Evaluation of gender stereotype enforcement in G4's E3 coverage

Fortunately, Dana White is gonna turn this channel into the UFC channel. So we won't be putting up with this any longer.

Why do people care so much about grammar and spelling on the internet? Do you honestly think this guy cannot spell you? If he was turning in an essay I am sure he would not type like that, but this is a forum on the fucking internet. I was easily able to understand him and he got his point across clearly, fixing his errors would not have made things any different. I personally try to type well most of the time because I am so used to doing it at work and in other things, but who honestly gives a fuck how they type if it's faster for them and you can get what they are saying without a problem. In my opinion correcting grammar on the internet is a pointless waste of time.   Am I the only one who feels this way?

Is it just me, or is the OP being both a feminist and a misogynist at the same time?

I was so happy to see someone else mention this!

Gaming culture is f-ed up when it comes to gender and sexuality, and not just G4 is to blame. Why, just a few days ago an article on GB referred to a multiplayer mode of a game as "girlfriend mode," a horribly sexist term that implies that women don't play games and that they only do to be with their gaming-obsessed boyfriends.

G4 may be one of the worst offenders, but they are far from the only ones doing this bullshit.

I stopped watching E3 coverage exclusively at G4 when they were demoing Guitar Hero III and Olivia Munn said "I have a vagina, so I'll just be quiet now."

Sadly, they do have at least a couple intelligent people right now (Sessler, obviously, Webb, and we must remember where Patrick Klepek came from) but their more recent coverage is SO disappointing! If Sessler comes to GiantBomb, they're fucking DONE.

Sexy women sell on TV regardless of genre not just on G4.

They are catering to their audience. Who largely if not entirely consists of young horny teenage boys.

@PantyshotMQN said:

Fortunately, Dana White is gonna turn this channel into the UFC channel. So we won't be putting up with this any longer.

G4 has the same viewers UFC goes after. All thats gonna change is that all the UFC shows are gonna be added to the schedule.

G4 is not a video game network.  They are just another Spike TV-style, entertainment channel. 
 
When they go to E3, they send the women they have on all their shows.  Aside from Morgan Webb and Chobit, these women are not gamers.  It makes sense that they wouldn't know anything about games.  
 
Who cares.

G4 isn't the greatest, but Adam Sessler is a very talented journalist. I recommend checking out Sessler's Soapbox. It's really good and he has some great opinions on gaming issues.

Look at all the manbearpigs in this thread. It's sickening.

I apologise to any women readers who may have been offended by comments in this thread. I apologise on behalf of man-hood. Sometimes I truly feel ashamed to be a man.

I think it just comes down to there not being enough industry dedicated woman to push the airheads out of the limelight.

Edit

Oh yeah when Amy Hennig was on G4s e3 coverage I cringed because they had the "g4 girls" on before her, I wonder if she cares about that sort of thing.

@ImperiousRix said:

Sadly, video games are a very male dominated industry at the moment.

The oddest thing is that it just barely is male dominated, on the consumer end it's getting really close to a 50-50 split (in Japan it seems it's almost exactly evenly split), if we count casual games (and I really don't see why we shouldn't), Consumer Electronics Association estimates 65% of American gamers are female, while the more conservative estimate, that doesn't count the casual market, signed Entertainment Software Association, is that 39% are female. But still, marketing and things like this E3 broadcast continues to act as if female gamers are the odd exception.

Edit: Oh, yes, those were 2007 numbers by the way, before the casual market really exploded.

Adam Sessler is great, the rest of G4 is unwatchable.

@gamefreak9 said:

@fisk0 said:

@ImperiousRix said:

Sadly, video games are a very male dominated industry at the moment.

The oddest thing is that it just barely is male dominated, on the consumer end it's getting really close to a 50-50 split (in Japan it seems it's almost exactly evenly split), if we count casual games (and I really don't see why we shouldn't), Consumer Electronics Association estimates 65% of American gamers are female, while the more conservative estimate, that doesn't count the casual market, signed Entertainment Software Association, is that 39% are female. But still, marketing and things like this E3 broadcast continues to act as if female gamers are the odd exception.

