The Gamer Girl: Girls vs. Boys Games, An Overview
News flash: there is a difference between boys and girls. Gasp! Shocker, I know. The need to separate boy things and girl things began right when a child is born with either wrapping them in a blue blanket or pink blanket. Since then, children are conditioned to like certain things and gravitate towards certain activities, including different types of video games. Yes, biology does have a role in it and if I were to argue nature vs. nurture when it comes to what video game a child chooses to play…well, that would be a separate article. Instead, in this article of The Gamer Girl, I will be taking a look at the differences between “boy” games and “girl” games, but on a deeper level.
To get ideas on what is considered “boy” or “girl” games, I took a walk around my local GameStop and just looked at the walls of games. Then to get a better sense of other games than just new ones, I went to my local smaller game shop called Play, Trade, Repair Games and did the same thing. Let’s start with the “boy” games. Right when I walked into the store, it came as no surprise to me that there were no ladies inside (and I am not including mothers). I gravitated towards the sides of the stores and took a look at the cover art of the games. When it comes to marketing, visual aesthetics that are as pleasing and sparkly as possible will gain the attention of the audience and thus interested in seeing what the game has to offer. Upon looking at the Xbox 360 wall, I could not help but notice a familiar pattern emerging from all of the “boy” games. Most of the games, if not all, had a picture of some male figure with either their trademark weapon in their hand or some sort of weapon in general. They were stoic and emotionless in nature and in some sort of action pose. This was surprising…and yet it wasn’t. It was surprising because I never noticed it before (and neither did fellow writer Daniel who I took with me). It was actually difficult to find a game that didn’t have a male on the cover holding a weapon, aside from family/children games (ex. Sonic Generations) or major franchises that rarely used that type of marketing tool (ex. Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim). There were few females on the covers themselves unless they were either the main character (Final Fantasy XIII-2) or as a side character. And even then, the female was behind the male character or smaller in the background, and they were still holding weapons. The “boy” games on the Xbox 360 were the same as on the PlayStation 3 side.
Now to the “girl” games. Surprisingly (#sarcasm), there were few games marketed towards the female demographic. In the console gaming section, there was a lack of “girl” games, whatever that means. Cover art is what draws the attention, and the colors that were used for “girl” games were clearly girly. Lots of pinks, purples, light blues, basically pastel colors. Personally, I hate the color pink, so some marketers are failing in their mission to get me to buy their fluffy bright colored game. When it comes to “girl” games, they seem to be lumped in with the family/children type games like Sonic, Mario, or Cooking Mama. There are sooo many bright colors with all of these games, as opposed to the “boy” games where it is mainly black and white with so much detail. There was a lot less cartoony looking characters on the covers of the “boy” games as opposed to the “girl”/family/children games. Everyone was smiling on these covers too, something that was lacking in the manlier games. The different consoles do have different markets, although Nintendo is trying its best to move into the adult gaming world with ZombiU and Bayonetta 2 being released for the Wii U. But for the most part, Nintendo is a family friendly system and the games to reflect that. So many of the titles that I found for “girls” were on a Nintendo system, mainly the Nintendo DS or 3DS. Some of the games include imagine babyz, Nintendogs, Cooking Mama, and Charm Girls Club: My Fashion Show. All of these games either had something cute related or something that is stereotypical of the female gender, especially the imagine series. Few of these games made it onto a console, so does that mean girls do not like to play on an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 and would much rather play with a handheld Nintendo product? It looks that way but there is an exception…
Dancing games like Just Dance or Dance Central are clearly marketed as “girl” games. Just look at the cover of the latest Just Dance 4:
Who is at the head? A female. Who is smaller or in the background? A male. No weapons unless you count your body as a weapon. This is a shift from the norm of male heads with weapons, but is that necessarily a good thing? Granted the motion capturing games haven’t exactly been the best for some consoles…but that’s beside the point! It can be a transitional game from handheld to the consoles for girls, although the marketing on the cover still leaves an icky taste in my mouth. Short skirts, lots of skin, seductive poses…So games that girls should play on the major consoles involve moving their whole body instead of just their fingers on a controller like a normal person?
