The Burn baby burn thread covered a lot of turf, and one of the more intriguing aspects of it was the back and forth nearer the end where posters began to discuss whether the makeup of a design shop influences the kind of games that get made, including what values and norms show up. Let's hear from the dev community.
So here is the diversity question: Does having a diverse staff make for better games? Different ones? Which of course leads to questions about what "diversity" is and what "better" games are.
In her GDC rant, Brenda Laurel accused the industry of being a male, middle-class club that is engaging in a bizzare relationship with young males. (Thus diversity here means gender balance, but it could of course apply to any number of categories.) Laurel suggested that by perpetually emphasizing violence, objectified women and using a lot of, ahem oversized guns and swords, the industry is missing out on a range of game content that might appeal to broader audiences among both gender groups.
Maxis was cited as an example of a workplace with gender balance that makes "good games" that aren't particularly gendered. As Richard noted, sometimes you need a group of women involved to make a better widget, even when the widget isn't for them. Different kinds of people have different perspectives. So is Maxis the exception that proves the rule? GDC looked about 85/15 male/female to my untrained eye.
Here is my question: What is the state of the industry in terms of female hiring and placement? Are women chiefly in art or programming, management, PR, what? And does it matter? Given the social problems and barriers that women still face in learning computer science, is this an issue or a shoulder shrug?
Can the devs on this list cite their workplace norms and how the presence (or absence) of diversity on their staffs leads to a different kind of product being developed? Or has it not really mattered?
Good question. I'm looking forward to seeing some honest answers from developers and academics on this one.
To stir the pot further, here are some observations from a somewhat different perspective:
1. Real diversity has never been satisfied by setting quotas. It's not about how many women or gays or Hispanics or "gun-toting nutheads from Texas" you hire -- it's about achieving diversity of thought; it's about having people around with different perspectives because that's an effective way to catch more problems.
So how do you promote that among game developers? If you *really* wanted diversity, how about setting up outreach programs for conservative game developers?
2. For a group so apparently monolithically liberal, why don't game developers hire more women? Is the low number of women in the industry your fault? If so, how do you square that with your claim of liberality? If it's not your fault, then what other reason might there be for a "low" representation of women in the industry?
3. To continue the implication in that last thought, the usnews.com story cited took the predictable tack: women don't go for techie careers because "society" is somehow not encouraging them enough. (Hey, at least we didn't get the "men are oppressing us" theory.) What about the possibility (tiptoed around in the usnews.com story) that most women don't gravitate toward technical work because they think it's unsocial and just don't care to do that kind of work? (And yes, the nature of programming and many engineering jobs most certainly does make them less social than other kinds of work.)
Harvard president Larry Summers is still being abused by supposedly open-minded academics for daring to suggest that women aren't better represented in high-level mathematics programs because there's some mental thing required to be a great mathematician that most women don't have. What he was referring to was the possibility that women are biochemically different from men, tending them toward different interests and strengths than the typical man. Well, what if that theory is correct? Wouldn't that be sufficient to explain why there's a numeric disparity between the sexes in certain industries?
Look at the recent finding by two researchers (from Duke and Penn State) that the genetic inheritance differences between men and women can vary by more (up to 2%) than the difference between humans and chimpanzees (about 1%)? Is it really wrong to wonder whether such a difference could manifest as having different interests and skills? Why? Is it truly inconceivable that many women don't become techies, not because The Man is keeping them down, and not because they aren't getting special encouragement or subsidies, but simply because they themselves -- of their own free will -- tend to choose work that's more interesting to them than programming and engineering?
In which case, it still makes sense for game developers to reach out to women (and conservatives, and anyone else who looks at the world differently than we do). But let's be honest about the reasons why this a good idea.
It's not so you can feel good about promoting social justice -- not when there may be no massive level of injustice occurring. It's to make games that more people can enjoy, because having people around with different perspectives helps make better games.
--Flatfingers
Posted by: Flatfingers | Mar 31, 2005 at 14:40
One time when I was talking with Tom Melcher of There.com, he told me that he had made it a rule that no important design decision could be made without having at least one woman in the room buying off on it.
Tom was simply implementing the same strategy that all bars know by heart: If you can bring in the women, the men will follow.
Posted by: Chris Yeh | Mar 31, 2005 at 15:32
Flatfinger suggests that the game industry should reach out to female developers despite the fact that females may not have brains equipped to do mathematics or programming at any higher level. Of what use can females be in that case? Evaluating whether games may sell to women or not?
I have worked with several women who are programmers in game companies, and the code they have written has not been better or worse than that of their male colleagues. I feel offended on their behalf.
Posted by: Ivan | Mar 31, 2005 at 16:25
"One time when I was talking with Tom Melcher of There.com, he told me that he had made it a rule that no important design decision could be made without having at least one woman in the room buying off on it."
I suppose that explains there.com's complete dominance of the online game industry.
Posted by: steve patterson | Mar 31, 2005 at 16:54
Relevant tidbit over at Gamasutra:
"A demographic study conducted by IGN Entertainment... highlighting some figures on what the company perceives as the average 'game enthusiast.'
... enthusiasts play games for 20 hours each week on average, with ten percent of respondents claiming to play for over 40 hours a week, as much as a full-time job. Over 90 percent of those surveyed were male"
Historically, most of those working in the game industry were first game enthusiasts. A smattering have come into the industry by other routes (and only recently have some degree programs begun to turn out people who find jobs in the industry).
Given that, we may well have a chicken-and-egg thing going here: the industry is dominated by males because they grew up playing games written by males for males because of a whole host of societal trends. The question is, is it worth breaking out of that mold, and if so, how do we achieve greater diversity?
On that note, I fully agree with Flatfingers that "it's about achieving diversity of thought." If you can do that with a bunch of 20-25yo unmarried unpolitical white guys, terrific (and even if you can't, you know there's a likely market of similar guys waiting out there for your product). My experience has been though that adding those with a diversity of thought -- which can come from a wide variety of sources, though gender certainly springs to mind -- makes for more creatively and commercially successful games.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Mar 31, 2005 at 17:59
Flatfinger suggests that the game industry should reach out to female developers despite the fact that females may not have brains equipped to do mathematics or programming at any higher level. Of what use can females be in that case? Evaluating whether games may sell to women or not?
I have worked with several women who are programmers in game companies, and the code they have written has not been better or worse than that of their male colleagues. I feel offended on their behalf.
Is this a troll? I don't see how it's possible to get that from what he actually said, that maybe girls don't work for game companies because they don't want to.
If GDC is 85/15, what are the male/female percentages of qualified applications these companies are seeing?
There would be, on average, more difference in values/thought-patterns in a male from a liberal west coast town and a male from a conservative bible belt town than you would see between a male/female from a similar upbringing. Any company will benefit from a commitment to gathering a diverse set of skills and points of view. Thinking you can achieve that by hiring X females or Y% of 'minorities' (the term becomes pretty meaningless in say, Los Angeles) is foolish.
Posted by: Staarkhand | Mar 31, 2005 at 18:46
There would be, on average, more difference in values/thought-patterns in a male from a liberal west coast town and a male from a conservative bible belt town than you would see between a male/female from a similar upbringing.
I wonder what you base this on.
Cultural and gender differences both have a large effect on values and thought patterns, but I don't believe you can easily equate them. Is it 'more diverse' to hire those of a different gender, different politics, those who have had kids, those with or without college educations, etc.? I don't know. But I do know that from my experience in different industries and companies, while guys differ just because they're of different ages and from different parts of the countries, such differences are often eclipsed when considering the experiences and views of a woman from a similar background (and this is supported by what we know of psychology and neurology, rather than just being idle speculation).
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Mar 31, 2005 at 19:07
Flatfingers said: "2. For a group so apparently monolithically liberal, why don't game developers hire more women? Is the low number of women in the industry your fault? If so, how do you square that with your claim of liberality? If it's not your fault, then what other reason might there be for a "low" representation of women in the industry?"
I think you're confusing an academic discussion with the reality of development companies. I'm not sure I'd describe game developers as monolithically liberal, at least not in the US. In fact, many of the development shops I've worked in have had more than their share of a boy's locker-room atmosphere and working environment. And in every place I've been at that featured this, it started at the top, with the leaders. Heck, I've seen executives reward developers by taking them to strip clubs; when you're sending that kind of message, what do you expect the hiring decisions to be at the middle-management level?
I attribute some of the low hiring rate of women in development positions to that kind of attitude. I don't think it is a conscious decision to exclude women or a dark conspiracy of some sort (though I sometimes feel the vibes through my aluminum foil cap). If that is the prevailing atmosphere, who is more likely to be hired, another guy you can go to the strip club with, or a woman around whom you have to consciously watch what you say?
I'm happy to say that I've seen this changing over the years. Slowly, to be sure, but surely.
Posted by: Jessica Mulligan | Mar 31, 2005 at 19:16
"I think you're confusing an academic discussion with the reality of development companies. I'm not sure I'd describe game developers as monolithically liberal, at least not in the US."
Indeed. Even ignoring upper management for the moment, most programmers/coders I know have been far from the 'monolithically liberal' stereotype Flatfingers wants to insist exists:
- They are almost uniformly anti-union.
- They are almost uniformly stingy when it comes to giving to charity, except when they can use charity as an excuse to get rid of old hardware they no longer want or need.
- They are almost uniformly opposed to government intervention, whether it's in the economy or in one's personal life. And they are particularly dismissive of government's attempts to regulate technology - the Patent and Trademark Office being one of their favorite targets for ridicule.
I don't believe the game industry could be described as monolithically anything where politics are concerned, but if I had to pick a majority political viewpoint, I'd choose libertarian. Regarless, it's far closer to a conservative than a liberal view, which explains not only the lack of diversity in most shops, but the resistance to becoming more diverse one often sees in discussions like this.
Posted by: David Wintheiser | Mar 31, 2005 at 19:39
I wonder if the trend towards more women in development isn't directly related to the trend for games to be run as a business endeavour, rather than a "creative" environment. I think you may have nailed it on the head.
Even now many people see games as a primarily free and creative works. That would tend to encourage forming insular groups where you don't have to worry too much about getting rejected or in trouble for tossing out a controversial or even offensive idea.
Posted by: Thabor | Mar 31, 2005 at 20:16
Our company has been addressing this, concertedly, for the past few years because overly homogenous corporate cultures breed myopia. Bad things come from that, including financial ones. Our's is a two pronged attack:
- Diversity training. This actually works to open people's eyes. Part of the success is how the class attendance is structured. Part is how the courses themselves are structured. Part is how diversity training is injected as subtle sub-topics within other forms of training. I love 'em because they feel like I'm on a Jury (which is supposed to be as diverse as statistically possible).
- New hires. This isn't reverse discrimination, as choices for a position can come down to two completely-equally qualified individuals, both in technical and social skills. At that point, other choice-basis' come into play. I can't possible imagine how this actually works in for a Human Resources specialist though.
It all starts with recognizing the need. Some people pay that need lip service. Other people recognize insular tunnel vision for what it is and are in unique positions to do something about it.Posted by: Darniaq | Mar 31, 2005 at 21:30
I can answer this much of your question: Women are not chiefly in programming. That's for darn sure. Female programmers are a rare species in the industry, and you can probably count the female lead programmers on your fingers.
Outside of the industry, I've worked on programming teams that were 50% female before. However, this is rare. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, the slim supply of female programmers tend to favor jobs in certain industries such as healthcare, where they feel as though their work is helping people, or government, where they can reliably leave their work behind at 5PM every day to be with their kids. Many of the female programmers I've worked with were math majors or physics majors, and ended up in programming, because they couldn't find anything in their respective fields. Or, they went back to school to study computers, later on. Most of them are either non-gamers or casual gamers.
I don't think we're going to increase our industry's numbers of female programmers by tapping into that group. Game programmers are pretty passionate about their technology. You've got to foster an interest in technology from a young age, I think. I've known girls who get "new gadget warm fuzzies." That's what I'm talking about. Japan makes a lot of girl-centric electronics. And why not? You can be girly, and still enjoy electronics. What better way to pass notes in class?
DO U LUV CONNOR?
[Y] OR [N]
When we were kids, I had an Erector Set, a chemistry set, and a telescope. My little sister had a Barbie doll collection, a My Little Pony collection, and a few Strawberry Shortcake dolls.
What do we do? We're both lead programmers. Girls don't have to be tomboys to dig technology. What they need is something that captures their interest and their imagination.
Posted by: Tess | Mar 31, 2005 at 22:11
Girls are purty.
Posted by: Gene | Mar 31, 2005 at 23:14
Starkhand wrote:
I don't see how it's possible to get that from what he actually said, that maybe girls don't work for game companies because they don't want to.
When I read flatfingers post again I realize that read more into it than was there.
I agree with Tess about fostering an interest in technology, but also in creating supportive environments that keep female developers in the industry.
Posted by: ivan | Apr 01, 2005 at 02:52
As a contractor, I've been in more than a few dev teams/shops in the last 12/13 years, predominantly male, but often with one - or occasionally two - females.
