[MUD-Dev] Boys and Girls - was (Re: MUD-Dev digest, Vol 1 #163 - 25 msgs)

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

From: "Marian Griffith" <gryphon at iaehv.nl>

> First of, I see those as quite different things: games for girls
> and games for everybody who does not yet buy (a lot of) games,

I did not say "everybody".

> and from what I have read this is not what most people mean when
> they write about "girl games".

That's because targeting "everybody" is stupid and pointless.

> Second, it is still silly to think about girl games as a single
> game that girls buy.

That would be why nobody is thinking of them that way.

> If you were to set out to create a game that "boys" want to play
> you would not find anybody crazy enough to lend you the money to
> do so.

Wanna bet? Some people will invest in any damned thing.

> They would rightly expect you to come up with a con- cept and
> theme and so on.  Why would it be any different for girls?

It's not. Some people will invest in any damned thing.

> Just because girls do not buy many games does not mean it makes
> sen- se to think of them as a homogenous group.

I have never attempted to define a homogenous group using a
negative. Girls want certain things out of games that very few games
currently provide. It is that *positive* statement of desire that
homogenises the group. There are obviously people who want those
things and are not girls (the "girl game" is not ONLY for girls)
just as there are girls who do not want those things (the "girl
game" is not for ALL girls) -- but that does not change the fact
that girls want specific things they aren't getting from games. It
is those things that I am trying to discern and define, not because
I want to sell lots of games to girls, but because I find it of
academic and philosophical interest.

> "Girl game" is misleading because it suggests that it is possible
> to create a game that all girls like.

Which might be a worrisome flaw if the idea of such a game weren't
so patently absurd on its face. And we might think that a "god game"
was a game for God, and then nobody would buy it -- except that
we're not all STUPID. I mean, olive oil comes from olives, and
garlic powder comes from garlic, so nobody is *ever* going to be
able to sell baby oil or baby powder in a supermarket... right?

> It is a problem, of sorts, because you have girl games; and first
> person shooters, and roleplaying games and puzzle games and real
> ti- me strategy games and sports sims. It suggests that there is
> one ty- pe of games for girls and many different types of games
> for boys.

No it doesn't. You are assuming mutual exclusivity where none
exists. The phrase "girl game" is a statement of appeal, not a
statement of design. Any given girl game is *also* a first person
shooter or a roleplaying game or a puzzle game or a real time
strategy game or a sports sim or what have you.  It is also fantasy
or science fiction or contemporary or historical or whatever. It is
also single player or multiplayer. You can certainly have a
multiplayer science fiction sports sim girl game, theoretically. I
personally can't imagine such a game, but that doesn't mean there
isn't one out there waiting to be discovered.

> When talking about games it indeed makes far more sense to
> describe them by content, gameplay and appeal factors, rather than
> by a la- bel like girl game.

And in the absence of clearly defined content, gameplay, and appeal
factors, what should we call them? "X Games"? No, that one's
taken. Like I said, "until we have an actual quantifiable
description of the game itself".

> If you want to make games that appeal to girls you have to figure
> out what it is in games that that target audience likes, and how
> current games in the chosen genre lack, or provide, for those
> preferences.

How exactly does that differ from what I've been saying the whole
damn time?

> If you want to make a "girl game" you end up with barbie, or with
> a virtual horse, because "girls play with dolls until they are old
> e- nough to love horses".

I think you're shoving an awful lot of judgmental stereotypes into
my lap.  If this is the way I think, why did I cite The Sims and
Roller Coaster Tycoon as "girl games" instead of Barbie Team
Gymnastics and My Little Pony?  Wouldn't the latter two make more
sense as examples of games targeted at girls? What possible reason
would I have for omitting them from the discussion?

Could it possibly be that they're no more "girl games" than Duke
Nukem 3D and Master of Orion? Hmm. Maybe there's more to it than
subject matter, ne c'est pas?

> This is generally nonsense and lazy thinking.

And it has nothing to do with making a "girl game". It has to do
with exactly what you stated: NONSENSE and LAZY THINKING. Neither of
which would be in any way obviated by turning to something that
wasn't a "girl game". A lot of companies prone to nonsense and lazy
thinking made a lot of games that were effectively bad copies of
Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Warcraft, the list goes on. And those
companies will always be around, cranking out "2002 solitaire games"
and various slot machine simulations while they wait for the next
easy-to-steal concept.

And there will always be idiots investing in them. (Lotteries have
made the imprudent investor a renewable resource.) Some people will
invest in any damned thing.


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev