Genders in Gaming Target Audiences.

[Tiger]

And sure, I believe that males may very well create entertainment which may or may not take the gender-question into consideration and still provide great joy for either gender. I do believe however that there's a unmet need for games created by females, directed at females with female undertones and choices permeating the game. What I'm trying to say is that both genders can enjoy games with either 'undertone', but currently there are none with female undertones which makes the market one-sided in the choices available.

It's not really like anyone keeps women from making games, and a lot of women do work at game companies. If some women wanted to make a game dev-company with only women hired, they could do that, but I probably don't have to mention the irony/hypocrisy in that.

[Acies]

Absolutely disgusting. Should black people also have their black people games with black people undertones? How about we stop speaking in vaguenesses and lay down some concrete definitions: What is a female undertone? And here's a bonus question: Can you point out any male-specific undertones?

EDIT: Just a fair warning, these questions are rhetorical because I don't believe in them. I can and will (unless you make impressive arguments) dismiss them with a reference to vicariousness.

Hahaha, I'll take the bait. This might come off a bit crude and vague, but I think there's a difference in upbringing between ethnicities, gender etc. Assume that there is a difference in treatment between boys and girls, for example; boys are brought up wearing blue and girls are brought up wearing pink. This of course not true in every case, but I'll generalize for the case I'm making. Some values are passed onto people depending on gender, because they are inherit in western society. They (the values) are not something which was decided and agreed upon at a set time in history, but have slowly spawned as society advances.

In ads for example, a man is supposed to be wealthy, independent, have good physique and a beard. A woman is supposed to be sleek, alluring and with voluptuous forms. The rape of a man is taken more lightly than the rape of a woman. A man who is sleeping around has a greater chance of being called 'a player' rather than 'a slut'. These are not universal truths, each individual is different, but if generalizing each of these values can be tied more strongly to one of the genders.

I believe that there are many more of these values, covertly inherit in society and tied to different genders, ethnicities etc. These values, imparted on individuals, change them. And with these changes in mind, people approach situations differently depending on how they evaluate them. When you set out to create a game, a piece of art or a piece of music for that matter you cannot plan each stroke or each key played. They'll come to you over time, through inspiration. Creating something artistic is seldom a mathematical equation, where each step is set in stone. When calculating gravity the answer is always the same, the parts are always the same. The task 'paint a lady' will always yield different results. The human mind cannot hold a plan where stroke 934 is angled 34 degrees upwards spanning 4 centimeters RGB (0.34, 0.55, 0.7).

As you progress through creating something you fill in the 'unplanned' blanks with your best judgement. Your judgement is based of what you think fits. What you think fits is based on your values. It is a taste aquired over your lifetime. You know that you like the color blue, but you cannot point to the exact moment in your life when you conceived 'your liking of blue'. It becomes vague, because you like a certain shape, a certain color, a certain smell but cannot pinpoint the origin of all these likes and dislikes. Some of these values and tastes are imparted upon you by society, tied to your gender. As you tie all of these thousands of likes together into a personality it becomes even more complex of deducing anything concrete at all.

Would wuthering heights be the exact same book if written by a man? Would GTA be the exact same game if made by a company solely consisting of women?

[Bridge]

[Insert obligatory statement about how hyperpowerful muscleman does not equal half-naked skinny lady.]

By all means insert it.

Tactful much? Calling me retarded and 'feeling sorry' for me is not the best way to debate.

No, that's not what I said. I called the synopses retarded, as in if I read them I would become suspicious of the quality of the work in question. I said I felt sorry for people who cannot appreciate aesthetics - that's not the same thing as me saying I pity you specifically.

You "believe in nothing". Yet you've put some effort into being a contrarian. I see a disconnect here.

I certainly believe in a lot of things depending on how you define "believe." If "contrarian" is the name you give to someone that rejects fallacious reasoning then so be it, a contrarian I am.

