Difference between revisions of "Sega Girls Task Force"

Revision as of 22:27, 22 October 2022

Team members

Michealene Cristini Risley (Executive of Licensing+Product Development, main creator)
Pamela Kelly (Manager of Product Marketing, Producer)
Cynthia Modders (Director of Licensing)
Diane Fornasier (VP of Marketing)
Cindy Hardgrave (Executive Producer)
Lydia Gable (Manager of Product Marketing)

Outline

Founding

"Operation"? Production? The middle section

Research possible Sega Club connections.
At some point, the ideology behind the project shifted from "games specifically for girls" to "girl-friendly".

1995 conclusion/"Results"?/end section

Polygon quote: "Neither Risley nor Kalinske nor Kelly thinks that Sega ever got remotely close to solving the problem of girls in games. But they all point to their work at Sega as a step in trying to shift this perception of what games are or who they’re for."
Polygon quote: "Beyond the numbers, Risley recalls receiving letters of thanks from girls who were excited to see female characters. “They felt like they belonged,” says Risley. “I think it made them feel like they could play.” Kalinske echoes the sentiment: “I’ve heard from a number of people over the years about how our efforts helped introduce them [to games and made] video game playing acceptable for them,” he says. “They’re grateful for it. It makes me feel good.”"

Analysis and legacy

The Sega Girls Task Force was created foremost from a need to work uphill against something which seemed insurmountable, and often mirroring Sega of America's own uphill battle with Nintendo. As the then-modern Sega of America was formed largely to take on Nintendo, its way of thinking and corporate personality took on a more bold, maverick form, instilling the company with the courage to take chances that its competitor wouldn't. This scrappy, get-it-done spirit allowed for a wide range of creative ideas to spring forth, and from this environment, a project like the Sega Girls Task Force could finally see enough corporate support to be actually implemented.

All analysis aside, the article needs to be framed to, somewhere near the end, take a step back and say something to the effect of: hey, this is still a corporation trying to tackle gender considerations, don't read too much into it outside of being A) a time capsule of interesting SoA history, and B) a very small stepping stone in the history of gender studies.
Good minds can only push limited money so far, and that extends to a company's gender understanding as well. Everyone involved did everything right and worked with passion and class, but this is a case of- something between society having progressed in our understanding of gender, and just not having enough resources allocated to get the marketing ideology to a certain point.
In regards to specifically targeting girls instead of using broader/more inclusive marketing: SoA's whole thing at the time (and their biggest successes/modern associations) was their highly-targeted marketing. Whether aimed at the NES or NoA in general, or specifically tailored to a young teenage crowd or more edgy audiences, they migrated from a broader "We do great arcade ports and stuff!" to marketing focused at more specific audiences. And the GTF started in 93, so definitely in the latter half. So at the time, there was a lot of "this makes sense" at SoA about GTF focusing specifically on one audience over a possible broader market. And the end result was still more of an ideological split in gender marketing and not a more unifying one, but again, you can only push so far.
Regardless of analysis, the GTF was still an overwhelmingly positive thing on many levels. Teams like this, and projects like this, have done so much good in allowing and encouraging growth among female gamers and developers. Many of the games that came out of these girl-specific game projects hold a special place in many hearts for a good reason. Not only were they designed and produced from a female perspective, from female developers, for girls, but this was one of the first times young girls were so directly acknowledged by an American game company like this (that wasn't a one-off or novelty deal), at least on this scale. That might be the most notable thing from all this, that a massively-popular and recognizable company like this was showing girls that they were worth investing in and including in the fun. That they weren't a market to be ignored. Unfortunately there was very little publicity on the team itself, with its legacy more apparent in the work of GTF team members after the team was disbanded (specifically in the realms of production practices and game design considerations). The GTF was where most (all?) of these producers cut their teeth, and their later games wouldn't have been award-winning and life-changing without the experience they gained here. Thats a heck of a lot of good for a handful of scrappy SoA vets, especially considering the uphill inter-company battle they had to fight nearly the entire way (again embodying SoA's spirit etcetc) And thanks to them, the company has one of its most positive contributions to its long and interesting legacy.

CartridgeCulture (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2022 (EDT)

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==Analysis and legacy==
-*After the project is when you really started to see a takeoff of these kind of products, specifically in the (excellent and memorable) Barbie PC series, and specifically from Mattel and Disney. Kelly was later hired by Mattel to produce many of those Barbie games (at least the first, I believe more but GTF's later work needs further research at the moment.)
+The Sega Girls Task Force was created foremost from a need to work uphill against something which seemed insurmountable, and often mirroring [[Sega of America]]'s own uphill battle with [[Nintendo]]. As the then-modern Sega of America was formed largely to take on Nintendo, its way of thinking and corporate personality took on a more bold, maverick form, instilling the company with the courage to take chances that its competitor wouldn't. This scrappy, get-it-done spirit allowed for a wide range of creative ideas to spring forth, and from this environment, a project like the Sega Girls Task Force could finally see enough corporate support to be actually implemented.
-*Per Risley, their test results and much of their ideology came down to 'girls like this, boys like this'. Risley says girls play games differently because of inherent biological differences, and that there are types of games that girls just 'don't prefer'. She also says girls don't like shoot-'em-ups but they like puzzle games. That can be a little jarring to read given its source, but at the time, this wasn't really an... incorrect thing to think on a marketing and sales level, because that's where the team member's experience had showed them success was. Games for girls wasn't really a thing, but marketing for girls has been around for a long long time, and this is what they knew at the time - to approach the genders as requiring different approaches to marketing.
-*The GTF wasn't created in a void, but for a need to work against something larger to achieve something better. And in doing so, that uphill battle had a notable influence on how the GTF thought. And again this absolutely embodies SoA's spirit - doing their best by working uphill and against a larger challenge), but also shaping how the company operated. An SoA in a world without Nintendo would have behaved very differently: Nintendo has had an influence on how SoA operates, and resistance to girl games had an influence on how the GTF operated.
 *All analysis aside, the article needs to be framed to, somewhere near the end, take a step back and say something to the effect of: hey, this is still a corporation trying to tackle gender considerations, don't read too much into it outside of being A) a time capsule of interesting SoA history, and B) a very small stepping stone in the history of gender studies.
 *Good minds can only push limited money so far, and that extends to a company's gender understanding as well. Everyone involved did everything right and worked with passion and class, but this is a case of- something between society having progressed in our understanding of gender, and just not having enough resources allocated to get the marketing ideology to a certain point.

Talk