Stolen Pixels #258: Where the Boys Are

[Soylent Dave]

While it may be an interesting option, it often isn't a realistic one, either.

This^. How often do you see women on the frontline of a war?

But we're talking about a game, and making a game that deliberately alienates half of your potential audience (in fact, half of the people on the planet) is really stupid.

A) They aren't deliberately alienating people. It would be very expensive to add another 3 sets of character models, much more work than just adding a few outfits.

B) It isn't "half their potential audience." While I do not think women are inferior at playing these games, women are generally far less interested in playing games that revolve around killing people*. Men are not better at playing these games, but we are far more interested in playing them.

*EDIT: Yes, I know Brink is an objective based shooter rather than a deathmatch game.

a) The team made a conscious decision not to include female characters in the game; that's deliberate. I'm not suggesting there aren't reasons for this other than 'we hate women'; I'm saying that the reasons aren't good enough.

b) I said 'potential audience' for a reason. The current audience is mostly men. It's just possible that a big part of the reason for that is that games are only ever aimed at men (well, boys).

Modern game design means that we pretty much only get to play as a men, fighting against men doing manly things with other men.

Do you really think that has nothing to do with the relatively small number of female gamers (in this genre)? It's not that women don't want to play this game; they're being excluded from it. They're being told "we don't want your sort here - and you wouldn't like it anyway".

(and as for 'women don't like killing people in games' - have you ever watched a woman play a game? They're brutal, sadistic monsters. It's just that many of them only get to act out their murderous urges on Sims because action games are 'games for men'...)

 

[RelexCryo]

While it may be an interesting option, it often isn't a realistic one, either.

This^. How often do you see women on the frontline of a war?

But we're talking about a game, and making a game that deliberately alienates half of your potential audience (in fact, half of the people on the planet) is really stupid.

A) They aren't deliberately alienating people. It would be very expensive to add another 3 sets of character models, much more work than just adding a few outfits.

B) It isn't "half their potential audience." While I do not think women are inferior at playing these games, women are generally far less interested in playing games that revolve around killing people*. Men are not better at playing these games, but we are far more interested in playing them.

*EDIT: Yes, I know Brink is an objective based shooter rather than a deathmatch game.

a) The team made a conscious decision not to include female characters in the game; that's deliberate. I'm not suggesting there aren't reasons for this other than 'we hate women'; I'm saying that the reasons aren't good enough.

b) I said 'potential audience' for a reason. The current audience is mostly men. It's just possible that a big part of the reason for that is that games are only ever aimed at men (well, boys).

Modern game design means that we pretty much only get to play as a men, fighting against men doing manly things with other men.

As for those reasons not being good enough- when a game costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and getting investors is difficult enough in this recession, and games that take a long time to finish get canceled, cost and production time are actually very good reasons. This is Vegas and The Agency got canceled, even though a lot of money had been sunk into them, just because they took a long time to finish. Increasing the work load and the amount of time that goes into a release increases the chance it will be canceled. It is a serious issue, and a valid reason.

As for potential audience- The flaw in your logic is that the developers wanted to make a game where men do manly things. The inherent design they wanted to create would have inherently alienated women by your logic. Your essentially arguing that they could have had more female audience members by inserting female character options into a game where manly men do manly things.

Brink is a game designed by men, for men. Adding female character options wouldn't change it's inherent nature.

 

[Aleol]

Stolen Pixels #258: Where the Boys Are

Who needs women? Not Brink, apparently.

Read Full Article

Shamus, you also forgot to mention the complete overhaul of skeleton animation work it takes to make them look female. Males and females do not walk the same or move the same since skeletal structure is different, hence a completely new skeletal model needs to be made for a female character. You can't just slap on boobs and booty to a male skeleton frame and expect it to look credible.

Worked for Mount&Blade.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

So why is Brink getting so much shit for this? It isn't like there are female characters in other games. All your generic war/space shooters are all men. Even before they announced there were "102 Quadrillion Unique Characters" in Brink, people were already giving in shit for no females. I don't get it...

