|
Friday, May 30, 2008
Video Games: They're Coming for Your Man
 If there's one thing we're all aware of, it's how much the media hates video games. Sure, there is the occasional praise-worthy article, but these are merely small islands in a vast ocean of disdain. The media has portrayed video games as mind-rotting, youth-corrupting harbingers of the apocalypse, which I've covered in some detail in the past, but there is another threat that video games pose to humanity; yes, one that targets the very fiber of our being. Video games tear relationships apart. Do a simple Google search of the keywords "video games relationship," and you'll be faced with a wall of links deploring how the hubby won't get off the X-Box and ways to rescue him from the dark clutches of those "stupid games." Link after link, websites spread the tale of soul-sucking consoles and how, if you don't watch out, your husband will be next, chickie. Video games are the reason you can't spend time with your significant other, and it is your job to save him. As with the old Harbingers of the Apocalypse deal, video games are nothing more than the most recent scapegoat in a long history of excuses--in this case, for poor relationships (see also: sporting events, other "male-centric" hobbies). Never is it that the husband must take responsibility for his neglect; rather, it's solely up to the wife to save him in some way and reunite the couple, whether it's seduction, force, or a healthy dose of If You Can't Beat 'em, Join 'em. After all, those poor men don't realize what they're doing, right? They should be taken care of. Which: no. Hubby knows exactly what he's doing, just like when he spends all night at the bar or with his friends. The relationship is not faring well, and he's wanting out. If he doesn't want to stick around and make an effort himself to spent time with you, then it's time you jumped ship too. This is exactly why Rachel Shukart's article at Salon.com is so very hard to read. The article depicts how Shukart's marriage has reached the darkest depths of despair--thanks in large part to her husband's love of video games. After her attempts to get his attention fail (which include screaming at and flashing him), there seems to be no hope to reconcile their relationship until Rock Band enters the scene. She plays it with him, and bam! Relationship all better. "But Plasma!" you say, "you just spent three paragraphs saying the media blames video games for tearing people apart! Rock Band brought them together!" Yes, niggling voice, Shukart does thank Rock Band for saving her marriage. So what's the problem? Shukart joined her husband in an activity that he enjoys, rather than the both of them choosing a separate activity they both would. Granted, she did starting liking Rock Band when she played it, but women in our society are so often encouraged to get interested in their husband's hobbies rather than vice versa--or, heaven forbid, find something they both like. What's more, Rock Band can only be a bandage over the real relationship problems they're having, and without any active work from both of them, it's only a matter of time before they're fighting over the instrument controllers in divorce court. I understand that a lot of this article was probably exaggerated for humor, but, and this may just be me, that tactic only works when the end result is funny. The end result in this article however, was a grand cornucopia of stereotypes--desperate, nagging woman reconciles relationship with slovenly man-child by chilling out and doing what he enjoys. And that leaves one hell of a bad taste in my mouth. Plenty of feminist blogs have covered this article and why it rubs them the wrong way, too. Read what they have to say at Feministe, Feminist Gamers, and Pandagon. Each blog provides some great analysis, so check them out! Labels: In the News, PlasmaRit
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sony, Hire New Staff
What exactly are you selling?  I would be pretty surprised if you hadn’t heard of Sony’s latest advertisement for the PS3. I first saw it a little while back on GayGamer.net, but it’s also on other sites like Joystiq if you care to check out the NSFW disclosures of the whole image. The advertisement was featured in an Austrian Playboy magazine and quickly spread across the net. In it, a mostly-nude young man is reclining in the dark, and his penis has been replaced with a thumb. The forgettable, small words “Playstation 3” are shoved into the lower left-hand corner of the page. It makes me wonder what Sony is getting at. Their advertising company made some pretty interesting choices with this one: 1. The Thumb-Penis: Without a doubt, I can see that thumbs are relevant to gaming. I suppose it’s not revolutionary for advertisers to tie products to sex, but this is off-putting. It’s not exactly desirable. I’m curious what kind of image they might have created if they decided to apply the same sort of theme to a woman. That leads to: 2. The Niche: I’m sure there are lots of guys who subscribe to Playboy and play video games. I’m just surprised that Sony chose to use a nude male in an advertisement they placed in a pornographic publication for straight men. I don’t think the subject stopped any straight guys from looking him over (either in curiosity or jealousy), but with the rather subtle photo editing that went on here, it’s hard to tell it’s a thumb instead of a penis. To be honest, I probably would’ve just thought he had a weird shape if I hadn’t read the accompanying article. 