• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Adam Ruins Everything - Why People Think Video Games Are Just for Boys

ByWatterson

Member
With a moderate tweak in marketing and some more gender neutral content you'd get a series of games and hardware that would appeal to everyone and better quality games.

And I'd like to see that. But, I don't think it necessitates downplaying the "badass" element of gaming, whereby the player chiefly communicates with the game world via violence.

I believe that by and large, men enjoy violence more than women (again, for whatever reason), so the female entrance into the AAA is largely dependent on game makers finding non-killing ways to interact with the game world.

This requires the rejection of enemies, bosses, villains, combat, weaponry, and the like. It requires a wholesale revolution about what a game IS, and a departure from the art form imitating and iterating on pop movies, which are built on the same violent premise.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
For those that haven't read it yet here's the excellent Polygon piece that delves further into what the industry was like in the pre-NES era

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

Carol Shaw was the first female developer Atari hired. She is best known for designing and programming River Raid for the Atari 2600 at Activision. She says she never got the sense that the games she made were for one gender or another, and there was never a mandate from higher-ups to target a certain audience. When she interviewed for the job, she didn't believe she was at any disadvantage because she was a woman, nor did she feel that video games were the realm of men. She knew not many women held bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science and engineering, but she held both. She was qualified to do the job, and that was that. "We never really discussed who our target demographic was," she says. "We didn't discuss gender or age. We just did games we thought would be fun."
Many of the games released were gender-neutral. Shaw herself made the computer version of 3D Tic-Tac-Toe and Checkers. At the arcades, games like Avalanche (where players attempt to catch rocks from paddles), Breakout (where players break down a wall with a ball and paddle) and Centipede (where players shoot at a segmented centipede) were huge hits.

The only time Shaw remembers the subject of gendering games coming up was when, Ray Kassar, who would later become president and CEO of Atari, remarked, "Gee, now that Atari has a female game designer, she can do interior decorating and cosmetic color-matching games!" He laughed. Shaw rolled her eyes. When Kassar left the room, her fellow game developers turned to her: "Don't pay attention to him," they said. "Just do whatever you want."
 

RPGam3r

Member
It's already been abolished at Target just this year. Their toy section is actually extremely awesome now. Everything is so seamless and exciting to peruse. And I'm in my twenties.

I go to Target multiple times a week sadly. I take my daughter to look at toys fairly often. There is still "pink" aisle vs non-pick aisles. Not sure what you guys are talking about.

Note I go to three different Targets, so I'm not talking a one off store that is behind the times for making updates.
 

Mistle

Member
I didn't know that video games were originally in the electronics sections of stores.

Interesting.

I'm a NES baby, so I always associated games with toys as well growing up.

They're still in the electronics section in Australia, near the movies and gadgets and such. Places like Toys R Us and Toy World don't even sell games anymore I don't believe.

Also, I noticed the video said aisles "used to" be blue and pink? They totally still are in Australia. Or at least, all the products are, so the aisles may as well be. Cool to hear that places in America have moved on from it.
 
I mean, when I think about the video games I want more of in this world, the Witcher 3's, the Bloodborne's, etc.. Yes, I do value the hardcore gamer desires more than the casual gamer desires. I do want big game makers to focus more on "hardcore gamers" than make another bejewled whatever. Maybe that makes me closed minded? I don't think it's a bad thing for a person to want more of what they like and less focus taken away from that to put on stuff they don't.*shrug*

You're assuming that it will, though. You're assuming that EA won't put their mobile-only company to work on a mobile game.

But this kind of "us vs. them" mentality over a luxury passtime is ridiculous.

No, I'm saying they're two entirely different hobbies.

... you're not making any sense.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
This requires the rejection of enemies, bosses, villains, combat, weaponry, and the like. It requires a wholesale revolution about what a game IS, and a departure from the art form imitating and iterating on pop movies, which are built on the same violent premise.