I can't say that I've noticed the software being better or worse in either setup. Nor can I say that I remember a greater tendency towards radical free thinking in either situation. I *will* say that it seems *easier* to build a close-knit team in the single-gender workplaces. That team may be the sort of 6th-year-common-room public school environment that it is so easy to despise, but it works.
I suspect it's a *male* problem, of course: introduce a female in such a group and you get all sorts of unfortunate antler-clashing and ground-pawing activities.
I hurry to say that it is, of course, illegal, morally reprehensible and probably punishable by time in the stocks to even suggest that hiring single-gender dev teams is in any way acceptable. But I'm not upset when I luck into them.
I suspect I'm not allowed to say this stuff. I'm almost certainly allowed to say that Brenda was madder than two badgers fighting in a sack, though.
Posted by: Endie | Apr 01, 2005 at 06:56
Looking in the mirror.
Is it possible that the whole feminist/minority approach to the value of diversity is the tree hiding the forest, and a comfy way to not face the broader issue of gamer/gamedev entrenched sub-culture ?
It has been a recurring topic of discussion on BtH, a the time, how the cultural archetypes and preconceptions of gamers and developers were perpetuating themselves because of the inbreeding bent of the hobby/trade...
While I agree there is some slight improvement on this front - partly due to the recent openings of channels between academic and professional (as in commercial) sides - there is still a very strong element of homogeneity (and corollary peer/social-pressure) in the field.
I'd like to point at the obvious, as usual, by stating how the whole take on diversity sounds US-centric to this frequent-flyer european.
Obviously some agree that diversity means more variety in takes and angles on any given issue, thus should support creativity. ...yet the idea of diversity as a collection of potentially antagonistic minorities (in a culture that values consensus as highly as the US culture does) can also act as a deterrent to creativity.
Diversity in a PC-heavy environment just raises the probability to 'hurt someone's feelings' and therefore hamper the ability to think outside the box.
Flatfingers raised an interesting issue, I reckon, by stating (wrongly imo) that the gamedev community was uniformly liberal, and after Jessica's and David Wintheiser's first shots at what may be shared political/cultural bents in the industry, I'd like to know more not about diversity but commonality:
What do people here think are the most widely shared (and usually unchallenged) cultural and political traits or preconceptions in the gamer/gamedev subculture ?
-- Yaka.
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Apr 01, 2005 at 07:59
Jessica, David and Yaka, my experience and observations run counter to yours -- most of the game developers I've spoken with over the years (and quite a few non-game developers) have been fairly identifiable as left-of-center.
That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course. But without a proper objective survey of the population, we're all just operating on our experience here. So while I take your statements seriously (given my belief that you all have more exposure to game developers than I've had), I'm still inclined to perceive the industry as liberal.
Maybe this will help: Most (not all, but most) of what forms my belief is online discussions and observations of what's in actual games I've played and read about. I fondly recall being bellowed at by Ernest Adams over a decade ago (back on the old GAMEDEV forum on CompuServe) for being a libertarian. I wasn't, but it was and is illuminating that this was considered a Bad Thing for being insufficiently liberal. Other game developers I've talked with over the years have also tended to express liberal beliefs -- in fact, I can't recall any that I'd say were conservative. AFFA's recent declaration here makes him one of the only ones I know of.
Maybe it's just that the more social game developers -- the ones who are willing to speak with folks like myself online and in person -- trend leftward? If I have a false perception, maybe it's because the developers I've interacted with don't accurately represent developers as a whole.
But it's not just what developers say. Games themselves -- in my experience and perception -- tend to express liberal and not conservative viewpoints, which I think fairly says something about the developers of these games. And I'm not talking about trying to tweeze out subtle, implicit politics inherent in a game's features... I'm talking about clear, overt political statements. Seriously: Out of the games you've played, how many of them have explicitly stated anything even remotely like a conservative point of view, much less a centrist position?
Outpost (the original version) by Sierra is a classic example of what seems to be typical. As I recall it, when you completed some science-related action, you got a pop-up message telling you about it, couched as a news story. The story quoted "conservative" protesters saying something like, "We oppose this, because it's science, and all science is bad."
I think the belief behind the statement is nonsense, but you're welcome to disagree. The point is, what is something like that doing in a game? Did Sierra's programmers and producers really believe that no conservatives played their games? Why not have the courage of their convictions and stick a large warning label on the box that read, "Hey conservatives, don't buy this game -- we don't want your filthy money"?
Unfortunately when a game includes a political statement, it's of that "ha-ha, we're taking a shot at people we don't like because we can" variety. I think it's stupid -- not because I happen to be more conservative politically than most, but because it makes no sense to me to drive off part of your paying audience with a needless cheap shot.
