Study About 'Sexist Games' is Severely Flawed

[SonOfVoorhees]

Funny thing about all these studies is that they dont treat men and woman as having a brain and games have mind control. Only way games effect people is if they have mental issues that gaming inforces or bad parenting and abuse. Ive been playing games for 30 years and it hasnt effected how i treat people and entertainment is what it is, entertaining.

Parents just need to interact with their kids, talk and play with them. Dont abuse them or let them stew in negativity alone in their room playing violent games. An yes I may be violent in games and love violent movies and enjoy them - in person i am a teddy bear and wouldnt hurt a fly. Because like most gamers, we know whats real and what is pretend. We love pretend violence but abhor real violence and sexism. These studies always skew the outcomes to prove a point.

 

[Quellist]

Sounds worse than confirmation bias to me. I'd say they did this whole thing with an agenda. I'd call the study junk science at best

 

[Areloch]

"You're a soldier man shooting people with guns. Stuff like that."

Why is that a "boy thing"? What would be a "girl thing"? Shopping?

Most of the ladies I know, friends, family, etc, love going to watch action flicks and play video games revolving around violence and explosions. My mom's favorite movies are the Die Hards, for example. That's nothing but Bruce Willis shooting people and one-liners for 2 hours.

Just because they're traditionally masculine concepts doesn't inherently mean that girls don't find them at all appealing. Sounds like your student has more of an issue than the games themselves if she 'doesn't play them' because they're 'boy things'.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Unfortunately, there are a large number of researchers who are less interested in producing good research than getting into newspaper articles. The horrible and infuriating thing about this is not that they do it, but that it is overwhelmingly successful. In today's competitive, increasingly neoliberal academic environment, self-promotion and having "impact" is generally seen by administrators and other non-academic staff as more important than actually producing high quality research.

What's primarily concerning to me is that I suspect most of the people who will quite happily condemn this article as a flawed attempt at attention seeking (which it is) would nonetheless be perfectly willing to believe all kinds of other junky, pseudoscience explanations which are produced solely to published in newspapers if those explanations happened to match their preexisting perceptions.

What if I were to claim that the reason girls and women are less likely to play games is because "women have inferior spatial reasoning" or "women are inherently more social". Both claims are utter junk, both rely on the same kinds of terrible research practice described in the article, and yet because most people are inclined to believe that "men are from mars and women are from venus", they are likely to find these kinds of terrible explanations for behavioural differences credible. Bad science plays on personal credulity. There are people who will accept this conclusion because they want to believe it is true. However, to take this as an isolated case is to ignore the fact that most of us want to believe that various things are true, we are all susceptible to the same form of manipulation.

My advice to everyone is to take this, and use it to become a more critical consumer of scientific media, because almost every science article printed by a newspaper is just as much junk as this one.

Just because they're traditionally masculine concepts doesn't inherently mean that girls don't find them at all appealing. Sounds like your student has more of an issue than the games themselves if she 'doesn't play them' because they're 'boy things'.

Why does it matter though? Are we supposed to go through some kind of Freudian analysis to determine that someone doesn't play games because a cat farted on them when they were a baby.

Whatever the source of the problem, it is not coincidental that it is expressed in those terms. Noone is suggesting, I hope, that women are "inherently" turned off by games with violence or male protagonists, but it is a major component of the way in which many women express disinterest in these things and one that deserves to be acknowledged as a meaningful social force which pushes many women away from playing games.

Let me put it this way. I presume you identify as male (apologies if I'm wrong, it's a reasonable assumption on this site, which in and of itself says something). Can you honestly say you would be jumping to play a game about a female protagonist shopping for clothes, even if it was super hardcore and genuinely challenging? Remember, just because it's a traditionally feminine thing doesn't inherently mean you find it unappealing, it's just very likely that you do.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Holy Hell, I can not wait for the media to grab onto the next "thing" and leave my hobby alone. Art, Books, Films, Television and now Video Games. Does everything someone else finds interesting have to be responsible for the fall of Mankind?

