Bonnie Ruberg"They prefer pink to camo. They prefer ponies to guns. The videogame community does its best to ignore them, but still, they continue to thrive. No, they're not girl gamers. They're girl games." Bonnie Ruberg looks at girl games.
Issue 23 - Games of a Fairer Sex
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: Nathaniel Givens
Clearly not all differences between the sexes are social constructs. There are many biological differences such as average height, muscle mass, skeletal structures, etc. There is also an growing body of evidence for the proposition that the ways men and women apprehend and relate with the world are fundamentally different. It's mind-bogglingly obvious and simple: men and women are different.
Given this scientifically irrefutable evidence, how much longer will we have to listen to Bonnie tell us that "Girls are taught to like girly things. Parents are taught to buy girly products for their daughters. The legacy continues" as if this explained all the differences between girls and boys?
I'm not sexist (ask my wife or mother or sisters if you don't believe me) but I'm tired of this run of the mill nauseating post-feminist nonesense that we've had for three issues in a row from Bonnie. I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss the issues of girl gamers and girl games. The Escapist issue focusing on girl gamers was perhaps the most interesting and intriguing issue yet. It was certainly my favorite. The trouble is that Bonnie has never once explained what she means by "sexist" or "feminine". Are all differences between men and women assumed to be inequalities? Are they all assumed to be biased to favor men? Which of these differences are biological (nature) and which are social (nurture) and how do they interact? What is "feminine" nature and how is it different from "masculine" nature?
These are the fascinating questions that really matter, but Bonnie continuously skips over these fundamentals and conducts "research" geared more towards sensationalism and ra-ra girl power rhetoric then intellectual engagement with the core issues. I want to discuess the issues, not read jhorribly stereotypical college essays that are nothing more than out-moded and scientifically flawed pedantics that speak down to their audience: men and women alike.
Enough is enough. If we want the best for girls and girl gamers (and I think guy gamers do want that) then we need to find girl gamers are more capable spokesperson than Bonnie.
Clearly not all differences between the sexes are social constructs. There are many biological differences such as average height, muscle mass, skeletal structures, etc. There is also an growing body of evidence for the proposition that the ways men and women apprehend and relate with the world are fundamentally different. It's mind-bogglingly obvious and simple: men and women are different.
Given this scientifically irrefutable evidence, how much longer will we have to listen to Bonnie tell us that "Girls are taught to like girly things. Parents are taught to buy girly products for their daughters. The legacy continues" as if this explained all the differences between girls and boys?
I'm not sexist (ask my wife or mother or sisters if you don't believe me) but I'm tired of this run of the mill nauseating post-feminist nonesense that we've had for three issues in a row from Bonnie. I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss the issues of girl gamers and girl games. The Escapist issue focusing on girl gamers was perhaps the most interesting and intriguing issue yet. It was certainly my favorite. The trouble is that Bonnie has never once explained what she means by "sexist" or "feminine". Are all differences between men and women assumed to be inequalities? Are they all assumed to be biased to favor men? Which of these differences are biological (nature) and which are social (nurture) and how do they interact? What is "feminine" nature and how is it different from "masculine" nature?
These are the fascinating questions that really matter, but Bonnie continuously skips over these fundamentals and conducts "research" geared more towards sensationalism and ra-ra girl power rhetoric then intellectual engagement with the core issues. I want to discuess the issues, not read jhorribly stereotypical college essays that are nothing more than out-moded and scientifically flawed pedantics that speak down to their audience: men and women alike.
Enough is enough. If we want the best for girls and girl gamers (and I think guy gamers do want that) then we need to find girl gamers are more capable spokesperson than Bonnie.
Original Comment by: Aujang Abadi
One of the startling oversights of Bonnie's research into the admittedly bleak expanse of "girl-gaming" is that she doesn't stop to analyze the demographic trends behind it. Think for a moment--there are two "classes" of games that almost universally suck: franchise (i.e. licensed) games, and children's games. Both often offer very superficial gameplay and shoddy production value, the former for obvious reasons, and the latter because the publishers are targeting children and do not want to overshoot their target market in terms of accessibility or complexity. (Whether or not theirs is sound reasoning is a different argument.) With that in mind, the "phenomenon" that Bonnie claims girl games to be suddenly makes clear and perfect sense--girl games are ALWAYS one of two things: a licensed game, or a children's game. And more often or not, the former falls under the latter.
So the real question is, why are girl games always developed, marketed, and sold as children's games? THAT is a much more worthwhile question, and one that I do not think immediately lends itself to "male publishers think female gamers are dumb." Considering the post-feminist torrent of "man=idiot" sentiment floating around, I sincerely doubt publishers consider women as being of inferior intelligence. On the contrary, statistics show that teenage and adult women don't play video games, at least not to a large enough degree to encourage any publisher to actively create mature, female-oriented games. (And what does female-oriented mean, anyway?) So when a publisher decides to create a "girl game," they make a child's game, and 9 out of 10 times, it sucks. It never occurs to them that girls are going to grow up and keep playing games, so they don't think: "Gotta hook 'em now and make tons of money later," they think: "This is a time-sensitive market; put out as much crap as you can ASAP." This same phenomenon occurs with boys! It's not like there's a special cadre of children's games marked "boys only" that is the Mecca of early gaming--as a rule, children's games suck. But (as evidenced by the retailers' responses to Bonnie's detective work) boys do grow up to play video games, in very large numbers, so when someone comes in and asks about a young male gamer, they are probably more inclined to usher the inquirer to a stack of mainstream games that aren't too violent or intense. (Nintendo makes boatloads of these.) When someone asks about a female gamer, it's rarely assumed (again, thank you statistics) that the girl is over 10, or that she will continue gaming, so off to the kids' games we go.
