[tnones]

There is nothing to support the author's typical feminist schtick of using diversity as a shorthand for blaming white men for the problems observed. Video games already have a diverse, demographically blind audience, that's why they're cheap mass entertainment. They're class and race-blind, and women do play them.

Games can offer a free space to explore, play and excel, away from the judgement of real life, often with a completely arbitrary character. For the entire bottom half of society, that's very appealing, and it's not "pseudo-masculine nonsense". Relationship mechanics are popular with men too, with Mass Effect's crew of cameraderie and romance being a hugely popular AAA example. So popular, the lack of a respectful ending pissed off its fanbase, whose desire for meaning and depth then got spun into an accusation of entitlement and obsession.

What we've seen the last 10 years is games have become more shallow, favoring gambling systems and skinner boxes over mechanics and systems. Ironically, it's mostly women playing these social and mobile games. In fact, it is hilarious that she talks of "rich, deep experiences" but then holds up "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" as an example in the very next sentence, which is literally a cash-grab celebrity reskin of an existing game.

She complains that "we've stopped listening to each other", that the conversation is "evolving slowly" and that people don't think "women are human", but she pulls the same dehumanizing routine by painting the entire existing industry and its customers with the same tired old brush. Perhaps she should consider "that what [men] like is not less worthy nor boring nor wrong nor hard to understand". And if she wants "compassion and respect and fearlessness", she could start by practicing what she preaches.

[edblarney]

Though I agree with what you say - I would say that the conventions of games are gender oriented.

They are made by guys, for guys, and girls can play along.

The 'mission orientation' - the 'guns/violence' - and 'sports' - while not exclusively a guy thing - they are definitely guy-leaning.

Let me say it differently: if you took a totally random sample of girls and gave them each $100M to go off and build the 'best game for them' - they might look really, really different.

I don't like the political aspect of 'isms' in games ... I really could care less. But I do think that there are pretty big differences between genders - on the whole.

[advantark2]

The idea that games are made for guys is in itself sexist, is it not? They're just games, and you're free to interpret them however you'd like.

[mercer]

I don't know if it's sexist. If it's a fact, it's just an observation. Facts should ideally not be sexist (although I understand the can of worms such a statement might open).

I'm inclined to believe that gaming in general is tilted towards the things that men like (whether culturally or biologically). And I'd welcome game producers/financiers/whatever to invest in games that offer things that traditionally non-gamers would be into, but I can also understand that those kinds of projects are riskier than going for an existing market.

[advantark2]

I am of the opinion that men and women are biologically different, and this leads to psychological differences that create social and cultural differences between the genders. However, unlike many, I don't believe that the differences between the genders are evil, and I don't believe that we should be breaking down all of those differences in the name of equality.

With that said, if you see potential in the market, by all means make a video game targeted towards everyone & get rich. That is your right.

[Pica_soO]

Not everybodys escapism fantasy Highpoint in live is scoring a diplomatic victory at a cocktail party, to restore some social equilibrium.

[munchbunny]

Maybe it is? It's hard to say, because it depends on what kind of question you're asking.

Are you saying that the statement "games are made for guys" requires you to first believe that there are qualities of games that men inherently like more than women?

Or are you asking about an observational statement that games seem to be designed to target men as buyers by catering to traditionally male interests?

I think you could make a case that the implied belief in the first statement is itself sexist, but I don't think that's what the parent poster meant. We could probably have an interesting discussion on the subject, and I'd be curious if there is any rigorous research on the topic.

But I think the parent poster made the second observation, which can be true or false independent of any judgement of sexism.

Certain free-to-play MMORPG's with fantastically revealing female armors and very well endowed female characters are very clearly catering to a predominantly male audience. It doesn't take too much interpretation to call them sexist by the "I wouldn't want my daughter to grow up in a world that looked like that" standard. You can disagree with me on whether that actually constitutes "sexist," but I think we'd generally agree that those portrayals of women are problematic.

It's more subtle in most games, but I think there's still a point there about designing games for the existing hugely predominantly male gamer demographic.

[advantark2]

Honestly, I agree with the statement that games cater towards men more, but I like playing devil's advocate. I personally believe that psychological differences between men and women make men enjoy video games more, and it's not something that we should attempt to break down because of equality. There are differences between genders in every culture of the world. Instead of trying to blur the line between the genders, I feel we should embrace and celebrate those differences.

