Nae'blis
03-20-2008, 11:12 AM
Just an article I wrote for my blog this morning. Then noticed that there's been several announcements in various gaming news parts of the web on this very subject this afternoon. Heh. Anyway, I just wanted to see what views other people here had on the issue - especially any ladies who are members.
EDIT: Please note in my reply to people's comments there is a correction to the intent of the first paragraph of my article. I made a brainslip somewhere and the first line does not reflect what I intended to say at all!
***
I've long felt that the percieved recent drive to make games to appeal specifically to females is misdirected and a cynical response by the money men and male execs in today's modern industry. I accept that this is likely partially media-inflated, judging by the number of letters and comments that they publish on this issue - see the current issue of gamesTM (Issue 68, April 2008) for the example which prompted me to write this opinion piece. But there is definately commercial release after release of dross hitting the shelves, particularly for the DS, which do bare out that this intention is real within many developers.
The key problem that the industry has long had, of course, is precisely that it is too set on marketing to focused groups of people: 6 to 10-year-old girls, teen boys, 18-30 "hardcore" males, over 50's who want to stave off Alzheimer's... Just make a balanced game, with a broad range of characters (they don't even all have to be playable) and don't revert to stereotypes or overt sexualisation of any of the characters. If no-one finds your game off-putting or offensive, then you stand a better chance of people playing your game, building brand awareness, having people spread the world, and ultimately increasing your sales.
But attempts such as just changing the colour of hardware to a lurid pink is insulting to grown women. At the same time, making all your games about nurturing animals or building a family home is demeaning. Just take the time to explore if your game can be better made using gender-inclusive design and work towards that. The changes aren't even that great: girls do guns, they do violence, they do action, they do hardcore platformers, and they absolutely do complex control systems; so why dumb-down your project as if because it's for a female they all play games like those designed for 6 to 10-year-olds. The changes come in the presentation of your game: your character doesn't always need to be an alpha-male; he doesn't always need some bimbo sidekick with tits so big she'd be on the Christmas card list of all her local chiropractors; the box art doesn't need to feature miniscule clothing and suggestive beads of sweat in deep valleys of flesh; female and elderly characters don't always need to be bit-parts with either "typecast" roles or meaningless interaction.
Think about it. Marketing to a set female population is a bit like quota management, the same thing now going on in many companies with a forced drive to employ more females in their teams. Now, that eventual goal is only a good thing, but the forced effort to do it, as if the key to braking into this lucrative "new" market is to get some female staff on board, is false. The industry has had (comparitvely few) female designers, programmers, etc. since right back in the 80's, and they were succesful. But they didn't make Games For Girls. They typically made adventure games, often with male lead characters, but always with engaging storylines, believeable worlds, rounded characters that didn't need their atributes sexed-up to appeal to a teen male, and so on.
And (whisper it) girls playing games isn't new; it isn't even contained within the last five years or so that this scrabble to get Games For Girls up and running has been going on for. Girls have always played games, just not as prevalent as boys because the games weren't there for them. But titles that did the job of apealling to both have sold well - early Tomb Raider (bar the breasts, which were just found comical/pathetic), Myst, the Resident Evil and Silent Hill series, The Sims, Pokemon, Zelda games (especially since the N64 releases)... All games I can vividly remember many females playing and enjoying. None of which are Games For Girls. Even World of Warcraft - the archetypal male nerd stalwart - has a keen female following.
Yes, the industry needs more females; yes, it needs to listen to them more. But then the views that they might express aren't particularly those that many male gamers wouldn't air, either - employers would just expect it more from their key new assets and probably more readily accept the advice. I personally long ago grew out of bulging breasts in games and cheesy male characters. I'm all for story, meaningful actions, expressive characters, emotional responses... just not unnecesary sexualisation or violence and no tacky promo and box art. Does that make me a girl, or just a Modern Gamer?
And, while we're at it, the industry needs more of everyone: older gamers, younger gamers, gamers of all races, gamers of any sexuality they feel like, casual gamers, hardcore gamers, narrativists, ludologists, games who want emotion, gamers who want gore, PC gamers, Sony gamers, Nintendo gamers, Microsoft gamers... And so on. Oh, and it definately needs more game degree graduates! Say, in about two-and-a-half years time?
