Extra Credits talks about gender sterotypes in game mechanics.

[Silvanus]

See, that's the problem, there's no such thing as a shooter that doesn't revolve around combat of some kind, since that's part of what a shooter is.

But you've just decided that! I don't see why that should be the case, just because the majority involve combat.

That's like calling a game a platformer when it doesn't focus on platforming or a puzzle game that doesn't have many puzzles.

'Tis not like that at all. "Platforms" are right there in the term "platformer"; "puzzles" are right there in the term "puzzle game". To qualify, they would need to have them. "Combat" is not implied by the description "first person shooter".

 

[Phasmal]

Snip.

Holy shit I'm a man.
Or a unicorn.
One or the other.

Nah, I kid. But they're not saying FPS's are doing badly, nor do they need to say that. Unless you're saying games industries actually aren't allowed to make the games they want and can only make games based on financial decisions (which would be quite lame cause it would mean we'd get game after game that was the same.... oh this explains a lot).

They're just saying perhaps we should be open to more possibilities about more types of games. I don't see anything wrong with that.

EDIT: Especially because it's not like companies are never wrong. We get a decent amount of games that come out of nowhere and get massive success despite going against `industry wisdom`.

 

[webkilla]

I have been saying - ever since Sarkeesian's kickstarter - that what these feminist gaming advocates need is NOT to change the rest of the industry, but what they need is their own minecraft.

They need to make a game that sells like hot shit to women, to prove to the bigger developers that women is a viable audience to sell to.

This even happened back in the early arcade days.

Back in the late 70s, most of the games were about shooting things (Asteroids, Space Invaders, etc.), and a young Namco employee named Tōru Iwatani noticed that very few women were playing these games. He wanted to create a game that would be more appealing to women, as well as all other demographics.

Some time later, he and his team created Pac-Man, and the rest is history.

So it can be done.

Agreed - however, Pacman was also a big hit among male gamers. It was in fact a very wide hit... and thus its not really chalked up as being a 'female hit'.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Wait... If I'm following this video correctly, the solution to stereotyped game mechanics(which is a problem for some reason. I mean the games sell to their target audience, so what needs fixing?) is to fully embrace those stereotypes as true and merge games together. As in let's prove women don't just play puzzle games, by adding puzzle mechanics to an FPS. And men shouldn't just play violent FPSs, so lets make a violent puzzle game!

I'm not sure how deep this irony hole goes...

 

[Lightknight]

Holy shit I'm a man.
Or a unicorn.
One or the other.

Is there a point here?
I hoped it was a haiku
but sadly it's not.

Nah, I kid. But they're not saying FPS's are doing badly, nor do they need to say that. Unless you're saying games industries actually aren't allowed to make the games they want and can only make games based on financial decisions (which would be quite lame cause it would mean we'd get game after game that was the same.... oh this explains a lot).

I made two points. I said that it's fantastic for companies to try something new but that doesn't mean that FPS titles the way they are aren't maximizing their chances for success by incorporating violence and generally catering directly for men. I think they should look for ways to cater to women that doesn't negatively impact their play (for example, COD recently added female soldier options which my wife appreciates but she already loved the COD series). Not only are there a variety of games like the article pointed out that fill this roll that they bemoan isn't being filled but they also aren't blockbuster successful. Portal was one of my favorite games ever. Portal 2 is even better because I got to play that with my wife and we had a blast. But despite their clearly being loved titles. Both have only sold around 4 million copies each according to Valve (and Portal was even included in Orange Box which is the best deal I've ever seen on shelves). While that's very profitable it absolutely pales in comparison to all the other titles. Even with Portal 2 hitting 3 million units in the first year they failed to hit the top 20 titles of the year and it falls even further when you realize how many titles are also multi-platform in that list and the 4 million units number that Valve gave is across all consoles. The 360 version for example, did better than the other consoles and yet only sold 1.3 million units in the first year as number 60 of the year [http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2011/Global/] and hasn't broken 2 million by itself.