It seems that personal responsibility and parental responsibility are two concepts that get no attention whatsoever because it would mean that one cannot blame others for the fault of a person or the way said person was raised should they be deemed not of an age to be held completely responsible for their actions. In fact responsibility dodging seems to be the human norm today. Blame it all on something else, no one's liable, criminal or otherwise...

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Holy Hell, I can not wait for the media to grab onto the next "thing" and leave my hobby alone. Art, Books, Films, Television and now Video Games. Does everything someone else finds interesting have to be responsible for the fall of Mankind?

VR is right around the corner and our precious GTAs, GOWs, CODs, and various FPSs won't seem so harmful when minors are downloading hardcore VR porn. But eventually, they'll move onto something else in a few decades after that.

How about this for a study? Someone find a correlation between amount of interactions/relationships with members of the opposite sex vs sexist views. In fact, let's extend that to racism, homophobia, and transphobia. I doubt people who interact with any particular minority group daily and often enough can keep the hate machine and generalizations going in the face of constant contradictory evidence. People are complicated and unique. Any time I get my dumb little angry prejudices going for awhile, I see examples that directly contradict the made up rule I created in my own mind.

 

[Areloch]

"You're a soldier man shooting people with guns. Stuff like that."

Why is that a "boy thing"? What would be a "girl thing"? Shopping?

Most of the ladies I know, friends, family, etc, love going to watch action flicks and play video games revolving around violence and explosions. My mom's favorite movies are the Die Hards, for example. That's nothing but Bruce Willis shooting people and one-liners for 2 hours.

Just because they're traditionally masculine concepts doesn't inherently mean that girls don't find them at all appealing. Sounds like your student has more of an issue than the games themselves if she 'doesn't play them' because they're 'boy things'.

Hey, I love action movies.

Which got me to think: I like boyish things. As a child I played with dinosaur toys, not dolls.

That student of mine likes girly things. Loves shopping clothes. I'm sure she played with dolls and Barbies as a kid.

Is it fair that if you don't like action movies and similar stuff you're excluded from gaming? Because as much as I don't care about pink and flowers, it is NOT FAIR that if you're not into dark and gritty and boobs you're not the target of 99% of videogames.
An exception I can think of is Little Big Planet: a huge success of a game that spawned sequels and spinoffs with good reason.
Scribblenauts I guess is another game she would like.

A proof that not all games needs you to put you in the shoes of a male hero shooting or killing villains: way too many games are like that and in this point my student is right.

Well, no, she's still wrong. You say 'Too Many' games are like that, but what measure is 'too many'? If the grand, GRAND majority of people buy and enjoy actiony explode-o-fests, then that's what's going to be made. Given the fact while a smaller number, there are plenty of games, especially now more than ever, that don't focus on direct action/violence, such as the walking-simulator genre, the complaint rings hollow.

If the issue is that there are "too many" games of a genre she doesn't like, then that speaks to an impressive level of entitlement. As that would necessitate either producing fewer games for other people that DO like that genre, or that companies are supposed to go out of their way to cater to them to even out the ratio.

She's not excluded from gaming as a whole because she doesn't like action games. She's excluded from the action games particularly.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Well, no, she's still wrong. You say 'Too Many' games are like that, but what measure is 'too many'? If the grand, GRAND majority of people buy and enjoy actiony explode-o-fests, then that's what's going to be made. Given the fact while a smaller number, there are plenty of games, especially now more than ever, that don't focus on direct action/violence, such as the walking-simulator genre, the complaint rings hollow.

More than ever still isn't very much, and they typically don't get the same type of resources thrown behind them. And the problem is much worse around traditionally feminine ideas and themes. The problem to me seems to be the attitude is self perpetuating. Game makers make action games because those games sell, and they sell because those are the games made. Game companies rarely even think about alternate priorities in their game.

If most games are action movie analogs, why can't other analogs be relatively as successful? Let's take the obvious and easy one: the romantic comedy. You cannot tell me a romantic comedy game wouldn't sell well, Fire Emblem basically stumbled onto this one not long ago. Many people absolutely love the shipping simulator elements (as many people call them) of the game. And it isn't even particularly well done. It is simply all there is. Oh, and visual novels/dating sims, which... yeah. While there are a handful of good ones, they are not what most people (with traditionally feminine interests) are looking for in an actual romantic comedy.