3. The Logo: The fact that this is an advertisement for the PS3 is pretty easy to miss—the words “Playstation 3” can’t be more than a size twelve font. Their placement underneath the guy also makes lookin' at his phalange pretty much unavoidable. The way the page is laid out, your eye naturally flows from the top to the bottom of the page, but the creepiness factor is definitely distracting. It leaves me with a bit of confusion about the product. What exactly am I being sold? 4. The Message: It doesn’t give me any positive feelings about the product. Think about other ads you’ve seen: “Wild-Duck Burgers will make you and your family deliriously happy as you enjoy a meal together without fighting for the first time in months,” or “With these shoes, you can play basketball like a star, run the 5K with ease, or crush mountains with your incredible sense of style.” In this ad, there doesn’t seem to be any psychological benefits attached to the system. If thumb-penis is what having a PS3 means, I’m pretty sure I can do without. I’d rather see the exciting times I’ll have playing all the sweet new games on the system! Sony’s done some pretty strange things in its campaign to sell the PS3 (remember the baby commercial?), and it makes me wonder what horrors they’ve yet to unleash. I suppose the ad has done it’s job in a way, though. Folks everywhere are talking about the PS3. The problem is that I’m not sure Sony can distinguish between good and bad publicity. At it’s very best, this ad could be an attempt to satirize sexualized video game advertisements that attach controllers to women or cover up their lady-parts with screen captures from games ("With graphics like these, you won't notice anything else!"). At it's worst, it's an exploitation of the male form. More than likely, however, it was the product of some loopy counselors who have no concept of how to make a relevant advertisement. Labels: Advertising, Calabar, In the News
Friday, April 11, 2008
Asperger's and "Video Game Addiction"
 A recent study conducted has concluded that those players with signs of "video game addiction" have symptoms similar to those with Asperger's Syndrome, a mild form of autism. This study comes to us from the psychology professors Drs. John Charlton and Ian Danforth, who presented their findings at the British Psychological Society's Annual conference on April 3, 2008. Naturally, I am skeptical of most studies conducted about video games, so it's important to get to the bare bones of each one that crops up. Why don't we filter this study through my patented GitM Study Bullshit Filter: Who were the Subjects? Charlton and Danforth used a total of 391 subjects, 86% of whom were male. They are also identified as "computer game players," but that's pretty much it. There is no indication of an age bracket or any other description of these people. While the size of the subject pool is better than a lot of studies I've seen concerning video games, it's still not large enough to justify any findings, in my opinion. What was the Equipment? None of the article's I've perused about this study mention any of the equipment Charlton and Danforth used. As far as I could tell, the study was either an interview or a survey, as the subjects were "questioned." There is also no mention of what those questions were, only that said questions were asked to determine whether these subjects showed any degree of "video game addiction," and the relationships between said addiction, "high engagement, and personality." What was the Subjects' Task? Considering this study was not an experiment but rather an interview/survey, the subjects only had to answer questions. As for how many, there's no way to tell in the article; it focuses much more of its attention on the results found rather than the process of the study itself. What are the Results? Charlton and Danforth claim that the data they found "supports the idea that people who are heavily involved in game playing may be nearer to autistic spectrum disorders than people who have no interest in gaming." They also note that those subjects found to have symptoms of "video game addiction" do not themselves have Asperger's, but that they share similar traits, such as "finding it easier to empathize with computer systems than other people." What was the Point? Honestly, there really doesn't seem to be--didn't we already know that people who spend a gross amount of time playing video games aren't socially savvy? First of all, the idea of "video game addiction" has not been accepted as a real disorder, so the basis of the study itself is unfounded. Second, Charlton and Danforth made no definitive link between video game addiction and Asperger's, even stating in the article itself that none of their subjects fit the criterion for diagnosis of Asperger's. The only reason for the existence of this study that I can see is to stigmatize video games even more now that other studies are dispelling the link between video games and violent behavior. This study seems to imply that playing more video games will give you Asperger's. It doesn't even entertain the idea that, maybe, those people will Asperger's-like symptoms are attracted to not only video games but other forms of entertainment that don't involve direct human interaction. Overall, Charlton and Danforth's study told us nothing new about video games and sure as hell won't cause me to lose any sleep. Labels: In the News, PlasmaRit