Games like COD, Battlefield, and Gears of War didn't just sell more than Portal 2. Each individual platform version of their games sold more than Portal 2 has ever sold and will likely ever sell in just their first year they were out. What sucks even more is that they still out performed Portal 2's first year in their second year.

Now, while clearly not every game is going to be a COD or something like it. Violent FPS titles do extremely well compared to general exploration games and such. This is NOT because girls aren't playing games. There's no way that games like Just Dance and Zumba Fitness would be so high up on the list if girls weren't consuming them. But peaceful shooters? FPS titles are violent because they center around shooting things. Portal is more just generating a portal on a wall. You can't even shoot actual things other than appropriately paneled walls and I'm not even sure I'd call that shooting so much as aiming and then generating.

So what this person is advocating isn't "peaceful" shooters. He's advocating peaceful first person games which do exist as exploratory titles and have for some time now but really haven't proven to be all that successful.

They're just saying perhaps we should be open to more possibilities about more types of games. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Oh, I agree. I just take issue with his misunderstanding of what FPS games are and what the actual audience of them is.

But a FPS game is violent by nature. The moment the goal isn't to shoot your enemies or whatever then the game is no longer called an FPS. FPS titles are by nature violent. Take Alien:Isolation for example. You can shoot in it but it's called a first person survival horror game as opposed to a FPS survival horror game.

That's where I'm taking issue with. Violence is generally implicit in FPS' definition. The only reason why I'm not nailing it down entirely is because I'd consider target games to be FPS titles where the goal is marksmanship.

EDIT: Especially because it's not like companies are never wrong. We get a decent amount of games that come out of nowhere and get massive success despite going against `industry wisdom`.

Yeah, the Indie development scene is fantastic. It's certainly the place that can afford to risk their time on unproven endeavors in a way that major publishers can't because risking tens of millions or more dollars on an unproven IP unless it is particularly compelling when there are much safer alternatives to invest the money in where the return is already very high. Valve didn't think Portal would take off. They added it in just because or it would have been its own game. It was essentially a small side project.

Now, would I like to see the money invested into a AAA game instead go to a bunch of smaller projects? Yes, absolutely. In fact, it would be nice to see some publishers figure out how to offer a portfolio of smaller projects as an investment opportunity rather than thinking of them individually. It'd be a good idea since they cost relatively little to make, should at least make the money back if they're decent, and could end up being immensely popular every one in awhile which could more than compensate for everything.

Will they do it? Not that likely. Like I said, it's risky to invest elsewhere and the opportunity cost is steep. It's also more difficult to juggle a hundred small projects like that and you risk diminishing your brand. It actually isn't them stereotyping or anything. It's just them making good business decisions off of existing customer data. Think of them as investment brokers, not a company that actually produces anything like the development studio is. This would be like getting mad at an investment firm for not putting all their money into foreign markets like Greece.

I'll leave you the same way I left the post you snipped. If anything, this video serves to encourage us to challenge the stereotypes and make sure that they actually hold true against real aggregate values of gamers in their respective demographics. That's great to do. Not only do demographics change as time progresses, but assumed stereotypes are incredibly risky. I just don't think publishers are assuming things like you may think they are. I think they're shrewd businesses who know what their target audience is even if they suck at a lot of other areas.

 

[CFriis87]

See, that's the problem, there's no such thing as a shooter that doesn't revolve around combat of some kind, since that's part of what a shooter is. That's like calling a game a platformer when it doesn't focus on platforming or a puzzle game that doesn't have many puzzles. Just because the 'gun' in portal gun is just a name, just like a paint gun. The game could have replaced it with psychic mind powers and this argument wouldn't exist in the first place. The only thing a FPS needs is ranged combat of some sort set in the first person perspective, Portal only achieves the latter. Just look at Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. It's based on Half Life's engine and used the first person perspective but because the main focus is on melee combat and ranged combat only makes up a small portion of the game mechanics in the form of archers it's considered an action game rather than an FPS.

