« The Life and Times of a "Cyber Queen" | Main | Is Raid Content Accessible to the Mortal Man? »

Apr 19, 2006

Comments

1.

Delwiche wrote:
[quote]
Although these moves were largely symbolic, both companies deserve credit for taking a stand.
[/quote]
They do? Just taking a stand, regardless of the merits of the stand, is admirable? If I take a stand against the rising tide, am I being silly or am I doing something admirable? I vote for silly.

PC Gamer and Mythic slamming IGE but not their own customers is reminiscent of the hypocrisy of the US government slamming drug-traffickers while taking it relatively easy on the reason the industry exists in the first place: US citizens using drugs.

If Mythic wants to blame someone, it should blame its playerbase and drastically increase efforts to permanently ban all accounts associated with buying gold (their customers are the ones violating the EULAs after all, not IGE). Of course, they're not going to do that, because they're not really taking a stand. They're -grandstanding- and that's not the same thing at all.

--matt

2.

Interesting data.

The market will correct itself if your analysis is correct. You publish your magazine with no provocative imagery, plenty of content for "women, African American gamers, older gamers, disabled gamers, and gay gamers", and a good serving of nice pictures of "overwight women" and so on.

If you are right, and "the gaming market is far more diverse", then I will be *genuinely* delighted to see your rapidly accruing wealth. Just don't ask me to invest or subscribe...

In the meantime, forgive me for not baulking at "ridiculously short mini-skirts, and ludicrous g-string armor". Frankly it sounds like my wife's choices in City of Heroes characters.

P.S. Greg, I like your ads and I cannot resist buying these products when so presented. You have my back. Carry on.

3.

We also coded for racial dimensions, discovering that only twelve of the human figures were not white.

Not to derail the topic from the get go, but this to me is a problem with the content of advertising as much as a reflection of the content of games. I'm sure if you applied your codebook to the games themselves, things would come out mostly the same.

I've been worried about this aspect of video games for some time now--mostly regarding RPGs re-inscribing racist attitudes in gamers, although I admit I tend to be more concerned about racism than I am about gender issues (it's a matter of interest, not necessarily that I view either as more important).

I'm not sure that changing the content of the ads does much if the games they sell end up re-inscribing the same old gender/racial/class biases. But how do you change that when hardly anyone (in the industry) seems to see a problem?

4.

While ads in PC Gamer may for the most part target some horny nerds with poor taste, perhaps it is misguided to try to push PC Gamer in a certain direction. Perhaps PC Gamer simply does not wish to target an incredibly broad playerbase, but focuses on a specific audience.

And while I agree with your general view that these ads and character models (etc.) are often in poor taste, I think you are making the assumption that PC Gamer somehow does and should represent a neutral gaming magazine that anybody must be able to pick up and feel somewhat targeted by as a consumer. The assumption perhaps comes from the fact that it is called "PC Gamer", and so it would make sense if its target audience were "PC gamers". However, names are a bit meaningless.

5.

Dear game publisher,

We would like you to spend lots of money buying ad space in our magazine.

Sincerely,

Game Magazine

========

Dear Game Magazine,

Sure! We'd love to buy advertising space! Here's our latest ad that we are running in several comparable folios. It features an attractive female character in provocative dress which really helps sell our games!

To whom do we send the check?

Best,

Game Developer

===========

Dear Game Developer,

We're delighted you wish to spend lots of money advertising with us, but we won't run an ad featuring scantily clad female characters. Would you consider something different?

Thx,

GM

=========

Dear GM,

No. We'll continue to pour money into your competitors' pockets.

Dev

...

You know, I can appreciate your position on this, but banning gold farmers is a bit different than banning the entire industry from advertising in your magazine. I'm afraid this is one cause that will have to be driven by the community.

Guilty-as-charged here -- I'm a guy who admires the image of an attractive woman in varied states of undress. On the other hand, no, a chainmail-bikini clad woman does not influence my buying decision. So, at least in my case, the advertiser is wasting their time pushing that stuff on me, BUT ... that "style" of advertising doesn't bother me.

6.

Quick other comment:

Of the 23 women, 16 were presented in highly sexualized ways (e.g., enormous breasts, ridiculously short mini-skirts, and ludicrous g-string armor that exposed most of the body).

I realize this is a blog post and not a peer-reviewed paper, but describing the artwork in this way (with biased qualifiers like ludicrous and ridiculously) I think sets you up for more opposition than necessary, of only because it gives the nitpicking brigade less to fall back on. But it also hints at a non-existant standard that's being violated, and leads to (perhaps disingenuous) questions such as "How big can breasts be before they are offensive" or "how much skin can be shown by armor before it's "ludicrous"?"

My worry of course is that any investigation regarding this topic will in my opinion inevitably trigger opposition by the not-so-hidden discourse of male dominance fantasy that you seek to study, and that many will be satisfied by nitpicking your language rather than the core ideas of your project.

But hey, I'm a worry wart, it's true.

7.

[i]"...many will be satisfied by nitpicking your language rather than the core ideas of your project."[/i]

If some gamers aren't acutely aware of the absurdly large breasts on many female game characters, then they need to be hit with something heavy until a little bit of common sense sinks in. Delwiche's language is completely reasonable when he describes the "sexualized" female characters.

If Boob Science existed I'm sure he'd look into it, though.

8.

This thread demonstrates that the audience is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is marketing departments -- they often believe so strongly in the 14-24 male demographic, they tailor everything they produce to that market and that market alone, even if the actual game would appeal to a broader share.

It's not the magazines' fault, but I'd still love to read one without throwing it at somebody.

9.

I won't buy PC Gamer or subscribe to a Mythic game, in part because they oppose RMT.

I will absolutely not buy a magazine if it refuses to print advertisements solely on the point that they contain content possibly offensive to someone like delwiche.

If censors can vote with their dollars, so can I, and everyone like me.

And guess what: I'm winning. =P

10.

Illovich,

You're right about this being a blog post and not a peer-reviewed paper. Any legitimate content analysis should explain how key variables were operationalized. It should also report intercoder reliability measures that act as a check on subjective judgments.

In the first draft of this posting, I described the G-string armor as "unstrategic." I changed it to "ludicrously unstrategic," and then changed it to "ludicrous."

My point is that the armor makes absolutely *no* sense from a combat standpoint because it leaves 90% of the body exposed. And this is on women who are clearly warriors! Meanwhile, their male counterparts are sensibly covered from head to toe.

11.

Oh, please.

First off, race - Yep, racism sucks. However, I cannot stand this silly idea of "All races must be represent". YES all races and ethnics must be acknowledged and repsected, YES you should not judge a man by his skin color, BUT nor should you allow someone into a job post simply because of their skin. When the managers of these magazines decide on hiring staff, I am pretty sure they are not idiotic enough to judge someone by their ethnic background - they judge them by what they can achieve, and the quality of their work. If a white guy is a better marketing director than an asian guy, then so be it, AND VICA VERSA.


Ok, next point: Women depicted as sex objects. I cannot blame you for being disgusted at the pictures of women being posed and dressed as sluts, but the brutal truth is, it sells. But what should you be worried about it? The women who worry about these issues are either jealous or insecure. Who cares if they have bigger breasts than you? You're still you, right? Then love yourself! There will always be people that have bigger "assets" than you, and the important think is you KNOW you are better than them in other ways, and you don't HAVE to become just another image like them.


Ok, last point: Your problem with power. What? Whats wrong with POWER, DOMINATION and CONTROL? The world isn't the politically correct place it preaches to be: No one is equal, and even you cannot deny that. Some people have power, and others dont. So whats wrong with promoting power? Wouldn't that be healthy mentally? Wouldn't that boost ones self esteem? Why do you enter a tournament? TO WIN. Why do you play sports? TO WIN.

WHY DO YOU PLAY GAMES? TO WIN.

12.

This whole thread is nothing but a rehash of the female characters in games. The problem is, that the minority have problems with it, and the majority don't. Heck, in WoW, my Girlfriend rolled a Night Elf Female character over a Dwarf Female because she liked the figure of the character better. People in general, prefer to look at what society views as perfection rather then simple/plain/normal people. Why are models beautiful in Film or Clothing advertising. And why should they be any different in video games? I still fail to see why developers and marketing analysts would decide to go away from the proven sales systems to one that is known to be less effective based on a minority perceived sexual morality only?

13.

Hmm... A couple of points. I'd be interestd in comparing these results to, say, Vogue or Shape. The vast majority of images of women in those magazines, I suspect, will be highly sexualized young females. Do you draw similar conclusions from those data? Do those depictions lead the spouse in question to toss them to the floor in disgust as well?

You claim that the images of men are less likely to be displayed in a sexual way. Well, less likely to show exposed skin. But that doesn't mean those men aren't sexualized-- bulging biceps, six-pack abs, and powerful jaws are in full force. Why not rail against the lack of weak or overweight male characters as well?

So all this boils down to a basic assumption that you're making that I don't agree with: Players want to see ads containing people similar to themselves. I don't buy it. I think people buy products advertised by/with idealized notions-- highly sexualized, powerful and perfect people. Is this all really so surprising?

14.

Dexter : What your referring to is the basis of the 'art' of marketing. It is the most basic of lessons you learn in any marketing course you take. There is almost no need to check Vogue or Shape, check google for marketing theory and the first page describing the actual theory has it on the introduction as "get your potential customer's attention ".

15.

These ads aren't about showing societal models of perfection, but some twisted version of even that dubious standard. And they're aimed, apparently, directly at young white males who have little contact with non-whites or actual women (not surprisingly, this is the same standard used for recruiting and "dressing" booth babes at E3, at least in years past).

It's true that advertisers will use what they think -- or hope -- works to sell their product, but it's also true that there's a huge herd mentality there (if Company A advertises with big breasts, Company B will advertise with even bigger breasts!) and not a lot of knowledge on which to base these practices. Do non-sexualized or non-violent ads work? At least in some cases they do (Civ IV anyone?), but this doubtless has a lot to do with the theme the developer has chosen for the game itself (how heavily do blood spatters and big breasts figure into the games being advertised?).

It's also worth noting that there is at least one major mainstream magazine (Computer">http://www.cgonline.com/">Computer Games) that appears to minimize the violent and hyper-sexualized ads that are so common in other magazines. That and intelligent, adult writing are why they get my subscription dollars and the other magazines don't.

16.

Talk about a well-worn topic. *yawn* In addition to the scantily clad, "sex-object" women, you've got men with bulging muscles and equally unrealistic body types. This has been a staple of entertainment/advertising for ages now. TV, movies, books, video games...and the advertising for those products...all have had used these kind of images. Maybe it's just me, but my expectations aren't bothered when viewing this in entertainment. If I wanted to see realistic, ordinary people I'd look in a mirror or take a walk down my street. When playing games, I'm kind of looking to escape the ordinary and experience something that I normally would not.

I'm bothered by gold farmer adverts since they pretty much fly in the face of end user agreements and I'm glad PC Gamer canned them. But ads that feature provocative images? These aren't violating anything except your own personal taste, and it if it bothers you that much you can simply not buy the product or the magazines that promote it. Personally, I couldn't care less.

17.

Um... Mike, on the very website you linked to, there was a poll on reader demographics. The results?

Male; Under 20 Years Old
2755 88.6%

Male; 20-35 Years Old
223 7.2%

Male; Over 35 Years Old
83 2.7%

Female; Under 20 Years Old
20 0.6%

Female; 20-35 Years Old
17 0.5%

Female; Over 35 Years Old
12 0.4%

PS. This isn't an attempt at a put-down, it just caught my eye and made me laugh.

18.

Wow, I'm pretty shocked by the general reaction to this posting, especially that this is a "well-worn topic" obviously not worthy of revisiting.

If it's such a foregone conclusion these images are not "violating anything except your own personal taste," there would be alternatives that suit every taste. For every Cosmo or Maxim that's sold, I can buy Bust, Venus, or Giant Robot instead, or browse any number of blogs devoted to intelligent critiques of other pop culture phenomena (like Sarah Zupko's smart and timely PopMatters). The problem with gaming mags is that there are *no* other alternatives. These magazines and corporate conventions like E3, presume their readership - and thus the gaming world as a whole - is made up of young, white, hetero men.

This doesn't represent me, and it doesn't represent a number of other friends of mine who regularly play games. I'm sad that I have to wade through a bunch of ads like this that aren't exactly promoting world peace (sarcasm intended) when I'm just trying to find about the newest gaming releases. Oh, and some *smart* articles that do more than just report the latest and greatest mod for Half-Life 2 would be nice, too.

19.

Some things I think are true:

Games appealing to women aren't made very often because of the risk/reward ratios in the industry. As Jesse notes, why go against what works when there is money on the line?

Gender-neutral games (not *girl* games) make a lot of money, yet the industry has been slow to get on board. (And because Wil Wright hired most of the female devs)

The masculine culture of gaming is partly a result of markets as people here have posted, but it would be naive to ignore the cultural and social sides that keep gaming out of many women's hands. G-string chain mail is made to appeal to men, and sustains the gender status quo.

PC Gamer is a male-oriented magazine, possibly even a young-male one. PC Gamer will not alienate its core audience. There is no decent gender-neutral alternative.

Research by Kris Harrison here at Illinois shows that women viewing these kinds of images, whether in Cosmo, Vogue or PC Gamer make them feel worse about themselves and likely more prone to eating disorders.

The world will be a better place when more game developers have daughters.

20.

> This doesn't represent me, and it doesn't represent a number of other friends of mine who regularly play games.

Great, so instead of starting your own magazine or supporting one that does represent you, you'd want to change one that appeals to another group of people? Why do you feel the need to impose your sensibilities on others when you have the freedom to forge your own solutions? If the market is there for such a product, you'll have no problems finding support.

21.

And so the Culture of Hypersensitivity and Entitlement rears its ugly head again.

Hypersensitivity: If something bothers you, don't participate in it. I'm not offended by ads in Vogue because I don't read the magazine nor is anyone compelling me to do so.

Entitlement: You don't have a right to entertainment the way you want it. While it's unfortunate that there aren't more alternatives to PCGamer, no one is under any obligations to fashion their magazine after your wishes.

"If it's such a foregone conclusion these images are not "violating anything except your own personal taste," there would be alternatives that suit every taste"

Lack or presence of alternatives has nothing to do with personal taste issues. If there isn't an alternative it's because a) someone hasn't invented it yet or b) not enough people are interested in it to make it worth while.

Of course, in a free market you're welcome to start your own company or petition companies like PCGamer and try to convince them that change would be best. But don't be surprised when they come back and say their core market likes XYZ and it wouldn't make business sense to change that.

"Research by Kris Harrison here at Illinois shows that women viewing these kinds of images, whether in Cosmo, Vogue or PC Gamer make them feel worse about themselves and likely more prone to eating disorders."

While I recognize that blaming others for personal failings is incredibly popular these days, I still think it's an incredibly lame cop-out.

22.

I think it's already been thoroughly described, but it's worth restating: Marketing is about presenting ideals, not averages or realities. On a gender basis, generally idealized imagery of women appeal to both men and women. Idealized males do not appeal to males unless adorned by action-scenarios, or equipment providing hints therein; idealized males seldom motivate females at all.

I know there's a whole argument about how the media feeds/reinforces normative ideals within our culture. So the system is reflective. This is a big problem for philosophers and activists, but quite boring mathematically. Lots of natural systems are reflective; in fact it's a basic natural state.

It should be no surprise then that pretty much all human imagery is of idealized males doing-stuff, usually violent stuff, and that all females are young, sexualized, and beautiful. What is surprising is that there isn't _more_ female imagery. You could as easily argue that the companies are self-censoring and not going all out trying to sell their goods, instead being a bit conservative to head off too strong of reaction against blatantly using youthful breasts to sell their games.

