-
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
- Thread starter George Oscar Bluth II
- Start date
EatinOlives
Member
Guess you're not paying attention to LEGO, because they definitely have been doing boy LEGO and girl LEGO for years.
Finale Fireworker
Member
Well, yeah. Target unfortunately can't control the actual product packaging or branding. I appreciate what they have managed to do that's within their control.
Again, I'm talking about improvement of in-store organization. Gendered toys still exist and are marketed as such.
I think modern Nintendo is actually mostly improved. The Wii's marketing was gender neutral, and they're making an effort to have more playable female characters for their games (Dixie Kong returning, Rosalina and Peach being playable in Mario 3D World). One of their newest mascots, the Inkling, is predominantly shown in the female variety.
Yes, Other M was horrible, but I think that was less due to an attempt to market it to boys and more due to Yoshio Sakamoto not knowing how to write for shit.
IIRC all their advertising and box designs became boy-focused too. The change was the result of market research which paved the way for coming decades of homogenisation.
Ok makes sense.
Even their gendered stuffs is markedly better.
Heck if they would make Style Savvy gender neutral, money wouldn't fly faster from my wallet.
And look up the Iwata asks for these games, they clearly are more open making stuffs for women than the trash Ubi tries to peddle.
Sure it's a dress up game or whatever for girls but by god it's high quality dress up for girls.
I think it's more Sakamoto not knowing how to write but the writing clearly showed an ugly side that paint him as the worst kind of sexist.
Other M's writing was THAT bad (and that's not even close to being a major problem in the game, considering how shite the rest is).
QuickSilverD
Member
are people not allowed to disagree with the video? are you not seeing the arguments going around this very thread?
Starwolf_UK
Member
It was the UK advert and yes it did get complaints back then (then came the stock shortages thanks to NCL not shipping enough to NOE). If the build up to tri force heroes I was expecting a tongue in cheek "wilst thou get th girl, or dress like one" But instead they more sensibly made a joke about how even more people are going to be calling Link Zelda now.
It wouldn't be what we know now as robots and guns are not things traditionally marketed towards girls.
Rather curiously the Nintendo Knitting Machine peripheral was prototyped for the US in 1987.
I don't know if this was a case of seeing I Am a Teacher: Super Mario Sweater and thinking what if we could do more or an actual attempt to expand the marketshare in interesting ways.
Instead we did see interesting movements in the 90s with electronic board games v(I know these existed for males too) and even the Casio loopy in Japan. Speaking of which Retronauts Volume III Episode 21: Girl Games in an interesting look at things and makes the assertion that electronics toys were more aggressively pursued wrt girls because boys electronic videogames.
If we isolate NOA here as it was America that boy's marketing happened in, then Style Savvy 3 (is that right?) currently has no US release date. While I did not expect it in 2015 (Europe gets Style and Paper Jam, America gets Yokai and Pokemon) seeing it completely absent from the US direct is a very sad sight.
What is there to disagree?
It's pretty much fact that NES marketing is the reason games are more boys centered than they were before.
If you have a documentary about WWI explaining the reason for the war, you can dislike the documentary that doesn't mean France war with Germany have nothing to do with Alsace-Lorraine.
NoA really IS worst Nintendo.
TurboButts
Member
I'm at work right now so I can't watch, but I'm surprised at the amount of people saying Adam Ruins Everything is good. The ads I've seen for the guy... He looks like the worst. Are you guys sure?
QuickSilverD
Member
People are not debating that part, but the conclusions drawn at the end, especially after the "so what? games are games" part
he is supposed to look like an annoying know it all hipster, the name of the show is after all "Adam Ruins Everything" after all
Dangansona
Member
That is interesting, when I studied abroad the Italian women at the University all made fun of another American from Seattle for bringing his PS4 with him, and seemed to look down on games in general.
Bog
Junior Ace
Been to a Target or Walmart lately?
Cindi Mayweather
Member
I play games. But I'm not a gamer either. Just because someone plays games doesn't make them a gamer. A gamer is a part of a larger culture. I don't participate in larger gamer culture. I just play and discuss games.
Lots of people play games. That doesn't mean we are all or identify as hardcore gamers or even gamers, period.
So there's a major fallacy in your argument at the outset.
OnionPowder
Member
He has goofy hair but he's good.
Dangansona
Member
... I actually don't understand what you are saying. You play and discuss games but aren't a part of larger gamer culture?
kavanf1
Member
The argument the video makes is far too reductive and simplistic to be valid though. I'm genuinely surprised people are willing to accept that the video game industry has evolved like it has "because marketing". Is marketing a factor? Sure, probably quite a big one. Companies go where the money is. But to ignore the enormous social, political and economic factors at play at the same time is doing the industry of the era a disservice.
