• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

There is an audience of women that strangely, nobody seems to aim at

Old Bioware games were also a hit with women! I remember the old Bioware forums had a ton of female gamers, more than in any other forum I had ever visited before. They were super into the characters and specially the romances.
 

WitchHunter

Member
My counter argument is.....

- A Director can have many styles. There's no one style fits all approach here.
Yeah, you might be talented, but you have to be a jack of all trades to succeed as a director. How do people compete for the same position? How one becomes a director? Is it just talent? Gimme a break. There are other dynamics at play.

- Directors and other executives don't have to have a aggressive personality. That's generational propaganda leading you and others to think that.
Depends on the environment. But you definitely have to be assertive, have big cojones and a good bag of skills.

- In the 1940s (Pre-WWII) almost all women stayed home and didn't work in corporate America. WW2 was the beginning of that change. There were MANY things men said about women that was 100% wrong back then too. What Jordan Peterson said there is the 21st Century version of being wrong about the workplace. In 50 years, we'll look back at that Jordan Peterson quote the same way we look at the images below.
I'm talking in general, not just the US. There are way fewer women in leading roles, in this case as directors, cinematographers etc. There are equal amounts of very good actresses and actors. So why there are way less, maybe 5:1, woman directors?

Jordan Peterson is a pseudo-scientist that takes or isolates studies or set or data which are either misinterpret or over-interpreted with no substantiation, in fact often resorting to naturalistic, symbolic or deterministic (therefor pseudo-scientifically) arguments where the science either doesn't have an answer, or has one that doesn't fit is agenda, which is merely an reactionary one.
He taught, did research at Harvard, was an associate professor. I'd like to see a debate where other psychologists - not tv hosts - are arguing with him. You are attacking the person and not bringing counter arguments to the table. Why there are more men in leading positions? There are equal amounts of good actors and actresses, yet way less directors.

Jordan Petersen is a writer and a lecturer and his assumptions about corporate culture show how little time he's spent navigating one (his defensive attitude when criticised shows he'd last about five seconds in that kind of environment too). I've seen people bound up the corporate ladder, not by 'piss-marking' (the way he likes to do in debates, incidentally) but by making or saving a lot of money for the company - it's why most CEOs are former finance guys. The boys club Wolf-of-Wall-Street culture of yesteryear is long gone - modern corporates spend most of their time running emotional intelligence seminars and mental health awareness weeks, that goes doubly and perhaps even trebly in creative media industries like gaming.
"his defensive attitude when criticised shows he'd last about five seconds in that kind of environment too"
Where, gimme source. I'd like to see a good debate where he is grilled. Assumptions or examples from his praxis? Spare me the modern company nothingspeak that is eq seminars and other subzero bullshit. I had my fair share of it. It's mostly about brainwashing the employee to work more, be obedient and stfu, or packaging some trivial thing as a world changing thing, or giving the leader the tools to backstab someone and sell it as a kind act. You are bringing examples from corpoworld that are borderline ridiculous for any sane person who has some common sense and a good nose to sniff out BULLSHEET.
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
I am well aware that there is a normal split between girls and guys that play games, read the post, you are missing it by about 8 miles.

Missing what? You were stating that huge AAA devs should be making games "focused" on women gamers and making games like Animal Crossing or so new gaming genre where they run a day-care center. My man.....YOU said that lol. Do you understand how demeaning that is? What makes you think hardcore female gamers want to play those games "MORE THAN" games like Assassins Creed, Uncharted, or Fall Out?


I am not sure what you are talking about, no one here is saying girls aren't playing games, and it's not the point of this thread.

So what do you think rofif rofif is saying here?

I still simply don't believe there is HUGE audience of women gamers.
I know only 1 personally that plays real games.
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
Yeah, you might be talented, but you have to be a jack of all trades to succeed as a director. How do people compete for the same position? How one becomes a director? Is it just talent? Gimme a break. There are other dynamics at play.
The bolded is 100% correct. And "some" of those dynamics include not viewing women as leaders.

Depends on the environment. But you definitely have to be assertive, have big cojones and a good bag of skills.

Many women all across the world have these traits.

I'm talking in general, not just the US. There are way fewer women in leading roles, in this case as directors, cinematographers etc. There are equal amounts of very good actresses and actors. So why there are way less, maybe 5:1, woman directors?

I'm not sure where you live, but in America there's been a history of sexism against women for centuries. With every generation, we are getting further and further away from that. Bad societal habits take generations to die.