Friday, February 29, 2008
I Can End Discrimination
 Browsing through GamePolitics, I read an article about a unique PC game called ICED, or "I Can End Deportation." Created by the human rights organization Breakthrough, the game is meant to "spark dialogue and create awareness of unfair U.S. immigration laws on detention and deportation." In the game, players follow the life of one of five teenage immigrants as they are pursued by U.S. immigration officers. The object of the game is to avoid being deported and become a full citizen of the United States. I read through Dennis's post excited to see that such a game had been created; even better, it's available for free download on the Breathrough website. Aimed at high school and college students, ICED is providing a valuable source of information for those who may not be aware of the problems immigrants face in America. ICED has already faced scathing attacks in the media, such as on the website InfoWars: "An Indian woman, Mallika Dutt, has released a video game that essentially trains illegal aliens how to sneak across the border and avoid border patrol agents and cops… As the average Mexican or Latin American does not have access to a video game console, let alone a television, the game is more practically geared toward an effort to inculcate middle class Americans into the belief that illegal immigration is a human rights issue, never mind open borders and the influx of third world people is a globalist plot to turn the United States, soon to become part of a North American Union, into a feudal slave labor gulag based on the China model. It has absolutely nothing to do with human rights." The paranoia, the stereotyping, the viciousness of the post is staggering. Even more alarming, several comments on GamePolitics's post about ICED are not much better:"I’ll consider this once the immigration officers are playable. Immigrant youth need savage beatings." "That sounds like a very stupid game If you’re not a citizen of the US, come here legally and wait 7 years and then you can become a citizen, it’s not that hard. If you come here illegally, then you should be beaten or deported immediately." “Whats next a game where u play as an al-qaeda member in america and u can kill americans? "It's obvious what all of these people have in common: they simply can't read. ICED is not about illegal immigrants, and the game has nothing to do with sneaking across the border. The focus of the game is how fucked-up immigration laws can kick an immigrant out of the country for practically no reason, illegally here or not. Playing the game or even reading the post completely would tell you that. Comments like the ones above prove how important a game like this is in our judgmental society--the very word "immigrant" can send the masses foaming at the mouth in hatred, and the vitriol practically spills out of the computer screen. Access to information is vital if we can make any kind of change, and I think this game is a very important step in that direction. Immigrants (especially illegal ones) have nearly no voice, and they deserve to be heard. Read GamePolitics' follow up article for Dutt's amazing response to InfoWars. Labels: Getting it Right, In the News, PlasmaRit, Race Issues, Stereotypes
Friday, February 15, 2008
Pseudoscience Strikes Again: It's Biological!
 GamePolitics has found another wonderful study that pseudoscience-loving types will eat right up: that men are more likely to become addicted to video games than women are. Through a "first-of-its-kind imaging study," these scientists have found that the reward-portion of the brain typically associated with addiction activated more in male subjects than female subjects while playing a video game. According to Dr. Fumiko Hayft, "this may explain why boys and men are more attracted to video games than girls or women." Imaging study, you say? The men's brains lit up more than the women's? I don't need more information than that--after all, those smart scientists know what they're doing. That's all I need to hear! Why, it's bullet-proof! Did you see that? I just visited the minds of all the people who are convinced by this article. So many folks assume that, because the study was conducted by smarty-pants scientists, they don't need the details of the study to trust that it's true. This type of thinking is flat-out wrong, and trusting swiss-cheese studies like this one can become very dangerous. Why don't we take a closer look at this "study": Who were the Subjects? The study consisted of male and female subjects. And that's pretty much all we know. Aren't there important details about these subjects that we should know? What about if they've played video games before? And if they have, how often? Hell, how many subjects participated in this milestone of a study? What was the Equipment? According to the article, scientists had an unspecified amount of men and women play a game while hooked into . . . something that shows brain