How come mostly only guys play Paradox Games/grand strategy?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Seriously? Just because there's some exceptions you think it's the other way around and there's no basis in what everyone's saying here? No one's saying there aren't girls playing Paradox Games or they shouldn't play, they paid for it, they can play the hell out of anything. But come on, do you really think it's even close to 10%? I'd bet it's not even 5% and it's a common trend, maybe in 10 years it could be 30/70 or 40/60, but that's the way it is now.

Edit: Yes, let's ban each one of them, because that's exactly what we're discussing here.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Seriously? Just because there's some exceptions you think it's the other way around and there's no basis in what everyone's saying here? No one's saying there aren't girls playing Paradox Games or they shouldn't play, they paid for it, they can play the hell out of anything. But come on, do you really think it's even close to 10%? I'd bet it's not even 5% and it's a common trend, maybe in 10 years it could be 30/70 or 40/60, but that's the way it is now.

Bold mine.

In those sentences you just demonstrated yourself that there is literally no basis to what you are saying. Willingness to bet is not a valid way of determining facts. Ask any gambler, they can confirm.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I was commenting on the generalizations being made in this thread, that are inaccurate.

Generalizations based on the word "mostly"? Mostly implies that isn't a generalization or am I wrong here?

Bold mine.

In those sentences you just demonstrated yourself that there is literally no basis to what you are saying. Willingness to bet is not a valid way of determining facts. Ask any gambler, they can confirm.

How does one phrase relate to the other? In one sentence I was talking about every contribution in this thread so far that implies that the composition of women playing Paradox games is low, while in the other I just made a bet by my assumption, not by anyone else here.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Generalizations based on the word "mostly"? Mostly implies that isn't a generalization or am I wrong here?



How does one phrase relate to the other? In one sentence I was talking about every contribution in this thread so far that implies that the composition of women playing Paradox games is low, while in the other I just made a bet by my assumption, not by anyone else here.

1. "Mostly" is the word people use to thinly disguise the fact that they are making huge generalisations based on nothing.

2. They relate because they deal with the same subject. In one sentence you ask why presume that opinions here have no basis. And then you go on to claim that this figure is probably not even 5%, but you don't give any facts, only the phrase "I'd bet".

Although, I give you that this isn't a particulary scientific thread and nobody has actually come up with statistics or studies to prove either case, only personal experience which doesn't in and of itself, tell much of the bigger picture.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
At no point have we actually established that women are less likely to play strategy games (or games in general - a claim also made in the thread that unlike the strategy game assertion isn't supported by the evidence) - we only have the evidence that 98 per cent of the viewers of Adonnus' vid were male. This is far, far too small a sample, not to mention far from a balanced, randomised sample, to draw any conclusions.

And then we have the many normative assertions about "women's" behaviour, many of which were incredibly and patronising and misguided (I'm not picking out examples here as to not specifically aggravate anyone). Women, like men, have a huge range of interests, motivations and hobbies.

Starting with games more broadly (which some in this thread have asserted women aren't as interested in as men), multiple studies have shown women making up a larger proportion of all gamers than men, and even the studies that don't have them in the majority, have them very close to 50 per cent. The assertion that women are significantly less likely to play games than men is not borne out in the available data. Rather, it is an assertion based on individual experience. As many have noted, this is often misleading, as many women prefer not to disclose their gender when gaming online because of the way they get treated if the do.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ople-playing-games-women-industry-doesnt-know

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gaming-no-longer-a-mans-world-1408464249

http://www.igea.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/IA9-Interactive-Australia-2009-Full-Report.pdf

As for strategy games, the research I could find supports the argument that it is the case that women, more broadly, are drawn to different genres than men (although there are overlaps), and that strategy is one of the genres that tends to be less appealing to women, but this doesn't mean that there are no women playing it. I've just done some quick googling, but based on iOS gaming, around 20 per cent of strategy gamers on iOS are female (http://blog.apptopia.com/game-demographics-that-every-developer-should-know/). I know iOS strategy games are a pale shadow of the stuff we all play, but there's a reasonable chance it's broadly indicative. Another study pointing towards a male bias in strategy game audiences is http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/141/videogames.asp (noting that it found that 47 per cent of females played violent games, so while it was less than males, it's hardly a negligible proportion).

In answer to the OP, the Wichita University study is probably the best read, but none of the stuff I could find categorically explains why women are less likely to play strategy games - but things like 'guilt while playing' would mean a tendency towards games with shorter durations, as would a tendency to prefer playing on console or handheld, where strategy gaming (as we understand it - I'm not talking CCGs or Pokemon-style games) is less prominent. I'd expect that differences in socialisation and possibly biology may give mean women are more likely to have interests in other areas ahead of strategy games. That said, I'd still expect that there's a decent proportion of women playing PDS titles, but that like in other genres, they generally keep their heads down and gender to themselves because of the nature of the internet.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most strategy gamers play single player, and most never come to the forums, so individual responses to a forum thread on the issue are unlikely to be representative.
 
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
I find that Wichita study interesting as it confirms my ass pulled argument. Males are the majority in PC and Strategy, and perhaps most importantly, consider themselves experts a lot more than women do. That perhaps could be interpreted as more willing to play games with steeper learning curve, requiring them to be 'experts', such as paradox games.
 
I find that Wichita study interesting as it confirms my ass pulled argument. Males are the majority in PC and Strategy, and perhaps most importantly, consider themselves experts a lot more than women do. That perhaps could be interpreted as more willing to play games with steeper learning curve, requiring them to be 'experts', such as paradox games.

It was a very small sample (<500 people) of which < 100 were female, that does not confirm anything. Further the study makes "expert" seem like a duration of time not ability. Also if it is by ability, then we need a study to find our if women are more humble then men.
 
It was a very small sample (<500 people) of which < 100 were female, that does not confirm anything. Further the study makes "expert" seem like a duration of time not ability. Also if it is by ability, then we need a study to find our if women are more humble then men.

Confirms as in "corroborates", not in the sense of "makes it fact". If it were 10,000 women, it still wouldn't be a fact, just a stronger statement. And learning curves are indeed about time dedication, not skill.
 
My video's got 6,000 views so even if the margin of error was 10% or something the male viewership would still be overwhelmingly large, and even if the true figure of female Paradox gamers was something like 10-20% it'd still be pretty small.

The reason I mentioned a possible lack of interest by women into these games is that there are no/few women in them in important positions, and as a result they might feel unrepresented and as a result disinterested. Would you really have the same interest is 98% of the faction leaders or whatever were female, engaged in stereo typically "female" pursuits as opposed to "male" pursuits like war? (I wouldn't - just because I feel less represented...)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Girls were not into computers at all initially, it was a 'guy thing'. Now there are girls wowwing and lolling and counterstriking and what have you.

It's only a matter of time for the gender stereotypes to catch up. That is all.
It's not like grand strategy is a very mainstream thing to begin with.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Why would they want to, as in this thread, we've already learned that women are only causal gamers, all grand strategy games are only played by nerds, women won't do nerdy things and Pdx games aren't challenging for women...

As for agewise, this forum does have a very diverse age of members.
It does, but more diversity is always possible. As for the others, yes, I also felt like some people went a bit too far generalizing, but that was the reason for which I would like to heard from a women that has interest and that might be able to give a more diverse picture of it, alternatively disconfirm what has been said.
 
Men and women are different. Biologically different, contrary to what the SJW and PC team want you to believe.

I find that Wichita study interesting as it confirms my ass pulled argument. Males are the majority in PC and Strategy, and perhaps most importantly, consider themselves experts a lot more than women do. That perhaps could be interpreted as more willing to play games with steeper learning curve, requiring them to be 'experts', such as paradox games.

Girls don't play this kind of games because they're not inclined to do so, not because they feel inferior because of the patriarchy or some other BS.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Men and women are different. Biologically different, contrary to what the SJW and PC team want you to believe.

Psychologically (which is what's relevant for gaming), the within-group differences are greater by orders of magnitude, compared to the between-group differences.
 
I've yet to meet a woman who had any real interest in history.

