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.

Why? They are all video game. That's why I'd like to see numbers for female console gamers.

 Amaya wrote:
Why? They are all video game. That's why I'd like to see numbers for female console gamers.

I want categories into hours played, genre and console. I think a thing that is bad about the gaming community is the modding community, most of the time where there is female character, there is a "sexier" mod or a nudity mod. Very distasteful.

 Amaya wrote:
Why? They are all video game. That's why I'd like to see numbers for female console gamers.

Technically, yes, but social games are, by an incredibly large shot, inferior to actual videos games in terms of quality. That's why good statistics separate those from actual retail games.

 rockerbikie wrote:
They were a rarity, less than 1%

That just makes it more interesting.

 Amaya wrote:
Why? They are all video game. That's why I'd like to see numbers for female console gamers.

Because the demographics for the markets are starkly different, hence why lumping them together doesn't serve a useful purpose unless one is talking about all electronic games ever made. In this thread at least, we're talking about the large scale productions associated with traditional consoles and PC gaming. The smaller social gaming market, has no where near the same kind of investment to produce the products and are normally done on an indie level.

The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.

 Melissia wrote:
The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.

I'm sure some people use it that way, but it's hard to pretend that we should combine both markets for the purpose of this thread. The social market has different kinds of games and a very different market demographic. If anything the drastic difference in the number of women between social games and 'real' games should really make someone wonder why the difference is there. Hence this thread XD

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.

I'm sure some people use it that way, but it's hard to pretend that we should combine both markets for the purpose of this thread. The social market has different kinds of games and a very different market demographic. If anything the drastic difference in the number of women between social games and 'real' games should really make someone wonder why the difference is there. Hence this thread XD

Actually I was disputing that the number is so drastic as people claim it is.

Ah, gotcha.

I don't deny that a lot of women are playing agmes for the first time and are introducing themselves to games through social games though. And there's nothing wrong iwth that. Hell men basically did that back in the Atari/Arcade era.

I have little doubt that women do play significantly more facebook games than men.

I don't do facebook much, but I've just had a bunch of game spam in. 1 male friend is playing a facebook game, 6 female friends are, including my 60 year old aunt.

 Melissia wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.

I'm sure some people use it that way, but it's hard to pretend that we should combine both markets for the purpose of this thread. The social market has different kinds of games and a very different market demographic. If anything the drastic difference in the number of women between social games and 'real' games should really make someone wonder why the difference is there. Hence this thread XD

Actually I was disputing that the number is so drastic as people claim it is.

Oh, it's far from that obvious. Iirc it's <10%, the latest one I remember is, iirc, 5% in favor of women. On the other hand, traditional video games have an "advantage" of +20% for men when it comes to mobile games. Zyngia has, iirc again, about 60% female players. It's not overwhelmingly different, it's a small but noticeable difference.

 Melissia wrote:
The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.

"There are no girls on the internet" was a tongue-in-cheek ironic joke. The original meaning of that joke was to poke fun at anyone who white knighted or -especially- anyone who engaged in cybersex. Meaning the joke was to imply that both parties in a "cybersex" conversation were typically two men, one being a man and the opposite being a man pretending to be a girl for his own amusement.

You need to stop taking things trolls say so seriously. The only reason trolls do what they do is to get under people's skin. ED is not an actual representation of people's feelings on internet subjects, it is in fact a giant satire of internet culture.

 TedNugent wrote:
"There are no girls on the internet" was a tongue-in-cheek ironic joke.

No, it was not. Denying that it was used as an excuse to abuse women does not make you correct.

You attempt to dismiss the issue by saying "stop taking it so seriously" only because you have no goddamned clue what the hell is going on. "Oh they're just joking" which is why they viciously attack for hours on end, making up lies and throwing every insult they can at you-- and do this non-stop for almost a fething decade.

If this is your idea of a "joke", then you are a very, VERY sick individual.

I'm not sure why anyone would use that as an excuse to abuse women.

Ever heard the old "tits or gtfo" meme?

If you ignore them, you're a dumb bitch / a guy posing as a girl and they'll viciously attack you. If you don't show a picture, you're a guy posing as a girl and they'll viciously attack you. If you do show a picture, you're an attention whore and/or a slut and they'll viciously attack you.

Women are abused three times more than men, in multiplayer games. I posted a link on the study several times in this thread. The people who do this abuse use every excuse they can to insult women. They do not just limit this abuse to multiplayer games, as I showed in numerous other links earlier in this thread.

Helping to manage a mud, I can tell you, it was only quarterly ironic at most. The vast majority of girls, back in 2005-ish were guys pretending to be girls to get free stuff (including becoming staff in one or two rather dark chapters of the games history).

However, Melissa is right in saying that there were genuine women on there who did suffer abuse. It was before 'tits or GTFO' was a phrase, but it was a similar idea. It also harkens back to an earlier post of mine when I wrote about the difference between trolling and harassment.

That meme was intimidation, and I'll agree with you there that it created a catch-22.

The purpose of which was really to shoehorn you into more verbal abuse, which is the forte of the troll. It is of course fair to say that if you show them your breasts, you lose the game. The only way to win against the trolls is of course to troll them back. One way of successfully countertrolling "ToGTFO" would be with a jpeg of a shirtless obese man with an ample chest. It's all a matter of recognizing their modus operandi, which is trolling, and maneuvering in an efficient countertroll.

Granted, these people are not polite human beings in that sense. The normal rules of human discourse do not apply on it-shall-not-be-named-Chan.