Well, no, it really doesn't. I mean, maybe it means Ubisoft and EA and Activision have to overhaul what projects they put their budget towards, but its not like intricate, impressive games that don't fit that mold haven't already been made or been successful. I'm honestly amazed that the "first person adventure" market isn't tapped further after the success of the Myst games and the continued longevity of the Nancy Drew titles
 

Bio

Member
You're assuming that it will, though. You're assuming that EA won't put their mobile-only company to work on a mobile game.

But this kind of "us vs. them" mentality over a luxury passtime is ridiculous.

I'm not assuming anything here. If a company that was going to make mobile games makes more mobile games and doesn't retract resources from other aspects, I'm 100% ok with that. But it's the people who call out companies for NOT catering to the completely different market that gets my jimmies in a rustle.
 

ByWatterson

Member
Well, no, it really doesn't. I mean, maybe it means Ubisoft and EA and Activision have to overhaul what projects they put their budget towards, but its not like intricate, impressive games that don't fit that mold haven't already been made or been successful. I'm honestly amazed that the "first person adventure" market isn't tapped further after the success of the Myst games and the continued longevity of the Nancy Drew titles

I mean it requires the rejection of it for that new kind of game. Not the abandonment of the older sort.

Basically, we can have both, but I think traditional, violence-focused games will continue to appeal mostly to men.
 

JP

Member
Not heard of that series before but that was really interesting.

I do wonder where we would be today if Nintendo had gone pink instead of blue. I'm not joking about that either, I really do wonder how different things would be if Nintendo had decided that games were for girls and the other companies followed suit.
 

ByWatterson

Member
... you're not making any sense.

I'm saying Archie and Marvel are two different art forms, even if presented in a similar way.

Same with games. While they are similarly presented, mobile games are a completely different art form than core games, I believe. What they ask of the player is, typically, and with some exceptions, much less than what core games require.

it's the same difference that exists between reality television and Breaking Bad. Same format, entirely different product.
 
I'm not assuming anything here. If a company that was going to make mobile games makes more mobile games and doesn't retract resources from other aspects, I'm 100% ok with that. But it's the people who call out companies for NOT catering to the completely different market that gets my jimmies in a rustle.

I think you're trying to argue a point that, while valid, within the context of this thread, is not going to work the way you want.

I'm saying Archie and Marvel are two different art forms, even if presented in a similar way.

.... how?
 
The market crash on video games in the cited era was not a worldwide trend, and it didn't have an impact on every branch of the industry. As such this theory does not really account for the lack of female figures in the design space in the Japanese or PC industries.

Are you talking about the marketing or the industry participation? You're kind of all over the place
 

Balb

Member
I see the difference in terms of the type of games they are offering. Sony likes to experiment and do different things that honestly transcend gaming. Sony alone is willing to give indies a big push for diverse games while Microsoft continues to have a rocky relationship with them. At a glance I see Sony having more games a female gamer would be more interested in then another Halo, Gears, and Forza.

I don't see that myself, personally. Between the marketing (the "Perfect Day" ads), the first-party output and the third-party co-marketing choices (Destiny, Call of Duty, Battlefront) I don't really see Sony as much different than post-Kinect Microsoft. If there are more games on the PS4 that appeal to women when compared to the Xbox One, I don't think it's because of anything Sony did (other than selling a ton of consoles to justify a wider array of games).
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I'm saying Archie and Marvel are two different art forms, even if presented in a similar way.

Same with games. While they are similarly presented, mobile games are a completely different art form than core games, I believe. What they ask of the player is, typically, and with some exceptions, much less than what core games require.

I would not agree with that at all honestly, as someone who is incredibly passionate about comics, comic art, and cartooning from the newspaper page to the comic book. I mean, if we were discussing newspaper vs book maybe there's a stronger argument there, but how is Archie a fundamentally different type of art from Batman? Only the subject matter is different
 

ByWatterson

Member
Watterson, you're arguing for subjectiveness in art as if it is objective.

Actually I'm just stating my opinion. There is no objective definition of what art is, therefore I feel similarly unconstrained when defining particular art forms for myself.