And you joke about shopping games, but people love shopping. Men and women. I know several people who spend a ton of time on MMO's scouring the world for the best possible clothing. I used to be one of them when I had more time, my Blood Elf Mage has a pretty epic collection of dresses. There is a lot of demand for these types of elements but people rarely explore them beyond the most surface level. I think the reason the grand majority of people buy actiony explody games is because that is what is being made. The Sims is essentially a game about shopping and relationships and yet it is a massively successful franchise.

I love action games as much as the next person, but I do think there is probably room for more in the game industry than we are currently exploring. And I want to see those games, I think they sound fun.

 

[Josh123914]

snip

You can acknowledge history, but you cannot undo it.

Also just because more women and older people join the gaming scene doesn't mean the old demographic withers away, they aren't going anywhere and will continue to buy things.

Also also, "gaming" has about as much of a problem with women as the fashion industry does with men. An industry not appealing to one gender more, and it not being your gender, doesn't mean it has a "problem" with your gender, it's simple market economics to focus on the group that's most likely to buy your product.

P.S. Good article Lizzy, I don't normally read this sort of stuff but I like your prose.

 

[Josh123914]

Cutting for length

It's my experience with women gamers on average, that they prefer story-driven games and role-playing.

What would you say to that? Because I noticed for example with Mass Effect (was gonna post this in the other thread lol but screw it) a lot of women played it in the beginning, but that portion of the more devoted fanbase appeared to dwindle as time went on and the series became a much more linear shooter type of game.
In that case there was a significant budget and a good return on the investment, but the executives got greedy and figured they'd try and chase the CoD-dollar while hoping the RPG fans stay along for the ride.

And then on the subject of Fire Emblem, if you check that game's dedicated forums and there seem to be more girls than boys. The shipping may have a hand in it, but I know I wouldn't play through such a game if I didn't at least also enjoy the strategy element-- you need to be decent at that to unlock all those spicy romance conversations after all.

Is any of this accurate or are my experiences anomalous? Other people feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Cutting for length

It's my experience with women gamers on average, that they prefer story-driven games and role-playing.

What would you say to that? Because I noticed for example with Mass Effect (was gonna post this in the other thread lol but screw it) a lot of women played it in the beginning, but that portion of the more devoted fanbase appeared to dwindle as time went on and the series became a much more linear shooter type of game.
In that case there was a significant budget and a good return on the investment, but the executives got greedy and figured they'd try and chase the CoD-dollar while hoping the RPG fans stay along for the ride.

And then on the subject of Fire Emblem, if you check that game's dedicated forums and there seem to be more girls than boys. The shipping may have a hand in it, but I know I wouldn't play through such a game if I didn't at least also enjoy the strategy element-- you need to be decent at that to unlock all those spicy romance conversations after all.

Is any of this accurate or are my experiences anomalous? Other people feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

Well, hard to say. If we are talking personal anecdotes, I would actually say that the male gamers in my group of friends are on average more into roleplaying and story than the female gamers. Which is why I said "traditionally feminine elements" instead of appeals to women. I don't think roleplaying and story are traditionally feminine interests though.

For example, I love clothes and dressing up my avatar in video games. My closest friend (a guy) also loves doing this. We have both purchased games in the past solely so we could dress up our pretty character in pretty clothes and send screenshots to each other. I would consider that a traditionally feminine interest even though it also appeals to some or even many men. As a side note, I know my friend and I would love a game that focused primarily on the clothing.

But that isn't to say that I am primarily interested in the "feminine" elements of games. I enjoy almost all of the things meant for male gamers even though by all accounts I am a girly girl. I prefer tight mechanics over story (though a great story will elevate a great game even further). I tend to like fan service (both male and female) as long as it is competently done.

I have heard that the Fire Emblem fanbase is currently very female heavy, and I do think that has to do with the more feminine elements that are in the game, though I think that is more a function of how people have learned to approach media. Relatively few men are willing to admit that they absolutely love setting up their romance subplots in a game like this, and that is where all the long term discussion of a game like Fire Emblem is going to be. There were already women playing these types of games, this just gave them the chance to be the voice, if you will.