Can you at least see how strict genre classification is silly. I and the person you quoted both disagree with you on Portal being a FPS. I think you shoot the portals in first person, shooting something in first person is an FPS for me. This is your need to have organization and classification to make sense of things. But things like genres are more fluid and they can't be exact with a term, especially one as nebulous as FPS that focuses on a perspective rather than what you actually do in the game. You are not right that Portal is not an FPS, you are not wrong either, it is a matter of opinion on what game is a part of what genres. I have seen in other threads that you are very cut and dry with things, but I'm sorry to say that's not how many things work, and you'll just get frustrated trying to make things work like that.

It's like calling Shadow of the Colossus a 3rd Person Shooter because you shoot a bow in 3rd person view in it.

 

[Silvanus]

What do you mean I decided that? That's the definition of a FPS, I didn't pull the definition out of my ass or anything. This shit has already been decided by the industry. Let's just look at what Wikipedia defines as an FPS shall we...

That definition mentions "combat", probably because the vast majority of them centre around combat. There's nothing in the description "first person shooter" which makes it combat-exclusive, though.

Wiki is a clumsy tool at the best of times.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about how a game can have platforming sections without being considered a platformer or have puzzles without being called a puzzle game. It all depends on how much they actually make up the game. The so called "shooting" in the game isn't really shooting, it's just a euphemism for how you move the portals. A shooter cannot be considered as such without there being some sort of combat. It doesn't need to be violent or bloody, it just need to involve the player taking out some sort of enemy with a ranged device to be considered as such. People have already brought up the turrets but again they're basically just environmental hazards since they're completely stationary, get taken out by any sort of movement, and you never directly shoot them.

Sure, the gun isn't necessary for Portal to work. Strictly, though, you could apply the same reasoning to most FPSes. Mechanically, Doom would work if your character only had to point at the enemy and click their fingers, as I said earlier. The difference is thematic, not mechanic.

 

[suntt123]

What do you mean I decided that? That's the definition of a FPS, I didn't pull the definition out of my ass or anything. This shit has already been decided by the industry. Let's just look at what Wikipedia defines as an FPS shall we...

That definition mentions "combat", probably because the vast majority of them centre around combat. There's nothing in the description "first person shooter" which makes it combat-exclusive, though.

Wiki is a clumsy tool at the best of times.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about how a game can have platforming sections without being considered a platformer or have puzzles without being called a puzzle game. It all depends on how much they actually make up the game. The so called "shooting" in the game isn't really shooting, it's just a euphemism for how you move the portals. A shooter cannot be considered as such without there being some sort of combat. It doesn't need to be violent or bloody, it just need to involve the player taking out some sort of enemy with a ranged device to be considered as such. People have already brought up the turrets but again they're basically just environmental hazards since they're completely stationary, get taken out by any sort of movement, and you never directly shoot them.

Sure, the gun isn't necessary for Portal to work. Strictly, though, you could apply the same reasoning to most FPSes. Mechanically, Doom would work if your character only had to point at the enemy and click their fingers, as I said earlier. The difference is thematic, not mechanic.

What is an FPS? It is a sub-genre of shooter that places the camera in the first person perspective in 3D (quotation marks when necessary). What is a shooter? It is a genre that involves using precise timing and mid-long range projectiles to complete challenges, typically clearing enemies, by hitting them with said projectiles in order to proceed.

Is this present in Portal? No. The challenges are not fulfilled by hitting things with the projectiles, that's only the first step. The entire rest of the game is problem solving and platforming, and even in the shooting, there is little to no emphasis on precision or timing. Portal may be in the First Person, but it is not a Shooter, and therefore not a First Person Shooter. I think people are getting way too help up on the "First Person" part of "First Person Shooter." It has more in common with Mirror's Edge with puzzle elements than any FPS. It's a First Person Puzzle/Platformer at best.

 

[Lightknight]

What do you mean I decided that? That's the definition of a FPS, I didn't pull the definition out of my ass or anything. This shit has already been decided by the industry. Let's just look at what Wikipedia defines as an FPS shall we...

That definition mentions "combat", probably because the vast majority of them centre around combat. There's nothing in the description "first person shooter" which makes it combat-exclusive, though.

Wiki is a clumsy tool at the best of times.

