>[Edited to fix some minor formatting issues.]
The other day I stumbled across a link to the sort of game that makes me cringe – Imagine Fashion Party. According to Amazon, the key features are:
- Express your individual creativity in workshops including hair, makeup, clothing and accessories
- Use the Wii remote and nunchuck as scissors, hair brushes, makeup applicator and more
- Make your models perform the right moves to show off your designs in front of fierce judges
- Design in Creation mode, compete in the Reality Show, and challenge friends in mini-games
- Roll out your collection in a photo shoot and catwalk show, and share it with your friends via wi-fi
/facepalm
But then I noticed that this trainwreck of a “game” was by Ubisoft! I was curious about what other “girl’s games” they might have in their lineup, so I did a little poking around and discovered that Imagine is actually its own line of video games with at least thirty-seven titles for the DS and Wii. (I think there may be a few that aren’t showing up on Amazon.)
Even with the duplicates, that’s still a pretty impressive number of titles. Most, though not all, games revolve around an occupation. Admittedly, a few of the titles are duplicates; there are three fashion designer titles, two rock star titles, two teacher titles, and two vet titles. But there’s still a pretty impressive list of careers represented, including things like… Fashion Designer. And Fashion Stylist. And Makeup Artist. And Salon Stylist. In fact, a large portion of the careers represented by Imagine titles are stereotypically feminine roles. And even the ones that aren’t are ridiculously infantalized or feminized.
For instance, instead of “Imagine Veterinarian”, there are two “Imagine Animal Doctor” titles. Do they think that girls are too stupid to understand words longer than 2 syllables? And what about “Resort Owner” and “Boutique Owner”? Are these the only types of businesses that little girls should aspire to own? Even the sports titles are for sports that are traditionally “acceptable” female sports like cheerleading, ice skating, and gymnastics.
Just for shits and giggles, I made a tally of represented careers counted by job categories that were totally made up by me. Duplicate careers are counted – which means that all three “Fashion Designer” titles were counted under Fashion, etc. I also color-coded the resulting chart to help illustrate my point. (“Medicine” is orange because it is a bit of a stereotype, but the titles are for doctors, not nurses – which is a more traditional stereotype.)
/sigh
Even then – EVEN THEN – I might have been able to forgive them if I hadn’t gone looking for screen captures of Imagine games:
This is from one of the many fashion design titles. I forget which.
From Champion Rider. Because all girls love horses, amirite?
Oh god. So. Many. Pastels. So. Much. Inane. Cuteness.
So all of this “games for girls” bullshit is just another way in which the gaming establishment (read:men) is telling gaming women that “YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE”. And now I seriously want to buy as many copies as I can find of these horrendous games and set them on fire like the trash that they are.
Gah.
Go Make Me a Sandwich 
>My little girl is about to turn 3 years old.One of her favorite things to do is sit in my lap while we play Spore together. She likes to chase down the other animals and eat them, sometimes dance and sing to them, and strangely her favorite thing is to swim around pointlessly in the ocean. We also play Railroad Tycoon, Sid Meier's Pirates, and Morrowind. In all of these, she really just loves to just do random things in the game world, she doesnt understand actual play yet.She also loves to sit on the bed and de-box an entire uber-board-game like Railroad Tycoon, Smallworld, Touch of Evil, Zooloretto, etc. Look at every piece, maybe play with them like little toys, then put them back together.A real gamer in the making! It is so exciting to see her enjoy these things. I hope she never plays abominations like these crappy games you highlight. Holy crap that is heinous.
>I've often heard "Why do you assume the cooking game is for girls and the shooter game is for boys? Girls can play the shooter game. YOU'RE the one making assumptions about gender" when I bring up the problems with "girl" games.I think what really shows that they aim certain games at boys and certain games at girls is who they put as the protagonist. Games with female main characters tend to be about fashion, or cooking, or babies, while games with male characters are fighters and adventurers, and are incredibly diverse.I know that I can play a game with a male protagonist. But sometimes I want to be a girl! I want to see someone of my gender on the screen, and I want her to be doing something other than childcare or housework.
>Interesting post. Brainy gamer also posted about "girls games". Some interesting link in the comments: http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2009/05/girls-in-trouble.htmlalso:http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2010/03/would-you-like-a-girl-or-a-boy-toy.html
>Marketing products to specific genders isn't "GTFO". Take a walk around Toys R Us, it's like gender apartheid. Nice work on the career role-models. I wonder how it compares to careers on the rest of their products…
>Zhu: Yeeees… But… Man. Okay, so you know games like The Sims and Bejeweled and Farmville? Games that are SUPER POPULAR with women? And how male gamers fall over themselves to proclaim that these are Not Real Games? (Because clearly any game that appeals mainly to women is not a REAL game, noooooo…) I can't help but assume that most male gamers would similarly view these as Not Real Games.
>Greg: I found the ocean stage of Spore to be very zen. Maybe your daughter appreciates it's meditative qualities? (Probably not.)Cedric: Thanks for the links. Those are interesting posts.
>Wait Bejeweled isn't a real game? I've been wasting HOURS!Humor aside, I'm female, and pretty decent at video games of all kinds, and I agree that it would be nice to have an action-oriented game with a strong female protagonist that isn't half-naked. The new Lara Croft looks promising, but I'm not holding my breath.The kinds of games you highlight in this post are exactly the kinds of games I refuse to buy because they're basically telling me that because I have boobs I only understand muted colors and cutesy characters doing things only people with boobs will understand like.. making sandwiches.
>It's not just video games, there's similar debates on female portrayals and catering with regards to TV.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/no-funny-females-on-tv-please-just-stay-sexy-thanks/article1871082/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/is-this-what-women-want-weddings-weight-loss-and-paris-hilton/article1874750/
>These games aren't actually aimed at girls. They're aimed at the dimwitted parents of girls who think that crapware and actual games are the same thing.This isn't a sexism problem, it's a "Lee Trevino's Putting Challenge" crappy-gift problem.
>Would the "Travis" above mind using a different nickname on this site? I have been posting as Travis for a while now and I would like to avoid any confusion.
