At the annual Game Developers Conference (GDC), the big games industry question that comes up every year is “how.” As in, "How is the game sausage made?" Topics like platforms, engines, and middleware dominate GDC's five days of panels, full of artists and programmers trying to make sense of how to get games running on as many devices and marketplaces as possible.
But in more recent years, the insider conference has locked eyes with another, more uncomfortable question: “who.” More specifically, who comprises the modern game-design demographic? What does that demographic look like?
Before Colleen Macklin, a game design professor at the New School at Parsons, began trying to answer that question during a GDC panel, she queued up some camcorder videos she had filmed during this year’s conference. “I’m going to let this loop as an ambient track during my talk, and you may begin to see some patterns,” she said.
The primary pattern was clumps of white men, gliding up and down escalators or meandering through GDC’s hallways, intersected every so often by a cluster of Asian men, a person of African descent, or a woman.
Despite years of growing GDC advocacy tracks that celebrate more diverse game makers, this demographic breakdown was still present at 2014's show, and it probably surprised nobody in the crowd. But for Macklin and the other diverse game makers and educators in attendance, simply asking “who” wasn’t good enough this year.
“We’re designers!” Macklin said. “We’re talking about systemic issues. Instead of saying how hard it is to create diversity, let’s create prototypes of a welcoming and diversified field. Let’s playtest them.”
The first such call came from the same panel. Titled #1reasontobe, the panel sought to carry the momentum of a 2012 Twitter conversation in which the game industry’s minorities spoke out on why they persevered in spite of hiring and attitude roadblocks. Interestingly, one of its most striking contributors this year confessed to a different attitude. 
Her father, a coder at Oracle, made sure his daughters had computer access at a young age, but he also did them one better: “Instead of resigning himself to the fact that a young, black, female protagonist might not come around for many years of gaming, he took the tools at his disposal and made this.” Scott gestured to an image of a 1997 Java-coded game her father made starring his daughter. “At five years old, I knew a black girl could be a character in games.”
Her childhood interest held up, and she now studies beneath game design legend Brenda Romero at UCSC. As a result, her call to action wasn’t for her young peers, but for the veterans who might be on the verge of leaving the profession. “Your calls to action are working,” she said. “But you have to stay. Your knowledge is valuable. We talk about minorities of women in gaming, but women veterans are just as rare. We need to study under the masters to hone our skill.”
“Post-White House, I’ve become an asshole”
Romero herself spoke at GDC’s annual Women in Gaming luncheon earlier the same day, where she was pressed for advice. For the most part, she stuck to gender-neutral tips, including the importance of public speaking, while other luncheon panelists took a more aggressive stance.
Former White House gaming czar Constance Steinkuehler was frank about her hiring perspective: “The game is rigged and weighted against women. If you haven’t hit 40 or had kids, you will find it. So, post-White House, post-tenure, I’ve become an asshole. Now, hell yeah, when I see two equal candidates with the same credentials and same chops, I will hire the girl.”
Xbox Entertainment Studios producer Lydia Antonini took a broader stance on the question of hiring, explaining that her former jobs in Hollywood required “almost a report card” of diversity in any job search, a proactivity that she believes should reach the top levels of games-industry hiring. “That forces you into a new way of thinking about how you hire,” Antonini said. “Now you’re going to LULAC, other organizations, and meeting people; otherwise, you’ll just get the same crowd of applicants every time.”
At the #1reasontobe panel, Double Fine programmer Anna Kipnis spoke to this sentiment, but in a more contained, studio-specific manner: “Up until a month ago, I hadn’t tried to make a game myself, even though I’d had plenty of opportunities,” she said. She described Double Fine’s regular Amnesia Fortnight series, in which staffers pitch ideas for prototypes that are voted on and turned into brief, team-driven projects—an intimidating prospect for someone who had never done more than filled a slot in a larger design team.