First person games that allow shooting but center around things other than combat are generally defined as something other than FPS. As in the example I listed in my comment to someone else, Alien Isolation is not a FPS game. It's a First Person Survival Horror game despite the fact that you can shoot your enemies with a gun.

However, the general issue with this discussion on semantics is that this term isn't really that solidly defined. The general scenario is that FPS titles will be shooting enemies from a first person perspective.

When people say that FPS titles are primarily for men I don't think they're talking about non-combative games. They're talking about games in which you shoot enemies. Extra Credits made an entire video based off of semantics rather than actual mechanics and genre based discussions.

 

[Callate]

Where EC mentions that the idea that particular game mechanics are "gendered" in the minds of game designers and producers (match-three games are for girls, first-person shooter games are for boys), I think what they say has some merit. Certainly I know plenty of women who enjoy FPSs, and I, as an adult male, have been known to play both match-three and "hidden object" games (Vanishing Files, The Room, etc.)

Where the episode goes a little screwy is that it appears to immediately suggest a different set of gender-based assumptions with regard to what would make a hidden-object game appeal to men. Which seems to make about as much sense as suggesting that romance novels could pull a wider crowd if they featured more tweaking of motorcycle engines and big explosions.

Certainly it would be nice if more devs could "think outside the box" and move existing genres to new places when their typical trappings leave them, well, trapped. But it's also good to seriously consider that people of either sex who like certain genres might just like certain genres as they are. I don't think anyone is looking for an Unreal Tournament where the characters stop shooting to discuss their feelings or a Bejeweled clone where every gem combination results in exploding viscera.

There are certainly places where genres can make changes their fans won't mind; there's nothing wrong with having female characters in action roles, for example, so long as we don't promptly jump into empty-headed accusations that putting women into positions where they can be subject to the same violence male characters are subject to amounts to misogyny. But we should do so with some consideration of why particular things work, rather than merely a blinkered set of assumptions and motivations geared to gender dynamics.

 

[inmunitas]

Where EC mentions that the idea that particular game mechanics are "gendered" in the minds of game designers and producers (match-three games are for girls, first-person shooter games are for boys), I think what they say has some merit.

I think it has more to do with modern western societies perception that "violence" and war are "male things", which of course isn't really true.

EDIT:
Also, Portal is not a FPS.

 

[Silvanus]

There is no "vast majority", all FPS games center around combat. If a game in the first person doesn't have combat then it's not an FPS, period.

Obviously, this is cyclical, self-fulfilling.

All FPSes contain combat, because we're excluding ones that don't. Since there aren't any that don't have combat (because we've excluded them), combat is a central characteristic. Cyclical.

If you didn't know, combat is pretty much a requirement for an action game, which shooter already are. If you're going to say that action games don't need combat, allow me to preemptively laugh in your face.

You can laugh at things imaginary-me says all day long, if you like. I'm just flattered to be imagined at all.

See, that's where you wrong. If you took Doom and replaced the enemies and weapons with whatever you want, it would still be a FPS if it remained in first person and had you fighting some sort of enemy with ranged combat. The difference with the portal gun is that it only works on specific surfaces, it literally do nothing if you try to use it on anything other than the white areas which is the exact opposite of how a ranged device should work. You're basically materializing the portals in limited locations rather than "shooting" them. Mechanically, it is not a gun and you aren't shooting anything. QED, you and Extra Credits are objectively wrong.

Balls.

A gun in Doom does nothing if you shoot it at the wall, or into the lava, or into the sky. You have to point it at the correct things for it to work: the demons.

Now, you say you would still include Doom if you removed the weapons, and were fighting with clicking fingers. But that contradicts the definition that you yourself gave;

First-person shooter (FPS) is a video game genre centered on gun and projectile weapon-based combat through a first-person perspective [...]

What is an FPS? It is a sub-genre of shooter that places the camera in the first person perspective in 3D (quotation marks when necessary). What is a shooter? It is a genre that involves using precise timing and mid-long range projectiles to complete challenges, typically clearing enemies, by hitting them with said projectiles in order to proceed.

