And your girlfriend is 8-14? because that's who this is pointed at. If not, that statement doesn't make too much sense.Flishiz said:
By whose standards do we judge "quality" games? And who's to say that Nintendogs and such aren't quality?SuperMse said:
Yes because the genders are indeed the same and have the same thought patterns there is no merit to the idea that women do in fact prioritize different things either because of culture or biological difference from males. (It's both really.)Clemenstation said:
the fact is if every game was about dress up and playing horsie and such, i wouldn't play video games, i'd go do something else it's that simple. if i wanted to play games and there was none i liked, i'd obviously think that i didn't really want to play video gamesSusan Arendt said:
Sorry, I think I misrepresented myself, though I am not trying to make an excuse, I did write that post in a hurry. What I was trying to say is that I enjoy when she injects variety into her gaming experience. If she has fun with it, then sure playing lots of Littlest Pet Shop is fine, but it would be sad if that kept her from playing games like Mario, Pokemon, or other such games of different genres.Susan Arendt said:
Fair enough.SuperMse said:
And I think you're absolutely right, that we are going to see more and more girls playing games, and starting at younger ages. More to the point, I think we're going to see more and more people playing games, period. There's a far wider variety of games available now than there was ten years ago when this presentation was given, and lots of different gaming experiences to be had. We could definitely keep expanding the field, though.This is pretty stupid, I mean really fucking stupid. All of your examples fall apart with one question "Would someone be wrong for wanting to participate in a sport or other activity that currently does not feature those like themselves?" If you can include someone else without damaging things for someone else where is the problem in including others? Oh wait there isn't a problem. This is like saying "Who cares if a disabled person can't get into a moview theatre to see a film? If I couldn't get into a movie theatre I just wouldn't watch movies." before you say "well that is different" ask yourself what the difference is, I doubt you will be able to come up with a logical reason for them being different.cleverlymadeup said:
It's very strange really: I'd always just assumed that people would play what they found to be enjoyable, video games included.The_root_of_all_evil said:
wrong my examples don't fall apart easilyshadow skill said:
Except you fail hard because no where did I mention anything about business concerns (which ironically still causes your argument to fall apart because the people who would and should care about whether women are playing games even more than gamers themselves are the people who make games.)cleverlymadeup said:wrong my examples don't fall apart easilyshadow skill said:
see the difference is this, in business not allowing a disabled person into your business is not only denying yourself good money it is also ILLEGAL in most countries. the changing of sports so it's more enjoyable for everyone to watch is not, same goes for giving every kid a medal for just showing up
also the idea of giving everyone a medal and everyone wins removes any need for real competition, you just have to show up and you automatically win, where's the fun and satisfaction that comes from actually winning and earning the victory? there is none and that's the whole point of competition.
also there is the fact that a person in a wheelchair can't run and play normal football or other sports due to severe limitations of their motor controls, the same goes for anyone with a disability, this is why it's called a disability because there's a lack of ability, so you'd say no one should be able to play normal tackle football or do wrestling or judo or brazilian jiu jitsu cause some one is in a wheel chair?
so there are not one but three very logical reasons that disprove your point and prove mine even more. so you were right i couldn't come up with one
go read what i said before and i did mention itshadow skill said:
ok so you're saying that regular basketball and wheelchair basketball are the same thing? they aren't, if you think they are similar in anyway shape or form or that brazilian jiu jitsu can be practiced by someone in a wheel chair, they can't
so what you're saying is that developers should make all their games accessible everyone so that everyone can play them and everyone will like them
but it still proves your point wrong and there is also the fact that you're totally missing mine
What's the point of this? Businesses would love to have their products universally loved by people everywhere, everyone knows this is not going to happen so they focus on trying to make their products more appealing to more people. (Which is kind of the point of the video.) Not making their products more accessible when they can do so without affecting their bottom line is just costing them sales and it makes for bad business. Remember what I said about being fair when it is effortless.
Let me put it this way while you might think that you did not want to play games someone else might think that it would be nice to have a game that had the things they were interested in. They might decide to make the game themselves even. I would like to play killzone 2 but there is not a configuration that does not suck, that hardly means I do not want to play the game now. Wanting to play an MMO is distinct from the subject matter of said MMO because what an MMO is, is distinct from the setting of the MMO.
Neither the lady in the video or Susan was talking about the kind of people who visit this site. She even mentioned that they did not survey some states because those children would be more likely than others in other areas to have computers etc.Nibbles said:
