Extra Credits talks about gender sterotypes in game mechanics.

[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.

 

[Silvanus]

Really? That's like saying all puzzle games only have puzzles in them because it's cyclical. It's not cyclical, it's what the freaking genre is. The reason you don't see something in a genre that doesn't fit that genre's description is because it doesn't meet the parameters. You don't consider a lizard a mammal, you don't call a hat a shirt, Portal is not an FPS. Like I said, all shooters are a subgenre of the action genre which requires combat of some sort. Portal has no combat so it can't be an FPS.

(Underlining Mine).

Alright, hows about this. I will compromise. I will exclude Portal from the "FPS" genre, if you exclude "Resident Evil" from the Horror genre. The Horror genre requires ghosts, else it's not horror. Resident Evil contains no ghosts, so it's not horror.

Again, you can shoot a weapon in doom wherever you want, you will see bullets fly out no matter what you shoot, there are no limits to where you can shoot it.

In the original Doom, there weren't really bullets, due to limitations in technology. The game simply registered whether you were pointing in the right direction, that's all.

You could shoot elsewhere-- as you can in Portal-- but literally nothing would happen, only the sound effect. As in Portal.

As for the clicking fingers bit, I thought you meant something along the lines of that guy from Fullmetal Alchemist. As long as it's ranged combat in first person, it can be considered an FPS. It could be guns, lasers, magic, psychic powers, what have you as long as your attacking from a distance with some sort of projectile. Those are the only two things that matter for that classification. QED, still objectively wrong.

In which case, you're still contradicting the description that you yourself offered.

Would you stop saying "Q.E.D.", please? It's wasted on a debate over something so inconsequential.

 

[kris40k]

Again, you can shoot a weapon in doom wherever you want, you will see bullets fly out no matter what you shoot, there are no limits to where you can shoot it. That doesn't mean it need to have an effect on everything, just that you can shoot it wherever you want. You have the ability to miss. The portal gun does not have this ability, it will only ever do anything if it's used in relation to the white surfaces. Point it anywhere else? Nothing happens.

Actually, you can shoot the Portal gun where ever you want, it only sticks if it hits the moon material. It fizzles off of everything else and is blocked by fields.

 

[Silvanus]

Now you just don't know what you're talking about. How is that similar scenario whatsoever? Ghosts aren't even in the majority of horror titles at this point, that's just being deliberately obtuse. Thought I will agree that the latter Resident Evils have really been pushing it with how little actual survival horror they've had. Like I said, action games require combat of some sort. If it doesn't have combat, it can't be considered an action game. And since the FPS genre is a subgenre of the action genre it can't be considered an FPS either. Do you honestly think Portal could in any way be considered an action game?

Eh, not really. I'd say FPS is only generally considered a sub-genre of action games because almost all contain combat.

Now, when you say "ghosts aren't even in the majority of horror titles"... that can't be right; ghosts are in every horror title by definition, because unless they have ghosts, they aren't horror.

Then that was a limit of the tech at the time. The gun would still act exactly the same whenever you pulled the trigger regardless of whether you actually hit an enemy or not. The portal gone noticeably acts differently when trying to use it anywhere other than the white surfaces.

The difference in efficacy is precisely the same in both cases; the guns simply don't do anything unless you point them in the right way.

This is another arbitrary restriction.

Then please point out exactly where I contradicted myself.

Okiday. Well, here, you evoked the Wikipedia article "FPS", citing it as "the definition";

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...

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

...Then, later on, when I pointed out that you could replace the gun in Doom with finger-clicking without changing the mechanics, you said this;

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.

...which contradicts the part in the definition you gave, specifying "gun and projectile weapon-based combat".

 

[Silvanus]

As much as I hate to agree with Nods, I think he's right.

Extra Credits said something a while back, and as much as I hate to agree with THEM, I still think it holds some merit.

They said that we should classify games based on the feelings they try to invoke instead of purely on surface mechanics.

The feelings a game like Call of Duty or Wolfenstein try to invoke are pretty different to the ones Portal tries to invokem which is in turn different to the kind that Civilization or Endless Legend try to invoke.

So it's not really fair to put them in the same genre.

I might even agree.

I've been arguing for the past half hour or so because Nods' manner irritated me.

 

[Silvanus]

Well of course if you changed the meaning of survival horror to be something bullshit you can exclude or include anything you want. But again, you never accurately described what horror actually is. Regardless of what you think, all FPS games are action games but not all action games are FPSs. That's the deal with subgenres, they don't miraculously stop being apart of the root genre because you want to change what it means.