Fortunately there are some games I've seen that are less juvenile. I'm in the middle of replaying Brian Reynold's "Alpha Centauri." One of the few things that bug me in this game is the assumption (encoded in numeric effects) that the Free Market social policy is environmentally destructive and leads to criminality, and not just to a mild degree -- the negative numbers are the most extreme of all 16 social policies in AC. (It's this numerically clear treatment of a policy as bad that leads me to consider this an overt political statement, but I admit this one is more subjective and will retract it as an example if asked.)
Why treat a typically conservative economic philosophy so harshly... unless the designer held the prevailing liberal view of free market economics as bad for the environment and good for corporate thieves. But despite this assumption, AC is honorable where Outpost is not because AC allows players to change the numeric effects of social policies (by editing the data file where the numeric effects are set). That's a sensible approach to dealing with the political beliefs and biases we all have and may not even be aware of.
But by far the best example I've ever seen of a politically mature game was the original Deus Ex. The NPCs in this game explicitly discussed highly political subjects, but did so in a balanced way. Deus Ex treated very different points of view with respect, and in doing so took an already superb game to being one of the best ever written. (And that political balance was all the more impressive for having happened in Austin, which prides itself on its liberality within Texas.)
But is Deux Ex (or even Alpha Centauri) the typical approach in games? I don't think so. From what I've seen, when a political statement is made, it's usually a leftist cheap shot. (Examples to the contrary would be welcomed.)
And that's because (IMO) most development houses are run and staffed by people who all feel the same way politically, to an extent that no one even questions "rrrgh, conservatives BAAAAD!" cheap shots because everyone there thinks they're funny. Those beliefs appear to me to be natural to the game development culture in the same way that water is natural to a fish -- those in the tank don't even realize they're swimming in it. They lack perspective. They lack real diversity.
Which brings me back (finally!) to my original point: increasing the number of women in game development wouldn't be a bad thing, but doing that won't solve the real problem. The real problem isn't filling some numeric quota; it's having people on staff with varied perspectives on reality (including political perspectives).
If adding women to the staff helps to achieve that, great... but you're not going to get it just by adding women (or members of any other group considered to be insufficiently represented). You'll get it by deliberately hiring people who think and feel differently than you do, regardless of their sex or ethnicity.
Now *that* would be an outreach program worth having.
--Flatfingers
Posted by: Flatfingers | Apr 01, 2005 at 12:56
Flatfingers wrote, From what I've seen, when a political statement is made, it's usually a leftist cheap shot.
I think the important thing there is "when a political statement is made". I think the vast majority of games do not make any political statement at all; but of those that do make a political statement, the vast majority are from a liberal perspective. I've seen some games with a balanced perspective (if I remember KOTOR1 correctly, there are two different political agendas going on on the planet with the kolto, one about making money at any cost, and one about protecting the environment at any cost; as a Jedi, its up to you which one you choose to support), but generally, if anything political is being said, its usually of the "save the environment" bent.
But like I said, I think most games exist without a political message at all. And why is this? Mike said, If you can do that with a bunch of 20-25yo unmarried unpolitical white guys... I think the majority of game developers may just not be that interested in politics of any kind, and so do not put political messages into their games. The games end up being about "male fantasies of power" (as we were talking about over in Burn Baby Burn), with very little, if any, "moral of the story".
I think you are right, though, about fostering real diversity among designers. This isn't about being more inclusive to one minority (in terms of the game industry) group, but opening ourselves up to view points different from our own. I think that this extends along all forms of diversity -- gender, ethnicity, age, place of origin, education level, religion, sexual orientation, political views, previous experience in other industries, and even the types of games one generally likes to play. Anything that influences our personal views, and from that influences how we make our games, could stand to have more diversity in the workplace, I think.
Out of curiosity, would you consider the SimCity games or the Tycoon games to have a conservative economic message at all?
Posted by: Samantha LeCraft | Apr 01, 2005 at 13:58
Samantha: "I think the vast majority of games do not make any political statement at all"
That's a very good point, and it's something I should have said myself. Most games don't make overt political statements at all, and it's my belief that most don't make "hidden" statements, either. (Attempts to find political expressions in any and all cultural artifacts has always struck me as on a par with numerology -- you can see what you want to see in anything if you look hard enough. I'm aware of this tendency, and I'm trying not to be guilty of it myself on this subject.)