Edit: Oh, yes, those were 2007 numbers by the way, before the casual market really exploded.

Depends what you categorize as casual games... you may or may not know this but animal farm and other facebook games count as a casual games, i'm pretty sure that at least 75 per cent of consoles are guy owned. Oh and if that E3 vid shows you ANYTHING its that the vast majority of gamers are guys, i mean at the conferences, i saw like 1 female for every 10 males. Those statistics your using are retarded, they literally asked people if they play electronic games, and if they say yes, then it counts. My sister plays bejeweled at those cafe's touch screen and she would say she plays electronic games, or some my cousin plays like quizzes in those same places. Not to mention that i have no idea where they got their sample from and it could be super Biased.

The statistics predate the facebook casual game revolution with Farmville and all that stuff, but I still don't see why those shouldn't be counted, even though many of them have very simplistic mechanics, but you're right that the sample size, how they phrased the questions and several such things would affect the results, and I don't know the specifics in how they accounted for any such biases.

Anecdotal evidence like "I saw about 1 girl per every 10 guy" is notoriously much less reliable though, and attendee data from E3 would probably not be representative for the average gamer either, as the majority of the people there are either press, industry people or extreme enthusiasts. As for your example with your Bejeweled playing sister, there are counter-examples like people who regularly play Farmville or back in the late 90's would play Nibbles on their cell phones, but wouldn't even think of themselves as ever having played a game. But if we start restricting who is really playing games and who is not, I wonder where we would draw the line? Are people who haven't touched any other games than World of Warcraft, Halo or Call of Duty, which they play religiously day and night casual gamers?

But yes, you're right, those might not have been the greatest statistics, I'm trying to look for some more recent with better described controls, but to me it doesn't look like the statistics I posted are extraordinary compared to any other, for example we've got http://www.henryjenkins.org/2008/10/video_games_myths_revisited_ne.html, which says "99% of boys and 94% of girls report playing video games. Younger teen boys are the most likely to play games, followed by younger girls and older boys. Older girls are the least "enthusiastic" players of video games, though more than half of them play. Some 65% of daily gamers are male; 35% are female. Girls play an average of 6 different game genres; boys average 8 different types.", that article doesn't contain any good references though.

I just think it's so fucking stupid when shithead networks like G4 try and pretend like hot girls give a fly fuck about videogames, let alone the shlubs that play them (no offense guys). I don't understand how watching one disinterested COMPLETELY CLOTHED broad licking a PSP or saying "Epic for the win" is supposed to appeal to anyone who plays video games. Even Kevin Pereira (or however you spell his name) is starting to get annoying.

Justine from GTTV was a pretty dumb individual. They let her ask Twitter question from their interview guests, and Geoff Keighley had to constantly derail the conversation from the dumbass questions she kept asking. God, I hate everything about videogame TV shows.

@gamefreak9 said:

@fisk0 said:

@ImperiousRix said:

Sadly, video games are a very male dominated industry at the moment.

The oddest thing is that it just barely is male dominated, on the consumer end it's getting really close to a 50-50 split (in Japan it seems it's almost exactly evenly split), if we count casual games (and I really don't see why we shouldn't), Consumer Electronics Association estimates 65% of American gamers are female, while the more conservative estimate, that doesn't count the casual market, signed Entertainment Software Association, is that 39% are female. But still, marketing and things like this E3 broadcast continues to act as if female gamers are the odd exception.

Edit: Oh, yes, those were 2007 numbers by the way, before the casual market really exploded.

Depends what you categorize as casual games... you may or may not know this but animal farm and other facebook games count as a casual games, i'm pretty sure that at least 75 per cent of consoles are guy owned. Oh and if that E3 vid shows you ANYTHING its that the vast majority of gamers are guys, i mean at the conferences, i saw like 1 female for every 10 males. Those statistics your using are retarded, they literally asked people if they play electronic games, and if they say yes, then it counts. My sister plays bejeweled at those cafe's touch screen and she would say she plays electronic games, or some my cousin plays like quizzes in those same places. Not to mention that i have no idea where they got their sample from and it could be super Biased.