images. What kind of brain-imager? Are we talking about an EEG, an MRI, an fMRI? One can only assume that, because it isolates specific images of the brain, it's probably an MRI or fMRI. While not a huge problem for the less neuroscience-savvy among us, this detail would have still been useful. What was the Subjects' Task? Anyway, the subjects played a game. What kind of game was it? After all, if the study plans on using just one game to represent all of video gaming, this element should be important. While the news report does not specify the game (although it was a PC game), the "implicit" goal of the game was to "gain more territory," which the male subjects "were able to learn faster and eventually gain more territory than females," which was apparently factored into overall attraction to the game itself. As a reader of this blog, I'm sure you're aware that there is a huge variety of video games out there, and a single PC game about gaining territory will probably not cover all addictive elements of video games in general. The focus of rewarding, enjoyable behavior in this study is mind-numbingly narrow--and stinks of the Western perspective of victory. What about the subjects who would rather explore the area. As I mentioned before, the subjects were not explicitly told that the goal of the game was to conquer. Personally, if I were told to play a game without any clear goals, I would run around and explore as much as possible--something I find really enjoyable when I play video games. I'd begrudgingly get to conquering when I had nowhere else to go. What are the Results? Hayft bases her conclusions on the results received from the mysterious brain imaging, which showed that "the part of the brain that generates rewarding feelings is more active in men than women during video game play." This part of the brain, according to her, "[overlaps] with the regions that are related to addiction." Are we really basing our conclusions off of this finding? That the pleasure part of the brain that is related to addiction is activated? I would like to see an example of someone engaging in an activity they find pleasurable that stimulates the brain in an area not related to addiction. Just because an area related to addiction is stimulated in the brain does not an addiction make--hell, I'm sure that part of my brain is activated when I chow down on fried eggs. I freaking love fried eggs, but I'm not addicted to them. What's more, Hayft conducted no follow-up sessions with these subjects to see if they were jonesin' for more of this game or any other video game-playing. This is no evidence to connect a specific sex with more of a predisposition for addiction to video games than the other. What was the Point? Seriously, what good could this study have done to society? It's nothing more than an attempt to back up the sexist notion that boys like video games more than girls with biological "proof." The celestial teapot has more proof than this study. Labels: In the News, PlasmaRit, Stereotypes
Friday, February 8, 2008
Aggression Toward Video Games
 A couple of months ago I talked about my belief that video games are scapegoated by the media as the downfall of our generation. Through KillerBetties I found the blog of a licensed psychologist who agrees with me: In 1955, the U.S. Senate blasted comic books, deploring their depiction of every horrible thing from murder to cannibalism ... Half a century later, violent video games are the comic books of our day. Gaskill and Verhaagen are absolutely right to compare comic books in the 1950s to video games today. With every new generation, some new form of entertainment is the source of society's doom and inevitable downfall--ironically, the accusers turn out to be the doomed young generation before. If it's not comic books, it's rock and roll; if not rock and roll, it's movies; and the list goes on. One frequently cited research article criticizing violent video games includes several studies. One of these studies was a "correlational study" from which the authors concluded, "Playing violent video games often may well cause increases in delinquent behaviors, both aggressive and non-aggressive." However, in a remarkable moment of self-contradiction, they later said that making such causative statements with a correlational study is "risky, at best." Gaskill and Verhaagen go on to point out that correlational studies are often used quite erroneously to make concrete conclusions. This is because the point of a correlational study is to compare two different occurences and see if they have some sort of relation to eachother. In the case of this aggression and violent video games study, the authors found a correlation between the two--but, now everyone say it together, correlation does not equal causation. What does this mean? It means that just because two occurrences may correlate together (such as aggression and violent video games), it does not mean that one caused the other to occur in the first place. An example that is particularly close to my heart is the positive correlation between ice cream sales and murders. If one were to follow the same logic that many politicians do concerning video games, one would conclude that buying ice cream makes you more likely to be a murderer. It turns out that there is a third variable that affects these two occurrences--summertime. In other words, just because aggression and violent video games may correlate does not mean that violent video games cause aggression. Being a Psychology major myself, I've been recently studying aggression and its causes, and according to the American Psychological Association, violent media can have a long-lasting effect on a person only if it is viewed heavily and consistently over a long period of time. So as long as you're not hooked into Grand Theft Auto six out of seven days of the week, you should be fine. Labels: In the News, PlasmaRit, Violence
