Personally what I find weird about this whole ordeal is that from my many years of interacting with nerdy (or maybe not so nerdy) women who played computer games is that there exists one franchise that combines the holy grail of complex gameplay (so it can't be dismissed as another match 3 clone), with insane amount of female appeal, both in the number of hours played and the number of people who play it.<p>And that franchise is <i>The Sims</i>.<p>Despite the fact that there has been a huge industry push in the last 10-15 years to make a game that draws in tons of female players, there has been no new game in the franchise other than the safe but ultimately unambitious Sims 4.<p>I've heard a ton of complaints about players about how much better, more complex and featureful the Sims 3 was (and that game was a glorious mess), and Maxis themselves have acknowledged this. I think there has been a sequel in work at some point in time, that promised to bring back the complexity, which has been cancelled unfortunately.<p>So in a nutshell, despite all the rage around this question, the industry somehow doesn't even make the games that are known to do well with a female audience.<p>Another example would be Stardew Valley, or Undertale, which had a huge female following (and sales to match) but had to come out of the indie scene, because all these super politically progressive AAA gaming companies somehow are worse at making things that appeal to women than either companies that existed before, or random indies coming from outside the professional world.
I think the real problem is "AAA". AAA games and consoles/gaming computers are expensive and rely heavily on marketing tech-specs and graphics for their appeal. These games usually don't innovate much in gameplay, design, or aesthetics. They are just the same game as last year with higher resolution and more jiggling. With marketing and design culture being male-oriented as discussed in TFA, the studios making AAAs don't/won't have the confidence to make new kinds of games, because they haven't yet identified an archetype that can be sold repeatedly.
If you want girl games, make them. Don't expect others to make them for you.<p>Asking for AAA game studios to make something else is like asking a pizza shop to start making burritos. Sure, you can ask. But really, you should just make your own rather than trying to convince someone else to do it for you.
<i>Animal Crossing</i> would be another game that has a massive female audience from a AAA studio.<p>> Despite the fact that there has been a huge industry push in the last 10-15 years to make a game that draws in tons of female players<p>Ultimately its poor marketing. They want to make <i>Call of Duty</i> and get that audience, but also get girls to play <i>Call of Duty</i>. Instead of making a game with mass appear to both boys and girls.
The Sims 4 continues to mint money. It came out in 2014, but they've released expansion packs for it every year since then. The latest one came out last month. It costs $40. They've sold tens of millions of these expansion packs over the years.<p>I agree that it is weird that there hasn't been a AAA attempt to unseat it. You'd think that it'd be a safer bet than yet another hero shooter.
Simulation/Sandbox games probably do well because of their open ended nature.<p>My GF, daughter and me all play Stardew Valley but we play it wildly differently. It is a farming/relationship simulator for them and some kind of capitalist min/max farming and mining simulation for me.<p>But yes, the Sims 3 and the 700 add ons are all heavily in their rotation, they make me look like a gaming amateur if you go by hours logged.
> <i>all these super politically progressive AAA gaming companies somehow are worse</i><p>Corporate interest is primarily financial, anything beyond that is unfortunately all too often only (financially motivated) virtue signalling.
I think it's that the biggies are focused on big budget AAA titles that they can sell for $70 or monetize as a FOMO live service, their distinguishing factor compared to indie games is high production values, and they don't feel like they have enough of an advantage in this space, or that they can get enough revenue to justify the huge expenditure of a AAA game.<p>Basically the same reason many other genres (e.g. roguelites) are dominated by little indie studios.
Plus the studios that have become AAA did it because they implemented interesting ideas, limited by their size constraints. The they get scale and lose the size constraints that caused the to go after interesting ideas.<p>The real successor to an old AAA series is the new series made by people who played it as kids.
World of Warcraft has been super successful in its space, and yet Blizzard has failed to make an actual sequel.<p>> Another example would be Stardew Valley, or Undertale, which had a huge female following (and sales to match) but had to come out of the indie scene, because all these super politically progressive AAA gaming companies somehow are worse at making things that appeal to women than either companies that existed before, or random indies coming from outside the professional world.<p>Boomer shooters also came out of the indie space. Survival craft hits? Generally indies. There's plenty of genres that, for whatever reason, have been largely ignored by the biggies.