And to bring it home, all but one of the "hardcore" gamers I know are women. Like, I know (including myself) three women into Dark Souls and no men despite our constant attempts to get our male friends to play it.

In my experience this is how these things go. There are plenty of people of any gender who like all sorts of things, but the game industry primarily caters to traditionally masculine things. I think there is plenty of room for traditionally feminine things.

That is all according to my personal experience.

 

[Strazdas]

Im not aware of anyone in the medical field that actually supports these homeopathy studies. heck, most of the studies used by homeopaths themselves claim that the author did not found a link between homeopathy and medicine.

So you are claiming to be an expert in behavioural studies now? I never claimed medical experts disasgree on homeopathy, although plenty of them do in fact believe in homeopathy and some doctors also have homeopathic background and offer homeopathic treatment and claims it's better than conventional medicine. I said people. As in non-experts. That includes the author of this article who clearly doesn't grasp the statistics behind choosing a sample size and it includes me as I am mainly concerned about inflammation.

I what now? I said im not aware of a medical expert supporting homeopathy, not that im an expert in behavioral studies. I am actually an expert in statistics though, and can recognize bad ones in this case.

Also no, you said doctors, implying medical professionals. in this very post i quoted even.

Right, but this isn't necessarily "bad information", its a scientific study, and its not really the site's position to oppose it anyways. Its an entertainment outlet. Scientific journals exist for opposing studies that contain bad information, not videogame hobbyist websites.

I believe its a duty of every person that wants rational mind and intelligence to prevail to oppose falsehoods, including those presented in badly done "scientific" studies.

True, but this site can't sustain itself on that little. I'd prefer any actual news reporting rather than editorializing about something that many of us here didn't even know existed, and thus drawing attention to something that is functionally a non-issue.

Unless you know of a method on how to make news up when there are none to report.... wait nevermind this is a road ive seen taken way too often. Adding an additional story here does not make the site loose anything. hosting more stories on already existing site is very cheap and clearly given that there are already 2 pages of discussion here - plenty of clicks were done.

Because I want this site to actually start reporting on stuff again. More than four articles a day, preferrably. Just go look into the News Room and tell me who is reporting basically everything. I know there's such a thing as curation but for fucks sake, we're lucky to get four new articles a day and a quarter of them are shilling for The Division.

Here's an idea - when was the last time the site had an honest to goodness interview with a game developer? One that wasn't involved in that Star Citizen headache, that is, since there was a really piss poor job of actually vetting the sources of that article.

Maybe they shouldnt have fired all the staff then But yes, i want more stuff in the news room as well, though clearly escapist is currently in trasition period moving offices so the activity is going to be down until things settle. Also what shilling for division you saw? I saw things about their bug fixes, which are quite important in gaming world given that The Division is arguably the best selling MMO ever and is therefore a big deal.

Last time i remmeber reading an interview here the interview was deleted the next day because apperenly the developer didnt want it being posted anymore, so yeah....

The issue is? That girl is right. Videogames ARE targeted at boys, they've been for years. The reason girls play mobile games so much is simply because they are openly targeted at girls.

On the contrary, the girl is wrong. She does not like something therefore she associates this as "boy stuff". Ive had plenty of female online-friends in games that had no problem with, as she put it "soldiers and stuff". The problem is that girl thinking that "soldiers and stuff" are for boys only.

Also id say shes pretty ignorant about games if she thinks games are only "soldiers and stuff". Heck, the vast majority of games i play does not even have soldiers in them.

It's my experience with women gamers on average, that they prefer story-driven games and role-playing.

Is any of this accurate or are my experiences anomalous? Other people feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

I dont remmeber the site i read it on but there was a study done to see the gender demographics based on genre of games, probably 4 years ago or so. Women absolutely dominated the RPG genre. so this sounds quite accurate to me.

 

[RaikuFA]

Well that was dumb. Got up to GTA and stopped reading there.

 

[Yopaz]

Im not aware of anyone in the medical field that actually supports these homeopathy studies. heck, most of the studies used by homeopaths themselves claim that the author did not found a link between homeopathy and medicine.

