How important is female representation in games to you?

Here we have a perfect example of the Angry White male Syndrome.

Sorry but "everyone knows..." is not evidence. LOL I have given you studies that back up my point and you have given me NOTHING other than your claims with zero evidence to back them up. You clearly don't understand how to have a logical debate. ;O)

Also, the fact that some developers are taking women into consideration when they make games now shows that they know the market is changing. I'll give you some examples of the changing video game market and how women are starting to be portrayed much differently in games.

I'll start with a type of game that I normally would not enjoy... The Walking Dead. More specifically, Season 2. I actually have enjoyed this series even though the action isn't quite what I am accustomed to in games. The game's main character is a teen girl who is a complete badass. The scene inside the shack in episode 1 showed that she is far tougher than any of the adult characters. This series has been heavily marketed toward female gamers and it is selling really well. Then we have the Last of Us, which has a strong female character who was actually the main character in the DLC and will most likely be the main in the sequel. Both of these games resulted in huge sales, finally putting to rest the myth that people won't buy games with strong female characters.

Then we have the fact that more and more FPS games in recent years are adding playable female characters in multiplayer instead of just males. It won't be long before BF and COD follow the trend.

Even what many would probably say is the most sexist series in gaming has taken quite a turn for the better... Tomb Raider. Gone are the days of the ridiculously "top-heavy" character and she has been replaced with a more realistic and tough female character with story-driven game-play.

If you think female gamers aren't becoming a large part of the community then do yourself a favor and install Planetside 2. Almost every single major clan has quite a few female gamers, many of whom are pretty good.

Oh here is another study for you done by NEILSON.

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/The%20State%20of%20the%20Video%20Gamer%20-%204th%20Quarter%202008.pdf

Yeah, those Neilson people and their Feminist agenda... LOL

So now we have MULTIPLE studies from different sources to support my claim and you have what? Your personal opinion with nothing to support it. That is what we call a FAIL. ;O) Like with every other anti-feminist argument I have seen, you guys fail to provide a shred of evidence to support anything you say. Its hilarious.

When I do find numbers? You mean numbers that show that women don't make up a big percentage of gamers? What numbers? Show me your studies. You have failed to provide any evidence at all other than your own opinion. Where are you facts? Where is your evidence?

And here we go again with the elitism. So anyone who plays mobile games or indy games are not real gamers? You have to play crap like COD or BF? Oh please... Once again, if you say that people who play mobile games aren't real gamers then I'm going to tell you that I don't think most console gamers are not real gamers either because the majority of them are casuals who mostly play dumbed-down garbage like COD. I don't care if it is considered a AAA title or not, its a simplistic pile of garbage that any casual player have success on because it does not require much skill. And I would say that WoW is a casual game as well on the PC so you can toss out anyone who plays that. My definition of "hardcore gamer" would porbably exclude about 90% of the people on this forum but we're not talking about hardcore gamers, we're talking about gamers.

Most companies don't make games just for hardcore gamers because that market is pretty small compared to the massive casual market on the consoles. That is why games are being dumb-downed so much. Developers want to appeal to this broader demographic because it makes sense from a business perspective. The fact is that the majority of gamers, both male and female, are casuals these days and those are the people that companies are now catering to...

Anyway, gamers are gamers, period. If you play any kind of games, then you are a gamer. Get over your elitist nonsense.

And I have news for you. I have Candy Crush on my phone and no one I have played with or against on any FPS game would dare to say I'm not a real gamer. ;O)

Well, since you are the one using the numbers as an argument its common courtesy in a debate to also be the one backing them up.

But i think you have the problem that there isn't any credible statistics out there that can accurately show how big a part of gamers are actually female, but some interesting numbers you could ponder is that in a game like Mass Effect just 20% chose Femshep over Maleshep, thats 80% who played a male character having the choice. So does that mean that 80% is also male , of course not but it shows that once people are alone and sit down they actually prefer male characters over female.

And its not about elitism. And do you really think that there isn't a difference from Candy Crush to Planetside 2? or from Hayday or 90% of all mobile games to AAA games on pc and console? Its about getting the facts right and not inventing reasons to back up a certain argument or agenda particular when the debate about diversity is not about casual games its about AAA games, its about games like Call Of Duty, Battlefield, Assassin Creed, watch dogs, GTA etc. So why would you use data that talks about anything but those games? also why should games like that change when you clearly seem to only hit a minority and when given a choice most go for the male, and before you say that the developers did a better job, ask anyone about femshep and its widely considered to be one of the best VA´s and stories in gaming.

So no gamers are not gamers when you and your group wants to change "hardcore" gaming and not casual gaming. since why would the industry change when it only benefits a minority and it doesnt get more females to play the game anyways.

Hard core gamer vs casual gamer technically there is no real definition. False its definition changes with the times and each study on this matter categorizes gamers into subsets. Bottom line is majority of women don't play violent games according to some statistics. Naturally, the developers create games and cater to the demographic they feel they have the strongest connection with. It really is as simple as that. If you want to see more female playable characters in violent video games, play Asian games lulz they got a ton. Fine serious answer is we need more female developers.

Now as for your examples, you need to look up:

1. Titillate
2. Tomb Raider flopped according to parent company (a good campaign wont sell games need online multiplayer or some lvl or replay value it had neither)

Moreover, the discussion should strictly be about AAA games which to no surprise typically are violent and male dominated. Anything else is irrelevant as far as this "debate" goes. Many people like to use broad generic so called facts in order to back up specific issues. No that's improper shady discourse.

_________________________________________

Female representation idc, just give me a good game.