He taught, did research at Harvard, was an associate professor. I'd like to see a debate where other psychologists - not tv hosts - are arguing with him. You are attacking the person and not bringing counter arguments to the table. Why there are more men in leading positions? There are equal amounts of good actors and actresses, yet way less directors.

I literally gave you my counter arguments. It's up to you to respect them or not. I notice many individuals that like Jordan Peterson, also like to ignore human history. They act like human life started when they were born. As if we don't have a plethora of actual human existence that gives us a window into why things are they way they are now.
 

Excess

Member
Purely conjecture, here, but men are generally visual creatures. Whether it's related to sex or depth perception for purposes of navigation or hunting, it's easy to observe that men appear to be more attracted to visual stimuli in ways that women are not, and more specifically an attraction in "things".

Men discuss "things"; women discuss "people". So it's easy to see why men may be more attracted to high fidelity imagery or special effects, explosions, 3D elements, illusion of depth perception in a 3D environment, etc. Whereas, women seem to be more interested in the interactions and interpersonal exchanges that games such as Animal Crossing or the Sims provide. Is it wrong to say women have different tastes in game genres? No. I know women who like to play COD and such, but they seem to the exception to the rule, otherwise more women than men would be playing those games. Nothing is preventing women from playing whatever they want.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
Purely conjecture, here, but men are generally visual creatures. Whether it's related to sex or depth perception for purposes of navigation or hunting, it's easy to observe that men appear to be more attracted to visual stimuli in ways that women are not, and more specifically an attraction in "things".

Men discuss "things"; women discuss "people". So it's easy to see why men may be more attracted to high fidelity imagery or special effects, explosions, 3D elements, illusion of depth perception in a 3D environment, etc. Whereas, women seem to be more interested in the interactions and interpersonal exchanges that games such as Animal Crossing or the Sims provide. Is it wrong to say women have different tastes in game genres? No. I know women who like to play COD and such, but they seem to the exception to the rule, otherwise more women than men would be playing those games. Nothing is preventing women from playing whatever they want.

That's the thing! Women ARE playing games that us "men" would consider AAA. They aren't just playing Animal Crossing. Why is everyone acting as if that's mainly what the games women play? The OP is just dead WRONG!
 

Notabueno

Banned
He taught, did research at Harvard, was an associate professor. I'd like to see a debate where other psychologists - not tv hosts - are arguing with him. You are attacking the person and not bringing counter arguments to the table. Why there are more men in leading positions? There are equal amounts of good actors and actresses, yet way less directors.
He did a 5 year associate professorship which does not equate neither doing research nor being a researcher, but that's irrelevant.
Jordan Peterson doesn't debate actual psychologists or biologists because he would lose given how obvious the answer to the questions you ask are and have been. Rather he's a demagogue who has rhetorical debates with journalists, debaters and sjw looneys.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that: the same way the reason there's less black or asian people in leadership position doesn't have to do with them being racially incapable nor unwilling, the reason why there are less women in leading position is

A. Anthropological and Historic Normativity: in some tribes (that act as a counter-exemple and therefor proof of society vs nature) people see the vagina has being "dominant" in that it is protected and enveloping while the penis is seen has being "inferior" in that it is an exposed weakness that can hardly be used without a women endeavour or authorisation. This is an exemple of how deep and different the very basic conception of even our body, can differ and change a whole culture's and it's subsequent conditioning from a civilisation to another. Apply that to gender.

B. Conditioning and Performativity: women are brought up being constantly bashed the mind with valuing their own self-worth as being centred on their sexual/reproductive asset and the passive, external pursue of high-value (in perception) mate that will fill the active role, unlike men who are conditioned with actively pursuing external achievements, assets and performativity in order to augment their perceived self-worth to be more attractive and successful with women. AND this is important to understand today: conditioning is not some ethereal cloud, it's actually so tangible as to influence not just the mind, but also the brain structure, the hormonal receptivity and even maybe the epigenetic.

C. Discrimination: since nothing physically or intellectually prevents women from being directors, the difference in conditioning are heavy and powerful enough that at first there might less female than male directors candidates, but eventually there are enough that there should be a statistically representative proportion (so about 50%) of them represented. The problem is that of course many who pursue it are treated differently, barred or straight-up discriminated by very various means.

You add those three factors (which you have to explore through the countless books, essays and more importantly studies that document it) and you have a very precise, complex and substantiated reason why there is less women directors than men. Jordan Peterson is only spewing easily debunkable bullshit that are only successful because like in last centuries 1910/20/30s, we are in a conjecture of crisis, crash and eventually war during which reactionary rethoricians that history won't remember are successful by catering to the lowest "intuitions" people wishes to ear, to explain their own shortviews and understanding.
However the exception is that if Peterson pursues the Nietzschean, existentialist, gnostic path is on he might maybe right something interesting but that's not a given during his current limitations.
 