 

[Yokai]

Stolen Pixels #258: Where the Boys Are

Who needs women? Not Brink, apparently.

Read Full Article

Shamus, you also forgot to mention the complete overhaul of skeleton animation work it takes to make them look female. Males and females do not walk the same or move the same since skeletal structure is different, hence a completely new skeletal model needs to be made for a female character. You can't just slap on boobs and booty to a male skeleton frame and expect it to look credible.

Worked for Mount&Blade.

And every [http://ranger.gamebanana.com/img/ss/srends/90514a.jpg] modded [http://ranger.gamebanana.com/img/ss/skins/90529b.jpg] female [http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/011/5/2/female_spy_color_test_2_by_chemicalalia-d36x5xu.jpg] model for TF2. Granted, it doesn't always work, but it would be the least of the issues when it comes to adding female characters.

So why is Brink getting so much shit for this? It isn't like there are female characters in other games. All your generic war/space shooters are all men. Even before they announced there were "102 Quadrillion Unique Characters" in Brink, people were already giving in shit for no females. I don't get it...

Because, as has been explained, you specifically can customize your character to such a ridiculous extent. This is definitely not a standard move for shooters, and people are simply surprised that a game featuring customization as its main selling point would leave out fully half of all possible options. Generally the first (and sometimes only) step in customization is to choose your gender, which is why it's odd that that's not an option.

 

[Soylent Dave]

As for those reasons not being good enough- when a game costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and getting investors is difficult enough in this recession, and games that take a long time to finish get canceled, cost and production time are actually very good reasons.

[snip]

Increasing the work load and the amount of time that goes into a release increases the chance it will be canceled. It is a serious issue, and a valid reason.

Only if you take the approach that female models, characters NPCs etc. are 'extra' things that have to be added to a game - rather than things that should be included in a game from the start.

Multiplayer is an example of something that was previously regarded as an optional extra, and is now pretty much de rigeur - it still requires development time, resources and money; but it gets budgeted for in nearly all games nowadays.

I think including female character designs (and - god forbid - actual female characters) is something that could and should easily fall under the same umbrella.

As for potential audience- The flaw in your logic is that the developers wanted to make a game where men do manly things. The inherent design they wanted to create would have inherently alienated women by your logic. Your essentially arguing that they could have had more female audience members by inserting female character options into a game where manly men do manly things.

Brink is a game designed by men, for men. Adding female character options wouldn't change it's inherent nature.

Yes, I am arguing that adding female character options changes it into an 'action game designed by men, for anyone' (anyone who likes action games, that is). It changes it from 'men doing manly things to men' into 'people doing cool things and killing other people'.

It's probably not going to appeal to all, or possibly even most female gamers - but if a game can grab even a small percentage of the female gamer demographic (when previously it's getting almost none of them), then that's a potential shitload of money which the developer isn't getting - which could also make it a good business decision.

If those female gamers are being put off by being told that these sort of games aren't for them by developers (and gamers) - and having no female characters is one way we tell them this (but not the only one), then we shouldn't be surprised that they aren't playing them. If our games were a bit more inclusive, if the community was a bit more inclusive, then it might feel a bit less like a boys' club around here...

(A club with a big 'No Girls Allowed' sign on the door)

 

[RelexCryo]

As for those reasons not being good enough- when a game costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and getting investors is difficult enough in this recession, and games that take a long time to finish get canceled, cost and production time are actually very good reasons.

[snip]

Increasing the work load and the amount of time that goes into a release increases the chance it will be canceled. It is a serious issue, and a valid reason.

Only if you take the approach that female models, characters NPCs etc. are 'extra' things that have to be added to a game - rather than things that should be included in a game from the start.

Core features often get cut due to budget constraints. Whether or not you see something as absolutely essential has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there is enough money to do it. No amount of percieving female character designs as absolutely necessary will generate enough money to produce them. Features that are percieved as absolutely necessary often get cut in game design, simply because there is not enough resources to produce them.

