Women gaming problems, solution discussion 1

[Something Amyss]

As the OP mentioned socialisation plays a huge role in this crap and there is nothing the games industry can do to fix that all by its self.

What they can do, however, is stop enforcing it themselves. See, they're kind of the reason all the "girl games" are patronising casual titles. We've had reports that they actively refuse to consider female protagonists, women on the box art (even if they're crucial to the game), or even women in their marketing studies.

 

[Something Amyss]

So I guess the easiest solution I could propose is to take one for the team, and choose to buy less games with male protagonists. At the same time, however, this would require a substantial level of organization between consumers which is just not feasible.

It would also require them to actually see it as a direct cause and effect. It wold require not only organisation between gamers but also communication to developers who often don't listen and instead blame piracy or used sales for every wrong to their bottom line.

 

[EvilRoy]

So I guess the easiest solution I could propose is to take one for the team, and choose to buy less games with male protagonists. At the same time, however, this would require a substantial level of organization between consumers which is just not feasible.

It would also require them to actually see it as a direct cause and effect. It wold require not only organisation between gamers but also communication to developers who often don't listen and instead blame piracy or used sales for every wrong to their bottom line.

In the event that so many people could actually be organized - this would likely need to be around one million people to register as more than a blip on any AAA sales chart - the developers learning as to the intent of the group would be almost unavoidable. Consider how readily the actions of a relatively small number of people attempting to dick the new DmC game gained the attention of the developers of that game. Though the developers were in no way impressed by the actions of those individuals, there were no illusions as to the reasons behind their actions.

 

[carnex]

Okay, yeah, we were not on the same page at all. I still see some difficulties in this, but it is a far stronger plan than what I thought you were talking about, and that may well have been on my end.

In short: my bad.

There are still some issues. Would Atlus or any other company dedicate their resources (time, manpower) on such a venture? They'd ostensibly be committing before they saw the response, as the Kickstarter is effectively a contract. Still, if someone could convince them to try...

Who knows how good this kickstarter idea is. But, for me really is that it is but a dream, never to come true.

I think the other problem is the one you raised. You'd have to have some sort of direction going in, and of course the current logic is women don't play these games or don't play them in sufficient numbers. And, back to the issue of women hiding their identity, how do you track a group that doesn't want to be singled out?

This is one of the reasons I think inclusion is probably a better approach overall. It might not be well-received, though: gamers got upset over the inclusion of female models in Ghosts. However, I don't imagine the obstacles would be significantly different with games marketed more towards women.

I could be completely wrong, however. We're into the realm of speculation upon speculation, so I don't think there's particularly a wrong answer. Just what I believe and what you believe and what everyone else believes. We can found it on prior evidence, but there's not going to be anything conclusive until people try.

Now, as for Call of Duty Ghost and female models, I think it's a good thing as long as Activision stands up and weathers the inevitable storm. You know, as well as I do, that soon after releasing the game there is going to be mass teabagging video on Youtube (never understood that ritual in the first place) and then Feminazis and Tumbler "Feminists" are going to raise havoc of biblical levels on internet. That can't be avoided and I believe that this is actual reason why there weren't any female models in previous games. And I wouldn't really compare this to Quake and Unreal Tournament since they had different community which was too busy blasting away to develop those kinds of habits.

I understand it's hard to gather online women together, but reality is, unless they manage to organize themselves and others, who didn't do anything wrong, are forced to commit to some arbitrary restrictions it's only going to get worse. Real resentment is going to take root in community and, to make things ironic, they would be right to develop those feeling. It's hard, I won't argue that, and it would be emotionally draining, but it's the only way I see getting the job done properly.

As I said, I believe most of "gender slurs" don't come from people who are actually looking to insult based on their gender and/or are chauvinists, but are using gender as difference since it's unusual sight. That can be fixed only by familiarity of the groups.

Regarding GS and ET, I wonder myself. They were digital only, right? That would mean we can't even realistically track the sales of the games, period. This is wholly unfortunate.

Also, I don't understand about that whole "since it's digital we cant know numbers". It's exactly becouse it's digital that we can know numbers down to a single copy. There is limited number or online retailers that actually sell digitally, most sell codes for other services like Steam or Good Old Games so it's easy to add few numbers and get exact number of sold copies at a certain time. And yes, as far as I am aware both Dust: The Elysian Tail and Giana Sisters: Twisted Dreams are digital only. And both are some of best platformers in recent years. Great graphics, with fighting but no blood and gore or even anything that could be described as violence in usual sense (even thou you do cup with sword in Dust) and most of all, really flowy nature of movement in game with no jerking movements which i found to be turnoff for many female gamers I asked.

I know these are indie games with basically no marketing budget but they to their share of covering on internet. If every gamer was to point these games out to friend and associates word would get really far. There I go dreaming again.

It's weird to live in a world with simultaneously more opportunities for information and less access to that information.

It's something like too many choices problem. There is too much info on the internet and orders of magnitude more distractions. Also there is a fact that you must hop over current social trends. For example, few days ago I was looking for old study of female and male preferences in presentation of opposite sex. After spending over an hour digging I found nothing but gender orientation surveys, researches and studies.