Of course, this raises more questions, about why teenage and adult women don't play video games. While I am sure Bonnie would love us to believe it's the result of horrible social conditioning, I would much rather believe that the market's obvious slant towards men is a result of a.) historical precedence, both on the developer and consumer side, and b.) a lack of games that appear interesting to women. Chris Crawford does a fantastic job in examining what sort of game might be interesting to a female gamer, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Running around killing stuff, while it does have its appeals to my notably male mindset, often isn't enough to keep me involved but so long, hence my relative aversion to first-person shooters. But a game focusing on political or social intrigue, well that sounds pretty damn interesting right now.
No one is questioning that the market is one-sided and ill-prepared to cater to female gamers--but there are very logical reasons for this, and they are not all mired in the "boys vs. girls" mentality that Bonnie immediately presents. The market is barely capable of providing thoughtful, intelligent games to MALE gamers, and that's a sentiment you'll find espoused everywhere on the "intarwebzorz." Please, Bonnie, apply some critical thinking to your conclusions before you so quickly blame society and the male mind for the wrongs your sex must bear. Many of those wrongs are wrapped up in larger market trends, and have concrete reasoning behind them, as flawed as that reasoning may be.
One of the startling oversights of Bonnie's research into the admittedly bleak expanse of "girl-gaming" is that she doesn't stop to analyze the demographic trends behind it. Think for a moment--there are two "classes" of games that almost universally suck: franchise (i.e. licensed) games, and children's games. Both often offer very superficial gameplay and shoddy production value, the former for obvious reasons, and the latter because the publishers are targeting children and do not want to overshoot their target market in terms of accessibility or complexity. (Whether or not theirs is sound reasoning is a different argument.) With that in mind, the "phenomenon" that Bonnie claims girl games to be suddenly makes clear and perfect sense--girl games are ALWAYS one of two things: a licensed game, or a children's game. And more often or not, the former falls under the latter.
So the real question is, why are girl games always developed, marketed, and sold as children's games? THAT is a much more worthwhile question, and one that I do not think immediately lends itself to "male publishers think female gamers are dumb." Considering the post-feminist torrent of "man=idiot" sentiment floating around, I sincerely doubt publishers consider women as being of inferior intelligence. On the contrary, statistics show that teenage and adult women don't play video games, at least not to a large enough degree to encourage any publisher to actively create mature, female-oriented games. (And what does female-oriented mean, anyway?) So when a publisher decides to create a "girl game," they make a child's game, and 9 out of 10 times, it sucks. It never occurs to them that girls are going to grow up and keep playing games, so they don't think: "Gotta hook 'em now and make tons of money later," they think: "This is a time-sensitive market; put out as much crap as you can ASAP." This same phenomenon occurs with boys! It's not like there's a special cadre of children's games marked "boys only" that is the Mecca of early gaming--as a rule, children's games suck. But (as evidenced by the retailers' responses to Bonnie's detective work) boys do grow up to play video games, in very large numbers, so when someone comes in and asks about a young male gamer, they are probably more inclined to usher the inquirer to a stack of mainstream games that aren't too violent or intense. (Nintendo makes boatloads of these.) When someone asks about a female gamer, it's rarely assumed (again, thank you statistics) that the girl is over 10, or that she will continue gaming, so off to the kids' games we go.
Of course, this raises more questions, about why teenage and adult women don't play video games. While I am sure Bonnie would love us to believe it's the result of horrible social conditioning, I would much rather believe that the market's obvious slant towards men is a result of a.) historical precedence, both on the developer and consumer side, and b.) a lack of games that appear interesting to women. Chris Crawford does a fantastic job in examining what sort of game might be interesting to a female gamer, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Running around killing stuff, while it does have its appeals to my notably male mindset, often isn't enough to keep me involved but so long, hence my relative aversion to first-person shooters. But a game focusing on political or social intrigue, well that sounds pretty damn interesting right now.
No one is questioning that the market is one-sided and ill-prepared to cater to female gamers--but there are very logical reasons for this, and they are not all mired in the "boys vs. girls" mentality that Bonnie immediately presents. The market is barely capable of providing thoughtful, intelligent games to MALE gamers, and that's a sentiment you'll find espoused everywhere on the "intarwebzorz." Please, Bonnie, apply some critical thinking to your conclusions before you so quickly blame society and the male mind for the wrongs your sex must bear. Many of those wrongs are wrapped up in larger market trends, and have concrete reasoning behind them, as flawed as that reasoning may be.
Original Comment by: Randall Fitzgerald
http://ikimashou.net
I think there are some very valid points made inthe comments above mine. Bonnie bothers to point out that she, herself, notices games like Quake 4 and the like, but then points out that this tiny market share isn't seeing innovation or better games in general.
I think I would have to pose the same question as the others. What's the difference between a girl game and a guy game? I think in this instance the difference is between little girl games and not little girl games. I have trouble feeling sympathetic around the idea that a little girl isn't being recommended Quake 4. It's by and large very true, the things the customer service people said. On average, an 8-year-old girl doesn't and will never want a Star Wars game, and if she would, it's likely a large enough part of her personality for you to know it. Of course, this idea brings me to the real thing I wanted to mention in my comment.
You want GOOD games based around frilly, vapid stories. You tell me how to make a decent, or even not bad, Barbie game and I will show you how to create cold fusion. The characters that little girls often idolize haven't a story worth telling. Why are the Nancy Drew games better? Oh yeah! They're not vapid, empty shells of a character. Look at Bratz. To me, it's the final straw against the innocence of children. Any girl who can familiarize with Bratz dolls doesn't deserve a good game, she deserves to turn 16 and realize that being covered in make-up for the sake of her baby-daddy isn't the most rewarding life, and maybe she should have picked up a copy of Dragon Quest or something and invested a little time and energy in what would turn out to be, at the very least, a semi-intellectual pursuit, if not a better use of time than 99% of girl games COULD EVER BE.
I mean, prove me wrong. Please. I would love to see a Barbie game where the first inclination isn't stabbing my eyes out with a white hot fork. All the pixel shaders in the world won't make Lizzie McGuire less than crap. The fact of the matter is, investing time and money in an apathetic demographic when you could spend that money making something that is guaranteed to sell to that 18-34 year old male. You don't increase your bottom line by selling a thousand copies of Barbie's Amazon Adventure with DirectX 9 shading and mapping to girls who would just as soon play with the real dolls and make up their own story, and that's why the CEOs care about at the end of the day.
http://ikimashou.net
I think there are some very valid points made inthe comments above mine. Bonnie bothers to point out that she, herself, notices games like Quake 4 and the like, but then points out that this tiny market share isn't seeing innovation or better games in general.
I think I would have to pose the same question as the others. What's the difference between a girl game and a guy game? I think in this instance the difference is between little girl games and not little girl games. I have trouble feeling sympathetic around the idea that a little girl isn't being recommended Quake 4. It's by and large very true, the things the customer service people said. On average, an 8-year-old girl doesn't and will never want a Star Wars game, and if she would, it's likely a large enough part of her personality for you to know it. Of course, this idea brings me to the real thing I wanted to mention in my comment.
You want GOOD games based around frilly, vapid stories. You tell me how to make a decent, or even not bad, Barbie game and I will show you how to create cold fusion. The characters that little girls often idolize haven't a story worth telling. Why are the Nancy Drew games better? Oh yeah! They're not vapid, empty shells of a character. Look at Bratz. To me, it's the final straw against the innocence of children. Any girl who can familiarize with Bratz dolls doesn't deserve a good game, she deserves to turn 16 and realize that being covered in make-up for the sake of her baby-daddy isn't the most rewarding life, and maybe she should have picked up a copy of Dragon Quest or something and invested a little time and energy in what would turn out to be, at the very least, a semi-intellectual pursuit, if not a better use of time than 99% of girl games COULD EVER BE.
I mean, prove me wrong. Please. I would love to see a Barbie game where the first inclination isn't stabbing my eyes out with a white hot fork. All the pixel shaders in the world won't make Lizzie McGuire less than crap. The fact of the matter is, investing time and money in an apathetic demographic when you could spend that money making something that is guaranteed to sell to that 18-34 year old male. You don't increase your bottom line by selling a thousand copies of Barbie's Amazon Adventure with DirectX 9 shading and mapping to girls who would just as soon play with the real dolls and make up their own story, and that's why the CEOs care about at the end of the day.
Original Comment by: Adam Siegel
http://www.psynchro.com
Just wanted to throw this out there to perhaps broaden the scope of games being discussed - I believe that the user base of the "There" online virtual community is around 60% girls/women, many of them in their 30s and some in their 40s. Not sure how many of them are "girls" though. True - There is more of an open-ended virtual world than a game, and the article seems to focus more on single-player games rather than MMOGs. There is a very flexible recreational environment, and I have seen girls/women engage in the full range of available activities, including hanging out and chatting with buddies; designing and selling avatar clothing, vehicles and home decor items; attending events; exploring and questing; racing buggies and hover boards; and competing in paint-ball matches. These types of multi-use, social environments seem to be attractive to girls/women.
http://www.psynchro.com
Just wanted to throw this out there to perhaps broaden the scope of games being discussed - I believe that the user base of the "There" online virtual community is around 60% girls/women, many of them in their 30s and some in their 40s. Not sure how many of them are "girls" though. True - There is more of an open-ended virtual world than a game, and the article seems to focus more on single-player games rather than MMOGs. There is a very flexible recreational environment, and I have seen girls/women engage in the full range of available activities, including hanging out and chatting with buddies; designing and selling avatar clothing, vehicles and home decor items; attending events; exploring and questing; racing buggies and hover boards; and competing in paint-ball matches. These types of multi-use, social environments seem to be attractive to girls/women.
Original Comment by: Tim
http://oghc.blogspot.com
I couldn't disagree more with Nathaniel up there; well I could- but it would involve a post Chris Crawford sort of dedication of argument I can't handle at the moment. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, buddy!
So how about this: Shadow of Collosus as the perfect "girly" game.
Plot: A handsome dark rider [ooo! a pony!! ^.^] must revive his wife [aaww, how romantic!] by defeating big fluffy giants [and they're so cute!!].
All the basic elements are there, and yet this is a mainstream enough game. Perhaps if marketed in the right sort of magazines instead of others, Shadow of Collosus could be classified as a girl-game. What do you think the reaction of the gaming community would be on that one? Do you think because the centerfoldout-superads are in Seventeen and Teen Beat and the TV spots air during Powerpuff Girls (a show I watch religiously, by the by), that they would say either A) "Hey! This game is actually pretty good! Their doing so much better!!" or B) "Shadow of Collosus exhibits the same sort of nonsense we see in ALL girl games, and its obvious why they chose this market, it SUCKS. No one calling themselves a gamer can take this seriously."
The marketing of the game creates the perception in this imaginary scenario, but I think it makes enough sense.
But.... I could be talking out my proverbial ass, so... yeah.
http://oghc.blogspot.com
I couldn't disagree more with Nathaniel up there; well I could- but it would involve a post Chris Crawford sort of dedication of argument I can't handle at the moment. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, buddy!
So how about this: Shadow of Collosus as the perfect "girly" game.
Plot: A handsome dark rider [ooo! a pony!! ^.^] must revive his wife [aaww, how romantic!] by defeating big fluffy giants [and they're so cute!!].
All the basic elements are there, and yet this is a mainstream enough game. Perhaps if marketed in the right sort of magazines instead of others, Shadow of Collosus could be classified as a girl-game. What do you think the reaction of the gaming community would be on that one? Do you think because the centerfoldout-superads are in Seventeen and Teen Beat and the TV spots air during Powerpuff Girls (a show I watch religiously, by the by), that they would say either A) "Hey! This game is actually pretty good! Their doing so much better!!" or B) "Shadow of Collosus exhibits the same sort of nonsense we see in ALL girl games, and its obvious why they chose this market, it SUCKS. No one calling themselves a gamer can take this seriously."
The marketing of the game creates the perception in this imaginary scenario, but I think it makes enough sense.
But.... I could be talking out my proverbial ass, so... yeah.
Original Comment by: Andrea Appel (a.k.a. Alexandra Erenhart)
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
I've been a gamer since I was little. My mom always acknowledged that part of me and never tried to discourage it (except when I didn't want to do homework, but that's another story). When I turned 13 or 14, I don't remember quite well, she went to a local videostore and asked for a gift for her daughter (me) for Christmas. What did recommend the salesman? What did my mother give me? The latest release of Blizzard: Warcraft II.
Am I a lucky person? Do I have an amazing family? Do I live in a country where we don't see differences between girls and boys when it comes to games? Probably none of those questions is an absolute yes. But my mom gave me Warcraft II, and that really isn't a "girl game" at all. I love Blizzard since then.
My mom is always telling my why I don't wear skirts, why I don't wear make up, why I don't use jewelry... I tell her, that they're not of my like, and she understands it, even if she doesn't like it. It's all about tolerance, boys and girls. I don't wear skirts, I don't wear make up, but I think myself as a woman. I've never thought otherwise. To be femenine doesn't mean to be a woman . And it's proved by all those men that has femenine attitudes, but they recognize them as males. Masculinity and femininity are social tags and social guides to interact with the rest of the world, and they mostly depend on your gender. But you can be masculine and don't stop being a woman, and you can be femenine and don't stop being a man. You'll get ridiculized by society, most likely, but that doesn't mean you want to be of the other sex.
Games are the same. The moment you see games independant of genres (sexual genres) and more of gaming genres, it's going to be completely different. Walk into a store and see the games divided by types, not by sexes. That would be beautiful.
If you like girl games, it's ok. If you don't, it's ok too. Don't tag people because of it.
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
I've been a gamer since I was little. My mom always acknowledged that part of me and never tried to discourage it (except when I didn't want to do homework, but that's another story). When I turned 13 or 14, I don't remember quite well, she went to a local videostore and asked for a gift for her daughter (me) for Christmas. What did recommend the salesman? What did my mother give me? The latest release of Blizzard: Warcraft II.
Am I a lucky person? Do I have an amazing family? Do I live in a country where we don't see differences between girls and boys when it comes to games? Probably none of those questions is an absolute yes. But my mom gave me Warcraft II, and that really isn't a "girl game" at all. I love Blizzard since then.
My mom is always telling my why I don't wear skirts, why I don't wear make up, why I don't use jewelry... I tell her, that they're not of my like, and she understands it, even if she doesn't like it. It's all about tolerance, boys and girls. I don't wear skirts, I don't wear make up, but I think myself as a woman. I've never thought otherwise. To be femenine doesn't mean to be a woman . And it's proved by all those men that has femenine attitudes, but they recognize them as males. Masculinity and femininity are social tags and social guides to interact with the rest of the world, and they mostly depend on your gender. But you can be masculine and don't stop being a woman, and you can be femenine and don't stop being a man. You'll get ridiculized by society, most likely, but that doesn't mean you want to be of the other sex.
Games are the same. The moment you see games independant of genres (sexual genres) and more of gaming genres, it's going to be completely different. Walk into a store and see the games divided by types, not by sexes. That would be beautiful.
If you like girl games, it's ok. If you don't, it's ok too. Don't tag people because of it.
Original Comment by: Drew Nolosco
http://riotweb.com
Aujang Abad wrote: "While I am sure Bonnie would love us to believe it's the result of horrible social conditioning, I would much rather believe that the market's obvious slant towards men is a result of a.) historical precedence, both on the developer and consumer side, and b.) a lack of games that appear interesting to women."
and in doing so, illustrates his failure to understand what social conditioning is, and its effects on both societal gender concepts in younger generations and on on the purchasing habits. His reason b.) "lack of games that appear interesting to women" is true, and caused by learned behavior about what females of all ages should find interesting - that is what a female - especially a young female - is conditioned to believe is acceptable for her to be interested in. While physological distinctions between males and females may play some role in this, learned behavior plays a role, too. Psycologists and social scientists have not reached a consensus about which plays a greater role, but the fact that the debate is strong suggests that both play a role in most situations.
On to other topics. Randall Fitzgerald: "You tell me how to make a decent, or even not bad, Barbie game and I will show you how to create cold fusion. The characters that little girls often idolize haven't a story worth telling." This thought illustrates why games for children and especially girls are frequently awful - the developers have no respect for the properties. Is Barbie or My Little Pony really more vapid than Pokemon or Naruto? Only if the developers of the property don't care to make a strong effort to make it interesting.
http://riotweb.com
Aujang Abad wrote: "While I am sure Bonnie would love us to believe it's the result of horrible social conditioning, I would much rather believe that the market's obvious slant towards men is a result of a.) historical precedence, both on the developer and consumer side, and b.) a lack of games that appear interesting to women."
and in doing so, illustrates his failure to understand what social conditioning is, and its effects on both societal gender concepts in younger generations and on on the purchasing habits. His reason b.) "lack of games that appear interesting to women" is true, and caused by learned behavior about what females of all ages should find interesting - that is what a female - especially a young female - is conditioned to believe is acceptable for her to be interested in. While physological distinctions between males and females may play some role in this, learned behavior plays a role, too. Psycologists and social scientists have not reached a consensus about which plays a greater role, but the fact that the debate is strong suggests that both play a role in most situations.