Shady discourse? No that is what you two are doing here. Look at the title of the thread and then look through the actual article posted. Where does it say a word about AAA games? It doesn't.... You are adding that little stipulation to the debate because your entire argument hinges on it. So you're doing that to try to shape the debate, which is a pretty dishonest tactic. This article and poll are not solely about AAA games. Its about gaming.

And ALL (not some, ALL) of the evidence we have available shows that almost half of GAMERS are female.

"Bottom line is majority of women don't play violent games according to some statistics."

Show me those statistics. I have shown you all of mine and you guys haven't provided a single verifiable statistic for ANYTHING yet. You just throw out all of these unsupported claims and expect us to believe them. Actually many companies make games that will appeal to the broadest audience because that is just smart business. And its you guys who are getting mad anytime a developer decides to include strong female characters, non-white races, LGBT, etc... If you really think that companies should be able to make the games they want then why get mad when they make games that include these types of characters? You guys need to start following your own advice.

Tomb Raider flopped? No, it broke the franchise record...

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/03/30/tomb-raider-sets-franchise-sales-goals.aspx

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/tomb-raider-for-ps4-xbox-one-sales-are-favorable/1100-6419539/

And they already have a sequel planned so it clearly did pretty well. Try again. I don't know where you guys get most of your information but you're almost always wrong about everything.

I have backed up my numbers with several different studies from several different sources. Even a freaking Neilson one. Now you, on the other hand, have made several claims about numbers and have not provided a single shred of evidence. And yes, all of my stats are quite credible because this whole thing is about female representation in GAMES, not just specific games that you personally choose. This is about gaming. And no, as fare as that is concerned there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANDY CRUSH AND PLANETSIDE 2. Both are games and the people who play them are gamers.

Like I said, if you want to go down the hardcore gamer route then your entire argument falls apart because the majority of male gamers are not hardcore either. The hardcore gamer market is pretty insignificant which is why most of those AAA titles you mentioned don't cater to the hardcore players. They are made for causuals. This is exactly why your entire argument is based on a flawed premise. AAA titles are generally made for casual gamers. There are very few major titles (like Dark Souls) that are created with hardcore gamers in mind. That is just the reality of the industry today. Casuals are the majority so your argument comes down to one type of casual versus another type of casual. LOL

First no you havent backed anything up , you have continued with the same worthless ESA reports that proves absolutely nothing, since they do not publicly disclose how or what they have used to get their results. and the Nilson report is as laughable as ESA.

Their reports are as accurate and usefull as if i claimed that Bioware´s result for Masseffect 2/3 proves that 80% is male because those chose a male sheppard.

Also i am wondering if you are just a troll because to claim there isnt a difference between mobile/facebook/candycrush gaming and Pc/Console AAA/Indie gaming is kinda laughable, But the key here is not really that, its that you use those general numbers who doesnt distinguies between the 2 to justify a agenda to alter "hardcore" gaming.

Let me guess you consider yourself a hardcore gamer and most male who beat you are either cheating or just scrubs right?

Also during Outside Xbox's interview with Hutchinson, he put an end to the thought that Far Cry 4's main character is actually the son of the insane antagonist, Pagan Min. He is "not your father," Hutchinson said. He did tease, however, that Min is someone who you are familiar with.

Thank God for that.

I’d like to throw some thoughts on the topic… (and yes, I’m somewhat sorry for the wall of text)

What I find more disturbing than the lack of female representation in games is the apparent need of some people to blow this way out of proportion – the best example is the discussion that ensued after the Assassins Creed Unity presentation.

Yes, the wording in the statement that Ubisoft left in regards to no female playable character wasn't very well put and they could have avoided much of the heat if only they would have said things a bit differently. However, the core problem still is there and it keeps being repeated. The core problem is that people get too emotional too quickly and with that speak out or even insult before they know all the facts. So instead of remaining calm and gather some information, they lash out and condemn a person/company/etc… right away.

Especially with Assassins Creed Unity the problem is evident: Besides the footage shown at E3, very little was known about the co-op aspect of Assassins Creed Unity, hence all conclusion could therefore only be on the basis of assumption.
Those of you who have carefully watched the videos will have noticed that missions in Unity carry some parameters such as: “Max. Players: 4”.

I can, just as much as people outraged, speculate that the game is originally intended to be played in a single player type environment and only occasionally the aid of other players can be called upon when starting a new mission. Further it could be argued that in order to keep consistency the character doesn't change gender, skin color, etc… as it would simply disrupt the story-telling aspect. Imagine you’re playing as Arno, revealed to be the protagonist in Unity, and suddenly upon starting a new mission you’re magically transformed into a female assassin – wouldn't that, if true of course, raise voices of various critics? Yes it would – but it’s speculation and therefore no ground to base anything on, neither condemnation nor praise.

One of the important things, if not the most important, in any of those discussion is the economic aspect. Even if video games are a free time activity to the majority of us they are a multi-billion dollar business where success and failure are ever present.

You can take any other sector for comparison and you’ll realize that there are certain imperatives which occur everywhere. The goal is to create a product which is of an expected quality standard whilst keeping the cost on a level to still make the appropriate profit. Why do I say ‘expected quality’ rather than ‘high quality’ because quality is directly and proportionally linked to the cost; the higher the quality, the higher the cost and the higher the cost, the lower the possible profit.