>@Travis: Um no, it's a sexism problem. People still think these stereotypical things are what all girls like and it sends a message. It's the same reason why making action figure commercials with only boys in them and making baby doll commercials with only girls in them is sexism. It sets up a standard, it presents something as 'normal'. 'Well from this I see that girls play with this and like these things and Boys play with this and like these things'.It sets up a role, and when you only see one type of person doing that role then you start associate that person with that role. This especially goes for children, because when we're born we have no sense of truth other than the one presented to us by the others around us. We see it all throughout the world today with… for example, how people assume women are 'natural nurturers'. Why do you think that stereotype is still going on? Or that ridiculous hunter gatherer nonsense (yes, that's still around). Perhaps those parents think this is the 'normal' thing for girls to like, the normal thing for them to play. After all, it's constantly presented that way right?I'm not saying it's all spawning from baby doll commercials, of course, that'd be silly. But it's just as silly to assume that games like this and commercials like those don't perpetuate certain ideas. It's the same reason why having the only women in your fantasy game's Job-Class art depicted as healers is sexist. It's not blatant or anything (but it's not as if no one has ever tried to cover their ass by being subtle with their discrimination).. but I agree with Wundergeek. It does read as a big GTFO to girls and women.
>Something else that strikes me about these "Imagine" games is that they're mostly about pretending to have a real-life career and fulfilling a normal role in society. It's a pretty distinct contrast from the action games marketed towards guys, which are all about reveling in the fantasy of being above all that and saving the world/killing the bad guys on your own terms.As infantilizing as these games may be, they're still telling girls "you need to grow up," while the guy games say "don't worry about responsibility, just have fun!"
>The saddest thing about these games for me is that they're aimed not just at women but squarely at girls, children and teenagers who are learning over and over again that their ambitions and imaginations should be circumscribed and limited. It's such an insidious message.
>I really hope my niece doesn't have any of these games foisted on her, its hard enough being a little girl in our world. I love hearing her crazy, ambitious and unbounded stream of consciousness when she makes up stories for me, but it breaks my heart when she tells me that "girls can't do that".That said, I have to admit that my friends and I have gotten way too much fun out of the 'cooking with mama' game for the Wii.
>Yeah, I'm not getting the YOU DON'T BELONG HERE message from these titles.Yes, they are demeaning, infantilizing and needlessly perpetuating the girls-with-dolls concept, with marked differences in how boys get fantasy where girls get a (limited) reality…But these are games (shovelware, really) that are just being marketed to the girls-with-dolls demographic — I don't see how that means gaming WOMEN are being told to fuck off. And the comparison to Ubisoft's M-rated titles throws me too; those aren't titles for girls…or boys?
>As an entertainment marketing pro who doesn't do this particular evil, let me bring this down to earth: yes, thi perpetuates stereotypes like cigarettes perpetuate smoking. But as long as there is a market, people will make money. If Ubisoft weren't, Sony would. If Sony didn't then EA would. etc.The game companies would process your objections with the same filter that negates cultural objections to blood/violence.I'm female & a gamer – not saying it's right, just that there's only one way to change it.I teach leadership classes to girls in grades 8-12 as a volunteer. if you want change, don't mourn (or just bitch) ORGANIZE.
>@tomdohm: Um, a company produces games. One style of game has a much larger number of female protagonists and main characters. The other style has a larger number of male protagonists and main characters (and let's say all the women are sexualized blow-up dolls). Are you honestly saying you don't see the difference? Are you honestly telling me that constantly seeing men presented in one role while women are constantly presented in another doesn't send /any/ kind of message? Are you telling me that boys and men don't take up these exact same ideas and react badly to women who step out of their pink gender box partly because of it? If so, you are being incredibly obtuse and I honestly have to wonder why you're here.@shava nerad: Then those game companies perpetuate sexist stereotypes. And it's sexist business, not a neutral business like you want to pretend it is. What proof of the market is there? What about the market of women exactly like Wundergeek who hate this crap and speak up against it and want the inclusion of girls in women in games that /aren't/ just stereotypes? 'Only one way'?Don't be so short-sighted, there's a lot of ways to change things. And the entire responsibility of changing these things should certainly /not/ solely be on women when the people running the companies could change as well. Because that just leaves a place for no accountability for the people actually producing this crap and that's not on at all. People, what is with all your excuses?
>Lillith: Um. I think you're conflating a few separate issues.Um. Shovelware marketed to little girls having more female protagonists is a SEPARATE ISSUE from "mainstream" games having under/poorly/misrepresented female protagonists. This is sort of like saying the Democrats are telling women to fuck off because Sarah Palin, the most prominent female politician (and one with presidential designs) is a Republican. It's not the same, because women are defined by additional political views outside of just being women.So. Gears of War's fluff saying women are baby factories is telling women to fuck off. Idiotic titles marketed to little girls isn't, because no one's saying that women should play these games. So don't get me wrong, there's plenty in this industry that's doing this, I simply do not agree that these titles are among that particular problem.
>The mainstream games for girls are.. these games. This is a mainstream company, in case you didn't know. I'm not conflating anything. These are the only kinds of games that to be actually directed at a female audience, which is the reason for the stereotypes. The others could care less about women.. but the ones that actually show them in prominent roles are… the sexist stereotypes? I mean that's not a coincidence.It's a very clear gender division. And again, just because you're not /blatantly saying/ that girls/women should play the games doesn't mean you still aren't saying it. Refer to my commercial example above. If you don't agree.. then maybe you should go take a sociology class or something. Because you clearly don't know much.
>Ubisoft is a game company. They make "mainstream" games, also referred to as "hardcore" games; they also make casual games and this shovelware "all ages but really for kids" crap. That they are a mainstream company or not, and whether this distinction could then be applied to every title they create, is an idiotic diversion.Yes, these games are among the few that are marketed towards a "female audience." Way to be vague. More specifically, the only games being marketed to "a female audience" are those being marketed to children. Which is kinda your point. Okay, I see that now. Point made.And now that I've agreed with you and see where you're coming from, go fuck yourself for insinuating that I should leave.
>Good for you. Would you like a cookie? Frankly, you came as incredibly disingenuous with your comments. Especially since Wundergeek explained her point of view in her post and then a bunch of other commenters explained a bunch of other problematic things in the first place.Especially the ridiculous semantics of 'girls but not women'. Girl gamers turn into women gamers, and these games largely serve to perpetuate sexist stereotypes with new generations with how gendered they are. You taking part in some epic point missing there and it's hard to tell when people are seriously in the dark or are just here in bad faith. So basically you came off as pretty insulting yourself.
>You came across* as, You were* taking part. I should slow down a bit when I type.
>Why Boys Like Sticks:http://www.slate.com/id/2280989/If it's true that boys are more selective in their choice of toys, and girls are more likely to cross over to play with toys that boys like, then a game publisher optimizes its audience by publishing games aimed at boys.This, I guess, is true as long as the games aren't so "boy" that girls find them disgusting.