Bragr

Member
Missing what? You were stating that huge AAA devs should be making games "focused" on women gamers and making games like Animal Crossing or so new gaming genre where they run a day-care center. My man.....YOU said that lol. Do you understand how demeaning that is? What makes you think hardcore female gamers want to play those games "MORE THAN" games like Assassins Creed, Uncharted, or Fall Out?




So what do you think rofif rofif is saying here?
What makes me think they want to play Animal Crossing more than Creed? the statistics.
 

EDMIX

Member
“They say casual female gamers don’t need a console, but after seeing these figures, we’d really like to reconsider that and the true value of console gaming.” - Satoru Iwata in 2013, looking at how many women bought Animal Crossing: New Leaf.

"I have my own personal way of determining how successful a game can be with the expanded audience, I call it the wife-o-meter............. As I was watching my friends and my wife, I thought maybe, if we can find a way to interest them, turn them into game players, then we can expand the userbase." - Shigeru Miyamoto.

"The Sims was predominantly female -- 55 or 60 percent. For a lot of them, it was the only game they played." - Will Wright.

I am not trying to say that there are girl games and boy games. When you are a gamer, you play whatever. But girls and guys generally like different things. I get the sense that people don't want to admit it or talk about it because it can devolve into some sort of sexism.

There is a MASSIVE audience of women that likes to play games but doesn't give a shit about Call of Duty and FIFA. As a result, they don't play many console games but stick to mobile games that have a lot of games that cater to the general female audience better.

Once in a blue moon, you have games like The Sims or Animal Crossing, who gets this and hones in on those audiences, but I feel like it's a strange thing to see so much of the industry completely ignoring this huge audience. Every triple-A studio seems hellbent on making violent action-adventure games, you would think there would be more studious trying to capitalize on this market. You are talking millions and millions of women who play fashion games on a mobile phone, yet never discovered that console and PC gaming is better, because nobody aims at them.

Why aren't more studios aiming at them?

Thats a great question.

My older sisters introduced me to gaming in general and PC gaming was pretty much their realm until I was old enough to build my first PC. They literally put like thousands of hours in each entry. I remember when I got my sister a PS4 for her birthday and bought Sims 4 for her, the following year they had that PSN thing were you can see the stats of most played, I put like 100 or so hours in BFV as it just came out, my sister on the other had put like 350 hours in Sims 4..... I was like "the fuck?" lol I legit thought maybe something was off on those numbers and she let me know she legit had like 4 families going and she wish it had mods like on PC etc.

I ended up buying her all the DLC the next following year, point is....this demographic exist that games, like.....a lot. So you bring up a massive point with the Sims and I don't know if either of my sisters would have even cared that I got them a PS4 each, if I also didn't download The Sims 4 for them lol

EA can do a better job mind you as its not like mods are impossible on console and a massive market exist for stuff like this on console, look at the success of games like Pillars Of Eternity or Divinity Sin or Wasteland etc, many games that used to be a PC only type thing, thrive on console if done correctly as a market exist that still wants to game, but I digress lol
 

Keihart

Member
Nobody:


 

Excess

Member
Why is everyone acting as if that's mainly what the games women play? The OP is just dead WRONG!
Because there's no nuance on the internetz? :messenger_hushed:

I think most of that response comes from hearing studio execs and developers wax poetic about how righteous they are. They'll tell you it's about diversity or making things more inclusive, but it's really about expanding the target demographics in order to increase revenue. They can tell themselves it's about diversity, etc., but businesses don't make decisions with the intention of decreasing revenue; quite the opposite. I think the one quote that OP provided demonstrates that.

"I have my own personal way of determining how successful a game can be with the expanded audience, I call it the wife-o-meter............. As I was watching my friends and my wife, I thought maybe, if we can find a way to interest them, turn them into game players, then we can expand the userbase." - Shigeru Miyamoto.
 

kiphalfton

Member
Because the devs thinks that the screaming blue haired whales are the only females playing games.
I'd imagine attractive female gamers aren't taken seriously, because other people think they're just there to take in money from simps on Twitch or because it's the "in" thing right now.
 

