Quantcast
Are women over-represented in video games?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Are women over-represented in video games?

Which of these MOST describes your view?

Women are over-represented in video games. 8 10.13%
 
Women have too much of a ... 4 5.06%
 
Both of the above. 7 8.86%
 
None of the above. I will clarify. Honestly. 60 75.95%
 
Total:79
HylianSwordsman said:
vivster said:

@Jaicee
Art and fiction is not and should not be about equal representation so this question is moot.

Calling something over or under represented is suggesting that there is a right amount of representation, which is false.

Within an actual individual work of art, sure, there is no "right" amount of representation. That's absurd. For one, there's no way to measure it, for another, doing so would limit art in absurd ways.

That said, representation in art can matter in the sense that it would be just if everyone had equal access to all artistic mediums, and equitable access to platforms by which to show that art to the world. A woman may have no interest in telling stories about women, may want to make something with an all or mostly male cast for whatever reason, and that's her business. However, if society systematically makes it difficult or impossible for women to make art or distribute art, then the woman will be at an unfair disadvantage to make her art or show it to the world. So how many characters in a work are female, male, black, white, gay, straight, etc. doesn't really matter, it matters that the artist gets to make the art as they see fit, regardless of how closely the demographics of characters in the work match the real world. However, if getting into the industry that makes the art and markets it to audiences systematically excludes people based on things they can't help like their sex or race, that's pretty unfair, wouldn't you say? This doesn't mean that you have to hire female actors, directors, programmers, designers, etc. to meet a quota, it means nothing more than that a world that gives everyone a chance to produce and promote art based on the merits of the art rather than the demographics of the artist is a better world than one that doesn't afford everyone that chance, and if possible, we should work towards making the better world a reality.

That doesn't seem to be describing the reality I see. There is literally nothing preventing women to create and distribute art or games for that matter. No one is barring women to publish their games on steam, no one is barring women from getting a job int the gaming industry. In fact women are even singled out and used to represent games.

The industry is male oriented because the majority of the audience are male. We all know those statistics that claim women are just as engaged in gaming as men but that's simply not true when it comes to the AAA/hardcore market. Women are just on average less interested in gaming and that is fine. Men aren't that interested in the fashion business either while most women don't care very much about cars and so on. That's what we get in our gender obsessed society. If you want to "fix" the gaming industry or any industry for that matter, you have to first fix society and all that gender bullshit that forces people into being stereotypes.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network

I don't know. It seems like every indie nowadays has a female main character.



Erm, I don't think most people actually have issues with digital renderings of fictional women in video games or fictional characters in films.. I think most are responding to these developers/studios hyping their products up and patting themselves on the back so much simply because they seem to be disingenuously propping up women to the forefront or worse, having this baseless hostility of essentially attacking those consumers who don't like their female-led works as sexist with little to no basis of proof (rather than address that it might merely be the quality or lack thereof of the product itself). Even if not everyone does the best job of communicating this at a core level, this is what I sense is the issue.

It seems to have become this catch-all way to absolve and deflect their work from any legitimate critique, which for my money seems to be somewhat condescending to women if anything. Ghostbusters is perhaps the biggest example of this, but Last Jedi is certainly another (despite the fact that The Force Awakens and Rogue One both have female leads and were pretty well received by comparison). People are beginning to see this as a way to use women as sort of human shields to deflect a poorly created product and a cheap loophole to bypass the foolproof capitalistic mantra of "the customer is always right" - This is certainly the way I see it anyway.

Obviously there are a few weirdos out there who actually are insecure enough to be uncomfortable or sexist enough to find beef with this trend, but they don't seem to be near the majority from where I sit.

Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 04 September 2018

And the OP seems to have failed tremendously considering the Pool show 75% of the people here doesn't think there is any over-representation. And also seems like he fled the discussion.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

is the game good? is the story good? did the character develop well?

those are the things that i think about.

whatever the character is, female, male, other, i dont care. its a video game. some of my favorite characters are female, not because they are female, but the games are good and interesting. i think some blow it out of proportion for whatever reason they have.



 

Around the Network
Jaicee said:

I just don't see people creating threads that go in the reverse direction, complaining about the over-representation of men in games or movies or the making thereof or what have you (which frankly would be far more justified objectively) or about the far more common phenomenon of all-male casts of lead characters (as compared with the rare employment of all-female ensemble casts) or what have you. Only when it is girls or women who are presented in those roles does there seem to be a political issue.

 

Ok. Ill try to mansplain it to you as good as i can. Please try to understand and please dont go all wilderbeastly and witchcrafty on me.

 

When female gamers asked which gender they prefer when given the option, the majority goes for a female character. Same goes for male gamers, prefering male characters. No problem there, right? And what goes for a singular can also be applied to a group. What goes for the individual is applicable to a collective.

If we go back in time, to the beginnings of video games, what come to mind when we think of the first consoles? Intellivision, Magnavox Odyssey. What was targeted demographic? Exactly. It was everyone. Young, old, girl, boy, a thing the the whole family can enjoy. Or... there was no specific age or gender the marketeers had in mind. After the great crisis of the north american video game industry this changed. It changed with none other than Nintendo. When setting up the stage for the NES it was determined to narrow the target audience, for marketing to be more focused,  thus more effective. They went out to find out who plays videogames the most. It was the Boys. To this day this hasnt changed much...

 

 

Generations of male gamers building, supporting, growing up the whole video entertainment art form. Growing attached to franchises, consoles, videogame icons and developers.

 

The issue isnt how much and in what way women are represented. The problem is, you - the women - are hostile invaders. You are entering someones abode and redecorate very much to his dismay. You are the girls besieging the boys tree house...