The statistics predate the facebook casual game revolution with Farmville and all that stuff, but I still don't see why those shouldn't be counted, even though many of them have very simplistic mechanics, but you're right that the sample size, how they phrased the questions and several such things would affect the results, and I don't know the specifics in how they accounted for any such biases.

Anecdotal evidence like "I saw about 1 girl per every 10 guy" is notoriously much less reliable though, and attendee data from E3 would probably not be representative for the average gamer either, as the majority of the people there are either press, industry people or extreme enthusiasts. As for your example with your Bejeweled playing sister, there are counter-examples like people who regularly play Farmville or back in the late 90's would play Nibbles on their cell phones, but wouldn't even think of themselves as ever having played a game. But if we start restricting who is really playing games and who is not, I wonder where we would draw the line? Are people who haven't touched any other games than World of Warcraft, Halo or Call of Duty, which they play religiously day and night casual gamers?

But yes, you're right, those might not have been the greatest statistics, I'm trying to look for some more recent with better described controls, but to me it doesn't look like the statistics I posted are extraordinary compared to any other, for example we've got http://www.henryjenkins.org/2008/10/video_games_myths_revisited_ne.html, which says "99% of boys and 94% of girls report playing video games. Younger teen boys are the most likely to play games, followed by younger girls and older boys. Older girls are the least "enthusiastic" players of video games, though more than half of them play. Some 65% of daily gamers are male; 35% are female. Girls play an average of 6 different game genres; boys average 8 different types.", that article doesn't contain any good references though.

exactly.  if i wanted eye candy, i wouldnt go to a website or tv channel about video games.

Firstly, I completely agree with the OP. Secondly, if they are considering anyone for a job as a host for a show about games they should first be knowledgeable in their field and second be a good host. I can watch a uncharismatic host who knows what he talking about but a pretty person who doesn't have a clue what they're saying is awful. The saddest thing is that G4 knows their audience, the people that watch that are horny, single, male teenagers (I don't usually make sweeping generalisations but this one is pretty spot one) and they'll eat that shit up. Until boys stop being boys or G4 decides they're above it this sort of shit will continue.

@Pinworm45 said:

@MordeaniisChaos said:

G4? Try all of them. IGN, Spike, G4... They all do it. It's stupid, but the males aren't any better, to be honest, just vapid idiots.

No, the guys are far, far better. It's not even comparable, and I don't particularly like the dudes on any of those sites. I've yet to be even moderately impressed by any chick in gaming news or whatever. In fact, every single one annoys me and I find their writing and/or interviewing horrendous. If that's not their fault and it's the networks or companies hiring hot but dumb chicks, that changes nothing and isn't my fault. If that makes me a sexist pig, alright. I'd rather be honest.

Carrie Gouskos. She was funny and intelligent unfortunately she isn't in the media anymore. Also the woman on GSUK wasn't bad.

They are catering to their audience. Who largely if not entirely consists of young horny teenage boys.

I've flicked through video coverage from various sites over E3 and to be fair, most of the male interviewers out there seem like total fucking airheads too. All of the 'Oh wow, that's superawesome!' cocksucking after every non-answer from the interviewee is just cringeworthy. Geoff Keighley was about the only one I saw who has any business being in front of a camera at all.

Yes it sucks, that's one reason why I'm on GB.
Journalism is a field of knowledge, intelligence and being social.
You can have all that and be a plamate, Jessica Chobot is proof of that I would argue, but that shouldn't be the reason for you having the job.
Most of these stations are trying way too much to be like a spring break MTV show.

@FourWude said:

Look at all the manbearpigs in this thread. It's sickening.

I apologise to any women readers who may have been offended by comments in this thread. I apologise on behalf of man-hood. Sometimes I truly feel ashamed to be a man.

Next time you want to white knight, you might actually try picking a topic where people were insulting women or being sexist. This thread has neither.

i don't have g4 because i got direct tv, but i wanna see some andy allo she so fine

@FourWude said:

Look at all the manbearpigs in this thread. It's sickening.

I apologise to any women readers who may have been offended by comments in this thread. I apologise on behalf of man-hood. Sometimes I truly feel ashamed to be a man.