The evolution of any industry is complex, and gaming as an industry still has a lot of growing up to do. If we in 2015 want to facilitate changes for the better, we would be wise not to condense 30+ years of history into a "because marketing" meme.
I like thinking about it in terms of evolution. Evolution happens in fits and starts. It hits dead ends, and now and then takes a leap forward when a particularly beneficial trait becomes prevalent. It's a slow process, and what's built up historically does not suddenly become redundant just because a positive evolutionary change has occurred. The point being, we all (most of us) want gaming to change, to become more inclusive, more varied, for there to be something for everyone - but that need not be at the expense of that which has come before. There is still plenty of room in such a brave new world for more dudebro shooters or sports games, and just because we want there to be other games beyond that scope, does not mean the "ancestral" games don't still have their place. I like killing stuff fatally to death in games. I also want my kids to enjoy Minecraft and whatever else comes along in future.
I think a lot of wasted effort is placed into the perception that gaming, or gamers, are a finite resource that need to be fought over. The reality is that there is a market for anyone nowadays, and if there isn't there's probably an indie somewhere working to create it. We live in the most exciting time in gaming's short history, with more variety now than there has ever been. I love looking back seeing how far things have progressed in my lifetime, and I refuse to accept we are worse off in any way today than we were back then. Even with all the marketing bullshit we have to endure.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
I mostly only stick to one type of thread here on neogaf and it's fighting game threads or jrpg threads. I mostly interact with people there, and play those games. But I don't identify as a gamer, and I don't really follow gaming news. I also play a selective and highly limited palette of games. I don't see what's so confusing about it.
It's like someone who's not a huge TV watcher, but they LOVE to watch Game of Thrones and discussing it.
Dangansona
Member
Eh it's all nebulous anyways, but in my opinion playing games on consoles and being on neogaf easily qualifies you as a gamer. The one TV show analogy fits better if you only played DOTA or something.
Unless you don't like the title. By the way, nice username.
Anyways thought the video was really effective.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
The shorts didn't do his character justice. In the longer format of the show, he's allowed to develop his annoying hipster persona more.
Think Bill Nye meets Pee-Wee Herman.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
I disagree. I see a "gamer" as a part of a culture. You can still like movies but not be a cinephile. You can like sports without being a diehard. You can like music without being an audiophile. If we were to apply the description gameophile, I'd probably be a former one. To me, it's a culture that also has specific sets of values. Maybe I'm wrong. But there was a recent there called "do you identify as a gamer?" and there were a lot of us who said we like playing games but we don't identify as gamers.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1131416
Maybe it's knee jerk response to things like gamergate and the general stereotypes that comes with game fans. Or maybe it's legitimate. I don't know. It's how I feel.
And yes the video was highly informative. I want to see the full episode.
how about this? I don't want to play just puzzle games or only have puzzle games marketed towards me and have me relegated to just puzzle games. Maybe I'd like a shooter that also takes in mind that I'm part of the market and doesn't ignore me as part of their market. Maybe I'd like a GTA game that acknowledges that I also like playing it and it's not just guys playing it. Maybe I'd like to see a game where I'm not some guy saving a damsel in distress but some female kicking some butt? And not just seen as the item to win in the end.
Maybe I like those games but I'd like to be acknowledged as part of the market and take that into account. For example, a simple thing since GTA now has more than one protagonist, is it that bad to have one of those be a female?
More_Badass
Member
Absolutely.
They're still reading comics, just like those people are still playing games
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
It's not worth it. He thinks girl and boy books are different on a molecular level.
TheSlySoul
Member
I like to think he is the know-it-all who enjoys ruining things for people.
There is nothing to disagree, games even today have a target demographic in mind wether its boys or girls, That is the sad part and nobody in the comments section is writing good arguments to contradict the video.
Games are games?...yes they are but...how are they mostly sold?
SolicitorPirate
Member
Man, that like/dislike ratio. What is with the gaming community that we turn into frothing troglodytes whenever the issue of gender is brought up in any capacity?
The major backlash against gamer self-identification was just a response to GamerGate. Since GamerGate supporters claimed the title everyone else was quick to disown it.
EatinOlives
Member
It's an incredibly dedicated group of sad man children who lurk around the internet looking for things to scream at. Any kind of video or blog post or anything that even remotely tackles this subject gets instantly overrun by these Neanderthals.
What is there to disagree again?
