Bibliography Task - Gender in Games

Bibliography 

~ Introduction to Critical Game Studies Task ~

 I've decided to do my bibliography based on gender within the games industry and games in general. I find this subject quite interesting as there are so few female games designers working within the industry and on our course itself. I wanted to know more on why there is such a huge divide between the numbers of male and female game designers and hopefully get a better understanding of why females don't get more involved in it.

Studies have shown that both female and male sexes show the same amount of interest in games at preschool age but as they get older females tend to lose interest where as males become more involved or as involved with games.

Its thought that this could be because most games are tailored for the male market or at least mainly focusing on the male market over the female. Its also noted that males are more competitive in nature than females and find games more rewarding in the sense of achieving a goal where as females are more complacent with just playing the game more than actually beating it.

This isn't totally accurate for everyone that plays games, male or female. But on the wider scope of things this is the general consensus of the games industry and the players themselves. Through my many years of playing MMO's I've met many people from all over the world, both male and female and I have to agree that there is a clear difference of play styles between the two genders within games. Understanding that every ones style of play is different is key to this research but the scales tip more towards male by a large margin when we looking at how many male vs female gamers there are and who plays the most.

Is this by design? Do we really tailor games to a male audience by default that push female's out of games from an early age? or is it just human nature?

 References :

Cooper, J. & Weaver, K.D. 2003, Gender and computers: understanding the digital divide, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (NJ).

Ivory, J.D. 2006, "Still a man's game: Gender representation in online reviews of video games", Mass Communication & Society, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 103-114.

Kafai, Y.B. 2008, Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: new perspectives on gender and gaming, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Ray, S. G. (2004) Gender inclusive game design: expanding the market. Hingham (Ma): Charles River Media.

Wang, H. & Wang, Y. 2008, "Gender differences in the perception and acceptance of online games", British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 787-787.

"Gender and computer games: Exploring females' dislikes", 2006, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 0-0.

Natural Funativity

Natural Funativity

~ Noah Falstein ~

The Natural Funativity article written by Noah Falstein found here explores what makes a game fun by means of researching into how fun has developed throughout human evolution, technological and social advancements.

We begin by looking back to our evolutionary history and how we today still share our survival and reproductive natures with are ancestors, along side our need for social interactions. All these natural instincts establish and maintain our place in our community and the human race. It is widely agreed that most of our underlying instincts were shaped during the time of our hunter-gatherer ancestors and their predecessors.

Understanding the basic instincts of humans might sounds far fetched from what makes a game fun but they can be closely linked with one another at a deeper level than simply enjoyment, entertainment or pass time. Play goes deep into our human history and in other species, for example dogs and cats play fight at a young age to prepare themselves for hunting and fighting later in life. Maybe not a skill they need anymore as most dogs and cats are domesticated these days but it was a important skill to learn for their ancestors that would have to hunt and fight in order to survive.

Its this natural instincts to play to learn that humans and other species share which develop us and prepare us for later life. Due to the human brain and complex social structures we have, this causes us to extend that play well into our maturity.

"Anyone who thinks there is a difference between education and entertainment doesn't
know the first thing about either."
- Marshall McLuhan, Communications Theorist

Learning in the fashion of play has been long thought to be the safest and most efficient way to learn. When we put it into the context of our hunter-gather ancestors its fairly simple to see that by going out and hunting is very dangerous and if you have not prepared yourself prior you can easily be injured or worse. By play fighting or simply practice throwing or tracking in a safe environment (and usually in forms of simple games) it will enhance you hunting skills without ever putting you into the danger of actually going out to hunt in the wild.

Physical Fun

The simplest place to see a connection between our evolutionary heritage and games and entertainment is in the physical arena. Our primary urge is the survival instinct. Anything that directly threatens our survival automatically commands out full attention. Its not surprising that games, and in fac most of entertainment use themes of survival to similarly capture the attention of players.

Physical fun also covers the instincts to gather, there are a huge number of popular entertainment that involve gathering. Casinos (money), collecting items E.g cards, art, cars. In video games, ever since Pac-Man started gobbling little dots, we've moved on to collecting hearts, coins, stars and Pokemon.

Exploration and use of tools or mastering our tools is another instinct humans have inherited from our ancestors. The desire to see exotic places or a more local exploration, finding the best places to get specific resources (food, shelter etc). Mastering out tools which we now associate with keyboard and mouse, controllers and hardware. Learning to use a bow & arrow or a fishing net to our hunter-gather ancestors hold the same value but in a different form.

