So where is the data on the actual research. She gives credit to someone for the Research but where is the methodology, all that jazz?
This is why I get all my reviews from QT3.
I count 25 in February. Considering they only have 6 full-time staff, that’s a lot. They must rely heavily on freelancers.
I’m sure they do. I’m not sure what the numbers on this chart mean, then.
Responses from some of the outlets mentioned:
RPS editor-in-chief
The Guardian games editor
Kotaku writer
https://twitter.com/xoxogossipgita/status/977195775729065985
https://twitter.com/xoxogossipgita/status/977196465662590976
This sort of contextless journalism really annoys me. What “should” the numbers be? What representation does journalism as a whole have? Or players of the sorts of games reviewed by these sites? Or really any comparison to anything.
Note that I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be more equal, just that the numbers in isolation don’t tell me anything about how they’re doing. I am really asking “what would success look like”?
You can be sure that most if not all games have women playing it. This question makes no sense at all.
What’s your favorite scenario in The Operational Art of War?
I don’t represent all women, and you know that. This crazy idea that women only play some games is as old as you can get. Do you play 4000 games a year yourself?
That’s not what I intended to say. Are 50% of the players female? 70%? 30%? If, for the sake of argument, it’s 30%, then having 30% of their authors be female is at least representative of the community.
Please note that I’m not trying to say that that is the correct metric to use, simply that it would be one way of looking at it.
It’s almost 50% not 30. That’s from the ESA…
Now comes the arguments about they don’t play these xyz games like Miguk weakly tried.
Yea, but what’s your favorite way to brutalize monsters in Monster Hunter World? And which monsters in particular do you enjoy slaughtering the most?
I mean… when you can tear yourself away from Candy Crush and Kim Kardashian: Hollywood.
I’m certainly not saying that. I am saying that I would like them to include the numbers from that very study. All I’m asking for is context.
Edit: I worded my original post poorly, as usual. The point I was trying to make is that I think including a link to or mention of actual data such as the ESA study makes the point much stronger than a contextless drop of numbers.
Heh, is there a more manly weapon in that game than others? I am sure Miguk would try to say that doesn’t count because I am using the short one instead of the long one.
On more serious note:
Yeah I asked for that too. I just didn’t imply that any of these sites could weasel their way out of their stats by saying they don’t cover games women actually play. Women play ALL sorts of games.
And absolutely, their methodology matters, and yes women in higher roles should still count although you would hope with women higher/different roles, not content creator, would also lead to fair representation of women contributors to content… but you cannot assume that no matter what the tweet above says.
So we are in agreement, but even just based on another post here, you can see why I questioned that statement.
Ignoring percentile targets for a moment as they’re arbitrary, really you just want as diverse of representation as is reasonably possible without compromising your product’s quality one iota. Obviously you always hire the best person for the job, but at the same time you keep your eyes open for diverse applicants.
That’s absolutely not what I meant. I don’t think that’s what I actually said; however, I apologize for communicating my point badly. I agree that we’re saying the same thing (or trying to on my part.)
Wow, nice example of gatekeeping right out of the gate.
If the wider hobby looked like the demographics of ConsimWorld I would stop playing games immediately!
Keeping things classy!
I can’t decide if that’s the best or worst place for gatekeeping. Are we right out of the gate on the inside or the outside?