With that in mind we can safely say that, in this case, Ubisoft has one goal and that is to create a product of good quality (in the eyes of the customer) that will sell at a reasonable price which will yield a sufficient profit for the company as it will have to pay things like salaries, rent, taxes, etc

The outrage of some fans were mainly sparked after a representative from Ubisoft said that animating female characters would have significantly increased the workload of the design teams. From an economic point of view there is nothing wrong with this statement, however I’ll say that the wording used was rather unfortunate. People use the gender debate as a scapegoat for what I believe to be a concern over the level of ‘quality’ they’re getting. I reckon that subconsciously the customers think that they’ll pay too much for an inferior product when they could have had what they believe to be a superior product.

So, was the decision to not include females in the latest installment a good course of action? The fact is we don’t fully know. Once there is more information and one or the other speculation turns out to be true, or at least close to the truth then and only then do we have sufficient evidence to say if the decision made sense.

I myself lean towards saying that the decision, based on an economic view point, was correct and there was little to no value added in having one or more playable female characters due to the structure of the co-op feature.

That does of course not mean that the same can be said about future Assassins Creed games. I would even argue that it is quite the opposite and having a high diversity will increase the customers perception of product quality which will have, undoubtedly, an added value. Maybe we will see a more holistic approach to the usage of cooperative gameplay in this franchise – I’m thinking something like Resident Evil 5 where Sheva was an integral part of Team Zombie R’ Gone. Maybe we’ll even witness a deeper fusion with more RPG-typical features and before long we’ll create our very own assassins to satisfy the increasing need for individualism of customers in today’s economic.

There is also a theory that a game with a female main character won’t sell as many copies as a male counterpart would. I’m not going to say it’s correct or incorrect, what I’m going to say is that we can’t apply this as a rule since it’s more complex than just that. I’d argue that the environment a game is placed in has a very big impact on what protagonist is expected. A female archaeologist seems to be working fine whereas it could be speculated that an all-female Gears of War-Team wouldn't have performed as good as an all-male team (in terms of sold copies). Direct comparisons almost never work – I could look how Heavenly Sword did against God of War 2, two similar games that were released around the same time and go on to state that Kratos did a lot better than Nariko – then again, he did have the lead with a previous title and probably an already established fan base.

What needs to be noticed as well is this, taking Assassins Creed again as an example: The sudden gender problem seemed to have been no issue for mono-protagonist games in the same franchise; Neither Altair, nor Ezio, Connor, Haytham or Edward came under the same scrutiny as Arno. So did we just uncover the critical mass for women ratio in poly-protagonist games or is the lack of their representation the famed last straw. I doubt either of these to be the case – after some 2000 years of worshiping patriarchal ‘Skygod’ religions with their evident loathing of women, it’s unlikely that a video game would give cause to believe that.

It boils down to individualism and the wish of players to identify themselves with the characters they play. Does it come as a surprise? Maybe it does, but it really shouldn't – after all, over 40% of gamers are female these days.

It could very well be that thinking Unity has multiple protagonists is a delusion and we merely complain about the lack of being able to create our own avatar.
Just as one could complain that a character in a book has dark hair where the reader wanted that person to have fair hair, etc…

What I take from all this is that it’s not so much a problem about the female representation but the lack of individualism. MMOGs and RPGs can perfectly cater to this need, however in other genres this is not so easy as the story telling part (cut-scenes, character background story, etc…) in a 6 hour game are more important for the quality – and so is having a protagonist that can not only carry a franchise but enable growth. Could you imagine anyone else than Lara Croft as the main protagonist in a Tomb Raider game? I can’t and that’s not because I've had a childhood crush on Miss Croft but because I associate her to the Tomb Raider brand. Same goes for Duke Nukem and many more…

This poll, like all polls and like a lot of things in real life, is trying to force people to make polarising statements, which doesn't do the complexity of the situation any justice. Also, right from the outset people make this question bigger than it is, talking in general instead of personal terms. To me female representation in videogames is important, because I hope it might attract a broader audience and add greater variety to videogames. However, I cannot help but notice that in practice I care very little. While I do sometimes sigh at the way both men and women are presented in videogames (lacking all originality, imagination and credibility) I care more about the setting and events than about the characters who inhabit the world. Of course, that could be the result of what videogames offer in terms of characters or how these characters tend to be written. But it could also be the result of how I see videogames, which, in their dominant format, can't offer the narrative or character complexity of movies or books (in my opinion). As a result, my expectations and desires regarding story and characters really aren't that demanding, making me care less if things are flawed or limited in those departments.

Entering the realm of general speculation, I saw a few comments claiming that devs should just make the games they want and shouldn't be forced to include certain minorities, but it seems unfair to not take into account that there might also be forces at play that do not allow developers to be completely free (to actually add those minorities, perhaps even in a more prominent way), because certain themes or characters might not interest a big enough audience. Developers might have other creative ideas, but they are forced by publishers or backers to include or exclude certain content that isn't part of making the game they want. I'm not just talking about adding female protagonists, but also about adding a different kind of male protagonist for a change (in my eyes all these typical male heroes are just as politically correct).

On the other side, as long as there are no clear and discussed stats on who plays what I don't think it's valuable to make general statements about who is entitled to (how much of) what. While it is important to recognise that 48% of the people who play videogames are female, it doesn't mean that 48% of the people who play shooters (or a subgenre of shooters) are also female. The fact is that so far nobody knows those (sub)genre specific numbers and therefore noone can make claims about how much certain groups should be represented based on the notion that 'this type of person plays more of this genre than that type'. That's all speculation. Some might think there are moral obligations here or that not adhering to minorities might reinforce the vicious circle of relying on an unchallenged majority (after all, if you keep focusing solely on the target group there's no way to broaden that group and include others), but there are also important economic aspects to consider.