The “sequel” to WoW is already here. Compare modern WoW to the original. It is essentially a sequel, rebooted several times times over.
And thanks for that or we'd be inundated with terrible flops ala SimCity disaster of 2013.<p>Face it, AAA studios just can't do open world and can't do decades-long development cycles, they always immediately lose the plot beneath super-irrelevant graphics, platform deals/restrictions and other crap that's mostly openly detrimental to gameplay and ease of access.<p>That they insist on treating game development as movie production is my running hypothesis.<p>Rimworld also has non-inconsiderable female following, but only because it's a) very mod-friendly and b) in continued development for more than 10 years already. Its attention to relationships and interpersonal stuff also helps.
I have two young daughters who love video games. While there is definitely a great deal many games in my Steam Library they aren't interested in, that's mostly a reflection of my tastes not being shared by them. As it is, there are _many_ games on Steam that they've sunk thousands of hours into. Some that immediately come to mind are A Little to the Left, Unpacking, Hogwart's Legacy, Grounded, Minecraft, Tower Wizard, Little Kitty Big City, A Short Hike, Squirreled Away, Donut County, Goat Simulator 3, Plants vs Zombies, Kingdom Rush, Castle Crashers, Putt Putt, Pajama Sam...<p>We'll even play co-operative games of Barony, and Borderlands; but those are more that they want to spend time with their Dad. Likewise, I don't think they'd ever have picked up Castle Crashers or Kingdom Rush if I hadn't played those games in front of them and with them.<p>I think an important undertone in many of the games that appeal to them is that they're primarily focused on solving a puzzle and telling a narrative through puzzle resolution. Only one daughter is particularly fond of the doll dressing aspect of some games, and there are dedicated Android apps for that specific niche. Neither is particularly interested in playing first person shooters or epic CRPGs, unless it's done with my involvement. Also important is the presentation; there's only one game in those that I listed which is in any way presented with modern realism, the rest are _clearly_ stylized in a more playful manner. But maybe that's a reflection of their age?
Isn't it kind of misguided to approach this as men studying women and trying to make more things that appeal to them?<p>Video game distribution is insanely low friction. Last month the best selling game was Resident Evil (6m copies) and right alongside it you have a Slay the Spire 2 (3m copies) which is made and distributed by like... 15 people maybe?<p>I definitely don't think I could make a better game for women than women, so hopefully more girls get into playing and making games. It is definitely one of those areas where you have an opportunity to stand out from the 10,000 games that come out every day.
I'm interested in helping my daughters discover content that appeals to them, and to do that I need to understand what it is about certain games that is appealing for them.<p>> I definitely don't think I could make a better game for women than women, so hopefully more girls get into playing and making games.<p>Some of my favourite game designers and authors are women. I don't think a creator needs to share the gender, sexuality, or ethnicity of their target audience in order to make games that appeal to that audience. They need to _observe and listen_.
> Isn't it kind of misguided to approach this as men studying women and trying to make more things that appeal to them?<p>Why would it be misguided? There are plenty of works that are created by women that appeal to men (Harry Potter, Animorphs, Full Metal Alchemist), so I don't think there's anything wrong with men trying to make something that appeals to women.
If we agree that women statistically have different preferences with regards to video games than men, wouldn't it also be reasonable to think that women might have difference preferences towards careers and hobbies than men?
The past 40 years we went from pinball and arcade machines, to most men playing some sort of game on a personal device (phone, console, computer etc). I could see the next 40 years capturing women in the same capacity given the right infrastructure and content.
> Neither is particularly interested in playing first person shooters or epic CRPGs, unless it's done with my involvement.<p>This is interesting, as my five year old daughter loves Pillars of Eternity. That being said, she mostly just likes to watch me fighting monsters and change the outfits of the characters.<p>She absolutely adores the simulation games (Avatar World, Toca Boca World etc) which leads me to believe that she'd love the Sims. I wonder if I can get them on Switch?<p>She has Animal Crossing, but there's a lot of text there which she isn't yet comfortable with.