I find reality tv and Breaking Bad to be different art forms. Archie and Marvel. Mobile and core.

They attempt to do different things and communicate with the audience in fundamentally different ways - namely, each of the formers requires less of the audience than the latters.
 
I think you underestimate the power of marketing.

LEGO did exactly the same thing, and despite the fact that the exact same product used to have unisex appeal, today it appeals far more to boys simply because they chose to market it that way.

LEGO has gone from being positively unisex when I was a kid (let alone from when my sister was a kid!) to being so horrifyingly stereotyped in such a short amount of time. Awesome exciting action sets are for Boys! Pink Susie Homemaker and Fun Shopping Time is for Girls!

I'm not sure Lego is the best example, they have a whole host of stuff geared towards girls (Lego Friends) and my daughter and sons love all different kinds of it. However I appreciate that's just anecdotal, and I think your last point is spot on - I don't doubt any of it.

Early games development was - with some notable exceptions - dominated by men.
My little girl will turn 18 in 2022. I hope that one day (perhaps during her video game development degree), she and her friends will look back on this era of gamergate and resolutiongate and console wars and everything that's happening today that collectively chips away at this industry with a general goal to make it better, and think "I'm glad all that happened, because it's made things better for me today".

Then she will invent the new Minecraft, become a billionaire, and I can retire to rock and roll all night and party every day.

It's good to know about Lego Friends! I hope the game industry has improved if/when by the time your daughter enters into it.. One of my favourite games to play is spot the female developers on the behind the scene videos re: game companies, and the number thankfully seems to increase each year. In a lot of ways gaming is quickly becoming a lot more progressive than glacial slow film industry in terms of taking risks beyond stereotypes. There's definitely hope!
 
There is no objective definition of what art is, therefore I feel similarly unconstrained when defining particular art forms for myself.

I find reality tv and Breaking Bad to be different art forms. Archie and Marvel. Mobile and core.

They attempt to do different things and communicate with the audience in fundamentally different ways - namely, each of the formers requires less of the audience than the latters.

This does not make them different mediums, though. Archie is the same medium as Batman. Same thing with mobile games and console games and computer games.

It's called video game for a reason.

And that still does not make them different hobbies.

You're still watching TV.

You're still reading a comic.

The grandpa or woman playing a mobile game or even playing Tomb Raider is the exact same thing as you playing Gears of War.

What it really seems to me what you want to do is make a wall around what someone else likes so you have "permission" to say it is not only different, but different enough to be argued against. And that's not the greatest way to go about things.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
They attempt to do different things and communicate with the audience in fundamentally different ways - namely, each of the formers requires less of the audience than the latters.

Well fundamentally I think you're wrong, the common substrate is comic art and its particular techniques for visual communication, which is a fascinating topic all its own and one that Archie and Batman have in common.
 

autoduelist

Member
I didn't know that video games were originally in the electronics sections of stores.
.

They still are in many stores.

I go to Target multiple times a week sadly. I take my daughter to look at toys fairly often. There is still "pink" aisle vs non-pick aisles. Not sure what you guys are talking about.

Note I go to three different Targets, so I'm not talking a one off store that is behind the times for making updates.

Same here. I know they said they aren't, but it's still pretty clear which gender which aisle is.
 

Dreavus

Member
I really enjoy this series. Super interesting to see some of the "long term effects" of marketing something a certain way. It's kinda too bad it had the impact that it did on video games. I think we're making some progress nowadays though, right?
 

Vlaphor

Member
I'm honestly amazed that the "first person adventure" market isn't tapped further after the success of the Myst games and the continued longevity of the Nancy Drew titles

After Myst was launched, there were tons of clones. Some were successful, most weren't. I think that's the reason why you don't see too many of them these days. It's because publishers lost a bunch of money chasing the Myst dollar and it didn't go well for them.

Also, if you think of the hidden puzzle games as the spiritual successor to the Myst style games, then there are still quite a few being made to this day.
 
Well fundamentally I think you're wrong, the common substrate is comic art and its particular techniques for visual communication, which is a fascinating topic all its own and one that Archie and Batman have in common.