> I think we'd generally agree that those portrayals of women are problematic.

Why is it problematic if a game does this? Is it because it makes the game player sexist? If so, then it has the same argument that people make against violent video games in that it makes people violent, even though the data doesn't back that up.

[pessimizer]

Only if the idea that tampons are made for women is sexist. It's just an absorbent object, and you're free to use it how you like.

These products weren't things that exploded from a volcano, or discovered in the center of an apple pulled from a tree. They were created by people to attract other people enough to surrender cash.

[advantark2]

I wish this were a joke. A tampon is unambiguously designed for women. Video games are designed for those who enjoy them.

[pessimizer]

> Video games are designed for those who enjoy them.

This doesn't make any sense. How can something be designed for the people who enjoy the thing that hasn't been made yet?

[advantark2]

Video games aren't made out of thin air. There is an art and a science to video game creation that involves novelty, difficulty, and mastery. That takes a lot of planning and designing. Obviously that means that video games need to be designed BEFORE they're created. ;)

[brador]

Moat modern games are made to sell. If the buyers are looking for X then it makes sense that a business should provide them with X to turn the most profit.

If females, or anyone, wants separate gameplay mechanics then they need to reward that with cold cash to build an economy and incentivize creation. Else it's all just words and forcing a square block into a circle hole. Cash is the only way to lasting change (see the mobile space for example).

[edblarney]

I get it, I fully agree.

That said: the industry is really built around conventions and culture. Guys making games for guys. Marketing to guys. The entire culture skews guys.

Of course they might have a hard time 'selling to girls'.

This might seem a bit 'sexist' or whatever to use a 'fashion' example, but just as a crude idea ... maybe a social game that made you a 'designer' - and you could design fashion/clothing ... you had to get a budget, design a 'runway show' ... and then get 'audience' (other players) to chime in and comment. You have to hustle and deal to sell the clothes or whatever. Hustle movie stars to schlep your stuff. Have real fashion designers and celebs chime in. Invent new textures, new fabrics.

Ok, ok, maybe a terrible idea in reality - but I'm just trying to illustrate a completely different scenario/culture/setting for which there exists no context in gaming as we understand it today.

Anyhow. I worked at an Fortune 50 and we were trying to market our 'mostly guy-ish' product to girls, and sitting around the table with 50-something rich fat men who all shopped at Wallmart, and their big idea was 'make it pink' - and that was it! :). Too funny.

[Nadya]

>That said: the industry is really built around conventions and culture. Guys making games for guys. Marketing to guys. The entire culture skews guys.

Then there is roughly 50% of the population not being serviced. Hire some female talent, get some investments on your easy-to-market product, and make yourself rich via a successful business catering to the female demographic of gamers.

If one fails in such a large, uncatered to market, it is one of three things:

    1) Failed marketing
    2) Failed product
    3) Your assumptions were wrong

I always see talk about how things need to change - but nobody wants to put their money where their mouth is. If the problem really is a chicken/egg problem then hatch an egg.

The problem: There is no large female demographic of gamers for devs to market to. There is no large female demographic of gamers because there are no devs marketing/making games for them.

The problem as I see it is that nobody pays attention to games like Neopets or Candy Crush skewing female. Girls and woman are marketed to by entirely different genres of games. My money is on the fact they are more interested in the games they're buying and playing and that the industry has enough money and research to have a good idea of what they're doing.

[advantark2]

Why is it that female devs would be required to make a game that women would like?

[Nadya]

Because the argument is that men aren't capable of doing so [0]. I don't believe that is the case, but it is the argument being hinted at. It is also a very common argument.

[edblarney]

"Hire some female talent, get some investments on your easy-to-market product, and make yourself rich via a successful business catering to the female demographic of gamers."

It's not remotely that easy.

If it were, they would have done it long ago.

[_RedPanda]

>It's not remotely that easy.

So why do you guys feel so entitled to have games especially marketed at the female demographic?

Nobody should go out of their way and create a game that is catering to the female demographic, just so some internet feminists can feel better about themselves and afterwards not even buy/play the game

[pessimizer]

Chicken-egg problem. You can't figure out what different people would like if you keep churning out the same things that once attracted a particular audience over and over again, just bigger and with more pixels. Change is the only way to attract newer audiences (see the mobile space for example.)

[guitarbill]

It's only a "problem" for large game companies with unimaginative executives. For indie developers it's a blessing, and rightly so.

