What Women Gamers Can Learn from Women's Hockey...
I saw this little article on Wired this morning. It's good in that it draws some attention to tensions in the girl-gamers movement. I'm particularly interested in it because of the links between involvement in the game industry, and playing games. Those that play make. Boys and girls like playing in more than one way. Let me re-iterate on that point. Boys and girls both like playing in more than one way. The demand for a game to "appeal to all women," is simply ridiculous. There is no real need for it to be the case. The tension is not between violence/non-violence, hunting/gathering, or some other binary. What (dis/en)ables women playing is any sort of argument which dictates to women the kind of games they ought/not like.
So, what can the girl games movement learn from Women's Hockey?
Quoted from the USA Hockey Site:
"Since the 1992-93 season, when just over 10,000 girls or women registered with USA Hockey, the sport has enjoyed great growth spurts. As of May 28, 2003, the number of girls ranging from the 10-and-under division, through the many adult leagues, had grown in just over 15 years to 48,483 registered members. All ages saw steady increases, including the near doubling of adults between '97-98 and '03-04, but the most remarkable growth can be seen at the 10-and-under level, which has added nearly 3,000 players since '01-02."
No matter how problematic, pretend for a moment that hockey is a sport largely dominated by men. A Quake or FPS of the sports world, a game not 'intended' for female consumption. What is the biggest difference between men's and women's' hockey? The substitution of 'body contact' instead of 'body checking.' Some minor modifications in rules was enough to make the sport available to women. The primary difference concerns the motion of players, and the involvement of the puck in the play. For lack of a better source, here is what NBC's Olympic site lists as the IIHF's definition of 'body contact.' The point is, only minor modifications were necessary to open a sport to women. What is the difference which makes a difference? Mass. When it comes to mass, there is often a difference which makes a difference in being able to receive and deliver body checks. For reference, most non-checking recreational hockey uses similar rules.
The point is not how to design games which appeal innately to women, or how to design games which assume there are no differences between men and women. Women can play male games, but we ought not expect that this is their only option. This kind of opositional consciousness isn't something we can ask every woman to embody. We ought to be asking if games can games be designed in such a way that the differences result in better play? Or that the differences are made reasonable by the rules/play?
So, what can the girl games movement learn from Women's Hockey?
Quoted from the USA Hockey Site:
"Since the 1992-93 season, when just over 10,000 girls or women registered with USA Hockey, the sport has enjoyed great growth spurts. As of May 28, 2003, the number of girls ranging from the 10-and-under division, through the many adult leagues, had grown in just over 15 years to 48,483 registered members. All ages saw steady increases, including the near doubling of adults between '97-98 and '03-04, but the most remarkable growth can be seen at the 10-and-under level, which has added nearly 3,000 players since '01-02."
No matter how problematic, pretend for a moment that hockey is a sport largely dominated by men. A Quake or FPS of the sports world, a game not 'intended' for female consumption. What is the biggest difference between men's and women's' hockey? The substitution of 'body contact' instead of 'body checking.' Some minor modifications in rules was enough to make the sport available to women. The primary difference concerns the motion of players, and the involvement of the puck in the play. For lack of a better source, here is what NBC's Olympic site lists as the IIHF's definition of 'body contact.' The point is, only minor modifications were necessary to open a sport to women. What is the difference which makes a difference? Mass. When it comes to mass, there is often a difference which makes a difference in being able to receive and deliver body checks. For reference, most non-checking recreational hockey uses similar rules.
The point is not how to design games which appeal innately to women, or how to design games which assume there are no differences between men and women. Women can play male games, but we ought not expect that this is their only option. This kind of opositional consciousness isn't something we can ask every woman to embody. We ought to be asking if games can games be designed in such a way that the differences result in better play? Or that the differences are made reasonable by the rules/play?
posted by Casey at
3/06/2006 02:42:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home