I might be biased or happened to 'inherit' my historical interest to women as: my mum was very keen of Greek mythology and I managed to read all "kids"(basic) books on that stuff before even going to primary school, my grandmother from my father's side has one of the most impressive private collection of history books and I have two aunts, one from each side, who have written history books, mostly modern stuff, some of which are still taught in high schools and finally my father's sister studied history but never practiced anything of the sort - the interest remains though. My dad is mostly concerned about present and future and avoids any discussion about history unless it's the 2000s (although his father loved history of all sorts). So most of my interest in history, which is huge, comes from the females of my family.

And back in school, as it was a rather boring subject for most boys unless it was WW2 related, it was girls who did best, as they tend to do much better at theoretical stuff than boys where I come from. Military history is probably one of the few subjects were women don't have as much interest, but dynasty historical stuff which may coexist with military history in some aspects, is something I've seen women be obsessed with.

As for the CK series, I'm pretty sure that it could be 'sold' to female gamers very easily as it has an appeal that seems interesting to them in terms of the historical background.

And obviously to those with sensitive triggers on everything, we're discussing a general issue so specific example of women who love video games and play grand strategy kind of games obviously exist but they are in a small minority. That's actually the topic of discussion, no one is dissing women saying they suck at gaming or anything, it's just how "western" society is brought up. Most female gamers I know are "rebels" and half of them spent lots of their teens years as 'goth' or 'emo' or whatever what they were doing was called. It doesn't mean this applies to all, but in the geographic region I've brought up, this was the norm for female PC gamers and any other girl who played PC games was an exception to the rule.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My video's got 6,000 views so even if the margin of error was 10% or something the male viewership would still be overwhelmingly large, and even if the true figure of female Paradox gamers was something like 10-20% it'd still be pretty small.

The reason I mentioned a possible lack of interest by women into these games is that there are no/few women in them in important positions, and as a result they might feel unrepresented and as a result disinterested. Would you really have the same interest is 98% of the faction leaders or whatever were female, engaged in stereo typically "female" pursuits as opposed to "male" pursuits like war? (I wouldn't - just because I feel less represented...)

Aye, but even then we're talking viewership, rather than actually playing. It may be that women are less likely to watch videos and more likely to actually play the game (taking sport as an example, you may well find the gender ratios of people playing a certain sport don't match those watching it). Not having a go at your vid, and it's definitely a good starting point for a discussion :). It's just not really strong evidence, and more just a 'thought starter'.

I think this Cracked article was an interesting read: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-lessons-from-1970s-female-programmer/

Cheers for the read, it was indeed :).

Yes but the between-group differences explain why statistically there are much less women who play historical grand strategy games, even if you can find women into it and men who are not into it.

The point is : http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2000-07043-000

I think recognising differences at the group level is important, but that it's even more important not to use these differences to judge individually, given the variance within particular groups. I also think that, as a species, we still don't particularly well understand the nature of these differences (beyond the really obvious ones - ie, blokes can't get pregnant), and that we also don't particularly well understand the difference between nature and nurture in forming people's interests and hobbies - much of the (assumed) difference in size between male/female audiences for PDS games could be because of the way men and women are socialised differently as children.

What does this mean for Paradox? If they can determine that the difference is due to socialisation, then they should start lobbying for different socialisation practices to increase their audience size in 15-20 years time :).
 
In theory, of course the answer is obvious, "only guys like that kind of stuff." But why is that I've wondered? This question occurred to me after I saw the viewership statistics for a video I made about Hearts of Iron IV, 98% male. Hmmm... I wonder why it is? Maybe because history is mostly dominated by male figures...? Maybe this isn't true, but it is what I have so far observed.

Well, the male figure is extremely high, but I think the reasons are:

1. In general terms males are more interested by history than women. I dont think that has much to see with males being dominant in history.
2. Again in general terms, males are more interested in video games than women.
3. And, again in general terms, males are more interested than women in war and wargames.

So, it is natural that you got 98% males.

PS. Concluding. Your figure reveals different interests among males and females. Nothing we didnt already know.

PS 2. By video games I meant PC video games.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions: