Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

quanticfoundry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#41

Post by [deleted] »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #12
shubb wrote: post #2

The choice of graph here is really bad. Basically the graph is trying to show two things at once - the difference between the categories and the difference between each category and normal. For multiple variables. By showing a lot of information on one graph, it becomes hard to see any particular pieceof information. If you are trying to show a comparison between two categories, it's better to normalise those two cat…

I honestly don't understand what they are plotting: > So for example, the 74th-%tile in Competition among Hardcore gamers means that the average Hardcore gamer scores higher on Competition than 74% of the gamers in the full data set. But together casual and core make up 78 % of the sample, so that the some hardcore gamers must have scores lower than the "hardcore average". Those hardcore gamers only make up 4% of the…

[deleted]

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#42

Post by bytematic »

I've played almost every competitive pc game in the last decade and I've never came across one where when a female voice gets on the mic, the atmosphere of the game doesn't change. Not every individual match of course but dam, I would NOT want to be a female online gamer. Seperate note: I've been to LANs and the mood is quite different, it is unfortunate to see the gender divide and most competitive (semi-pro at least) guys really want to see that scene improve.

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#43

Post by ekiru »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #12
shubb wrote: post #2

The choice of graph here is really bad. Basically the graph is trying to show two things at once - the difference between the categories and the difference between each category and normal. For multiple variables. By showing a lot of information on one graph, it becomes hard to see any particular pieceof information. If you are trying to show a comparison between two categories, it's better to normalise those two cat…

I honestly don't understand what they are plotting: > So for example, the 74th-%tile in Competition among Hardcore gamers means that the average Hardcore gamer scores higher on Competition than 74% of the gamers in the full data set. But together casual and core make up 78 % of the sample, so that the some hardcore gamers must have scores lower than the "hardcore average". Those hardcore gamers only make up 4% of the…

Aren't you assuming (probably incorrectly) that all hardcore gamers rated Competition more highly than all core/casual gamers?

I'm not sure how much less weird allowing for that makes things, but your reasoning for concluding that hardcore gamers with lower Competition scores than the hardcore average make up only 4% of the sample isn't valid.

For example, if half of the hardcore gamers (around 10.5% of the sample) are above the hardcore average and half below, that would put about 81% of the nonhardcore gamers (about 63.5% of the full sample) below the hardcore average and the rest above (about 19% of the full sample).

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#44

Post by beat »

emaginniss wrote: post #20
beat wrote: post #16

Makes me think of my home... my son is a "hardcore gamer", by anyone's definition. He doesn't recognize his mother as a gamer at all, despite her spending 10-20 hours/week gaming. She's mostly doing puzzle games on her iPad, so that's not "real gaming". So there's a fair bit of gender and cultural bias in the very idea of "gamer". I don't play video games, myself, for the same reason I don't shoot heroin directly int…

"I don't shoot heroin directly into my eyeballs" casual...

A few years ago, I had a medical problem (retinal vein occlusion) that had to be treated for a while with monthly injections directly into my eye. The drug used (Avastin) was originally developed for colon cancer treatment - it prevents the regrowth of tiny veins, which leads to a lot of very interesting uses.

So the day of my first injection, I went to a Rolling Stones concert with my spouse. And I don't care what sort of hardcore Keith Richards is, I'm pretty sure he wasn't shooting chemotherapy drugs directly into his eyeball before the concert!

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#45

Post by beat »

Nadya wrote: post #33
beat wrote: post #16

Makes me think of my home... my son is a "hardcore gamer", by anyone's definition. He doesn't recognize his mother as a gamer at all, despite her spending 10-20 hours/week gaming. She's mostly doing puzzle games on her iPad, so that's not "real gaming". So there's a fair bit of gender and cultural bias in the very idea of "gamer". I don't play video games, myself, for the same reason I don't shoot heroin directly int…

>despite her spending 10-20 hours/week gaming Pardon the wall of text here... I typically spend 40+ hours/week gaming. Literally a 2nd job. However, I don't even consider the time spent gaming in my definition of "hardcore" gamer. There are people who play 80+ hours/week that I would consider "casual" gamers by definition of how they play. They see games mostly as a way to kill time and might identify the activity wi…

Aren't all hobbies just time-killing activities, though? Is obsessiveness (or worse, the technique of obsessiveness) a useful measurement?