So you are claiming to be an expert in behavioural studies now? I never claimed medical experts disasgree on homeopathy, although plenty of them do in fact believe in homeopathy and some doctors also have homeopathic background and offer homeopathic treatment and claims it's better than conventional medicine. I said people. As in non-experts. That includes the author of this article who clearly doesn't grasp the statistics behind choosing a sample size and it includes me as I am mainly concerned about inflammation.

I what now? I said im not aware of a medical expert supporting homeopathy, not that im an expert in behavioral studies. I am actually an expert in statistics though, and can recognize bad ones in this case.

Also no, you said doctors, implying medical professionals. in this very post i quoted even.

This is the part of my post that you quoted in its entirety:

Did you know that 50% of the articles published in Nature in neurobiology has been shown to be incorrect in their analysis and should be retracted? That one third of publications in life science in general can not be replicated by independent laboratories? Why aren't there articles on that? Shoddy science happens in every field, it's a huge problem, but every single article doesn't require a long article which (poorly) picks it apart. The peer review system needs to improve and all journals need to agree on certain standards.

Why are we so set on debunking this study? Because we disagree with it. Sadly that's what science is facing across the board. Studies showing that homeopathy doesn't work in double blind trials is met with the same type of arguments as come up whenever someone says anything bad about video games.

I mentioned doctors exactly zero times. Why do you lie and say that I said doctors?
Also how did you get to the part about medical professionals arguing homeopathy? I said that whenever a study finds something bad about video games we are quick to start arguing. YOU drew the connection between this article and this thread and medical professionals, not I.

I believe its a duty of every person that wants rational mind and intelligence to prevail to oppose falsehoods, including those presented in badly done "scientific" studies.

Calling this article rational is a falsehood. It is loaded with plenty of personal bias mirroring the original study. We don't need more of that.

Adding an additional story here does not make the site loose anything

Things lost when I read this:
1. Credibility in unbiased reporting on this site.
2. A desire to read future articles form this contributor.
3. Any belief that this site has standards higher than any tabloid newspaper.
If you want this site to be a circle jerk of your own opinions I see why you think that nothing is lost. If you want quality reporting or at least wit then you'd see the loss.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

But that's why you try to work with randomly selected groups of a sufficient size; to control the confounding variables created by the things you listed. If all of those factors had a strong enough influence that it creates nothing but sprawling, uncorrelated data, the test would be completely unreliable. But if among big enough random groups, there is still a reasonable correlation forming, then those outside influences aren't having too negative an influence to throw off the results.

Indeed, but that's the point; the sample size was comparetively small and fairly homogenous (Italian high-schoolers), not to say anything of the questionable follow-up (the pictures, the questions they directed at the students, the limited time in the games, the selection of the games itself) and small details like the things I mentioned are more likely to influence the result. Note that (fortunately) the correlation the study makes isn't so much between the content of the games and the results (which calls the language used in question), but between views/adoption of 'traditional masculinity' and said results.

NYMag posted a piece of the study that I find a generally better critique of it; it roughly gets to my point better than I do, if anyone's interested in reading it:

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/04/here-s-an-overhyped-study-about-video-game-violence-and-misogyny.html

I dont remmeber the site i read it on but there was a study done to see the gender demographics based on genre of games, probably 4 years ago or so. Women absolutely dominated the RPG genre. so this sounds quite accurate to me.

I think it's specifically the MMORPG genre (though RPGs in general probably fair better in comparison to, say, first person shooters) and there's probably a good reason behind it. Someone who knows how should probably look into it.

 

[Areloch]

Well, no, she's still wrong. You say 'Too Many' games are like that, but what measure is 'too many'? If the grand, GRAND majority of people buy and enjoy actiony explode-o-fests, then that's what's going to be made. Given the fact while a smaller number, there are plenty of games, especially now more than ever, that don't focus on direct action/violence, such as the walking-simulator genre, the complaint rings hollow.

More than ever still isn't very much, and they typically don't get the same type of resources thrown behind them. And the problem is much worse around traditionally feminine ideas and themes. The problem to me seems to be the attitude is self perpetuating. Game makers make action games because those games sell, and they sell because those are the games made. Game companies rarely even think about alternate priorities in their game.