Meh, perspectives. Some claim Ellie is just another example of confirming male dominance. Link

Should they have to bend over to market pressure? Do you also think that the apparent 'dumbing down' of games is justified, because it caters to the casual majority? Do you think every single male of that majority you mentioned wants the same thing? This poll already shows the vast majority doesn't care, so how important is it really to reflect that demographic in this particular area?

I wonder if people actually don't care or if they simply detest political correctness so much that they look at every inclusion of a minority with suspicion, creating an extra obstacle that it first needs to overcome, before it is even considered on equal terms. The minority first has to disprove that it is forced in, part of a liberal agenda or added for the sake of being politically correct, and then we'll judge if it's actually worthy. And since people generally see what they want to see, I'd say any alternative representation starts out with a major disadvantage.

I think a lot more people (who probably chose the fourth option) should have chosen the first option in the poll. The image I get is that a lot of people think female representation is very important, because it can mess with their videogame if it's forced in. People actually do care, because they don't want to see their game being messed up by some misplaced female character. I hope GameSpot considers that possibility. Or maybe they should have added the 'I'm fine with it, as long as female characters aren't included in an attempt to be politically correct or to please unreasonable minorities' option.

Nice try at blatantly misrepresenting your own source, which states 48% of gamers are female. According to your own logic, 48% of video game protagonists should be female. And by the way, this whole "everything should be white and male" garbage is what's ruining gaming.

The people "stirring the pot" are extremely loud, white male, "PC" justice warriors, on a Crusade to make sure that the game industry is forced to keep having to put up with casting the same old brown-haired, rugged, muscular, white male actor in almost every modern Western AAA game.

There are loads of women and ethnic minorities working in Western game industries. But whenever they want to "make the games they want to see", they have to put up with hordes of extremely loud, racist/misogynistic, white male "PC" justice warriors sending them abuse, rape threats or death threats for "being PC". Stop being so over-sensitive and stop trying to force your demands down the throats of developers who don't want to cast your favourite white male actor in their games.

really doesnt bother me but if i have to choose an avatar, of course im going to be a guy.

Just because they supposedly haven't disclosed how they got their results, it doesn't mean they are wrong. You are automatically claiming they are wrong even though you have provided NO EVIDENCE that gives a contrary view. Where are your studies? You have not provided a single link to any evidence. You can say they aren't accurate but until you provide an actual REASON (such as opposing stats) there is no reason to believe that, especially when we have MULTIPLE studies from different sources. LOL And you have.... NOTHING. NADA. ZERO.

Ah, the old, "I have no arguments left so I'm going to claim you are a troll" tactic. Good one. Nope, there is zero difference between candy crush and PS2 because, as I explained, they are both games and that is what this article and poll are about... gaming. And nothing is going to alter hardcore gaming because, as I also pointed out, the majority of AAA titles are NOT made for hardcore gamers... They are made for casuals on the consoles. That's just the way it is... So tell me, what is the difference between all of the console casuals who play dumbed down trash like COD and a casual who plays candy crush?

As for the last comment, you didn't go through my blog did you? I'm anti-hackusation. Not many males actually DO outplay me (even briefly) but on the rare occasion when I do get outplayed, I send them a message and give them credit. Like when YouTuber and probably the best sniper on Planetside2, WalterWhite, managed to snipe me in a pretty long and crazy CQC fight we had last year. I even went so far as to make a post on the forum saying how impressed I was and posted a video of our battle. When other people saw the video a lot of them accussed him of hacking because of the shot he made and I was actually one of the few people defending him.

So as usual, you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.... You just spout nonsense and never actually have a single bit of evidence to back anything up. And when other people provide evidence you just say "no that doesn't count!!" LOL

Why do you continue this debate when you clearly seem to lack the ability to understand what is being said and asked? no where did i say that the numbers were wrong, what i did how ever do was ask you to back up the number because you use it in a discussion about females gamers in "hardcore" gaming. Particular when the data you use are so weak as they are in the ESA report.

As to the rest that is just your ego talking and i have no intention of going down that road. and you argument against what is hardcore and not are laughable.

And as to who is clueless so far you have proven to be the only one and when you can't find any arguments you fall to trying to attack my person, i do kinda feel sorry for you though, can't be easy with your ego.

"Also why should games like that change when you clearly seem to only hit a minority"

That would be where you say the numbers are wrong. ;O) And yet you provide no stats to show that they are wrong. Also, I looked into the Neilson study.

"For electronic measurement of PC games, the Nielsen MegaPanel® sample of more than 185,000 US tracked PC’s is used. The software based metering technology allows for individual programs to be identified. When a program is run on a PC, the program name as well as the person(s) using the PC is collected by the meter."

185k is a pretty massive sample size and the fact that it only includes PC, eliminated the whole mobile game argument. And the PC is where you will find most true hardcore gamers in my opinion. ;O)

And no, this discussion was NOT about female gamers in hardcore gaming. This thread was never about that until you steered it in that direction. Look at the topic and tell me where it says a word about hardcore gaming. And where does it say anything about AAA titles either? This time i'd like to have you actually answer those questions instead of ignoring them.

So let me see if I got this straight... Its laughable when I say what is and isn't hardcore but its totally okay when you say who is and is not a real gamer? My hypocrisy detector just burst into flames...

Just to be fair, I think that in your argument you should exclude games that do not have avatars (which are quite a few), something the ESA report doesn't do, besides not making genre specific distinctions. In this particular discussion Candy Crush is not the same as CoD. That 48% just leaves too much room for speculation. People can bend those statistics any way they want, which is happening on both sides in this discussion.

Well, first of all, the report doesn't say anything about Candy Crush. That particular title is just used as speculation by people trying to argue against the fact that the female gamer demographic is getting pretty large. Specific game titles or genres are not mentioned, just the fact that 48% of GAMERS (which includes casuals and hardcore) are female. And we are supposed to ignore any casual female players but guys like Jacanuk think we should include all of the casual male gamers on the consoles who nerd-out over casual games like Call of Duty. Its interesting how he thinks some casuals are any different than others.

Spot on Loaf, the ESA report is probably right but its too vague to draw any valid conclusion from, the 48% could be made up by anywhere from people like Hail who play competitive FPS to grandma who loves to sit and play solitaire and ESA does not give any indication on who, where or what those 48% consists of. Same goes for the Nilson report, its also vague and doesn't give any indication not to mention that ESA probably have their data from the same source. It would be like if i began to use Biowares ME data has proof that 80% of all gamers are male.

Not to mention that i as a european find it kinda insulting that a american report is being taken as world wide.

Like I just mentioned in the previous post that you ignored, the topic and article in this thread are not about different types of gamers. Its about female representation in GAMING. Not hardcore gaming. Not casual gaming. Not professional gaming. Not AAA title gaming. GAMING. So in that sense there is no difference between myself and that granny playing solitaire or the casual guy playing COD.

Also, since when should a study's country of origin make any difference? That is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of the information. Holy Jebus, could you possibly be more bigoted and elitist?

Could you please stick to what is being wrote and not try to read between the lines and make up things

Also try to leave your own ego out of it, this is not a subjective debate over which FPS is more hardcore than another, its a debate about females in "hardcore" gaming which does not include and will never include the Facebook/Mobile generation of "gamers" which compared is "causal"

So what your doing is try to use the total group who play games as an argument to prove your point that there are a lot of females in the group who would buy a game like Far Cry 4 or Assassins Creed Unity, and that just don't hold water.

What is "hardcore" gaming supposed to mean? Even cheap mobile apps like Flappy Bird are more "hardcore" than most modern AAA games. "Hardcore" gaming does not, and will never include, the COD generation of "gamers".

And you might want to leave your own "ego" out of it. You have no evidence whatsoever to back up any of your own claims about what fraction or percentage of "hardcore" gamers are male or female. Your arguments are purely speculation.

I'm not taking a side here. Candy Crush was just an example to illustrate that a lot of games do not have avatars. It is very likely that those games were included in the research, but the fact that none of that is even clear makes any conclusions about gender representation based on the ESA report questionable. The fact is that the information of the ESA report is very limited and broad (not to mention lacking in source material) and cannot be applied to some specific cases discussed here, due to the lack of clear variables in the statistics. Neither side can convincingly use these statistics to prove anything about female representation in videogames. The ESA report is simply not specific enough, even if you do not make the distinction between 'hardcore' and 'casual' gamers.

That's not to say there might not be some moral, social or creative responsibilities, but that's a different discussion entirely.

Harcore gaming is just something to use to separate what kind of games we are talking about and not get them mixed with Flappy Bird and Facebook crap.

So relax Jag and thank you for pointing the obvious thing out , that the EAS report doesn't say what kind of games those 48% play and therefore is absolute useless as argument in a debate about pc/Console AAA games.

@Jacanuk:

Like I said, most modern AAA games are no more "hardcore" than casual Mobile/Facebook apps like Flappy Bird. You could call them "AAA" or "core" games if you want, but referring to them as "hardcore" makes no sense when most of them clearly aren't hardcore.

Not sure about the ESA report, but the Nielsen report posted above already gives a breakdown of the most popular PC games among males and females, aged 25-54. The list shows that most male PC gamers in that age group are barely any less "casual" than most female gamers, with the top 10 for both lists being mostly "casual" games, with only 2 "core" games on the male top 10 (WoW and Half-Life 2) and 1 "core" game on the female top 10 (WoW). And the World of Warcraft figures show that females represent 39% of WoW players aged 25-54.

Then by all means lets call them Core games or AAA games, i couldn't care less, i just used it to separate the two groups of games, so if you like core/AAA games more then lets use it and get back on track.

And thank you for the link to the Nielsen report, its a bit more detailed and it shows exactly my point, That yes there is females playing games, but those females are not really core gamers, the most played game is card games and Solitaire and if you look at the closest thing to a core game World Of warcraft the ratio is more 2:1 Male/Female except in the 25-50+ age group where its more 55:45% split.

Not to mention that these numbers are almost 10 years old. So they are not entirely accurate of today.

"its a debate about females in "hardcore" gaming which does not include and will never include the Facebook/Mobile generation of "gamers" which compared is "causal""

Then you should be able to answer the two questions that you have deftly avoided multiple times. Where in the OP title or post (including the article) does it say this is about female gamers in hardcore gaming? Show me.

And like I have said a thousand times, what is "hardcore" is completely subjective. You think COD and other AAA titles are hardcore and I laugh at that comment because most are far from hardcore gaming. Its dumb-downed garbage made for casual gamers on the consoles. Your definition is "hardcore" is no better than mine because its completely subjective. Do you comprehend that? This isn't nuclear physics here.

He is never going to understand because he believes that casual males who mostly play games like COD are actually hardcore gamers. The reality is that the majority of ALL gamers are casuals these days. He just wants to claim that one group of casuals are "real gamers" and another group of casuals are not.... He doesn't seem to understand that casuals are casuals. Period. Jacanuk is probably a casual himself.

The bit you missed out is what most male PC gamers are playing... Out of the 10 most played PC games among male gamers, 8 out of 10 are "casual" games (Solitaire, card games, etc.), with only 2 of them being "core" games (WoW and Half-Life 2). On PC, most male gamers are playing the same "casual" games that most female gamers are playing. For both males and females, "core" games are in the minority among PC gamers.

The Nielsen numbers are 6 years old now. By now, the female share of the gaming market is most likely higher than it was back then.

I didn't miss anything i even pointed it out that and that in the closest thing to a core game the ratio was more 2:1 male to Female and yes core gamers in this report is a minority but please do explain how that changes anything? we are debating core games and that they should be more diverse, feminists like Hail/Fade/Pedro then use a ESA report where they say 48% is female and therefore of course the core games with females protagonists should also be higher then it is now.

A number that clearly isn't the case and in the end it doesn't matter how many male gamers are not core gamers. I was questioning the argument that 48% was female in core gaming

The ratio is 39% female and 61% male for WoW, according to Nielsen, so I'm not sure where you're getting that 2:1 ratio from.

I don't think anyone is saying that 48% of "core" gamers are female, but that 48% of gamers are female, whether "core" or "casual".

If you read below it says there was 1.2million male playing wow.

Anyways what important here is that the 48% is not an accurate fact on core games and when we discuss core game and that they should change to be more inclusive of females, those number cannot be used as a argument. Which you clearly see most feminists in the thread use.

And that long road brings me back to the org. post "Do not take those number as a argument for including more females in core games"

Jacunak has once again avoided answering the question I asked him... LOL

Exactly. And he seems to have difficult understanding that. He also doesn't seem to comprehend that this article in the OP was about games in general, NOT just "core" games. Also, if they want more women to buy their games, then it makes sense to make the games more appealing to us. Lets look at a popular game like GTA for example. Is it really any surprise that not a lot of women buy it? Maybe if you make some changes to make it more appealing to us then we may buy it. This is the problem when you only cater to one specific demographic. It limits your potential customer base and reduces the amount of money you could make...

How is it possible to miss the boat as much as you have done? but keep inventing facts and thinking you are actually making good arguments. Its not like it really matters in the end.

Also i kinda knew that you would play the potential customer card so consider this, what makes you or other feminists think that forcing developers to include females will change and attract anyone when all the many AAA games already being made with female leads does not?

Again, you didn't answer my two questions. LOL Are you really that afraid to respond to them? ;O) This is like the 5th time you have avoided them. But I admit its funny watching you squirm and dance around it.

I already showed you that games with female protagonists HAVE sold when they are done well. No one is going to buy ANY game if its garbage, regardless of who the main characters are... The Last of US DLC with Ellie as the MAIN CHARACTER sold extremely well. The Walking Dead Season 2 has sold really well. Both games are popular among female console/PC gamers. Tomb Raider has also sold really well. Games with strong female characters do actually sell pretty well as long as they are good. Bad games with male protagonists don't sell well either because they are BAD.. LOL

No one is forcing developers to do anything. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? If developers do something, its because they think its the best course of action.

What 2 questions are you referring too?

Also i am a bit confused here, if there are plenty of female leads and these games sell well, what is the problem? why do you want more females in gaming, isn't 50/50 enough? or do you want to take over the world so to speak.

Right Tomb Raider sold well, did you remember to tell that to Square because last i checked they had called it a failure, which i don't agree with.

And of course someone is forcing developers to do something, when political correctness is used to "guilt" and stir up a public opinion against a developer if they dont act in a certain way, its forcing them. Because again you can be 100% sure that developers don't decide not to have a female lead because they are sexist or against women, they do it because not every game has to be PC.

You say gaming is an art form all the time. I think it's adorable.

But your first two paragraphs kind of contradict each other. You think the industry should cater to its marginal majority, then you say the developers should focus on creating their art and not worry about certain groups. How are they supposed to balance the two? Artistic vision and marketing demographics don't really go well together.

also, how is pandering to a marginal demographic majority all that different than pandering to the moral majority? They're both going to have a big impact on the finished product (or art, in your case), and both will affect sales as well.

The protagonist sex ratio is more like 80:20 or 70:30 at best, well below the 52:48 ratio of gamers. If the industry wants to balance it out, why do you oppose it? Why do you want males to dominate the world?

Tomb Raider reboot is the best-selling game in the entire franchise. Square Enix didn't call it a failure. They initially said it didn't meet expectations (due to a high budget), but then later said it surpassed those expectations earlier this year. Also, let's not forget that another Square Enix game, Final Fantasy XIII, also became popular with female audiences because of its strong female protagonist.

Somehow, I knew you were going to pull the PC card eventually. You just couldn't help yourself, could you? How typical, conservatives fabricating false strawman conspiracy theories about straw liberals trying to secretly "force" their "PC" onto the world. Surely you can do better than that, jacanuk? If there's anyone trying to "force" developers to do anything, it's the hordes of extremely loud, immature, irrational, racist/misogynistic, white male, "anti-PC" justice warriors, who demand that game protagonists all look like this, and send abuse, rape threats, threats of violence, or death threats, to anyone who dares to suggest otherwise. Not every game has to have protagonists looking like that.

I agree.

LOL The two I have asked repeatedly.... The first one I have asked in almost every post. Where in the OP title or post (including the article) does it say this is about female gamers in hardcore gaming or just "AAA" titles? The second question is.... What is the difference between all of the console casuals who play dumbed down trash like COD and a casual who plays candy crush? They're all casual games.

I never said there were plenty of female leads in games so don't put words in my mouth. I said that the many of the ones that DO exist sell really well. Its nowhere near 50/50 and you knew that before you even typed that nonsense.