The fact that much of the imagery is dark, violent, or exaggerated is a reflection of the media's currently prevalent art. As games continue to reach a broader demographic we'll inevitably see less (as a percentage) 6'6" Aryans holding automatic rifles and swords. But, what will replace that imagery will be equally as offensive to many people; I can promise that.

23.

"The women who worry about these issues are either jealous or insecure."

WOW. It's probably been a decade since I read anything so ignorant and sexist.

24.

Advertisements cater to the market, they do not dictate what the market wants. If it were any other way, the advertisements would not be effective, which defeats the point of advertising.

25.

I see that nobody talk about the obvious: if the industry want bring female customers to videogames need changue his style of advertising. Appealing only to the young men segment they lose the half of the market ---> the women. Is a flat economic issue.

26.

Erick wrote:
And so the Culture of Hypersensitivity and Entitlement rears its ugly head again.

While I recognize that blaming others for personal failings is incredibly popular these days, I still think it's an incredibly lame cop-out.

Talk about naive. It's just as naive to assume that individuals are perfectly unconstrained, and therefore perfectly responsible, for everything that happens to them as it is to assume that they bear no responsibility for their circumstances and therefore "society" is to blame. In constructing a caricature and vilifying it, you have become one.

...in a free market you're welcome to...But don't be surprised when...

Such boundless faith in the free market as capable of generating inherently legitimate and morally incontestable outcomes bespeaks similar naivete.

27.

[quote]magazine advertisements that bombard readers with chain mail bikinis, rampaging armies, pouting sluts, and desperate fantasies of masculine control.[/quote] << Find me a market for plain ole' chainmail, guys sitting around at a board meeting, pouting prudes, and desperate fantasies of feminine control large enough to leave me in the black and you'll have yourself a magazine.

[quote]Even advertisements for desktop computers screamed at gamers to set their sights on "total domination!"[/quote] << Perhaps because screaming "eh, that's good enough (domination!)" and "Strive for Mediocrity!" don't really have the same... you know, umf or marketablity. "Don't try too hard!"

[quote] There were no overweight women. [/quote] << Doesn't overweight suggest an unbalance? Also, point me to some overweight male protagonists. (At first I was thinking, there are no overweight men in video games, then I thought: Ah, villians.)

So as Endie, Chip Hinshaw, Cup of Squirrels, Jesse, Mike Sellers, Erick , Biggles, and Dmitri Williams seem to have noticed: businesses are still profit making bodies. Not only that but people tend to expect returns on their investments. Things are the way they are because, as this well aged topic has concluded yet again, the most profit can be made this way. Dumping IGE may very well have been little more than a business opportunity to free up some ad space, sign a better paying advertiser, and/or score some good public relations (outside of the "We're Economists and Can Exploit RTM for Fun, Profit and Research" niche).
Love, Idyll ;)

28.

Back in the boom days of the late 1990s, my small startup was offered a large bag of money to make online mini-games for a client. We'd just done a few for groups like Ask Jeeves and were struggling to find additional financing. So we were initially happy to hear about this potential client... until we found out more about it. Turns out they wanted to pay us very, very well to create a line of... porn games.

Sigh.

Yes, we were a profit-making entity. Yes, we needed the money. But no, we didn't take the gig, or even seriously consider it. It wasn't who we were or wanted to be. In every profit-making venture, you have to balance your own ethics and image of yourself against potential opportunities. If not, you're quickly selling crack-addled child slaves for the terrific profit margin. But most of us stay far away from anything like that. Some of us stay away from dealing in porn, others from dealing with gray-market RMT vendors. Everyone chooses their own ethical lines.

I applaud PC Gamer and Mythic for finding and drawing their ethical boundaries; this is rarely an easy thing to do.

As far as highly sexualized and violent ads go, I'm not in favor of them either (my company will not use them). I think they stem more from a profound lack of imagination and/or a desire to go for the easy shock than any finely honed advertising message. Game advertisements are often as sophomoric as the game content, if not worse. This isn't about "doing what works" it's about doing what's easy, and what others have done (I've lost count of the number of online games that have used the tag line "stop playing with yourself" -- it was embarrassing and idiotic in 1996 when 3DO used it for M59, and we weren't the first).

So, I don't expect any game magazine's practices to change overnight, but I also think that it's a good idea to take a critical look at the mucky slope we're sliding down. Maybe some editor will decide it's time to chanage course. If not now, then next week or next year. That's how it works.

29.

[quote]"The women who worry about these issues are either jealous or insecure."
WOW. It's probably been a decade since I read anything so ignorant and sexist.[/quote]
Alright, since we are all (both "sides") are throwing labels around then using them to dismiss the arguments presented, just what is sexist about it? How is it ignorant?
[define:ignorant]ig·no·rant Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.
[/define]
I'll agree on this one. Then again, EVERYONE is lacking of knowledge, even the knowitalls.
[define:sexism] sex·ism Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
[/define]
At first I thought, "alright, I'll agree on this one too," but then I noticed that CoS was commenting (perhaps incorrectly) on a type of woman. CoS' comments are not sexist as they are not discriminatory to women in general. In fact, CoS goes on to say [quote] Who cares [...]? You're still you, right?[/quote] At the very least CoS' reasoning seems sound. Those who are offended are either insecure with their "assets" or, feel inferior somehow to that which is depicted. The exception falls to those who boycott on principles and beliefs. While they are admireable for doing so, (It would be nice if there were more of you.), people (especially Americans) who will deny themselves something out of principle is make up an insignificant portion of the market. Why do you think Walmart is still thriving, God only knows how many people hate the place, but they just can't stop shopping there.

Ingrod, alright, if you feel that it is such a untapped market, after all, you would be selling to every other person on earth, go start a magazine. You'll make a killing. Seriously though, it's not that flat of an issue. Of that 50% how many have enough "extra" money to buy games? How many would rather buy game X or your magazine about game X rather than that cute new pair of jeans? I'll agree, it's a social issue, and I'll agree there exist many female gamers; I won't however agree that the market for such a niche is anywhere NEAR 50%. Look at Biggles post. You can argue bias or whatever you please but don't expect an audience much larger than that.
Thomas Malaby too, as a moral standard, I agree, capitalism fails horribly. The point was, as I understand it, that if someone can make a profit from it, someone will. No one has, if it can be done however, it will.

I hate to double post but golly, I really can't let some of these claims go totally unscathed.
Love, Idyll
_/)/)
(^.^)

30.

Idyll wrote:
The point was, as I understand it, that if someone can make a profit from it, someone will.

No argument as far as that goes, Idyll. My point was more to challenge the tendency to point to this as if it is reason enough to close off debate; i.e., because this happens as a feature of the market it should just be accepted, end of story.

31.

I'm not a game maker or coder... but I am an ad man. A veteran marketer and advertising manager who has managed ad budgets in excess of $20 million and who has taught marketing and the history of advertising for a number of years. So I'm going to wade into this one with more cred (in my own head, anyways) than I do on some of the other subjects that are more "pure game." So...

First of all, the "efficiency" argument... that, "These sexy (or sexist) ads work best, and that's why they get used the most," is crap. Pure, unadulterated crap. I am guessing that very few of these ads went through any kind of rigorous creative testing to determine effectiveness levels, read rates, memorability, punch, etc. They aren't "good," they are "easy." I'm not saying that I know for certain that they are ineffective, but to claim that they are the way they are because they're successful is simply not true. We don't KNOW if those companies would do better with a different kind of advertising.

Next... clutter. In a field of flowers, plant a tree. In a forest, build a fountain. In a city, build a park. If everyone else is wearing white, wear red. Clutter is defined as the "noise" that everyone else is making that sounds vaguely like what you're trying to say. Advertising 101 people: if all your competitors are screaming, "Tits!" you should scream... "Ass?" No. You should scream, "Drama!" or "Depth!" or "Replayability!" And none of the ads described here work on that level at all.

The basic style of advertising used here is called "hard sell." You yell about product features a bit and throw an arresting image at the viewer in the hopes that it will have some "stopping" power. Bigger tits = more stopping. More blood, more booms, more bright colors... more more more. Again, in a magazine where everyone is doing it, you lose on the clutter issue. You also lose on the memorability issue. Worst of all, you lose on the personality issue.

Hard sell "tells." We've got tits! We've got booms! Look at us! But that's not why many of us... even guys who play games all the time... actually buy games, eh? We may enjoy the eye candy on top of a good game, sure. But who here ever said, "Yeah. I'm going to buy that new game because of the bazoombas on that elf chick."

As somebody who has studied literally thousands of ads in dozens of industries, I gotta say I don't see any more "deep psychological" issues in game ads than in any other industry; fewer, in fact, than in some like clothes and housewares. I see lots of bad ads. "Badvertising" I call it with my students. Easy ads. The same ads. Repetitive ads. "Cute" ads. Shallowly-funny ads.

I think it's still an immature industry. I think you have lots of small-ish companies with small-ish ad budgets paying small-ish, immature agencies with little or no real experience outside the industry. I think lots of the games have immature content. What movie with bangs, booms and boobs isn't going to show them in the trailer?

At some point, game companies will get better marketing execs and hire better ad agencies, who will tell them, "This stuff just sucks. And here's why..." Any of these ads, I could pick apart six ways from Sunday. Very few of them are any good at all. The sexiness/sexist stuff is one aspect of what makes them, I think, highly ineffective and, clearly, indicative of an industry that's not paying much attention to its advertising.

Is the sexism bad? Yep. Is it bad because of the ads? No. The ads are just bad. Sex is a symptom, not the cause.

32.

Ah, demonizing female sexuality. How very 1300's Christian of you.

33.

My point was more to challenge the tendency to point to this as if it is reason enough to close off debate; i.e., because this happens as a feature of the market it should just be accepted, end of story.

Debate, yes. It is, of course, very important. But debate is of purely academic interest unless it ultimately leads to practical solutions. Is the purpose of this study for pure research -- in which case solutions are not so important, so let the debate rage -- or is it more immediate in nature (as I read it)?

These debates always collapse into a corporate social responsibility (CSR) argument: companies have more stakeholders than just shareholders seeking returns in the market. I tend to agree with this notion in some limited fashion. But, in the US system of capitalism the only sustainable, effective manner for controlling any market is through legal frameworks, which are ostensibly subject to a representative democratic process. "Successful" cases of CSR are little more than clever PR veiling the erection of cost (or taboo profit) barriers to discourage competitors and new entrants. I fear that the proponents of such CSR actions will bemoan the day they let this corporate genie out of the bottle. Today, perhaps _you_ are the stakeholder the corps are recognizing. Tomorrow it will be someone else with whom you ideologically disagree. And now the corp's management has expanded, non-democratic power to pick winners and losers and proxy policy power. No thanks, I'll stick with the market-and-government devil.

34.

"their customers are the ones violating the EULAs after all, not IGE"

Matt,

I don't agree with your overall view. It is IGE offering fiscal incentive to violate the EULA that is part of the problem.

Also note that WoW just recently did some bannings and among the offenses listed for possibly getting a ban was selling WoW IP.

35.

Dear Anonymous Christian:

I don't think anyone on this forum is "demonizing" female sexuality. If you want to make the argument that an overwhelming ratio of 42-24-36", pale, Nordic blondes in chainmail bikinis is a healthy representation of how women see themselves in their gaming/sexual fantasies, go right ahead. That's an argument I haven't heard yet in this forum, and one that would probably get shot down from several directions. In mainstream advertising (although game ads are getting close to mainstream), there is an understanding that, when advertising women's products to women using beautiful women in the ads, you want to propose a beauty that is "reachable." Somehow. "Men want to be with her, women want to be her," is the way it's often phrased. You can't do that with a hyper-idealized, comic-book standard.

It is an interesting argument, though -- I'm not making it for myself, because I think that any of my women, game-playing friends would laugh me out of the room. Do the cartoon-busty-hussy women in game ads appeal to some women gamers, too? As "heroic" role models in both a game/adventure sense and, possibly, a sex-model sense, too?

I say, "Nay." Knowing (or, at least, thinking I'm knowing) what I do about the differences between male and female sexuality, and about how men and women respond to ads, I'm pretty sure that the chainmail-bikini-lass ad is not going to appeal to women, even if that's a character they like to play.

But it's an interesting question. One you might have asked, Anonymous Christian.

But demonizing sexuality? No... We're discussing it. To "demonize" female sexuality, someone would have had to suggest that the very use of females in these ads and games was bad *per se* because sexy women are bad. Nobody said that. What's been said is that to do so in such overwhelming and (frankly) tiresome repetition... to do so in ways that can be seen as grossly characaturish... to do so in a way that apparently only appeals to the adolescent male audience... to do so in the face of good tactical advertising advisability... might be dumb.

And might offend women who don't like to be lumped all together, from a visual/sexual psychological way, in a group with strippers and dominatrii.

We're not demonizing women or their sexuality. We're demonizing stupidity. And then we're arguing about what's stupid. Same as it ever was.

And, btw, you don't have to go back to the 1300's to demonize women's sexuality, and you don't have to tag Christians with that label specifically, either.

36.

Aaron,

There's apparently a scientific reason for this marketing methodology. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4921690.stm

"The men's performance in the tests showed those who had been exposed to the "sexual cues" were more likely to accept an unfair offer than those who were not."

Just something to think about...

37.

I've spotted my arguments perhaps being appropriated to a view I don't hold. To clarify, not only do I think that Aaron has come up with useful data, but I, for one, am very interested by his analysis. I'm not sure I agree with all of of the practical consequences of what he says, but the difference that his prescriptive element brings is to give a cracking starting point for debate.

Also, with recent debates on TN about the relevance of academic work to games companies, here is something absolutely relevant to the way games market and sell themselves. They might assess it and then decide that what they do works just fine, but the unconsidered company is not worth running...

Endie

38.

Fact is that Aaron has just described the overwhelming majority of all marketing aimed at modern Western society. Sex sells, and it sells cars, and cruises, fast food and furniture. Yes, and video games.

In marketing school, the guy that designed the ad depicting the female warrior in itty-bitty armour sat right next to the woman who designed the ad showing Miss Blonde Boobs driving a flashy car -- you know, the car with "awesome power" and "curb-hugging control" to "dominate Life's highways"?

39.

The problem is, that the minority have problems with it, and the majority don't.

And as has been shown time and time again, the majority is always right, and there is no sense in opposing their preferences and desires.

Of course, in a free market you're welcome to start your own company or petition companies like PCGamer and try to convince them that change would be best. But don't be surprised when they come back and say their core market likes XYZ and it wouldn't make business sense to change that.

That's absolutely correct. This is why some of the criticism of PC Gamer's RMT-ad ban is well founded. They didn't really take a strong principled stand, they basically made an editorial decision that was in keeping with the (publicly spoken) majority attitude (I say publicly spoken because I know quite a few people who speak ill of RMT publicly, but I'm pretty sure are buying gold) of their readership.

It's akin to Time announcing that they won't accept ads [from a specific industry]. Vede claims it's a loss, but it's not if the ad space gets filled. The RMT ban would be much more impressive if PC Gamer was known to be having trouble selling all their advertising space.

40.

Talk about a well-worn topic. *yawn*

I know, sexism and racism are so pre-21st Century. It's a shame not everyone can catch up, huh?

41.

Yes, games magazines and the game industry in general are certainly sexist, gender breakdowns of the industry will tell us as much. However, I find your analysis sexist as well, because it isn't only the women in games magazines that are hyper-sexualized, the men are too.

The women are large breasted, scantily clad, and often show many of the less obvious signs of sexual arousal (heavy-lidded eyes, skin flush with blood, full lips, etc).
The men portrayed are all square-jawed, young and healthy, giving all the cues that indicate virility and sexual potence. With the exception of bulging erections, men also show many of the signs of sexual arousal. (I'm citing a study posted on Gamasutra some time ago, that I'm unable to find due to their awful search capabilities.)

So the problem isn't limited to sexism towards women, the real problem is the underlying language of sexuality that runs throughout games (and almost all other) advertising. We're never going to solve the problem that women are being sexualized unless we realize that _everybody_ is being portrayed in a hyper-sexualized manner.

Our culture has identified over-sexualization of women as an undesirable activity, which makes us more attuned to it. However, men in games are being equally sexualized. Its possible that we take the moral stand that sexualizing women is worse for the industry (audience limiting), but we should acknowledge that its not limited to just the women.

I realize your analysis was informal, but there are more sexual cues than simply how much clothing somebody is wearing.

42.

This seems within the bounds of the well-established tenets of advertising. Why not compare game advertising to car advertising, sneakers, music, or anything else in our popular culture? Hmm, I'm noticing a trend here... guess it's not videogame culture that's the problem at all.

Perhaps you need to start writing the car companies and beer companies about how much their advertising denigrates women. Fix that, then we'll talk about how bad videogames are.

43.

So my wife and I tried following the same methodology with a major, well-established, women/family-oriented magazine: Parents, 2006. Just about every major consumer products company is represented. I assume that these companies mostly utilize sophisticated marketing metrics to drive their advertising content, placement, and run-rates. The sample is huge, 218 pages plus F/B covers, so we got tired of actually counting everything. But here are some immediate observations:

- Almost no men human figures depicted, which fits with the fact that ideal female images motivate women.

- The only overweight women (mind you, in a magazine most heavily read by newish parents) are depicted as very old or in the process of becoming thin. (The couple of exceptions are pregnant women, who are still "thin pregnant".)

- A vast majority of women are white and stereotypically beautiful.

- Most of the women are young; very few depictions of 30s-ish parents, even if they are depicted with children implying they became mothers at 12.

- Nearly all of the few older women are participating in youthful activities, are thin, and have uncannily dodged the most common visible effects of aging.

- A material portion of women are "softly" sexualized, even in major consumer product company ads. In a couple cases, even when depicted with their children.

Some Examples:

- Dad depicted with child (one of the few): standing in a massive carrot field, rugged and taking a break from harvesting for his family.

- Sexy mom, drinking mild showing realistic but shapely pose; small image of her below showing her overweight "before".

- Celebrity mom selling deodorant, in sexy dress, showing lots of leg, foot on race car helmet.

- Celebrity mom selling bleach, strapless dress and heavy makeup.

- One potentially overweight, real-looking mom with daughter at theme park. Hard to tell, she is cleverly hidden (and in black in white while the child is in color) so that it is impossible to be sure.

I won't even go into the idealized imagery of children (but then again we all know our children are perfect already...at least mine are).

The point I'm trying to make is that this isn't so much a question about the game industry or gaming magazines as it is a statement about our culture and what themes advertisers (even major, mature, large-budget) use to motivate purchase decisions. If the major companies promoting these products are not maximizing their advertising message, which could possibly be the case, then I need to be convinced that somehow the market has failed to optimize somewhere. Otherwise, it is a social norms question, not a business responsibility question.

44.

Arethos wrote:

I don't agree with your overall view. It is IGE offering fiscal incentive to violate the EULA that is part of the problem.

No, it is the customers of Mythic who offer a financial incentive. IGE is just the middle-man. It's the customers of Mythic who do both the buying and the selling of virtual items.

Funny how you see Mythic willing to attack the middleman, but not willing to attack the people who both violate their EULA and who create the demand that leads to the violation of the EULA.

Grandstanding.

--matt

45.

This brand of advertising is simply "what sells." Just like you won't see an overweight person in a McDonalds commerical you won't see references to "losing" or "being owned" in a game magazine. That would be like writing an article in Men's Health called, "Hey buddy, be a slob, you're just gonna die anyway."

Many of the above posters have expressed their disgust with the ads and claimed that not all gamers are white males from 14-30 but if that is true and there is indeed a large share of the gaming audience who doesn't prefer the testosterone-charged advertising then they should have no problem launching a new gaming publication that markets toward the "offended" audience. Take a look at Maxim, Esquire, and GQ. Three titles aimed at men, all successful, all very different. If there is a need in the market, then I'd say, go do it, but I believe that this is one of those cases of a tiny minority making noise amidst a core audience that could care less.

-Prognosticator @ VirginWorlds.com

46.

Another aspect of this discussion is the quality of games journalism worldwide. I recently found out about a different type of games magazine ( irrespective of the above discussion), check out the australian JumpButton.

http://www.jumpbutton.com/

A games mag that does not have adds from game companies and tries to look at game culture not just games. Might appeal to people who do not like regular games magazines.

Anders

47.

"I know, sexism and racism are so pre-21st Century. It's a shame not everyone can catch up, huh?"

Is it really sexist and racist though? If the preponderance of images of caucasians is racist then is a Chinese magazine racist because most of it's advertising shows Chinese people? Flip through a copy of Vogue or Cosmo at the local supermarket--most of the women portrayed are thin and beautiful. Is that sexist?

48.

"Funny how you see Mythic willing to attack the middleman, but not willing to attack the people who both violate their EULA and who create the demand that leads to the violation of the EULA.

"Grandstanding."

Yup. If Mythic really wanted to take a brave position they could have paid for a full page ad that read "If we catch you, you will be banned".

49.

"I don't think anyone on this forum is "demonizing" female sexuality. If you want to make the argument that an overwhelming ratio of 42-24-36", pale, Nordic blondes in chainmail bikinis is a healthy representation of how women see themselves in their gaming/sexual fantasies, go right ahead."

The point I think is that the way women view themselves is irrelevant. The question is how men view women, or at least women in ads. My question would be "Is there anything inherently 'wrong' about men enjoying ads which feature scantily clad women?"

50.

There have been many thoughtful responses to the posting that started this discussion. It is impossible to address them all, so I'm hoping to touch on the major themes that have emerged so far.

These themes are:


  1. What is the purpose of this study?
  2. Sexist representations are found everywhere, and not just in game magazines.
  3. What about the troubling representations of men?
  4. Advertisers are the real culprit, not the game magazines or the game industry.
  5. People must want these representations because the market sustains them.

(1) What is the purpose of this study?

Both authors of this study are gamers. We enjoy playing all types of games, and are deeply attached to the future of this medium. This study documents disturbing gender representations for an audience that is already sensitized to the complexities of the gaming industry. If the study is ever published, these findings can be referenced by others who study similar issues related to the gaming industry. They might also be useful to researchers who are exploring similar tendencies in other arenas of popular culture.

In our polarized political climate, video-games are a useful scapegoat for censors on both the right and the left. Most of these anti-game activists are clueless about the weird, wonderful world of gaming culture. Sadly, the distorted representations identified in the initial posting provide ample fodder for those who wish to suggest that virtual worlds are populated exclusively by misogynistic, violent sociopaths.

Our study is intended as a friendly critique from within. We are opposed to these gender representations for ethical reasons, but also for strategic reasons. In many ways, the advertisers who peddle these images are Jack Thompson's staunchest allies.

(2) Sexist representations are found everywhere, and not just in game magazines.

Who could argue with this? Vogue, Cosmo, Maxim and Arena are stellar examples of how our society continues to be deeply dysfunctional when it comes to gender issues. In his analysis of a recent issue of Parents, Randolfe convincingly demonstrates that problematic stereotypes are widespread in magazines targeting new parents. It is hardly surprising to discover that gender stereotypes dominate the pages of parenting magazines, but the findings are useful and they warrant a separate study.

