Reason #876 Why the Game Industry is Full of Stupid
September 15th, 2008I heard about this upcoming adventure game called Mata Hari some time ago, and found it rather intriguing. A Belle Époque period piece, with story-relevant gameplay innovations, designed by a pair of LucasArts veterans… sounds like a guaranteed hit for a highbrow game snob like me, doesn’t it?
That is, until I saw the proposed box art, which has the titular character scantily-clad and posed like she’s on the cover of freakin’ Maxim or something. Granted, she’s a prostitute, but back in the day, people practicing the world’s oldest profession looked more like this, so there’s honestly no reason to go with that kind of look unless you’re appealing to the adolescent male market. Which most AAA games pretty much do, because apparently, common business sense dictates that women don’t have any disposable income for games because they’re busy spending it all on shoes.
The problem with Mata Hari in particular is that it’s part of a niche genre whose target audience, as I alluded in my last post, actually does consist of a significant percentage of women, many of whom are too old to tolerate such childishness. Advertising to teenage boys is only going to exclude that market… and leave everyone else disappointed by the fact that oops, the game isn’t really about ogling almost-naked ladies! Why no one on the marketing team realised this baffles me. Let’s just hope the box art isn’t final, and the folks in charge magically come to their senses and fix it before the game’s release.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Sometimes I wonder if many of those making adventure games today are subconsciously bitter that their games don’t appeal to the sterotypical gamer audience (12-25 y/o men) that has little interest in that type of gameplay. Or maybe it’s the publishers. Probably a bit of both.
From looking at the screen shots of the game, it seems more of a game inspired by the old victorian era novels. It’s really not my cup of tea, but are they trying to sucker me into buying this game because of the chick in the cover, though? That kind of screams that the game sucks on its own and it must sell itself out in order to make it anywhere. That’s kind of sad.
Then again, have you seen the romance novel covers? I bet if they put a scantily clad fabio-looking dude in the cover, then that might appeal to the right audience, assuming that it’s a “romance” game.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Oh, Deirdra, let us mourn together the continuing demise of common sense. I’m with Edmundo as I thought of romance novel covers, too, but for some reason, those ripped-bodice sort of things do seem to appeal to some women. Hmmm. I followed all your links, and it does look like a game I’d be interested in, but heck, I’d rather see Gert on the cover than the person they chose. She could kick that woman’s…oh, never mind.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:24 am
It’s really painful. If it was well produced or even slightly tongue in cheek then maybe… but it isn’t either, it’s cheap and witless.
In defence of adolescent males: As far as I recall, when I was one of them I found this kind of thing embarrassing.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Edmundo and Muse: The thing about romance novel covers and other media containing “sexy” men is that they generally feature the men in more dominant, in-control poses than women portrayed in such a fashion. And in the off chance men pose like “sexy” women, (e.g. imagine if the woman in the box art were replaced by a man posing in the exact same way) they’re seen by most people as looking “ridiculous”. Something to think about.
Tom: Yeah, I’ve befriended my fair share of mature adolescent males like your past self in my lifetime. That sadly doesn’t stop The Media™ from assuming said people don’t exist, however. Patriarchy hurts everyone, yada yada yada.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:11 am
I suspect the developers need to have some strong emails sent their way. Their marketting department has missed the mark. Just because the protagonist uses sex as a tool to achieve some of her goals doesn’t mean you get to use a Playboy model on the cover. I can understand if they felt historical accuracy wouldn’t help their case (Mata Hari, though possessing some lovely features, was not very busty, and her face was not shaped in the way we tend to prefer our sex symbols in this century). However, they’ve completely obscured the tone and intent of the story by going for salacious titillation. It’s a desperation move, and one they should have realized misrepresented the content and would offend a significant proportion of the intended audience.