The Escapist on Women In Games

The ever interesting Escapist has an entire issue concentrating on women in gaming this week. Particularly informative is a Chris Crawford penned piece on the subject. From the article: "I have long since given up participating in discussions on women in gaming. The games industry is so out of touch, such discussions are a waste of perfectly good electrons. When Microsoft wanted to publicize an event for women at a Game Developers' Conference a few years back, they splashed around banners showing a woman in a low-cut dress. Some people just don't get it."

Comments

I like this...

[Otter]

I have long since given up participating in discussions on women in gaming.

And therefore, I shall now declaim a pompous, long-winded pulled-out-of-my-ass speech on that very same subject, about how evolution has shaped men as a hunters and women as nurturers -- an idea no one has *EVAR* thought of before!

Honestly, we get this story here literally every week. (This is sort-of the second one this afternoon.) Have any of them ever made a single useful point?

What's your point?

[Bogtha]

When Microsoft wanted to publicize an event for women at a Game Developers' Conference a few years back, they splashed around banners showing a woman in a low-cut dress. Some people just don't get it."

Pick up a womens' magazine sometime. What's on the front of it? That's right, a beautiful woman in sexy clothes. Look at television adverts specifically targeting women. What's in them? That's right beautiful women in sexy clothes.

Believe it or not, advertising weenies aren't complete idiots. If you want a high response from men, you use an image of a beautiful woman in sexy clothes, and if you want a high response from women, you use an image of a beautiful woman in sexy clothes too. It's not the advertising weenies' faults that this is what women respond to.

Does it seem like these guys are completely clueless at first glance? Sure. But when you compare it with other markets, and, most importantly, compare it with what works in other markets, it seems not only sane, but the obvious choice.

Re:What's your point?

[screwballicus]

A very important distinction needs to be made between specifically erotic clothing and merely attractive clothing, however. And this is a distinction that straight men frequently miss, because they don't generally have much if any experience trying on, wearing and seeing themselves and other members of their gender in erotic clothing.

Put a women in an attractive evening gown, and both men and women of all sorts will prefer to look at her as opposed to a not equally attractive figure.

But put a women in a thong and fetishistic apparel and you have something quite different. It's the difference between a man in a smart suit on the one hand and a man in a pair of assless chaps, a cowboy hat and leather armbands on the other. The first is attractive, while the latter is overtly erotic. Many men would be uncomfortable dressed in the latter, and many men would have a hard time imagining themselves as being a character dressed in the latter. And men need to grasp this.

Not all characters benefit from being eroticised. It may simply not fit their character at all. And this is a problem in game design presently - sacrificing all believability in the name of exposing skin. And regardless, not everyone wants to look at erotic images constantly whilst gaming.

They could make a version of Hamlet in which the main characters consistently walk around nearly nude, in thongs, bikinis and lingerie. But it wouldn't be very believable. And on the whole, audiences tend to favour believability over eroticism in cinema where the two are in contention. They are not always in contention, by any means. But frequently when they contend against each other in gaming at present, eroticism gets chosen over believability.

Being dressed in erotic clothing feels fundamentally different from being dressed in merely attractive clothing. And playing a character dressed in erotic clothing does similarly, for those who understand that distinction.

Cavemen Did Not Have Gender Roles

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

And therefore, I shall now declaim a pompous, long-winded pulled-out-of-my-ass speech on that very same subject, about how evolution has shaped men as a hunters and women as nurturers -- an idea no one has *EVAR* thought of before!

This idea is one of those great uncontested theories that seems to make sense on first glance, but as soon as you delve into it it quickly falls under its own weight. From TFA:

The biggest difference was men were hunters and women were gatherers. This gender specialization did not arise because of some male conspiracy to dominate women or some other nastiness. It was the natural, inevitable result of a basic physical difference between men and women

What the hell?! Evidence please? Something beyond the musings of scientists raised in a somewhat, shall be say, biased society. Can anyone seriously suggest that half the adult population of a tribe of hungry, on the line, hunter-gatherers simply stayed at home twiddling their thumbs and watching sprogs while the other half actually went out risking life and limb to haul back the meat? You'd have to be born in the Fifties to buy this.

Oh wait. They did do something. They picked berries! That's rich. I can see this state of affairs lasting for about five minutes before someone in group A, the "hunter" group, realises and the majority of group B, the "gather" group, is reaping the benefit of this relationship far more than he.

A word to the wise who hold such unsubstanciated claims. Women have always worked. They have always been breadwinners. OK, there was a decade or two back there in the fifties where times were so good one spouse could afford not to work and stay home minding the kids. I know I would have. But apart from that, you'll find that women's hands have traditionally been just as calloused as everyone elses.

And if you bother to do any research at all, you'll find some of that modern callous is comeing from holding gampads all day.

WTF

[FreakUnique]

OK the person who wrote that article couldn't design if their life depending on it. I've been gaming since I was a very little girl. I'm now 24 and still play games and online games. Most people don't care for the fact that I'm a woman. It's the minority of idiot pre pubescent teens that start the drooling or treating me like an idiot.

I just ignore them. As for the sorts of games that I play I love RPGs, the cute Japanese puzzle games, MMORPGs, Action/adventure, and other puzzle games. I also love games like Mario Kart, Monkey Ball, and Dynasty Warriors. I play games either becuase I love the storyline and gameplay or becuase I can pick them up and have some fun as a means to kill my time.

I'm generally happy out

[MerRua]

I'm generally happy out as a woman gamer. I love RPGs so they are the main thing I play.
I also play other types of games but I devote most of my hours to rpgs.

As long as the clothes and attitudes the women have aren't ridiculous (wearing pieces of string, having to be rescued in a patietic way, signing over the men like a women in a frank miller comic) I have no problem with it.

Exceptions to 'the having to be resuced' are of course Ico. That is truely fantastic. But in Ico it wasnt shoved in your face, she has to be rescued as she is a girl, its simple because they have a good story.

One point however I would like to make is, giving people a female main character option should not mean the same, as giving a faster yet weaker character. It shows a deep lack of orginality, and a lack of considered character design. If you expect me to believe that this character can take a bullet and keep going I'm expecting a least some muscle.

No woman I know fits into this model

[RaggieRags]

What a load of crap.

The writer uses (outdated) information on what we (think) we know about the stone ages, uses it as a model of what is the most appropriate behavior model for both genders, and makes the assumption that us ladies would prefer games that are "interactive soap opera or bodice ripper, presenting the player with complex social problems as she seeks the ideal mate."

*shudder* If this is what "games for women" are supposed to be like, Im glad they dont make them.

Im a woman and I like games. Many of my female friends like games. Nearly all of them have played and enjoyed violent action games. The old fallacy is that women dont play games because they dont find what they want from games. But women do play. Each year there are more and more female gamers, without the help of "girl games". Even the thought of having a "womens game" where you are supposed to "seek your ideal mate" is frankly offensive. Just because women have historically been forced to stay at home and limit our lives to home, doesnt mean that our goals or fantasies cant include anything else. Hey, I want to be a hero, too! I want to kick butt, not socialize. I have all the social problems I want in my real life. Please dont patronize me just because of my gender.