Social Fun

Evolution focuses not just on the survival of individuals, but also the issue of reproduction and all the associated matters of meeting and attracting mates. Online multiplayer games and the persistent popularity of playing single-player games in group settings have brought about a new social aspect to games and reinforce our natural instinct to socialize, form groups and interact with each other.

Humans are tribal in nature and and use the skill of language to not only socialize but to learn from one another. Either it be through straight forward information or through storytelling, its a key factor in our need to survive. The uniquely human ability to pass on stories and thereby learning important practical, moral and social lessons has been invaluable to us.

Mental Fun

Our intelligence is what links all of the physical and social instincts together and has made us evolve over time through learning. Its what makes us capable of learning and understanding what we just learnt, its what seperates us from all the other animals and makes us human.

Learning patterns within games and then mastering them is linked to our need to survive. This is because we are using our brains and working them out to better understand the task or problem at hand. It helps us solve problems, differentiate one thing from another and then act upon our understanding.

The more you know and understand within a game the better chance you have of beating it, this holds true to our hunter-gatherer ancestors when applied to their need to survive by hunting, tracking and mating.

My Thoughts

 I'm a big fan of psychology and human nature. I don't think a day goes by when I don't think about what makes us all the way we are and more specifically myself or the people around me. Either it be what we say, do or act I find it really interesting. This article does a great job of explaining how our natural instincts have a direct affect on out concept of fun and the need to play to learn, or in other words having fun to survive. Even though we live in an age that we don't necessarily have to go out and hunt deer with a bow & arrow anymore, its plain to see how our need to learn patterns in a game and the tools we use in and out of them creates the state of play and learning.

I know we touched on patterns within games and how we can use them to influence the player within the game and I though it was great how the two articles linked together like this. The Space of Possibility and Pacing in Casual Game Design paper can be found here (last paragraph).

MUD's & Player Types

Players Who Suit MUD's

~ Richard A. Bartle ~

 This article is the result of a lengthy discussion of MUD players that was sparked by the question "What do people want out of a MUD?"

Players of all play styles and walks of life contributed to the thread and was used to break down what types of players there are within MUD's and games in general. The thread was then broken down to better understand what people seek within the game.

First we break down players into four different types of users, which means different play styles, goals and experience in the game. These are achievers, explorers, socialisers and killers.

Achievement within the game

Players give themselves game-related goals, and vigorously set out to achieve them. This usually means accumulating and disposing of large quantities of high-value treasure, or cutting a swathe through hordes of mobiles (Ie. monsters built in to the virtual world)

Exploration of the game

Players try to find out as much as they can about the virtual world. Although initially this means mapping its topology (ie. exploring the MUD's breadth), later it advances to experimentation with its physics (ie. exploring the MUD's depth).

Socialising with others

Players use the game's communicative facilities, and apply the role-playing that these engender, as a context in which to converse (and otherwise interact) with their fellow players.

Imposition upon others

Players use the tools provided by the game to cause distress to (or, in rare circumstances, to help) other players. Where permitted, this usually involves acquiring some weapon and applying it enthusiastically to the persona of another player in the game world.

Often players can be a mix of different types as we are all different but generally speaking most players have a primary style of play and mix with other styles to advance in their primary style or goal.

Achievers usually set goals for them self, like high-score boards or achievement points. Explorers like to find new things and explore the unknown. Socials are generally more casual and like the interaction with other players more so than the game itself. Killers set goals of killing other players.

The amount of each type of player within a MUD varies depending on the game itself as the player needs the tools to do what they want to do as their primary goal. For example a achiever probably wouldn't play or enjoy a game that has no scoring system he can show off to other players. A killer wouldn't enjoy a none PvP game that was for socializing and exploration.

                               ACTING
               Killers            |               Achievers
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
       PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
             Socialisers          |               Explorers
                             INTERACTING

Group Decision and My Thoughts

This article was written regarding a MUD back between the late 80's and early 90's which at the time was a relativity new game concept using the newly found internet. As this was a very early paper on MUD's the player base was significantly smaller than what we see in today's MUD and MMO games. Its important to remember that this is just a basic taxonomy based on a small amount of users within the game and as today's games have a lot larger player base it brings about different player types and styles depending on the game.

The most important thing for me that I've taken from this paper is the idea of balancing a game depending on your target audience and how each player style can directly and in-directly effect one another. For example how socialisers like achievers as they can help create a social environment and start talking points or how killers like explorers because they can find things within the game to will help the killers kill more.

I personally see myself as more of a achiever within games but find myself crossing over to all aspects at one time or another but for only one reason, to achieve more.