| Just Adventure News : |
| Home - Forum Home |
| Page 2 of 2 : « ‹ |
| 7 FEB 2009 at 5:42pm | |
MaumPrivate Detective  Posts : 595 Joined: 2 JUN 2007 Location: UK Status : Offline | Fair point, so where are the boys AGs? Currently playing: Dragon Age Origins, Dishonored, The Witcher, Fallout 3, Deponia |
| Profile Search | |
| 7 FEB 2009 at 9:37pm | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By maum (7 FEB 2009 5:41pm) Those must be "The Hardy boys" [smiley=rofl.gif] [smiley=rofl.gif] [smiley=rofl.gif] I agree with your previous post that expressed indignation, maum. I ignore marketers attempts to push me into a little pre-defined box and shape that suits them. When I was a teenager, I read Drina Ballerina, and Cherry Ames nurse, and some Nancy Drew, and "Tina" and "Mandy" comics for girls, and 'The Lyntons" riding books, and those rather soppy historical novels, but also "Biggles" and Alistair Mc lean and Jack Higgins, which were mainly action novels set in WW2, and other similar settings that men and boys only are supposed to enjoy. Ah, well, I pretty much read everything I could lay my hands on anyway. Now that I'm all grown up, my tastes are still similarly eclectic. I game almost everything, although I will admit that I have less interest in shooters than other genres, and I have almost zero interest "Sport" games. It's not that I'm a "masculine" or "butch" type of woman at all - in fact I'm probably quite "girly-girl" (as Caroline would put it) in quite a few respects ; but I don't see why having boobies and and womb, should preclude me from enjoying the full spectrum of the gaming universe; and consign me to some little corner where I have to chastely sit and do needlework and cook and wash dishes. |
| 7 FEB 2009 at 11:00pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor  Posts : 6694 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . It's a lot more than just marketers Traveler. It is all of society that still promotes a pretty clear separation of the sexes - especially for little kids. After all, people started dressing and treating little boys and girls differently a long time before there was anything called marketing. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 7 FEB 2009 at 11:25pm | |
MaumPrivate DetectivePosts : 595 Joined: 2 JUN 2007 Location: UK Status : Offline | Terry you're right but I find it interesting that the ND games are obviously targeted at girls, and yet I can't think of any AG that are designed specifically with boys in mind. Currently playing: Dragon Age Origins, Dishonored, The Witcher, Fallout 3, Deponia |
| Profile Search | |
| 8 FEB 2009 at 9:14am | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (7 FEB 2009 11:00pm) Yes, the nostalgic, good old days in which women were always pregnant and tied to the kitchen sink. Then came along the suffragettes, fighting for women's rights, and the pill which liberated women from eternal pregnancy, and women's lib, and equal rights, and then for a while in the seventies, eighties, and early nineties, clothes and other fashion commodities were unisex. Video games were also unisex, and back then nobody even dreamed that we should have "games for boys" and "games for girls". Then suddenly, marketers realized: Hey! We could maybe make more cash by pushing gender identity, by trying to gain a bit of an extra market where before there was not a market. Let's make things fashionable that are currently not fashionable. So, now we have skincare for men: cleanser, toner, moisturizer, and it's even gone beyond aftershave and deodorants - they now have their own fragrances too. Musk, a fragrance "for him". Pour Homme. There are lots of expensive products around now, "Pour Homme". Men go for hair implants and plastic surgery too, they shave their chests and their pubic hair (which I personallly find a shame, as I prefer men to be in their naturally hairy state), (which I'm sure sells more aftershave and general skin care, as the poor males now also have ingrowing hair from shaving to cope with, all over their bodies) For girls who cannot be bothered with sexy feminine underwear, the makers of male underwear, have started a "for her" line. "She" can now also wear jocks looking similar to men's jocks (with a matching grey or white bra), only, 'she' has to pay more for them, because these jocks have a label saying: "for her". Just as "she" has to pay more for razors "for her", because they are somehow magically structured differently than razors "for him"; because apparently the contours of her legs and underarms and pubic region, are different from the contours on men's chest's and pubic regions and faces. Of course, there is also the fact that "for her" razor's come in pink, while "for him" razors come in black. That is a very important point. We cannot have men shaving with pink razors, can we now? : Fashion has come full circle, and clothes are back to being gender-specific; and once again, there I personally, am eclectic. I love dressing femininely