers and daughters.

So I don't know how much of the fact that women like Portal and Kingdom Hearts has to do with the mechanics being more "girl friendly", and suspect it's more that the story has a female character intrinsic to the plot. In fact, Portal could easily be seen as a Mother/Daughter kind of story, with GlaDos being the overbearing mother figure, always disappointed with the daughter Chell. Now I know nothing about Kingdom Hearts other than it's got Disney characters, and a big dumb key as a buster sword, but I would assume that part of the appeal is some strong female characters presented in those games. The footage I've always seen of those games suggested they played like your typical JRPG? If so, then there isn't anything unique about it compared to other games.

 

[War_Dyn27]

If Portal is an FPS, then is Narbacular Drop a third person shooter? The 'shooting' in Portal is purely cosmetic; the portal gun did not need to be a gun and could easily have been a sentient dungeon who you command to place magic doors (as it was in Narbacular Drop). to sum up my opinion, Portal is not an FPS as shooting things is not a core mechanic, placing portals is.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I dunno, I like the idea that CoD is a point-and-click, QTE adventure game. (Click the bad guy with the right item equipped to proceed! Do it too slowly and it's game over!)

I think we have either too many genres or badly labeled genres, honestly. There's more differences between Portal and CoD than there is between Halo and Gears.

 

[Wendman]

If Portal is an FPS, then is Narbacular Drop a third person shooter? The 'shooting' in Portal is purely cosmetic; the portal gun did not need to be a gun and could easily have been a sentient dungeon who you command to place magic doors (as it was in Narbacular Drop). to sum up my opinion, Portal is not an FPS as shooting things is not a core mechanic, placing portals is.

Team Fortress 2 is a Minecraft clone, I mean you can craft..

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

If Portal is an FPS, then is Narbacular Drop a third person shooter? The 'shooting' in Portal is purely cosmetic; the portal gun did not need to be a gun and could easily have been a sentient dungeon who you command to place magic doors (as it was in Narbacular Drop). to sum up my opinion, Portal is not an FPS as shooting things is not a core mechanic, placing portals is.

It's not that it looks like a gun. It's more that it functions like a gun. There are a few FPS that don't equip you with guns. The darkness is a FPS where you command a creepy tentacle thing to rip people in half.

The portal gun wouldn't look out of place in another FPS even. Someone did a mod for halflife2 adding in the portal gun and it fit right in next to the gravity gun. (If we ever see a half life 3, then I want it to include the portal gun.)

 

[Silvanus]

The 'shooting' in Portal is purely cosmetic; the portal gun did not need to be a gun and could easily have been a sentient dungeon who you command to place magic doors (as it was in Narbacular Drop).

You could apply the same rationale to any other FPS, like Doom, Half Life, Halo. The gun is purely cosmetic; it could easily have been a magical finger-click you can use to destroy enemies, if you use it when you're pointing at them.

 

[JustAnotherAardvark]

The 'shooting' in Portal is purely cosmetic; the portal gun did not need to be a gun and could easily have been a sentient dungeon who you command to place magic doors (as it was in Narbacular Drop).

You could apply the same rationale to any other FPS, like Doom, Half Life, Halo. The gun is purely cosmetic; it could easily have been a magical finger-click you can use to destroy enemies, if you use it when you're pointing at them.

I don't think you really can apply it the same, at least not to the titles you mentioned; "gun" is part of the "military game" experience, particularly with Halo.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't think you really can apply it the same, at least not to the titles you mentioned; "gun" is part of the "military game" experience, particularly with Halo.

That's a thematic consideration, though-- which E.C. was quite clear about separating.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

For once, a video on gender stereotypes that doesn't just assume that a) stereotypes are automatically bad and b) that only women get stereotyped.

I really enjoyed the whole episode.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Ugh, I can't stand Extra Credits. I really want to enjoy it, but I just can't.
Not because of the opinions presented. They mostly seem to be well thought out and intelligent points. I just can't stand that voice! THAT. FUCKING. VOICE!

Why must people with awesome ideas feel they have to smear shit all over them just to stand out from the crowd? I just can't take it seriously when the person speaking sounds like they've been hit with a shrink-ray.

 

[Mikeybb]

Besides stretching the examples with Portal, yeah they've got a good point. Gosh darn does that game idea at the end seem familiar, but I'm not sure what it is.

I notice someone else (youtube comments) mentioning that portal wasn't a FPS and I am thinking why isn't it? I mean it's based around solving puzzles, but a good FPS is a puzzle too. (Often a bloody puzzle filled with death, but then again so is portal. )

They're probably mentally capitalizing the S in fps and letting it define the genre for them.

Admittedly, they're not taking into account you do shoot portals around the place.
That, and they're glossing over the amount of shooting that goes on in your direction.

I always felt Portal was an FPS more than a puzzler/adventure game, but that was more from the momentum and portacrobatics you had to go through to do some of the puzzles.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

The 'shooting' in Portal is purely cosmetic; the portal gun did not need to be a gun and could easily have been a sentient dungeon who you command to place magic doors (as it was in Narbacular Drop).

You could apply the same rationale to any other FPS, like Doom, Half Life, Halo. The gun is purely cosmetic; it could easily have been a magical finger-click you can use to destroy enemies, if you use it when you're pointing at them.

