I just read through "Genderplay: Successes and Failures in Character Designs for Videogames", which is about, well, gender decisions in games. Okay, I'll cheerfully admit that there are problems. I find it amusing that they mention BG:DA - I've *seen* the bartender they're talking about, and she's almost a parody. (The fact that her breasts were clipping through her shirt due to a bug at the time didn't help much - incidentally, her nipples are polygonal, not just textures.) However, you don't play BG:DA for the *ahem* plot, you play it for the beating-down-on-things. It's like going to see Starship Troopers in the theater and expecting a political movie!
Wait. People did that. Bad example.
But anyway. That's actually not what I don't get. What I don't get are the people who want games that are marketed for females and yet have absolutely no stereotypes in them.
I don't get this at all. How can you market for a group of people without, oh, *paying attention to the archetypical member of that group*? Games "marketed for males" do indeed have stereotypes - they assume we want to blow things up. Hey, guess what, they're right. But they're not saying "only males must play this!".
Okay, there's room for improvement. Again, no argument. However, the ideal situation is in the middle, when it's not being marketed for males *or* females specifically. So why do people insist on saying they want games marketed specifically for females?
Especially when we're apparently not allowed to use anything associated with females in any way in the advertisements?
If we made less violent games and said "they're for females" we'd get lynched! If we made *any* change in games and said "oh, that's because they're for females" we'd *still* get lynched. So what does this "marketing for females" involve?
And that's what I don't get.