Speaking of KOTOR (I or II), I'm not sure I'd characterize its choices as political -- I think of them as being primarily ethical dilemmas. (Though I suppose you could say that all ethical actions are a form of political expression, but that seems a little excessive.) Even the scenario in KOTOR II where you're asked to choose between two potential rulers in a civil war, which would be an obvious opportunity for political commentary, is treated more as an ethical choice between dictatorship and parliamentarianism. I think this emphasis on ethical consequences is how the KOTOR games manage to address the question of "how should one use power?" without going overtly political. It's a narrow path to walk, and both games have done a good job of it.
"I think the majority of game developers may just not be that interested in politics of any kind, and so do not put political messages into their games."
That could well be the case. I'd put a slightly different emphasis on it, though: I think all developers have a motivation, and this motivation is reflected in the game goals they expect players to want to achieve. It's just that not every developer has "political idealism" as a motivation. For some, it's not about using power as a means to effect social justice, it's more about power as a thing to be enjoyed in/of/for itself. So the games those developers make aren't designed to be played to promote any kind of moral enlightenment -- they're just meant to be an exciting way to pass some time.
"Out of curiosity, would you consider the SimCity games or the Tycoon games to have a conservative economic message at all?"
I preface this by saying the only Tycoon game I've played was Railroad Tycoon years ago, but having said that....
My first reaction is that neither of these has an explicit economic message, conservative or otherwise, but these games and most other economic games may have a meta-message. That being, "making more money is good." (I don't think that, by itself, falls clearly on the left or right politically.)
For the Tycoon games, the message (if there is such a message) ends there. But SimCity is a bit trickier, as city management definitely does get you into the realm of political decision-making.
One of the great positives about the various incarnations of SimCity is that it lets the player choose between two goals: stability and growth. Stability ("self-sustainability" might be a more precise way to say it) seems to be a more "liberal" goal, while growth is perceived as a goal of most "conservatives." So for me, the fact that SimCity allows both approaches to fun gameplay is a point in Maxis's favor. The inclusion of semi-stereotypical advisers on both sides in later versions of SimCity supports this view, I think. (I'm thinking of the social/environmental impact advisers vs. the accountant types, whose images are portrayed in humorously stereotypical ways. Being able to recognize and laugh at one's biases is probably the best antidote to political excess, and the SimCity franchise has done a good job of this.)
I actually find The Sims more troubling than SimCity. I just can't shake the feeling that The Sims is Maxis's sneaky Berkeleian way of deriding capitalism as mere mindless consumerism. If people play The Sims, go through its grinding process of working to make more money to buy more junk, perhaps (the hope seems to be) it will make some of them question the emptiness of the capitalistic society.
Questioning capitalism isn't a problem. Not being honest that that's what you're trying to provoke -- that would be a problem. (Especially when you're asking people to pay for the privilege of being insulted for buying things like computer games.) Assuming that this is what The Sims is really about, and isn't just me seeing Marxists under the bed.
Oh, and there's a mild cheap shot at Gov. Schwarzenegger in The Sims. So far there don't appear to be any similar barbs aimed at Jerry Brown or Willie Brown, but hope springs eternal. *grin*
--Flatfingers
Posted by: Flatfingers | Apr 01, 2005 at 15:14
Look at the recent finding by two researchers (from Duke and Penn State) that the genetic inheritance differences between men and women can vary by more (up to 2%) than the difference between humans and chimpanzees (about 1%)? Is it really wrong to wonder whether such a difference could manifest as having different interests and skills?
Unh, have ya noticed that both men and women both walk upright, share language skills, etc., unlike chimps, which MIGHT suggest DNA differences and similarities don't tell ya a whole lot about abilities and behaviors?
Posted by: Cheech | Apr 01, 2005 at 15:58
"there's a mild cheap shot at Gov. Schwarzenegger in The Sims"
Correction: That should be The Sims 2.
Posted by: Flatfingers | Apr 01, 2005 at 17:15
As Cheech just showed us this type of quote is liable to instanly get interpreted as sexist, and jumped on..
Perhaps recouching it will make it funnier to all the people who are mortally offended. I would suggest trying "Men are genetically more similar to chimpanzees, than to women.."
In an ideal world people would look at what you said before they look at how they feel about it, especially since the original is a less "spun" representation.
Posted by: Thabor | Apr 01, 2005 at 18:15
> Flatfingers wrote:
"Jessica, David and Yaka, my experience and observations run counter to yours -- most of the game developers I've spoken with over the years (and quite a few non-game developers) have been fairly identifiable as left-of-center."