Friday, January 25, 2008
Linkfest - Like a Surgeon Edition
 Video games have been getting a lot of love in the medical department recently. Being a virtual scalpel aficionado myself (of course Trauma Center's just like the real thing!), it makes my internal organs feel all warm and squishy when I read these articles: "America's Army" Player Uses In-Game Medic Training Help Save Life A man named Paxton Galvanek helped rescue two victims of a car crash with the medical training he learned from the PC game America's Army. It might be a good idea to give this game to your best PC-gaming buddy before your next road trip. Study Finds Wii Beneficial for Surgeons A recent study has shown that surgeons perform better on performing virtual surgical procedures after training on a program designed for the Wii. Maybe they should give Mario Galaxy's balance puzzles a try too? Trauma Center Wii Accessory Kit Many thanks to Gay Gamer for pointing out this (dare I say?) gut-busting accessory for the Wii-mote. Check 'em out, and have a slice-happy weekend! Labels: In the News, Linkfest, PlasmaRit
Friday, December 21, 2007
The Jade Debate
If you haven't heard the news, please read this first. Out of all the things I'm feeling, I wish one of them was surprise. I wish it was surprising to hear about such disgusting behavior directed at someone, but sadly, it's not. Jade Raymond had the gall, the nerve to be an attractive woman working on a popular video game. Someone's got to put her in her place--good thing Dave Cheung was there to knock her down a peg. After all, Raymond put herself out there by actually having a job, right? She's public property now; she has no right to protest. It's debacles like this that prove to me that we still have a long, long way to go. It just blows my mind how threatened so many men were by Raymond that they had to objectify her to make themselves feel better. This wasn't some stupid little scribble of a comic by some college boy--this was a carefully-drawn, thought out comic by a well known published artist in the comic industry. Who posts on his website that he's proud he "made Jade cry." Great guy, huh? If this comic makes you angry, then get angry. It's a childish, immature, and hateful thing that does nothing but potentially harm Raymond's career and set the gaming industry back decades in equality. I'm tired of seeing shit like this, so it's time to get angry. This doesn't need to go unheard, so don't let it. Labels: In the News, PlasmaRit, Stereotypes, The Industry
Monday, November 26, 2007
Oh so pretty.
 Recently I tripped upon an article called "Cool Tech and Accessories for Women," and I couldn't help but take a read. I wish that it was hope that spurred my curiosity, hope that maybe, just maybe, lazy journalism would not succeed this time and that I would find a thoughtful, well-written piece that didn't fall back on some of the most obvious feminine stereotypes there is.Alas. The article started right off saying that women can "assert themselves" in a male-dominated environment by toting around a tech accessory (like a cell phone or handheld video game console) in a "quirky color" such as green, purple, and -- you guessed it -- even pink. And it only gets better: "The female consumer, being as fashionable as she is, wanted a camera that not only captures great pictures, but that she is proud walking around with," says Greg Morrison, digital product marketing manager, Kodak Canada.Blargh. Here we go again. First of all, the fashion industry does NOT equal just women, and especially not ALL women, for that matter. As well, the article states that gadgets that are specially designed for women are thinner with rounded edges that "accommodate small hands" and can "slip into a pocket or purse." I guess men are all running around with their enormous meatpaws grasping monochrome PDAs while suffering a marked lack of pockets, then. Is this article seriously insinuating that women the only people who prefer their gadgets lighter and more portable and in less "conservative" colors such as black or gray? I disagree with the idea that most things must be designed specifically for one sex or the other. Just like I think a button-down shirt looks nice on a masculine or feminine form, I think whether your camera is red or has rounded edges or whatever is something that has universal appeal. Women aren't softer or more delicate than men. These are design choices rooted in aesthetics and not on any particular sex-based need. There are many women that don't care what their keyboards look like just as there are many men who do. It doesn't matter what the majority on either side appears to be. Why not market towards all people who lean towards these aesthetics