>Speaking of sexist "girl games", Cooking Mama is one that allllmost tricked me. I played it for an afternoon and it was OK, albeit a bit tedious after awhile. There was a lot of pink and femininity involved, but I figure pink and femininity aren't inherently sexist. Plus I can't really recall any explicit sexism in the game text, dialogue, manual, etc. Your gender isn't assumed and in the version I played (World Kitchen), several of the NPC chefs you compete with are male.Then I find out about Babysitting Mama and Crafting Mama. Oh, and Science Mam- er, Papa. Wait, what? Yeah, no more of that series for me, thanks. And to all the folks in here who think that people have no obligations to behave ethically while at work, you scare the shit out of me. What sort of things do YOU do in your workplace because you've decided shut off your conscience 40-80 hrs a week? I understand that less-privileged people don't always have a choice between behaving ethically and paying the rent, but usually software developers are NOT those people. You can choose to waste your life chasing as much money as you possibly can, or choose to live a full, good, and happy life (which, yeah, includes not selectively following your principles). I know which one **I'm** more likely to regret on my deathbed, though.
>Annoymous, girls "cross over" because girl toys absolutely blow! All the good stuff gets classifed as "boys only". So if I want to build robots or play sword fighting you somehow have to pretend I'm betraying my gender instead of being a _normal girl_.
>Anonymous: I suspect that the relative pickyness of boys might have something to do with the fact that boys aren't supposed to like those things.Also, while that might make it more practical for developers to make games that boys like too, there doesn't necessarily seem to be any benefit that they'd get from marketing it only to boys. The sweet-spot in that case would be gender-neutral, rather than male-focused.Meg: Cooking Mama and Science Papa were actually created by two different companies, Majesco and Activision. That aspect of it, at least, doesn't say anything about Majesco's intentions in making the game. Doesn't change the implications made by the other two games using the Mama character, though.
>Urg. I'm sorry, I got distracted from saying just how disgusting I think these games are. They are insidious too since children self select for our gendered expectations (exactly as Annonymous's stupid article pointed out, although I notice it lacked much info on the monkey study's actual stats).When I went back and looked at my collection of favorite books from when I was a kid I was shocked to realize that the dozen or so that were the most reread all had female protagonists. In none of them was it a big deal, they just were girls. For some I didn't even remember their gender when I remembered the books, but I clearly loved them more than others in my collection. They spoke to me. Games are going to do the same thing to girls today. If they don't have women and girls to look to in the games, they're not going to connect and they're not going to love them in the long run. I sure as hell hope they aren't brainwashed by this "making everything pretty is your role" fashion overload crap. (Sewing is one of my primary hobbies, and I think this is BS.)Argh. I need to go play Okami again.
>Jeez, I had rehearsals all last night and things kind of exploded… Several things:Lilith & Tom: Both of you are sensible people and I welcome the comments that both of you make here. Let's not get caught up in internet crazy here. I understand that this is fraught subject matter – I've had many an internet freak-out myself about this stuff that I've been not proud of later. But I'd hate to see either one of you stop commenting, because a lot of the time you say stuff that I would have said first if I'd had time to watch the comments 24/7 (which I don't).Tom: Let me come at this from a different angle. When I see major game companies like Ubisoft stake out a specific, ghettoized area of gaming and mark it as FOR FEMALES ONLY – it makes me feel a bit more unwelcome in the more "mainstream" areas of gaming – despite that these are the games I prefer playing. If you don't agree about the message being sent, that's cool. I think this is one of those things where we can disagree and still be fine.Lilith: I appreciate a lot of what you're saying. I think in a lot of ways we're really on the same page. But I don't want to tell male commenters (sorry if I'm assuming incorrectly, Tom) to gtfo if they don't agree with me 100% of the time. Being a chick doesn't give me a bonus to accuracy where sexism is concerned. If male commenters don't always agree with what I say, I'm happy to agree to disagree on occasion – so long as they're on board with me on the basics.
>Anon: Yeah, pretty much what other people said re: toys. I didn't play with "girl" toys when I was a kid because "girl" toys sucked. Given a choice between a Barbie and Lego, what would you play with? Lego has near-infinite possibilities for play. Barbie… not so much. (I will admit that when I played with Barbies, I tended to devise ways for them to die in ridiculous playsets. Oh no! Barbie just got run over by her Barbie camper! …I'm not sure what this says about me as a person.)Same goes for today. If Star Wars toys, Legos, Hot Wheels, Transformers, Nerf, or any of the awesome toys that DO STUFF are boys toys, can we really be shocked when little girls are smart enough to say "eff that noise, I want the toys for boys".
>@Wundergeek: Mm, yeah I see what you're saying. I went too far out of line there and was being unfair. I shouldn't let my interactions with /actual/ trolls color my reactions to everyone else. Especially since that doesn't make me sound much better.@Tomdohm: I apologize for insinuating you should leave and treating you badly when it was so unwarranted. I guess I was in something of a sour mood before but that doesn't excuse it. I'm sorry.
>Lilith: Internet Crazy happens to everyone. I know I've said some stuff in the heat of a discussion that I've felt really shitty about afterward…
>The solution, I think, is to combine all titles into one unholy behemoth of a game. The Prince of Fashion Persia: Lipstick Duluxe!
>The Imagine titles are all a particularly horrific bit of reductivist marketing. I don't neccesarily think of them as telling women to GTFO. The women and teen girl gamers I know play things like and Zelda and Final Fantasy and Guiatar Hero, and they would blanch at Imagine games. But it does send a message to *little* girls, at least, that their fantasies should be about these stereotypical things. (Well, Rock Star is p. cool, but why the hell would anyone want to play that in a world with Rock Band 3?)Games marketed at small boys are also similarly horrible, but they're not usually so egregiously gendered.
>Imaginary Girl: Intriguing! I would buy that game! Or at least give it a try…
>Almost a quarter of all of their titles are devoted to telling girls that they should find fashion fun and important! ARG!They already find it fun and important. Fashion is an enormous industry. Ubisoft is just responding to demand.Because all girls love horses, amirite?How does the mere existence of a horse simulator imply that all girls love horses?Way to teach your daughters about female empowerment, ladies."Empowerment" referring, of course, to everything that's as far-removed as possible from anything associated with femininity. "Empowering" oneself as a woman involves completely devaluing womanhood and becoming a man. Also, we again see that feminism is not about giving choice and freedom to women, but about placing them under new restrictions. A woman cannot be interested in traditionally feminine things, or do anything else that the feminist politburo does not approve of.So all of this "games for girls" bullshit is just another way in which the gaming establishment (read:men) is telling gaming women that "YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE".No, it's just another way in which the industry makes money by creating games for a specific demographic. The idea that the industry is trying to make girls go away by making games for them is nonsensical. And do you know why the gaming industry is so male-dominated? Because women are not nearly as interested in serious video games as men are. Nor are they as interested in computer science or science in general. The feminists even try to rationalize their lack of interest with lame excuses like "well I would have become a programmer but there wasn't a course aimed specifically at women and when I was little my uncle told me computers are for boys." If you're so desperate to see feminist games then start making them yourself.wundergeek: Because clearly any game that appeals mainly to women is not a REAL game, noooooo…I have not seen anyone claim that The Sims isn't a real game. World of Warcraft is also pretty popular with women, but I don't see anyone denouncing that as a non-game. Bejeweled and Farmville are not taken seriously because of their qualities. The fact that they are popular with women is completely incidental.LilithXIV: What proof of the market is there?Assuming that Ubisoft isn't deliberately or unwittingly producing games that don't turn a profit (unlikely), the proof of the market is in the fact that these games keep getting made.Don't be so short-sighted, there's a lot of ways to change things. And the entire responsibility of changing these things should certainly /not/ solely be on women when the people running the companies could change as well.Why should they fight your wars for you? Why won't you make your own games? And why should anyone take feminists seriously when they consistently refuse to engage in open discussion and simply silence and smear anyone who does not agree with them?
>Who is this troll, Bill O'reilly?
>Ghost: The games themselves are not sexist per se; it's sexist for Ubisoft to market them as being specifically for girls. By doing so, they are adding to social pressure for girls to prefer stereotypically feminine activities (as opposed to simply responding to what already exists.) Had they been marketed in a more gender-neutral way, I don't think we would be having this discussion.
>And do you know what the sad part is? If this company really wanted, it COULD do a gender-neutral game about fashion design. I'm a guy and fashion design student, and "being pretty" is positively NOT in our curriculum. What we do have is a lot of market research, technical skills and (lots of) management issues. And believe it or not, the technical skills which must be learned involve not only chemistry and physics (all processes regarding fabric, such as its manufacture, dyes, etc.) but also mathematics (you just CAN'T do patterns right without geometry and a good abstract-spatial reasoning). And then there's the dirt — how to prey on stereotypes, how to build the marketing illusion that will make people want to buy the clothes you make, how to get your pieces featured in, say, Vague magazine. Also brand-building, in which the marketing illusion the brand projects will enable the company to sell not only clothes, but fragrance and all sorts of related stuff. If such "fashion games" were based on the reality of the industry, they'd be not only more interesting, but also instructive: it would teach the gamers not only about the competitive dog-eat-dog nature of this kind of bussiness, but also would help them see through the illusion of advertisement (enabling them to think critically about it).(Also, when ergonomy kicks in, it's not just clothes — one can plan working uniforms (to be worn by a firefighter or for manipulating hazardous materials), special clothing for people with disabilities, and demolishing stereotypes in the name of efficiency — in a hot climate, men are better off wearing kilts than pants or shorts, for example.)
>People saying The Sims is not a game:gamesskb.com threadLet's face it buddy, this game SUCKS. This is not a game at all. I don't carehow many expansion packs they make or how many people buy it. But go ahead,get all excited…It's a game? I thought it was a toy–a dollhouse in your computer. Ofcourse, non-neurotics aren't bothered by that.iafrica.com review of The Sims 3I never really liked any of the previous Sims games as I considered them to be to games what the Twilight series is to vampire movies. In other words, not a "real" game, just as Twilight isn't a "real" vampire film.video review of the Sims 3OT Thread on caloriecount.com 'm a gamer too. But Chu says my games don't count cause they aren't "real" games. (though I've mostly been playing Oblivion again lately, but anyways..) Oblivion is a real game!! 😛 I just hate the Sims.ebaumsworld.comNot a real game its a joke dude.And all of that is JUST stuff about The Sims that I found in five minutes using Google. I didn't even look for people talking trash about FarmVille or PopCap games.
>Re: saying games for girls aren't "real" games, I think that might be part of a larger issue, rather than something only aimed at games for girls.That bigger problem, I think, is the entitlement complex that's common in fandom, especially the male parts thereof. "Real games," the entitled fanboy says, "are made for real gamers like me. Those games are not made for me, therefore, they're not real games.""Girl games," of course, get the worst of that, because they're as "not made for me" to that type of gamer as a game can possibly be, but it extends out to any game made for children and any game not focused on competition. (There aren't very many games with large female fanbases that are free from that kind of insult, but it's hard to tell whether that's because the entitled gamers go after games because they have female fanbases, or if they go after them because they tend to stray from that kind of gamer's preference since most games with large female fanbases aren't so strongly based on competition and the illusion of maturity)
>"Ubisoft is just responding to demand." – What about the girls and women gamers like Wundergeek, who don't like this stuff? What about their demands non-stereotypical stuff? Or are the stereotypes so pervasive that they honestly think /all/ girls and women /must/ like this stuff?"The idea that the industry is trying to make girls go away by making games for them is nonsensical." – See above. Your assumption is that these games /are/ for the majority of girls and that they all like this. And that's Ubisoft's assumption and kind of explains why these are really the /only/ games that were directly marketed to girls. I guess the other girls and women who don't fit into your pink gender box just don't exist and are treated as invisible. Nice."And do you know why the gaming industry is so male-dominated? Because women are not nearly as interested in serious video games as men are. Nor are they as interested in computer science or science in general." – Ahhh, here it is! Gender essentialism. Are you an MRA? 'Men are like this and women are like this, end of story! Socialization has /nothing/ to do with it'. This is where you're revealed to largely just be a concern troll. You're not worried about women having a choice, your ignorant assumptions of what women are at their core (and that they are 'inferior' in various places that you've deemed men-only) do more to restrict women than anything else. Your sexism is obvious, you generalize an entire sex. Let me guess, the 'serious' games are the ones men play right? You sad little male supremacist.To your 'lame excuses' rant. My Reply: You mean their uncle and a large part of the other population of men in the world.. including you? Along with sexist media (like, say, games and commercials) that seem to only feature women in certain /roles/ and so they present those /roles/ as normal and Absolute.. which is also run by men like you who, either unwittingly or not, perpetuate this same damn 'common sense' sexism. Those same types of men bleed into the work force, and into places of education. Get it yet? Many societies are largely operating on Affirmative Action For WhiteHetCisGuys. You do not even see your privilege. And to the second statement about how you wish those feminists would just go make their own games. My reply: Because men shouldn't have to make games that further 'equality' right? They shouldn't /have/ to respect women or even give them consideration right? Men have their own toys so wwaahhh, why won't those wimmenz just go get their own. Men treating women like human beings who have just as much value as worth (and not just the ones who conform to gender role stereotypes) is so /unfair/ to ask I guess? Your feelings toward women and your boys club mentality become much more clear as you go on, ghost4. "The proof of the market is in the fact that these games keep getting made." – My Reply: Circular logic FTL. Proof that sexist stereotypes prevail perhaps.
