Interesting Research: "Sexist Games=Sexist Gamers?"

[alienjesus]

For that reason, I see the insistence on categorizing some video games as "not really video games" as being a product of men and boys trying to prove their affiliation with masculinity through what they won't play, which is a need generated by society's aforementioned hostile attitude toward feminine men.

People were just baffled that a title like Gone Home that has no meaningful player input got such rave reviews by the press. The reason why people say it's not a "real game" is not because they are afraid to be outed as femenine, but because all you do while playing it is walk around an empty house and read notes of text.

That's how it got the "walking simulator" tag. It's a perfect example of putting too much focus on storytelling in videogames, and not enough on making sure there's an actual game holding the whole thing up. Even a virtual novel like Phoenix Wright has more gameplay, and I'd say Phoenix Wright tells better stories too.

Games don't have to revolve around a conflict, puzzle, narrative or anything else and can be based entirely on role play. Children playing house are still playing a game. A game where all you do is walk around and look at stuff can still be a game. Flying a toy plane around the house just for the fun of doing so is a game, and requires no conflict, no role enactment or even any real feedback - it's all imagination.

Video game communities are too quick to compare games to sports or chess without considering all the types of game that can be played. The Sims is basically a dolls house, Noby Noby Boy is just a toybox. You still play games with them.

For what it's worth, I don't think ANY video games are games. Football is a game, but a football (as in the ball used to play the game) is a toy. You can play a game of Splatoon, but the splatoon disc itself? That's the toy you use to play it.

[Jmustang1968]

Also, any study that says men "flock" to competitive based games?

Don't bother man. Even if you provide sources that are peer reviewed as soon as someone doesn't agree with the results they will simply question the sampling pool itself.

Looking into the sample pool and methods of a study is necessary when using it as a source of information for an argument or discussion. Too often I see people pull out studies as some sort of all encompassing truth that barely scratches the surface or only tangentially covers the issue at hand.

[Exhuminator]

Too often I see people pull out studies as some sort of all encompassing truth that barely scratches the surface or only tangentially covers the issue at hand.

The study I found was extremely relevant to this discussion.

Debating the merits of the sampling pool is an exercise in subjectivity and is wholly arbitrary.

[Jmustang1968]

Too often I see people pull out studies as some sort of all encompassing truth that barely scratches the surface or only tangentially covers the issue at hand.

The study I found was extremely relevant to this discussion.

Debating the merits of the sampling pool is an exercise in subjectivity and is wholly arbitrary.

But it also speaks to the validity of the results. Again too often someone is like "let me pull out this study I found... argument over I win! I have this study man" He brought up valid points that do question the relevance and validity of the study as it relates to this discussion. It is still somewhat relevant, so something to keep in mind in the discussion, but with an asterisk.

[MrPopo]

I would argue not just violent games do men flock too predominantly but competitive based games as well.

Does that mean women aren't into competitive games? So, tennis, basketball, softball, soccer, dozens of Olympic sports, those are all about problem solving together, right?

Also, any study that says men "flock" to competitive based games?

Mostly male doesn't mean no females. Also in your Olmypic and sports analogy why are most of their coaches male?

That's why.

[BoringSupreez]

Too often I see people pull out studies as some sort of all encompassing truth that barely scratches the surface or only tangentially covers the issue at hand.

The study I found was extremely relevant to this discussion.

Debating the merits of the sampling pool is an exercise in subjectivity and is wholly arbitrary.

There's been a study conducted that shows 100% of respondents think your opinion on the merits of debating samples is wrong.

[Exhuminator]

There's been a study conducted that shows 100% of respondents think your opinion on the merits of debating samples is wrong.

Independently verified research confirms the thoughts of those respondents are invalid, based on the fact that said respondents contradict my opinion.

[the7k]

Games don't have to revolve around a conflict, puzzle, narrative or anything else and can be based entirely on role play. Children playing house are still playing a game. A game where all you do is walk around and look at stuff can still be a game. Flying a toy plane around the house just for the fun of doing so is a game, and requires no conflict, no role enactment or even any real feedback - it's all imagination.

Video game communities are too quick to compare games to sports or chess without considering all the types of game that can be played. The Sims is basically a dolls house, Noby Noby Boy is just a toybox. You still play games with them.

For what it's worth, I don't think ANY video games are games. Football is a game, but a football (as in the ball used to play the game) is a toy. You can play a game of Splatoon, but the splatoon disc itself? That's the toy you use to play it.

Game. A physical or mental competition. This doesn't mean you are competing with other people or even against an artificial intelligence - even Solitaire has you competing, not against another entity but against the game itself, and you can fail.

The need to call certain "games" non-games is due to the need to classify them so that people know what the hell they are buying. The fact that these non-games feel the need to call themselves games, even though they clearly don't fit the definition of a game in either the literal or colloquial sense (and have thus engaged in trying to change the colloquial definition as fiercely as they can) shows that they feel the need to deceive people just to be taken seriously or, more likely, turn a larger profit.

Dear Esther, Gone Home and Glitchhikers are not games. What's wrong with that? Just because some people think "non-game" is an insult doesn't mean we should just change the definition. Definitions exist for a reason. They have every right to exist, but they should make clear what they are.

For the record, "walking simulator" does not in and of itself mean that it isn't a game. Stanley Parable and P.T. are walking simulators, but they still have failure states.

[alienjesus]

Games don't have to revolve around a conflict, puzzle, narrative or anything else and can be based entirely on role play. Children playing house are still playing a game. A game where all you do is walk around and look at stuff can still be a game. Flying a toy plane around the house just for the fun of doing so is a game, and requires no conflict, no role enactment or even any real feedback - it's all imagination.

Video game communities are too quick to compare games to sports or chess without considering all the types of game that can be played. The Sims is basically a dolls house, Noby Noby Boy is just a toybox. You still play games with them.

For what it's worth, I don't think ANY video games are games. Football is a game, but a football (as in the ball used to play the game) is a toy. You can play a game of Splatoon, but the splatoon disc itself? That's the toy you use to play it.

Game. A physical or mental competition. This doesn't mean you are competing with other people or even against an artificial intelligence - even Solitaire has you competing, not against another entity but against the game itself, and you can fail.

The need to call certain "games" non-games is due to the need to classify them so that people know what the hell they are buying. The fact that these non-games feel the need to call themselves games, even though they clearly don't fit the definition of a game in either the literal or colloquial sense (and have thus engaged in trying to change the colloquial definition as fiercely as they can) shows that they feel the need to deceive people just to be taken seriously or, more likely, turn a larger profit.

Dear Esther, Gone Home and Glitchhikers are not games. What's wrong with that? Just because some people think "non-game" is an insult doesn't mean we should just change the definition. Definitions exist for a reason. They have every right to exist, but they should make clear what they are.

For the record, "walking simulator" does not in and of itself mean that it isn't a game. Stanley Parable and P.T. are walking simulators, but they still have failure states.

Game. An activity that one engages in for amusement. Competition is neither implied nor necessary.

[Erik_Twice]

It's just a colloquial thing, like calling Metal Gear Solid 4 a movie. Yeah, it's not technically a movie, but I think everyone knows what we mean when we say that.