On to other topics. Randall Fitzgerald: "You tell me how to make a decent, or even not bad, Barbie game and I will show you how to create cold fusion. The characters that little girls often idolize haven't a story worth telling." This thought illustrates why games for children and especially girls are frequently awful - the developers have no respect for the properties. Is Barbie or My Little Pony really more vapid than Pokemon or Naruto? Only if the developers of the property don't care to make a strong effort to make it interesting.
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast
The problem with applying feminism towards ANYTHING is that you will always get the "girls are like this because society trains them to be" argument because it does make some sense but is totally irrefutable. Of course, that means it's unprovable too. If anything, parents train girls more than the larger culture does (see Andrea's post).
From recent Escapist articles, to Raph Koster's "A Theory Of Fun For Game Design," to talking to my barely-gamer girlfriend, it seems to me that the main reason more girls don't game is that the mechanics prevalent in gaming today appeal to a narrow group. All three of the places I mentioned have expressed the idea that games centering more on a sort of "social intelligence," as opposed to twitch shooters and logic, would go a long, long way towards appealing towards women. I think games that focus more on maneuvering socially (or diplomatically) would be a good solution.
The problem with applying feminism towards ANYTHING is that you will always get the "girls are like this because society trains them to be" argument because it does make some sense but is totally irrefutable. Of course, that means it's unprovable too. If anything, parents train girls more than the larger culture does (see Andrea's post).
From recent Escapist articles, to Raph Koster's "A Theory Of Fun For Game Design," to talking to my barely-gamer girlfriend, it seems to me that the main reason more girls don't game is that the mechanics prevalent in gaming today appeal to a narrow group. All three of the places I mentioned have expressed the idea that games centering more on a sort of "social intelligence," as opposed to twitch shooters and logic, would go a long, long way towards appealing towards women. I think games that focus more on maneuvering socially (or diplomatically) would be a good solution.
Original Comment by: Randall Fitzgerald
http://www.ikimashou.net
I would argue that Naruto is a lot deeper than American companies treat it. I've watched the first 144 episodes, and was actually quite surprised by how wonderful the story was, this, of course, being with regard to the Japanese version. Pokemon, I will make no qualm there. It's not a great show.
But to get back on topic here, I do agree that a lot of it has to do with how much the companies tend to care about the property, but with regard to Barbie, specifically, there is no canon from which to draw, as there is even with My Little Pony. That is why I bothered to point out Barbie next to Nancy Drew. Nancy Drew has a story to put behind it, whereas the Bratz franchise and Barbie are playthings meant to be made into stories by the girls or boys who happen to have purchased them. These stories usually aren't very good, and I've found that olderp eople have many more imaginative uses for Barbie that may not be appropriate for children.
Which brings up, in my mind, the other issue I took with the article, which was that it is pointing to what games you should buy for a little girl, or even a teenage girl. I think it is the case, largely, that during this point in the lives of females, the draw to the things they are told to like is heavier. I think it could be found that older women have a duller gender line to bust over. Older women can enjoy a good story, but as things stand now, many women would rather watch the story than play a part in it(non-gamers of course). As video games become more physically interactive, this could start to change, and the stories can be tailored more easily to women. Honestly, I can't think of a woman I know who wouldn't like Fahrenheit, but very few of the women I know would have interest in playing it, even if you sat them down in front of it. I know, I've tried on a few.
I think a lot of what seperates the line here is that gamers are used to, and expect a certain amount of tedium and slowness in every game, so when it pops up, we just slog through it. The layperson may not bother themselves to look for a key for five hours, or bother trying to get that wall jump just right to get to the next part of a level. I think, though, that for the time being, it just needs to be generally accepted that men are the market and maybe we should try again later. Any gamer woman who disagrees can tell me what is so bad about Doom 3 and God of War and Prince of Persia and Fahrenheit and all the other games out there that are for "guys." You don't want Doom in pink, but what do you want? If you turned Friend Green Tomatoes into a game, it would sell two copies, the purchasers of which would commit suicide. Also, I hate Kathy Bates. Sorry. I just do. She creeps me out.
I look forward to finding out what can be done for games geared toward females, but I am more excited at the idea of dropping the line altogether and just playing games that are fun for everyone, without trying to draw a line or stop making games full of boobies. Sometimes we all want to see some boobies. And if ladies want to see some dong, well, make a game full of dong. I don't think it will sell very well though, since women seem to be generally less interested in our dangly parts as we are in theirs. I sure hope we keep it that way. Plus, a penis would just look weird in polygonal form.
http://www.ikimashou.net
I would argue that Naruto is a lot deeper than American companies treat it. I've watched the first 144 episodes, and was actually quite surprised by how wonderful the story was, this, of course, being with regard to the Japanese version. Pokemon, I will make no qualm there. It's not a great show.
But to get back on topic here, I do agree that a lot of it has to do with how much the companies tend to care about the property, but with regard to Barbie, specifically, there is no canon from which to draw, as there is even with My Little Pony. That is why I bothered to point out Barbie next to Nancy Drew. Nancy Drew has a story to put behind it, whereas the Bratz franchise and Barbie are playthings meant to be made into stories by the girls or boys who happen to have purchased them. These stories usually aren't very good, and I've found that olderp eople have many more imaginative uses for Barbie that may not be appropriate for children.
