*sigh*

While more women in games is to be welcomed, in the same way that more people joining the party is also good, I must say I'm getting very very tired of 'analysts' and 'experts' telling impressionable marketers and publishers what's wrong about the industry 'this week'.

I would love Edge to do a retrospective piece on when the games industry moved away from being driven by fun i.e. enthusaists in it for the fun and people creating for fun, and into the grey world of stats and figures.

How soon before we start worrying if enough albino people are being properly catered to? Please note, I'm not singling out people with albinisim I just plucked an identifiable demographic out of the air, I could have just as easily said men who like to wear red jumpers *looks at his red jumper*.

My main point is, while I love that games can bring everyone together, I worry that when a product tries to cater for as many specific groups as possible then it begins to weaken it's core attraction.

Take the opening line of this article;

"It's more critical than ever for women to get into games, whether it's as a player or as a developer."

Why? Is the industry on the verge of collapse?

'It's critical people! Force women to play dammit! WE NEED MORE MONEY, OUR REVENUE ISN'T BALLOONING FAST ENOUGH!' - some hysterical marketer that I made up

I don't have the answers, perhaps more games need to be designed for specific target audiences rather than trying to appeal to as many as possible? But that will never happen so long as the main aim is to get as many people buying as possible. What we're looking at here is the same mentality that makes a 12a rated Termninator movie turning its attention to games.

Shopping in Diablo 2? I can see the new FFVII remake as Cloud faces Sephiroth, '"Does this sword make me look fat?"

*edit*

Yes, I know the last line can be interpreted as sexist, but if French and Saunders or the Fast Show can make people laugh with similar jokes then so should everyone else. =)

Wow, that was wii-eally fast......

*cricket noises*

.....I'll get my coat

In seriousness though, it's a considerable feat for Nintendo. I purposely put in an awful wii joke (yeah, I know) on purpose. Remember how many of them there were? Remember how the wii was dismissed by quite a few people?

Fair play to Ninty for sticking by their guns. It seems the figures and records speak for themselves.

Your last sentence answers your question;

".......intriguing but not worth a $40-50 investment"

A lot of people 18 or above, the market Madworld is aimed at, will probably not have a Wii as their sole console. I would imagine there's a strong likelyhood that the most people in that scenario are children who have received one as a present with most in the 18+ bracket opting for a 360 or PS3 for their sole console choice.

If that's the case and you are an adult with two or more systems and you have to make a choice using your hard earned cash between Madworld on the Wii or Resi on the 360/PS3 then I imagine it's going to be on the tried and tested mega hyped Resi than the newbie on the scene that's currently playing on what has been lambasted (unfairly) as a kiddie only console.

As well as lack of choice I would also add that the price factor is largely to blame.

The industry can say what it likes and it can even go and get it's 'kicked puppy eyes mask' to wear while it cries poverty, but the fact is that games are too expensive for most consumers to make risky purchases.

If we're being asked to part with £40-50 for a game the chances are we're going to opt for what we know rather than what we don't. We may read glowing reviews until our eyes bleed but, for some, the lack of personal experience makes genuinely original content a gamble while there is a guarentee (from previous incarnations) that 'Testosterone Fuelled Men With Guns 5000' or 'Fifa: Return of the Cash Cow' will provide.

So I'd put price down to killing originality over other reasons. If games were priced lower then the burn from buying a game you don't particularly love won't be as severe and would make us less wary the next time an original game comes along that the reviewers love but makes us think, "hmmm."

You make a valid point, particularly....

'If I see one more ‘clandestine-agent-sent-in-to-triumph-against-the-odds’ OR ‘defend-earth-against-evil-Nazi-ninjas’'

I know what you mean about how this can grate on old hands such as ourselves. Personally, I think the main reason the pitches you describe annoy me is because the publishers generally try to market them as new concepts. What is wrong with simply putting together a game that plays well and putting it out there for people to enjoy? Why not have a game sequel that simply expands on it's predecessor rather than attempt to improve (and inevitably cock it up/alienate a portion of the fan base by removing or adding something unwanted)?

Not everything has to be a new brand of nappy that soaks up more moisture than a peanut butter and jacobs cracker combo or a deodorant that, once applied, will convert the entire opposite sex to slavering loved up crazies whilst simultaneously blowing your armpits off with incredible artic blast!!!!!(tm). So I like that Rockstar seem to be standing proud and saying, 'Here comes another cracking Max Payne game, you're gonna love it.'. Simple as that. I don't need to hear how it will revolutionise my life/make me play games in different way/take it to the max or the extreme and I respect any publisher that will steer clear of all that palava.