[JoeAltmaier]

The first decade of computer games, the all-time best-seller was King's Quest. It wasn't combat-related. It was problem-solving. It sold double what anything else had ever sold. Because girls liked it too. That was all it took to be #1 - double your demographic.

[edblarney]

If memory serves me, the #1 selling game of all time is Tetris, and it's 50/50 guys girls.

Could be wrong.

[mercer]

The Sims did pretty well too, didn't it, and it was quite popular with the female demographic. I vaguely recall something similar for Myst and the genre it created (not to mention the traditional adventure games).

[flukus]

Generally I play somewhat niche strategy games (paradox generally) that are absolutely not mission oriented or particularly violent (most of the violence is abstract). Every time there is a community poll it turns out that only about 1% of the community are female, which is way below the average of the games you're talking about.

So I very much doubt it's the mission orientation, guns/violence or sports that are putting women off games.

[edblarney]

To add: I'm not remotely making a political point, I'm not necessarily supporting the thesis of article, and I'm saying nothing about 'women in gaming' yada yada.

I'm just saying: I think that especially console game themes are generally a little gender-skewed.

[FullMtlAlcoholc]

Fully agreed. I did a stint @ EA a while back. At least amongst our team, our culture made state school party frats look like enlightened ones.

One of the many "games/pranks" other devs would play was called cubicle cropduster. As you walked through the cubicle jungle, one would cropdust a colleague's area by silently evacuating a generous amount of methane.

When you work people like beasts of burden, dont be surprised when the behavior becomes more, ahem, primal

[ZeroGravitas]

> it is hilarious that she talks of "rich, deep experiences" but then holds up "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" as an example in the very next sentence, which is literally a cash-grab celebrity reskin of an existing game.

The sentence you refer to is calling attention to people sneering at that game. So you sneering at it is a bit weird. You're just supporting her point. I've heard it's a solid game, as you say it was mildly successful even before it had a big media franchise attached. Do you sneer at every TV show or movie tie-in? The Walking Dead by Telltale for example?

[tnones]

The Kim Kardashian game is a hollow pay-to-win slugfest full of time locks, that made millions just by slapping on a celebrity face. If we are supposed to dislike video games that are boring and don't color outside the lines, as the author suggests, then that would be a pretty good candidate.

The Walking Dead on the other hand is an expertly written, uniquely styled game, which is tied-in to its source IP pretty much in name only. It would've won awards without the branding just the same.

Do you see the difference?

[ZeroGravitas]

I can see differences, but when you sneered at the Kardashian game, the reasons you gave applied just as much to a Telltale Walking Dead game, or a Lego Batman game.

So now you're clarifying that you're sneering at the Kardashian game because it's boring, and it made too much money from all the people who play it all the time.

[tnones]

Where are you getting this hate for IP tie-ins from? I was talking about game mechanics and _soulless_ cash grabs. The opposite of The Walking Dead and the Lego games.

First off, the KK:H financial success isn't laudable, it's simply predictable and how companies like Zynga got rich off pilfering the creative ideas of others. All free-to-play gambling games, and gambling in general, make their money from a tiny subset of their audience who are addicted and spend enormous amounts of money to keep playing in the face of artificial barriers. The games rely on word of mouth via free players to reach those juicy targets. The celebrity face was the difference between just another copy-cat and a viral success with tons of media coverage.

Second, to deride "pseudo-masculine bullshit" in search of rich meaning while considering Kardashian beyond reproach, that makes the author's already shaky premises particularly lacking in self-awareness. The game is the actual embodiment of vapid celebrity and appearance-obsessed femininity on top of being an archetype of soulless box ticking.

But see, there's nothing _wrong_ with making games that play to stereotypical female interests either, if done well. Compare for example to the Desperate Housewives game, which is a Sims spin-off aimed squarely at female players who want juicy drama and catty social dynamics. It involves real storytelling, while the gamified aspects are only there to support the player agency.

Those games already exist. The author instead preferred to spin a tale of female oppression at the hands of white men, while promoting her own unproven studio. Color me unsurprised.

[dahart]

Does this article scare you? You sound very defensive. I'm sorry to inform you that we do have a culture problem that is well documented, and you have identified yourself as part of the problem.