There were a couple major titles that were thankfully unisex. There was either an absence of gender (still with weapon) or the cover had no person at all. The colors of both of these titles were unisex in nature as well, so anyone could pick them up and be interested in playing them. Those titles were Portal 2 and Pokémon (I will refer to the entire franchise as a whole, since every cover art is essentially the same). Although Portal has only had two games, the marketing on the front leaves the player, both males and females, interested in it. Anyone who has played the Portal games knows that you are a female solving the puzzles with your trusty portal gun. This aspect of the game was unknown to the player until they actually played the game. Yet, the game was widely successful, warranted a sequel, and introduced us to a new iconic enemy: GLaDOS (voiced by a female, how ‘bout that?). Portal 2, on the other hand, did feature their heroine on the cover so you knew straight up what gender the character was. Why this was necessary to add I have no idea. Either way, the Portal games are innovative and fun for everyone, regardless what gender you fall into.
As for Pokémon, this franchise has evolved throughout the years. The concept of gender was first introduced in Pokémon Gold and Silver when the Pokémon were given a gender. Although there were some Pokémon that were given a gender in first generation (Nidroran) and some were suggested to only be one gender (Kangaskhan or Jynx), we did not know the gender of the rest of them. But aside from that introduction, the cover art of the games had not changed in the least bit. Yeah, the names and Pokémon changed, but the covers remained exactly in the same format. Pokémon Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow had Charizard, Blastoise, Venasaur, and Pikachu in the cover (no people or gender specific colors in sight). Pokémon Gold, Silver and Crystal had Ho-Oh, Lugia, and Suicune (still no gender specificity here). Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald had Grou…I think you get the idea. Granted, the purpose of the game is to catch little creatures to train, battle, and love unconditionally, so the idea of having a person on the cover seems odd, let alone gendered. It just goes to show that the Pokémon franchise has kept their model for marketing and it has been successful ever since. And it appeals to both males and females, so that’s a plus.
Can you tell what gender should play this game? Me neither.
All of this was just a quick analysis of the cover art. I did not even dive into the game-play of some of these games yet. While my adventure answered some of my questions, more questions arose. Why animals and cute things with girls? Don’t boys like animals too? Does the cover art of games change from generation to generation (ex. from PlayStation One to PlayStation 3 or NES to Nintendo Wii U)? Does the type of game matter with the cover art (FPS, fighting, RPG, etc.)? Do American games differ from Japanese games?
Is it even possible to market a game that the male demographic love to the female demographic and vice versa? Should game developers even market towards the genders, or study up and market towards a more unisex audience? Is it the marketing that is turning off some of the demographics…or is it the players?
These questions and more will be answered in the upcoming The Gamer Girl articles. But what do you think?
Like this Article? Share it!
So, there are a couple things I want to address in this article because I found it a bit scattered in some areas. There seems to be some equivocation between sex and gender, and I am not entirely convinced by the argument which makes its main appeal to cover art. Further, it does not really address the difference between “boy” and “girl” games on a deeper level; the analysis is just as superficial as it would imply it is against.
First, there is a distinction between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological, primary sex characteristics of an individual which designates them as male or female (for instance, a Pokemon Gold/Silver introduced Pokemon sex. Not gender.). Gender refers to the personal and societal construct which make up a person’s masculine/feminine identity (such as man or woman, boy or girl, or even gender-queer). It seems like a minute point until you begin talking about “unisex games.” How exactly can a game be unisex? Artistic mediums are not like bathrooms; a bathroom is designed to contour to the specific needs of a particular sex (hence, why male restrooms have urinals), and art is concerned with attempting to portray a message or provide some sort of fantastical relief. Portal 2 is no more unisex than Escargot is appetizing. Sure, it does not have some big burly man with an AK-92 Fully Automatic Assault Carbine from Odin in both hands, nor does it have Jessica Simpson channeling Marilyn Monroe by way of Pamela Anderson on it, but does that mean it is a game intended for both genders?