Once she got over the fear that her ideas weren’t fleshed out enough, she realized that her pitches were actually ahead of most of her design peers. This year’s Amnesia Fortnight included her pitch, Dear Leader, as a top vote-getter. So she had a message to game studios’ top brass: minorities on a staff can use an extra shove about participation and inclusion. “Encourage everyone to pitch games. Even office managers and IT. Make everyone feel involved in the creative process.”
The New School's Macklin spoke like a designer, understanding that expanding the diversity of an entire industry would require a concentrated playtest. First stop: GDC itself. Such experiments can’t only happen in the “advocacy” set of panels, she insisted, because “if this track is so successful, it will eat itself and be the cause of its own obsolescence. I want to hear design talks from these folks, in addition to their personal experiences.”
She equated designing a new player experience to opening up a speaker application process and compared pre-production efforts for experiments and diversity to having conversations with potential new speakers. “Let new voices speak on their own terms instead of fitting them into whatever takeaway structure already exists. Let’s burn this panel down.”
“Maybe it’s better to be invisible”
Though the day’s conversations were highly proactive—full of high-minded ideas and calls to action—frustration and discontent bubbled up, and deservedly so. Most panelists included either a slide or a reference to nasty, anti-diversity comments, made either online or by real-life encounters. Macklin sighed at men in an industry-insider site's comments section trying to explain away why more women didn’t work at their companies: “The discrimination has to do with their ability to perform the task at hand; programming doesn’t interest many females; gender and sexual preference is an issue, but it’s being overplayed.”
It’s not. Two of my game-industry peers told me they were aggressively spoken to and groped at this year’s GDC by total strangers. No matter how much work, effort, genius, and creativity they put into their work, they still left GDC having to question whether they attended as game designers or as objects at the mercy of the conference’s men.
Still, it wasn’t my place to shout, to be loud, to cry and be angry about the nonsense some of the most brilliant members of the world of game design go through. But it was definitely Deirdra “Squinky” Kiai’s place (Kiai prefers the gender-neutral “they” as a pronoun and will receive that courtesy for the remainder of this article.)
Kiai closed the #1reasontobe panel by thanking the show’s IGF Awards for not rewarding their stellar point-and-click, Claymation adventure game Dominique Pamplemousse in any of its four nominated categories. “The more attention and notoriety I get, the more I wonder when the 4chan trolls are going to get me, like they’ve done to pretty much every single person I like and respect in games,” Kiai said, voice booming louder with every word. “Maybe it’s better to be invisible. I know invisible, and I can live with invisible.”
In spite of computer tinkering since the age of three, releasing an adventure game of their own at 16, and getting an industry job directly after undergraduate school, Kiai fully believed that they were never a proper fit for the games industry. “Games were never meant for people like me. They were always someone else’s story. I couldn’t make games about myself because I didn’t even know who I was. I never saw myself represented anywhere.”
It wasn’t until Kiai found the browser-based RPG Fallen London at the age of 25 that they felt a tinge of inclusion at being allowed to choose “person of mysterious and indistinct gender” as a character option. “I didn’t have to be a defective woman or a defective man. Just myself.” From there, Kiai rode a wave of other game makers defecting from an unsavory games industry to make their own games, and in Kiai’s case, it was one they could pour newfound feelings of identity into.
The takeaway, Kiai said, was that other men and women could create more inclusion in the industry, a larger safe space in which big and small studios increase their diversity, without sweeping any of the anger, frustration, or disappointment under a giant, digital rug.
“Authentic, true, and weird,” Kiai said. “That shouldn’t just be okay, but important.”
198 Reader Comments
Unfortunate metaphor given the topic...
Is this the follow up from that Ars story, or was that Mario?
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
WhyTF would I want stupid old me in a game? I never understood that.
Last edited by Quiet Desperation on Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:52 pm
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
If they are equal you must pick one and it's not really discrimination occurs.
Discrimination would occur if the man was actually more skilled but then didn't get the job.
WhyTF would I want stupid old me in a game?
I typically play RPGs as a female and model her after my wife. She's way tougher than I am!
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
No. Its not that simple. When the industry is massively over representing men and systematically minimizing women, you need to take corrective action.
Gender discrimination would be hiring fewer men than societal average (ie about 48%).
Losing privalege =! Discrimination
WhyTF would I want stupid old me in a game? I never understood that.
I think it might be more important to you if you were part of an under represented group. My sister cares a lot about the option of playing a female lead character (particularly one who isn't a horrible stereotype).
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
Depends. What if you were building a team of four and already had three guys?
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
No. Its not that simple. When the industry is massively over representing men and systematically minimizing women, you need to take corrective action.
Gender discrimination would be hiring fewer men than societal average (ie about 48%).
Losing privalege =! Discrimination
No, gender discrimination is hiring people because of their gender regardless of their ability. If I had a theoretical profession were all women were better than all men at it hiring even one man just because of their gender would be gender discrimination. Having higher numbers of one gender is not necessarily discriminatory all on it's own.
Please note I am not arguing that the games industry and IT as a whole doesn't discriminate against women, because it clearly does. Just that discrimination is about favouring people based on gender, not trying to even out numbers 50/50.
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
If they are equal you must pick one and it's not really discrimination occurs.
Discrimination would occur if the man was actually more skilled but then didn't get the job.
I disagree. If both are equal, then half the time you hire the boy, half the time you hire the girl.
She said:
That decision is completely based on gender which is a discriminating choice when viewed from the opposite gender. If a man had said, "When I see two equal candidates, I always hire the man." people would be losing their minds.
Edit: Spelling.
Last edited by filiusdexterae on Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:59 pm
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
If they are equal you must pick one and it's not really discrimination occurs.
Discrimination would occur if the man was actually more skilled but then didn't get the job.
No, it's still discrimination. Ideally if they were truly "equal" you'd flip a coin, not default to one gender.
However, arguably if your organization overrepresents one gender (or race, or anything else really) and you have two truly "equal" candidates, it does arguably benefit you to always hire the underrepresented candidate. Because, at least in theory, that candidate can now provide a perspective that your organization was previously lacking, or deficient in.
Of course, two truly "equal" candidates is rare. And this also assumes that the differences in viewpoint between genders will vary more than within genders (or races, or whatever). It's a complex conversation.
Last edited by cmacd on Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:59 pm
I think this is the true key here. But when entitlement is taken away, those who had benefited will always see it as a negative.
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
Depends. What if you were building a team of four and already had three guys?
I'd pick the guy because having 1 girl to 3 guys would just make the girl feel like the odd person out.
Am I doing this correctly?
I was a bit tweaked you couldn't be a girl in Stick Of Truth, although there is a plot point 2/3 of the way through that sort of justifies it. I played as a black kid because I was curious if Cartman or Token would react to it.
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
Depends. What if you were building a team of four and already had three guys?
I'd pick the guy because having 1 girl to 3 guys would just make the girl feel like the odd person out.
Am I doing this correctly?
I dunno. It was just a hypothetical off the top of my head. Geez.
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
No. Its not that simple. When the industry is massively over representing men and systematically minimizing women, you need to take corrective action.
Gender discrimination would be hiring fewer men than societal average (ie about 48%).
Losing privalege =! Discrimination
No, gender discrimination is hiring people because of their gender regardless of their ability. If I had a theoretical profession were all women were better than all men at it hiring even one man just because of their gender would be gender discrimination. Having higher numbers of one gender is not necessarily discriminatory all on it's own.
Please note I am not arguing that the games industry and IT as a whole doesn't discriminate against women, because it clearly does. Just that discrimination is about favouring people based on gender, not trying to even out numbers 50/50.
Did you even read the article? The example in question was "if I encounter two equally capable candidates...."