> Video games already have a diverse, demographically blind audience

Do you have some data to support your assertion there? That would mean that the same number of men and women play games. Because I've worked in games, and the publishers acknowledge that games are biased toward young white men. The publishers have been trying to create games for girls, and the girls frequently won't buy or play them because, according to their research, boys won't play games oriented toward girls at all, and the feeling that girl oriented games are less cool actually gets adopted by the girls. Meanwhile games specifically and intentionally oriented toward boys outsell other types and continue to be produced.

I've never seen a survey anywhere that showed equal or greater numbers of women playing games, and most surveys are trying to boost the number of women by including games that most young men don't play. This is simply not "demographically blind".

http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/29/11539102/gaming-stats-2016-...

"60 percent of those who buy games most often are men, while the remaining 40 percent are women."

http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essenti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture#Demographic...

"according to a 2011 study showing that 58% of gamers are male and 42% female."

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/who-plays-video-games-...

"Young men in particular play games and identify as “gamers.” Fully 77% of men ages 18 to 29 play video games (more than any other demographic group), compared with 57% of young women – a 20-point difference."

[tnones]

You're only making my point further by assuming "diversity" must imply a 50/50 gender distribution in the players.

Diversity implies differences in class, age, origin, occupation, and so on, and this is definitely the case in the consumer demographics. The fact that some games appeal more to men and others more to women is unsurprising, and irrelevant.

In fact, that you're seeing numbers such as 60/40 despite the game makers themselves being far more male-dominated suggests those men are doing a pretty decent job in appealing to people not like them.

[dahart]

> You're only making my point further by assuming "diversity" must imply a 50/50 gender distribution in the players. Diversity implies differences in class, age, origin, occupation, and so on

Sorry, but that's wrong. This is a common statistics mistake, let me try to help you.

You're conflating diversity of selection with diversity of demographics. There is one, and only one, way to demonstrate that something is "demographically blind".

The definition of "demographically blind" is when the number of people in each category playing games occurs in the same ratio as the number of people in that category in the general population. For example, for games to be demographically blind, there would need to be 3 men for every 2 women in the general population. The fact that men and women occur close to 50/50 in the population, and that men and women play games in a 3:2 ratio literally proves that games are not demographically blind.

Again I ask for some data. Have you worked in games? I have. Have you talked to publishers about cultural sexism? I have. Do you have any evidence for your claim that games are demographically blind? I provided some. Logic doesn't work, but feel free to prove me wrong with some data.

[saint_fiasco]

I notice your statistics are about things like "buys games more often" and "plays games and identifies as gamers (conjunction fallacy?).

Those are things that videogame publishers care about a lot, I suppose, because they have to do with sales and branding.

But they have nothing to do with the parent comment's assertion about the demography of videogamers as a whole. Poor minorities may just be playing less profitable games.

[dahart]

The definition of the demographics of games is the people who play games. What are you even talking about?

[saint_fiasco]

I know that is what you intended to talk about, but I'm pointing out that it's not what your sources are talking about. They are about who buys games, about who identifies as gamer (i.e. is more susceptible to marketing)

[dahart]

Only one of those four quotes said something about buying games, but you used plural language twice now. You drew a false pattern where none exists.

The fact that the stats I provided shows the same gender bias no matter how you slice it - whether it's playing, or purchasing, or identifying as a gamer, means that the bias is robust. It is more evidence of the bias, not less.

But, if you think the 4 links I posted are all wrong, feel free to actually refute it with some data instead of faulty logic.

All gamers are susceptible to marketing, whether they buy games or play free ones, that is part of the problem. Our marketing system is oriented toward boys, it is reinforcing the cultural problem we have, you can't escape marketing or divorce the problem from marketing, because marketing is half the issue.

[saint_fiasco]

Ok, so the first source is the one that says "buy" instead of "play".

The second and third are alright, and also the least outrageous ones. The 2nd says the male/female ratio is 56% to 44% and the 3rd says 58% to 42%, which are not that bad.

The fourth one is about "identifying as gamers".

I agree there is a marketing problem from our point of view, but from the point of view of the marketers it makes sense to market to boys because they buy more (per source 1) and they are more loyal customers (per source 4). Women (and for that matter, poor people) still play a lot of games, just not the profitable ones (from the publisher's point of view).

[hluska]

You know, you make some good points, but unfortunately, you're so unbelievably condescending that I can't make it through an entire comment.

[1_2__3]

If you took a less condescending tone your argument might be more persuasive with a wider audience.