@Acies:
That's all true, of course, though I object to the notion that art can't be precise. It doesn't need to be, but there are many painters that do in fact think in exact dimensions, exact angles and exact colors. Maybe not counting strokes though because that is pointless. Otherwise, people do of course "inherit" values but it's the duty of any discerning individual to constantly question said values. I don't have the same values I was "told" I should have, though there may be some overlap. In my case it has mostly been a case of coming to a conclusion about what values I think are virtuous through trial and error or rational examination. I used to be quite illogically counter-culture and still to some extent am but have receded gradually as I discovered that certain views are too impractical to be tenable.

Would wuthering heights be the exact same book if written by a man? Would GTA be the exact same game if made by a company solely consisting of women?

Let me ask you, is there anything particularly that screams "woman" about the Harry Potter series? The protagonist is male and it has the whole "smurfette principle" that feminists like to point to and yet is, lo and behold, written by a woman. I don't notice, because it's not written with a shallow agenda in mind. The females are not given artificially inflated importance and it's not preachy in a feminist way. It's just a book. It's debatable whether it's good, I personally find it to be enjoyable but not exactly great. The fact that a woman wrote it has no bearing on the work.

[Acies]

@Acies:
That's all true, of course, though I object to the notion that art can't be precise. It doesn't need to be, but there are many painters that do in fact think in exact dimensions, exact angles and exact colors. Maybe not counting strokes though because that is pointless.

Yes, of course. I was not arguing the point that there can be no planning in art :]

As you progress through creating something you fill in the 'unplanned' blanks with your best judgement.

This statement points at there being some degree of planning. The point I was making is that it is not possible to hold a 100% stroke-by-stroke plan of logical, weighed decisions, which in turn means that art will always contain elements of improvisation.

Otherwise, people do of course "inherit" values but it's the duty of any discerning individual to constantly question said values. I don't have the same values I was "told" I should have, though there may be some overlap. In my case it has mostly been a case of coming to a conclusion about what values I think are virtuous through trial and error or rational examination. I used to be quite illogically counter-culture and still to some extent am but have receded gradually as I discovered that certain views are too impractical to be tenable.

I believe any human being goes through the process of questioning the validity of values, it is a sound thing to do. The point I was making is that there are values imparted on you, beyond your control or understanding. As much as one would like to shape the person who is "I", solely by own choosing, you are a product of your environment. If one truly had the capability to separate, process and change each of the millions of values held within the human mind it would require you to have godlike attributes or be a robot conscious through programming. One would have to have 'total self-control' and like 'a programmer' rewriting any and all information passed onto the brain, which in turn is impossible. Therefore one can conclude that any human being hold values imparted on them.

Let me ask you, is there anything particularly that screams "woman" about the Harry Potter series? The protagonist is male and it has the whole "smurfette principle" that feminists like to point to and yet is, lo and behold, written by a woman. I don't notice, because it's not written with a shallow agenda in mind. The females are not given artificially inflated importance and it's not preachy in a feminist way. It's just a book. It's debatable whether it's good, I personally find it to be enjoyable but not exactly great. The fact that a woman wrote it has no bearing on the work.

A work doesn't have to 'scream' a value to hold it. I am sure Harry Potter holds values imparted specifically on women, because as I ventured on my above argument, no one is unaffected by their environment. No one can selectively build and choose their own consciousness.

[Bridge]

I believe any human being goes through the process of questioning the validity of values, it is a sound thing to do. The point I was making is that there are values imparted on you, beyond your control or understanding. As much as one would like to shape the person who is "I", solely by own choosing, you are a product of your environment. If one truly had the capability to separate, process and change each of the millions of values held within the human mind it would require you to have godlike attributes or be a robot conscious through programming. One would have to have 'total self-control' and like 'a programmer' rewriting any and all information passed onto the brain, which in turn is impossible. Therefore one can conclude that any human being hold values imparted on them.

Well, what values are you talking about? Those ordained by nature or purely societal ones? I'm of the opinion that many if not all "arbitrary" values can be abandoned or at least understood so that their effect is mitigated. I haven't really seen any proof that there is such a thing as a purely constructed value that is absolutely permanent and set in stone. Bear in mind I'm not talking about anything that has to do with a person's biology because that is more or less inescapable. I would appreciate some examples.

A work doesn't have to 'scream' a value to hold it. I am sure Harry Potter holds values imparted specifically on women, because as I ventured on my above argument, no one is unaffected by their environment. No one can selectively build and choose their own consciousness.

But this is the exact same trap I was warning against - going so deep in your interpretations that you find stuff that isn't there, because you assume upon the answer. Again I disagree, it doesn't have to be the case that somebody cannot help but write something because of environmental factors. People are perfectly capable of being critical of themselves and their environment, enough to approach objectivity. It's not like writers only commit to paper views they themselves hold or experiences they have had, that would be absurd. Again, what are these "woman values" that you refer to? Seriously, you can't just say they must be there because how could they not be and fail to mention anything concrete.

How about these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF9SltYJAT8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZytQRYgNJBc

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102685/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1790885/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108160/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450314/

And although I haven't read it I might also reference Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Is there anything remotely "woman" about any of these? Where? I don't see it. Punisher War Zone is shallow in what many would call a "male" way, and American Psycho is pretty disturbing, which is supposed to appeal only to males, the violent sex, right? If you are going to say the patriarchy made them do it, don't bother.

[Acies]

Spoiler below!

I'm of the opinion that many if not all "arbitrary" values can be abandoned or at least understood so that their effect is mitigated. I haven't really seen any proof that there is such a thing as a purely constructed value that is absolutely permanent and set in stone.

You previously made the above point, but with different wording which you stated here:

Otherwise, people do of course "inherit" values but it's the duty of any discerning individual to constantly question said values. I don't have the same values I was "told" I should have, though there may be some overlap. In my case it has mostly been a case of coming to a conclusion about what values I think are virtuous through trial and error or rational examination. I used to be quite illogically counter-culture and still to some extent am but have receded gradually as I discovered that certain views are too impractical to be tenable.

To which I answered here:

I believe any human being goes through the process of questioning the validity of values, it is a sound thing to do. The point I was making is that there are values imparted on you, beyond your control or understanding. As much as one would like to shape the person who is "I", solely by own choosing, you are a product of your environment. If one truly had the capability to separate, process and change each of the millions of values held within the human mind it would require you to have godlike attributes or be a robot conscious through programming. One would have to have 'total self-control' and like 'a programmer' rewriting any and all information passed onto the brain, which in turn is impossible. Therefore one can conclude that any human being hold values imparted on them.

Which completes the full circle, or loop, of our argument. Both of us stating our opinions, repeatedly, with different wording, leading us nowhere.

But this is the exact same trap I was warning against - going so deep in your interpretations that you find stuff that isn't there, because you assume upon the answer. Again I disagree, it doesn't have to be the case that somebody cannot help but write something because of environmental factors. People are perfectly capable of being critical of themselves and their environment, enough to approach objectivity. It's not like writers only commit to paper views they themselves hold or experiences they have had, that would be absurd. Again, what are these "woman values" that you refer to? Seriously, you can't just say they must be there because how could they not be and fail to mention anything concrete.

Is there anything remotely "woman" about any of these? Where? I don't see it. Punisher War Zone is shallow in what many would call a "male" way, and American Psycho is pretty disturbing, which is supposed to appeal only to males, the violent sex, right? If you are going to say the patriarchy made them do it, don't bother.

I am merely explaining my reasoning, I do not have the MD. or years of work neccessary to provide you with the hard evidence. You will have to pass your own education and spend time analyzing those works to draw the conclusions neccessary to make a well-grounded paper on the effects of 'Feminine traits recognizable in artistic works' (or the non-being of such!). :]

We can only agree to disagree. I believe the gender of a person has influence on the artistic work they produce (and by an extension to this thread: a group of females would produce a different type of game than a group of males). You do not. Let's leave the discussion at that, unless you in turn can provide a valid source, stopping this impasse-argument of firmly-settled opinon vs. firmly-settled opinion.

[Bridge]

I believe the gender of a person has influence on the artistic work they produce (and by an extension to this thread: a group of females would produce a different type of game than a group of males).

But for what reason? It doesn't make sense to make such an assumption without knowing what the specific traits in question are. You don't need to write an academic paper about it, just name the traits you have noticed in your own experience and we can determine if they are reality. Obviously, we are not deciding the fate of the world here, this is all ultimately pointless. Otherwise I have no problem with the discussion ending if that is your wish.

[Acies]

I believe the gender of a person has influence on the artistic work they produce (and by an extension to this thread: a group of females would produce a different type of game than a group of males).

But for what reason? It doesn't make sense to make such an assumption without knowing what the specific traits in question are. You don't need to write an academic paper about it, just name the traits you have noticed in your own experience and we can determine if they are reality. Obviously, we are not deciding the fate of the world here, this is all ultimately pointless. Otherwise I have no problem with the discussion ending if that is your wish.

https://www.msu.edu/~pengwei/Mou%20Peng.pdf

[Bridge]

I believe the gender of a person has influence on the artistic work they produce (and by an extension to this thread: a group of females would produce a different type of game than a group of males).

But for what reason? It doesn't make sense to make such an assumption without knowing what the specific traits in question are. You don't need to write an academic paper about it, just name the traits you have noticed in your own experience and we can determine if they are reality. Obviously, we are not deciding the fate of the world here, this is all ultimately pointless. Otherwise I have no problem with the discussion ending if that is your wish.

https://www.msu.edu/~pengwei/Mou%20Peng.pdf

Just finished reading it and was not impressed. I would need to do a quite lengthy analysis of it to fully explain why but I'll give you a few bullet points.

• Obviously women and minorities are "misrepresented" in the majority of video games, but is that discrimination or laziness? I argue that it's laziness. I asked a perfectly reasonable question earlier: Do these games even represent white males? Being in a leading role does not necessarily mean you are well written.
  
• Context is king. Yes, I would very well expect a NBA game not to have female characters because it is a men's only league and it makes a lot of sense for it to have more black characters because a whopping 78% of the NBA is black. Otherwise, consider that a game set in the US is likely to have a lower percentage of black people than a game set in some African nation because black people only make up around 13% of the nation. Here's a game set almost entirely in Brazil and lo and behold, it has only one Caucasian leading character. The enemies are mostly non-Caucasian because you wouldn't expect to find a lot of Caucasians in Brazil where they are a minority. Here's another example of that. The game takes place mostly outside of the US, and the enemies are whatever nationality you would expect to find in the country the particular level is set in. I could go on and on listing examples, but this type of arithmetic doesn't jive with me. It goes completely against common sense. Would you be happy if the ratio of ethnicities and genders were all 1:1, even where it doesn't make any sense or is distracting?
  
• The sample is way too small. Top 20 games 2006? That doesn't give you any useful information at all, it can so easily be heavily skewed. To say nothing about the quality of the games they picked. I'm not riveted by most of them, and they are not what most people take seriously. It's akin to doing a study of the most popular stupid movies that everybody hates and which are not the subject of critical analysis. And they even reference a study of NES and Genesis games all the way back in the dark ages of gaming without irony (not to mention suggesting that studies have confirmed that violence and video games are linked - which has been debunked over and over.)
  
• They only played the first 10 or so minutes of a game (or viewed the introductory cutscene) and called it a day. That's extremely poor methodology to me. Not even a fraction of useful information can be deduced from that, and a lot of absolutely non-sexist games would be immediately labeled as sexist.
  
• They imply that video games directly influence people's views and can have harmful effects especially on adolescents. Maybe if you completely immerse yourself in video games so that you literally don't know what reality is anymore and have no upbringing, but that is hardly representative of most people.
  

Just for example.

[Kman]

[Insert obligatory statement about how hyperpowerful muscleman does not equal half-naked skinny lady.]

one sets an unhealthy toxic image for what an attractive/ideal woman should look like and as a result creates the idea that the value of women is defined by their body, femininity, and appeal to men

the other sets an unrealistic dangerous standard for what a man should look/act like and as a result creates the idea that the value of a man is defined by their bodies/strength/aggression, masculinity, and their ability to pose themselves as an alpha male

what am i missing here

???