Multiplayer is an example of something that was previously regarded as an optional extra, and is now pretty much de rigeur - it still requires development time, resources and money; but it gets budgeted for in nearly all games nowadays.

I think including female character designs (and - god forbid - actual female characters) is something that could and should easily fall under the same umbrella.

As for potential audience- The flaw in your logic is that the developers wanted to make a game where men do manly things. The inherent design they wanted to create would have inherently alienated women by your logic. Your essentially arguing that they could have had more female audience members by inserting female character options into a game where manly men do manly things.

Brink is a game designed by men, for men. Adding female character options wouldn't change it's inherent nature.

Yes, I am arguing that adding female character options changes it into an 'action game designed by men, for anyone' (anyone who likes action games, that is). It changes it from 'men doing manly things to men' into 'people doing cool things and killing other people'.

It's probably not going to appeal to all, or possibly even most female gamers - but if a game can grab even a small percentage of the female gamer demographic (when previously it's getting almost none of them), then that's a potential shitload of money which the developer isn't getting - which could also make it a good business decision.

If those female gamers are being put off by being told that these sort of games aren't for them by developers (and gamers) - and having no female characters is one way we tell them this (but not the only one), then we shouldn't be surprised that they aren't playing them. If our games were a bit more inclusive, if the community was a bit more inclusive, then it might feel a bit less like a boys' club around here...

(A club with a big 'No Girls Allowed' sign on the door)

You are arguing that this game(not the industry, just this game) should try to be inclusive. What is the basis for your reasoning? Are you implying that designing games for men is inherently wrong? And if so, do you believe that writing books, designing t.v. shows, or videogames for women is inherently wrong?

 

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

several hundred men

I know Brink was having a rough start but I didn't think their sales were that low.

(Ba-dum-tssh!)

 

[EvilPicnic]

As many, many people have pointed out (yet still some don't seem to listen), a game that sells itself on it's 'impressive customisation' yet fails to deliver the most basic of options, gender, is exactly that: a MASSIVE FAIL.

It's not necessarily a game-ruining mistake (yet for some it might be), but it certainly is a Peter Molyneux-sized cock-up.

[EDIT]

Also: the argument that girls don?t want to play the game because they won't enjoy it as much as guys do, therefore we should not cater for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to break the mold a little, people. If games want to become a true mass-medium they need to appeal to more than 53.5% of the population.

 

[RelexCryo]

A) They aren't deliberately alienating people.

Effectively declaring that said people are not worth the development effort required to cater to them pretty much counts as deliberately alienating them... especially when you're trumpeting your deep player customization. When said people are a third of your potential market, not to go after their money is poor business.

A third of the potential market? What is your basis for that declaration? Could you site sources please?

 

[RelexCryo]

A) They aren't deliberately alienating people.

Effectively declaring that said people are not worth the development effort required to cater to them pretty much counts as deliberately alienating them... especially when you're trumpeting your deep player customization. When said people are a third of your potential market, not to go after their money is poor business.

A third of the potential market? What is your basis for that declaration? Could you site sources please?

Glad you asked. ESA study: 40 percent of US gamers are women. [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/07/esa-study-40-percent-of-us-gamers-are-women.ars] Just for example, from a few years back. (Calling them "a third of the potential market" is probably an understatement.) Also useful: an article on the minds of girl gamers [http://www.businessinsider.com/lifetime-gaming-2010-3#immersives-like-to-disconnect-from-the-world-and-be-in-control-of-the-game-11] which, despite its patronizing title, raises serious problems for the thesis that "women don't play FPS games." Less wide-ranging but still of interest: Blockdot's 2010 gamer survey showed a marked increase in disinterest among its male users in FPS games. (The detailed survey seems not to be online any more, but stories about it are accessible with a simple "blockdot survey" Google search.)