"Regardless of what I think"... You've just stated that, though, not demonstrated it. If stating something makes it so, then horror games require ghosts to be horror.

Come to think of it, I don't even remember any skeletons in Resident Evil. It scarcely qualifies as a game at all.

Maybe not some of the older games because of tech limitations but nowadays i can't imagine a single game outside of indie that doesn't have projectile weapons leave some sort of impact on whatever you shoot be it bullets visually being fired or various physics. Portal lacks these from an intentional design standpoint, not a tech limitation.

Then I shall not exclude any of those newer games, which have no such tech limitations. Only Doom 1 and 2.

 

[BytByte]

you and Extra Credits are objectively wrong.

This is my point dude. It's not objective no matter how much you want it to be. The genre classification is not objective, clearly evidenced by me and Silvanus disagreeing with you. I'm not saying describing games or trying to place them into genres is bad, but thinking that all games can fit neatly into strict genres just doesn't work because different people will interpret them differently. Things aren't fact, even if they have consensus. This isn't to prove myself right and you wrong, no one is wrong. But you don't like to even entertain other people's interpretations, which ain't cool.

 

[Silvanus]

But you don't like to even entertain other people's interpretations, which ain't cool.

This is the only reason I'm still being a stickler on this point. Had it been otherwise, I would long ago have shrugged my shoulders and said, 'you might be right'.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm not the one pulling definitions out of my ass though, I'm simply going by what the industry defines the various game genres.

Really? Your sole reference so far has been to Wikipedia.

What about excluding Doom 1 and Doom 2 now? They both have projectile based combat, Portal does not and the very act of 'shooting' is debatable at best.

As we've established, there aren't actually projectiles. Well, aside from the Imps' fireballs.

In the end, the main elements Portal needs to classify are already covered by the whole "First Person Puzzle Platformer" thing so this whole argument comes across as superfluous fluff for an already bloated descriptor for the game.

It's supremely superfluous fluff, I agree completely. "First person puzzle platformer" would be a far more useful descriptor.

As I explained to Gundam, I wouldn't still be arguing had you been a little less absolutist or condescending regarding such an inconsequential dispute.

 

[Gengisgame]

Really? Your sole reference so far has been to Wikipedia.

Can you just let this go.

It takes little effort to realize that FPS are there own thing within FP games. Call of Duty and Half-life are not the same genre of game as Skyrim or Far Cry.

You are arguing semantics and dragging on a non-point.

 

[SKBPinkie]

Arguing over semantics is gonna get us nowhere.

The crux of the argument is that people who like standard FPSs can be potential customers for something like Portal. Which is bullshit. Yeah, there are people who like both games, but their opinions on the titles are not based on whether or not they share a single feature - first person gameplay. It depends on what they want to play at any particular moment. Liking one doesn't guarantee enjoying the other.

The crucial difference here is the genre of the games. One focuses on combat, while the other on puzzles. One more focused on skill, and the other on solving a problem.

These are two very different types of games and going "now that you've played Mario, you'll definitely love Braid" is utter nonsense.

 

[BytByte]

So because you disagree with me, it's not objective? Stop the presses! 2 + 2 = 7! The sky is green! Up is down and down is purple! Like I said many times before, I'm simply going by already established industry genres. Why should I entertain other people's interpretations when they fail to do their research?

You keep missing the point. You are treating the classification you stand by as complete fact, something that cannot be altered. I'm saying that my and Silvanus' differing opinions to yours are no less valid because we hold them. Classification is a subjective things. Some people say "Gone Home" is a game, some don't. It does not matter that I think Fallout 3 and Portal are FPS' while you don't. What I'm trying and failing to get across to you is there is no standard or true, objective classification. And this branches out into everything you say on the forums.

You are too black and white.

You always need to be right even when there is no right or wrong answer. That happens in an artistic medium like games. When you come into a thread, you dismiss others you don't agree with in one fell swoop. No discussion. Like Silavnus said, it's a condescending attitude that does not contribute anything. In this very thread you just talked about genres rather than addressing the video, because the video did not have something that could be said as "objectively" wrong (I do realize the irony of what I'm doing). I want you to discuss things, not state things at people. It's more fun, trust me.

 

[Jake Torrance]

Personally, i can't really deal with Extra Credits after he suggested that Yuna from FFX was a boring character and that characters are more interesting because they have different sexual preferences, it's too subjective.