Slashdot Mirror
Are Game Magazines Turning Into Men's Magazines?
KaiEl writes "I was skimming through the latest issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly (April 2004) the other day when I began to notice a recurring theme: pictures of scantily clad women, both virtual and real, kept popping up. Usually it's not surprising to find one or two skimpy outfits in an issue, but this one seemed crawling with them. I decided to chronicle a list of the semi-nudity in a post on my weblog. What does this surplus of sexy pictures say about the direction of the videogame industry? Is it a reaction to the success of 'male' magazines like Maxim and FHM? Is it a reflection of the video game industry's seeming fascination with the barely clothed female form (see: Dead Or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball)? Or am I just a prude who's getting worked up over nothing?"
Know your audience.
I have been pwned because my
"Or am I just a prude who's getting worked up over nothing?"
;)
Considering you chronicled the semi-nudity on your web site, I think you're a smart person who knows that nudity (even the semi kind) will get you a posting on Slashdot and a lot of web traffic to your blog.
And since I seem to be a very early post, I suspect a lot of people are RTFAWSN (Reading the ----ing article with semi-nudity.)
The blog doesn't have any of the pictures from these magazines. Man, what a damn tease. I'm sorry I clicked the link.
The same people who have a ton of money to blow on the endless and for the most part terrible games that the video game industry releases, are also the same people who view the other sex as objects. Why not start "reviewing" women in the magazines as well?
./revolution
I think it reflects that a large part of the audience who grew up with computer games has, er, grown older, and this is the kneejerk reaction of the industry to try to attract them.
Yes.
And DOA:X is actually a rather good 'social game', with some rather fun subgames tacked on, even bar the semi-nudity.
I wonder if the author has looked at much of ANY magazine, TV show or movie in the past 20 years. There isn't much of anything that isn't sold by attatching hot nearly naked women to it. Powertools to alchohol to videogames to vacations in Jamaica- all brought to you by the power of your own biological urges. This is nothing new. Videogames have rounded the bend on graphics enough to give us rendered juggy characters. Entertainment Weekly often has nearly naked women, so does Interview, so does Wallpaper, so does Vogue, so does pretty much any magazine aimed at anyone over pubescent age. Ever wonder why so many "classic" paintings from the renaissance are of nude reclining women?
I just wish that they redid the "Leisure Suit Larry" games with today's graphic capabilities.
"I am not denying the existence of stupidity, or of stupid people." - phyruxus
I think it reflects that a large part of the audience who grew up with computer games has, er, grown older, and this is the kneejerk reaction of the industry to try to attract them.
Um, I don't think the knee is the part of the body being jerked in this case...
GMD
watch this
Or am I just a prude who's getting worked up over nothing?
No, I think you have a valid concern. I can be a porn hound with the best of the them but when I want to read about computer games or car modding it narks me that I'm bombarded with 'glamour' pictures. You should see the shit you get in car modding mags these days.
I think it has as much to do with the sudden power of the editors and other staff members. It's like the sad state that guys go through as soon as they get a bit of money to spend on the art budget. You also see it in music videos. Sad no-name rap group gets told they can spen $X on a video and get some women bumping and grinding, like it's some sort of badge of honour. Gee well, done guys, you got enough $ to hire a pretty girl to stand near you for a change.
If you really want a computer game magazine you should buy Future Publishing's Edge. It's written for and by adults in an adult style and doesn't go for the prurient. Stear clear of the sad wankers because if the need to show you some tits to make you buy their mag then their editorial must be shite.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
...welcome our new Nude overlords.
What can I say, it's been a slow day.
Electronic Gaming Monthly did a poll at least two years ago to find their target audience, and found that it was males between the ages of 17-25 or something like that. They conciously made the move to a more male/sexually-oriented format, and actually told their readers about this. Inspection of other gaming mags will show you that they're not all made this way. Like the first person to comment, they're just knowing their audience. 12 year olds read happy Nintendo Power, and big boys who like their nudity read EGM. It doesn't have much to do with games at all.
However, DOA:X is a good illustration of how the gaming market <i>is</i> becoming more sexually oriented. Mmmm....decline of society...
Or am I just a prude who's getting worked up over nothing?
It depends on what, in particular, about the images of scantily clad women got you worked up. If you were just annoyed because you felt that you paid for a gaming magazine and got something else, then, no, you aren't a prude. Nor are you a prude if you were annoyed that the magazine publisher basically ignored their female readers. On the other hand, if you were upset that a semi-nude female form was in plain view, then, yes, you are a prude.
