Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lotet wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
And how many of those female gamers are playing Candy Crush?

I don't know, how many?

This many.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Lotet wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
And how many of those female gamers are playing Candy Crush?

I don't know, how many?

This many.

Should I , uh, give you a moment to edit that post or is that it?

'cuz I don't get it.

Yes...one of the most widespread, profitable and popular games doesn't count as a game for....reasons.

Can we stop with the dismissal of gamers and games that you don't like? "Casual" games are just as valid as FPS games or indies.

Sure, they're all games but we can categorize them and I know what kinds of games I'm thinking of when I talk about gender/race/other representations and it doesn't include facebook games. Or was I supposed to be thinking of them this whole time?

In any case, it doesn't seem that Slarg actually has any

 Slarg232 wrote:
statistically proven fact

to go with what he's saying. That's too bad. I had a half-assed rebuttal loaded

The question of how many women play games (or play a particular type of game) isn't all the crucial in my view. I think there are many arguments for diversity that don't require women to be present in abundant numbers. You have the verity/novelty argument that more diversity can be good for games. (This is my pet argument.) You have arguments that focusing only on what men want (or what ad agents assume men want. Note they don't always sync up.) might not be the best thing for them. You might be offending the men foke with some of the things. You can also use the argument that games should apple to women in order to attract more women to gameing (or this particular type of game).

You can argue about how many women play what game, but I don't think it really matters too much.

Then I suppose we should also look past the majority of CoD/Madden/Fifa (Some of the most popular games on the market) are college frat boys?

Could we do that? I don't want to be associated with them. Plus, they probably only play one type of game anyway, so they not real gamers, right?

You really think the majority of Madden players are that tiny specific demographic? "College Frat Boys" could never be the main demographic for such a huge franchise. It appeals to such a greater number of people than that. Be realistic here.

People (as infinity ward) have actually commented that some of the people who buy CoD/Madden/Fifa aren't gamers because they basically just buy CoD/Madden/Fifa and then maybe one other game because they have the console. We could talk about that if we wanted, but I don't know if that would be productive.

Basically we need a far better study than "Have you played a game, in some capacity, in the last ten years?"

I want to see number of hours and dollars spent, a breakdown by genre as well as demographics by age and such. That 47% thing is basically junk because it's too broad.

If - and this is purely hypothetical - 47% of gamers are women, but men still sink in 85% of the total hours put into games and spend 80% of the money spent on games... then they are your audience. That's the kind of thing you need to look at.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Then I suppose we should also look past the majority of CoD/Madden/Fifa (Some of the most popular games on the market) are college frat boys?

Err. No. Call of duty has a very large audience it is not only popular with college kids. It is also popular with high schoolers and middle schoolers. And a vast array of ages.

Basically we need a far better study than "Have you played a game, in some capacity, in the last ten years?"

I would suggest you actually buzz that over to UBISOFT, or a game developer or a designer. I mean I could ask extra credits and I could possibly do the research myself.

But I am not an internet celebrity. I have no crediblity. But I would like to see a study done on this that is correctly done. Like a survey like. "Have you played a video game? Including casual games or hardcore games etc etc. In person as an interview. Like as if the study is about something else so the person is told to tell the truth but before they are asked to come in they have to answer questions on a sheet. This way if people were lying in the interview room, we could hold a study about why that happened. Why did they lie about what they do? Like is gaming still a shameful play time. IT needs to be a friendly and inviting environment though.

Yes...one of the most widespread, profitable and popular games doesn't count as a game for....reasons.

Can we stop with the dismissal of gamers and games that you don't like? "Casual" games are just as valid as FPS games or indies.

Anyone that says that is actually a fool. Not you Adept. But the idea that a designer should not cater to a larger audience is senile and stupid. I personally think you should reach out to the largest audience possible. Some of the most top grossing movies of all time have pg-13 ratings or are considered 'family' movies. They make the most money.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well because I have studied it more than you. I am involved in it. I have sources. I have people in the industry.

How are those people in the industry going to help you on knowing better than me the proportion of female characters in non-AAA games? I am pretty sure the only thing I need to do that is know a lot of non-AAA games.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because it is completely a radical move. Mine is equal representation . Yours is over indulging. yours is an extreme of my point of view. Take moderation. Not extremes in this case.

Yeah, whatever you mean.