And why can't people see you? Are you John Cena?

And about the last one. Guess I was imagining things. Paranoia of the stupidest kind.

 

[carnex]

I see the spiral, but have also seen women waste just as much money on other things, so I don't think the third point about men being more wiling to drop money is quite unique, though given how that demograph is sought after in other fields, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case either.

I didn't mean to say that men are only one doing that. I meant to say that as a group, men are more likely to do that. Just looking around myself, in the world, I see much more males that really don't care about spending their income on social status and social acceptance (clothes, makeup etc) then women.

 

[runic knight]

I see the spiral, but have also seen women waste just as much money on other things, so I don't think the third point about men being more wiling to drop money is quite unique, though given how that demograph is sought after in other fields, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case either.

I didn't mean to say that men are only one doing that. I meant to say that as a group, men are more likely to do that. Just looking around myself, in the world, I see much more males that really don't care about spending their income on social status and social acceptance (clothes, makeup etc) then women.

I wonder though, as in this culture, a sign of status and acceptance has always been in the showing off more then the way it is done. It is not too surprising that would manifest in different ways along gender lines thanks to culture itself possessing different sorts of pressures for genders. Media systems, computers, game systems, they seem to be shown off and bragged about in the way huge TV's and season tickets were not that long ago. And because of the acceptance, they are used in the same way to branch out socially and reaffirm status, as well as show off excess wealth. With women there is a much higher pressure to show off attractiveness (as would be expected as a throwback to evolutionary practices and appeal to mate mentality) where as with men there is less about highlighting attractiveness and more about showing the ability to provide, as exampled by having enough to live off of as well as burn on a bunch of useless crap just to show off. But even that has been changing so it not as strong a cultural pressure as it once was for each gender to advertise that way in order for social status.

An interesting topic, but I think we are drifting too far into issues of culture as a whole here. I can see how that would directly affect buying habits, but once we go into that, we reach a point where members of the sub group of culture are far too unlikely to have any impact (at least, as members of the sub group alone). I sort of wanted to avoid getting into an overall cultural discussion here, though I suppose there is certainly value to understand buyer habits in general as well as by gender trends. Still, it seems it might just end up too removed when the conversation goes into why the trends within culture are the way they are and how the answer would be to somehow fix the culture itself.

Just too removed from the scope of what a bunch of people on a thread here could hope to address, you know?

 

[runic knight]

As has been mentioned there are games marketed to women out there, and honestly you can keep them.

I don't blame the gamers "boysclub" for taking one look at the way things are marketed at women and to run screaming for the warm embrace of busty half clad warrior ladies and realistic blood splatters.

As offensive as the male-centric AAA games industry is towards women I still find it less offensive than the female-centric casual games market.

As the OP mentioned socialisation plays a huge role in this crap and there is nothing the games industry can do to fix that all by its self. That said I think it's amazing that there is some recognition that there is a problem.

There is certainly a good case to be made about how individual decisions are what ultimately guide the trends, that is very true. Because of how the markets present things, especially along gender lines, there is not a lot of difficulty in understanding why games with violent themes and combative competitiveness are sucked up by male customers more. Nor is it surprising that as a result, the companies making them would try to refine and perfect that in order to better appeal to those buying their products.
Furthermore, with how the trend of women shopping is, the game industry trying for the pink princess route there is not surprising, nor is the lack of expense on them (compared to the money maker games that are less pink). And anyone who played those can easily see why they tend to fail too. Unfortunately the industry associated the wrong traits of those games to poor sales. It isn't even that they are "girly" so much as they are just unfun and suck far too often. Shovelware syndrome if you will: They don't put effort into it, so of course they wont get good response. And as other posters have said, these traits just fuel a spiral that makes change very hard.

I still hold that the way to crack this nut is player and community based though. We can't, as a subgroup within a culture as divided and varied as gamers, hope to change great overall issues within culture such as gender disparity, gender roles and pressures or the backlash and resentment (to say nothing of the entitlement) of trying to force a change that stems from human nature itself. This thread would die under the weight of a discussion of that scope. And we already discussed how at the end of the day the triple A game companies worry about profit first, so they would be hesitant to risk anything from that alone, to say nothing of the countless failed attempts that have left them burned and afraid to touch possible solutions with a ten foot pool. But we can start to work on our own community in smaller portions and encourage acceptance and change. People usually say that game cultures impact culture at large, so something trying to deal with some aspects might have a larger effect over time, I don't know.


Side note, does anyone know how to remove someone from my block list? Can't find it through my profile.

 

[runic knight]

I know these are indie games with basically no marketing budget but they to their share of covering on internet. If every gamer was to point these games out to friend and associates word would get really far. There I go dreaming again.

I still love that the best advertising is word of mouth. But you have a great idea there.