Ironically, I have to wonder if the reason for the phenomenon you point out is prudishness. Think about the absurdity of the U.S. Senate holding hearings because a breast (with the nipple covered) was shown on network television. People in Europe must think that Americans are complete, sexually-repressed, idiots. And it may be the "forbidden" nature of sex in the U.S. that makes pseudo porn (the images you mentioned, FHM, Maxim, etc.) so appealing. If U.S. beaches were topless and network television showed nudity, how much of a draw would it be to put images of "hot babes" in gaming magazines?
The problems with all the emphasis on sex in video games is that makes them 1) less likely to be allowed by Mom and 2) less appealing to female gamers.
I stopped getting video game magazines when I realized that every issue had a partially revealed hottie on either the front or the back cover. I couldn't even leave the magazines lying around.
Eventually, the hobby will mature enough to support videogame magazines aimed at different markets: young videogamers, female videogamers, mature videogamers, and (the largest segment) horny young male videogamers. For now, though, it's just that last group being served.
You need only to look at the about page for G4TV to understand what video game press is geared towards. The only missing word is male, but being that obvious would get them into a lot of trouble. Watch the channel and you will know that the word 'male' is implied. Had they include both genders, you wouldn't have shows that feature titles such as graphic adventures which have a higher gender mix than other titles.
/. post, I don't feel I need to be too detailed.
Right now the industry is approching a crossroads. Had I have time to be detailed, I would make certain paralles with electrionic gaming and early history of the film industry where the market wasn't realized until after the Hollywood monoploies were broken. Since this is a
What I will say is the industry is at a point for easy money makers, similar to the 30's and 40's for film that the B-film was made for. Churn them out, get high returns with low investment. You can make a very sucessful title that for a general audience that will make mad-money (IE: The Sims, Myst, Flight Simulator), but these titles appear to be hard to make sucessful. So, we get tons of product that fits in the easy market: 12 to 34 male.
AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
Nvidia Elf
pictures of scantily clad women, both virtual and real, kept popping up.
I noticed exactly the same thing.
I used to be a subscriber to EGM, but I eventually dropped the subscription because I felt it was taking unfair advantage of the ease with which my hormones are manipulated by random people. It seemed they were beginning to shove out the real gaming-related stuff in favor of more "lowest common denominator" stuff - such as images of the female form in various stages of undress, and I just decided I wasn't getting what I was paying for anymore, so I quit paying. ;)
The EGM article unambiguously exemplies the sexual objectification of women. What I find particularly disturbing are the invasive and almost abusive questions asked in the EGM America's Sexiest Gamer article. For example, in the article the interviewer asks "What's the best game to use as foreplay?", "What's your favorite position...to play games in?", and "Are vibrating controllers sexy?". Based on her asexual responses, I would be willing to argue that the sexual nature of the line of questioning was nonconsensual.
I submit that you are not prude, rather I believe you are simply taking offense at the blatant objectification.
Michael.
Linux : Mac
Except Next Generation had, as I remember, _laminated_ covers. I remember accidentally knocking a drink onto one and being pissed that I wrecked it, when it just needed to be wiped off. They had plans, I know they did. ;)
I wish I hadn't thrown away my issues, that was a fun point in time, gaming-wise.
Buddha says, "Shut your karma hole."
Most of the womens magazines are just like this too. Full of skimpily clad supermodels. The difference is they are also full of articles telling women how imperfect they are physically and why they *could* achieve a perfect body if only they weren't so lazy.
At least the ones targetted at men usually have articles about cars or sport or computer games.
- MugginsM
Ignoring the whole issue of whether it's ethical or not to objectify someone...can anyone really enjoy these? I mean, don't get me wrong. I like looking at good-looking underdressed girls as much as the next guy. However, isn't there a point where reading the article, you start to feel silly just because the marketing involved is *so* blatant? I mean, how can you *read* those without looking at yourself and saying "what am I *doing* reading this?"
Besides, it's not as if anyone who wants porn can't get it. Frankly, given the Internet, it's probably quite possible to obtain porn faster than you can conceivably look at it. Why bother with some random half-assed sexual innuendo in a gaming magazine?
May we never see th
You know, I hear a lot about sexual objectification coming from women's advocacy groups.
However, my guess is that sexual objectification is a pretty much necessary result of the fact that content related to sexuality is frequently suppressed. Public nudity is not okay. Social norms reduce the degree to which men and women expose flesh. Sexual activity is something done strictly in private. Society goes to incredible lengths to try and delay knowledge children learn of sexual activity.
There are two reasons I can think of for producing such an environment. The first would be to the benefit of males -- avoiding a "cuckoo's egg" situation. Men do not want their wives fooling around when they might have to expend lots of resources raising a baby that might not contain their genetic material. Anything to avoid that situation is good. The second, and I think the more predominant, is to the benefit of females -- decreasing the availability of content relating to sexuality increases the bargaining value of each female's sexuality. This is not the '40s, and emphasis on women marrying to reach a certain economic point is not what it used to be, but it is still definitely an element of society -- I remember reading a study finding that women placed much more emphasis on the economic and other practical state of a potential spouse than men did. To some extent, I think that one could say that the sexual objectification of women is an artifact of a social phenomenen that (whether women were "responsible" for it or not) primarily benefits females.