Well, the very perception of where the center stands is - again - very US-centric (no pun intended), but we old-worlders don't get offended so easily (pun intended).
That's one of the reasons why I questioned your assumption gamedevs appear to be 'monolithically liberal' without daring myself guess where they could (on average ?) fall on a political scene I'm not sure to fully grasp.
I instead asked for an overview of "most widely shared (and usually unchallenged) cultural and political traits or preconceptions in the gamer/gamedev subculture".
Now, since you called for it, I'll give it a shot - feel free to correct me if I'm grossly misunderstanding US-specific political or cultural traits:
I'm not sure where you would put libertarians on your political map, and I'm not sure most liberals would agree to see libertarians as left-of-center, either...
Still, I tend to agree with David's suggestion (pure anecdotal evidence) that many US gamedev have little politic agenda (that they're aware of at least) yet tend to fall closer to libertarian than liberals.
...that is, until they grow kids and suddenly gain an acquired taste for Christianity and family values - which may lead them to share any selection of liberal and conservative views.
This said, I reckon there is, rather than a leftist bent in the gamer/gamedev community, a clearly marked prejudice against conservatism, more as cultural trope than as political ideology, actually.
Conservatism (culturally speaking) seems to favor the old over the new, certainty over doubt, maturity over youth...
that doesn't help pumping up its cool factor by teenagers.
So youth culture, and therefore gamer culture has been generally less conservative than the average n-american of the time, at least for post-WW2 generations.
That doesn't mean gamers on average are rabid bolsheviks, nor even liberals - nor does it mean they have any firm political opinions, imo.
Just that conservatism as a brand looks, simply, _uncool_ to many gamers.
/me jumps back on topic.
As people (no matter how 'rebellious' they like to picture themselves) tend to gravitate towards the familiar, comforting and unchallenging, gamers tend to avoid uncool books, movies, games and ideas.
Fact is, most gamedevs are coming from the ranks of gamers, and keep hanging out with like-minded people as they grow up (?).
[Done. Yay !]
For better or worse, it's unlikely games aimed at the youth will loudly promote a conservative agenda anytime soon (except for niche games specifically targeting christian conservatives), just like it's unlikely Dodge will air an add for a pink'n'baby-blue "Special Queer Edition Viper 2005" on ABC for spring-break.
Nothing to do with leftist intrigue, mind you: that's just good'ole conservative business common sense.
Now, if there's ever a real market for mature MMORPGs...
j/k
[too long already, don't want to hijack the thread into the non-consensual realm of actual politics]
ttfn,
-- Yaka.
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Apr 01, 2005 at 21:18
Mike Sellers wrote:
My experience has been though that adding those with a diversity of thought -- which can come from a wide variety of sources, though gender certainly springs to mind -- makes for more creatively and commercially successful games.
I wondered about this, so I looked at the lead teams for some of the most successful games over the last year or so (I'm talking commercially successful. I don't have a yardstick to measure creatively successful, and anyway, the mainstream industry is about commercial success, not creative success.) I was looking only at gender diversity (as that's the only kind I can reasonably derive from a list of names) on the lead dev teams (ie not including HR or marketing or localisation or whatnot). I'm looking at the top designer, producer, programmer, and artist mainly. The people setting the tone for the game.
In order, the top 5:
GTA: San Andreas: All male dev leads.
Halo 2: No female leads.
Madden 2005: All male leads.
ESPN NFL 2K5: Take a guess.
Those are game sales, of course, but let's throw in WoW because they will likely be more commercially successful long-term than any of these.
WoW: No female leads.
So, where are all these games that had more diverse development teams and achieved greater success? I think the Sims is the sole example, and I don't think a single example proves anything.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Apr 02, 2005 at 13:58
Whoops, sorry about that. I realize I said "in order, the top 5" but I couldn't find the credits for Need for Speed Underground II (the 5th top selling game last year). I also neglected to mention that these are the top console games, which are thus the top-selling games, at least for the first few.
I don't have any info on how well the Sims 2 did (or what the makeup of their team was) so that might, again, be the single exception, though I don't think Sims 2 did anything like the business Halo 2 or GTA did.
In any case, as much as it might be nice to believe, I can't see any evidence that gender balanced teams produce more successful games.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Apr 02, 2005 at 14:09
Matt-
I think I wonder more about the what-if aspect of it. What games would these teams produce with more women on them (assuming they weren't being tasked by management to create game type X)? They did quite well in reaching male audiences, but would they have created another Sims-esque non-gendered title that would expand the market past boys? It's that market expansion theme that we keep seeing on these threads. Wouldn't this be one way to get there?