We could start a steam group or something as a resource with great, inexpensive and resource-light games for just that reason. Also, would need to be advertised or have an off-steam connection since people usually only get steam if they are gamers already. Say what you will about angry birds selling out but damn if the game didn't do more to pull in new people to games then any of the big name releases of that year. Also, would help with community and multiplayer issues if the community was moderated. Hell, I am sure it might work to get regular gamers into it as well just being a resource for good, fun cheap games and a place to find people and clean servers to play at, if large enough.


Have other aspects to address, too tired to for now though. Just wanted to say I liked the idea and give my thoughts on how to implement it.

 

[runic knight]

Finally, because it was asked about.

Source: http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/december12010/index.html


Thanks to a post by Yuuki in another thread.

 

[keepsit100]

Read whole thread - lurker compelled to post
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

No one cares about you better than you.
I can't understand you because I am me.
Want a game you can't buy? Make it. Until you do, no one cares.
Certain ppl like to take industries, as opposed to create industries.
I know Mac makeup isn't trying to increase it's male market.
What it sounds like is you want me to make MLP of Duty for you. And I won't.
I spent the time to learn how to code. I respect my elders and the work.
Some of us remember being ostracized for the hobby by the same people who now want to be a part of it. Hard to forget.
This hobby is mine, I own it.
I generally like to ask certain groups of people how many games they BUY.
If you know what dolphin dive means, regardless of background or gender, we friends.
I don't care what my avatar looks like if I can kill something with it.
I don't care who sits behind the avatars in my game, as long as you can kill with power.
Life is hard.

Everyone is awesome, good day.

 

[runic knight]

Read whole thread - lurker compelled to post
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

No one cares about you better than you.
I can't understand you because I am me.
Want a game you can't buy? Make it. Until you do, no one cares.
Certain ppl like to take industries, as opposed to create industries.
I know Mac makeup isn't trying to increase it's male market.
What it sounds like is you want me to make MLP of Duty for you. And I won't.
I spent the time to learn how to code. I respect my elders and the work.
Some of us remember being ostracized for the hobby by the same people who now want to be a part of it. Hard to forget.
This hobby is mine, I own it.
I generally like to ask certain groups of people how many games they BUY.
If you know what dolphin dive means, regardless of background or gender, we friends.
I don't care what my avatar looks like if I can kill something with it.
I don't care who sits behind the avatars in my game, as long as you can kill with power.
Life is hard.

Everyone is awesome, good day.

You touch on some good points, makes some that make no sense and post some things that confuse all around.

No one is trying to turn CoD into MLP. Hell, I have said that any aspect that would force companies to do something just for the sake of inclusion is a bad idea. I also went over how come traits in games have a gender preference and that is not something we can change outright (they are mostly results of culture itself), nor would it be wise for a game to change them when they are the reason the game sells. When I mentioned traits like competitiveness and violence as examples in the first post I touched on this one.

No one is saying people have to make games a certain way, that was not the point of the thread in the least. Rather, it was to look into why the buying habits are the way they are along gender lines. And we have run across a number of reasons outside of simply personal choice. Thus it is borderline dishonest to present it as merely a question of who buys what now, or that if people want a certain game they need to make it themselves. Especially when you remember that the game industry is a marketplace, and a high enough demand will result in a product sough after, even if the demand is coming from people who can't and aren't making the type of game they want themselves.

That said, you do touch on well that there is a history to take not of in how people treated the hobby before and now. It certainly can create a possessiveness of it and a bitterness and distrust to the new people who suddenly changed their tunes now that video games are in. Further more when one sees that current trend of acceptance of games in the mainstream as just that; a trend. Look at other trends that were pushed into main stream and then forgotten, and the effects they had on the trends themselves. I think music makes fairly good parallels for that, with genre like Metal and Punk changing drastically as people try to appeal to a larger mainstream audience. Within those groups you also had the older core group who were resentful of the newcomers and posers too. Makes it harder to tell how much of the issue is one of gender because of gender itself and how much relates to gender simple because previous compared to current buying habits and that possessiveness and distrust born out of a hobby changing and being more accepted.

Make up is a good counterpoint actually. A product made with a gender in mind and used predominantly by one gender because of individual choice that is more influenced by cultural standards then not. The main problem here though is that make up isn't nearly as varied in audience as video games are. Women are already playing and targeted when it comes to puzzle, simulation and smaller games. As such there is a far greater chance to encourage overlap when they are already using a similar product then there is to encourage someone to use a product they haven't touched. And that is to say nothing of the the differences in why each product is used. Make up is designed to highlight attractiveness, something more culturally worried about (in that fashion) for women. Games are designed for entertainment and enjoyment, something universal.

 

[keepsit100]

Thanks for response, I am saying there are a fixed number of content creators in the field. I have a tendency to think that the game industry fixates on what I consider to be "nerd" subjects. ( I am nerd, no judgement) Space Marine, Lt Badass, OrcSlayer, etc. These things are the interests of the content creator. If another party feels that a new genre or gametype is needed. Go make it.

Making it as opposed to petitioning for another party to make it is the way to go. Who am I to tell developer X, who spent 12 years in the industry he shouldn't make his dream game? He paid 12 years, he has the right. Boobies or not.