Distorted gender representations warp our consciousness in all aspects of society, and not just in the world of games. This is a complex process, and it is perpetuated in different ways in different arenas. Though they share some similarities, the sexist tropes in PC Gamer are different than those found in Vogue and different than those found in Cosmo. If we are troubled by manifestations of these ideas in any aspect of popular culture, we should start paying attention to the ways that they exercise power in specific domains.

This is a forum devoted to gaming, and not a forum about parenting or the fashion industry. Vogue and Parents are valuable reference points in this discussion, but they simply remind us that similar conversations should be taking place about other aspects of our culture.

(3) What about the troubling portrayal of men in these magazines?

Political pundits on all sides of the spectrum do us a disservice by casting discussions about gender as a battle between men and women. Unfortunately, this "zero sum" approach resonates well with game mechanics that pit one team against the other in a battle to the death.

Misogynistic and dehumanizing representations of women can be very damaging to men and women who are trying to construct a sense of self in an uncertain world. The dehumanizing representations of men are equally damaging to gamers of all genders.

Luckily, this conversation is not taking place on a Blizzard-hosted PvP server. The Horde and the Alliance cannot exchange the most basic greetings in Azeroth, but the game mechanics in Terra Nova are far more open. Men, women, and those who feel uncomfortable with both labels, are encouraged to talk with each other. Free-market evangelists can butt heads with liberal academics. We might even come up with insights and recommendations that are good for all of us, regardless of gender or political orientation.

(4) Advertisers are the real culprit, not the game industry.

There is enough blame to go around for all of us, but the initial posting clearly emphasized advertisements that appear in game magazines. Most of these advertisements feature derivative creative concepts, flat copy, exaggerated portrayals of the gaming culture, and blissful ignorance of issues that truly matter to gamers. They are caricatured examples of what non-gamers think gamers care about. At best, they telegraph the fact that a new game is on the horizon while including preliminary screenshots of the game's artwork.

When hard-core gamers of any age and gender make purchasing decisions, they turn to reviews, editorials, gaming forums, and opinion leaders like Gabe and Tycho. At least the gold farmers included useful information in their layouts ("You can use a credit card to buy platinum, gold, influences, Linden dollars, and adena at this address").

(5) People must want these representations because the market sustains them.

As one who teaches a variety of courses on political economy and popular culture, this is a familiar argument. It usually surfaces when someone is questioning aspects of our media landscape. We might be talking about media ethics, the ownership of corporate media, coverage of Katrina, jaw-dropping violence in games and movies, or journalistic indifference to any number of issues. Whenever we head into this difficult territory, the refrain of "Let the market decide" reverberates throughout the lecture hall. The same thing happens in other disciplines when dominant institutions are questioned.

As Thomas Malaby and Illovich (be sure to check out the hyperlinks in Illovich's post) argued earlier, the myth of the market falsely asumes (a) that the majority always makes the right decision, and (b) that everyone has equal voting power in the market.

The myth of the market feels good, and it feels natural. It feels like common sense, because the belief makes it easier to accept our relationship to dominant institutions. This argument is especially appealing if we have been treated well by those insitutions.

But we gravitate toward the myth of the market because of emotion, not because of logic. It feels good to believe these things! It also felt good for faithful followers of the Soviet Regime to believe that any decision made by representatives of the working class would lead to positive outcomes. In certain fundamentalist regimes, citizens feel good when they can rationalize decisions of their leaders as being in accordance with sharia (Islamic law).

At many times, in many places, these emotionally consoling arguments have served as the glue that maintains pathological social relationships in the face of mounting destruction.

51.

Matt,

You're wrong again.

You said, "IGE is just the middle-man. It's the customers of Mythic who do both the buying and the selling of virtual items."

IGE is not just the middle man, they are SELLING. And for that matter, they are BUYING!

The only difference between IGE plus the rest of the RMT organizations and the individual folks that engage in RMT is the number and scale of RMT that is participated in.

Just like any other endeavor, you pursue the most bang for your buck. Primarily targetting RMT organizations is a smart move and makes sense. Targetting them in more ways than one (advertising, removing advertising, removing characters and so forth), is also smart.

52.

Delwiche: "...these emotionally consoling arguments have served as the glue that maintains pathological social relationships in the face of mounting destruction." -- LOL!

Are you telling me that I am now [evil | a sinner | destructive ] because I will strongly support a free press, free capitalism, and freedom of expression against the likes of people who take offense to particular sorts of game advertisement?

If that is destruction, give me my vorpal great axe of chainmail sexiness +5 and clear the way for the king, baby.

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't like it, don't play it. You can find it offensive nine ways till Sunday. Go crazy. Have an I'm offended party. The rest of the world will find a way to get by, thanks.

53.

Aaron,

I appreciate your very thoughtful response. I take exception to your statement regarding "the market": "But we gravitate toward the myth of the market because of emotion, not because of logic" on two points.

Firstly, your response itself is loaded with emotional, qualitative and judgemental adjectives. For example, "This study documents disturbing gender representations for an audience that is already sensitized to the complexities of the gaming industry." This may be something you find disturbing, but others do not. It robs your credibility when you impose value judgements in this way.

Secondly, a great deal of research, both theoretical and empirical, has gone into the subject of market function and mechanics. Economics, econometrics, finance, and financial engineering to name a few, all rely heavily on consistent, logical representation of market function. Perhaps you did not mean to diminish the role of markets beyond ideological crutches, but it came across that way to me.

Markets are agnostic. They allocate capital, usually (but not always) efficiently. Nothing more, nothing less.

Misunderstandings about market purpose and function lead to statements like this one, from Adrienne: "If it's such a foregone conclusion these images are not "violating anything except your own personal taste," there would be alternatives that suit every taste." This is a false notion about how a market "should" function. The market is simply rationing capital resources, and some tastes will never be served because there is insufficient expected return given the expected risks.

A final point: There is an enormous body of academic research which supports the notions expressed here by many regarding what "motivates" people. This is true despite the uneasiness of the findings and the political incorrectness of the conclusions. One example is Professor Eric Johnson (Columbia), who has done a great deal of Consumer Behavioral Economics research and authored many publications on the subject.

Excuse me for insisting that this topic has very little to do with the computer entertainment industry or game magazines, and everything to do with basic normative qualities of our society (actually, with cultural context framing, every developed society).

54.

I've been thinking about this post, and I had a wee querry for Our Gang: could game advertising be more exaggerated in all its particulars (sex, violence, etc.), because the controls on inhibitions in games are removed as part of the game mechanics in almost all instances?

Most games give us much more "freedom" over our actions in terms of legal, moral and ethical restraints than we have in real life. We kill (and die!), rob, blow things up, wipe out whole civilizations, engage in ethnic cleansing, drive on the wrong side of the road, etc. That's a lot of libidinous, free-flowing, id-focused doo-dah.

Does advertising for that kind of exaggerated, immoral behavior *require* a measure of similarly immoral hyperbole?

55.

First off, I'd like to thank Aaron for doing this research, and for the thoughtful commentary.

"Are you telling me that I am now [evil | a sinner | destructive ] because I will strongly support a free press, free capitalism, and freedom of expression against the likes of people who take offense to particular sorts of game advertisement?"

Hikaru,
To say "evil" is too ill-defined, but I would say that one need recognize the negative potential of media on any given individual. Because I must interact daily with so many people, and because the absorbtion of media is inescapable, I absolutely do say it is destructive to choose to ignore and rationalize the consumption of any given material which to some will reinforce & encourage behavior detrimental to their interaction with others. This is especially insidious if that behavior has pre-established, institutional authority justifying itself.
I do not say it is not ok for you to enjoy whichever forms of entertainment content you wish. Of course it is permissible to enjoy entertainment; I would not be reading this blog if I thought otherwise. However, it makes all the difference to be aware of what is harmful to many, and what is not.
You might describe an adverse reaction as 'taking offence', easily written off as an emotional and therefore meaningless response. To the offended, the reaction represents a reaction to very real harm he sees being inevitably returned upon himself. There is a web of responsibility that we all share. Though I may not feel that I am a minority as a gamer - being straight, white, and male - a gamer must recognize, as in all other walks of life, that his actions, words, and even his thoughts affect others and that those effects return on all of us. This doesn't mean you should perpetually be afraid of stepping on someone's toes.
But when there are toes stepped on and those toes don't have enough of a voice to fight back? Recognize it.

56.

"I absolutely do say it is destructive to choose to ignore and rationalize the consumption of any given material which to some will reinforce & encourage behavior detrimental to their interaction with others."

This is basically the argument made for censoring games like Grant Theft Auto--that while a majority of individuals will be able to handle the game a vulnerable minority will be unable to discern fact from fantasy, with tragic results.

57.

Must all arguments against the violence in video games like GTA be in favor of censorship?

What of Chris Crawford on Game Design:

"We are now in a position to address one of the most vexing problems facing the computer games industry: violence in games. The industry's response to the accusations leveled against it (that computer games are too violent) has disappointed me. For the most part, people in the industry circle the wagons and deny the problem. They denigrate their accusers, wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and close their minds to all arguments. This saddens me because all this ruckus is so avoidable. Game designers cling to violence only because they cannot imagine other forms of conflict...

...Violence is the most intense, direct, physical form of conflict. What strikes me is the industry's obsession with the most extreme manifestations of these elements...

...My objection to this is not so much moral as aesthetic: Do we have [to] use a bludgeon when we design? Violence in games is like Wagner played for 18 hours with the bass turned up. It's like chocolate cereal in chocolate milk with chocolate sprinkles and chocolate fudge on top."

Chris Crawford continues along this theme by comparing video games and their lack of subtlety to candy, comics, and cartoons. Is he arguing in favor of censorship here, or is his argument better understood as an appeal for more diverse designs?

And in the case of this thread, do you really think that the original posting was motivated by a desire to be the thought police? Or could it more naturally be understood as an attempt to find a better way to advertise for games, where "better" is understood to mean not motivating potential customers to throw your magazine across the room in disgust?

Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Heerter that "it is destructive to choose to ignore and rationalize the consumption of any given material which to some will reinforce & encourage behavior detrimental to their interaction with others." I am unswayed by lewy's assertion that the "majority of individuals will be able to handle the game" as justification for reinforcing and encouraging detrimental behavior. It seems to me that one would have to show that the game was actually a benefit to the majority in order to even justify it from a utilitarian perspective. Even so, I think the level of violence in video games and video game ads fails to pass Aristotle's Golden Mean, Kant's Categorical Imperative, and certainly the Judeo-Christian ethic, so I am hard-pressed to see why I shouldn't object to it on ethical as well as aesthetic grounds.

--Phinehas

58.

"Even so, I think the level of violence in video games and video game ads fails to pass Aristotle's Golden Mean, Kant's Categorical Imperative, and certainly the Judeo-Christian ethic, so I am hard-pressed to see why I shouldn't object to it on ethical as well as aesthetic grounds."

I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't object to the level of violence. You definitely limit your parcipation in gaming to those things that don't offend you, and allow others to make the same choices.

59.

Whoever wrote about the "Myth of the Market" was spot-on in this case, I think. There is an implicit assumption that the advertisers know what they are doing, and that these ads actually sell games.

The reader domgraphics are interesting. Game players are skewed toward young males, but not to that extent.

60.

John Bilodeau said: >>I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't object to the level of violence. You definitely limit your parcipation in gaming to those things that don't offend you...<<

I think you misunderstood. My ethical objection wasn't based on being personally offended, but on the given scenario that some media "to some will reinforce & encourage behavior detrimental to their interaction with others." The counter-point made by lewy was that a case where "the majority of individuals will be able to handle the game [but] a vulnerable minority will be unable to discern fact from fantasy, with tragic results" did not present sufficient ethical grounds for any sort of censorship.

Since lewy brought the minority and majority into view in his counter-point, it seemed to me that he was attempting to build his case on a utilitarian ethical framework. Utilitarianism basically states that one should choose his or her course based on what will yield the greatest amount of benefit for the greatest number of people affected. So, I made a rather poor attempt to point out that saying "the majority will be able to handle the game" is a far cry from saying that the majority will benefit, and it is the latter that would be required if building a case based on utilitarianism. So, the ethical choice for the game designer, publisher, or ad agency could still involve self-censorship.

Having evaluated the issue from a utilitarian framework, I thought to apply other ethical frameworks. Aristotle's Golden Mean states that virtuous or ethical choices result in a balance between excess and defect. Based at least on Chris Crawford's perspective on the issue, it would appear that the level of violence typical in video games (and it appears that video game ads reflect this level of violence) leans too far toward excess to be considered balanced. Again, the ethical choice for the game designer, publisher, or ad agency might involve self-censorship.

According to Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (another potential framework for exploring ethical questions), "I should never act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should be a universal one." In other words, to test a maxim for moral fitness, pose the question: "How would society stand to be affected if this descretionary principle were a compulsory law?" Mandating violence in media or passing a law that it must reinforce and encourage detrimental behavior seems like a bad idea to me, but I might not be applying Kant's categorical imperative correctly. Still, it seems to me that the ethical choice for the game designer, publisher, or ad agency might involve self-censorship.

The Judeo-Christian ethical framework is based primarily on the notion that "you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I can imagine the CEO of a pharmeceutical company standing in a lavish board room and giving a report on the lab results of their latest, high-tech medicine. He states: "All of our research has resulted in this finding. We've determined that a majority will be able to handle this new medicine, but a minority will not, with tragic results." Since this report presents no evidence of any sort of beneficial or life-saving effects, I think I would want that CEO to advise his company not to market and sell the drug. Similarly, as much as my participation in the game industry will allow (after all, I'm no CEO), from a Judeo-Christian framework, I should do the same. Yet again, it seems to me that the ethical choice for the game designer, publisher, or ad agency might involve self-censorship.


John Bilodeau said: >>...and allow others to make the same choices.<<

It is true that I did not perform an evaluation from the ethical framework of extreme relativism. I did so purposefully because, in addition to being rather pointless, I don't think that extreme relatavism is philosophically tenable. People often espouse relativism when talking about their own rights, but tend to default to other ethical frameworks when discussing the responsibilities that they believe others owe them.

--Phinehas

61.

"I am unswayed by lewy's assertion that the 'majority of individuals will be able to handle the game' as justification for reinforcing and encouraging detrimental behavior. It seems to me that one would have to show that the game was actually a benefit to the majority in order to even justify it from a utilitarian perspective."

Actually I wasn't making the argument that a majority of individuals will be able to handle GTA but a vulnerable minority will not. I was merely pointing out that that is one of the most common arguments mustered by proponents of censorship.

So far as the utilitarian benefit of games goes I'm rather agnostic. My own personal take on the staff at Rock Star Games is that they consider themselves artists and they are attempting to make art. They just happen to paint on a violent canvas. Why should they censor themselves simply because other of the popularity of violence in games? Does art have a utilitarian purpose or is it immune to such considerations?

And of course there's a slippery slope there. Who gets to decide what constitutes a critical mass of unpleasant stuff? Should a publisher refuse to publish Mishima because they already publish Genet? And what about Mishima? Should he censor himself in his writing or should he simply follow his muse?

62.

"Whoever wrote about the 'Myth of the Market' was spot-on in this case, I think. There is an implicit assumption that the advertisers know what they are doing, and that these ads actually sell games.

"The reader domgraphics are interesting. Game players are skewed toward young males, but not to that extent."

The question is why should advertisers change their approach. Should they switch modes because they believe that they can sell more product with an alternate style of advertising, or should they switch modes because a minority dislikes their current advertising regardless of its actual effectiveness?