>Ikkin: Saying games for girls aren't "real" games, I think that might be part of a larger issue, rather than something only aimed at games for girls.It's not part of any larger issue. The fact that those games are played by women is completely incidental. You are seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one.LilithXIV: What about the girls and women gamers like Wundergeek, who don't like this stuff? What about their demands non-stereotypical stuff?The Wundergeek crowd isn't part of the target demographic any more than I'm part of the sports game demographic (since I don't like them). There are clearly enough people who want to buy these girly games, so they keep getting made. What you or Wundergeek think about them is meaningless. Game publishers have little reason to care about what you think unless you have economic clout (and you don't).Or are the stereotypes so pervasive that they honestly think /all/ girls and women /must/ like this stuff?I don't see any reason why they would believe such a thing.Your assumption is that these games /are/ for the majority of girls and that they all like this. And that's Ubisoft's assumption and kind of explains why these are really the /only/ games that were directly marketed to girls.I merely said that the games are aimed at girls. How many girls are interested in them is beside the point.I don't even know what kind of games you are expecting the industry to make. Whenever I've asked this question there's been no real answer. If even you don't know, how is anyone else supposed to? I bet if Ubisoft announced they're going to make games that as many women as possible will want to play, you'd just accuse them of sexism because they're singling out women instead of treating them like everyone else.I guess the other girls and women who don't fit into your pink gender box just don't exist and are treated as invisible. Nice.So now I'm somehow responsible for what Ubisoft does. Nice.Ahhh, here it is! Gender essentialism. Are you an MRA?It's not essentialism (whatever that is), it's realism. Women just aren't equally interested in those things for whatever reason. And no, I'm not an MRA. MRAs are thugs, sociopaths, wannabe rapists and future George Sodinis, and I would not associate myself with them even if you paid me to.This is where you're revealed to largely just be a concern troll.You, along with 99,99 % of the Internet populace, do not know what a troll is.You're not worried about women having a choice, your ignorant assumptions of what women are at their core (and that they are 'inferior' in various places that you've deemed men-only) do more to restrict women than anything else.I'm not making assumptions, I'm making statements about reality. And I never said anything like "women can't be scientists" or "women shouldn't be scientists." They can be scientists or they can not be. Unlike the feminist politburo, I consider it to be their own choice.
>Part II: Attack of the Character LimitYour sexism is obvious, you generalize an entire sex. Let me guess, the 'serious' games are the ones men play right? You sad little male supremacist.Here's some more "sexism" for you: women are generally incapable of understanding generalizations, which includes the generalization that women are generally incapable of understanding generalizations.And yes, the serious games are indeed the ones that are mostly played by men. This, too, is incidental. As far as I'm concerned women can play whatever they want to. Or not play at all.To your 'lame excuses' rant. My Reply: You mean their uncle and a large part of the other population of men in the world.. including you?Even though absolutely nothing is preventing them from seeking a career in engineering or the hard sciences, they don't do so because of some completely meaningless reason like somebody once telling them they can't or shouldn't do it, or because there isn't a course exclusively for women. These are excuses made by women who just don't want to admit that they really aren't interested in studying those things. Feminists have told them that men and women are exactly the same (except women are better), so obviously they should be just as interested in studying quantum entanglement. But they aren't.Along with sexist media (like, say, games and commercials) that seem to only feature women in certain /roles/ and so they present those /roles/ as normal and Absolute.. which is also run by men like you who, either unwittingly or not, perpetuate this same damn 'common sense' sexism.Despite the fact that American media is highly feminized and feminist (routinely showing women in roles where you would actually not find them in real life that often), feminists still continue asserting the opposite. Feminism is a broken record that keeps saying the same things over and over again, as decades pass and the world changes. There is no point in even talking about this.Many societies are largely operating on Affirmative Action For WhiteHetCisGuys. You do not even see your privilege.Oh gee, I can't understand why societies consisting mostly of white heterosexuals would favor white heterosexuals the most. Except that isn't even true anymore. Being a white heterosexual man is today something of an embarrassment. But again, no point in talking about this with someone still stuck in the 1950s.As for privilege, it is nothing but a childish insult aimed at white heterosexual men. It is shorthand for "you're a misogynist, racist, xenophobic and ignorant piece of shit." The feminists who most loudly accuse others of privilege are some of the most privileged people themselves. Why don't you go and whine about privilege to an African child who's just been drafted into a militia? Or a slum dweller in India, or a girl in Afghanistan disfigured by acid, or even a white heterosexual man who's in a wheelchair because his legs got blown off by an IED in Iraq? Oh, but what am I saying… of course you are worse off than these privileged individuals. You have to worry about things like video games, what coffee to order during lunch break and which shoes to wear tomorrow. You poor thing.Because men shouldn't have to make games that further 'equality' right?No, they shouldn't have to fight your war for you (which is most certainly not about equality). They have no obligation to do so, and there's nothing in it for them.Circular logic FTL. Proof that sexist stereotypes prevail perhaps.Why would Ubisoft make those games if they didn't turn a profit? Aside from profit, they serve no purpose. They do not grant Ubisoft any prestige or fame, or anything like that.
>I made two posts, but where is the other one?
>New version of my vanished second post:Your sexism is obvious, you generalize an entire sex. Let me guess, the 'serious' games are the ones men play right? You sad little male supremacist.Here's some more "sexism" for you: women are generally incapable of understanding generalizations, including the generalization that women are generally incapable of understanding generalizations.The serious games are ones that are mostly played by men. This, too, is incidental. The fact that they are serious has nothing to do with who is playing them.You mean their uncle and a large part of the other population of men in the world.. including you?This does not actually happen, and I never said women couldn't or shouldn't be scientists.Women who don't go into science or engineering because of the aforementioned trivial reasons are either making excuses or being lazy. If it's the former, they don't want to admit they lack interest because feminism has told them they should be just as interested in quantum entanglement as men are. Except… they aren't. If it's the latter, they're just spoiled, entitled princesses who can't stand it when the world doesn't accomodate them exactly the way they want to. And it's like they think no (white heterosexual) man ever had to face criticism or problems because of his career choice, or some other choice. Feminists have a fantasy-based worldview where (white heterosexual) men never, ever have any problems while women can't even get out of bed in the morning without being brutally oppressed for it.Along with sexist media (like, say, games and commercials) that seem to only feature women in certain /roles/ and so they present those /roles/ as normal and Absolute.. which is also run by men like you who, either unwittingly or not, perpetuate this same damn 'common sense' sexism.Although American media is very feminized and feminist, feminists keep asserting the opposite. They are forever stuck in some 1950s-like never never land and don't respond to changing circumstances. They just keep repeating the same catchphrases and claims no matter what happens.Many societies are largely operating on Affirmative Action For WhiteHetCisGuys. You do not even see your privilege.Yes, how surprising that societies dominated by white heterosexuals would be advantageous to white heterosexuals. Except this isn't even true anymore. Nowadays it's something of an embarrassment to be a white heterosexual man. Not that you can see this when you're still happily stuck in your makebelieve 1950s universe."Privilege" is nothing but a childish insult directed at white heterosexual men. It's shorthand for "you're a misogynist, racist, xenophobic piece of shit." The feminists who most loudly accuse others of privilege are some of the most privileged people around. Their biggest concerns are usually things like sexism in video games, what type of coffee to order during lunch break, and which shoes to wear tomorrow. But that doesn't stop them from awarding themselves the Oppression Olympics gold medal, even when competing against such opponents as children in African warzones and Indian slums, women in Islamic societies, or even white heterosexual men who've been left disabled by bullets or IEDs. Yes, it's you who are the real victims. You poor things.Because men shouldn't have to make games that further 'equality' right?No, they don't have to fight your war for you (which is most certainly not about equality). They have no obligation to do so, and there's nothing in it for them.Your feelings toward women and your boys club mentality become much more clear as you go on, ghost4.Don't confuse my feelings with those that you have arbitrarily attributed to me.
>Maybe the blog knew how much crap you had been spewing and decided to just cut it off right away? Especially since you keep trying to back pedal and keep contradicting yourself each time you post. Seriously, just go away you sad little troll.I mean your last paragraph in the post before this recent one really sums it up well.On 'fighting wars for you, make your own games, and silencing.' My Reply: Again, see above. And who are you trying to fool? What open discussion did you present? And silencing? Gender essentialism is a silencing tactic all on it's own. 'Women are like this and men are like this, women just make excuses but who cares about their thoughts or opinions or experiences, obviously gender essentialism is /right/.' You also consider women's struggle for equality to be a 'war', and that giving basic respect and consideration to women.. valuing them just as much as men are valued is some kind of Super Serious Terribly Hard Thing To Do. Again, boys club mentality, the 'no gurlz allowed, go play on your own side of the gender line' type. It's all over your post. You obviously have some serious issues with women, please stop pretending you're the 'rational' and fair one here. You've done more to smear women than I've done to smear anyone else.Your reality is a false one, please stop claiming it's realistic when you are literally taking part in the most outdated stereotypical tripe (without any back-up, proof, or.. anything, yet you still claim 'truth') that people have heard a million times over and then pretending to be rational. Also, you'd fit right in with MRAs buddy, you sound like a classic misogynist. Especially with that earlier post, don't fool yourself.
>Maybe the blog knew how much crap you had been spewing and decided to just cut it off right away?Or maybe inexplicably disappearing Blogger comments have been widely reported by many other users and have nothing to do with me.Especially since you keep trying to back pedal and keep contradicting yourself each time you post. Seriously, just go away you sad little trollPlease point out where I have backpedaled or contradicted myself. Also, don't use difficult and sophisticated words like troll without first learning what they mean. It makes you seem uneducated and stupid.What open discussion did you present? And silencing? Gender essentialism is a silencing tactic all on it's own.Open discussion means that each side can present their views without having their comments deleted and accounts banned. So far, that is exactly what has been occuring here. On nearly every other feminist site dissent is prevented by either closely moderating all comments or banning the person if he doesn't cease and desist. This is silencing. It's also a sign of a lack of confidence. People who are fully confident in their beliefs have no need to silence anyone.Gender essentialism does not silence anything. I could employ all the gender essentialism I wanted and it wouldn't prevent you from replying.You also consider women's struggle for equality to be a 'war'.No, I consider feminism to be a war. And feminism has nothing to do with gender equality. I support the latter, but not the former.The rest of your post is just completely random accusations and assertions that aren't even worth addressing.
>ghost4, because you to misunderstand the term yourself, let me define troll for you in the context that we're using it. I'll reference the second definition from Urban Dictionary to make my point:"One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue."You do not, in any way, listen to the arguments we are making, because you are already committed to believing them incorrect. You do not care about what's true, you only care about "winning" the argument by repeating your opinion until we give up, and hence continued discussion with you is completely unproductive.Wundergeek would be well within her rights to delete all of your posts, because you are not interested in conversation and you contribute nothing to the discourse beyond misinformation and robotic recitation of the same tired arguments that come up every time this subject is discussed.If you are not willing to allow your own opinions to be challenged, you should not be posting on a blog/forum/whatever dedicated to the opposing position, because nothing good will come of it — no one will ever consider your opinions if you're not willing to consider theirs. That's just common sense.
>I do not moderate comments.Guys, please stop engaging with ghost4. It's not worth your mental bandwidth since he clearly has no intention of having a real conversation.