BbMajor7th

Member
his defensive attitude when criticised shows he'd last about five seconds in that kind of environment too"
Where, gimme source. I'd like to see a good debate where he is grilled. Assumptions or examples from his praxis? Spare me the modern company nothingspeak that is eq seminars and other subzero bullshit. I had my fair share of it. It's mostly about brainwashing the employee to work more, be obedient and stfu, or packaging some trivial thing as a world changing thing, or giving the leader the tools to backstab someone and sell it as a kind act. You are bringing examples from corpoworld that are borderline ridiculous for any sane person who has some common sense and a good nose to sniff out BULLSHEET.
I don't think mental health is exactly corpoworld bullshit. Not here to defend the system, though. I could wax lyrical about the endless issues with modern corporate culture - its careerist douchebags pushing through empty initiatives for the sake of their own CVs, the short-termist YOY planning approach, the big data evangelism, the outsourcing of systems and people and the endless third party plugins and widgets, the ever deepening layers of security paranoia and the irritating in-the-know prestige it creates. Yeah, it's not great, but pretending it's all about assertiveness and aggression is so hopelessly simplistic and stereotyped that you know it could only have been coined by someone who's never worked in that kind of environment.
 

EDMIX

Member
Yeah, you might be talented, but you have to be a jack of all trades to succeed as a director. How do people compete for the same position? How one becomes a director? Is it just talent? Gimme a break. There are other dynamics at play.


Depends on the environment. But you definitely have to be assertive, have big cojones and a good bag of skills.


I'm talking in general, not just the US. There are way fewer women in leading roles, in this case as directors, cinematographers etc. There are equal amounts of very good actresses and actors. So why there are way less, maybe 5:1, woman directors?


He taught, did research at Harvard, was an associate professor. I'd like to see a debate where other psychologists - not tv hosts - are arguing with him. You are attacking the person and not bringing counter arguments to the table. Why there are more men in leading positions? There are equal amounts of good actors and actresses, yet way less directors.


"his defensive attitude when criticised shows he'd last about five seconds in that kind of environment too"
Where, gimme source. I'd like to see a good debate where he is grilled. Assumptions or examples from his praxis? Spare me the modern company nothingspeak that is eq seminars and other subzero bullshit. I had my fair share of it. It's mostly about brainwashing the employee to work more, be obedient and stfu, or packaging some trivial thing as a world changing thing, or giving the leader the tools to backstab someone and sell it as a kind act. You are bringing examples from corpoworld that are borderline ridiculous for any sane person who has some common sense and a good nose to sniff out BULLSHEET.

You both make really good fucking points. mckmas8808 mckmas8808 brings lots of data, but you still bring up great points too.

Namely the bolded.

We do have a few female directors btw, but you bring up a great point. I don't feel that the ablitiy to do something means automatically that no bias exist or that they will have no road blocks.

Lets say I have a thing about hating females and I work for some company, for all we know...everytime funding comes for a film, I purposly give that part to a male director (could really be any bias tbh) So I agree that other dynamics are at play.
 

OneMoreDay

Neo Member
Once in a blue moon, you have games like The Sims or Animal Crossing, who gets this and hones in on those audiences, but I feel like it's a strange thing to see so much of the industry completely ignoring this huge audience. Every triple-A studio seems hellbent on making violent action-adventure games, you would think there would be more studious trying to capitalize on this market.
I can think of two reasons:
  • It's very hard to get thumbs up from the board of directors or the shareholders to spend $150 million on an experimental game trying to reach a female audience. Everyone wants that Sims money, but creating the right game isn't easy and success is far from guaranteed. AAA studios are playing it safe these days, the focus is on well-established franchises and genres they know for a fact will sell.
  • The top creative minds of the gaming industry are not women. Their visions are obviously colored by their own interests, you won't get the next Animal Crossing from Todd Howard or Cory Barlog.
 

WitchHunter

Member
I don't think mental health is exactly corpoworld bullshit. Not here to defend the system, though. I could wax lyrical about the endless issues with modern corporate culture - its careerist douchebags pushing through empty initiatives for the sake of their own CVs, the short-termist YOY planning approach, the big data evangelism, the outsourcing of systems and people and the endless third party plugins and widgets, the ever deepening layers of security paranoia and the irritating in-the-know prestige it creates. Yeah, it's not great, but pretending it's all about assertiveness and aggression is so hopelessly simplistic and stereotyped that you know it could only have been coined by someone who's never worked in that kind of environment.
What I meant about corpo hypocrisy is that the environment is toxic (because ppl need or feel the need to create obstacles for each other), but let's organize a meeting once per week where we hold each other's hands, drink de slagging tea and invite a psychologist to talk about the topic, and pretend that problem is solved, while next day everything reverts back.