Next time you want to white knight, you might actually try picking a topic where people were insulting women or being sexist. This thread has neither.

Spoken like a true dirty manbearpig.

You sicken me.

white knighting is always funny. So is the syndrome of "im going to take a very popular and obviously right position on an obvious issue (racism, sexism, anti-rape, etc...) to make me feel good at myself and/or make myself look good."

@gamefreak9 said:

@fisk0 said:

@gamefreak9 said:

@fisk0 said:

@ImperiousRix said:

Sadly, video games are a very male dominated industry at the moment.

The oddest thing is that it just barely is male dominated, on the consumer end it's getting really close to a 50-50 split (in Japan it seems it's almost exactly evenly split), if we count casual games (and I really don't see why we shouldn't), Consumer Electronics Association estimates 65% of American gamers are female, while the more conservative estimate, that doesn't count the casual market, signed Entertainment Software Association, is that 39% are female. But still, marketing and things like this E3 broadcast continues to act as if female gamers are the odd exception.

Edit: Oh, yes, those were 2007 numbers by the way, before the casual market really exploded.

Depends what you categorize as casual games... you may or may not know this but animal farm and other facebook games count as a casual games, i'm pretty sure that at least 75 per cent of consoles are guy owned. Oh and if that E3 vid shows you ANYTHING its that the vast majority of gamers are guys, i mean at the conferences, i saw like 1 female for every 10 males. Those statistics your using are retarded, they literally asked people if they play electronic games, and if they say yes, then it counts. My sister plays bejeweled at those cafe's touch screen and she would say she plays electronic games, or some my cousin plays like quizzes in those same places. Not to mention that i have no idea where they got their sample from and it could be super Biased.

The statistics predate the facebook casual game revolution with Farmville and all that stuff, but I still don't see why those shouldn't be counted, even though many of them have very simplistic mechanics, but you're right that the sample size, how they phrased the questions and several such things would affect the results, and I don't know the specifics in how they accounted for any such biases.

Anecdotal evidence like "I saw about 1 girl per every 10 guy" is notoriously much less reliable though, and attendee data from E3 would probably not be representative for the average gamer either, as the majority of the people there are either press, industry people or extreme enthusiasts. As for your example with your Bejeweled playing sister, there are counter-examples like people who regularly play Farmville or back in the late 90's would play Nibbles on their cell phones, but wouldn't even think of themselves as ever having played a game. But if we start restricting who is really playing games and who is not, I wonder where we would draw the line? Are people who haven't touched any other games than World of Warcraft, Halo or Call of Duty, which they play religiously day and night casual gamers?

But yes, you're right, those might not have been the greatest statistics, I'm trying to look for some more recent with better described controls, but to me it doesn't look like the statistics I posted are extraordinary compared to any other, for example we've got http://www.henryjenkins.org/2008/10/video_games_myths_revisited_ne.html, which says "99% of boys and 94% of girls report playing video games. Younger teen boys are the most likely to play games, followed by younger girls and older boys. Older girls are the least "enthusiastic" players of video games, though more than half of them play. Some 65% of daily gamers are male; 35% are female. Girls play an average of 6 different game genres; boys average 8 different types.", that article doesn't contain any good references though.

yeah well because all these statistics are biased, i think the E3 sample is just as reliable, especially when there's a majority of female journalists nowadays(compared to the 10 to 1 E3 journalist ratio). I think that Paying for content is the minimal category of being categorized as a gamer, i would maybe include owning a console or a pc that has specs that are good for the singular purpose of playing games. I mean i think for any useful purposes, a gamer should give money to the industry, and to filter out those cheap games, like chess which you can buy maybe put a lifetime spending of over 50 dollars on video game spending(i expect everyone who plays "real games" to have spent that much.

Your non-controlled anecdotal observations of the E3 floor is absolutely not as reliable as a properly conducted study, while statistics - especially when based on self-reporting in surveys - have their flaws, they do detail the methodology and sample sizes in the studies (I managed to track them down at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/953/ and http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1048/).