>Ikkin: I'll reference the second definition from Urban Dictionary to make my point:A troll posts something inflammatory, controversial, stupid or fraudulent in an attempt to generate as many replies as possible. Being offensive and argumentative is completely optional. An important characteristic of a troll is that people who are sufficiently intelligent, observant or informed can tell that he is trolling. A classic example of a troll is Is Your Son a Computer Hacker. Many people can't tell that he is obviously pulling their leg, so they post angry replies in an attempt to correct the numerous factual errors in his story. Also, trolls typically don't engage in any sort of dialogue, and will rely on their initial post to do all the trolling.The problem with your definition — aside from the fact that it has very little to do with real trolling — is that it's very vague and can easily be applied to just about anyone. Indeed, these days "troll" has no meaning at all and is used as a Get Out of Jail Free card in debates. Having problems arguing against someone? No worries, just call them a troll and you automatically win. And don't forget to congratulate yourself on your superior intellect and knowledge.You do not, in any way, listen to the arguments we are making, because you are already committed to believing them incorrect.Listening is not synonymous with agreeing, and you are just as committed to believing that my arguments are incorrect. You, if anyone, aren't listening, since instead of addressing my arguments you are just changing the subject by accusing me of "trolling." Which is actually very consistent with the definition of trolling you posted.You do not care about what's true, you only care about "winning" the argument by repeating your opinion until we give up, and hence continued discussion with you is completely unproductive.And let me guess: in order for me to care about what's true, I have to agree with everything you say. Well then, couldn't I just easily say the same thing to you? If you want to learn the truth, you have to believe everything I say.Wundergeek would be well within her rights to delete all of your posts, because you are not interested in conversation and you contribute nothing to the discourse beyond misinformation and robotic recitation of the same tired arguments that come up every time this subject is discussed."Conversation" is, of course, defined here as everyone agreeing with each other, so naturally anyone who disagrees is not conversing properly. You are continuously redefining words to suit your own purposes, and your arguments (if they can even be called that) rely exclusively on these redefinitions.If you are not willing to allow your own opinions to be challenged…How am I not allowing that? Anyone is free to challenge anything I have said here. You're the one saying Wundergeek should delete all my posts!
>Blogger is eating comments again.Ikkin: I'll reference the second definition from Urban Dictionary to make my point:A troll posts something inflammatory, controversial, stupid or fraudulent in an attempt to generate as many replies as possible. Being offensive and argumentative is completely optional. An important characteristic of a troll is that people who are sufficiently intelligent, observant or informed can tell that he is trolling. A classic example of a troll is Is Your Son a Computer Hacker. Many people can't tell that he is obviously pulling their leg, so they post angry replies in an attempt to correct the numerous factual errors in his story. Also, trolls typically don't engage in any sort of dialogue, and will rely on their initial post to do all the trolling.The problem with your definition — aside from the fact that it has very little to do with real trolling — is that it's very vague and can easily be applied to just about anyone. Indeed, these days "troll" has no meaning at all and is used as a Get Out of Jail Free card in debates. Having problems arguing against someone? No worries, just call them a troll and you automatically win. And don't forget to congratulate yourself on your superior intellect and knowledge.You do not, in any way, listen to the arguments we are making, because you are already committed to believing them incorrect.Listening is not synonymous with agreeing, and you are just as committed to believing that my arguments are incorrect. You, if anyone, aren't listening, since instead of addressing my arguments you are just changing the subject by accusing me of "trolling." Which is actually very consistent with the definition of trolling you posted.You do not care about what's true, you only care about "winning" the argument by repeating your opinion until we give up, and hence continued discussion with you is completely unproductive.And let me guess: in order for me to care about what's true, I have to agree with everything you say. Well then, couldn't I just easily say the same thing to you? If you want to learn the truth, you have to believe everything I say.Wundergeek would be well within her rights to delete all of your posts, because you are not interested in conversation and you contribute nothing to the discourse beyond misinformation and robotic recitation of the same tired arguments that come up every time this subject is discussed."Conversation" is, of course, defined here as everyone agreeing with each other, so naturally anyone who disagrees is not conversing properly. You are continuously redefining words to suit your own purposes, and your arguments (if they can even be called that) rely exclusively on these redefinitions.If you are not willing to allow your own opinions to be challenged…How am I not allowing that? Anyone is free to challenge anything I have said here. You're the one saying Wundergeek should delete all my posts!
>Ikkin: I'll reference the second definition from Urban Dictionary to make my point:A troll posts something inflammatory, controversial, stupid or fraudulent in an attempt to generate as many replies as possible. Being offensive and argumentative is completely optional. An important characteristic of a troll is that people who are sufficiently intelligent, observant or informed can tell that he is trolling. A classic example of a troll is Is Your Son a Computer Hacker. Many people can't tell that he is obviously pulling their leg, so they post angry replies in an attempt to correct the numerous factual errors in his story. Also, trolls typically don't engage in any sort of dialogue, and will rely on their initial post to do all the trolling.The problem with your definition — aside from the fact that it has very little to do with real trolling — is that it's very vague and can easily be applied to just about anyone. Indeed, these days "troll" has no meaning at all and is used as a Get Out of Jail Free card in debates. Having problems arguing against someone? No worries, just call them a troll and you automatically win. And don't forget to congratulate yourself on your superior intellect and knowledge.You do not, in any way, listen to the arguments we are making, because you are already committed to believing them incorrect. You do not care about what's true, you only care about "winning" the argument by repeating your opinion until we give up, and hence continued discussion with you is completely unproductive.Listening is not synonymous with agreeing, and you are just as committed to believing that my arguments are incorrect. You, if anyone, aren't listening, since instead of addressing my arguments you are just changing the subject by accusing me of "trolling." Which is actually very consistent with the definition of trolling you posted.And let me guess: in order for me to care about what's true, I have to agree with everything you say. Well then, couldn't I just easily say the same thing to you? If you want to learn the truth, you have to believe everything I say.Wundergeek would be well within her rights to delete all of your posts, because you are not interested in conversation and you contribute nothing to the discourse beyond misinformation and robotic recitation of the same tired arguments that come up every time this subject is discussed."Conversation" is, of course, defined here as everyone agreeing with each other, so naturally anyone who disagrees is not conversing properly. You are continuously redefining words to suit your own purposes, and your arguments (if they can even be called that) rely exclusively on these redefinitions.If you are not willing to allow your own opinions to be challenged…How am I not allowing that? Anyone is free to challenge anything I have said here. You're the one saying Wundergeek should delete all my posts!