instead of boxing in all female consumers as having strictly "fashionable" needs? This could be an important step toward tearing down harmful gender roles, but, unfortunately, stereotypes sell. Just look at the "Boys" and "Girls" sections of any toy store. I also chalk it up to pure laziness. It's never explained quite how women "assert" themselves by carrying around a green cell phone. Why would such a thing not allow men to do the same? And while it just happens to be one of my favorite colors, I know many female gamers that wouldn't be caught dead with a pink DS or a PSP. It's all a matter of preference, not some kind of hard-coded, binary-gendered genetic need. I wish I didn't have to state the obvious here, but articles like the above unfortunately remind me that I do. We also see here that it's not just an issue of color but of design. A more "feminine" design -- thinner, curvier -- automatically equals female approval? I don't project myself onto a piece of technology before I want to buy it, thank you very much, and I find this description's proximity to that of the normative female form rather creepy. Let's consider the original Nintendo DS design versus the newer DS Lite, as well as the original PSP and its Slim counterpart. Neither of the new designs were created for a specific female market, as this streamlined model is just plain nicer-looking and better for everyone. Both consoles also come in a nice rainbow of creatively-named colors (Felicia Blue, anyone?) that all sorts of different gamers enjoy. However, the pink models are consistently preyed upon for their ability to reign in the wimmins like moths to a Cosmopolitan-colored flame. It's as if we've never been aware of video games before and all we needed was some "fashionable" coaxing to take the dive. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely awesome that technological goodies such as video games and PDAs are no longer being seen as just a "guy" thing. However, the approach is all wrong. Not only is it sexist to coat a digital camera in feminine stereotypes as a way to lure in the ladies, it's downright patronizing to pretend that, until now, women just never had a lick of interest in technology. It's inclusion on patriarchal terms, and it doesn't at all bother to tear down the stereotypes that caused the exclusion in the first place. Labels: BomberGirl, In the News, Stereotypes
Friday, October 12, 2007
Linkfest
I'm winding down from a long week, so here's a few news blobs you might find interesting (via KillerBetties): Adult's Approval of Children's Video Game Play Centers on "Casual," Eschews "Hardcore"; Child's Gender Plays Major Role. Action Games Improve Women's Spatial Abilities, Says New Study It's a cornucopia of sexism! Feel free to discuss in the comments. Plasma out to get some sleep. Labels: In the News, Linkfest, PlasmaRit, Stereotypes
Friday, September 14, 2007
Swing and a Miss, EA
Oh, dear; as if Disney wasn't bad enough, here comes EA games with their opinion of the female gamer demographic. David Gardner was trying so hard, wasn't he? But he's still not quite getting it. Why don't we take a look: He said if EA cracked the problem [of catering to female gamers] the firm "could add a billion dollars to its sales." He said the industry had to learn from the film business. "The movie industry doesn't just make films for boys. Very true, Gardner, and a point I agree with. A good portion of the video game industry seems focused on creating games for boys (and, in some situations, believing they are instead). Would you like to elaborate? "Star wars was the biggest film of all time until Titanic came along; Titanic became the biggest because women went to see it and women went to see it multiple times. Ok, we're starting to tread on some dangerous ground here-- "Just boys saw Star Wars multiple times." Aaand there it is. I seriously doubt that there were no hardcore female Star Wars fans back in the 70s. I must have watched those movies a thousand times when I was a kid, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Does anyone else out there see the trainwreck coming? Mr Gardner said one of the biggest problems was that the content aimed at women gamers was not appealing. "They don't want 'pink games'. They are not trying to play girly games where Paris Hilton and Britney Spears go shopping and put make-up on. "Those kind of things have not been that successful." Once again, another point I can agree with. As we've stressed here at Girl in the Machine, the way to attract the female demographic takes more than stuffing glitter into a cartridge. Good job, Gardner. But he said games such as The Sims and websites such as Pogo.com proved there was a market for women gamers. "Most of the Sims players are girls - 70% are women under 25," he said. "The Sims is really a game about relationships - and that's what girls want - they want relationships, they want to be able to chat." I--guh? The fact that Gardner feels confident enough in his opinion to make such a blanket statement about female gamers is giving me a headache trying to comprehend it. Sure, I love the Sims. I love watching my Sims get abducted by aliens and get lei'd by the Grim Reaper--establishing relationships with fellow Sims who jabber in Simlish at me isn't exactly at the top of my list of fun things to do in that game. But you know us women; we just looove talking and carrying on. Gardner totally gets us, doesn't he? He added: "One of the things that is going to make games for girls happen is creative teams. It's going to be new people and experiments. Four of our 11 studios around the world are run by women. That's an important start. "Investing in new and upcoming talent is critical." And then he rounds it all off with another point I agree with. Reading this article in its entirety just gives me a headache; how can there possibly be so many contradictions in one place? It simply boggles my mind. If you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to have a little lie-down now. Labels: In the News, PlasmaRit, Stereotypes, The Industry