 Asherian Command wrote:
A guy not wearing a shirt all the time in a movie is objectification is pandering to the female crowd.

No. Hell no.
This is the poster for the damn fine movie Wrong Cops.

This is not objectification or pandering to the female crowd. And it takes a whole new level of stupid to pretend it is. Unless you grow out of pretending you can measure objectification by the amount of shown skin, we cannot have any meaningful discussion. You are either willfully ignoring the importance of the body type and pose and setup, or being very obtuse.
Beside, why are you even mentioning movies? Are we not talking about games?

 Asherian Command wrote:
A woman with a bikini is pandering to men. That is fine. But saying that in order for men to be equal to women they have to wear something like that? Objectification means treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity.

And:
- not wearing a shirt is not “treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity”,
- a few link of pictures of sexualized men not wearing bikinis : http://ulysses0302.deviantart.com/gallery/23629063/Tomb-Raider-Nate-Art https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.207734582589507.58487.171173612912271&type=3 http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/84203576585/frikadeller-iamtonysexual-painted-bees . Yeah, none of them is wearing bikinis. I am not even sure why you are talking about bikinis, actually, since I never said or implied men had to wear them to be sexualized. That would just look ridiculous.

Just compare http://youtu.be/H5TCOVV8Ygo with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij2QlyxdlN4 . Are you really unable to notice how one of them is obviously designed to be sexy, while the other one is obviously not designed to be sexy?

 Asherian Command wrote:
A woman has revealing clothing. Oh so okay?

Once again the problem is not when it is only about one female character. The problem is trends.
The problems are:
- when it is almost every female characters and no male character, and
- when it works against the setting. Not every game is Lollipop Chainsaw.

 Lotet wrote:
Also, how many males play Candy Crush?

Seapking from a purely anecdotal place, a huge number of men play casual games. Actually, more guys have gotten in trouble for playing them in class, for me over the course of the years I've been in college, than women.

 Lotet wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
And how many of those female gamers are playing Candy Crush?

I don't know, how many?

EDIT: Also, how many males play Candy Crush?

Lots really.

How are those people in the industry going to help you on knowing better than me the proportion of female characters in non-AAA games? I am pretty sure the only thing I need to do that is know a lot of non-AAA games.

Because they have studied it.

No. Hell no.
This is the poster for the damn fine movie Wrong Cops.

*Sigh*

And:
- not wearing a shirt is not “treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity”,
- a few link of pictures of sexualized men not wearing bikinis : http://ulysses0302.deviantart.com/gallery/23629063/Tomb-Raider-Nate-Art https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.207734582589507.58487.171173612912271&type=3 http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/84203576585/frikadeller-iamtonysexual-painted-bees . Yeah, none of them is wearing bikinis. I am not even sure why you are talking about bikinis, actually, since I never said or implied men had to wear them to be sexualized. That would just look ridiculous.

Just compare http://youtu.be/H5TCOVV8Ygo with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij2QlyxdlN4 . Are you really unable to notice how one of them is obviously designed to be sexy, while the other one is obviously not designed to be sexy?

Men do not have to wear sexualized clothing in order to be objectified. People do not have to wear sexualized equipment of anything to be objectified. The thing is that is your frame of mind. This argument is completely different from. Women wear more revealing clothing then men. That I Agree with.

The thing is you have limited vocabulary and miss-using objectification. Which is a very broad term. So I would suggest you recollect yourself and think about this.

Anyone can be objectified. I mean look at the Twilight movies they are basically the female gaze given subsistence. Its hilariously bad. But it sold tickets in the millions. Lets face it most of the boy characters in there were thrown in their to be objectified. *Que Jacob taking off his shirt* *Que sparkly vampires*

The thing is that you are approaching this as a man. Which you are. Women will find it attractive and sometimes look at a man and think nothing else but about the body of the man. This happens with men too.

I feel like though. That there is some kind of empowerment when playing a female character. Kill-La Kill also does this with this sense of female empowerment. As most of the male characters are kind of useless.

And:
- not wearing a shirt is not “treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity”,
- a few link of pictures of sexualized men not wearing bikinis : http://ulysses0302.deviantart.com/gallery/23629063/Tomb-Raider-Nate-Art https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.207734582589507.58487.171173612912271&type=3 http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/84203576585/frikadeller-iamtonysexual-painted-bees . Yeah, none of them is wearing bikinis. I am not even sure why you are talking about bikinis, actually, since I never said or implied men had to wear them to be sexualized. That would just look ridiculous.