Archie is an illustrated story meant for reading and published in a comic format.

Batman is an illustrated story meant for reading and published in a comic format.

And Watterson, if you ever asked anyone who wrote Batman if that comic and Archie "belong to the same hobby", they would tell you yes.
 
It's being down voted by gamergaters

Well and here I was thinking it was actually about ethics in games journalism. It seems anything related to videogames where they mention the female demographic, in any way, is like a fucked up Bat-signal for these assholes.
 

grumble

Member
And I'd like to see that. But, I don't think it necessitates downplaying the "badass" element of gaming, whereby the player chiefly communicates with the game world via violence.

I believe that by and large, men enjoy violence more than women (again, for whatever reason), so the female entrance into the AAA is largely dependent on game makers finding non-killing ways to interact with the game world.

This requires the rejection of enemies, bosses, villains, combat, weaponry, and the like. It requires a wholesale revolution about what a game IS, and a departure from the art form imitating and iterating on pop movies, which are built on the same violent premise.

There are great ways of making challenging, interesting games without hyper violence. Having tools that allow you to interact with the world in varied ways and conquer adversity or compete and win isn't a gendered activity. We could also add in things that maybe some games lack - a balanced gender perspective, a new lens, new design ideas, etc.
 
It requires a wholesale revolution about what a game IS

And now I feel bad for even trying to debate with this dude. Saying everything but "women are trying to destroy video games forever".

Watterson, you have an incredibly narrow idea of what art is. Saying "art is subjective" does not give you the right to be a sexist, elitist snob.
 

lazygecko

Member
Games being violent power fantaies is just as much a byproduct of the fact that simple spatial interaction in 2D and 3D environments is the most straightforward and instantly gratifying way of designing a game, so this is what all the decades of iteration has primarily focused on, while other aspects such as social and narrative interaction seems hopelessly stunted in comparison. I don't really believe that non-violent games is somehow inherently more "girly" (although I don't think the argument was exactly framed that way and I don't want to put words in people's mouths, so I'm just putting that out there). Sometimes you even sort of notice these underlying cries for help from the developers when they lampshade through the dialogue or other means that the only meaningful way the player can interact with this richly conveyed world is through killing people and blowing stuff up.

Hell, from my observations it seems that the most gender disproportionate game genre is strategy like Civilization or Paradox-published historic games, and those are far from as overtly violent. I'm not really sure what caused it to be such a predominantly male market.
 

border

Member
I don't ever recall games being stocked in the "Boy's" section of toy stores. They were generally in their own separate section, their own aisle.
 

Razorback

Member
The comments on that video are just so... tiring.

I'm past being disgusted, I only feel exhaustion at this point.
 

ByWatterson

Member
And now I feel bad for even trying to debate with this dude. Saying everything but "women are trying to destroy video games forever".

Not at all. I would love to see such a revolution. I'm simply saying that appealing to more women cannot be accomplished by a simple change in marketing, but necessitates an expansion of the idea of the video game art form - to places where it can and should go.
 

entremet

Member
They still are in many stores.



Same here. I know they said they aren't, but it's still pretty clear which gender which aisle is.
I'm aware. I was talking about my formative gaming years, which started with the NES and these marketing tactics.

Gaming today is very different.
 

Cloyster

Banned
Actually I'm just stating my opinion. There is no objective definition of what art is, therefore I feel similarly unconstrained when defining particular art forms for myself.

I find reality tv and Breaking Bad to be different art forms. Archie and Marvel. Mobile and core.

They attempt to do different things and communicate with the audience in fundamentally different ways - namely, each of the formers requires less of the audience than the latters.

art form
noun
noun: art form; plural noun: art forms; noun: artform; plural noun: artforms

a conventionally established form of artistic composition, such as the novel, sonata, or sonnet.

Marvel and Archie are both comic books, that tell a continuing story with established characters. They both have things that make you laugh, and things to get you excited, and even sad things. Same art form.
 
That's practically impossible.