> This is interesting, as my five year old daughter loves Pillars of Eternity.<p>Funnily enough, PoE is the game I've been needling my eldest to try for _years_ now. The PoE games are fabulous CRPGs that I've played through twice each, myself; I expected that she would love the mix of puzzle solving, narrative, and strategy. But it just didn't hook, for whatever reason.<p>> That being said, she mostly just likes to watch me fighting monsters and change the outfits of the characters.<p>Oh, well, yes. My kids love watching me play whatever game I'm playing. That's different: they are choosing to show interest in my interests in order to spend time with me.
Toca Boca World is a game my daughters (8 and 10) love, and i completely don't understand. It doesn't seem to have a goal or any mechanics --they're just playing dolls on a screen, which is cool but with so little interactivity i think i'd rather they just play with dolls (which they do also...)<p>Animal crossing has very recently started to take over as "favorite video game", and at least there's a *game* there...
I don't really agree with the author's assertion that things that appeal to women are treated as inherently lesser in general compared to things that appeal to men. I think plenty of things for both genders are treated as silly or shallow or dumb (and that's not entirely inaccurate).<p>I do wonder if there's data on this, though.
> Games are doomed by femininity. Across media, genres marketed toward women are deemed lesser than their masculine counterparts: romance novels are trashy, chick flicks are shallow, and pop idols are embarrassing.<p>I was excited to read the <i>love letter</i> to girl games, but this article is more of a disparagement, as if everything that appeals to women is regarded as trash. There are plenty of things made by women for women that are universally loved. There are shallow chick flicks, yes, and they're not trying to be anything more than they are (I love a lot of them). It seems that the author is the one framing all these things as worthless. Is a game worthless because it never hit the (very competitive) mainstream?<p>The game mentioned in the article, <i>Consume Me</i>, has 922 written reviews, the majority of which are very positive. It has the description: <i>Consume Me is a semi-autobiographical game that depicts dieting, disordered eating, and fatphobia.</i> In my opinion, the art looks cool and the game looks fun enough, but I don't get the impression it was aiming for mainstream appeal. Why should it? Mainstream games are often addiction traps meant to separate players from their money continuously.<p>This article needs more <i>love</i> and less disparagement.
I can read a trashy romance novel on a bus. But if I crack open a skin mag, I am a weirdo.<p>So which is the lesser?<p>Actually… false comparison. They make skin mags featuring men too.<p>So let’s try this:<p>Woman reading a romance book. Vs a man reading a romance book.<p>One of those is “weird”.
A point of contention with the article. Most women I know who played the old Tomb Raider games loved them, and preferred them to the reboots.
Great article! Needless gendering absolutely hinders innnovation, in game design and elsewhere. (Not to mention the unfairness, oppression, and general absurdity).<p>Slightly unrelated, but the point about tutorials starting with the “basics”, i.e., “making a character move and attack” is interesting. On the one hand, if you have a strong enough grasp on programming fundamentals, it should be pretty easy to take what you learn there and make a “dress-up game”. Heck, a basic dress-up game shouldn’t be any harder than a platformer.<p>But if you lack that fundamental knowledge and are only interested in games, you need to develop it somehow, and you don’t want to build ‘boring’ console apps; games <i>should</i> be a platform for learning programming. So I agree wholeheartedly with the author: we need more diversity in introductory game programming tutorials!<p>Of course, that brings us to another can of worms with programming education: Tutorial Hell. But beginners need to start somewhere, and that somewhere should motivate them to continue learning and exploring on their own.