Let's take games. I see a lot of indie games that are perfect and should be widespread, but the sales are terrible. Why? Because you need good networking skills, have to be part PR/marketing/sales person and let's say for an introvert these are too big of an obstacle. You have several constrainst, like money and time, so it doesn't really matter how good your product is if you can' bring it to market and inject it into the circulation. The same applies to the person in corpospace. If you don't like to network, brush to higher ups you won't be able to attain your desired position. And maybe these traits are more prevalent in males.
 

Thief1987

Member
They say casual female gamers don’t need a console, but after seeing these figures, we’d really like to reconsider that and the true value of console gaming.” - Satoru Iwata in 2013, looking at how many women bought Animal Crossing: New Leaf.

"I have my own personal way of determining how successful a game can be with the expanded audience, I call it the wife-o-meter............. As I was watching my friends and my wife, I thought maybe, if we can find a way to interest them, turn them into game players, then we can expand the userbase." - Shigeru Miyamoto.
And somehow statement that nintendo maks games for kids and housewives become an offense, when even Iwata and Miyamoto said that themselves.
 
Last edited:

Majukun

Member
for the same reason nobody aimes anymore at the 3d platform aficionados except nintendo and some indies.
the userbase is either not as massive as people think or the executives don't think it is (same was happened for space sims, then star citizien got like hundreds of millions of dollars in advance, so the exec are not always right)
 

Drew1440

Member
It continues to baffle me why there are not 3-4 competitors to The Sims. The people that play that game play nothing but that game and have entire communities of modding dedicated to them. Probably the biggest modding community of any game really.
My guess is that sort of game is a nightmare to develop from scratch and most game engines aren't really tailored for it, given how glitchy The Sims game can get. The only game that comes close was that Desperate Housewives game from 2006.
And EA probably patented it to hell.
 

WitchHunter

Member
He did a 5 year associate professorship which does not equate neither doing research nor being a researcher, but that's irrelevant.
Jordan Peterson doesn't debate actual psychologists or biologists because he would lose given how obvious the answer to the questions you ask are and have been. Rather he's a demagogue who has rhetorical debates with journalists, debaters and sjw looneys.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that: the same way the reason there's less black or asian people in leadership position doesn't have to do with them being racially incapable nor unwilling, the reason why there are less women in leading position is

A. Anthropological and Historic Normativity: in some tribes (that act as a counter-exemple and therefor proof of society vs nature) people see the vagina has being "dominant" in that it is protected and enveloping while the penis is seen has being "inferior" in that it is an exposed weakness that can hardly be used without a women endeavour or authorisation. This is an exemple of how deep and different the very basic conception of even our body, can differ and change a whole culture's and it's subsequent conditioning from a civilisation to another. Apply that to gender.

B. Conditioning and Performativity: women are brought up being constantly bashed the mind with valuing their own self-worth as being centred on their sexual/reproductive asset and the passive, external pursue of high-value (in perception) mate that will fill the active role, unlike men who are conditioned with actively pursuing external achievements, assets and performativity in order to augment their perceived self-worth to be more attractive and successful with women. AND this is important to understand today: conditioning is not some ethereal cloud, it's actually so tangible as to influence not just the mind, but also the brain structure, the hormonal receptivity and even maybe the epigenetic.

C. Discrimination: since nothing physically or intellectually prevents women from being directors, the difference in conditioning are heavy and powerful enough that at first there might less female than male directors candidates, but eventually there are enough that there should be a statistically representative proportion (so about 50%) of them represented. The problem is that of course many who pursue it are treated differently, barred or straight-up discriminated by very various means.

You add those three factors (which you have to explore through the countless books, essays and more importantly studies that document it) and you have a very precise, complex and substantiated reason why there is less women directors than men. Jordan Peterson is only spewing easily debunkable bullshit that are only successful because like in last centuries 1910/20/30s, we are in a conjecture of crisis, crash and eventually war during which reactionary rethoricians that history won't remember are successful by catering to the lowest "intuitions" people wishes to ear, to explain their own shortviews and understanding.
However the exception is that if Peterson pursues the Nietzschean, existentialist, gnostic path is on he might maybe right something interesting but that's not a given during his current limitations.
Ok, so we agree on that factors exist that affect the behavior of a given person. But you cannot remove the context (environment and its factors, genetical differences of a male/female) no matter what. You can skew it to correct its lopsided nature. So what remains if the context has no bias? You are left with the genetical code that governs how we behave etc. So in a sense a woman will always have greater affection towards a child, a human being since she is coded to care/nurture children. Just as a female spider will care its egg sac that holds the many successors, not the male. And maybe this factor makes women more reserved when they see a goal and in order to achieve it they might have to do something (walk through/hurt another person) that inherently goes against their value system. So they will not do it. In certain criminal enterprises women leaders are less prone to violence, more calm and cold headed than males.