On your other points, in South Korea, a lot of people do not own gaming machines (whether high performing PC's or game consoles) of their own, but use Internet Cafes instead, and while not as popular in the western world, Internet and gaming cafes exist here too, meaning you can play games regularly without owning a console or any games of your own, there's also the mobile games market which is ever increasing in size, and which isn't only limited to "casual" games, even though that is the dominating type of games on the Apple and Android platforms right now.

I don't agree with your definition of the 'useful' gamer. The interesting question should be, how many do actually play games? Your points should of course also be part of the survey (and most of them were), the most basic definition of a gamer should be broad.

hrmph, seems like the G4 execs believe that hardcore gamers view women as object, to be ogled at and exploited, rather than actual human beings and have casted accordingly. of course, i have no idea where they could have gotten such an outlandish idea...  

@gamefreak9 said:

@fisk0 said:

@gamefreak9 said:

@fisk0 said:

@ImperiousRix said:

Sadly, video games are a very male dominated industry at the moment.

The oddest thing is that it just barely is male dominated, on the consumer end it's getting really close to a 50-50 split (in Japan it seems it's almost exactly evenly split), if we count casual games (and I really don't see why we shouldn't), Consumer Electronics Association estimates 65% of American gamers are female, while the more conservative estimate, that doesn't count the casual market, signed Entertainment Software Association, is that 39% are female. But still, marketing and things like this E3 broadcast continues to act as if female gamers are the odd exception.

Edit: Oh, yes, those were 2007 numbers by the way, before the casual market really exploded.

Depends what you categorize as casual games... you may or may not know this but animal farm and other facebook games count as a casual games, i'm pretty sure that at least 75 per cent of consoles are guy owned. Oh and if that E3 vid shows you ANYTHING its that the vast majority of gamers are guys, i mean at the conferences, i saw like 1 female for every 10 males. Those statistics your using are retarded, they literally asked people if they play electronic games, and if they say yes, then it counts. My sister plays bejeweled at those cafe's touch screen and she would say she plays electronic games, or some my cousin plays like quizzes in those same places. Not to mention that i have no idea where they got their sample from and it could be super Biased.

The statistics predate the facebook casual game revolution with Farmville and all that stuff, but I still don't see why those shouldn't be counted, even though many of them have very simplistic mechanics, but you're right that the sample size, how they phrased the questions and several such things would affect the results, and I don't know the specifics in how they accounted for any such biases.

Anecdotal evidence like "I saw about 1 girl per every 10 guy" is notoriously much less reliable though, and attendee data from E3 would probably not be representative for the average gamer either, as the majority of the people there are either press, industry people or extreme enthusiasts. As for your example with your Bejeweled playing sister, there are counter-examples like people who regularly play Farmville or back in the late 90's would play Nibbles on their cell phones, but wouldn't even think of themselves as ever having played a game. But if we start restricting who is really playing games and who is not, I wonder where we would draw the line? Are people who haven't touched any other games than World of Warcraft, Halo or Call of Duty, which they play religiously day and night casual gamers?

But yes, you're right, those might not have been the greatest statistics, I'm trying to look for some more recent with better described controls, but to me it doesn't look like the statistics I posted are extraordinary compared to any other, for example we've got http://www.henryjenkins.org/2008/10/video_games_myths_revisited_ne.html, which says "99% of boys and 94% of girls report playing video games. Younger teen boys are the most likely to play games, followed by younger girls and older boys. Older girls are the least "enthusiastic" players of video games, though more than half of them play. Some 65% of daily gamers are male; 35% are female. Girls play an average of 6 different game genres; boys average 8 different types.", that article doesn't contain any good references though.

yeah well because all these statistics are biased, i think the E3 sample is just as reliable, especially when there's a majority of female journalists nowadays(compared to the 10 to 1 E3 journalist ratio). I think that Paying for content is the minimal category of being categorized as a gamer, i would maybe include owning a console or a pc that has specs that are good for the singular purpose of playing games. I mean i think for any useful purposes, a gamer should give money to the industry, and to filter out those cheap games, like chess which you can buy maybe put a lifetime spending of over 50 dollars on video game spending(i expect everyone who plays "real games" to have spent that much.