when I go out, but for gym, unisex goes, as I grab whatever I can find on the clean washing pile. Thank heavens society has reached a point where I have a choice. I used to feel it was ok for me to play any kind of PC game, even as a young girl; I never felt that I had to check: "Oh wait, -is this a "boy " game or a "girl" game? I'm just hoping modern girls are not going to feel bad now, and that they are somehow breaking a taboo, if they play Mech Warrior instead of Nancy Drew. I know I had a lot of fun playing Mortal Kombat when I was a kid; -I hope the "games for girls" labelling isn't going to take the choice away for modern girls. I additionally find this rather strange in a world where little girls are now playing pee-wee Cricket and Football. :-? Sure, I understand the kind of marketing "create a fashion" machine that created Barbie and The Bratz and Ben10 etc. - these franchises bring in tons of money; - but these are "cult" fashions, and Nancy Drew isn't quite the same thing. I have not consciously gender scripted my kids, but inadvertantly probably did so, by buying Barbie and Bratz videogames for the little girl; but interestingly, along with his fighting and racing games, the little boy also enjoys playing Barbie and Bratz. I can't help wondering if guys who enjoy playing the Nancy Drew games, end up feeling slightly uncomfortable, because they are now supposedly playing a "Girlz game". Especially the ND title in which ND had to do household chores, I found a bit over the top. Heck, by playing video games the goal is to escape drudgery. In videogames, even puny geeky nerds and weak, soft females can be huge and mighty warriors, or amazing, erudite, powerful mages: -saviours of worlds, or discoverers of earth's deepest mysteries, or of strange new worlds. When you can do all that, who still wants to cook and clean? :-? Hey, explore your feminine side, guyz! To wash dishes is to be feminine! LULZ maum wrote: Terry you're right but I find it interesting that the ND games are obviously targeted at girls, and yet I can't think of any AG that are designed specifically with boys in mind. Maum, you're right, I checked out The Hardy Boys, and nowhere do they say that this is a game specifically targeted at boys. |
| 8 FEB 2009 at 7:17pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6694 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Then again Traveler, a lot of marketing studies and focus group testing simply confirms that society in general does indeed promote different roles / images for boys and girls. This is still strongly reinforced in a wide variety of media, in fashion, in social habits, in dating, etc. Marketers for the most part aren't creating demand, they are simply catering to it in the most efficient way possible. After all, people in general take their initial life cues from parents, teachers and other close role models. These same ideas are also reinforced on TV, in films, etc. and then peer groups basically seal the deal. By the time they are 10, most children have been programmed very effectively to act / think / feel about gender roles in a certain way. From day one parents still dress their little girls in pink and little boys in blue. Did you also know that MANY daddies-to-be treat their unborn babies differently after learning the sex? That's right. it's very subtle / subconscious but true. They whisper softly while gently caressing mommy's stomach if it's a girl and they speak a bit louder and in a more "manly" tone while patting the tummy if it's a boy. Baby clothes, etc. aside, the REALLY big gender division comes the very first time the parents go out in public with their child after the diaper stage. They consciously decide then and there which restroom is right and which is wrong. Of course by then, the kid has already been bombarded with a constant stream of gender role-assignment input from all sides anyway. So most children never question that stuff. They just go with the flow, grow up, have kids of their own and do the very same thing. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 8 FEB 2009 at 10:18pm | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (8 FEB 2009 7:17pm) So, just because society does it, does that mean that it's a good thing? Chinese society expected young girls' feet to be crippled for life - so is that a good thing? African tribes culturally promote ritual mutilation which often leads to the death of the mutilees; - so is this a good thing? Many societies in the history of mankind, promoted that little children be sacrificed to their gods; -so is this a good thing? Marketers for the most part aren't creating demand, they are simply catering to it in the most efficient way possible. *Ahem!* After all, people in general take their initial life cues from parents, teachers and other close role models. [highlight]These same ideas are also reinforced on TV, in films, etc.