So in a sense you have to artificially kneecap the testosterone heavy males (who dominate/sustain these social structures and its rules) in order to give space to women. Or create ones where women doesn't have to act like men to be successful.
 

BbMajor7th

Member
What I meant about corpo hypocrisy is that the environment is toxic (because ppl need or feel the need to create obstacles for each other), but let's organize a meeting once per week where we hold each other's hands, drink de slagging tea and invite a psychologist to talk about the topic, and pretend that problem is solved, while next day everything reverts back.

Let's take games. I see a lot of indie games that are perfect and should be widespread, but the sales are terrible. Why? Because you need good networking skills, have to be part PR/marketing/sales person and let's say for an introvert these are too big of an obstacle. You have several constrainst, like money and time, so it doesn't really matter how good your product is if you can' bring it to market and inject it into the circulation. The same applies to the person in corpospace. If you don't like to network, brush to higher ups you won't be able to attain your desired position. And maybe these traits are more prevalent in males.

I suppose I could mostly agree with that - it's a little cynical, but not without an element of truth. There is definitely a habit of performative mitigation for sure, where a lot of talk is made about change but the long-term reality never emerges, or it does so in some quite perfunctory and superficial way.

The latter paragraph, I see you're angle, but I'm not sure I'd entirely agree. Many indie developers do absolutely lack the skills, time and resources to market their games (I work with dozens of them and have marketed their games for years). It's a big issue with self-service publishing, where you can put a product onto a commercial platform at little-to-no cost (be it an eBook, indie game or debut EP) without any real obligation to promote it. Promotion is a very complex and varied skill set and in the digital era it's never been more overwhelming or impenetrable for outsiders - but you're right, it doesn't matter how good the product is if you don't have the wherewithal to reach your target market.

As this translates to the self promotion in corporate spaces, you're not wrong - ambitious, confident self-promoters who have no quibbles about make sure senior colleagues know about their achievements (no matter how meagre) do gain slightly better upward traction (but it's no guarantee) and I've seen this pattern of behaviour on both sides of the gender spectrum. If there is a difference, I'd imagine it's largely societal: men are still raised in a way which encourages ambition, competition and personal gain as the primary motives (whether or not they want it) and we know that - even in 2021 - this isn't the same for women, particularly outside of metropolitan areas or demographics with significant upward social mobility.

I think we need to change that - I don't think it's fair to put the burden of social and economic success on men and make them feel worthless if (for whatever reason) they don't to attain it, nor do I think it's right to tell women to lower their goals or avoid being too assertive. That said, I know that the rate of change for these kind of embedded ideals can be glacial, so we may be in for a wait.
 
Last edited:

Cyberpunkd

Member
There is a MASSIVE audience of women that likes to play games but doesn't give a shit about Call of Duty and FIFA. As a result, they don't play many console games but stick to mobile games that have a lot of games that cater to the general female audience better.

(...)

Why aren't more studios aiming at them?
Because on average women have much lower engagement with media than men do. Games, Netflix, mobile is just a small venue for them - they do not dedicate 100% of their free time to a single source of entertainment like men do. Which is bad for engagement and give you less money.

Also it's a vicious circle - hobby is predominantly male, so companies cater to males, which pushes women away.
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
Because on average women have much lower engagement with media than men do. Games, Netflix, mobile is just a small venue for them - they do not dedicate 100% of their free time to a single source of entertainment like men do. Which is bad for engagement and give you less money.

Also it's a vicious circle - hobby is predominantly male, so companies cater to males, which pushes women away.

Where do you get this belief from? Women spend CRAZY amounts of time on media. Be it social media or "traditional" media. Do you happen to live in a poor country? Because if so, that'll explain your personal experience. Because here in America, women aren't social crabs that hide in holes when a new hit TV show hits Netflix or Bravo.

What makes me think they want to play Animal Crossing more than Creed? the statistics.

You sure? So you think women don't play Assassin's Creed now?