If most games are action movie analogs, why can't other analogs be relatively as successful? Let's take the obvious and easy one: the romantic comedy. You cannot tell me a romantic comedy game wouldn't sell well, Fire Emblem basically stumbled onto this one not long ago. Many people absolutely love the shipping simulator elements (as many people call them) of the game. And it isn't even particularly well done. It is simply all there is. Oh, and visual novels/dating sims, which... yeah. While there are a handful of good ones, they are not what most people (with traditionally feminine interests) are looking for in an actual romantic comedy.

And you joke about shopping games, but people love shopping. Men and women. I know several people who spend a ton of time on MMO's scouring the world for the best possible clothing. I used to be one of them when I had more time, my Blood Elf Mage has a pretty epic collection of dresses. There is a lot of demand for these types of elements but people rarely explore them beyond the most surface level. I think the reason the grand majority of people buy actiony explody games is because that is what is being made. The Sims is essentially a game about shopping and relationships and yet it is a massively successful franchise.

I love action games as much as the next person, but I do think there is probably room for more in the game industry than we are currently exploring. And I want to see those games, I think they sound fun.

Oh, to clarify, I have exactly no problem with these alternative game styles.

Heck, I want to Gamejam a game where you literally just clean. Pick up books and organize them on shelves, throw away trash on the floor, put away laundry, etc. A droll chore in real life, but it would have a weirdly relaxing zen to doing the activity for funsies in a game environment. We see that sort of pull from the dozens of hours people will spend organizing their houses in games like Skyrim, or MMOs and the like. In regards to shopping, one of my favorite things about the meh-ness that was the collective experience of Fable 3 was that you could walk into a shop and see the items for sale on mannequins, and then try them on to see how they'd look before buying. A good shopping game is entirely in the real of possibilities, it just requires someone to think of how to do it and then make it. It's pretty crazy what can click and be compelling for that kind of stuff.

My primary point was that the student has a inherently flawed assumption and locks herself out of a huge potential of things she could enjoy because of her flawed perceptions. Sure, more non-action games could be made, and they will be! But just because there are 'only' thousands of options that could appeal to non-masculine interests rather than millions doesn't mean there are "too many" masculine-typed games.

The medium as a whole is still pretty new, and people have only started realizing these kinds of non-standard genres are actually pretty hefty sellers in the past 2 or 3 years. So someone standing there going 'There are too many games I don't enjoy' is the height of entitlement, and locking them to purely gendered interests is kinda insulting to...well, everyone.

 

[RedRockRun]

One more thing to file under, "Adventures in Confirmation Bias".

 

[Areloch]

Well, no, she's still wrong. You say 'Too Many' games are like that, but what measure is 'too many'? If the grand, GRAND majority of people buy and enjoy actiony explode-o-fests, then that's what's going to be made.

You do understand that's precisely the logic that made videogames sexist for so many years? The same logic why female characters aren't even allowed in the covers by product marketers?

"Why should we EVER put a female character on the cover?? We always put a grizzled male hero on the cover, and it sells just fine."
"Why would we need to make less videogames about male heroes murdering enemies? They sell so much."

It's a terrible case of mistaking the effect with the cause.

If videogames had been originally targeted at girls in the '90s, now we will hear people say "why would we EVER put a male character on the cover?? We always put a cute girl on a pink background on the cover, and it sells just fine."
"Why would we need to make less videogames about female characters having long discussion in rpg games? They sell so much."

What?

Ok, inquiry: should, say, Activision be obligated to go out of their way and spend millions of dollars to produce and publish, say, a shopping game, or fashion modeling game or whatever other "girl things" type of game would apparently rectify this supposed "sexism" issue, even if it may make them back no money at all and end out a huge financial failure?

Do you believe that they should be obligated to do that?

 

[Phasmal]

Yes, the study is wrong because videogames don't make boys rapists anymore than they make people become mass murderers. What a surprise.

However..... LET'S NOT USE THIS FLAWED AND STUPID RESEARCH AS AN EXCUSE TO CLAIM THAT VIDEOGAMES DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WOMEN.