[/highlight] and then peer groups basically seal the deal. Exactly. By the time they are 10, most children have been[highlight] programmed[/highlight] very effectively to act / think / feel about gender roles in a certain way. Exactly. Of course by then, the kid has already been bombarded with a constant stream of gender role-assignment input from all sides anyway. So most children never question that stuff. They just go with the flow, grow up, have kids of their own and do the very same thing. Shame. Like good little sheep. What a pity that girls get Nancy Drew, and boys get all the rest of the gaming world. That seems bit unfair, to myself and a few others here, but hey, we obviously don't agree with the sheep, so what we think or feel is a moot point, I guess. I know there has been especially a console culture that has precluded girls from gaming generally, since most of the popular games have been shooters, and I agree that most females (myself included) are not that into modern-style war shooters. Yet there are many, many other potential gaming subjects that would naturally interest girls- for instance EA had really hit a nail on the head with The Sims. I'm not saying I have a problem with Nancy Drew games being in fact targeted at girls; it is in the label: "Gamez for Girlz" that I find a problem. I actually find it a bit silly to exclude potential male gamers, by giving it such a label. Any girl would automatically be drawn to such a title, anyway, but it must make males feel silly, to play a game labelled such. This is almost as silly as to draw girls into playing shooters, by taking a game like Quake Wars or COD, and calling it a "game for girls", just to draw some female gamers in... well, it worked with the ugly grey jocks, apparently... No matter that they are ugly and unfeminine; they have now been gender-scripted as the in-thing for girls, so... Well, personally I still prefer wearing a pair of pretty lacy panties... but lots of sheep might have fallen for the jocks, though. The point is that although some people fall for the label, that doesn't mean that they are getting a truly satisfying product for their money... Come on Terry; I'm not accusing you of this personally; but you know as well as I do, that marketers often "create" a market to suit their product. |
| 8 FEB 2009 at 10:54pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6694 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Actually Traveler, 99% of all marketers simply follow trends and most of those trends are not created from thin air just for marketing purposes. For instance, rock music and all it has led to over the past 50+ years wasn't invented by some marketing team. It was a natural outgrowth of several earlier musical forms that eventually led to a recognized genre or style, which in turn has spawned dozens of other genres / sub-genres that have accounted for billions in annual sales ever since. More to the point, rock music and the culture that grew from it have had a fairly significant impact on society in general. The whole MTV generation phenomena owes its roots to early radio and TV venues. Now, of all the many rock-inspired recordings, live concerts, fashions, games and other stuff that comprise a massive global industry, how many real trends were actually created by marketers? Very few. No, most marketers simply don't have the talent, money or imagination to create sweeping social trends. Sure, a few clever marketers latch onto bigger trends and use them to create whole new niche business opportunities. But honestly they are pretty rare. What happens most of the time is much more of a monkey-see, monkey-do chain of events that begins with a musical genius, a great writer or designer, a visionary filmmaker or some wildly original pop performer who breaks the rules. They catch on and before you know it their influence is changing the prevailing look / sound / style of music, art, fashion, etc., etc. etc. Once that happens, then marketers jump onboard and try to cash in. Cheers, Terry P.S. I'd like to meet the marketer capable of changing how society views gender roles. . |
| Profile Search | |
| 9 FEB 2009 at 12:23am | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6694 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . To nobody in particular - As you probably already know, both the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys series were created by the Stratemeyer Syndicate back around 1930. I believe the boy's books came first, but the girl's series followed close behind. As these were written by a number of ghost writers over the years, we can't be certain as to the gender of all the authors. However, it was always obvious they were created for different audiences. Most girls simply associated more closely with Nancy and most boys associated easily with Frank and Joe. The same syndicate created several other famous children's book series including The Bobbsey Twins, which featured both a boy and a girl. It preceeded both Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys. My question then is why would anyone be surprised or offended by - after so many decades of literary success - the fact that interactive games based on the Nancy Drew books are generally marketed to girls? A subsequent question is, shouldn't today's women applaud the creation of a book series back in the early 20th century that featured a girl in the traditional male role of hero / detective? Wasn't Nancy in fact something of a gender-busting breakthrough at the time and didn't she (in her own small way) help advance the idea of gender equality? Oddly, it was a man that started all those series and he recruited his own young daughter to help make Nancy Drew as appealing as possible to other girls. Cheers, Terry . |
