Originally Posted By Terramax (30 OCT 2005 4:39pm)
I got this info from a television program a few years back but, in Japan, 46% of gamers are girls. And many played even the most violent like 'Resident Evil'.

Originally Posted By judyann (30 OCT 2005 3:49pm)
Can't speak for men, but in games featuring women, the women usually are unnecessarily overly endowed and sensually dressed.  Example, in Still Live, our heroine is running around Chicago in the dead of winter in a mini-skirt and a short jacket.  I have lived in Chicago and women do not tend to show off their legs to frost bite.  A little less bust and legs for those of us who are average would increase empathy.

+ Do you think women are a viable market for video games?  Why?

+ What games / companies do you think are successfully targeting women now, and how are they different than other games / companies, assuming that they are different?

+ Are there aspects of gaming that you think appeal to women differently than men?

+ How does marketing to women gamers differ from the traditional marketing to male gamers?

+ Are there any marketing opportunities that video game manufacturers are not successfully using to attract women?

Originally Posted By Susan, the Younger Goddess (31 OCT 2005 8:09pm)
Avatar ~ when would you like the information by?  Is sometime this week OK?  I'd like to respond, but I need to think about my answers first, and I want to know what kind of timeframe is available.  

Originally Posted By cecirdr (1 NOV 2005 9:43pm)
So far in my life, there is indeed a distinct difference between how men and women seem to think.  It's the difference between quantitative thinking versus qualitative...objective versus subjective.  So far our culture seems to indoctrinate us that quantitative approaches, statistical manipulation and data, data, data is the only valuable, accurate way to problem solve or view the world.

But I must admit, that to me and my women friends, so many of the larger problems on a societal level seem to be self induced.

People choose believe vile things about each other and it induces our young (temporarily testosterone poisoned) men to go to war...

None of our gov'ts represent their populations.  They're run by egomanical, delusional, malevolent, or profiteering people yet we continue to believe them...

Well...many games throw issues like those in the above paragraph into their game...factions, wars, solving a "problem" by killing. These are "big issues"...and they are things that *don't have to exist*.

Perhaps they're in our lives because our leaders always assume the worst about other leaders and they choose to live in fear.

Originally Posted By MichalN (2 NOV 2005 12:23am)

"I think you're seeing a dichotomy where there's none. Variations within each gender are far greater than differences between genders. Generalizations based on gender are very tempting, but quite often inaccurate and misleading."

That's the prevailing "doctrine" (note the quotes.  I was unable to think of a better word at the moment)...but also a clear example of qualitative versus quantitative thinking.  For example do you always see the differences or do you focus on similarities?  

o you delve into statistics or do you see trends subjectively?  Your answer answered your own question.  You just poo pooed an opinion that focused on similaries versus differences and that noticed patterns without having to provide acres of statistics to back it up.

---------------------------
"I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "quantitative approaches". Rational thinking is based on logic and facts; it does, in fact, work remarkably well (conclusions based on doctored data and twisted evidence do not count as rational thinking)."

I used to work in cell biology and biochemistry.  It was typical to perform statistical anaylsis on the data.  It was also very typical for science to ignore the visual data one would see in a microscope but not quantitate.  Huge effort is made to devise ways to put numbers on events.  But the subjective data is capable of being an useful tool in and of itself.  Both methods can be subject to irrational thinking...subjective moreso.  Perhaps that's why we as a society seem to have little regard for it???

----------------------
"What else could they be? It's not like the problems are caused by aliens. Of course they're caused by humans."

I think you misunderstand the phrase self induced.  It means our own mindsets and knee jerk responses back us into the very problems we say we're trying to avoid.

-------------------------------------
"Are you suggesting that women are irrational?"

Hardly.  Subjective techniques do not equal irrationality.  Our culture seems to act as if it does though....even to the point of getting defensive if it's suggested that a person or group of people might display this characteristic.  Objectivity is a way to add rigourous testing to an equation.  But that can also be done subjectively too.  

---------------------------------
"How do you explain women in the army?"

Your first reply answered this.  There is always individual variability in any group.  My theory addresses only what may motivate a group *at large*.

------------------------------
"If history is anything to go by, they do have to exist because they're inextricably linked with humans. Remember, people who ignore history inevitably repeat past mistakes

"

Yup...thus my hamster wheel to nowhere comment in my original post.  If you want something in this world to change, you have to change.  You can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. On a societal level, our gov'ts must change...not just talk...*do*.  No matter how scary it is.  We've already tried and done all the gov't solutions being postulated now....round and round we go ...just different drums banging and different set props to play with.  The more feminine approach is poo pooed or considered too simplistic...perhaps even naive or irrational.  But that approach to running the world is the only one *we've never tried*.  So it can be argued ad infinitem.  Until we try it, we'll never know if it's just pie in the sky or actually works.  

---------------------------
"I think you're mixing up unrelated issues though. People who play violent games don't have to be violent at all, and vice versa. You know, chess is a war-like game too."