In 12 years, miss developer X can make her own game. Or go indie today.

The first 2 comments relate to the people asking for someone to consider another person's point of view, I barely have enough time for my point of view. Your wants and needs are your responsibility alone.

Corporate world does not say, we have 60 people assigned to this project. Lets assign another 60 people to a new one.
They just take 30 people off the original, I have a problem with this across all industries, not just this one.

If you realize there is demand elsewhere, create a new company, don't move your company focus to another focus and diss yer core spending group. Core gamers could care less about a industry that doesn't affect them. Paring down my experience ( like assigning multiple actions to a single button because it's easy! ) in hopes to appeal to a new demo(graphic) because the publisher thinks I have no awareness, no self control, and will pre-order a game a year in advance of the strength of a pre-rendered video made by a dedicated production house.

Some people want to feel included with very little investment and there is a valid market in providing that want.
Some of us paid in money, time, and social standing to become included. This is not cool to me.

When I was a child we never thought about girl games or boy games. Everyone plays mario. Murder sims are predominately played by dudes. And that's ok too.

Pure games ( geometry wars ) appeal to everyone. Murder games ( which I love unabashedly ) appeal to some groups. No group is more valid than any other. I could just as easily say "lowest common denominator gaming problems" when I see QTE's everywhere. Or no better AI than Fear in a decade.

Right now this is hot, so it's a big internet thing. When it is no longer, and some other pastime is overrun with new kids, what will happen to my hobby? I will still be here. That's the point.

 

[runic knight]

That is a pretty good break down in general, I got to admit. I agree with most of it too. The motivations behind what games are made, the limited resources making it harder to get anything that isn't targeting the largest paying out demographic, the decisions for game makers to make the games they want most of the time (excluding when publishers push for certain ideas, as someone has to want people to make shovelware, right?).

I suppose what made me finally make this thread and try to explore the idea is that I am aware that the current interest in games can either be longer lasting or just another trend that gets left in the dust with the countless others. I like the hobby, I been there for a while now, not planning on dropping it if and when it drops from public interest. As such, I don't want it to worse off after all this dies down. Not just in terms of quality of games, which is why I often protest habits I see as harmful, such as QTE, copy-cat game design, corporate greedy affecting games and so on. But I also don't want the community itself to be worse off afterwards either. It is easy to understand why there is a lot of backlash and resentment from core gamers. It is easy to dismiss their opinions and just say it is because they are entitled or sexist or short sighted. But if the interest dies down, they would be the only ones left keeping gaming alive again. Obviously they don't want to see it gutted out by corporate greed appealing to a base that may abandon the industry. The reason gaming is as big as it is now is because of the people who loved the hobby and paid into it and supported it. You have a good point that when compared to newcomers, that those people invested into it with time, money and even social standing would make them feel entitled to being catered to and entitled as defenders of the hobby. But with all industry, greed controls all and we have seen before how quick companies are to shit on the core for a quick profit grab. So resentment and bitterness at that leads to lashing out and fear of change and blaming everything for the problem. Not the right way to handle it, true, but perfectly human nature to expect it.


I guess in the scope of this thread, I just want to remove any barriers that are gender based that prevent people from joining or enjoying the games. Because of all the other aspects, gender has been tied to things and because of the ease at which the difference can be seen, they, at least in my eyes, are often scapegoated for the problems with games, to a negative behavior from the core community itself. Women were not a common sight before when games were not popular in the same way they were not a common sight in nerd culture itself. They are easily recognizable physically and even demographically. It isn't right they are targeted even if I can understand a good bit of the motivations and reasons it ended that way. I just would like to see that habit of the core community broken now before the trend fades in popularity and ideas are solidified as having been justified. Same with nerd culture as a larger entity and things like the backlash against fake gamer girls. I know that it is the "fake" aspect that is what drives the majority of the backlash, but it is being co-opted and confused and driven towards simply scapegoating a conveniently separated group.

We do have to understand what aspects do or do not appeal to women in general as an audience in order to understand which aspects we should try to change in the first place. As you said, if it is just that the game types don't apply to them, there is nothing wrong with that. And I would readily agree that changing a game for the sake of appealing to a different demographic is stupid if not borderline suicidal in any industry, when the change is away from somehting the most profitable demographic has responded to in the first place. You don't shit on the paying customers, even if the industry itself seems to forget that time and again in their greed. Still, there are other aspects to address on the topic concerning how the community itself behaves towards women or how the industry can make changes in other areas. Not to increase female participation by trickery or changing the product, just by increasing it by removing aspects that would otherwise repel or keep them out.


I've argued with other before about keeping the scope of the discussion more relevant to gaming itself and away from wide sweeping claims of blame or trying to paint the solution as one single aspect or gender's issue. I don't want the core gamers to not join the discussion because they are blamed as the problem in gaming when they have the most familiarity with the history and emotional response to how things have developed and can offer better insight into what solutions would work best and how each idea would be reacted to. Conversely I don't want the new comers run off because they are blamed for the state of gaming today when fresh blood is vital to any industry to survive, as well as just to avoid stagnation itself.