Friday, August 31, 2007
A Look into the Industry's Perception of "Girl Games"
 Since I had offered my opinion of the notorious Imagine games as well as reading Bombergirl's take on the "girl games" phenomenon, I decided to do a little research of what some video game company's are really saying about the "girl" market. I came across an article off of Yahoo that did little to alleviate my dread. The title? "Videogame industry hopes to harness girl power." Guh. Well, let's take a look, shall we? Can "High School Musical" and "Hannah Montana" finally take girl gaming to the next level? Uh, what? Considering the mindless "girl games" we've had in the past, I guess just about anything with skill would take it to the next level. I'm going to assume they're referring to tweens when they say girls, because otherwise I would be very depressed right now. "The demand for both the 'High School Musical' and 'Hannah Montana' games has been enormous among retailers," Disney Interactive GM Graham Hopper said. "I think the industry is starting to wake up to the fact that girls play games." Why are "High School Musical" and "Hannah Montana" the Holy Grail of girl videogames all of a sudden? Do they think only boys play Mario games or something? The problem has been that girls and women tend to be among the most casual players, interested in easy-to-pick-up social games but not consistently shelling out $30-$50 for more complex fare. Okay, I can't be charitable with this one because the quotation says both girls and women; this is wrong on so many levels. I could maybe let it slide if it just left it at not spending $30-$50 for a game (even that's a stretch--I know several female gamers who would readjust their food budget to snag a new release, me included), but for more "complex" fare? Did we just discover why most "girl" games have been drivel? We'll get back to this later. "The real key is to get girls to begin obsessing over games the way they might obsess over a boy band or shows like 'High School Musical,"' Boy bands? Who even listens to boy bands anymore? They were popular when I was in middle school, for chrissake. I didn't get sucked back in time, did I? Other companies, most notably the now-defunct Acclaim, had some solid sales in the past with games based on the Olsen twins. But they also might have done more harm than good because many of those properties lacked the thing that keeps girls coming back, which is good gameplay. We finally get to something I can congratulate this article for: they realized that all the "girl" games that existed when I was young were, under the surface, really shitty games. If they really want to snag the younger female market, they can't just slap a bunch of shoes or glitter or whatever into a cartridge and call it a game--it actually needs something to keep a player coming back. It needs to be engaging and fun. And yes, you couldn't make me touch those Olsen twins games with a fifteen-foot pole.  Hopper said the "High School Musical" game for the Nintendo Wii will be among the first to feature a microphone, while the upcoming "Hannah Montana": Music Jam" for the DS will allow up to four players to play various wireless instruments together.I can't tell you how nice it is to see games directed at young girls that aren't about shopping. It's good that they've added all these interactive elements as well, especially with the different instruments. As Bombergirl stated in her article, vapid "girl" games can lead to a deadly stream of thought from "Girl games are stupid" to "Girls are stupid." While I've mentioned that I disagree with marketing games to a particular sex, I am happy to see companies focusing more on the gameplay than just slapping a television show character on the cover and hoping a few girls will pick it up. Labels: In the News, PlasmaRit, Stereotypes, The Industry
Friday, August 10, 2007
Ubi Says: "Them's Woman's Work!"