This is the big problem: you do not really define what a “boy” game and a “girl” game actually is. Instead, you take a look at the cover art and go through a checklist: Is there a boy on the cover? Is there an obvious lack of pink or bright colors? If yes, boy. If not, girl. Frankly, it is not that simple. For instance, “Dance Central,” under your guidelines is clearly *not* marketed as a girl game. There is a boy and there is a girl, both dancing, both happy, both under strobe lights. Is the girl wearing a skirt? Yes. Is this atypical of what one would find someone wearing at a dance club, which is what the atmosphere wants to prime to the audience? No. No it’s not. The same could be said of Just Dance 1-4: the poses and clothing are reminiscent of what the game is trying to portray, that being “bright light, electronic disco, grind party.” The games are not technically girl games, they are more just reinforcing other themes in society which I think would be fair to label as overall negative. Referring to the game itself, however, as a “girl” game just doesn’t really fit.
Using cover art as the main definition is often misleading for other reasons as well. Are Wet or Tomb Raider girl games? What about Beyond Good and Evil? Fallen Enchantress? Amy? Okay, those might not be fair because they do not have the shiny colors that define “girl games” (apparently). What about the arcade-style shooter Bleed? How about one of the going on thousand JRPGs that have a female characters on the front with pretty colors everywhere? Are those “girl games?” I think I’ve hammered it enough, but the point is that cover art does not follow universal rules, and to try and use it as a guide without properly defining what a “girl game” and a “boy game” is just turns out to be so much vegemite.
I doubt many people would look at Barbie: Summer Dream Castle 5 and think, “my son would love this game!” though I’m sure there are some who will. With that said, there are plenty of men who bought Cooking Mama, and I’m willing to bet the majority of people who play it are men. I think I know what you’re trying to call these games, but they’re not boy and girl differentials. The problem lays in how games about cooking feature a woman, or how games about violence feature unrealistically chiseled Adonnises from the Acropolis.
The games are just sexist.
I will admit that this analysis on just the cover art was very surface level and did not have any sort of deeper meaning to it. The idea for that is saved for a later piece of this column, although I will admit that not defining my terms completely could have caused some confusion or be misleading in some way. The cover art was merely the first analysis and I am in no way (at least I intended not to) saying that the game is entirely boy or girl marketed. The point I was making about the cover art was that this is the first thing that people see, so when it comes to marketing, people would make the cover art to appeal to certain types of audiences.
Now there are exceptions to the rule, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that all titles with pinks, purples, and all those colors are for "girls" and the shoot 'em ups are for "boys". But when a person without any knowledge of a game walks in and they look at certain titles, certain genders tend to gravitate towards one type or another. Societal influence in these colors? Perhaps. A deeper psychological impulse towards these colors? Maybe. That sort of analysis merits further investigation that I intend to do in later columns.
This little observation as I would really call it was just the beginning to something greater when it comes to gender and marketing a video games towards a certain audience. With the definitions defined and the games analyzed deeper than just the cover art, I'm sure I can uncover so much.
Your comments are greatly appreciated, by the way. The criticism you had for my article was inspirational.
I think that's a fair point, and thank you for remaining cordial. It seems small, but this is a gaming website so normally I'm prepared for the rush of "no you" or "I don't see you writing anything better" or "stfu." Apologies if I seemed antagonistic. As well, I think the idea of cover-art cuts across a few different ideas; it's meant to appeal to certain audiences, but it's also used to portray certain motifs about the IP. It's the difference between Leisure Suit Larry's cover and The Force Unleashed's cover.
Certainly, genders tend to migrate toward iconic colors though I'd be hesitant to call it a deep psychological impulse. Or maybe it's a matter of conditioning in which case that may be appropriate. I don't know if Psychology honestly knows. Even so, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. Hopefully it fosters greater discussion over the medium, and can craft a dialogue about gender, sexuality, and artistic choice in relation to those two.
Best.
absolutely sickening