I see it as more of an issue of what primary mechanics the game employs, what pace it is played at, and what challenge needs to be overcome to win it. In shooters as they're typically defined, a certain degree of aiming skill is required to perform well and there are enemies that return fire or are at least capable of inflicting damage. The game revolves around being faster and/or more accurate with your shots than the enemy. Whether it be a twitch shooter or a tactical shooter, there is enough commonality there to put them in the same broad class.

Games that feature solving puzzles at a leisurely pace without any prevalent risk of incurring damage aren't shooters, even if a gun with projectile physics is used as one of the puzzle solving mechanisms. But I suppose we can quibble about whether penalizing poor aim by failure to solve the puzzle or requiring more time is analogous to taking damage in a conventional shooter.

This leads me to a question. I recall a simplistic DOS game where you fire a cannon at a target. The idea was to adjust arc of your shot to account for gravity and wind conditions. Should this rightfully be considered a shooter? What if an opposing player is added and you fire at each other in a turn-based fashion?

 

[Muten]

Whats wrong with sterotypes?

If you are talking about gender, its OK to say more males like certain games then other, nothing shocking about it. At some point in the future the sterotype might change.

Let the market decide, and do studies on it at different points in history.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Whats wrong with sterotypes?

If you are talking about gender, its OK to say more males like certain games then other, nothing shocking about it. At some point in the future the sterotype might change.

Let the market decide, and do studies on it at different points in history.

In general, the problem with stereotypes come from the parson saying " likes genre more" when they add "thus, games shouldn't make any considerations for people that aren't ." The stereotypes are changing and an annoyingly vocal minority is loudly bemoaning that fact.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Let the market decide, and do studies on it at different points in history.

While I don't entirely disagree with the idea of letting the market decide, I despise the way it gets thrown around in these types of discussions. The fact is, the marketers are far from blameless when it comes to influencing what the market wants. They also decide what the market gets.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario when the marketers don't support certain types of products because no one buys them, and then no one buys that product because it wasn't created/marketed in the first place.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it...

 

[Moeez]

I have the most horrible feeling that things are gonna explode because the word "gender" is in this thread title. Please everyone, prove me wrong.

So, extra credits talked about how there's stereotypes in mechanics in gaming. Like "Only boys play first person shooters" or "Only girls play puzzle games" and while they does talk about how ultra violent war games will most likely sell better to a male audience, there's a stereotype that all first person shooters have to BE ultra violent war shooters, and how that's hurting the genre and preventing us from experimenting with other types of FPSs to get games like Portal, and how the idea that hidden object games are only for women prevents the implementing of ideas like the pretty kickass zombie apocalypse survival idea they have at the end of the video.


The main strength of the video is that it talks about stereotypes of both genders and while there's nothing wrong with being comfortable inside a stereotype, there's harm in letting those stereotypes dominate our viewpoint. Overall, I think it's a very thoughtful episode, and completely worth a watch.

This War Of Mine but with zombies? Yeah, I'd be up for that.

 

[Moeez]

Let the market decide, and do studies on it at different points in history.

While I don't entirely disagree with the idea of letting the market decide, I despise the way it gets thrown around in these types of discussions. The fact is, the marketers are far from blameless when it comes to influencing what the market wants. They also decide what the market gets.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario when the marketers don't support certain types of products because no one buys them, and then no one buys that product because it wasn't created/marketed in the first place.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.
And the reason it wasn't marketed is because no one buys that type of product.
And the reason no one buys it is because no one marketed it.

Yup, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, that's what is done in the gaming industry with games targeted towards females. It's called the "Pink It And Shrink It" business model, that justifies lower budgets and therefore lower quality for female-targeted games which leads to lower sales and it becomes a vicious cycle.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+Current/Full+Episodes/ID/2513700865/

CBC: There's a phrase called "pink it and shrink it". What does that mean?

Brenda: Oh yeah. In the past, the business model has been, you have a large publisher who's looking for someone to build a product for them. So they look at various studios and they hire someone to build a game, or they have a studio on site to build it. The funding that goes into those games determines the quality of the game. So, often what would happen is, games for girls would be smaller budgets, less adept studios, and shorter timelines. The outcome was therefore, a smaller game that wasn't as well built. We call that the "pink it and shrink it" model. What would happen as a result in my opinion and I think this has been worn out, is that girls didn't engage with these products. But when girls didn't engage with those products, the publishers would point to it and say "oh girls don't game, they don't care about games, they're not interested in gaming, why would we put more money into gaming for girls? They clearly don't want those games". So, it became this quite vicious cycle.

 

[Kungfusam]

Like it or not, but especially at a young age girls and boys tend to gravitate towards certain types of games, that said, the older we get the less impact gender seems to have

Of course the best games are the ones that don't try to target a specific audience and just try to be good games

 

[Major_Tom]

That's no member of the AK family, artist, you wacky whale penis!

It actually kinda looks like an early experimental model.

 

[Zealous]

Ugh, I can't stand Extra Credits. I really want to enjoy it, but I just can't.
Not because of the opinions presented. They mostly seem to be well thought out and intelligent points. I just can't stand that voice! THAT. FUCKING. VOICE!

Why must people with awesome ideas feel they have to smear shit all over them just to stand out from the crowd? I just can't take it seriously when the person speaking sounds like they've been hit with a shrink-ray.

The way I heard it the original "pilot episode" was done by the team as part of one of their classes. As they had ran slightly over time (8 mins I think) they needed to either cut material (which they didn't want to do) or speed up Dan's voice a bit so they got through the material faster.Then they kept doing the voice for continuity's sake.