Eh, sort of lost the point I was going to make. Might be back later to re-edit and clarify things.

 

[broca]

So, after thinking about the problem, i have come up with something individual people with some dedication could do.

Where i live there are crypto parties from time to time, where people can learn from hackers how to make their communication safer and even bring their own pc or laptop to get help with setting stuff up. So why not make newbie parties where people can learn about gaming (what games are there aside from the AAA stuff, how to play them,...) and get help with setting them up. This could bring in both new gamers and help people who are unsatisfied with AAA but don't play the more diverse indie stuff on pc because getting them set up is too much work (something some people in this threat mentioned). I imagine it could also be quit interesting for parents who's kids play and who want to understand what they are doing.

While i won't do this, if someone else wants to, feel free

 

[Something Amyss]

Also, I don't understand about that whole "since it's digital we cant know numbers". It's exactly becouse it's digital that we can know numbers down to a single copy.

Well, not "we." The publishers can know the numbers, but they don't tell us. You see, we previously had multiple metrics from stores, consumer groups, and organisations which would give us numbers we could look at. Most of them were done with the express intent of information for the producers (devs, pubs) and shops/advertisers, but with digital sales, it's between the platform (Steam, GOG, Origin) and the publisher. The Devs might not even be in the loop.

But here's an example fresh in my mind from another thread. The former head of the studio behind Tom Raider (the 2013 game) said it recently cracked 4 million units. VG Chartz says it hasn't cracked 3 million. Now, there's some methodology issues, but they shouldn't come close to a million units difference here. Still, it probably has hit 4 million sales. I mean, both Steam and PSN have had sales on it relatively recently, plus whatever it already sold. Because there's no tracking of digital sales that is routinely reported.

The same guy could be lying. Gabe Newell could be lying when he talks about the growth of Steam each year. There's literally no way of knowing. They're probably not, but they could be. And how would we know?

This makes it hard for a consumer-based campaign of any sort to take root, because all the information is closed off.

Finally, because it was asked about.

That's lovely, but does it say anywhere on the site what their methodology and sources are?

I don't doubt for a moment women are a pretty small minority but without that sort of information, the chart is worthless.

Want a game you can't buy? Make it. Until you do, no one cares.

If that was even remotely true, there would be no real games market to begin with. Caring is what keeps content makers making content and consumers consuming.

I mean, it's a nice thought to put on your next needlework project, but it's fairly specious.

 

[runic knight]

Finally, because it was asked about.

That's lovely, but does it say anywhere on the site what their methodology and sources are?

I don't doubt for a moment women are a pretty small minority but without that sort of information, the chart is worthless.

Fair enough to question it, though you could simple send an email and ask if you are that concerned. Furthermore, the point of the graph was in response to a pointless protest in the first place. Hell, even you now agree.

The point initially made was that women, in general, don't buy CoD as much as guys. I could go contact the ones who made that graph, learn the methodology they used and return, probably weeks later, to fulfill your request but at this point I have to ask why bother? It seems like you are just trying to be contrary now, and I would be having this same discussion if the statement was "The sky is blue".
I agree with the statement. You agree with the statement. Therefore, for the sake of the conversation, we can both accept it as a working premises, even if only in the most basic sense: Women buy CoD much less then guys. If I was trying to make a case about how companies look at the data to determine how much effort to appeal to one gender or another, then yeah, I can see the point. But I don't know how they look at things, nor how they would judge that. All I know is that conventional wisdom, the data provided, the data of every similar graph I have seen before, and the habits of the industry itself all support the basic premise raised, that of women buying less CoD then men. The result of that being "therefore, they would want to cater more towards men, since they are the audience". Though even that is over simplification since the gender thing is only the overall trend based on individual choice based on the traits that make up the game having appeal to one gender more then the other according to studies that show women are less likely to buy/play/watch something with strong violence and yaddayaddayadda.

Want a game you can't buy? Make it. Until you do, no one cares.

If that was even remotely true, there would be no real games market to begin with. Caring is what keeps content makers making content and consumers consuming.

I mean, it's a nice thought to put on your next needlework project, but it's fairly specious.[/quote]
I thought they meant "If the game you want doesn't exist, no one cares that you don't have it." You know, the idea that if you want a certain thing, you will get farther putting the effort into making it yourself then trying to complain to others to make it for you (especially when you are asking for millions to be invested in your idea and you don't represent a market renowned for stability and dependability to the industry.

 

[Eve Charm]

Eh I mean with the smaller devs like atlus is a lot of their games will live and die by worth of mouth and you don't really see and hear female gamers telling other females about games they got to get. I hear stuff like minecraft and terraria or even stuff like call of duty but talking about niche titles I don't see it. You can't complain small company's don't try to make girl games tho, get prepared for a list...

My world my way, Steal princess, Code of princess, thereisa, touch detective 1 and 2, Witch's wish, Witch tale, just about all the Atelier games, The people that did the Item shop tale games, Fate extra, Jeanne darc. Whenever they try to target a game more at women, males are still buying it more...