May we never see th
games are good. hot chicks are good. if you can combine them both, thats great. dont start that shit with us. youll alert stupid concerned groups that are getting bored with manhunt and vice city.
Steak is good.
Chocolate is good.
If you can combine them both, that's not good.
I don't think people are interested so much in *censoring* magazines as they are in not funding content that really isn't what they're interested in. If the person reading the magazine is a heterosexual female, a homosexual male, or someone that's gettign a sufficient amount of sexual activity in their lives, they may not be *interested* in funding and paging through a bunch of stuff that's really....pretty stupid except for the sexual content. "What's your favorite position when playing video games?" I mean, come on. That's *stupid*, unless you're looking for the sexual titillation from reading some words that some attractive girl spoke. From the complainant's point of view, it's as if there was a ten page interview with the Teletubbies inserted right into the middle of your favorite magazine. You just don't *care* about the content, and you'd feel a little silly reading it.
The same thing is the reason why you're going to have a hard time finding someone wanting to watch a porn flick if they aren't interested in the sexual content. Sure, you could *make* a masterful adult film, where sex plays a significant and real role in the plot and is balanced with all other elements. You could make a "Saving Private Ryan" or "Shawshank Redepmption" and include adult material. The problem is that usually, when content producers get the opportunity to use sexually charged content, their ability to make the content solid in other ways goes right out the window.
I think the biggest problem is that gaming magazines are not doing a good job of identifying themselves to their proper audiences. It would be *much* better if, instead of battling in the same arena, game magazines could effectively "split up" the market. As someone else pointed out, Nintendo Power (hold the criticisms of the magazine for a moment, please) aims at the young market, and EGM aims at the male teen market. What if you want to *make* a magazine aimed at a different market. Do *you* know of one? Well, there's probably some kind of strategy gaming magazine, and that might reach a different demographic, but basically some magazine needs to come along and say "we aren't aiming to produce a sexually charged magazine".
If I were EGM, I'd make a deal with another magazine to recommend other magazines in each issue (recommended for ages 8-14 Nintendo players, recommended for males ages 14-25, recommended for ages 25+, etc) based on a couple of simple demographics. These magazines would, in turn, recommend EGM using the same set of demographics. Readers would tend to go towards the magazine best-suited to them, and there'd be fewer complaints.
May we never see th
What surprised me, more than anything, were the reactions on Slashdot. Some were comparing the situation to a televisual 'Goatse' -- though in my opinion there is a bit of difference between being taking by surprised by a gaping anus and by a breast (with a sun around the nipple, goddamit!). I don't know if the same numbers apply to the USA, but over here most boys have seen a pornographic film by the age of around 8. I just do not see how seeing a breast on television could be so shocking. Anyway, isn't the Superbowl broadcast in the evening in America? Shouldn't kids who aren't old enough to have seen a pornographic flm yet have been in bed already?
So, to say it frankly, it is true that most French people think of you Americans not only as warmongers but also as prude maniacs. Though you say this could be the general opinion throughout Europe, I beleive that the United Kingdom does have a lower tolerance of what appears on television than in France or in Germany. In the United Kingdom, the "F word" is censored even at 10 PM, whereas in France we are allowed to hear it as soon as 5 - 6 PM. That is one of the aspects of our liberal censorship policy that I like less of, as I do feel there should be certain regulations to protect what our children car hear on daytime television. I'm 13 and I swear constantly, but perhaps my language would be more elegant had the television not repeated some language so much.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -- Linus Torval
Most of these comments are missing the point. If you take a look at the magazine industry, Maxim, a newcomer to the scene, went from 0 to a 6 million circulation per issue in roughly 7 years... this = lots of profit. EGM and Game Pro on the other hand have about 700,000 circulation per issue. EGM has been around for 15 years and the has less than 1/6th the circulation of a magazine that is less than half its age. This equals significantly less profit. Now, the brilliant minds over there probably took note of the meteoric success of Maxim and its ilk, looked at the demographics and saw a pattern, i.e... most people who buy Maxim are in the same demo as the people who buy their magazine. If they make it more like Maxim then perhpas they can get a piece of the 5.3 million more readers Maxim has. This equals more profit. End result, EGM looks more like Maxim. The net effect maybe that hardcore gamers are alienated by the more Maxim like coverage; however, this positions the magazine For the maxim crowd.
