One of the first ones that came out in America had you taking care of a little human baby. If you were successful at it, it grew into a child and you got a second baby to look after. Succeed there, and after six days, you had a mini-family to call your own. Variations of these toys are still around in any Target or Toys’R'Us. They have the babysitting version, too.

This has been done before. In fact, most of the stuff they’re planning for this series has already been done in various forms, especially by the Japanese. (Though I say that with the realization that the Japanese are not ones to bring up in a discussion of gender equality.)

In all truth, my hard-core gamer girlfriend plays her copies of “Cooking Mama” or “Animal Crossing” as readily as she plays “Soul Caliber III” or “Fire Emblem”. And I know guys who enjoy the milder care-taking or building type games such as “Harvest Moon” and “The Sims2″ over the shoot-em-ups like “Halo”.

I don’t find anything wrong with making games like this (and only some with marketing them specifically at girls), I think the real problem is a lack of balance. Not only is there is there no pretty pink Imagine: Corporate Lawyer, there also isn’t a boyish blue version. Games marketed at boys are as violent as games marketed at girls are full of socially approved gender norms.

And if we’re hitting all the major traditional “female” professions then where’s my Imagine: Call Girl, Ubisoft?

Which is delicious, really, but also points at something that comes up whenever ‘girl games’ or even just casual games are discussed: there seems to be a real jealousy among hardcore gamers for the industry’s affection. Each time a developer makes a game that doesn’t appeal to the hardcore male demographic, they’re lambasted for it, and there’s a sense of “why aren’t they making games for me, dammit?” in the comments. Not to mention the (sometimes deserved) opprobrium towards existing titles. Barbie Horse Adventures is pretty much a running joke whenever developers gather.