...don't play chess.  My entire pontification

is about why women for the most part aren't interested in most of the games out there nowadays.  I never addressed that many people who play violent games aren't violent.  So, I'm sorry that I don't get where you're headed with the above parallel.  Your comment seems to me to be unrealated to the issues I brought up.  

--------------------------
"Leaders can only be leaders as long as there are people willing to follow them. But if most people are stupid sheep, then I'm afraid we're stuck, unless you believe in eugenics."

Yup...and the fact that many women don't buy the video games out there in abundance right now is a smaller scale metaphor of the larger scale scenario you mentioned above.  Apparently the industry would rather change women or learn how to market differently than try to see how most women really do think differently that young men.  

as men age and have less circulating testosterone, you'd be surprised how similarly men and women begin to think)  Or the industry would rather women just start acting like men and just buy the danged games.  They keep asking "why don't you like the games that we like" yet they persist in ignoring the answers they get.

Originally Posted By cecirdr (2 NOV 2005 1:34am)
Sorry for the formatting of my reply.  I have no idea how to do reply to comments and have the quote system separate each time.

And i'm sorry that I got into such large scale ideas.

For example do you always see the differences or do you focus on similarities?

Do you delve into statistics or do you see trends subjectively?

You just poo pooed an opinion that focused on similaries versus differences and that noticed patterns without having to provide acres of statistics to back it up.

I used to work in cell biology and biochemistry.  It was typical to perform statistical anaylsis on the data.  It was also very typical for science to ignore the visual data one would see in a microscope but not quantitate.

Huge effort is made to devise ways to put numbers on events.

I think you misunderstand the phrase self induced.  It means our own mindsets and knee jerk responses back us into the very problems we say we're trying to avoid.

Subjective techniques do not equal irrationality.

Objectivity is a way to add rigourous testing to an equation.  But that can also be done subjectively too.

Your first reply answered this.  There is always individual variability in any group.  My theory addresses only what may motivate a group *at large*.

If you want something in this world to change, you have to change.

On a societal level, our gov'ts must change...not just talk...*do*.  No matter how scary it is.

The more feminine approach is poo pooed or considered too simplistic...perhaps even naive or irrational.

But that approach to running the world is the only one *we've never tried*.

My entire pontification is about why women for the most part aren't interested in most of the games out there nowadays.

(as men age and have less circulating testosterone, you'd be surprised how similarly men and women begin to think)

Or the industry would rather women just start acting like men and just buy the danged games.  They keep asking "why don't you like the games that we like" yet they persist in ignoring the answers they get.

Originally Posted By cecirdr (3 NOV 2005 12:49am)
So...here was yet another really long post.  I hadn't planned on it, but your rebuttal was so intriguing that I couldn't resist.  Perhaps we really should take it to email...or move the thread.  The perpetual games and women topics really are loaded hot button topics anyway.

Originally Posted By Betje (3 NOV 2005 3:09am)


Please don't take it to email! I want to read your exchange. And maybe comment on it. Just maybe. Don't feel up to it now, as I'm overwhelmed by paint fumes. I'm sure that sounds strange, but it's true.  

Originally Posted By cecirdr (3 NOV 2005 12:49am)
My opinion post was probably the equivalent of farting in the elevator.  I made a stink and it wasn't a nice thing to do.  I apologized when I posted it, but it's obvious to me  now that I never expected anyone to follow up on the comments I made.

That metaphor was used simply to try to put a "face" on the general tendency by all of the women *that I know* to NOT want to sit down with stats to develop an character in an RPG, nor do they want to study the ins and outs of the technology tree and civilization advances in the latest Civ game.

Ahhhh....ergh...I can't resist.....

Of course a number is a number...but in many cases you *can* argue with how the number was generated.

AND...you can quantitate dark blue.

My entire point in every post...is *to what end* do we persist in quantitating everything?  In some cases quantitating a particular shade of dark blue is important, but often we persist in engaging this penchant even when it serves no real purpose.

Nope...not the case.  Peer review and external critique DO NOT make something objective.

Now...if I adapt to the world, then I'm doing the same things that the world is presently doing....how in the world is this going to change anything?  

o you really still enjoy the thousands of years old hamster wheel to nowhere that we're on?  ....and you want to change it by adapting to it's rules?  Whoa...you lost me there.

Ah...so you assume that there's more varability between women than between men and women.

Noting that there's variability in the group at large (and one that may even be statistically significant) in no way means that it's so internally inconsistent that treating it as a group is not helpful.

There are very definitely greater differences between male (as a group) and female (as a group) than there are between females (as a group).

If there weren't, then there wouldn't be study after study in psychology mags that persist in using male or female groupings and comparing them.

Actually, Michal there ARE very large differences between how men and women perceive the world and react to it.

The answers today are no different than they were years ago. Apparently the manufacturers would rather 1/2 of humankind just change and start to like the video games they make for 20 something males.

Why continue to ask this question over and over if you're never actually going to *change anything*?

The perpetual games and women topics really are loaded hot button topics anyway.