 

 

..trying to conquer, for the sole purpose of making yourself comfortable in it with all your girly stuff. 

 

Nono, it is you who gyrals the whole thing into a social political drama. I'm not the one bursting into a Girls Only Night and screams: "Misandristic Bitches!"

 

 

When i saw the reveal of the newest mainline Gears Of War, i was baffled. For a overwhelmingly male audience? Hu.. thatsuuhh... 

 

Also mindboggling was Microsofts decision to make turnbased Gears game a PC exclusive. Of a franchise that has its mainbase on a console. But they made the Halo RTS available for the Xbox. 



Hunting Season is done...

Zoombael said:
Jaicee said:

I just don't see people creating threads that go in the reverse direction, complaining about the over-representation of men in games or movies or the making thereof or what have you (which frankly would be far more justified objectively) or about the far more common phenomenon of all-male casts of lead characters (as compared with the rare employment of all-female ensemble casts) or what have you. Only when it is girls or women who are presented in those roles does there seem to be a political issue.

 

Ok. Ill try to mansplain it to you as good as i can. Please try to understand and please dont go all wilderbeastly and witchcrafty on me.

 

When female gamers asked which gender they prefer when given the option, the majority goes for a female character. Same goes for male gamers, prefering male characters. No problem there, right? And what goes for a singular can also be applied to a group. What goes for the individual is applicable to a collective.

If we go back in time, to the beginnings of video games, what come to mind when we think of the first consoles? Intellivision, Magnavox Odyssey. What was targeted demographic? Exactly. It was everyone. Young, old, girl, boy, a thing the the whole family can enjoy. Or... there was no specific age or gender the marketeers had in mind. After the great crisis of the north american video game industry this changed. It changed with none other than Nintendo. When setting up the stage for the NES it was determined to narrow the target audience, for marketing to be more focused,  thus more effective. They went out to find out who plays videogames the most. It was the Boys. To this day this hasnt changed much...

 

 

Generations of male gamers building, supporting, growing up the whole video entertainment art form. Growing attached to franchises, consoles, videogame icons and developers.

 

The issue isnt how much and in what way women are represented. The problem is, you - the women - are hostile invaders. You are entering someones abode and redecorate very much to his dismay. You are the girls besieging the boys tree house...

 

 

..trying to conquer, for the sole purpose of making yourself comfortable in it with all your girly stuff. 

 

Nono, it is you who gyrals the whole thing into a social political drama. I'm not the one bursting into a Girls Only Night and screams: "Misandristic Bitches!"

 

 

When i saw the reveal of the newest mainline Gears Of War, i was baffled. For a overwhelmingly male audience? Hu.. thatsuuhh... 

 

Also mindboggling was Microsofts decision to make turnbased Gears game a PC exclusive. Of a franchise that has its mainbase on a console. But they made the Halo RTS available for the Xbox. 

That is prohibited knowledge. We need to believe that for some reason the patriarch made that even pong was a game that was aimed at boys.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Sales determine if something is wanted or not. How well games sell determine whether the industry is 10% female lead, 50% or 90%.

But I hate topics like this, especially when talking jobs. Like when you hear stuff like women are under-represented in the tech industry or something. They will say the population is 50% or 55% or whatever it is female, so your workforce should be that % female. Or the population is 20% black, so you should have a 20% black force, ect.

Tell me how that works out when say 90% of the graduates in the IT field are White males or Asians. (made up stats, but the point remains. The percentage of workforce should be based on graduate percentages, not population. Push schools to try to get more diversified students versus businesses trying to meet an unrealistic quota)



irstupid said:
Sales determine if something is wanted or not. How well games sell determine whether the industry is 10% female lead, 50% or 90%.

But I hate topics like this, especially when talking jobs. Like when you hear stuff like women are under-represented in the tech industry or something. They will say the population is 50% or 55% or whatever it is female, so your workforce should be that % female. Or the population is 20% black, so you should have a 20% black force, ect.

Tell me how that works out when say 90% of the graduates in the IT field are White males or Asians. (made up stats, but the point remains. The percentage of workforce should be based on graduate percentages, not population. Push schools to try to get more diversified students versus businesses trying to meet an unrealistic quota)

You shouldn't even push schools to have more diversified students. Different people have different interest and this "it is all social construct" is silly.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
irstupid said:
Sales determine if something is wanted or not. How well games sell determine whether the industry is 10% female lead, 50% or 90%.

But I hate topics like this, especially when talking jobs. Like when you hear stuff like women are under-represented in the tech industry or something. They will say the population is 50% or 55% or whatever it is female, so your workforce should be that % female. Or the population is 20% black, so you should have a 20% black force, ect.

Tell me how that works out when say 90% of the graduates in the IT field are White males or Asians. (made up stats, but the point remains. The percentage of workforce should be based on graduate percentages, not population. Push schools to try to get more diversified students versus businesses trying to meet an unrealistic quota)

You shouldn't even push schools to have more diversified students. Different people have different interest and this "it is all social construct" is silly.

When I say push, I don't mean that a school should limit who it accepts to try and fit a quota, but I mean to try and get recruiters to get those that shy away from a field to consider it.

Say IT and Nursing.

Nursing is dominated by females. I know many nurses and they would love more men in the field. Men are able to help them with lifting heavier stuff, patient moving, stuff on high places, ect. But nursing is not seen as a "manly" job.

IT is the same. It now is seen more as a nerdy male job versus it used to be seen as a female job.

Schools/society/ect need to do their best to try and not "label" jobs as for certain people. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. Too much money is made on labeling people into groups.