Is this present in Portal? No. The challenges are not fulfilled by hitting things with the projectiles, that's only the first step. The entire rest of the game is problem solving and platforming, and even in the shooting, there is little to no emphasis on precision or timing. Portal may be in the First Person, but it is not a Shooter, and therefore not a First Person Shooter. I think people are getting way too help up on the "First Person" part of "First Person Shooter." It has more in common with Mirror's Edge with puzzle elements than any FPS. It's a First Person Puzzle/Platformer at best.

If you think that precision or timing are unimportant, then you can't have played Portal 2, or at least the Portal 2 co-op. Timing and precision become important.

Everything in your first paragraph is present in Portal, except for "clearing enemies", which is only listed as "typical" rather than necessary. Everything else is present.

 

[Karadalis]

-Huge Wall 'o' text-

Spot on.
People are making a fuss for nothing. Video Gaming started as a male hobby and it shows in the genres that became popular. In the past few years more women started to play and it is going through the same developments. If people would just let it run its course then we'll probably see a good "female" line-up of games next to the "Male" and all stuff in between.

People ARE letting it "run its course"

Where are all these gamers that are protesting casual games? Where are all the gamers that bemoan the existing of the casual market?

What they are against is that their OWN market is influenced by forces outside their own market.

How often now have developers tried to "broaden the audience" with the end result that the product was watered down more and more... and in the end didnt attract said broad audience?

No ones asking for candy crush to be more hardcore...

Yet people keep demanding that an existing well established market should change... because there are people out there that arent interested in it yet? Chances are they have their own reasons why they arent interested, and trying to pander to them will ultimately be futile.

Games are allready being made for everyone. What these people like extra credits want are these "ideal games" they keep dreaming up with the budgets of tripple A games.

The problem thought is: Their game concepts will never justify both such a budget, nor the media attention. No one cares about the newest iteration of a "match 3" game.. no matter if there are suddenly zombies in it. You cant just slap violence on a game and it will somehow attract hordes of male gamers

Candy crush and bejeweled make millions upon millions, hidden object games make boatloads of cash too, but non of the gaming sites, nor any youtube personalities talk about it, despite these markets being gigantic. Why? Because no one gives a crap about these games. They are cheap and easy to make and come by the dozens every other month or so. No one with two braincells to rub together would think "What we really need is a AAA match 3 puzzle game with zombies! This way well get both markets at once! WELL BE RICH! RICH TELL YOU!"

When the reality would play out more like that male/AAA gamers would bemoan the puzzle elements and the female casual audience would be turned away by all the violence.

You can also not slap puzzle elements onto Call of duty and suddenly women will kick in your door and throw money at you.

Also with a tripple A budget all you would end up with was the most golden shiny turd of a game you could ever imagine.

I really have to ask what kind of world they live in where this reasoning makes any bloody sense.

If you want to get more females into gaming.. how about cleaning up the stereotypes and the social stigma that is still put onto gaming by the female population themselves? In my opinion the greatest entry barrier for female gamers are other female non gamers. Not the games themselves or male gamers.

Thankfully thought this is all slowly changing, thanks to the mobile market and casual gaming no less. But not to people like extra credits who play make believe and constantly ignore the simply rules of capitalism and demand and supply to spin stories about their little ideal gaming world where everythings art and every game is for everyone.

 

[Silvanus]

People ARE letting it "run its course"

Where are all these gamers that are protesting casual games? Where are all the gamers that bemoan the existing of the casual market?

What they are against is that their OWN market is influenced by forces outside their own market.

How often now have developers tried to "broaden the audience" with the end result that the product was watered down more and more... and in the end didnt attract said broad audience?

No ones asking for candy crush to be more hardcore...

Yet people keep demanding that an existing well established market should change... because there are people out there that arent interested in it yet?

What a bunch of bollocks.

Well, both developers and consumer critics are forces within the market, not from outside.

 

[Karadalis]

People ARE letting it "run its course"

Where are all these gamers that are protesting casual games? Where are all the gamers that bemoan the existing of the casual market?

What they are against is that their OWN market is influenced by forces outside their own market.