 

[runic knight]

Eh I mean with the smaller devs like atlus is a lot of their games will live and die by worth of mouth and you don't really see and hear female gamers telling other females about games they got to get. I hear stuff like minecraft and terraria or even stuff like call of duty but talking about niche titles I don't see it. You can't complain small company's don't try to make girl games tho, get prepared for a list...

My world my way, Steal princess, Code of princess, thereisa, touch detective 1 and 2, Witch's wish, Witch tale, just about all the Atelier games, The people that did the Item shop tale games, Fate extra, Jeanne darc. Whenever they try to target a game more at women, males are still buying it more...

So it is just a lack of, perhaps, advertisement and awareness of games that may better appeal to women that is part of the problem? That does seem to work with all the other issues people have mentioned and raised. And would help fuel the whole spiral effect where games are made for guy because guys are the only ones who buy them because they are made for guys etc.

What would your thoughts be on a list or something of great games, inexpensive or easy to play without a strong computer/loads of money to buy a new console? A place where people can go to find games or even gaming servers and communities without having to wander completely lost in the web. Word of mouth would probably be the way it would be advertised.

 

[Something Amyss]

Fair enough to question it, though you could simple send an email and ask if you are that concerned. Furthermore, the point of the graph was in response to a pointless protest in the first place. Hell, even you now agree.

But that's not the point. I'm not the one using it as proof. I'm not so much concerned with it as I'd never seen it before. I am concerned with it being used as proof.

I'm one of those people who questions even the things that confirm what I believe. If something sounds too good to be true, it often is.

The point initially made was that women, in general, don't buy CoD as much as guys. I could go contact the ones who made that graph, learn the methodology they used and return, probably weeks later, to fulfill your request but at this point I have to ask why bother? It seems like you are just trying to be contrary now, and I would be having this same discussion if the statement was "The sky is blue".

Sky? What sky?

...That was a joke, for the record. For someone who wants an honest discussion on matters, it seems like maybe you shouldn't make accusations. The burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion, and if you don't see a point in demonstrating something, don't assert it as proof.

Would you be so quick to accept this graph if you disagreed? What if I hypothetically found a chart that demonstrated a causal link between video games and violent crime, but offered neither sources nor methodology. Wouldn't you want to know?

I ask that people who say things I disagree with provide things like reputable peer-reviewed studies and polls and statistics with transparency. It would be utterly hypocritical if I did not ask the same of this graph simply because I thought it was probably correct.

This is even more important because it dovetails with a question I've asked multiple times in this and other threads: how do we break down a base that doesn't wish to be identified? There's more than enough women online talking about how they don't want to be counted. How do you track down a base based on disclosure when they may not disclose?

Is it, in fact, the chicken or the egg?

I thought they meant "If the game you want doesn't exist, no one cares that you don't have it." You know, the idea that if you want a certain thing, you will get farther putting the effort into making it yourself then trying to complain to others to make it for you (especially when you are asking for millions to be invested in your idea and you don't represent a market renowned for stability and dependability to the industry.

So it's more feasible for an indicidual to invest millions and make a game than for a group to request a company do it? A company that is ostensibly looking to expand their market as virtually all companies in the industry are trying to do? I don't buy it.

Seeking companies to do this sort of thing isn't even remotely new. What makes video games so wildly different from other consumer products? There is little to no analogous concept elsewhere, especially in technical fields.

And honestly, let me ask you something: can you make a game?

I see you've complained about TES Online. Go make your own MMO. You complained about Man of Steel. Go make your own superhero movie. Why talk about on-disc DLC? By this model, they don't care if you don't like it. You even said "we have a problem." You complained about the Xbone and Microsoft in thread after thread. Why don't you make a better product? You hate on EA, so same there.

And this:

come on now, how hard is it to make a good movie?

Why aren't you making good movies then?

Why should the ladies have all the fun? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

I bet I know the reason:

You have a life.

Most of us do. I have two jobs and I write shitty novels on the side. I would like to be published for writing the stuff I love to write, so I'm running through submissions processes right now. I guess you could consider that three jobs. Not only do I not have the technical expertise to make games, I don't really have the time to learn. or apply such skills. I mean, I could take my time in the internet, but that's usually divided between writing and doing work while I also happen to be posting or whatever.

A lot of gamers have responsibilities and things they're already quite fond of doing. Women are really no different, are they? I mean, honestly, I expect you have better things to do, but it doesn't stop you from criticising things you don't like and insisting upon things you want.

I don't know your personal details beyond what I can extrapolate from The Escapist, but I'd assume you have hobbies, friends, obligations like most of the community. But if you think that this is a valid notion, why aren't you making your own movies, games, consoles, etc? Is the gaming industry going to "care" more about your complaints? Howabout the movie industry? Anyone called you for tips on Man of Steel? Dungeons and Dragons? I imagine not, but if so, feel free to put me in my place.

I tell you, there are movies I would love to make. Games, too. Hell, I've had a concept album going around in my head for over ten years now. Even if I could write a script (And I'm actually learning), it'd still be largely beyond the scope of what I could do. But I couldn't feasibly do that all in one lifetime, and I don't entirely want to. Games are a hobby, a medium where I want to be the consumer. We all have ideas we kick around we'd never follow to their end because they're impractical, or even dumb. But even if they're not, how much time and effort are we expected to put into creating our own media? Movies, music, books, games, television, paintings, statues? What about you? Do you have the skills? The resources? The vision? If so, why aren't you more hands on?

That sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[runic knight]

Fair enough to question it, though you could simple send an email and ask if you are that concerned. Furthermore, the point of the graph was in response to a pointless protest in the first place. Hell, even you now agree.

But that's not the point. I'm not the one using it as proof. I'm not so much concerned with it as I'd never seen it before. I am concerned with it being used as proof.

I'm one of those people who questions even the things that confirm what I believe. If something sounds too good to be true, it often is.

But, I'm not using it as proof at all, I am using it as a premise. Since we both accept the premise as true in the context of the discussion, I don't get the problem here.

This isn't an iron clad scientifically backed explanation of why things are they way they are. I don't think that is even possible when it comes to social behaviors within culture at large.

The point initially made was that women, in general, don't buy CoD as much as guys. I could go contact the ones who made that graph, learn the methodology they used and return, probably weeks later, to fulfill your request but at this point I have to ask why bother? It seems like you are just trying to be contrary now, and I would be having this same discussion if the statement was "The sky is blue".

Sky? What sky?

...That was a joke, for the record. For someone who wants an honest discussion on matters, it seems like maybe you shouldn't make accusations. The burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion, and if you don't see a point in demonstrating something, don't assert it as proof.

If I was making a serious claim, I would have to support it, and thoroughly. Being I am making an argument using accepted premises to try and explore the topic though, it comes off as being contrary for the sake of contrary.

If I said I had an invisible cat, I would have to prove that. If I was discussing a topic where an invisible cat was related, I could simply use it as a premise if the premise was accepted for the sake of the larger conversation.

Would you be so quick to accept this graph if you disagreed? What if I hypothetically found a chart that demonstrated a causal link between video games and violent crime, but offered neither sources nor methodology. Wouldn't you want to know?

I suppose, but only because it countered all other data seen. As a premise though, I am more then happy to roll with "women buy more CoD then men" if there is some purpose to be found from that. I would have to wonder what that would mean for many arguments about video games and women though, if so many purchase the product, it would undercut any notion about women not liking those sorts of games (as a general trend, of course) and would be baffling in the context of the industry as a whole.

I ask that people who say things I disagree with provide things like reputable peer-reviewed studies and polls and statistics with transparency. It would be utterly hypocritical if I did not ask the same of this graph simply because I thought it was probably correct.

This is even more important because it dovetails with a question I've asked multiple times in this and other threads: how do we break down a base that doesn't wish to be identified? There's more than enough women online talking about how they don't want to be counted. How do you track down a base based on disclosure when they may not disclose?

Is it, in fact, the chicken or the egg?

How can I word this...
When talking with friends about a general topic, do you often stop them mid-sentence in order to have them prove a premise? Yes, you'd be within your right to request it, as until the premise is proven, the argument based on it at still unreliable. But lets say you can't. Lets say the argument is based on data that is hardly iron clad. Like identifying members of a sub group where the definition of the group itself is based on individual definition. You could try to work a way to define the group (that the group would argue over), how to measure participation (that would be debated) and then the results of that. This is very true, but also very boring and, thanks to logic, very unnecessary.

Now for the time being, with aspects that are considered true by both audience and industry, I have no problem using for the sake of premises. They make good starting points for the discussion. I can use logic to figure out that, if the premise is true, it might behave a certain way. Hell, I can even make proofs that show that if the premise is true, the entire thing is. But for now we lack the final say on the premise, and you yourself mention the difficulty of getting solid data to work with regarding it. So rather then wait til we can, I decided to move on. Hell, assuming we get good solution ideas, we could theoretically go back and "prove" the premise true just by verifying that the solution worked. Like solving for X.

I thought they meant "If the game you want doesn't exist, no one cares that you don't have it." You know, the idea that if you want a certain thing, you will get farther putting the effort into making it yourself then trying to complain to others to make it for you (especially when you are asking for millions to be invested in your idea and you don't represent a market renowned for stability and dependability to the industry.

So it's more feasible for an indicidual to invest millions and make a game than for a group to request a company do it? A company that is ostensibly looking to expand their market as virtually all companies in the industry are trying to do? I don't buy it.

An individual does not have to invest millions. Keep in mind that when a company invests in a game, they expect a good return on it. They are not making a game for themselves alone so much as for an audience demanding it. Hell, they are often obligated by publishers to behave in certain ways or encorperate certain features.

And individual does not require that, does not require to spend millions on advertising, employee salaries, licensing or anything else. They can make the game they want if they put in the time and effort and if the resources to make it exist.

Seeking companies to do this sort of thing isn't even remotely new. What makes video games so wildly different from other consumer products? There is little to no analogous concept elsewhere, especially in technical fields.

It isn't that it is new, it is that the demand is not as refined. You are talking about a game you want. That is a personal thing if you want it done right. You'd need personal touch and control or accept that you wont get what you want exactly. The more people adding their funding, the less likely it will be exactly what you sought. And the more money they give in, the greater force trends will have when trying to satisfy people. If more people who contribute like something you don't, they may get it because of that.

And honestly, let me ask you something: can you make a game?

I see you've complained about TES Online. Go make your own MMO. You complained about Man of Steel. Go make your own superhero movie. Why talk about on-disc DLC? By this model, they don't care if you don't like it. You even said "we have a problem." You complained about the Xbone and Microsoft in thread after thread. Why don't you make a better product? You hate on EA, so same there.

And this:

come on now, how hard is it to make a good movie?

Why aren't you making good movies then?

Why should the ladies have all the fun? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

I bet I know the reason:

You have a life.

Most of us do. I have two jobs and I write shitty novels on the side. I would like to be published for writing the stuff I love to write, so I'm running through submissions processes right now. I guess you could consider that three jobs. Not only do I not have the technical expertise to make games, I don't really have the time to learn. or apply such skills. I mean, I could take my time in the internet, but that's usually divided between writing and doing work while I also happen to be posting or whatever.

A lot of gamers have responsibilities and things they're already quite fond of doing. Women are really no different, are they? I mean, honestly, I expect you have better things to do, but it doesn't stop you from criticising things you don't like and insisting upon things you want.

I don't know your personal details beyond what I can extrapolate from The Escapist, but I'd assume you have hobbies, friends, obligations like most of the community. But if you think that this is a valid notion, why aren't you making your own movies, games, consoles, etc? Is the gaming industry going to "care" more about your complaints? Howabout the movie industry? Anyone called you for tips on Man of Steel? Dungeons and Dragons? I imagine not, but if so, feel free to put me in my place.

I tell you, there are movies I would love to make. Games, too. Hell, I've had a concept album going around in my head for over ten years now. Even if I could write a script (And I'm actually learning), it'd still be largely beyond the scope of what I could do. But I couldn't feasibly do that all in one lifetime, and I don't entirely want to. Games are a hobby, a medium where I want to be the consumer. We all have ideas we kick around we'd never follow to their end because they're impractical, or even dumb. But even if they're not, how much time and effort are we expected to put into creating our own media? Movies, music, books, games, television, paintings, statues? What about you? Do you have the skills? The resources? The vision? If so, why aren't you more hands on?

That sounds like a double standard to me.

Actually, I am trying to work on making a game. Granted I suck and I know my limited ability will end in failure eventually. As such I accept that the games that are made will not meet the standards I want exactly. That is the price of convenience, the decline of quality after all. I mod games, it offers a middle point I can agree with if I want an experience closer to what I seek. For movies, there are always fan made ones, hell I could participate in them and have my say influence things a little bit there.

The point of "Make it yourself" is that the less one puts into a project, the less it will be catered to them. I hate a lot of games. I hate a lot of movies. I hate a lot of books. If all I put into the project is the price of admission, I am not putting anything into the project but supporting the end result. If what I like is liked by others, then that can be enough. In your case, you are not the majority opinion and it is not enough. You are fighting contrary the opinions of the majority who support the same project. As such, which is the better option? Bashing your head against the wall trying to get that to change or finding another project to support where your voice will have a stronger infleunce?

There is a reason when people use the "make it yourself" argument, they don't often mean it as you have to make an entire game solely on your own (though some people have practically done that). They often mention kickstarters and the indie scene. Those are places where the majority pull is different, where you can more easily find projects you want to support and who in turn can be more influenced by your voice without the hordes arguing against them.

The way you present it comes off as you think the only existence of something is as a large Triple A title sort. And I get it, hell, I want to see the sort of games I want in full blown, excessive money spent to make it look pretty glory. But that isn't going to happen unless your opinions are the same as the majority. Superman is going to be an over the top explosion-fest now because that makes the most money. Games are going to be dirty and brown and cover based a lot. And if all I looked at was the large scene, it does depress the hell out of me.

I suppose the wording of it is probably antagonistic, which does not help. But there are options and alternatives people can go to to get games closer to what they want. There are games out there that people barely heard about. If you want the one you want, you can't expect the majority of the largest industry to agree. This is not because of women. This is because majority rules when it comes to what a company will make.
When it comes to complaints about skimpy models or stupid stories or testosterone driven protagonists, many agree and complain right alone with it. Hell, I would love variety. But I know the main market is less likely to have that. I know sometimes I have to look at kickstarter and toss a few bucks someway, or dig through the indie titles on steam, or play around with art assets and modding programs. It is not because the industry is against me, it is not because of my age or race or gender. It is because the traits that are seen as the most profitable in gaming are not always the ones I want to play with. Sometimes I have to help make it myself.