Just compare http://youtu.be/H5TCOVV8Ygo with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij2QlyxdlN4 . Are you really unable to notice how one of them is obviously designed to be sexy, while the other one is obviously not designed to be sexy?

So you are telling me that men that strip who mainly show their upper body are not being objectified? And that the scenes absolutely DEVOTED to a single character who is not wearing a shirt! IS not objectification please enlighten me. Because that is a fallacy.

You keep saying this but the fact is you are wrong. You keep bringing up that point. But I bring up counter examples.

Thor, Thor 2, Avengers, Captain America etc.

They have scenes where it literally shows the guys without their shirts for a solid 2 minutes.

That is an example of objectification.

In order to be objectified it doesn't have to be an all out thing. And the thing is that you expect that to be what it is, but it can be sutle. Woman usually focus on the upper body, this is called the female gaze. And you need to stop disregarding it and saying it ONLY EXISTS FOR MEN!

Which is completely sexist of an idea. (The idea of only saying it happens on men.)

 Asherian Command wrote:
This argument is completely different from.

As far as I can tell, this is not a correct English sentence. If it is, I have absolutely no idea what it is supposed to mean. Which argument is completely different from what?

 Asherian Command wrote:
The thing is you have limited vocabulary and miss-using objectification.

I cannot misuse objectification. Because I am not using it in the first place. Read my message.

 Asherian Command wrote:
And you need to stop disregarding it and saying it ONLY EXISTS FOR MEN!

And you need to stop quoting message where I say “This is designed to please female gaze and that is not designed to please female gaze” and answering “Why do you deny female gaze exists”. Seriously. Read. It is not that hard.



So, to sum it up: some movies cater to female gaze. This is entirely irrelevant. Most games do not cater to male gaze. You are pretending they do. This is false. A very few games do though, and I posted one of them. You managed to misunderstand this as… me saying something else, I have no idea what. Also stop pretending I say female gaze does not exist, this is dishonest.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
This argument is completely different from.

As far as I can tell, this is not a correct English sentence. If it is, I have absolutely no idea what it is supposed to mean. Which argument is completely different from what?

 Asherian Command wrote:
The thing is you have limited vocabulary and miss-using objectification.

I cannot misuse objectification. Because I am not using it in the first place. Read my message.

 Asherian Command wrote:
And you need to stop disregarding it and saying it ONLY EXISTS FOR MEN!

And you need to stop quoting message where I say “This is designed to please female gaze and that is not designed to please female gaze” and answering “Why do you deny female gaze exists”. Seriously. Read. It is not that hard.



So, to sum it up: some movies cater to female gaze. This is entirely irrelevant. Most games do not cater to male gaze. You are pretending they do. This is false. A very few games do though, and I posted one of them. You managed to misunderstand this as… me saying something else, I have no idea what. Also stop pretending I say female gaze does not exist, this is dishonest.

Objectification is not necessarily a bad thing. You keep listing it as it is.

And this is completely irrelevant to the discussion please stay on topic.

 Bromsy wrote:
Basically we need a far better study than "Have you played a game, in some capacity, in the last ten years?"

I want to see number of hours and dollars spent, a breakdown by genre as well as demographics by age and such. That 47% thing is basically junk because it's too broad.

If - and this is purely hypothetical - 47% of gamers are women, but men still sink in 85% of the total hours put into games and spend 80% of the money spent on games... then they are your audience. That's the kind of thing you need to look at.

What we need to remember is that 'computer games' are not simply a single product line. They are an entire type of media, and a new one to boot. They are not so niche, so narrow, so inflexible that they can be 'owned' by a single demographic, a single audience. To say so is as absurd as to say that movies are only for women, or that oil paintings are only for the French.

It doesn't matter if 'men' 'put in more hours', that does not make them a more valid audience. It may matter if they put in more money (from a cynical money-first perspective), but that is total contingent on a whole mess of other things, like why they do it, and weather on not women putting in more money would effect the money men put it, and . . . eugh, lots of other stuff.

Anyway, weather or not one is a gamer, or part of the audience for games, is not a dick measuring contest. The audience is not 'men'. The audience is everybody.

On average, women are more likely to buy games (as well as technology in general) than men.