[dahart]

Sorry about that, I sometimes do get condescending when I feel strongly and am pretty certain that I'm right. It is a problem, and I do want to learn how to make a strong point and not be condescending.

Do you feel like my language was more condescending than the comment I replied to? I reacted to what I felt was more or less outright sexist language.

"There is nothing to support the author's typical feminist schtick of using diversity as a shorthand for blaming white men for the problems observed."

I realize I may be wrong, but I have to admit that I felt like my language, while a little more personal, was more measured and less condescending than that.

[saint_fiasco]

"Does that comment scare you? You sound very defensive. I'm sorry to inform you that we do have a discourse problem that is well documented, and you have identified yourself as part of the problem."

That was your comment. I changed a couple of words so it would look like it was directed at you.

Calling people defensive is very condescending and shitty, because it leaves people in a position where they have to choose between responding (and "proving you right", since they are now more "defensive") or leaving the conversation (and letting you "win" the argument by default).

[dota]

I find the entire quoted line to be unnecessary. The initial question "Does this article scare you?" doesn't serve a purpose, it's just filler. I wouldn't expect the other person to really respond to such a question, nor do I think the conversation should be or is trying to be centered on the question and its possible answer. The post would have been better off not being framed by that question and instead just dive right into the actual arguments.

[dahart]

Yes, agreed, I was condescending, and I will do better next time. To be honest, I've learned a lot about how to post civilly over the years on HN, and I still make mistakes. My post above is not an example of my best work. ;)

But - answer me honestly - do you think what I said is less accurate or more condescending than what @tnones said about Brie? Do you think my comment was out of proportion or very different in tone to what he said? He dismissed Brie's words as "typical feminist schtick" when she was relating her own feelings and talking about video games, and when she clearly has mountains more experience in the industry than @tnones. Do you think that was fair and not shitty, what @tnones said?

[dota]

Do you think my comment was out of proportion or very different in tone to what he said?

I think there is a noticeable tone difference, assuming one is sensitive to these sorts of things.

He dismissed Brie's words as "typical feminist schtick"

While this is true, as a whole if you compare his first couple of sentences to yours, his remains much more closely related to the overall subject matter. He dismisses the author's words, but goes right into talking about video games.

On the other hand, your opening is too focused on tnones. The subject is always tnones and neglects the topic of video games. You can see this with the constant instances of "you" throughout the first line of the comment.

Now maybe this is because you're trying to establish the thesis that tnones is part of the problem as you state in your first line. However, I think approaching your rebuttal this way has led us to where we are now where you come off as condescending. Ultimately it distracts too much from the subject matter and distracts from the points you make later.

Simply leading off with "we do have a culture problem that is well documented" without anything else in the first line would have been a better way to start. The impact of a statement like "you have identified yourself as part of the problem" would have been better in your conclusion after all was said and done.

[saint_fiasco]

I think your comment was a little more condescending because the other comment invited a response (just from a non-feminist perspective) while your argument pre-emptively dismissed every possible response.

I also think it was less accurate because I believe the feminism angle is a red herring.

Like, suppose I complained that videogames are rarely marketed to poor people like me who can't afford modern hardware (when was ever "terrible graphics" and "runs on old consoles" a selling point for a mainstream game?) and then postulated some discrimination by elites against poor people, or maybe that they live in a bubble and are out of touch with the tastes of the poorer masses.

One could reasonably answer that I'm missing the point, the industry is perfectly aware of my situation and just doesn't care because I am not profitable to them. Also maybe I should support small indie game studios instead of complaining that AAA games are not being made with me in mind.

Just replace poor with women and we have a similar situation. Notice how the actions of the author (working as a game designer) actually do serve to improve the situation and it's only her discourse that is, in my opinion, holding us back as gamers. So that's why some people don't have a lot of patience for the "typical feminist schtick" (though I think this feminist is sincere and not a schtick)

[mercer]

For my part, I'd agree with you. But I also have to admit that my tolerance for 'typical feminist schtick' is much lower than my tolerance for those who question it.

I'm fully aware that this is not fair, and I'm trying to compensate, but that's how it is for me right now. It's much harder to challenge something than to (somewhat callously) reject it, and that sucks.

[oldmanjay]

Why would you think that attacking tnones' comment is a reasonable defense of your comment?

[emodendroket]

60-40 is actually not so bad; much closer a split than I would have expected.

[hyperdunc]

The kind of "equality" you're arguing for is seriously overrated and often leads to more discrimination.