It may well be that there is a more effective approach, but I'm skeptical about claims that the current one is completely ineffectual.

63.

ON THE ISSUE OF GOLD FARMING: The only people who deserve blame are the game developers. If they don't want people buying gold, they shouldn't make so much of their gameplay nothing more than pure, grind-based drudgery. Evolve beyond EQ!

ON THE ISSUE OF WHAT PC GAMER SHOULD DO: Far more important than any changes in their advertising policy are changes they need to make in the nature of their coverage and reviews. They should actually write honest reviews instead of trading high review scores for "EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW CONTENT" and other worthless crap. Oh boy, you got previews of a game that won't come out for 12 months a few weeks before someone else. Big, fat, hairy, deal. The price they pay for this exclusive content is guaranteed 90%+ / Editor's Choice reviews. When mediocre games like DOOM3, and games that are clumsily ported from the XBOX 360 (*cough* Oblivion) are getting scores in the mid to high 90s, you've got a severe credibility problems.

ON THE ISSUE OF SCANTILY CLAD WOMEN IN ADS: I have the same opinion about this as I have about the issue of scantily clad/sexy women in games: How about a little equity in sexiness! I like sexy female avatars in games and in ads. How about some sexy/studly/whatever word you want to use MALE avatars in games and ads as well? I'm sick of every MMO I play I have to be some missing link, chromosome challenged looking oaf because they invested about .000000000001% as much time on the male models as they did on the female ones.

There's nothing wrong with the way they depict females. The problem is they don't continue the same fantasy mentality when they portray males!

64.

>>Should they switch modes because they believe that they can sell more product with an alternate style of advertising, or should they switch modes because a minority dislikes their current advertising regardless of its actual effectiveness?<<

Those aren't mutually exclusive reasons. ;)

65.

lewy said: >>Actually I wasn't making the argument that a majority of individuals will be able to handle GTA but a vulnerable minority will not. I was merely pointing out that that is one of the most common arguments mustered by proponents of censorship.<<

My apologies. I thought it was implied that you disagree with their assessment, but it appears I made an unwaranted assumption. Even so, I think that examining such a proponent's argument from various ethical frameworks shows that it might have some validity. Of course, I'd like to see government involvement minimized in favor of designers, publishers, and ad agencies censoring themselves in ways that make sense ethically.

lewy said: >>So far as the utilitarian benefit of games goes I'm rather agnostic. My own personal take on the staff at Rock Star Games is that they consider themselves artists and they are attempting to make art. They just happen to paint on a violent canvas. Why should they censor themselves simply because other of the popularity of violence in games? Does art have a utilitarian purpose or is it immune to such considerations?<<

My personal feeling is that art influences, often in powerful ways. I see no logical reason to believe that such influence can only ever be positive. Therefore, it seems to me that artists make important ethical decisions just like pharmeceutical CEOs. And just like you and me. I personally can see no valid reason for declaring artists immune from ethical considerations in the making of their art.

lewy said: >>And of course there's a slippery slope there. Who gets to decide what constitutes a critical mass of unpleasant stuff? Should a publisher refuse to publish Mishima because they already publish Genet? And what about Mishima? Should he censor himself in his writing or should he simply follow his muse?<<

Perhaps the Socratic question is: Why is free speech so important?

To ensure we are not merely worshipping a sacred cow, I think it is important to understand the reasoning behind promoting free speech and decrying censorship. I think we have a tendency to assume things and give knee-jerk reactions in this regard, but a better understanding of the underlying issues may help us navigate slippery slopes more carefully. (Yes, I know that the slippery slope argument is often used as a reason to not navigate the slope at all, but I think that some slippery slopes really must be traversed...but carefully.)

Here's my take on free speech. I'm merely thinking out loud on the issue, so I'm certainly open to other perspectives and understandings.

Free speech is important because ideas are so powerful that we cannot risk having the best and truest ones squelched, but must hope instead that, in the market-place of free ideas, the best and truest will win out.

But there is a Socratic part of me that wonders: Are not power and influence also given as reasons for carefully monitoring and controlling things like guns or nuclear power?

Where we do entrust powerful things to citizens, don't we do so with the understanding that the right to weild that powerful thing comes with an appropriate level of responsibility? For gosh sakes, get a safety lock for your gun and don't leave it loaded and easily accessible to your children. This is you minimum responsibility given the power and freedom you've been allowed. I have no compuction whatsoever about saying such to gun owners. Why should I hesitate to tell an artist that he should use the power of his art responsibly?

Who gets to decide what is responsible? Well, in the end, my hope is that the artis does...and the gun owner. In my perfect world, everyone acts responsibly so that everyone can act freely. Unfortunately, the reall world doesn't always work the way I'd like it to. Even so, I sincerely hope that things like the "Hot Coffee" mod haven't given so much ammunition to the politicians and lawyers that the game design industry finds its freedoms erroded. But when people are not using the power and freedom they've been given in a responsible manner, but instead give no thought to what sort of detrimental behavior their product may reinforce and encourage, I think that the errosion of freedom is inevitable. And it is difficult for me to explain how it is also not justifiable.

Best solution: Drink responsibly, drive responsibly, and design responsibly. I truly wish the industry would embrace this philosophy instead of circling the wagons and wrapping themselves in the First Amendment or capitalism or whatever.

--Phinehas

66.

"Those aren't mutually exclusive reasons. ;)"

But it's a logical fallacy to assume that one inevitably accompanies the other.

67.

"I personally can see no valid reason for declaring artists immune from ethical considerations in the making of their art."

Absolutely. But the next question is obviously what to do when an artist commits a transgression. Jail them? Censure them? Restrict access to their work?

Regarding free speech: Certainly one justification for free speech is that it creates an arena where the best ideas can rise to the top and flourish. But there is another important consideration as well. Modern democracy has come to mean not only majority rule but also minority rights. Without the latter any so-called democracy can lapse into a de facto tyranny, or at least lay the seeds for division and conflict--present day Iraq for example. For that purpose it's important to protect views that are objectionable in the eyes of the majority. The fact that those views are unpopular is the best reason to protect the right of an individual to express them.

So in my view the hypothetical artist of this argument should be free to write about anything, no matter how dark or violent or whatever. Whether or not he can find a publisher is another issue entirely. But if he does find a publisher, and his work becomes wildly popular, then aren't we really talking the basic social normative qualities that randolphe referenced?

68.

88% of PC Gamer magazine readers are males under 20...
because only males under 20 can stomach PC Gamer magazine!
I certainly can't, and neither can my avid-gamer >20 straight male partner.

But! Males under 20 should have their magazine. I don't want to take it away from them or change their beloved PC Gamer in any way. I simply want a magazine that speaks to me, that knows my brand of information.

This is a common issue. I don't read guitar magazines for precisely the same reason.

69.

As a young, straight white man, I find it extremely ironic that I ignore the full page spreads of gaming magazines precisely because of the traits you described.

70.

This is the theme site of Runescape, which offers you any kinds of service. Such as runescape tip, cheat and game quest help. On our site, you may purchase runescape gold on the lowest price, and it will be traded in half an hour. You may also report any runescape cheats or tips you have met in game which could help us to improve our service level. And we would like you to suggest any RS tip to us which can help other players.If your tips will be useful, you would be reworded a certain runescape gold for sure .Please login our site and ask “runescape quest help” for any questions you might have. We will be trying our best to help you in rs world all the time.

71.

runescape tip

72.

This is the theme site of Runescape, which offers you any kinds of service. Such as runescape tip, cheat and game quest help. On our site, you may purchase runescape gold on the lowest price, and it will be traded in half an hour. You may also report any runescape cheats or tips you have met in game which could help us to improve our service level. And we would like you to suggest any RS tip to us which can help other players.If your tips will be useful, you would be reworded a certain runescape gold for sure .Please login our site and ask “runescape quest help” for any questions you might have. We will be trying our best to help you in rs world all the time.

The comments to this entry are closed.