The other misconception here is that games are a male dominated industry, if you take a look at the sales numbers you will see that the top selling game is the Sims. The Sims, sells predominately to a female audience at roughly 70 to 30 split. While Killathon 3 , may get more hype, make no mistake, as games move towards the mainstream, there are and more women gamers. Make no mistake, there isn't a major publisher out there who isn't working on a strategy for women. Industry wise games have to go down that road otherwise they risk imploding and having what happened to the comic industry happening to them.
In the end the Maxim-ization of EGM not only does a disservice to the industry but to the gamers who got them where they are today as well as the women audience who are expanding the market. EGM should focus on what it does best, cover games, rather than chase a subscriber base that belongs to someone else.
I agree with most of what you said, but if the broadcast bare breast that you are referring to is the Janet Jackson breast, the nipple was NOT covered. Her nipple(s?) is/are pierced and what you saw was a stylized "sun" that was held in place by the bar through the nipple. And the nipple is clearly seen sticking out in the center of the "sun." So for all tends and purposes, the breast was fully exposed. I personally wish that more breasts were broadcast, but the US is too much of a prudish nation to allow that to happen.
NarratorDan
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
Today I cancel my subscription to PC Pro.
Its a clean UK magazine tarnished only slightly by the odd graphics card advert but this month it comes with a flyer for a "Mens Magazine" complete with samples of the kinds of pictures I can get.
Well d*rn, I dont buy mens magazines cos I don't want my mind tarnished by the decietful images, and I don't buy deceitful magazines that try to tarnish my mind on the sly like PC Pro.
I doubt PC Pro will miss my single subscription fee, but I won't miss PC Pro. I own my mind and I try to control what goes into it.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Unfortunately, this year, we had commercials that warn about four hour erections and Janet's boob. (Personally, I didn't need the former and preferred the latter).
I disagree. I could do a lot more with a 4-hour erection than I could with Janet Jackson's boob.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
I don't know if the same numbers apply to the USA, but over here most boys have seen a pornographic film by the age of around 8.
Perhaps this is the crux of the issue. Most boys in the US grow to be 13 or 14 before seeing a pornographic film... although it depends on what you mean by pornographic. Some people define it as simply seeing the full frontal nudity of a member of the opposite sex. Others define it as seeing 2 people engaging in sexually explicit activity (to be blunt, when you see the penis penetrate the vagina, for instance). For the former, I'd say 8-10, but 13-15 for the latter.
Americans, in general, are more prudish than Europeans. I personally see this as both a positive and a negative. It's a positive because it seems to be working. More married couples now are staying together rather than getting divorced, teenage pregnancy is decreasing, drug use is down, average income is up, unemployment is low (compared to most European countries), etc. It's a negative because I feel it's one of the primary issues that segregates America from the rest of the world. Perhaps if we didn't censor the F word on TV, or allowed topless beaches, we wouldn't have quite as many differences between living here and living in Europe.
Regardless, parents in the US are more overprotective of their children than any other country that I can think of. They've passed laws to stop all lanes of traffic when a school bus turns on its flashing lights, for instance. One of the aspects of this overprotectiveness is wanting to protect the children from the "evils" of sexuality... thus, the Super Bowl incident.
If it helps to understand, Americans aren't only overprotective of children. In fact, they're overprotective of everyone, and everything. The main theme seems to be "I know what's best for you better than you do." Ironically, while America is supposed to be the bastion of freedom in the world, this idea of protecting everyone else from themselves is the complete polar opposite of freedom. To protect someone, you do so by placing restrictions on them... thereby destroying the concept of freedom.
Sadly, I don't think there's a good example of a country that has it right yet. America is too prudish, while other countries place restrictions in other ways... like increasing tax rates for different salaries, or prefering one group of people to another. Hopefully, in the future, we can create a world where each of us has true freedom... I doubt it though.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Americans, in general, are more prudish than Europeans. I personally see this as both a positive and a negative. It's a positive because it seems to be working. More married couples now are staying together rather than getting divorced, teenage pregnancy is decreasing, drug use is down, average income is up, unemployment is low (compared to most European countries), etc.
Whoa! The divorce rate is higher in the U.S. than any major European country. It's almost double the rate of Denmark and Sweden, both of which are among the most sexually open countries in the civilized world. We have a drastically higher incidence of rape in the U.S. as well as a much higher incidence of murder. Our teen pregnancy rate is far higher than that of most European nations.
As to the economics, have you seen *any* reputable studies which show a correlation between repressing sexuality and income or employment? (Okay, if some guy spends 9 hours per day yanking himself off while looking at porn, then, yes, it probably will affect his income and employment. But that's an extreme.) But having an exposed breast on TV during a shampoo commercial or a half-time show? Just what effect would airing such material have on the GNP?
If the ad's are the primary source of the scantily clad images of women, then its a big nothing.
Now, if EGM starts to run editorials about how to score with such women, then its time to reconsider why you buy that magazine.
END COMMUNCATION