In this blog I want to discuss some of my thoughts on how to design games in a way which makes them the most inclusive by informing design choices, not on gender difference, but instead on cultural nuances.
It has been observed that the majority (an important qualifier) within a gender can have specific preferences or make certain choices in one direction more often than the other, which can be seen to characterise them. Whether choices, conscious or subconscious, which are more peculiar to a gender are created by a physiological or social conditioning of that gender is a long, on-going debate, however this it’s not what I want to discuss in this post, instead I want to look at the dangers of framing design problems, specifically in games, by gender as opposed to culture.
My thinking on this issue was provoked by reading LOLapps’ Brenda Brathwaite’s Creating Closure in Social Games on the excellent Inside Social Games. The piece is a great read on closure of play sessions and how it’s important in player retention, using Ravenwood Fair (I highly recommend playing it) as a case study. However, Brenda uses two terms I’d never heard before in videogame design: “gendered problems” and “gendered solutions”. (As an aside Brenda recommends Sheri Graner Ray’s Gender Inclusive Game Design for more info on this).
I feel uncomfortable with pinning issues in design to gender, because users are complex individuals, comprising of lots of converging and conflicting motivations, experience and expectations, which can’t be reduced by gender. In my experience, labeling a problem in this way can often be linked to a predisposed perspective and false positives. Moreover, when your solutions can’t be gender specific (which is often the case in games design), very little is gained, and perhaps a lot lost, in labeling an issues as ‘gendered’.
So, last night I put out an intentionally debate provoking tweet that read: “Gamers aren’t split by gender, they’re split by culture. Design games for people, not for males or females.”
Pocket Gamer (who we like a lot here at Mobile Pie), responded with a flurry of interesting responses, including the below:
![]( "Screen shot 2010-12-01 at 12.13.56")
Let’s look first at the premises: females chose female characters and males male characters; then the framing: the choice differs because of inherent gender differences; then the problem: females demand more choice; and the solution: create more female characters.
On the surface this seems true and sensible. I know when I started playing Golden Axe with my partner recently I choose the musclebound fella with the big sword, she chooses the scantily clad woman with the 80s hair and, as is traditional, nobody chooses the little green old man. Who is he for anyway?
![]( "Golden_Axe_Coverart")
So it seems obvious that we choose characters because of our gender and that Golden Axe would have been better adding another female character in place of the little green dude, offering a better proposition to the female gamer, increasing the appeal of the game to the market and thus making more money.
I disagree with this because the framing is by gender. If we look again at the premises: females chose female characters and males male characters; then change the framing: the choice differs because of culture suggesting the character represents the user and there is a taboo in choosing an opposing gender; then the problem: some fussy players demand more choice; and the solution: encourage users to pick characters from the full range, not just those within their gender.
For example, users playing Golden Axe realise pretty quickly that the characters have traits beyond gender, such as strength, speed and magical power. To get good and beat the game you need to think strategically about character choice, play style and, in two player co-op, the advantages and disadvantages of the team make up. As me and my partner got more and more in to Golden Axe, character choice became more varied and dependent on our individual play style.
In Golden Axe gender is disconnected from the gameplay, suggesting the user holding gender as a factor in their character choice is at a predisposition or under cultural pressure. However, any balanced team in the 2 player co-op element of the game includes the female and at least one male character, subverting and challenging assumptions, something which has been used to great effect in the Metroid series.
Modern gaming has rather unfortunately been born of a male-dominated industry, both in terms of creation and consumption. Thankfully, this has changed rapidly over recent years for a multitude of reasons, a trend which looks set to continue, creating a new much more balanced environment. To perpetuate inclusiveness designer must build experiences by applying unifying, rather than divisive, thought.
Users of an experience are not best served when considered in gender terms, but instead experience should be consider through cultural difference. This may seem like a semantic argument, however, framing user preference by gender is fixed and unmoving (boys like blue and girls like pink, this is for girls, let’s use pink), whereas considering the culture surrounding a preference gives options for wider and more creative solutions (some people like blue, some people pink, everyone likes green, let’s use that).
That’s a quick run through on my thoughts of making design choices based on gender assumptions. Disagree? Had a differing experience? Gap in my debate? Something I haven’t considered? I’d love to hear it in the comments!