Posted by: Dmitri Williams | Apr 02, 2005 at 14:49
Dmitri Williams wrote:
I think I wonder more about the what-if aspect of it. What games would these teams produce with more women on them (assuming they weren't being tasked by management to create game type X)? They did quite well in reaching male audiences, but would they have created another Sims-esque non-gendered title that would expand the market past boys? It's that market expansion theme that we keep seeing on these threads. Wouldn't this be one way to get there?
Well, first, I think the market is expanding pretty well in terms of involving women. I don't see any valid reason to discount Bejeweled and parlor games as "not counting." They do count and women make up large proportions of their users.
Second, it may be that involving women is the way to further expand the market. It may not be. I have no idea. I'm certainly not opposed to it (a female producer is taking over our largest game - Achaea - in June), but I'd never hire a woman or an Eskimo or a crippled African-American male with a Hispanic surname and a stereotyped gay lisp just because they possess the trait of womanness or Eskimoness or whatnot. The trait I'm concerned with is, "Do they get games?" In the case of the aforementioned producer, she is a dynamo with a fundamental understanding of the niche we're in, so she gets the job. Of course, the other 10 people in the company are all male, so draw whatever conclusions seem appropriate.
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Apr 02, 2005 at 15:02
What's interesting is that the focus is that GDC was 85/15% male/female. What I noticed was that GDC was 98/2% white/black.
Women may feel assaulted when they see another game with huge breasted female caricatures, but imagine how it feels to be a black game designer whose white boss is pitching yet another "me too" cops-shooting-niggers epic. I can't think of a black videogame character who isn't a muscle-bound gangster or athlete (except for the black scientist in Half-Life, thanks Valve).
In my years in the tech and game industries I've never worked with a black engineer, but I've worked with several female engineers. I've never worked with a black game designer, I've worked with several female designers.
Diversity discussions in the game industry focus on female representation in the industry. I think there needs to be more discussion of the disgusting ethnic stereotypes in videogames that are being marketed to young men and women of all backgrounds.
Posted by: Doug Nonymous | Apr 04, 2005 at 12:16
Thank you Doug for this perspective. I have often been wondering about the fact that even in games made in asia the characters are white.
Posted by: Ivan | Apr 10, 2005 at 12:50
Even in anime made in asia, the characters are - arguably - mostly white (according to toon canons of white-ness).
No matter what stereotype you're offended by, it always boils down to the same old issue: what is the place of 'controversial' content in mainstream entertainment ?
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Apr 10, 2005 at 13:34
Is portraying women and minorities in realistic, non-stereotyped ways really 'controversial'??
Posted by: Samantha LeCraft | Apr 10, 2005 at 16:01
I'd rather call it 'uncommon'. ;)
I merely pointed at the obvious, here, i.e. unless you go for the most bland and neutral tone flavour available, you're bound to ruffle a number of feathers, especially by US standards, where people get easily offended and feel some entitlement to loudly expect the universe to abide by their personal definition of what is(n't) acceptable.
In this context, I suspect there is no way for any given cultural product that allows for people to relate at any level to avoid being 'controversial'.
fwiw,
-- Yaka.
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Apr 10, 2005 at 16:17
Samantha LeCraft wrote:
Is portraying women and minorities in realistic, non-stereotyped ways really 'controversial'??
White men aren't generally portrayed in non-stereotyped ways either in games. This is hardly unique to women or minorities.
It's also worth pointing out that what a minority is varies from culture to culture. In Asia, white caucasians are the minority.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Apr 11, 2005 at 04:10
aborigene
abraxas piercing
accropiercing
achat de piercing
atlantic tatoo
bijou piercing nombril
bijoux de piercing
bijoux piercing nombril
bijoux pour piercing
bme piercing
body piercing
bodyart
bodymodification
bodypiercing
boutique piercing
catalogue de tatouages
catalogue piercing
chastity piercing
cicatrisation
clip tatoo
clit
clit piercing
clitoris piercing
dessin de tatouages
dessin tatouages
dessins
dessins de tatouages
dessins tatouages
dimitri piercing
dimitri tatoo
dimitri tatouages
dimitrie
dragon tatoo
dragones
dragonfly
dragons
dragons tatouages
drawings
dreadful
duende
Posted by: lopoez | Feb 07, 2006 at 16:11