Which brings up, in my mind, the other issue I took with the article, which was that it is pointing to what games you should buy for a little girl, or even a teenage girl. I think it is the case, largely, that during this point in the lives of females, the draw to the things they are told to like is heavier. I think it could be found that older women have a duller gender line to bust over. Older women can enjoy a good story, but as things stand now, many women would rather watch the story than play a part in it(non-gamers of course). As video games become more physically interactive, this could start to change, and the stories can be tailored more easily to women. Honestly, I can't think of a woman I know who wouldn't like Fahrenheit, but very few of the women I know would have interest in playing it, even if you sat them down in front of it. I know, I've tried on a few.
I think a lot of what seperates the line here is that gamers are used to, and expect a certain amount of tedium and slowness in every game, so when it pops up, we just slog through it. The layperson may not bother themselves to look for a key for five hours, or bother trying to get that wall jump just right to get to the next part of a level. I think, though, that for the time being, it just needs to be generally accepted that men are the market and maybe we should try again later. Any gamer woman who disagrees can tell me what is so bad about Doom 3 and God of War and Prince of Persia and Fahrenheit and all the other games out there that are for "guys." You don't want Doom in pink, but what do you want? If you turned Friend Green Tomatoes into a game, it would sell two copies, the purchasers of which would commit suicide. Also, I hate Kathy Bates. Sorry. I just do. She creeps me out.
I look forward to finding out what can be done for games geared toward females, but I am more excited at the idea of dropping the line altogether and just playing games that are fun for everyone, without trying to draw a line or stop making games full of boobies. Sometimes we all want to see some boobies. And if ladies want to see some dong, well, make a game full of dong. I don't think it will sell very well though, since women seem to be generally less interested in our dangly parts as we are in theirs. I sure hope we keep it that way. Plus, a penis would just look weird in polygonal form.
Original Comment by: Drew Nolosco
http://riotweb.com
"whereas the Bratz franchise and Barbie are playthings meant to be made into stories by the girls or boys who happen to have purchased them."
And how is this different from sandbox or simulation games? How is the Sims anything other than plaything for users to make their own stories? Randall, which is more true: you think there is no room for creative game-making within the context of a girl's licensed property like my little pony, or you'd feel really stupid if you had to work on a my little pony game?
http://riotweb.com
"whereas the Bratz franchise and Barbie are playthings meant to be made into stories by the girls or boys who happen to have purchased them."
And how is this different from sandbox or simulation games? How is the Sims anything other than plaything for users to make their own stories? Randall, which is more true: you think there is no room for creative game-making within the context of a girl's licensed property like my little pony, or you'd feel really stupid if you had to work on a my little pony game?
Original Comment by: JW
Bonnie's article was poorly researched. There are some cool girl games. One I can think of is the "Dance Revolution" series. Which don't do anything to discount Bonnie's theories on a masogonist agenda in the gaming industry but at least it's healthy!
I think there are many many crappy games out there. Of course my idea of a good game is Civilization. 'Nuf said.
Bonnie's article was poorly researched. There are some cool girl games. One I can think of is the "Dance Revolution" series. Which don't do anything to discount Bonnie's theories on a masogonist agenda in the gaming industry but at least it's healthy!
I think there are many many crappy games out there. Of course my idea of a good game is Civilization. 'Nuf said.
Original Comment by: Patrick Dugan
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
I'd just like to point out that, after a full release day for the issue, this thread has more comments than all the other article threads combined. Incidentally, only one commentator so far has been female.
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
I'd just like to point out that, after a full release day for the issue, this thread has more comments than all the other article threads combined. Incidentally, only one commentator so far has been female.
Original Comment by: Mark
I think I realize the biggest impediment to broadening the game industry and accepting women. Most people think that a more social game - a game that's played with other people, or a game that's about social dynamics - will appeal more to women than your standard fare game. Prevailing opinion is that competition and destruction are the kiss of death for games that hope to succeed in a female market.
Video games, however, are played on computers. They are mathematical and logical models of situations with an appropriate coat of paint and polygons. It's much easier to represent competition and destructive forces through numbers than cooperation and social forces. There are plenty of numerical representations of physics and warfare, since numbers is all they really boil down to. Natural sciences seem tailor-made for representation in computers. Social sciences, aside from economics, have no such numerical representation. It's much harder for computers to make an accurate representation of them that makes sense and that does not immediately feel like mere manipulation of variables, mostly because no numerical representation of social dynamics exists.
The result is that, with few exceptions, multiplayer games are the only hope for appealing to the senses that studies suggest are the ones that must be appealed to in order to make a deep game that's successful among women.
This faces some other problems, of course. There's a bit of a catch-22 in making live multiplayer games, since there needs to be a certain density of video game players nearby in order for them to be fun - if nobody around you likes video games, then you aren't going to get much enjoyment out of a multiplayer game; and if you don't buy that multiplayer game, you won't be able to get anybody around you into video games. The other solution, Internet gameplay, is harmed somewhat by the fact that people you meet on the Internet are more likely than not to be irresponsible (i.e. they don't respond), too friendly, not friendly enough, mean (see also: Issue 19) or just plain stupid - in short, no fun to play with. (I admit, part of this assessment may be a result of my own poor experiences with online and offline multiplayer gaming)
I think I realize the biggest impediment to broadening the game industry and accepting women. Most people think that a more social game - a game that's played with other people, or a game that's about social dynamics - will appeal more to women than your standard fare game. Prevailing opinion is that competition and destruction are the kiss of death for games that hope to succeed in a female market.