So, basically, women are an increasingly important part of the video games market generally and very likely a coming force in the FPS market specifically. Therefore deliberately alienating them is incredibly stupid.

It states that 40% of gamers are women, it doesn't say what games they prefer. The link you quoted that you said "raises serious problems for the thesis that "women don't play FPS games"" listed several different types of gamers who happen to be girls, and essentially stated that immersives are one of them, and that immersives who prefer FPS games are a part of the immersives. The actual ratio of female gamers who are immersives, and the actual ratio of immersives that prefer FPS, is never stated.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I think people are overlooking another issue here. Sure, there is laziness, and people might try and make some kind of "boy's club" arguement, and then voice suspicians of the sexual preferances of the development team, however there is a big one:

Fear of socio-political backlash.

Back when City Of Heroes launched City Of Villains and it's "Mastermind" class, there were questions about why there were no female minions. The reason for this as I remember it was started as being the "potential for abuse".

Look at all the videos people make on the internet, all kinds of crude garbage. You start throwing female models out there and inevitably your going to see all kinds of misogynistic stuff being produced, especially when there is a lot of potential to put guns between a girl's legs, or walk around with your pets in tow and bake them in fire, or make a character who sits around "pimping his hoes" to get attention. I'm sure if you think you can come up with things you've already seen along these lines.

The thing is, we're not talking about NPCs under the control of the player character here; we're talking about the player characters themselves. In most games, no one tends to care if a female player character gets hit during a fight: There are no sociopolitical issues, because she can usually hit right back.

And why is the omission of female characters considered any sort of a solution, when the perpetrators of said "garbage" could instead simply be reprimanded?

Only if you take the approach that female models, characters NPCs etc. are 'extra' things that have to be added to a game - rather than things that should be included in a game from the start.

Which seems to be a disappointingly common view.

Also: the argument that girls don?t want to play the game because they won't enjoy it as much as guys do, therefore we should not cater for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to break the mold a little, people. If games want to become a true mass-medium they need to appeal to more than 53.5% of the population.

Thank you. I personally think that the industry needs a good kick in the teeth in that regard. Preferably, in the form of more artists like the creator of those TF3 female mods.

So, basically, women are an increasingly important part of the video games market generally and very likely a coming force in the FPS market specifically. Therefore deliberately alienating them is incredibly stupid.

Additionally, as I've pointed out before? It could be less that women aren't interested in shooters (an all-too-common claim) than that being female carries something of a stigma (to put it politely) among the shooter crowd. And while this attitude isn't overtly condoned, it is met (for the most part, at least) with apathy.

A self-fulfilling prophecy indeed.

 

[RelexCryo]

It states that 40% of gamers are women, it doesn't say what games they prefer.

Because there is no absolute answer to that, it being dependent on what kind of games are actually available. If the business model being defended here is "Let's assume the 40% of women gamers are irrelevant to us and thereby relegate the FPS, for years the Cadillac of gaming, to competing for at best 60% of a rapidly-changing market," that's likewise profoundly, deeply and contempibly stupid.

"How could game designers attract more female players?
It?s a question of what you put in games that deliberately excludes players. Am I making my game about do you want to take over the universe and kick someone?s ass? Then I?m probably pushing them [women] away. I know companies want to attract the female player more. I see them actively hiring consultants to explore the female market. That?s exciting. It shows that they?re really taking this market very seriously."

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/07/01/quot-where-s-my-crazy-hot-guy-quot-a-female-designer-on-women-and-videogames.html

At least one Female designer interviewed on videogames has explicitly stated that this sort of gameplay tends to push women away.

 

[RelexCryo]

At least one Female designer interviewed on videogames has explicitly stated that this sort of gameplay tends to push women away.

"At least one," WOW. Care to take that into a pitch meeting arguing for ignoring 40% of the videogames market?

Care to explain how a percentage that is mostly made up of social networking games and puzzle games should be applied to First Person Shooters?