My daughter likes most games as long as I'm willing to play with her. She dislikes excessive gore/violence (but has a good threshold anyway... she can watch me play Left 4 Dead 2 even though she finds it scary).<p>She likes relaxing sandbox games such as "Tiny Glade", story/puzzle oriented games like "Planet of Lana" or "Cocoon", racing games like Mario Kart 8 and Need For Speed (she's awful at it, but she likes it), platformers like "Princess Peach: Showtime!", and will gladly watch me play Space Marine or even help me with XCOM Enemy Unknown (by pointing out enemies). We're currently having a hoot playing "It Takes Two", which is a coop split-screen puzzle platformer.<p>I think pretty much her only requirements are: "not too scary" and "I can play next to daddy". That's it. Not necessarily just "Girl Games".<p>One thing I discovered with her is that we both have very low tolerance for "talkie" games with lots of cutscenes where you must skip through all the pointless dialogue. They are very kid-unfriendly (kids want to just play the game and read very slowly anyway, if they can read at all) and, if I'm being honest, also adult-unfriendly. Most games have crap storylines anyway, just give us the gameplay and <i>imply</i> the larger plot briefly, much like Planet of Lana does.
Curious, is The Sims considered a "girl game"?
> Games are doomed by femininity. Across media, genres marketed toward women are deemed lesser than their masculine counterparts: romance novels are trashy, chick flicks are shallow, and pop idols are embarrassing<p>This idea is trotted out but is really blatantly false when you think of it. Jayne Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Little Women, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility. These books have all withstood the test of time and are considered fine literature but are absolutely feminine. Romance novels are considered less than because they are not good books, just in the sense that Conan the Barbarian is also considered not fine literature despite being dripping in masculinity.<p>Manhattan, Annie Hall, When Harry Met Sally. There are tons of "chick flicks" that are considered great films. Some directors like Catherine Breillat are extremely feminist in their works and well regarded directors with well regarded films in cinephile circles.
Bringing up books is particularly funny considering that reading, writing, editing, and publishing of said books are all things that are dominated by women.<p>And yeah most romance novels are trashy, but it's not like milslop Clancyfics are better. Most people just want some shallow entertainment and that's <i>fine</i>.
Actually Romance is probably a <i>stronger</i> novel genre than say Science Fantasy. The bulk publishers run <i>several</i> lines of novel length stories you can pay for, you can pick how "spicy" is OK for you (some cultures are like "OK, yes I like a plot but there is <i>fucking</i> in this story right? Do NOT cut away from the action"; Other readers will be angry if there's so much as a French kiss between our happily-ever-after couple, even if it's only alluded to and not actually described) as well as themes (Doctors? Werewolves? 18th century Dukes? Billionaires?). If you want pulp science fantasy there aren't a lot of options AFAIK.<p>On the other hand for <i>shorts</i> science fantasy is much better off. Apparently anybody who can knock out six pages of <i>romance</i> tends to use somebody else's character development as shorthand and so can only publish to AO3 but if you can knock together a decent SF story in six pages that's worth some cash from a pro or semi-pro magazine. Even pretty hard† SF, which is not a common taste, can shift enough copies of a bunch of shorts to make economic sense.<p>† Science Fiction is graded "harder" the more likely that if you ask "How does that work?" about something in the story the author gets as excited as Hank Green and starts explaining details that may or may not just be facts about our universe which they've incorporated into their story -- as opposed to "A wizard did it" or "That's not important". The diametric opposite of the MST3K mantra.
I mean Conan the Barbarian literally exists (by the authors own admission) because he wanted to write historical fiction but couldn't be bothered to do the research.
Acknowledging that I'm not adding much to the conversation here, but I just wanted to respond to say you actually changed my opinion with this post. Those examples are slop not because their category is bad, but because <i>most things</i> are slop. That's fairly clearly true once it's pointed out.
It all comes down to the character design too. Look at games like Valorant, Overwatch, or Fortnite. Shooters which would you generally associate with men but INSANELY popular among women just because they have good character designs and appeal not because of the gameplay at all.
Ehh, that seems pretty reductive. I could just as easily claim women love games with character customization or games with deep stories. All of these things may have some truth to them. But (1) it’s unclear how universal this is and (2) it’s unclear if this differentiates women from men or is just something people in general like. “Good character design” is incredibly vague and appreciated by a lot of people.
Wait, do we have actual gender breakdowns for each of those games?