I don't think mental health is exactly corpoworld bullshit. Not here to defend the system, though. I could wax lyrical about the endless issues with modern corporate culture - its careerist douchebags pushing through empty initiatives for the sake of their own CVs, the short-termist YOY planning approach, the big data evangelism, the outsourcing of systems and people and the endless third party plugins and widgets, the ever deepening layers of security paranoia and the irritating in-the-know prestige it creates. Yeah, it's not great, but pretending it's all about assertiveness and aggression is so hopelessly simplistic and stereotyped that you know it could only have been coined by someone who's never worked in that kind of environment.

Morgan Freeman Applause GIF by The Academy Awards


Let's take games. I see a lot of indie games that are perfect and should be widespread, but the sales are terrible. Why? Because you need good networking skills, have to be part PR/marketing/sales person and let's say for an introvert these are too big of an obstacle. You have several constrainst, like money and time, so it doesn't really matter how good your product is if you can' bring it to market and inject it into the circulation. The same applies to the person in corpospace. If you don't like to network, brush to higher ups you won't be able to attain your desired position. And maybe these traits are more prevalent in males.

Or maybe it's a bunch of dudes that are looking out for one another in the corporate space. Is it as easy for a woman to crack into a male dominated exec space in a corporate when all the guy execs do is go golfing on the weekends? If people need to take on activities outside of the office in order to "brush to higher ups" that'll eliminate some of the potential employees that could have those exec jobs in the future.

It's similar for people of color. If on average people of my culture don't do something that all the "higher ups" do, then I'm kinda screwed. This is when corporations need to get out of their own "Good Ol' Boys" network and seek the best talent.
 

Keihart

Member
My guess is that sort of game is a nightmare to develop from scratch and most game engines aren't really tailored for it, given how glitchy The Sims game can get. The only game that comes close was that Desperate Housewives game from 2006.
And EA probably patented it to hell.
Animal crossing is literally catering to the same gameplay loop and demographic than the Sims even if superficially different.
There is no mystery in why the last one exploded in sales when the competition is so slim and when the closest thing are some low budget farming sims like the new harvest moons or stardew valley.
 

Keihart

Member
That's for weebs, not women.

Chicks with dicks are not women.
You would be surprised, those games that you call "weeb" are incredible popular among women.
Also, who doesn't watch anime? are you 70? Anime is hardly niche now outside of japan and you don't need to have a katana collection to watch it.

The asian video game market does cater games to girls, unlike the west, they are milking it hard already


BTW, eat your heart out if you think this shit is not making money.

 
Last edited:

Bragr

Member
You sure? So you think women don't play Assassin's Creed now?
Jesus.

It's a different audience, go and ask the Animal Crossing reddit about how much they play Assassins Creed. The Sims and the like attracts a different audience of women, that's the point here. A significant large audience that traditional triple-A games dont.
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
Jesus.

It's a different audience, go and ask the Animal Crossing reddit about how much they play Assassins Creed. The Sims and the like attracts a different audience of women, that's the point here. A significant large audience that traditional triple-A games dont.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I didn't say the Animal Crossing gamers love playing Assassins Creed. I'm saying female gamers aren't limited to ONLY playing Animal Crossing type games. They "ALSO" play games like Assassins Creed, Uncharted, Mass Effect, Fall Out, etc. Sony has already talked about this fact earlier this year with the games they make and have on the PS4\PS5.

To me, it sounds like some of yall are speaking about a niche audience of female gamers that like "specific" games like The Sims and Animal Crossing. If that's the case, then we all need to be specific with whom we are speaking about. Because half the posts in this thread sound like Looney bin crazy people who have never spoken to female gamers in their lives and only live in their basements.
 
Instead of creating new games / movies tailored for the female audience, many companies are attempting to make existing franchises more appealing to women. Inclusivity is the word. Now we have female ghost busters, the force is female, almost all modern BioWare, EA, Ubisoft games. If I listed specific examples I could go on forever as these companies are falling over themselves to pander to this nonsense.

Personally, I despise all of this crap. All the ”changes” to existing well established characters and franchises is nothing but disrespect. They know if they create new games / movies based on the inclusivity agenda they won’t do as well. They don’t want to build new products that succeed on their own merits. That’s because the people they are pandering to just aren’t interested. There’s no problem with that, it’s perfectly fine. Do these people really wanna play COD or Battlefield? Do they really care about Star Wars or the option of playing as a girl in Assassins Creed? The sales numbers just don’t reflect that they care. What really irks me is the tonal shifts as a result of this crap. So many once beloved franchises are now dead to me as they have sold their soul in the hope of appealing to people that will never buy their products.

