Soderman is too assuming
Soderman’s gender generalizations were a bit disconcerting for me and I found that, based on my light gaming experience, I disagree with a lot of what he asserts. The labeling of casual gaming as “girly” and hardcore gaming as “masculine” seems too general and, although it is generally true, it stereotypes gamers and groups them too easily. I am speaking mainly from experience, but also from what I noticed from other peoples’ blog posts and comments in class. Clearly, everybody enjoyed playing Diner Dash to an extent. It is simple, fast, fun, and free. What more could you ask for from a video game? However, does all of our enjoyment of the game make us more akin to femininity? I don’t think so. A very masculine person can enjoy playing Diner Dash or Tetris just because he is pressed for time, money, or (as so nicely pointed out by Urban Dictionary), has a social life. It is just too grand of a statement to group casual gaming with femininity.
I believe that Diner Dash and simpler games such as Tetris, and even the simpler console games such as Wii Sports and Guitar Hero, have grown in popularity because they fit with our lifestyles. Before reading Soderman, I never grouped games as “feminine” and “masculine,” but rather as “fast and simple” (casual) or “complicated and slow” (hardcore). Today, people’s lifestyles have vastly changed from a decade or two ago. With the influx of technology and globalization, we try to pack as many things into a day as we can. I believe that these easy-to-learn games are not feminine, but rather contemporary because they blend easily with society’s ever growing fast-paced lifestyle. I think it would be interesting in section to poke holes in and question Soderman’s argument because he makes some claims that I disagree with, and I’d like to see if anybody else had opposing opinions as well.