There are no concrete numbers for Valorant that I know of, but the “Head of Esports Partnerships and Business Development for North America & Oceania Riot Games” Matthew Archambault was quoted saying the Valorant player base is 30-40% women [1]. That seems plausible to me based on my own experience playing Valorant.<p>[1] <a href="https://gamesbeat.com/how-riot-games-wants-to-ensure-that-valorants-esports-stars-include-women/" rel="nofollow">https://gamesbeat.com/how-riot-games-wants-to-ensure-that-va...</a>
You have to be kind of careful with that too<p>In my experience there's a substantial number of women who are fans of something like overwatch, but not of actually <i>playing</i> Overwatch. They like the designs and the world, they make fanart and fics and such, but they don't actually play<p>Now, that might still be a real success for something that is billed as an esport, but if you're trying to move actual copies of your game you have to be aware that there may be a real big disconnect between your fans and actual paying customers<p>The usual disclaimers apply: I'm not trying to imply that no women play games or that women are "fake gamers" or whatever. This is just my personal observation
> In my experience there's a substantial number of women who are fans of something like overwatch, but not of actually playing Overwatch. They like the designs and the world, they make fanart and fics and such, but they don't actually play<p>I'm the same way with Warhammer 40K. I love the lore, but have no interest in actually playing with the miniatures.
I don't think the reason is primarily that games target men but rather that very few women are interested in this stuff:<p><i>Traditionally feminine activities and aesthetics are a wellspring of untapped potential in video games. In Consume Me, your strategy is informed by a collection of cute outfits that offer various stat boosts. Terry Ross’s Sweatermaker is a crafting game inspired by the real process of knitting.</i><p>That sounds like the stereotype out of a 1950s commercial that more than a few women I knew would think of as kitsch. I don't even think there is something that gendered for men either, for example some of the more stereotypical cartoonish fantasy or action franchises of the 80s or 90s have relatively little appeal with guys today. And personally I think that's probably a good thing because anything that targeted at a demographic tends to be, to put it mildly not exactly an artistic achievement
I was talking to a woman last night who still has the Barbie Riding Club CD-ROM that she played in 1999. She mentioned trying to get it to work a few years ago on her computer at the time but it not working. (This probably would have been on Windows 7.)<p>I thought I remembered a recent update from one of the various API/engine re-implementation projects (e.g. something like but not necessarily ScummVM, Wine/Proton, or something associated with archive.org's Emularity project) that included a list of new titles that had become playable due to some recent fixes, and among those titles were (I thought) a bunch of Barbie and other low-budget franchise games in that vein. There wasn't any particular focus on these outside any of the other games listed—they were just mentioned in passing. Someone did bring it up in the comment section—maybe here on HN—but searching around didn't turn anything up.<p>Any ideas?
It's really hard not that deep...<p>Video games and technology has always been spearheaded by "autistic" tendencies... There is a certain repetition that autistic people and people with adhd have. Most of those people are men...<p>Women were never excluded. They just never found much interest in it. Just like it is for chess or motor sports.
Chess is actually an incredibly good counter-example: The moment women’s chess clubs and teams started proliferating, women started participating much more. Chess had a “guy’s club” connotation to them, and women were effectively excluded because of that. No intentionally excluded, obviously, but effectively.
It's both. Women were definitely excluded, especially in the 80s and 90s. Ads were a little....let's say a little focused on the male gaze: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1k3dre/game_boy_pocket_seriously_distracting/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1k3dre/game_boy_poc...</a><p>Games went very hard into the "shoot stuff" genre from get get-go (presumably in part because it's comparatively easy to design and make) and stayed there, and that's also a factor.<p>But ALSO, yes, the folks making games tended to be male, and so the target audience also tended to be male.<p>But on the other hand, as more games became available, and especially as mobile gaming on phones became possible, women quickly climbed back up to being about half of the gamers, so it was certainly never about any inherent differences in how much they'd like games so much as just what sort of games different people might like.
There's definitely some exclusion, but I'm still inclined to agree that interest is the larger determining factor.
The interest has been there just never promoted as a your welcome too. It has pleasantly been gate kept.<p>The early 90's was heavily painted pink and dolly for girls and camo & macho for the boys.
>games in traditionally feminine genres like fashion games and visual novels<p>...<p>> The solution is giving people the tools to start exactly where they want to start<p>Isn't ren'py one of the easiest game engines to use?
[flagged]