EDIT: Please note in my reply to people's comments there is a correction to the intent of the first paragraph of my article. I made a brainslip somewhere and the first line does not reflect what I intended to say at all!
***
I've long felt that the percieved recent drive to make games to appeal specifically to females is misdirected and a cynical response by the money men and male execs in today's modern industry. I accept that this is likely partially media-inflated, judging by the number of letters and comments that they publish on this issue - see the current issue of gamesTM (Issue 68, April 2008) for the example which prompted me to write this opinion piece. But there is definately commercial release after release of dross hitting the shelves, particularly for the DS, which do bare out that this intention is real within many developers.
The key problem that the industry has long had, of course, is precisely that it is too set on marketing to focused groups of people: 6 to 10-year-old girls, teen boys, 18-30 "hardcore" males, over 50's who want to stave off Alzheimer's... Just make a balanced game, with a broad range of characters (they don't even all have to be playable) and don't revert to stereotypes or overt sexualisation of any of the characters. If no-one finds your game off-putting or offensive, then you stand a better chance of people playing your game, building brand awareness, having people spread the world, and ultimately increasing your sales.
But attempts such as just changing the colour of hardware to a lurid pink is insulting to grown women. At the same time, making all your games about nurturing animals or building a family home is demeaning. Just take the time to explore if your game can be better made using gender-inclusive design and work towards that. The changes aren't even that great: girls do guns, they do violence, they do action, they do hardcore platformers, and they absolutely do complex control systems; so why dumb-down your project as if because it's for a female they all play games like those designed for 6 to 10-year-olds. The changes come in the presentation of your game: your character doesn't always need to be an alpha-male; he doesn't always need some bimbo sidekick with tits so big she'd be on the Christmas card list of all her local chiropractors; the box art doesn't need to feature miniscule clothing and suggestive beads of sweat in deep valleys of flesh; female and elderly characters don't always need to be bit-parts with either "typecast" roles or meaningless interaction.
Think about it. Marketing to a set female population is a bit like quota management, the same thing now going on in many companies with a forced drive to employ more females in their teams. Now, that eventual goal is only a good thing, but the forced effort to do it, as if the key to braking into this lucrative "new" market is to get some female staff on board, is false. The industry has had (comparitvely few) female designers, programmers, etc. since right back in the 80's, and they were succesful. But they didn't make Games For Girls. They typically made adventure games, often with male lead characters, but always with engaging storylines, believeable worlds, rounded characters that didn't need their atributes sexed-up to appeal to a teen male, and so on.
And (whisper it) girls playing games isn't new; it isn't even contained within the last five years or so that this scrabble to get Games For Girls up and running has been going on for. Girls have always played games, just not as prevalent as boys because the games weren't there for them. But titles that did the job of apealling to both have sold well - early Tomb Raider (bar the breasts, which were just found comical/pathetic), Myst, the Resident Evil and Silent Hill series, The Sims, Pokemon, Zelda games (especially since the N64 releases)... All games I can vividly remember many females playing and enjoying. None of which are Games For Girls. Even World of Warcraft - the archetypal male nerd stalwart - has a keen female following.
Yes, the industry needs more females; yes, it needs to listen to them more. But then the views that they might express aren't particularly those that many male gamers wouldn't air, either - employers would just expect it more from their key new assets and probably more readily accept the advice. I personally long ago grew out of bulging breasts in games and cheesy male characters. I'm all for story, meaningful actions, expressive characters, emotional responses... just not unnecesary sexualisation or violence and no tacky promo and box art. Does that make me a girl, or just a Modern Gamer?
And, while we're at it, the industry needs more of everyone: older gamers, younger gamers, gamers of all races, gamers of any sexuality they feel like, casual gamers, hardcore gamers, narrativists, ludologists, games who want emotion, gamers who want gore, PC gamers, Sony gamers, Nintendo gamers, Microsoft gamers... And so on. Oh, and it definately needs more game degree graduates! Say, in about two-and-a-half years time?