Yeah, this.

Games are still in a weird place, gender-wise. You'll still get people either say straight out that they're only for one gender, or it comes across in their attitudes that's how they feel. Which is straight-up bizarre when you think about it.
Imagine if a dude sat down to watch a movie with me and I was like 'Um excuse you movies are for women???'.
An entire medium of entertainment is not just for one gender, that's stupid.

And I know even talking about this presses a bunch of people's 'defensive' buttons, though god knows why. If you're not acting like a jerk to women who play games (and women who want their opinion on games considered), congratulations, you are not the problem and I'm not talking about you.

 

[Areloch]

Well, no, she's still wrong. You say 'Too Many' games are like that, but what measure is 'too many'? If the grand, GRAND majority of people buy and enjoy actiony explode-o-fests, then that's what's going to be made.

You do understand that's precisely the logic that made videogames sexist for so many years? The same logic why female characters aren't even allowed in the covers by product marketers?

"Why should we EVER put a female character on the cover?? We always put a grizzled male hero on the cover, and it sells just fine."
"Why would we need to make less videogames about male heroes murdering enemies? They sell so much."

It's a terrible case of mistaking the effect with the cause.

If videogames had been originally targeted at girls in the '90s, now we will hear people say "why would we EVER put a male character on the cover?? We always put a cute girl on a pink background on the cover, and it sells just fine."
"Why would we need to make less videogames about female characters having long discussion in rpg games? They sell so much."

What?

Ok, inquiry: should, say, Activision be obligated to go out of their way and spend millions of dollars to produce and publish, say, a shopping game, or fashion modeling game or whatever other "girl things" type of game would apparently rectify this supposed "sexism" issue, even if it may make them back no money at all and end out a huge financial failure?

Do you believe that they should be obligated to do that?

A few things to consider.

WHY would a fashion modeling game or whatever not sell?
....Especially when dudebro games with the same amount of intelligence as a fashion modeling game SELL MILLIONS OF COPIES?

I'm not even going into the whole clich? of "gurlz only like shoez and clothing" you're bringing up here: because millions of boys buy videogames only because they can pretend to be footballers or supersoldiers who never reload (also known as: "buff guy who shoots the bad guys and gets the hot chick or whatever"). So who am I to say girls are immune to this level of dumbness? No they aren't.

But somehow, boys are allowed to play dumb dudebro games "I am a superbadass who kills all evilz", but girls can't play out their equally dumb fantasies.

You do understand the issue now. We live in a world were dumb power fantasies for little boys are considered awesome, but dumb power fantasies for little girls are mocked and called "fashion modeling games or whatever".

You have utterly missed my point. The point is, a fashion game is INCREDIBLY niche.

Like, you seem to not realize how fast sales on games dwindle when they're not a major AAA title and also an established franchise. It's why when Ubisoft or EA gets around to actually launching a new franchise and it does well, people are kinda blown away.

But you step outside of that small, consistent bubble of primary interests that make up the majority of "Dudebro games"(As an aside, I'd thank you not to presume that girls don't have power fantasies about mindlessly mowing down thousands of aliens just as much as boys do) and the sales dwindle rapidly.

The more niche the genre, the faster those sales dry up, and producing a game, even a relatively simple one requires a lot of man-hours to produce, which means a lot of money invested up-front before the game even sells. If it sells poorly, they WASTED money - potentially millions of dollars.

Creating and selling a game unfortunately comes down to pragmatic arithmetic. Do you actually believe that if Ubisoft or EA made a fashion game, it would sell as well as a Call of Duty game? Because I don't, at all.

The gameplay alone is drastically different from the mass market appeal, and both boys AND girls would look at that kind of gameplay(just as we already see with other non-standard games like walking simulators) and go "that looks boring/stupid" and they don't buy it.

So if the likelyhood of getting a large return is minimal purely due to how many people would even find it interesting(because again, it'd be a niche product) then it's VERY difficult to justify 1 or 2 years and potentially millions of dollars into a product that may only sell a few thousand copies.

So again, point blank: Do you honestly believe that if a AAA studio produced and marketed a fashion game, it would reach the same sales numbers as a Call of Duty game?