The standard, unproven, uncited response to this from those whom don't like this statistic is to say "well they're only buying it for their boyfriends/husbands!".

 Melissia wrote:
On average, women are more likely to buy games (as well as technology in general) than men.

The standard, unproven, uncited response to this from those whom don't like this statistic is to say "well they're only buying it for their boyfriends/husbands!".

Do you have a source for that, or more than one? I'm curious to see the data.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
On average, women are more likely to buy games (as well as technology in general) than men.

The standard, unproven, uncited response to this from those whom don't like this statistic is to say "well they're only buying it for their boyfriends/husbands!".

Do you have a source for that, or more than one? I'm curious to see the data.

Honestly the closest I found was discussing games and had a 50/50 split actually so I really don't know where she got that from (source is Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry) so I don't quite know where.

Regarding tech.

Regarding games.

Is it really all that surprising that women are more likely to buy tech items than men?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Objectification is not necessarily a bad thing. You keep listing it as it is.

And yet again I have not used the word objectification. READ. MY. MESSAGE!

 Asherian Command wrote:
And this is completely irrelevant to the discussion please stay on topic.

So, you are going to continue to completely misrepresent everything I say. Okay, great. Congratulation on your intellectual honesty. Are you doing this on purpose, i.e. are you just trolling?

 Melissia wrote:
Regarding tech.

Regarding games.

Is it really all that surprising that women are more likely to buy tech items than men?

No people are just idiots sometimes.

 Melissia wrote:
Regarding tech.

Regarding games.

Is it really all that surprising that women are more likely to buy tech items than men?

Not surprising, just wanted the data, thank you
I used to work in data interrogation. The stories I could tell. . .

 Melissia wrote:
Regarding tech.

Regarding games.

Is it really all that surprising that women are more likely to buy tech items than men?

Ah woops. I was more focusing on the general every generation of people scores not the 18+ for women compared to teenage boys comparison.

 Slarg232 wrote:
And how many of those female gamers are playing Candy Crush?


Don't get me wrong, I know wimminz play other games and I am not saying "Girls only play Candy Crush", but it's also a statistically proven fact that more women (Typically in the higher age ranges) play the more "Casual" market.

And why is that bad or make them less of a "gamer"?

I don't understand this dislike for things which are deemed "casual". Sure they're not the most creative or inspired games, but they can serve as something which Call of Duty, Battlefield, WoW or any other AAA title can't. A gateway. Getting people playing games, be it in their browser or on their phone, is something that is good. It can start with words with friends and move onto Scribblenauts. Anything which makes gaming more accessible to people, even if it is in a very basic form, is good.

I mean is Tetris considered a casual game? All it is is dropping blocks into place and trying to get a high score. If it were to be made now I think it's very likely it would've been first released as a casual game on social media sites. Yet as it was released a long time ago it doesn't fall into that category, despite the actual gameplay being similar to that used in casual games.

Slarg232 probably meant that casual gamers aren't the concern of the AAA market developers. Which, like I mention before, is what I thought this thread was revolving around. But I could be wrong.

Personally I think Nintendo is a much better gateway platform for people to become gamers. Also apparently WoW is a gateway game, I wonder why. I've just heard of people getting non-gamers into it.

 Lotet wrote:
Slarg232 probably meant that casual gamers aren't the concern of the AAA market developers

Funny, because every time there's a fresh new idea in gaming, it gets dumbed down to brain dead levels to turn the experience as casual as possible (this is why brands like 'casual gamer' kind of get messy).

The cell phone/tablet market could probably be better explained as 'flash games' or 'browser games', which indeed find much broader appeal than AAA gaming. Think of all the people who play Farmville. A little of pretty much every demographic plays Farmville.

 LordofHats wrote:
Funny

Man, I don't care about calling people casuals. You can guess the meaning of that choice of words within the context that it was used and come to your own mental terminology that fits comfortably with you. I'm not agreeing with Slarg, I'm just trying to understand his stance, even though I'm probably wrong.

I said it because you should know what I mean by "casual" and "AAA". It's like calling the old Russian Emperor the 'Tzar', it's an incorrect title but you know what it means and can help people understand.

So, to improve my discussion methods, what would you suggest I say instead of casual? Facebook/Tablet games? What's a good choice that won't get people to retaliate because of my poor choice of words?