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#46

Post by arkh »

ergothus wrote: post #39
arkh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own experience feels different than yours like how friendship is different in some areas. In the good community games usually things are not deep: people are nice but no one will really risk anything or inconvenience themselves for you. In more "hardcore" games where everyone can be hostile and gain to fuck with you, finding people who help other has a lot more meaning. I'm used to play with a guild in multiple Pv…

> If everyone is nice, no one really is. ...this sounds incredibly messed up. The good people might be harder to find in a nice crowd, but the experience of finding them is much nicer. I can see how a friendship forged in the face of assholes would feel stronger, but I dont think it would necessarily BE a better friendship. Way too easy to be bound with someone that is just LESS of an ass. This sounds like "yay Stock…

Not really Stockholm syndrome.

GW2 (experienced at launch for 6 months): awesome game to create random groups as everyone gains from it. Hard to be an ass and you get nothing but maybe some sick joy from it. Honestly: I did not get any huge wholesome experience with anyone: get in zome event group, kill some NPC, do some WvW against anonymous people.

Darkfall Online: pure PvP game with player looting. Being a bad person was really rewarding. So it was always awesome to find legitimely good people and go kick some villains ass. Or help defend your neighbours city (who you're usually PKing all day and competing for mobz) against some other bigger imperialist. As being a PK give you something you get player killers. And if you enjoy playing the hero you just got ennemies with the same tools you have, non scripted and maybe smarter / better than you. Once you've experienced this kind of MMO it is hard to get the same highs from other games.

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#47

Post by belorn »

mabbo wrote: post #26

Setting aside the graph issues, the data is very interesting. Much of game development for the triple-A space seems aimed at the hardcore male gamer demographic, whether intentional or not. Could a studio instead build a game that focuses on entirely different categories and as a result attract a bigger market that isn't being addressed? Make a game that's fun, but focus on design, discovery, completion, fantasy. Don…

Game studios are already focusing on different target demographics, it just that people tend to not see it because when a product change target demographic it also tailors (in a market competition way) all other aspect of putting a product to market and successfully earning profit on it. Those changes also effect how game studios compete against each other, and major developers for one type might be a minor actor in the other.

Triple-A games and block buster action movies has very many similarities. A lot of focus is on first day sales with flashy and short term advertisement that get concentrated to compete against the competition that tries to do the same thing. For some reason the young male with disposable income is a core demographic for this kind of product. In contrast Candy crush, Facebook games, romantic comedy and drama movies share a different target demographic of middle age women. If I remember right then production for that demographic has surpassed that of triple-A, with mobile games being a massive industry.

Why does marketing when targeting for men or women differ? Why does the purchasing pattern differ. I don't know and there are movie and game studios that do try to target all gender and all age demographics with the same product, using a singe marketing style and single platform. Maybe that works but lets not forget that game studios that targeting other demographics than young male with disposable income really do exist. They just don't call themselves triple-A, just like how a romantic comedy don't usually get described as a block buster. If I make a guess I would say it has something to do with marketing.

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#48

Post by ergothus »

arkh wrote: post #46
ergothus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everyone is nice, no one really is. ...this sounds incredibly messed up. The good people might be harder to find in a nice crowd, but the experience of finding them is much nicer. I can see how a friendship forged in the face of assholes would feel stronger, but I dont think it would necessarily BE a better friendship. Way too easy to be bound with someone that is just LESS of an ass. This sounds like "yay Stock…

Not really Stockholm syndrome. GW2 (experienced at launch for 6 months): awesome game to create random groups as everyone gains from it. Hard to be an ass and you get nothing but maybe some sick joy from it. Honestly: I did not get any huge wholesome experience with anyone: get in zome event group, kill some NPC, do some WvW against anonymous people. Darkfall Online: pure PvP game with player looting. Being a bad per…

> Once you've experienced this kind of MMO it is hard to get the same highs from other games.

I really, truly, am trying to understand, so please bear with my slowness. I can see how it is really rewarding to find not-bad people in an environment that incentivizes really bad people. I don't see how that makes up for getting into such an environment in the first place, and certainly not why one would follow up the experience by seeking out similar environments.

People suck on average, so you want to give them every opportunity and incentive to demonstrate, so that you can find the "good" people? Note the selection bias - you're finding those people that are both NOT asshats but also interested in an environment that encourages asshats. Perhaps that's more rewarding than my habit of simply not having close friends at all, but it also seems far more punishing. Bland people can be exhausting, but evil people....they bring despair. To be in an environment that cranks up the frequency and demonstration of people getting joy from the misery of others...that sounds like a choice to endure needless pain and suffering.

[Pause for the irony of submitting that last sentence as part of an online discussion thread]

I just don't get it. Doubtless just a difference in personal tastes - perhaps someone being a jerk around me bothers me just a tiny bit more, and someone being nice around me thrills me just a tiny bit less - but emotionally I'm failing to wrap understanding around your stance.

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#49

Post by Nadya »

beat wrote: post #45
Nadya wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>despite her spending 10-20 hours/week gaming Pardon the wall of text here... I typically spend 40+ hours/week gaming. Literally a 2nd job. However, I don't even consider the time spent gaming in my definition of "hardcore" gamer. There are people who play 80+ hours/week that I would consider "casual" gamers by definition of how they play. They see games mostly as a way to kill time and might identify the activity wi…

Aren't all hobbies just time-killing activities, though? Is obsessiveness (or worse, the technique of obsessiveness) a useful measurement?

My issue is that since all hobbies are time-killing activities that time ceases to be a useful measure. The majority of people who spend 10,000 hours doing something eventually become skilled or knowledgeable at that thing - but not always. If you remain poorly skilled and not very knowledgeable on a thing after 10,000 hours I'm going to assume those hours were spent "casually" and not with a lot of focus to learn and improve. In my view, if you only casually spend your time doing something that makes you a casual by definition.

We use all sorts of labels that have an implied threshold before people will apply the label to another person. In your own words, what are the differences between a master pianist, a pianist, and someone who can play the Hot Cross Buns melody? Where do you draw the line between "translator" and "can translate a few sentences between two languages"? Is anyone capable of swinging a tennis racket a tennis player? Is an advocate for homeopathic treatments the same as a doctor? If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, if I said I handle high-frequency financial transactions for a well-known, international, multi-million dollar company is your first thought a cashier at a McDonalds?

For some reason gaming is somehow exempt in some people's minds. They apply the label so broadly that it may as well be meaningless.

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#50

Post by arkh »

ergothus wrote: post #48
arkh wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really Stockholm syndrome. GW2 (experienced at launch for 6 months): awesome game to create random groups as everyone gains from it. Hard to be an ass and you get nothing but maybe some sick joy from it. Honestly: I did not get any huge wholesome experience with anyone: get in zome event group, kill some NPC, do some WvW against anonymous people. Darkfall Online: pure PvP game with player looting. Being a bad per…

> Once you've experienced this kind of MMO it is hard to get the same highs from other games. I really, truly, am trying to understand, so please bear with my slowness. I can see how it is really rewarding to find not-bad people in an environment that incentivizes really bad people. I don't see how that makes up for getting into such an environment in the first place, and certainly not why one would follow up the exp…

> I just don't get it.

My opinion only, I'm sure other people playing those kind of games will have other motivations. Those games are fun because (and it goes with the article) there is competition against other humans. If you don't get any pleasure in competing I can understand those games will never appeal to you.

The fact you can lose your gear or loot to other players add more stake to fights: when you win your brain is flooded with natural drugs. When losing you have even more drive to get back to your opponent. Fighting against humans feels a lot more rewarding, and usually if you lose it is not because of "some bullshit game mechanic on this boss": it means you have to get better (at the fight part, getting gear part, the diplomacy part to have more people to bring etc.).

First time you get killed in those games is when you know if you'll stick or not: either you say "fuck anyone can come and steal my items", or you think "ok, if I can ambush this kind of person with 5 people, we could get free high level gear".

On an individual or small group basis, there are good benefits to play a bad guy so you see a lot of them. And I think this kind of environment foster deeper relationships: in the hate direction but also in the friendship direction. You get higher highs and lower lows. But the experience is rarely bland.

With MMOs you also get the inter-guild level and that's when politics, diplomacy, spying come into play. The best are grudges and alliances spanning more decades and multiple games. The funniest is when old guard guilds which hate each other end-up allying against new-comers kicking their ass.

You get some of those kind of stories with PvE only games but not as much. I may be wrong but I don't know of a lot of guild created in a PvE game spanning multiple games.

> evil people....they bring despair

Unless you're one of those putting an end to them.

Post reply on HN