| Profile Search | |
| 9 FEB 2009 at 7:01am | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (9 FEB 2009 12:23am) As I personally am not offended at all by the Nancy Drew games, (well, as I have not played them, I cannot tell if the content is offensive), my entrance into the thread, was to reply to Terry's defence of the fact that marketers try to push people into pre-defined restrictive pigeonholes. There were two other posters who found the idea that only certain games are for girls offensive, and to be frank Terry, you still have not replied to those two poster's question, in which I also join to ask you: Why do we have AG's marked specifically for girls, and no AG's marked specifically for boys: is the implication then that all AG's that are not Nancy Drew, for boys/ adult men/women? So is it only all right for girls to be playing Nancy Drew? Not Syberia or TLJ, or SF:Tungaska, or Agatha Christie or Myst series, etc. ? Actually Traveler, 99% of all marketers simply follow trends and most of those trends are not created from thin air just for marketing purposes. Maybe your definition of "marketer" is slightly narrower than what mine is, Terry. Maybe I see the creators of comic-book heroes like Superman, Batman and Barbie (which triggered whole whole industries of products) as part of the marketing machine, which eploits my children's vulnerability to manipulation by the media, to get to my pocket. And get to my pocket, they do... I know that you personally try to be as ethical as possible in your career, Terry. So I'm not wanting you to see this as a personal attack. Forget for a moment that you are a marketer yourself, though, and admit that marketers very often manipulate trends and create "fashions" to suit their own needs. Society in general is a bunch of sheep. They look for the trendsetters to give them direction. I suppose that if you are a capitalist at heart (and I'm not judging capitalists - I believe that the best way for the world to work is "the survival of the fittest" but modulated to at least include a bit of philantropic sentiment; which translates to: "survival of the fittest within the bounds of reasonable common human decency"; you would be silly not to take advantage of people's gullibility. Gullible people might be caught the first few times around, but they catch on soon enough, depending on how smart they are. I'd like to meet the marketer capable of changing how society views gender roles. Marketers exploit people's need to appear attractive to potential sexual partners, and to people's need to fit into society as a whole. So they broadcast messages like: "Real men use XXX deodorant, and all the sexy chicks will immediately start fawning over you and become sexually available to you, the moment you spray on XXX deodorant." With images of sexy women suddenly flocking to a guy the moment he sprays on XXX deodorant. Exactly the same thing for women: remember the advertisement where the girl wearing XY fragrance walks down the street, and the oriental guy gets a slap from his wife because his camera lens pops out stiffly when he catches the aura of XY fragrance on the girl? : I dislike this kind of thing being brought into the gaming universe. I'd prefer to play "people games", judged on the merit of the actual game;-it's content and gameplay, and the satisfaction it has to offer to me as a gamer; not "boy games" or "girl games"; which boys or girls would play to be "in" with the crowd. I would like more girls to start playing games and be part of the gaming community; but not restricted to a certain subsection of games deemed as "suitable" for them only. That is patronising. There is nothing that boys have, that should make them inherently more capable of playing video games, than what girls have. I agree that men have an advantage when it comes to rough sports like boxing, or rugby, or American football, or wrestling, etc., due to them having an hormonal and physical advantage, and greater levels of physical aggression. But women can be just as competitive as men, in fields other than physical aggression, and why shouldn't they be? Competitiveness is the cog that keeps the wheels of excellence turning, and why should women settle for being mediocre, - why should they not strive to excel? |