Its okay to make a game designed to be appealing to men. Its okay to make a game designed to be appealing to women. Some games are appealing to both genders. My point is that not every product should be tailored to everyone. If a franchise is 95% consumed by men then why fuck with it. It’s obvious women just aren’t interested and to make it more appealing to them may just cause the target market to lose interest as well.
 

The_Mike

Member
You would be surprised, those games that you call "weeb" are incredible popular among women.
Also, who doesn't watch anime? are you 70? Anime is hardly niche now outside of japan and you don't need to have a katana collection to watch it.
Aging Matt Damon GIF

I'm 35 though, thanks for asking.

I always hated anime, both when it was niche and more mainstream.

The only anime I like is one punch man. I have a gf that loves anime, seen some of it, hate it.
 

STARSBarry

Gold Member
Sony should bring back Playstation Home.
Honestly I wonder why a big name developer has not taken a crack at this, it seems like an obvious choice.

The closest I know of is Towers Unite (which I have mentioned in this thread as I do indeed bump into a fair few women with mics)


Its just so obviously built by people with a passion but also not well funded so updates are slow, but by damn if the community dousent work with what it's got.

I spend far too much time in the arcade


The thing could be its own game alone.
 
Last edited:

Notabueno

Banned
Ok, so we agree on that factors exist that affect the behavior of a given person. But you cannot remove the context (environment and its factors, genetical differences of a male/female) no matter what. You can skew it to correct its lopsided nature. So what remains if the context has no bias? You are left with the genetical code that governs how we behave etc. So in a sense a woman will always have greater affection towards a child, a human being since she is coded to care/nurture children. Just as a female spider will care its egg sac that holds the many successors, not the male. And maybe this factor makes women more reserved when they see a goal and in order to achieve it they might have to do something (walk through/hurt another person) that inherently goes against their value system. So they will not do it. In certain criminal enterprises women leaders are less prone to violence, more calm and cold headed than males.

So in a sense you have to artificially kneecap the testosterone heavy males (who dominate/sustain these social structures and its rules) in order to give space to women. Or create ones where women doesn't have to act like men to be successful.

"So what remains if the context has no bias?" it is impossible, or you would be talking about an environmental "blank slate" which doesn't exist anymore than a genetic "blank slate".
There is absolutely no proof that woman are or have ever been "coded to care for children", since for example in matrilinear or matriarch societies, or even in some close animal mammals species, it is not the case. Some female spiders, actually eat their eggs if they're unsatisfied or can't care for keeping the eggs, in some other arachnid species, the female flees when she's laid then leaving the males to protect and care for the offspring.

Then you're jumping from the non-substantiated idea that they're coded to a very abstract and unsubstantied "value system". Again, in anthropology, most predominantly Levi-Strauss work or with various historians work, you can tell from different civilisations and tribes that there is nothing "coded" about roles, values or structures (in fact genetics doesn't code for any of that).

You talk about testosterone heavy males and aggressiveness, but nothing in nature makes these males prone to dominate, this is a myth that only exists in cultural depictions of barbarians, tribes or kingdom but not in any actual historical accounts nor even in zoology: for example amongst gorillas (and this is funny since Peterson cited this example from the field of ethology, the study of animal behavior), a male who is too agressive or violent and attempts to take leadership, will very quickly see his genitals ripped or his head bashed by other gorillas because of that, while leadership, which is in fact not singular since, unlike what human naturalists pseudo-scientists have projected on animals, there's never just one "alpha" or even strictly male ones amongst a pack, but several "alphas" that may be male or female that will serve as "leader" in a task or another whether it's hunting, guardkeeping, nurturing, collecting, caring etc...in the social structure.

In human societies, testosterones is nothing to adaptability and intelligence which rarely maps to a particular restricted set of arbitrary values or attitude, and even if advantages profiles in a said society, this says more about how this particular structure or society is set since valued traits or principles would be totally different in another society. What you are describing is an extremely limited derivation from our current conjecture in which, instead of pushing women into deconstructing and emancipating individually through the current societies required normative competitive traits and attitudes (as it was originally the discourse of DeBeauvoir's feminist), we've switched into wanting to defeat legitimately criticisable (because inefficient or suboptimal) "male" attitudes without proposing or rather honestly responsibilising women in the same pursuit, which led to a destructive, counter-productive contradictory neo-feminist mouvement that can only be met with rejection and regression from either "sides" of the debate.
 

Pull n Pray

Banned
I don't know man. I think the strategy of making games that women aren't playing anyways less offensive to angry feminists is working just fine.
 
Top Bottom