Are 2D Games Harming Girls' Job Prospects?
I spotted this study which suggests girls prefer 2D games (and boys, 3D games) this morning courtesy games theorist Ian Bogost and thought I'd mention it because the distinction's been following me around lately when I stop to reflect on what I've been playing and why.
Unfortunately I can't get at the original paper because it's behind virtual chains and locks, but in it, the study's author Tina R. Ziemek asks the question: "Are there repercussions from 3D graphics being used in the majority of current video games?" And of course, the answer is yes, there are. Ziemek tests and finds that for reasons which derive from "ease of control," 3D games are more diversely challenging than 2D ones.
From Ziemek's abstract:
Over the course of two weeks participants took part in a study to assess whether 2D and 3D video games attract females and males differently... Results indicate that if an electronic game is to appeal to the majority of female players, the game should be 2D, easy, and fun; if the game is to appeal to the majority of male players, the game should be 3D, challenging, and fun.
Here's Bogost's scrape from the body of the study itself:
Results indicate that 2D electronic games are easier than 3D electronic games for both females and males, and the majority of females would rather play games that are "easy" while the majority of males would rather play games that are "challenging". Females tended not to like the confusion in the 3D video games, whether it was unclear directions, objectives, camera perspectives, or not knowing how to control the character. Females may also prefer games that have dreamlike graphics to games with realistic graphics. Results also point toward a steeper learning curve for females when playing a 3D game than a 2D game.
What are the implications of this 2D-3D gap if Ziemek's research is accurate? I wonder. We know girls don't play Barbie because of some inbuilt genetic trigger any more than boys come hardwired not to with superior spatial hand-eye coordination[1]. And yet, allowing for bell curve exceptions, we all know who Mattel's targeting when it trots out "Barbie: The Island Princess" as opposed to stuff like Hasbro's "Transformers Optimus Prime Voice Changer Helmet." We take the form, at least in part, of what we're socialized to be.
Think about what that means. Increasingly, gaming is cited as an impetus for complex professional skill acquisition. It may affect everything from your ability to fly an F-22 Raptor, to your proficiency carrying out hands-on laparoscopic techniques, to your dexterity manipulating the latest "touch-free" medical tools that include manipulating robotic arms and effectively "3D video gaming" your way through an actual surgical procedure.
Are we unwittingly socializing gameplay skills that could impact the ability of our sons and daughters to compete on a level playing field in their professional careers?
[1] Correction: It turns out that on average, they do, which actually reinforces this post's central thesis, that we may be unwittingly reinforcing one gender's aptitude in terms of spatial ability, while simultaneously enervating another's.
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
Matt Peckham writes a nice article with one central logical hole: "...we know girls don't play Barbie because of some inbuilt genetic trigger any more than boys come hardwired with superior spatial hand-eye coordination..."
This is politically correct, but I challenge that we "know" no such thing. All of the rest of your arguments MUST be suspect when based on such a flimsy foundation.
If you have data to support such "knowledge" please offer it. You have weakened an otherwise strong article by jumping to a conclusion that is FAR from certain.
I suspect you're under 30 and surrounded by like-minded idealists to still be blindly clinging to the notion that socialization accounts for the majority of difference between males and females. That's OK...just recognize that it's a blind spot.
I like you're reference to the Bell Curve. Yes! There is a range for all skills and behaviors. But the curves do not necessarily match for both genders for all skills.
zenkutsu64 has a valid point. Try googling "gender differences spatial reasoning" and look at the list of scholarly articles that appear, many of which support the basic premise that gender based distinctions are real and not due primarily to socialization. And next time please read the paper before excerpting from the abstract. I realize it takes about 6 keyclicks and a few dollars, but your concerns and commentary would be much more believable and potentially more valid.
I wouldn't worry about being "PC" if the peer-reviewed science/evidence supports this or that argument, zenkutsu64, but value judgments aside, everything I've read in these areas in sociology journals et al. supports my casual reference to the ways in which males and females are socialized in the U.S. Sadly we don't have the space to engage that deeply here, but let's not get lost in existential nonsense about what we do or don't "know" as a means of dismissing an argument.
Of course the consensus studies don't absolutely prove anything...any more than we "know" absolutely that the sun's going to rise tomorrow. We certainly *do* know enough about socialization to identify reliable, predictive patterns that among other things facilitate sophisticated marketing campaigns that in broad terms quite clearly work. There's a reason companies run toy ads on Saturday mornings. Likewise, a reason Barbie ads run during some shows and G.I. Joe ads during others. It's not all blind accident.
HS, you're both creating a straw man here. I never once said (as zenkutsu64 implies I did) that "socialization accounts for the majority of difference between males and females." Studies, of course, suggest that socialization has a lot to do with, for instance, consumption, and that's all I was referring to with the Barbie / G.I. Joe reference.
I think you're both losing the actual point in your reading of an argument I think the post prima facie isn't making.
Peckham writes:
"We know girls don't play Barbie because of some inbuilt genetic trigger any more than boys come hardwired with superior spatial hand-eye coordination."
From what source do you derive that theory? Most research indicates that males do indeed possess superior spatial ability on average, and that the ability is governed in significant part by physiological features of the male brain that differ from those of the female brain.
See my correction.
Matt, I think your correction (and the speed with which you made it) is impressive.
I think you all are retards for arguing over something so stupid. You all are turning this into some sort of "me man, you woman" debate. Everyone knows both sides lose in that one. So dont start it. Grow up. (Jokingly) Oh and lets remember, unless you are all rapists, men dont get any if the women dont want any, so stop saying stuff about them. One day there might be a revolution and you will all regret ever saying what you said today.
and by "you all" i mean the guy/girl who wrote whatever you are talking about.
as well as you guys.
Well actually Yuffie, we're talking about what I wrote, which asks the question, seriously and not at all flippantly, whether what we play impacts what we excel at in our professional lives (in particular, where it involves things like medical or military technology).
I think it's a fair question.