Video games, however, are played on computers. They are mathematical and logical models of situations with an appropriate coat of paint and polygons. It's much easier to represent competition and destructive forces through numbers than cooperation and social forces. There are plenty of numerical representations of physics and warfare, since numbers is all they really boil down to. Natural sciences seem tailor-made for representation in computers. Social sciences, aside from economics, have no such numerical representation. It's much harder for computers to make an accurate representation of them that makes sense and that does not immediately feel like mere manipulation of variables, mostly because no numerical representation of social dynamics exists.
The result is that, with few exceptions, multiplayer games are the only hope for appealing to the senses that studies suggest are the ones that must be appealed to in order to make a deep game that's successful among women.
This faces some other problems, of course. There's a bit of a catch-22 in making live multiplayer games, since there needs to be a certain density of video game players nearby in order for them to be fun - if nobody around you likes video games, then you aren't going to get much enjoyment out of a multiplayer game; and if you don't buy that multiplayer game, you won't be able to get anybody around you into video games. The other solution, Internet gameplay, is harmed somewhat by the fact that people you meet on the Internet are more likely than not to be irresponsible (i.e. they don't respond), too friendly, not friendly enough, mean (see also: Issue 19) or just plain stupid - in short, no fun to play with. (I admit, part of this assessment may be a result of my own poor experiences with online and offline multiplayer gaming)
Original Comment by: Andrea Appel (a.k.a. Alexandra Erenhart)
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
I've read all the opinions, very interesting, and everybody here has a point.
But I don't know the opinion of the most important group: Girls between8 an 13 (the so-called target of those girl games). Besides Patrick's point (mostly males have posted here, and I don't know the reason why), there's no feedback from the ones who I'd like to hear about. Is someone here a parent of a 10 year old girl, or you're related to one? I would really like to know about them. Maybe we're just inventing a whole load of asumptions, while the reality is, they DO like those games.
C'mon!! someone post about it!
http://aerenhart.blogspot.com
I've read all the opinions, very interesting, and everybody here has a point.
But I don't know the opinion of the most important group: Girls between8 an 13 (the so-called target of those girl games). Besides Patrick's point (mostly males have posted here, and I don't know the reason why), there's no feedback from the ones who I'd like to hear about. Is someone here a parent of a 10 year old girl, or you're related to one? I would really like to know about them. Maybe we're just inventing a whole load of asumptions, while the reality is, they DO like those games.
C'mon!! someone post about it!
Original Comment by: Randall Fitzgerald
http://www.ikimashou.net
Drew:
Games like The Sims and certain sandbox style games are among the few that grab that audience, but I will stand by my point as they are non-gender specific games. They're games for everyone. I think I even poiting out games like that in a different comment, or something. Like I said, there are exceptions but most of the exceptions aren't tailor-made for that demographic anyway, so they sort of fail the whole point of the article.
http://www.ikimashou.net
Drew:
Games like The Sims and certain sandbox style games are among the few that grab that audience, but I will stand by my point as they are non-gender specific games. They're games for everyone. I think I even poiting out games like that in a different comment, or something. Like I said, there are exceptions but most of the exceptions aren't tailor-made for that demographic anyway, so they sort of fail the whole point of the article.
Original Comment by: Scott Jon Siegel
http://xy.teSticleSgo.net
JW: "Bonnie's article was poorly researched. There are some cool girl games. One I can think of is the "Dance Revolution" series. "
Except Dance *Dance* Revolution is not a girl game. A girl game is a marketed directly to *girls,* and when I say girls I mean girls and not women. There's no explicit gender line with a game like DDR; it's marketed evenly to boys and girls.
Drew Nolosco: bless you ^_^ You didn't take the words right out of my mouth, because I couldn't even think of the right words, but you sure did nail it. Nice.
http://xy.teSticleSgo.net
JW: "Bonnie's article was poorly researched. There are some cool girl games. One I can think of is the "Dance Revolution" series. "
Except Dance *Dance* Revolution is not a girl game. A girl game is a marketed directly to *girls,* and when I say girls I mean girls and not women. There's no explicit gender line with a game like DDR; it's marketed evenly to boys and girls.
Drew Nolosco: bless you ^_^ You didn't take the words right out of my mouth, because I couldn't even think of the right words, but you sure did nail it. Nice.
Original Comment by: Randall Fitzgerald
http://www.ikimashou.net
Oh and Drew:
Not that I will miss my testicles all that much, but I happen to like the My Little Ponies movie. The one with the flutter ponies where the sludge is coming to ruin everything and all that. It was actually a really good movie. I agree that most people would feel stupid working on it, but again then we need to point at the gender roles that are pressed on 99% of boys from the time they are young. We should thank our lucky stars that there are even enough who broke away from football and jockstraps to bother to make some video games and other such intellectual pursuits.
http://www.ikimashou.net
Oh and Drew:
Not that I will miss my testicles all that much, but I happen to like the My Little Ponies movie. The one with the flutter ponies where the sludge is coming to ruin everything and all that. It was actually a really good movie. I agree that most people would feel stupid working on it, but again then we need to point at the gender roles that are pressed on 99% of boys from the time they are young. We should thank our lucky stars that there are even enough who broke away from football and jockstraps to bother to make some video games and other such intellectual pursuits.