It's literally impossible. Even if you are hyper-aware and critical of marketing and consider how it is impacting you and your worldview on a constant minute-by-minute basis, that's the best you can do. You can't ignore something that makes up such a huge part of your culture.

I stand by my ridiculous statement. Commercials? Fast forward or mute them. Internet ad? Ignore. See a product advertised really hard? Don't buy it unless you already planned to. It's not hard to ignore most forms marketing, of at least the worst and least "informative" of them. Marketing lets a company inform you with their opinion of a product, so instead form your own opinion from available resources and ignore the company influences. To be clear, I'm not talking about "oh, this is on sale" ads or any of the non intrusive, informative advertising.

then how would you know what games exist
You do know where you are, right?
 

hiryu64

Member
I do love how the end of the video ties to that lol. When confronted with the truth, GGers just go apeshit.
I was waiting for someone else to pick up on that, haha. If I didn't know better, I'd say that was a deliberate stab at GG.
"I'm not a bad person, so therefore I'm not racist."
This is why I personally hate words like "racist" and "sexist" being used as nouns. When you tie negatively prejudicial thoughts to identity, people become overly defensive and far less likely to self-reflect. Nobody wants to see themselves as a bad person, so by saying "I'm not a racist", racist thoughts go unchallenged. A person who can say "I harbor racist thoughts" rather than "I'm a racist" has a far greater chance to correct course since they can still view themselves as a generally good person while acknowledging harmful views within themselves. Substitute "racist" with "sexist" or similar words; the idea is the same
 

Toxi

Banned
I stand by my ridiculous statement. Commercials? Fast forward or mute them. Internet ad? Ignore. See a product advertised really hard? Don't buy it unless you already planned to. It's not hard to ignore most forms marketing, of at least the worst and least "informative" of them. Marketing lets a company inform you with their opinion of a product, so instead form your own opinion from available resources and ignore the company influences. To be clear, I'm not talking about "oh, this is on sale" ads or any of the non intrusive, informative advertising.

You do know where you are, right?
I actually thought you were joking with your original post.

Because the idea that you can avoid being influenced by marketing in today's society is hilarious. Especially if you spend lots of time browsing NeoGAF. There is a reason companies spend billions of dollars on marketing, and it's because it works.
 
This is why I personally hate words like "racist" and "sexist" being used as nouns. When you tie negatively prejudicial thoughts to identity, people become overly defensive and far less likely to self-reflect. Nobody wants to see themselves as a bad person, so by saying "I'm not a racist", racist thoughts go unchallenged. A person who can say "I harbor racist thoughts" rather than "I'm a racist" has a far greater chance to correct course since they can still view themselves as a generally good person while acknowledging harmful views within themselves. Substitute "racist" with "sexist" or similar words; the idea is the same

I know people that make racist jokes and use racial slurs on a regular basis as humor. Apparently, it's funny to act racist.

(I know for a fact the people in question are not actively racist)
 
Not heard of that series before but that was really interesting.

I do wonder where we would be today if Nintendo had gone pink instead of blue. I'm not joking about that either, I really do wonder how different things would be if Nintendo had decided that games were for girls and the other companies followed suit.
you're wrong to assume they just flipped a coin to decide who to market to. they likely when where they thought they could make the most money
 

Toxi

Banned
you're wrong to assume they just flipped a coin to decide who to market to. they likely when where they thought they could make the most money
Yep.

A more plausible what-if is what-if Nintendo had tried an all-audiences approach with their game marketing in the US.
 
I actually thought you were joking with your original post.

Because the idea that you can avoid being influenced by marketing in today's society is hilarious. Especially if you spend lots of time browsing NeoGAF. There is a reason companies spend billions of dollars on marketing, and it's because it works.

Well, there's a ton of hyperbole there, no question. But my core idea is that marketing can be ignored for the most part, with little to no influence on your idea of a product or your intent on purchasing it. The reason marketing works is not because it's unavoidable, just that few care to avoid it and many are thrilled to lap up the next piece of marketing material.
 
Top Bottom