The guy above already refuted the comment about Tomb Raider so nice try. Your problem (or one of them anyway) is that you just don't know what you're talking about most of the time and you like to leave out certain information.

Did you know that the two decisions Naughty Dog made regarding Last of Us were before the game was released and gamers didn't even know until they made it it public after the fact? So tell us then... How were they being pressured if no one knew about it until AFTER it was already done?

Also, do you not see the hypocrisy when you complain about other people getting mad at developers for not putting in characters that represent different people and yet YOU guys get mad when they do decide to do that? If the devs decide to take their games in another direction then you shouldn't complain. Follow your own advice and let them make games the way they choose.

Every time I see one of Jacanuk's posts, I think of this...

LOL Best satire ever.

I just want to point out, as @loafofgame did, that the reason there is a difference between "hardcore" and "casual" game in this conversation is because many of those casual games have no avatars, and as such have no need for female (or male) representation.

I will answer @hailtothequeen's 2 questions:

"Where in the OP title or post (including the article) does it say this is about female gamers in hardcore gaming or just "AAA" titles?" The answer is nowhere. No distinction is made.

"What is the difference between all of the console casuals who play dumbed down trash like COD and a casual who plays candy crush?" The numbers get skewed because if the top 10 games include Flappy Bird, Farmville, and Candy Crush, then the number of games needing female representation change.

That second one didn't really answer my question. I didn't ask how it could possibly effect the situation, I asked what the difference is between the two groups of casuals. I'm asking because Jacanuk seems to think COD players are "REAL" gamers while people who play certain other types of games are not... In reality, COD and games like it are casual too so there is no difference. Casual is casual so Jacanuk needs to pull his head out of ass and understand that. This is why the article makes no disctinction between the games. Gaming is gaming and women need better representation in almost all genres except maybe MMORPGS.

But thanks for at least attempting to answer both questions. Jacanuk has avoided them since this debate started.

That's not entirely what I said. The 'hardcore' vs. 'casual' distinction is irrelevant. Regardless of whether you make that distinction the study wasn't aimed at researching gender distinctions. It just took a lot of games (we don't even know which ones) and said that 'of the people who play games 48% is female'. You simply cannot conclude from that that women (or anyone) need more (or less) representation, because, as I said, we don't know which games were included and we also don't know how many of those games do not have avatars. Plus, from a business perspective (and not certain moral or idealistic perspectives) genre specific stats are also important. These are also absent. If certain subgenres are indeed dominated by a male or female audiences (of which there is no statistical proof in the ESA study) then it makes business sense to focus on that dominant group, regardless of that 48% overall. That doesn't mean there aren't any moral, creative or even economic arguments to be made about diversifying representation within certain potentially exclusive subgenres, but those don't have anything to do with the presented stats.

I personally agree with this (though probably for different reasons), but I don't think you can support your case with the fact that 48% of the people who play games are female (for the reasons I mentioned above). If you do that then you're bending a certain fact to suit your needs, which I find questionable. The study is too limited and vague to be used as a convincing argument in this discussion.

I didn´t avoid anything, i told you that i would not get into a debate with your ego, also if you could read this is not about calling someone hardcore, casual or soft core, its about making a distinction between two kinds of gaming, one is the facebook/mobile and the other is pc/console because no matter how much you want to boost your own ego, there is a difference between people who play games like COD/BF/WOW/core games and Facebook/Mobile games.

So by all means call them Carrots and strawberries or Tom and Jerry instead if that helps make you understand the point i am making.

As to the other question, well what kind games do you think OP is talking about? particular when the post is about Far Cry 4 so a good guess is that its the core games who need more females which you also can see from the thread.

And Loaf hits the nail straight on the head, ESA´s report is vague and cannot be used for anything, and i don't think i need to repeat why as Loaf already explained it.

Okay, for the sake of argument, I am going to completely toss out the two different studies. Now what? We have no other verifiable statistics regarding women in gaming so if someone like Jacanuk doesn't think there are enough female gamers to bother making games to appeal to us, what is he basing that on? Remember, there are no other statistics so we wouldn't know how many women there are in each genre of game so what are people on that side of the debate basing their view on? They have no argument. We really don't know exactly how many women play each genre so why should we NOT make games that appeal to us? What valid reason is there to support that argument?

LOL I'll end this right now.... So tell me, what IS the difference between a mobile gamer and a console gamer? Here is where the hypocrisy comes in... ;O)

The OP only mentions one specific game but he also refers to gaming in a general sense. Nowhere does he mention only AAA titles. You are the one who turned it into a debate about that. Only the OP knows for sure, anything else is speculation.

Well, it simply becomes a very unsatisfying discussion based on personal experience and interpretation. People see less women in the gaming press, less women in the professional gaming arena, less women in the industry, less female users on these websites (regardless of the possibility that some women might hide their gender or that in a lot of discussions gender doesn't really matter). On top of that, people also have ideas about what women (and men) generally like and don't like. For example, they might feel that women will never like competitive shooters as much as men do (for numerous reasons), that women who do like them are exceptions (and why should you cater to a few exceptions?). And this is confirmed by their own experience. Plus, people have ideas about what type of games this poll is 'really' about, most likely based on the games this website covers (which generally do not include mobile, browser, internet and digital desktop games). None of this is backed up by particularly strong statistics, but there's also little reason to think otherwise. And then people also have all these principles and ideals about how you should approach making a videogame, about market pressure, about social pressure, about creative choices. These ideals are interpretations of observations of events in the industry and the community and can therefore always be questioned. Noone is using convincing stats here; everybody is interpreting what they (want to) see.