Original Comment by: Aujang Abadi
To Drew:
My language was unclear, and since there is no edit key I couldn't go back and revisit the sentence you referenced. The sentiment I was aiming for was that Bonnie, as many modern feminists do, places FAR too much emphasis on "horrible social conditioning" as being the sole perpetrator of all evils--in short, they stack the world against the female and use solely that model to justify any and all arguments that they make. I am not arguing that social conditioning does not undoubtedly play a role, but I do not think it affects women, in this case, any more significantly than men. Why do sports games sell so well when so many of them suck? Why in God's name are games like "Backyard Wrestling" or "Outlaw Golf" not only developed but best-sellers? Men are conditioned as heavily as females are--even more so recently, thanks to the advent of Abercrombie-esque advertising--but Bonnie either does not care or does not think it relevant to assume that conditioning is a universal force, and not one that targets only women.
And to say that what we find interesting is completely determined by social conditioning is FAR too much of a leap. But even that simplifies the problem--it's not like there are a plethora of women waiting to game, but they just can't find the right game because society has taught them to like pastels instead of camouflage. Almost every girl I know doesn't like the act of gaming--most of the reasons I hear are: "How can you just sit there and stare at a screen for so long?" or: "Don't your hands get tired?" So in order for the women I know to begin actively gaming, something would need to be SO interesting that it would overcome their disdain for the act itself, and those games don't exist, by and large. Quake 4 isn't going to convince my girlfriend to start playing PC games religiously--but the aesthetics of the PSP and the hypnotic nature of Lumines was enough to get her hooked on her handheld.
To attribute this disdain for gaming (as an activity) to social conditioning is another claim that has no backing. You say: "His reason b.) 'lack of games that appear interesting to women' is true, and caused by learned behavior about what females of all ages should find interesting - that is what a female - especially a young female - is conditioned to believe is acceptable for her to be interested in." Show me where women are told, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid consoles and controllers. I don't believe you. I won't argue that women learn a different set of behaviors from society than men do, but as you yourself pointed out, the lasting effect of those learned behaviors is still under heavy debate. Gaming is simply too new for it to be actively conditioned against, and while it has received a ton of negative press thanks to violent and/or sexual games, it's far too soon to say that mothers and fathers everywhere are shooing their daughters away from Gamestop while buying their sons Doom 3.
In the end, there hasn't been any significant research into why the demographic has played out like it has. My personal guess would be historical precedence--men, primarily, created computers, and therefore programmers were also primarily men, and the first PC owners were thus mostly men, so the first games were targeted at those users, and the trend has since continued. I think the trend has gone too far--I'm honestly sick and tired of seeing massive breasts and skimpy outfits in video games. After a point it breaks the storytelling atmosphere. But Bonnie would sooner chalk up the disparity to the evil-man conspiracy. That's even more tiresome than staring at T&A while I'm playing Ninja Gaiden.
To Drew:
My language was unclear, and since there is no edit key I couldn't go back and revisit the sentence you referenced. The sentiment I was aiming for was that Bonnie, as many modern feminists do, places FAR too much emphasis on "horrible social conditioning" as being the sole perpetrator of all evils--in short, they stack the world against the female and use solely that model to justify any and all arguments that they make. I am not arguing that social conditioning does not undoubtedly play a role, but I do not think it affects women, in this case, any more significantly than men. Why do sports games sell so well when so many of them suck? Why in God's name are games like "Backyard Wrestling" or "Outlaw Golf" not only developed but best-sellers? Men are conditioned as heavily as females are--even more so recently, thanks to the advent of Abercrombie-esque advertising--but Bonnie either does not care or does not think it relevant to assume that conditioning is a universal force, and not one that targets only women.
And to say that what we find interesting is completely determined by social conditioning is FAR too much of a leap. But even that simplifies the problem--it's not like there are a plethora of women waiting to game, but they just can't find the right game because society has taught them to like pastels instead of camouflage. Almost every girl I know doesn't like the act of gaming--most of the reasons I hear are: "How can you just sit there and stare at a screen for so long?" or: "Don't your hands get tired?" So in order for the women I know to begin actively gaming, something would need to be SO interesting that it would overcome their disdain for the act itself, and those games don't exist, by and large. Quake 4 isn't going to convince my girlfriend to start playing PC games religiously--but the aesthetics of the PSP and the hypnotic nature of Lumines was enough to get her hooked on her handheld.
To attribute this disdain for gaming (as an activity) to social conditioning is another claim that has no backing. You say: "His reason b.) 'lack of games that appear interesting to women' is true, and caused by learned behavior about what females of all ages should find interesting - that is what a female - especially a young female - is conditioned to believe is acceptable for her to be interested in." Show me where women are told, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid consoles and controllers. I don't believe you. I won't argue that women learn a different set of behaviors from society than men do, but as you yourself pointed out, the lasting effect of those learned behaviors is still under heavy debate. Gaming is simply too new for it to be actively conditioned against, and while it has received a ton of negative press thanks to violent and/or sexual games, it's far too soon to say that mothers and fathers everywhere are shooing their daughters away from Gamestop while buying their sons Doom 3.
In the end, there hasn't been any significant research into why the demographic has played out like it has. My personal guess would be historical precedence--men, primarily, created computers, and therefore programmers were also primarily men, and the first PC owners were thus mostly men, so the first games were targeted at those users, and the trend has since continued. I think the trend has gone too far--I'm honestly sick and tired of seeing massive breasts and skimpy outfits in video games. After a point it breaks the storytelling atmosphere. But Bonnie would sooner chalk up the disparity to the evil-man conspiracy. That's even more tiresome than staring at T&A while I'm playing Ninja Gaiden.
Original Comment by: Aujang Abadi
This one is for Tim--
What exactly are you disagreeing with? That men and women are different? Or Nathaniel's analysis of Bonnie's argument/capabilities as a writer?
This one is for Tim--
What exactly are you disagreeing with? That men and women are different? Or Nathaniel's analysis of Bonnie's argument/capabilities as a writer?