 TedNugent wrote:
One way of successfully countertrolling "ToGTFO" would be with a jpeg of a shirtless obese man with an ample chest

No. That doesn't work. I would know, I've tried it. It just means they'll call you a liar and a slut, and heap more abuse on you, or start attacking you with weight-based abuses, etc.

Especially if they know for a fact that you are female, IE having heard your voice and what not.

Stop confusing this with your average troll. This is not merely trolling. It has been a constant campaign of harassment against women.

No, that sounds like typical trolling.

 TedNugent wrote:
No, that sounds like typical trolling.

Right, because typical trolls would send you emails including your IRL address along with rape and death threats.

Once again you prove you have no clue what you're talking about.

Doesn't sound like much of a "successful counter troll" then

I believe we have now blamed a victim.

I have presented the social gaming data before, with similar result ie rejected out of hand due to its truthiness.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
They were a rarity, less than 1%

That just makes it more interesting.

It ruins the atmosphere still. Especially for multiplayer games like chivarly. If there was 1 or 2 games on the market that would not be the problems with medieval games. I've seen requests for females on multiplayer games like Chivarly and War of the Roses. TF 2 has a joke pyro is a girl, I'm suprised females are not angry about that game. Also, if there is one, it would probably be extremely sexist towards the female protagonist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Ever heard the old "tits or gtfo" meme?

If you ignore them, you're a dumb bitch / a guy posing as a girl and they'll viciously attack you. If you don't show a picture, you're a guy posing as a girl and they'll viciously attack you. If you do show a picture, you're an attention whore and/or a slut and they'll viciously attack you.

Women are abused three times more than men, in multiplayer games. I posted a link on the study several times in this thread. The people who do this abuse use every excuse they can to insult women. They do not just limit this abuse to multiplayer games, as I showed in numerous other links earlier in this thread.

Blame some boys and their egos. The problem is that people can edit their voice on PC to sound like a girl and then there are girls when you tell them off for being bad, they use the excuse "I'm a girl".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
The assumption that women only ever play social gaming where men are the only "real gamers" is stupid, and nothing more than a leftover from the bs "there are no girls on the internet" phase of the net. I thought we had gotten over that obnoxious attitude.

That's true, it's less common but still happens. Heck, 3 out of 10 of my raid team were females back in Wrath and they were more fun to play with than the male members. I personally find MMOs and Japanese games a more female dominated area of gaming than "social games" which I do not consider gaming because it takes no strategy and planning only waiting. Games like Victoria II which I play a lot of requires a lot of strategy compared to "social games".

 rockerbikie wrote:
It ruins the atmosphere still.

No it doesn't, not in any way whatsoever. Games are about telling interesting interactive stories and allowing the player to have fun with them. Historical accuracy is really low on the list of things that are necessary for a game to be fun. Pretty much the bottom of the list really.

 rockerbikie wrote:
Especially for multiplayer games like chivarly.

Multiplayer has no atmosphere.

Ever.

Chivalry has no atmosphere with or without female characters . It's a gakky game anyway.

 Melissia wrote:
Historical accuracy is really low on the list of things that are necessary for a game to be fun. Pretty much the bottom of the list really.

Well, unless you're trying to be historically realistic at which point the only question is how realistic you want to be.

Chivalry is an awesome game. All of my most serious clan player friends from Red Orchestra play that game because it has an enormous skill curve and depth along with being tons of fun. You simply don't appreciate a quality multiplayer game.

...

FOR AGATHAAAAAAAA

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Historical accuracy is really low on the list of things that are necessary for a game to be fun. Pretty much the bottom of the list really.

Well, unless you're trying to be historically realistic at which point the only question is how realistic you want to be.

If you're trying to be historically accurate before you try to make a fun game, you've already failed.

That said, excluding women from battles in which women participated is historically inaccurate, making the argument of exclusion based off of historical accuracy an inherently self-contradictory one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:
You simply don't appreciate a quality multiplayer game.

I appreciate quality multiplayer games.

Chivalry isn't one of them.

So what battles did women participate in historically?

 Melissia wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
You simply don't appreciate a quality multiplayer game.

I appreciate quality multiplayer games.

Chivalry isn't one of them.

 TedNugent wrote:
So what battles did women participate in historically?

Most medieval wars, most wars prior to medieval times, both of the world wars, most of the wars after WWII.

Basically, just about every single war in human history had women participating as combatants. During the "War of the Roses", for example, there have been well-preserved historical records showing that women were part of the basic infantry, sometimes bringing their own weapons and other times coming with nothing and being provided weapons. Women participated in battle in both world wars, but it's especially noticeable in WWII where entire regiments of women participated in the Russian army, including famous sharpshooters and pilots, as well as women participating in the various resistance movements There were fighters amongst the Viet Cong and North Koreans, who were female as well, and women have been involved in combat (despite the supposed lack of "combat roles", the reality on the ground is that female soldiers have participated in combat) in every single major war the US has been involved in since the first invasion of Iraq-- and by now most modern military forces don't distinguish on gender, but rather on ability (which leads many to ask for highly talented female specialists as well as grunt soldiers). There have been numerous female leaders of armies, as well as noble warriors such as knights and samurai, as well, including leaders of entire nations that led their armies to war.

I'd actually ask you to bug Lynata about it more than me, however. I'm not a history buff. I find history to be boring unless it can be subverted and changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:
You can have your Call of Doodies and your Mario Karts

What makes you think I play either?