And then there's all the speculation about how free developers are to really make what they want to make and how much of the game is created within the strict lines of market statistics, publisher risk management or social pressure (not to mention the speculation about what the audience wants). We don't know what developers really want to make, we don't know how free they are or how much they accept the industry standards and simply create what they want within those boundaries. This tiny poll creates more confusion than clear answers. It appears that the majority doesn't care, because they just want to play videogames (in which case implementing more diverse representation shouldn't be a problem), but at the same time I see people actually caring a lot when certain representations are implemented for arguably questionable reasons (being politically correct, being forced by minorities, etc.). Their ideas about videogames, about dominant markets, about what those dominant markets want, about what developers want create a very specific 'I don't care, as long...' context. And at that point representation becomes something that can spoil the fun, something that can't be disconnected from the game experience, something that could negatively affect other elements of the game. In short: something they care about.

The sad fact is that we don't have extensive stats on who plays what and that there are no reports on what developers really want to make and how much of their creation is altered by external forces. We can only interpret the limited information we get through the internet. And even if those stats and reports were there, we could still argue over them, because that info has nothing to do with moral, social, emotional or creative/artistic ideals.

So, to move this argument forward: apart from statistics, why do you think videogames should have more female representation (or maybe more diverse representation in general)...?

@hailtothequeen

I admire your persistence when it comes to dealing with people like Jacanuk. Believe me, some of us have had the pleasure of embarrassing him through debate for a long time now. Unfortunately, you've probably already noticed it's a lost cause. Some people just want to live in their own bubbles, because it's too scary to view the world through unbiased, honest eyes.

@Jacanuk

Let me try once more with you. By now, I've heard your arguments.

Argument 1: female inclusion within video games is already really fair.
Argument 2: More female inclusion would hurt developer's creativity, because they'd be doing it to be politically correct. They'd be afraid of the backlash, you'd say.

While all of that is utterly ridiculous, let me argue from your faulty premise.

Argument 1/2 counter: What's wrong with listening to your fanbase? During Microsoft's Xbox One fiasco, a lot of their policies changed. Why? Due to feedback from the masses. Do you find that wrong? That they listened to a sizeable chunk of their player base? How is this any different? There are a lot of people who complain about the lack of female inclusion within video games. If developers do listen to this audience, what's wrong with that? Why is it wrong to listen to (and react accordingly to) player feedback? It's literally done ALL the time, especially within competitive games, both FPS and otherwise. Hell, most patches in games are a DIRECT result of player feedback.

There is almost no difference, can you not see that? You may not agree with the sentiment that females within video games are poorly represented. The same way someone will complain about a class nerf in an MMO, or a gun tweak in an FPS after a patch. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But listening to consumer feedback is a practice that's been around for decades in the gaming industry. It's never been wrong to listen to your player base.

Here's what makes you look like a sexist jerk: this particular issue (female inclusion within video games) deals with an ENTIRE gender of the human species. We're talking about women here, not the DPS of a Rogue rotation, and not the bullet spread of an M4. A huge portion of women have been rightfully complaining about this problem for years. Who are you to tell them they don't know what they're talking about?

So long as you know which part of your player base to listen to. Everyone who buys and plays your game is technically part of the player base, but not all of them are going to give feedback you need to take seriously. Capcom made this mistake when listening to feedback about Devil May Cry, and that's how we got Devil May Cry 2. Then they realized their was a very certain part of their player base they needed to listen to, and ignore the rest, and from that we got the brilliance of Devil May Cry 3. (which stands to this day as the best action game ever made)

I think there should be better representation of people in general (women, LGBT, other races, etc...) because it opens up a market that wasn't there before. Like I said before, when you design games that are meant to appeal to one specific type of person (the straight white male) then it shouldn't be much of a surprise that the games won't appeal to other groups and won't sell well among them. And then people wonder why mostly the straight white males are buying the games in question. Like I said, they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For the longest time you never saw strong female characters in most games because there was a belief that they don't sell well. That myth has been destroyed in recent years so why not see if this other myth (women don't play games) can be destroyed as well? From a business perspective, its just smart because you are gaining access to a previously untapped market. The wider your audience is, the more money you can make... It also happens to be the right thing to do. And this applies to LGBT, other races, etc...

Sure, it may make a small number of people like jacanuk angry and they may even lose them as customers but most people are not going to get upset just because better female characters and more notable LGBT and black characters are included in the games. And they will most likely be increasing their customer base by doing so.

Oh I know its a lost cause as far as he is concerned but people like him are very vocal and there has to be someone who refutes their arguments. I have been fighting against guys like Jacanuk (and worse) in games and on forums since I was a little kid so its nothing new for me. Someone has to do it. ;O)

Well, to some extent I see where you're coming from, but keep in mind that a lot of what you're saying when it comes to the DMC franchise is just an opinion. While I enjoyed DMC3, it's not even in my top 5 best action games ever, but that just comes down to preference.

The point I'm making, I feel, is uniquely suited in that there's not really a counter argument against it. It's one thing to debate whether the next game in a franchise was better off due to player feedback, the same can be said for changes in patches within a competitive game. Some people hate changes made in patches (particularly if their class was nerfed, if you want an MMO example), others appreciate it because, in their view, it makes the game more balanced.

The difference here is that female inclusion within a video game, in and of itself, doesn't make a game bad or good. And it is because of this fact that no one should have a problem with a more equal gender representation within video games.

not only do i care less, but, i shake my head in disgust at those who do care about the gender representation in video games.