How often now have developers tried to "broaden the audience" with the end result that the product was watered down more and more... and in the end didnt attract said broad audience?

No ones asking for candy crush to be more hardcore...

Yet people keep demanding that an existing well established market should change... because there are people out there that arent interested in it yet?

What a bunch of bollocks.

Well, both developers and consumer critics are forces within the market, not from outside.

No, extra credits for example is not a force within the AAA market, yet they keep rambling on about it as if they where.

Furthermore:

Often you have people who have no actuall personal involvement in certain markets making or trying to influence/force certain decisions.

A corporate Suit at the top of EA that never even played a game in his live comes to mind and only listens to the PR department.

Or heck... lets take escapists James for example.

He is a small time indie dev at best. He has no idea what is really going on in the world of AAA gaming. He is a daydreamer who thinks hes a big number because a couple of people at conventions listen to him.

Its easy to talk about games are art when you dont have the responsible over hundrets of developers and a multi million dollar project with your name on it.

How does someone like him even begin to understand what is going on behind the scenes of the AAA market? He has no experience, he never worked on a AAA project, he never had the responsibility.

Tell you what:

If EA would hand him such a huge budget and it was his ass on the line if the project tanked i bet he would stop talking about how games should all be "art" and should aspire to be more then they currently are and he would just as quickly focus on capitalism 101.

They keep dreaming up their ideal gaming world without realising that what they want is not what the majority of gamers want, what the MARKET actually wants.

What they are doing is arguing against sales numbers with idealogy.

The GTA sales numbers dont lie, people, both male and female like that stuff. And no amount of snapping GTA DVDs infront of a measaly audience of maybe 20 people and declaring it a shit game is going to change that. (wasnt james btw was some other artsy indie dev dime a dozen joe schmoe) But it sure looks impressive in gaming news articles.

Nor does going on and on about how this or that in a game is aparantly sexist or mysoginist or simply "problematic" help anyone kept for the critics bank accounts.

However the industry will still try to cater to these people or explore "new markets" that really dont exist to begin with. Its like ancient maps where unexplored regions where marked with "here be dragons"

Turned out there where no dragons...

 

[Silvanus]

No, extra credits for example is not a force within the AAA market, yet they keep rambling on about it as if they where.

Furthermore:

Often you have people who have no actuall personal investment in the hobby making or trying to influence/force certain decisions.

Lets take escapists James for example.

He is a small time indie dev at best. He has no idea what is really going on in the world of AAA gaming. He is a daydreamer who thinks hes a big number because a couple of people at conventions listen to him.

They're consumers, not some outside influence. They have every right to opine about this stuff.

We have some idea, anyway. We don't have intimate knowledge, but we see the products (and pay exorbitant amounts of money for them), and whatever they wish to communicate will be read. The AAA industry has every opportunity to communicate what it wants to communicate.

Tell you what:

If EA would hand him such a huge budget and it was his ass on the line if the project tanked i bet he would stop talking about how games should all be "art" and should aspire to be more then they currently are and he would just as quickly focus on capitalism 101.

They keep dreaming up their ideal gaming world without realising that what they want is not what the majority of gamers want, what the MARKET actually wants.

What they are doing is arguing against sales numbers with idealogy.

The GTA sales numbers dont lie, people, both male and female like that stuff. And no amount of snapping GTA DVDs infront of a measaly audience of maybe 20 people and declaring it a shit game is going to change that. (wasnt james btw was some other artsy indie dev dime a dozen joe schmoe) But it sure looks impressive in gaming news articles.

It really irks me when people refer to "capitalism", when what they're actually describing is simply genericism or being entirely derivative. There is a hell of a lot more to it than that, hence the diversity of the market which does exist.

Even your own example-- the GTA franchise-- is innovative and unique in numerous ways. It is not an example of simply copying whatever's worked in the past and hoping it never gets stale.

However the industry will still try to cater to these people or explore "new markets" that really dont exist to begin with. Its like ancient maps where unexplored regions where marked with "here be dragons"

Niche markets demonstrably exist. That's not even up for reasonable debate.