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
No. Its not that simple. When the industry is massively over representing men and systematically minimizing women, you need to take corrective action.
Gender discrimination would be hiring fewer men than societal average (ie about 48%).
Losing privalege =! Discrimination
Corrective action doesn't mean hiring X minority for the sake of it, just to have diversity. Even two or more people have the same credentials and chops, you're going to notice a personality difference in the interview.
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
Plus it also lessens outsiders' view of the girl's skills and gives her the "just a diversity hire" stamp.
Last edited by somuchtin on Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:04 pm
I'm glad for articles like this that help me find my own biases and help me recognize them in others so that I can do my own small part in making things better. The games industry and these game designers have a golden opportunity to be a significant influence for the better rather than just another aspect of the problem, and I applaud the suggestion "to hear design talks from these folks, in addition to their personal experiences."
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
Depends. What if you were building a team of four and already had three guys?
I'd pick the guy because having 1 girl to 3 guys would just make the girl feel like the odd person out.
Am I doing this correctly?
If she works in IT, she is probably used to that... She'd probably rather be offered the job rather than be protected from being the odd man out.
It would seem, on the face of it, that she is bragging about violating the EEOC rules about sex discrimination. She's either BSing, playing a pretty dangerous game, or doesn't actually get any male job applicants.
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
Depends. What if you were building a team of four and already had three guys?
My opinion isn’t going to popular, but I’d choose the most capable candidate for the fourth position. Gender, ethnicity, etc has nothing to do with it.
Forcefully inserting underrepresented groups is not the way to go about fixing this. Instead we must focus on:
1. Making more people from these groups as capable as the best of the overrepresented
2. Changing the behavior of the current majority to be more accepting and tolerant
By using hamfisted methods such as a “diversity quota”, all you’re going to do is make those already established in the industry more sour and increase industry disdain for underrepresented groups. It’s counterproductive. On the other hand, veterans are simply not going to be able to ignore an underrepresented individual who is particularly well-versed and capable, especially if such people start showing up en masse.
That decision is completely based on gender which is a discriminating choice when viewed from the opposite gender. If a man had said, "When I see two equal candidates, I always hire the man." people would be losing their minds.
Edit: Spelling.
Bingo, if a man got up their and said that but with men, all the people giving her kudos would be losing their fucking shit. Gender discrimination is gender discrimination. Taking into account how many men you have employed and making a choice to hire a woman instead of another man with equal talent is a fair attempt to proactively fix an imbalance. Saying you will always pick the equally skilled woman is gender discrimination, straight up.
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
Plus it also lessens others' view of the girl's skills and gives her the "just a diversity hire" stamp.
I can second this. My wife is part Native American (Seneca to be exact), and refuses to tell people or use that on a form. She has even wished gender wasn't a factor in college and employment applications. Being a licensed Professional Engineer, she dislikes having to deal with the "minority" factor (i use that term broadly here) to get the job. She knows she can get the job and that she's an incredible engineer without the extra weight on those factors. It's more from a skills perspective that was mentioned above, but also from somewhat of a "Fuck you, I don't need a handout!" point of view.
Surely there's a better way to decide than defaulting to one gender over the other. Flip a coin, dance off, best on the fly you tube video, anything but gender default. That statement just doesn't seem like it should be real.
Surely there's a better way to decide than defaulting to one gender over the other. Flip a coin, dance off, best on the fly you tube video, anything but gender default. That statement just doesn't seem like it should be real.
Flipping a coin doesn't solve gender disparity. When you have an underepresentation of certain groups, burying your head in the sand isn't an answer.
Surely there's a better way to decide than defaulting to one gender over the other. Flip a coin, dance off, best on the fly you tube video, anything but gender default. That statement just doesn't seem like it should be real.
Flipping a coin doesn't solve gender disparity. When you have an underepresentation of certain groups, burying your head in the sand isn't an answer.
"Always" choosing the equally qualified woman in your workplace is not a solution for gender imbalance in the industry. Shit, "always" hiring the equally qualified women in the industry is not a solution for gender imbalance in the industry.
Surely there's a better way to decide than defaulting to one gender over the other. Flip a coin, dance off, best on the fly you tube video, anything but gender default. That statement just doesn't seem like it should be real.
Flipping a coin doesn't solve gender disparity. When you have an underepresentation of certain groups, burying your head in the sand isn't an answer.
Didn't say it was perfect, but it's just as effective, seeing has how one can't really control their gender, I'd like the 50/50 odds better myself. Just an opinion.
Apparently Kai did not play many games growing up. Few RPGs were focused on gender for the protagonist (at least in the PC world). Almost all RPGs, until the advent of the fully-voiced protagonist, gave equal opportunity and representation for whatever character a person wanted to create. There was no defective man or woman in any of them.
Fully-voiced protagonists are still a small minority of RPGs because of the expense of making them.
So it seems to me that Kai is a bit full of it or only played like 3 RPGs.
Surely there's a better way to decide than defaulting to one gender over the other. Flip a coin, dance off, best on the fly you tube video, anything but gender default. That statement just doesn't seem like it should be real.
Flipping a coin doesn't solve gender disparity. When you have an underepresentation of certain groups, burying your head in the sand isn't an answer.
"Always" choosing the equally qualified woman in your workplace is not a solution for gender imbalance in the industry. Shit, "always" hiring the equally qualified women in the industry is not a solution for gender imbalance in the industry.
Incorrect. Always hiring the qualified woman can reverse the gender disparity to the point where you no longer have to do this.
Always hiring the qualified woman increases the number of women in the workplace. This can have the benefit of changing the work environment and increase the number of female applicants.
It only becomes discrimination when more women are hired than men. When men make up the majority of hirees and candidates, they by definition cannot be discriminated against.
I would much rather see women and minorities hired based on skill and education alone than because there needs to be more women or minorities.
You can't force people into these jobs and expect them to not feel or be seen as a token minority. It will backfire.
This is about diversifying the pool of developers. To do that requires a more proactive approach to acceptance by everyone from the start. That means making sure when an employee is hired they aren't going to turn around and discriminate against minorities or women and those doing the hiring aren't doing it themselves.
Making the workplace more accepting will accomplish more than determining the need to have x-number of women and minorities.
Removing the gender and race identifiers on an application should be the first thing done to only see people for what they can do, not what checks they can fill on a diversity form.
But then I started looking up all the various ways in which minorities are discriminated against. If the worst we as white men suffer is that we lose by default to an equally qualified minority candidate, I think we'll be able to find some way to carry on.
Losing priviliege != discrimination is totally true.
You may disagree with the given quote, but calling it "nasty" and "anti-diversity" seems way out of proportion. The guy has a point, males are way overrepresented in CS degrees. That is one of the core issues that needs to be resolved.
Now THAT is beyond nasty. It is disgusting behavior. The people responsible should be banned from the conference and have their employers notified.
I didn't realize 4chan in any way represents the games industry, last I heard they were widely regarded as the "cesspool of the internet". Talking about them is akin to feeding a troll, just don't do it.
The name for that is "gender discrimination"
Depends. What if you were building a team of four and already had three guys?
My opinion isn’t going to popular, but I’d choose the most capable candidate for the fourth position. Gender, ethnicity, etc has nothing to do with it.
However, the problem setup was equal candidates. Yeah, yeah, it's that impossible unreal case, like the frictionless block in physics, but well, there it is. Or maybe it does happen a lot. I've never worked in the hiring side of things.
Losing priviliege != discrimination is totally true.
Most are not saying that. The argument is if in a situation where you have two equally qualified candidates, and the only difference is gender, is it discrimination if you always hire the woman. In reality this is an unlikely scenario. How often are two completely identical candidates options?
You must login or create an account to comment.