Vespabros wrote:Endoperez wrote:Game prices seem to be going down - full 50-60$ titles aren't as dominant as they used to be.
Nope:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/2010 ... -industry/
"The statistic contains data on the total retail revenue of the U.S. video game industry. In February 2014, the revenue in the United States amounted to 887 million U.S. dollars. In comparison to January 2013, the revenue grew by nine percent."
It seems to me the industry is making money just fine doing what they're doing.
From your article:
"The figures presented above clearly show that gaming is in an advanced stated of digitization. Sales revenue generated by the physical retail channel contracted by 25 percent between May 2012 and May 2013, from 517 million U.S. dollars to 386 million. Both hardware and software sales lost 31 percent of their worth."
http://gearnuke.com/pc-dominates-market ... ew-report/
"PC dominates market with 51%, Console at 30% and Mobile at 13%, according to new report"
"According to this report, in 2008, consoles were leading the industry with about 42% user share, PCs at 37% and mobiles at just 5%. Seems like the tables have turned now as more users are turning towards PC and Mobile. While it is true that the numbers of gamers have also increased exponentially, the increase is happening mostly in PC or Mobile market share."
What the industry is doing right now isn't what it was doing 6 years ago, and it's changed from what it was just few years back.
Things CHANGE. Game industry has increased its revenue by increasing the number of gamers (exponentially, as noted in the latter article), which is what I claimed they are doing.
Also, your claim was "Again, from a business POV, there would be labor and money used to make games targeted for the female demographic,"
How about this then?
http://www.dailydot.com/geek/adult-wome ... mographic/
"Women over 18 made up a whopping 36 percent of the gaming population, followed by adult men at 35 percent."
Women who consider themselves gamers spend just as much as men who consider themselves gamers:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... s-men.html
Note that these two data points are from different studies. I'm
not claiming that the 36% demographic is "adult women who consider themselves gamers". However, it's still disingenuous to claim that there's no way for money to be made from games for the female demographic.
Endoperez wrote:No, I actually meant a direct comparison - if you make a female character of any sort, a well-written female character is better than a badly written cardboard cutout of a female character.
That applies to any character
Exactly. If women characters are endemically worse than men, then they should be improved. There's no golden rule to make a perfect character, so it's impossible to measure if one character is better than another (as you can see from every 'X is better than Y' argument ever), but you can look at various characteristics and measure those characteristics between different characters. When you compare many female characters to many male characters, certain trends appear.
After doing this, you can make specific claims about those trends, such as: pink color is specifically used to denote female or feminine characters. In many games there's a single "token" female, who is defined by her gender (pink + ribbons + cute), while male characters are defined by their role (fighter, smart, shy, strong, weak).
You can use the exact same process to claim that specific characteristics are common when designing male characters (e.g. olympian physique of perfect muscles). Strong, well-muscles, hits things, likes hitting things... that's a cardboard cutout. Adding something that breaks stereotypes attached to that archetype makes the character more interesting.
If you rely ONLY on these traits to make a character, it becomes a cardboard cutout. It has no identity, just traits you've already seen numerous times. Understanding the common pitfalls might help you think BEYOND these, well, tropes.
Endoperez wrote:What is "this situation" for which you are making the analogy?
Bayonetta 2.
So in your opinion, a better answer to this question (in regards to Bayonetta 2's reviewer pointing out that the game's main character is sexual and occassionally nearly naked);
"Why do people expect that games, made by men, predominantly for men, should represent women properly in games? Men don't identify with women."
would be this:
"Imagine if all the female characters in world of warcraft had disproportionate over sexualized chests"
I don't get it. Are you saying that we should expect huge sexualized boobies in games because men like boobies?
Endoperez wrote:So because Cosmopolitan and Vanity fair sell well, there's no money to be made in magazines for men?
No, just much less. If you look at Wikipedias US list of magazines by circulation (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... ted_States) You'll notice that the first magazine targeted specifically towards men is in 37th place, "Men's health". You could argue that "American Rifleman" is targeted at just men, but even that comes in 23rd place.
Yup, seems like you're right. I'm surprised by two things:
1) There's a huge demand for "women's magazines" but very few similar products aimed at men; instead men get hobby magazines which are at least theoretically aimed at hobbyists of both genders.
2) Game Informer is really big.
Endoperez wrote:Gaming industry has been specifically marketed towards boys and men for a long, long time, and marketing people know how to influence people.
I disagree. The gaming industry has tried to make games with girls in mind for years, they just usually never are a success.
The article I posted disagrees. A few games, yes, absolutely, and even specific genres (like karaoke games) - but games
as a hobby has been pushed towards boys and men.
In fact, I'd say the basic game controller with two thumbsticks etc. has always been associated with a male gamer, but some games have had success with different controllers. That's just a random idea popped to my mind, so don't take it as a fact.
This is probably because they get it all wrong because when a man tries to make a game for a woman he obviously gets it all wrong. There needs to be more women in the gaming industry if you want a balance, that's just how it is. We also need to break the girly stereo-type if we're making a game for girls. As Lauren Faust once said: "Cartoons for girls don't have to be a puddle of smooshy, cutesy-wootsy, goody-two-shoeness. Girls like stories with real conflict; girls are smart enough to understand complex plots; girls aren't as easily frightened as everyone seems to think."
I think we need a Lauren Faust in the gaming industry
Yes, exactly!
Perhaps after she's done with the analysis of the video game market at large, Anita Sarkeesian could make a few videos that analyze the character tropes in the pink ghetto of girl-games.
Here's a funny site that demonstrates the difference in toy marketing, related but distinct from video game marketing:
http://www.genderremixer.com/html5/#
Endoperez wrote:"Like the cover of the game PhotoBarbarian, which featured a scantily clad, buxom woman at the feet of a barely clothed man."
I so agree, there is a
huge misrepresentation of gender here.
I mean,
look at his muscles, not all men are like that! Look at his tan skin, the grimace on his face...ugh #privilege
"Why are we talking about games when there's bigger problems out there!"
You're dodging one problem, the fact that the woman does nothing and is just background decoration and a prize, by pointing out at another, the impossible beauty ideal.
They're both problems, both should be addressed, and... well. You know which group has VERY much experience talking against harmful body images (especially in products targeted towards kids)? Feminists.
Likewise, it's ridiculous to demand and entire industry to suddenly have to always represent women correctly in games OR ELSE!
Seems like we're mostly in agreement here too, then. Having more women in game industry is helpful if you want to make games for women. It's not a requirement though, my 3D teacher told the company he worked at made a Barbie license game, something about ponies IIRC. The company was a normal indie, and he says they were actually rather proud of the end product.
One thing I vehemently disagree on is that claim I quoted. You know what that "OR ELSE" is? It's "Or else I'm not happy and will say it aloud."
It's ridiculous to demand an entire industry to include Oculus Rift support in every game OR ELSE (OcuRift early adapters won't have much to play)!
It's ridiculous to demand your burger is ready in three minutes OR ELSE (I will shout)!
It's ridiculous to demand to be taken seriously OR ELSE (I will write an angry facebook post)!
Where is this mythical feminist who threatens to destroy games unless her demands are met? I've only seen feminists who tell what they want, and who threaten to
keep speaking until something changes.
Speaking your mind isn't exactly a crime... I mean, it can be super annoying, and it's actually rather hard to ignore someone who's speaking in the same (virtual) space you spend time in... but so what? I personally find PhoenixWarrior annoying and some of his claims ridiculous.