>Google decided to lock my account for unspecified reasons.Ikkin: I'll reference the second definition from Urban Dictionary to make my point:A troll posts something inflammatory, controversial, stupid or fraudulent in an attempt to generate as many replies as possible. Being offensive and argumentative is completely optional. An important characteristic of a troll is that people who are sufficiently intelligent, observant or informed can tell that he is trolling. A classic example of a troll is Is Your Son a Computer Hacker. Many people can't tell that he is obviously pulling their leg, so they post angry replies in an attempt to correct the numerous factual errors in his story. Also, trolls typically don't engage in any sort of dialogue, and will rely on their initial post to do all the trolling.The problem with your definition — aside from the fact that it has very little to do with real trolling — is that it's very vague and can easily be applied to just about anyone. Indeed, these days "troll" has no meaning at all and is used as a Get Out of Jail Free card in debates. Having problems arguing against someone? No worries, just call them a troll and you automatically win. And don't forget to congratulate yourself on your superior intellect and knowledge.You do not, in any way, listen to the arguments we are making, because you are already committed to believing them incorrect. You do not care about what's true, you only care about "winning" the argument by repeating your opinion until we give up, and hence continued discussion with you is completely unproductive.Listening is not synonymous with agreeing, and you are just as committed to believing that my arguments are incorrect. You, if anyone, aren't listening, since instead of addressing my arguments you are just changing the subject by accusing me of "trolling." Which is actually very consistent with the definition of trolling you posted.And let me guess: in order for me to care about what's true, I have to agree with everything you say. Well then, couldn't I just easily say the same thing to you? If you want to learn the truth, you have to believe everything I say.Wundergeek would be well within her rights to delete all of your posts, because you are not interested in conversation and you contribute nothing to the discourse beyond misinformation and robotic recitation of the same tired arguments that come up every time this subject is discussed."Conversation" is, of course, defined here as everyone agreeing with each other, so naturally anyone who disagrees is not conversing properly. You are continuously redefining words to suit your own purposes, and your arguments (if they can even be called that) rely exclusively on these redefinitions.As for me not allowing my opinions to be challenged, anyone here is free to challenge anything I have said here. You're the one saying Wundergeek should delete all my posts.
>Ikkin: I'll reference the second definition from Urban Dictionary to make my point:The problem with your definition — aside from the fact that it has very little to do with real trolling — is that it's very vague and can easily be applied to just about anyone. Indeed, these days "troll" has no meaning at all and is used as a Get Out of Jail Free card in debates. Having problems arguing against someone? No worries, just call them a troll and you automatically win. And don't forget to congratulate yourself on your superior intellect and knowledge.You do not, in any way, listen to the arguments we are making, because you are already committed to believing them incorrect. You do not care about what's true, you only care about "winning" the argument.Listening is not synonymous with agreeing, and you are just as committed to believing that my arguments are incorrect. You, if anyone, aren't listening, since instead of addressing my arguments you are just changing the subject by accusing me of "trolling." Which is actually very consistent with the definition of trolling you posted.And let me guess: in order for me to care about what's true, I have to agree with everything you say. Well then, couldn't I just easily say the same thing to you? If you want to learn the truth, you have to believe everything I say.Wundergeek would be well within her rights to delete all of your posts, because you are not interested in conversation."Conversation" is, of course, defined here as everyone agreeing with each other, so naturally anyone who disagrees is not conversing properly. You are continuously redefining words to suit your own purposes, and your arguments (if they can even be called that) rely exclusively on these redefinitions.As for me not allowing my opinions to be challenged, anyone here is free to challenge anything I have said here. You're the one saying Wundergeek should delete all my posts.
>What the fuck, Blogspot? My posts kept disappearing into thin air for no reason, and now the system has spit them out all at once, even if I sent them 24 hours ago. Where were they during this time? I give up (on Blogspot). Goodbye.
>Re: "Even though absolutely nothing is preventing them from seeking a career in engineering or the hard sciences, they don't do so because of some completely meaningless reason like somebody once telling them they can't or shouldn't do it, or because there isn't a course exclusively for women. These are excuses made by women who just don't want to admit that they really aren't interested in studying those things."I highly disagree with this. When I graduated high school, I wanted to go into mechanical engineering. I made it into Kettering University, one of the top engineering schools in the country, and received a 3/4 tuition scholarship. Why, then, am I not at Kettering today? It's because I went to the orientation with my mom and my boyfriend at the time… and not ONE of the teachers said hello to me as we went around the event. Every single "Hi, what are you studying? Do you have any questions? etc etc etc" was directed at my boyfriend (not even at the whole group of us, but specifically at him).I find this kind of attitude in the field I ended up choosing (Accounting and Accounting Information Systems, both heavily male-dominated fields), as well. It's not as bad as it used to be, I'm sure, but it's still aggravating.But anyway, this is a blog about games, not the workplace and academic environments…So I will post what I originally meant to post- I think the issue with these games is that they're just crap. I remember playing awesome games like Super Mario Bros 3, Pokemon, Zelda, and Tetris when I was younger. I never would've touched this kind of crap with a ten-foot pole. It's just… so many poorly designed games that make me gag. The fact that they're marketed at the parents of young girls (more so than the girls themselves, I think, since it's not the children with the buying power) is just unfortunate because young girls might grow up to think that these games are the best video games can get. That's the part I think it truly sad.
>Ugh, these imagine titles are the bane of my life these last few months because the really scary thing is they sell…a lot.Mainly to mothers* buying presents for their little girls and it doesnt seem to matter what I try I cant ever steer them towards any different game type, no they want the pink frilly 'safe' girl game :(, course these are the same mothers buying little 9 y.o timmy "grand gears of black ops" and causing me yet another ear ulcer when I play online after work.maybe its just a bad parenting thing but I dont know cos I dont got no kiddies.note: I try and steer them away not because of gender politics but because they seem to be uniformly awful games (except cooking mama but throw enough darts…) *dads on the other hand tend to have this quiet desperation about them when they bring them to the counter, like they know they are making a bad choice but dont know what else to get for a girl and listen if you recommend other game types plus they know they can blame me if the daughter hates it 🙂
When I was a little girl I liked playing games like Doom, Diablo, Wolfenstein 3D, Mortal Kombat, Mario. . . . But I would also love playing Barbie games, Neopets, paper doll flash games. I would even sometimes play a “boy” game in a way that was super girly. (Decorating houses in Morrowind, playing Ocarina of Time just to ride around on the horse.) So I personally don’t have any hatred for these sorts of games. I mean, I loved horses to death as a kid! (I also loved dragons!)
I think it’s a shame that there are women that absolutely hate these “girl” games and call them worthless trash. I think it’s a shame because, in my opinion, it makes it sound like y’all think girly things in general are inferior. And one of the reasons I think that boys are discouraged from playing with a paper doll game or a horse riding game is precisely because it’s a girl thing and girl things are inferior to boy things.
I don’t think this is a conspiracy of The Gaming Establishment as much as it is a misunderstanding, and ignorance to the fact that there are plenty of boys that would also like to play a cooking game, or a horse riding simulator. Which is also an issue with our society in general,
And yes most of these girl games are poor quality but that is because they are shovel ware. There could easily be a high quality fashion game, baby sitting game, or interior design game (besides Morrowind.) It’s just that companies do not thing these are worthwhile subjects, they just shove out girl games in order to get some extra money.
Sorry if I’m rambling.