This week’s Escapist is all about gaming that falls outside the mainstream market — including girl games, as discussed in a short piece of mine called “Games of Fairer Sex.” What are girl games? Who the heck is buying these things? Where have they gone right, and where have they gone wrong? Attempted insights; quotes from flesh-and-blood developers. Plus, sparkles, sparkles, sparkles! The dramatic conclusion to my escapades as a pseudo-clueless shopper…
|
December 12th, 2005
|
|
Entries Made Available in RSS.
December 13th, 2005 at 7:22 am
I just wanted to tell you that your article written for the Escapist, “Games of a Fairer Sex” was amazingly well thought out and well written. Thank you for offering this article to the world.
December 13th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Why thanks, 8472. So glad you enjoyed it.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Damn, thats hot praise.
I thought it was a good article, but I was dissapointed that you didn’t mention the rise and fall of Brenda Laurel’s Purple Moon Studios. Brenda was a key pioneer in considering games as more than just boy’s toys, having written “computer as theater” back in the 80s. She founded Purple Moon wanting to make games for little girls that would really capture their imaginations, but the company failed and deigned criticism from all kinds of eggheads in the “mainstream” (gamer mainstream) industry who decried her ambitions as unrealistic and ect.
By the way… is that you on the cover?
P.S. I just submitted a grant application for 25k to mtvU to build an Erasmatron storyworld, that was after taking finals earlier today.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
One more thing, don’t let the dudes commenting on the article at the Escapist blog make you feel bad. They actually have some good points, I especially like the guy who says Chris Crawford knows what kind of games women would like to play (because I sorta work for Chris and because its fucking ironic, considering the tsunami of backlash when he wrote that article), but they seem to take a liking to bashing you, which just ain’t right dammit. After all, if it weren’t for you bringing these things up in a public venue they wouldn’t have a counter-point or any value or lack thereof.
I think I’ve mentioned this earlier, but I wrote a letter to Gamasutra a while back and some guy responded with a very kurt, almost insulting dismissal of my point. You know how that makes me feel when people antagonize and attempt to dismiss me?
I love it.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Hey Patrick. You’re right that Laurel’s story is an interesting one, but unfortunately there’s only so much you can cover in one piece, and I was over my word count as it stood :-). And, hey, good luck with mtvU!
Was that me on the cover? Ha! That brunette! Redheads unite! Seriously though, I assume that was stock footage. But I do have to put together an official pic of myself for a X360 Magazine column I’m starting, so I’ll post that sometime soon, in case you’re curious.
As for the forum dudes, no worries, it’s not my scene. I used to fret a lot about what people were saying about my pieces in forums. My policy now is, if they actually have something they’d like to start a constructive dialogue about, they know where to find me. Heroine sheik is listed at the end of all of my articles. And if they contact me directly with smack, I’m happy to chat. Beyond that, who cares…
December 13th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
X360 Magazine, damn, thats hot no matter what you look like.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Good story. Nice work. I was afraid your research part would be gimmicky based on the description before, but I think it turned out really well. :-D
December 13th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Thanks, Carl. And Patrick :-).
December 14th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Crikey. Reading the comments on your article in the Escapist Blog, I felt like the only one who enjoyed your recent article. I disagree with Chris Crawford’s evolutionary psychology article that was the cause of so much hoopla a little while back, and a couple of commentors there on Escapist appear to think Crawford’s article was the bees knees. I guess it’s just a difference in viewpoint.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I definately am right there with Brinstar. I shouldn’t even read the comments there, it just eggs me on…
What I think frustrates me is that the commentators don’t bring their arguments to Bonnie, or talk about their reactions in constructive ways. Also, another frustration is how oftentimes when someone brings up an issue and looks at it through a feminist lens they are told to “do more research” when it’s obvious that the commentator is not familiar with scholarly feminism, and could maybe do their own research.
By the way, I also really enjoyed the article. I think the fact, also, the fact that it’s stirring up controversy on the Escapist site is a good even if a lot of the comments are negative.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Brinstar and Natalie - thanks for your support. As I mentioned above in response to Patrick’s comment, I don’t read the Escapist blog comments, and I don’t really intend to. First of all, anyone who thinks Crawford’s evolutionary psych approach is all that isn’t anyone I want to chat with. Second of all, I’m very easy to reach. If I’m not getting emails from these guys (or comments on this site) it just means they don’t want to talk constructively, they only want to show off for one another.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Why does Evo-Psych get such a bad rap? Does human evolution stop at the neck?
That said, Crawford’s piece was crap. He needs to STFU and get back to making good games, already.
December 16th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Hmm, Brummbar, after the STFU comment I’m waiting for a hardcore beatdown from Patrick… No, of course Evo-Psych doesn’t stop at the neck, it just gets a whole hell of a lot more complicated. My problem is with simplification. And in my experience, that’s what all Evo-Pysch has been.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
I agree about simplification. I love explanations for human social or reproductive behavior that begin, “When mankind was gathering berries in primeval forests…” or some such thing.
Because, of course, nothing has changed since then.
My complaint against evo-psych is that it’s so reductionist as to be almost useless. You mean people are driven to maximize their own security and comfort while avoiding danger and unhappiness? My god, Professor, you’ve done it!
Chris Crawford is a smart guy and talented - no, GIFTED - designer. He needs to speak through his work though. Enough of this manifesto-slinging, Chris. Make games.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:55 am
I definitely hear you on that one, Brummbar :-) — glad to hear someone else say it.
December 19th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Patrick, if you’re still curious, I did post my head shot for the X360 column in my Flickr photos… It’s huge there though. I promise in the mag it will be of less grotesque proportions :-).
December 20th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
An Important Point of Clarification:
Earlier in this dialogue, when Patrick brought to my attention the comments that were being made about my article on The Escapist’s blog The Lounge, I said that I did not intend to read them. Though I still wish that, if anyone feels very strongly about a piece of mine, he/she would contact me directly — as I would be more than happy to start up a constructive email dialogue — I would like to officially apologize for insulting The Escapist and their readership with this remark, both of whom I have the utmost respect for. In the future, I will be responding to comments posted both here and at The Lounge. Thank you!