| 9 FEB 2009 at 4:55pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6694 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . To answer the question Traveler, I don't think that the Nancy Drew AG series has anything at all to do with the way other games in the genre have been or are marketed. The individual developer / publisher simply chose to follow the same successful formula used for selling the books. That decision does not in any way restrict a consumer's right to also play a wide variety of other games and it sends no general message about what type of games are or are not appropriate for males and females. It was just a safe decision based on what historically worked best for the series. In regards to even bigger products like Barbie Dolls, they did not create a new demand. They catered to an existing demand. They also did not define prevailing attitudes about gender roles. They just capitalized on existing social attitudes. Collectively however, Barbie Dolls, Playboy Magazine, dozens of fashion rags, and the general treatment of females in movies, on TV, etc. reinforced that existing image of what a girl / women "should" be. This became ingrained in our society and it has taken a lot of hard work and contentious legislation to begin the process of changing that attitude. Hey, I like sensuous women as much as the next healthy, heterosexual man. However, I do not support the overt or covert exploitation of females (or males) in marketing, entertainment, the workplace or elsewhere. But fighting such a deeply ingrained image is an uphill battle - one that is far from over. My main point is that marketing trends are mostly a reflection of society and gender-role assignment goes much deeper. Its roots go way, way back and they spread out in every direction long before modern marketing techniques existed. That said, I agree we should change the way men and women are generally depicted in advertising, in the media, in games, etc. But that change will not happen overnight and there simply is no denying that Nancy Drew still sells better to girls than boys. If for no other reason, they identify more quickly and closely with a female lead character. IMO, there's really nothing wrong with that as long as the character is depicted in a healthy, unbiased, non-exploitive way. Cheers, Terry . |
| Profile Search | |
| 9 FEB 2009 at 6:54pm | |
| Deleted User | Hmm, good conclusion to a long discussion, Terry. Finally you and I more or less agree, so if anyone else still wants to belabour the point, they had best take over now. Bottom line is, Her Interactive focuses on "girly" type games, that is what they like doing, and want to do, and if that is what they prefer to do, - they can. They don't have to do AG's for boys, just like Crytek doesn't have to do games for girls. It's a free market, and people can produce what they like; and consumers can believe what they want to and buy what they want to, -or not. Just an aside about the marketing, and nothing to do with Nancy Drew: (Sorry for off-topic here) I think I have already made clear my distaste of marketers who capitalise on the naïveté of children. All is fair in love and war -adults are big and ugly enough to realise when they are taken for a ride on the sex/social acceptance bandwagon. I just wanted to add an aside re the marketing discussion: Although it is female models who'se sexuality are exploited on screen or on camera to sell products, actually, ultimately it is the male consumer's sexuality that is being exploited. The sexy model sprawled over the hood of the motor vehicle, is getting money for it; - the male who buys the car or the magazine is paying for it. I also like to look at nice bodies, male and female - that is only natural; but in the end the "women are commodities" message is probably bad for both genders, and healthy gender relations in general. |
| 9 FEB 2009 at 7:51pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6694 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Well Traveler, lots of legal industries shamelessly exploit sex on numerous levels. Adult porn is obviously the biggest and most overt offender. But the fashion industry runs a very close second. Both use sex appeal for men and women (also sadly sometimes children) to make huge sums of money. The music industry has become extremely exploitive too and so has television. Our once-quaint interactive hobby is hardly immune to this trend and as it has gained popularity worldwide, the old "sex sells" formula has been used more and more. The question is, where do we as a society draw the line between what is acceptable for legally promoting products with overt sex and what falls into the so-sleazy-we-can-not-officially-endorse-it category? It's pretty clear where that line is in terms of child pornography and actual porno-snuff films. But for consenting adults (who aren't really torturing and murdering each other), it gets a lot fuzzier. To me, the recent trend of boldly combining extreme graphic violence and extremely explicit sex is more than a little disturbing. Even moreso since there seems to be a significant commercial audience for it. So are we as a society getting sicker / more depraved or are more people just finally admitting that they like that kind of stuff? Also, if the latter is true, then is it healthier to get this out in the open or to keep it locked away in shameful secret closets? Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 9 FEB 2009 at 8:28pm | |
| Deleted User | To me, the recent trend of boldly combining extreme graphic violence and extremely explicit sex is more than a little disturbing. Even moreso since there seems to be a significant commercial audience for it. Difficult question. What does seem clear to me though, is that everyone eventually becomes desensitized to a certain level of exposure to stimuli, after a lot of exposure. The first time you see someone blown up into pieces of gore and blood in a super-realistic next-gen video game, it might give you a bit of an uncomfortable twist around the gut area. But watch about 40 of these decapitations/eviscerations, or have Bloodrayne cut up about 40 people in sprays of blood, and all this eventually becomes rather old hat. It's something you have seen many times, which if it happened in RL, would most certainly have impacted you in RL;- but as it happened on a screen and remained seperate from your every day daily existence, it simply becomes an uncomfortable-ish sight with no consequences which you have often seen, so more intense horrors are needed to further tittilate the jaded gamer. This might not be a good thing. : The same principle goes for porn, I would imagine. With it being avaible on the internet in such copious amounts, the avid watcher of porn is almost sure to reach a point where old-fashioned straightforward stuff becomes same-old, same-old, and he treks off over the net to find more and more tittilating stuff, to more and more extremes for what he might consider at each stage; "kinky". This might not be a good thing either... :-[ What however, can one do about this? It is an inbuilt functionality of the human psyche, that he adapts. Adapting to stimuli and finding them less intense over the passage of time, is part of this mechanism, and I suspect that seeking greater and greater "kicks" can become addictive for some. Probably each person reaches a point, where he steps back a moment in disgust, and asks himself: "How the heck did I reach this point, that I am watching this, and am blasé about it? Hopefully, most people then stop, self-censure, and go no further. Unfortunately we all know that some people don't stop, but go all the way into hell, just like Kurz from Conrad's Heart of Darkness. |
| 9 FEB 2009 at 9:08pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6694 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Agreed Traveler. As society in general becomes more exposed and desensitized to extreme sex and violence in films, games, etc., the bar of what is generally considered acceptable rises. IMO, it has already reached a point where real harm is being done and this is evident in how much more tolerant average parents are when it comes to what they allow their own young kids to watch / play. There has also been a very strong backlash of harsh criticism and activism amongst groups that maintain relatively strict rules about overt displays of sex. Why more of them don't also complain as loudly about the violence is a mystery to me. Maybe they/we just have a higher tolerance for that after all the bloody wars, crime and terrorism that have plagued mankind throughout history and our acceptance of violent sports, etc. Odd though how the sight of two men beating each other to a bloody pulp in a ring for money can evoke enthusiastic cheers from a person who might then turn around and cringe at the mere mention of pornography. However, while that's all very interesting and well worth discussing, saying much more would probably start to cross over into the taboo territories of politics and religion. So I'll just end this by saying that we still have a long ways to go in achieving true gender equality and a lot of other unresolved issues as a species. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 14 FEB 2009 at 4:20pm | |
SuperEdyPrivate Detective Posts : 772 Joined: 30 MAR 2007 Status : Online | Originally Posted By maum (7 FEB 2009 11:25pm) Riana Rouge, Latex, Blue Heat, Gag 2, Time Warp, Days of Oblivion 1 & 2, not to mention all the Hentai titles like Do You Like Horny Bunnies? [b]Currently Playing[/b]: None of your business |
| Profile Search | |
| Page 2 of 2 : « ‹ |
Back to Top | Home | News | Articles | Forum | About Us | Contact Us
Copyright ©2013, Just Adventure LLC. All rights reserved in the United States and throughout the world.
All other products and copyrights mentioned on
Just Adventure LLC are the property of their respective companies, and Just Adventure LLC makes no claim thereto.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