Some publishers see the market and try to position themselves in a more inclusive manner but otherwise it's basically true that consoles try their best to cater to the stereotypical white cisgendered boy who is into games at the expense of every other demographic.
I'm including Nintendo here, amiibos are pretty much the perfect example of trying to narrow the target and milk them for all their worth.
The "great" think about gamers is that they're the only target you can treat like shit and still get absurdly good returns with no issue.
Although it tend to change, thankfully.
Dude! What the hell did Neanderthals ever do to you to compare them to these guileless scums.
TouchMyBox
Member
Your analogy fails your argument because archie comics is fucking rad these days.
One of the more amusing things watching it is remembering we have two very firm advicts of the idea that the NES was sold to the whole family, largely because Malstrom says so and there's that one picture ad that did that, ignoring that most of the commercials looked more like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6pW2IYOivA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX4MdXF3OWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4MbNFN7ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI3rO3PbYOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZxrvxJrg4A
Look at all the woman and families in those ads. Oh wait...
Still i do wound if the demographic shift wasn't already underway, especially since it did hit the arcades. Love to see some real in depth resurch on who games were marketed too throughout gaming's history. Sex, age, what the experience was sold on (challenge, immersion and so on) find that stuff fascinating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6pW2IYOivA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX4MdXF3OWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4MbNFN7ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI3rO3PbYOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZxrvxJrg4A
Look at all the woman and families in those ads. Oh wait...
Still i do wound if the demographic shift wasn't already underway, especially since it did hit the arcades. Love to see some real in depth resurch on who games were marketed too throughout gaming's history. Sex, age, what the experience was sold on (challenge, immersion and so on) find that stuff fascinating.
Rule #1 of Malstrom :
Never take anything he says like absolute gospel.
He's kinda like a pundit, he rambles and got some point where the underlying question is certainly worth a discussion.
I seem to remember him going on about how sports were more expensive than video games despite forgetting that not every sports out there need 500 bucks equipments or something.
He's certainly correct in how gamers these days tend to forget about the past though.
Oh I don't but I can think of two that definitely take him as such on a few things including the "NES was aimed at the same market the Wii was." Backed up by this single ad
http://www.vintagecomputing.com/wp-content/images/retroscan/nesfamily_large.jpg
and nothing else.
Well to be fair, compared to everything Nintendo did after until the release of the DS, that's not far from accurate.
I mean that SNES/N64/GC marketing was aimed at existing market rather than NES that was trying to create the market.
I think that's what Malstrom is trying to say rather than NES was aimed at everyone, girls and grandpa included :lol
I'm not assuming that Nintendo just flipped a coin to decide who to market to. If I assumed such a thing you would be able to tell because my post would contain the words "Nintendo just flipped a coin to decide who to market to".
I'll leave you too find the irony in your post.
ByWatterson
Member
But not in the AAA space. I'm talking about redefining AAA to include these new ways of playing.
Wii and DS are hardly going to hold an audience - as evidenced by the cratering of the Wii late in its life and the paltry performance of WiiU throughout.
In the AAA space, Nintendo did that single handedly if they didn't decide to drop everything past 2010 maybe the market wouldn't have left either.
There's nothing not AAA about a product like Wiifit for example.
Unless you mean AAA to mean something else than budget, in which case define your terms before using them.
Wii and DS hold their audience fairly well,
Wii cratered when they decided to stop providing software and WiiU cratered even more because they clearly weren't targeting anything but the strange demographic of hardcore gamers who do not have an HD twin and wasn't anticipating a ps4 or something.
Don't leave your audience to dry in the sun if you don't want them to leave is the lesson of post 2010 for Nintendo.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The crash is a big factor in the degree of risk aversion the industry from that point and continuing today, and one of the ways that manifested was the marketing shift toward a reliably manipulated "hardcore gamer" demographic.
How much detail do you expect a 5 or so minute video to go into
On top of that for all the talk about how this only affected the US,
What Nintendo did pretty much affected the whole market, especially with the relations of 3rd parties to platform holder.
The Royalty scheme and other proprietary models.
Sega would have done way differently if they entered the space without Nintendo.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Would they?
I don't think they would have done the whole cart certification to spur confidence in their platform to begin with.
As for entering the market, after it was dead in the US I don't think they would have bothered if they didn't have a proof of concept showing that the market was big enough to bring that huge return.
Sega's main market with the Master System was outside of the US where Nintendo was unable to properly have a presence (because seriously before Iwata took the helm of the NCL Nintendo in PAL land was trash of the highest order).
https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/email-zelda-schutzstaffel/
And that's without getting into what some other people's even more hard line interpretations of him have cropped up here.
On the other hand Sega is evidence that the change in demographics at the arcade was already underway independent of Nintendo. Most of their arcade output in 85 has a male protagonist and shooting going on. Well girls can like those things culture at large would have already been telling them that shooting and racing and such are boy things discouraging them from getting into a game world that focused on those.
SolidSnakex
Member
Nintendo didn't seem to pull back from that market until they noticed that it was eroding much faster than normal for a console. In part it seemed to come from Kinect briefly becoming the new "it" product for that audience. Which also showed them a major problem with appealing to that audience. And it's that you can't really rely on a casual audience. It's exactly why the hardcore market will always be the one that most companies will target because they're reliable. Every company, no matter the industry you're talking about, wants and values reliability over anything else. It doesn't mean that they won't try to reach out to bring in new people, but they need to establish themselves with who traditionally buys games before trying to expand. This has typically been Sony's strategy. They'll make sure that their console is locked in with the core market and then they'll try to experiment. It's what brought in Eyetoy and Singstar which helped them expand the PS2's market.
I think here he's thinking that the biggest demographic for Wii are lapsed gamers that Wii indeed caught (as well as others).
Some of these lapsed gamers were probably NES gamers originally and fell out of love of Nintendo/consoles for some reasons.
Considering that a huge part of the Wii market was in Europe, I doubt there was that many people that moved from the US the EU to make up for all the people who had a NES and got a Wii.
I mean Wii basically sold more than all their other consoles combined in the EU, it's not even funny.
For the US, you could make the argument because after all NES had a huge penetration (somehting like 30% of households or something).
That could translate in the great reception Wii got.
I don't think that's correct or anything close but this is an argument that's not lalaland territory like Pachter's.
I wasn't speaking of the demographic target, I think anyone with a decent marketing team would have made that call.
Sega with its ins in the Arcade scene probably saw what worked and what didn't.
Heck before Sony came to the market with the psx, a big draw for console games were arcade games at home so the Arcade influence probably reinforced the marketing drive to the boys target demographic.
Nintendo dropped the Wii like a rock after holiday 2010, they saw nothing happen as far as their audience leaving because after 2010 they had nothing to offer but vague promises of Zelda that only interested their former Core audience.
If what you said happened we would have had multiple high quality release in 2011 that would have bombed.
they don't exist.
Only I got to play after 2010 was Xenoblade and Zelda with some Rythm heaven that should have been their big title of spring 2011.
Kinect and Move did nothing to erode Nintendo's Wii market, Nintendo did that all by themselves.
That's actually something Malstrom correctly talked about, Nintendo had nothing for their audience (former Core or former Expanded) after DKCR was released for a loooooooooooong time.
From what we've seen Nintendo have no idea what made Wii or even their hit software WiiSports, Resorts and Fit such big hits.
The argument the video makes is far too reductive and simplistic to be valid though. I'm genuinely surprised people are willing to accept that the video game industry has evolved like it has "because marketing". Is marketing a factor? Sure, probably quite a big one. Companies go where the money is. But to ignore the enormous social, political and economic factors at play at the same time is doing the industry of the era a disservice.
The evolution of any industry is complex, and gaming as an industry still has a lot of growing up to do. If we in 2015 want to facilitate changes for the better, we would be wise not to condense 30+ years of history into a "because marketing" meme.
I like thinking about it in terms of evolution. Evolution happens in fits and starts. It hits dead ends, and now and then takes a leap forward when a particularly beneficial trait becomes prevalent. It's a slow process, and what's built up historically does not suddenly become redundant just because a positive evolutionary change has occurred. The point being, we all (most of us) want gaming to change, to become more inclusive, more varied, for there to be something for everyone - but that need not be at the expense of that which has come before. There is still plenty of room in such a brave new world for more dudebro shooters or sports games, and just because we want there to be other games beyond that scope, does not mean the "ancestral" games don't still have their place. I like killing stuff fatally to death in games. I also want my kids to enjoy Minecraft and whatever else comes along in future.
I think a lot of wasted effort is placed into the perception that gaming, or gamers, are a finite resource that need to be fought over. The reality is that there is a market for anyone nowadays, and if there isn't there's probably an indie somewhere working to create it. We live in the most exciting time in gaming's short history, with more variety now than there has ever been. I love looking back seeing how far things have progressed in my lifetime, and I refuse to accept we are worse off in any way today than we were back then. Even with all the marketing bullshit we have to endure.
Full disclosure - I haven't actually watched the video, but I've read this, and this is the thing which I was referring to. It quite astutely details the marketing moves Nintendo made (which are plain to see) to swing the focus towards boys.