A new line of games created by Ubisoft is sending the blogosphere into a tizzy: the Imagine™ series on the Nintendo DS focuses on a market that Ubisoft believes to be "relatively overlooked," according to their press release. But before I get into that, let's take a look at these games: the first of them to be released in October 2007 include Imagine™ Fashion Designer, Imagine™ Animal Doctor, Imagine Babyz®, and Imagine™ Master Chef. What does Ubi say about them? Imagine™ Fashion Designer Imagine™ Fashion Designer invites players to become hip Manhattan designers handling all aspects of the fashion business, from creating their own line of clothing to directing photo shoots. Online gameplay allows players to share their designs and ideas with friends and fellow aspiring young fashionistas. Okay, a fashion designer game. Calabar and I like making clothes, so maybe we could find something we like in it. There seem to be a lot of features than just designing a clothing line, so it could be good. Imagine™ Animal Doctor Imagine™ Animal Doctor puts young players in the role of a veterinarian, not only by treating and curing all types of animals, but also by creating new facilities to expand the veterinary hospital. Well, there hasn't been any vet games for the DS (the closes being Nintendogs and its knock-offs), so it's something new [Edited to note: Turns out there has been at least one vet game for the DS--my bad. Thanks, Darius!]. It's also interesting that you can add onto the hospital too. Imagine Babyz® Imagine™ Babyz® is the first simulation game focused on caring for babies. Players take on the challenges of raising a baby throughout all stages of development and will also be able to take photos and exchange tips and clothing through a unique online component. Um, "Babyz®?" Oookay. Anyway, I guess it would be like Nintendogs, but with babies. Or babyz. Or whatever. Imagine™ Master Chef Imagine™ Master Chef allows players to create recipes from all over the world using the stylus to prepare, stir and cook ingredients. Players can customize their kitchens with utensils and appliances. Fun mini-games include cooking quizzes and kitchen challenges. It sounds a little familiar, but hey, cooking is fun. Maybe Ubi added a little something new. These all sound like pretty harmless games, so why has there been such an outcry about them? Maybe taking a peek at the box art will shed a little light on this conundrum:    And if there was any doubt of the target audience for the Imagine™ franchise, Ubi states in their press release that these games are for "girls ages 6 to 14 years old." And this is where they hit a snag with a few feminist bloggers. Now, some are claiming that these games seemed to have been designed to put girls in their place while they're young. While it is suspicious that this line includes cooking and taking care of "babyz," that's not my beef. What I am unhappy about is that these games are marketed exclusively to girls. The fluffy design with a preteen girl emblazoned upon every cover may as well have been branded with a "No Boyz Allowed" (to continue with the "grrlz" theme). My main question is: why exclude one gender in favor of another? While far from equality, feminine, domestic, and/or nurturing men are slowly becoming more acceptable in society today. Male fashion designers are a common sighting, and the patriarchy is finally beginning to see that men can take care of babies as well. However, while this is becoming acceptable behavior for men, it is still very taboo for young boys to express interest in these ventures. Just take a look in any toy store: children's toys are still severely gendered, and these games aren't helping the bias. Looking at the game descriptions themselves, they seem fairly gender-neutral, and yet Ubisoft feels the need to exclude young boys. If these games were designed around young girls' "favorite interests and hobbies" as Ubi claims, wouldn't the subject matter alone draw their target audience in? Of course, the answer is no young boy would be interested in learning to take care of babyz and animals, to cook, or design clothes. After all, as Ubi seems to think: them's woman's work. Why would a boy ever be interested in that? Labels: In the News, PlasmaRit, Stereotypes
|
About
◊ Girl in the Machine◊ BomberGirl ◊ Calabar ◊ PlasmaRit
Latest Entries
◊
Farewell from these three.
◊ First Friday Drinking Game ◊ Diversity and Mass Effect ◊ Linkfest: Fat Princess Edition ◊ Expectations: Sheva Alomar ◊ Women Worshipers ◊ Mrrow? ◊ Chipping the Glass Ceiling ◊ First Friday Drinking Game ◊ How can Dissidia avoid a sausage fest?
Tags
◊ Action Adventure◊ Adventure ◊ Body Language ◊ BomberGirl ◊ Calabar ◊ Castlevania ◊ Character Spotlight ◊ Civilization ◊ Elder Scrolls ◊ Fatal Frame ◊ Final Fantasy ◊ Fighter ◊ First Friday Drinking Game ◊ FPS ◊ Getting it Right ◊ Guitar Hero ◊ Half-Life ◊ Harvest Moon ◊ Indie ◊ The Industry ◊ In the News ◊ Legend of Zelda ◊ LGBT ◊ Linkfest ◊ Mario Bros. ◊ Mass Effect ◊ Metal Gear ◊ Metroid ◊ MMORPG ◊ Motherhood ◊ PlasmaRit ◊ Platforming ◊ Primal ◊ Prince of Persia ◊ Race Issues ◊ RPG ◊ RTS ◊ Rule of Rose ◊ Scale ◊ Sexuality ◊ Shadow Hearts ◊ Shin Megami Tensei ◊ Silent Hill ◊ The Sims ◊ Star Fox ◊ Stealth ◊ Stereotypes ◊ Street Fighter ◊ Super Smash Bros. ◊ Survival Horror ◊ Tomb Raider ◊ Turok ◊ Video Game Movies ◊ Violence ◊ World of Warcraft
Archives
◊ June 2007◊ July 2007 ◊ August 2007 ◊ September 2007 ◊ October 2007 ◊ November 2007 ◊ December 2007 ◊ January 2008 ◊ February 2008 ◊ March 2008 ◊ April 2008 ◊ May 2008 ◊ June 2008 ◊ July 2008 ◊ August 2008
Links
◊ BlogHer◊ Cerise Magazine ◊ The F-Word Blog ◊ Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog ◊ Game Girl Advance ◊ GayGamer.net ◊ Iris Gaming Network ◊ Killer Betties ◊ New Game Plus ◊ Penny Arcade ◊ Racialicious ◊ Shrub.com Blog ◊ Under the Table Gaming ◊ Women Gamers ◊ Zone of the Gamers Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox at a 1028 by 768 resolution.
|