Your non-controlled anecdotal observations of the E3 floor is absolutely not as reliable as a properly conducted study, while statistics - especially when based on self-reporting in surveys - have their flaws, they do detail the methodology and sample sizes in the studies (I managed to track them down at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/953/ and http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1048/).

On your other points, in South Korea, a lot of people do not own gaming machines (whether high performing PC's or game consoles) of their own, but use Internet Cafes instead, and while not as popular in the western world, Internet and gaming cafes exist here too, meaning you can play games regularly without owning a console or any games of your own, there's also the mobile games market which is ever increasing in size, and which isn't only limited to "casual" games, even though that is the dominating type of games on the Apple and Android platforms right now.

I don't agree with your definition of the 'useful' gamer. The interesting question should be, how many do actually play games? Your points should of course also be part of the survey (and most of them were), the most basic definition of a gamer should be broad.

@JasonR86: i dont know why but i couldnt tell the difference between Jeff and Ryan's voices when i first came to this site

G4TV is shit, so no surprises there. Their web staff seems to be a lot better and I've genuinely enjoyed Feedback on several occasions, but they would never let them in front of the camera.

Was considering to write a blog about this subject myself.

Since I don't live in the US, the first time I watched G4 was with the recent E3 coverage. Wow, I mean wow. How can get away with this pandering, stereotypical shit in this day and age. The whole "Mountain Dew Culture" that they have for "gamerzz" is one thing but then the use of a hot women to draw in some so-called sweating video game nerds. It's like something you would see falling out of the late-90s. "YO, WE ARE GONNA SHOUT AT YOU AND TALK ABOUT CHICKS AND GUNS BECAUSE THEY'RE EFFIN' SICK, DAWG *guitar shred". It's vile. I may have never lived during the early days of cinema but I doubt the audience was talked down too so often.

Don't even get me started on the Twitter wall. It's one of the funniest things I have ever seen on television.

@okoctothorpe: So we learned that "gamer women" and "trophy wives" are the same breed? what?

Their aim is towards that casual male market, Giant Bomb's aim is towards the pre-informed gaming market; apples and oranges.

It'll stop when guys no longer like attractive women...closely fallowed by the halt of procreation.

Not being from the US I've never watched a full episode of G4, we don't have any programs about games here on terrestrial television. As far as I can tell these programs aren't trying to appeal to the "hardcore gamer" that is already invested in games. They're trying to catch the attention of the guy flicking through the channels and catching sight of a hot girl downing a hotdog. Television is always going to be about having the good looking people up in front.

i think g4 is a station to get your foot into the door of television. for a couple of years olivia munn was on g4 but moved to the calber report. i think is good just to get their foot in the door. it's why i think they have girls there. it's also for the pervy guys out there. i watched the other week for E3 a couple of days. i think that is all that i was there for. i use to watch it when i was younger. 
 
since it's not about video games anymore i stopped watching it.

I stopped watching G4 long ago.

To bad its going to be the UFC network soon.....

@Everyones_A_Critic said:

I just think it's so fucking stupid when shithead networks like G4 try and pretend like hot girls give a fly fuck about videogames, let alone the shlubs that play them (no offense guys). I don't understand how watching one disinterested COMPLETELY CLOTHED broad licking a PSP or saying "Epic for the win" is supposed to appeal to anyone who plays video games. Even Kevin Pereira (or however you spell his name) is starting to get annoying.

Starting to?! HE'S THE WORST GODDAMNED THING ABOUT THAT CHANNEL. Next to Olivia Munn. Come to think of it, she's not even there anymore, is she? Didn't she go over to the Daily Show, only to become an even bigger journalistic failure?

@Sin4profit: My argument isn't against hot women - sexy ladies exist! My argument is against the homogeneity of women as presented by G4 (that is, most "gamer women" are hot, but unable to be serious gamers). I also understand that G4 is a company trying to make money and that they have a target demographic of casual dude-bro gamers. Again, wanting to make money is an understandable motive. But when they present their demographic with these homogeneous female prototypes, the casual young gamer sees social scripts for appropriate behavior when interacting with gamer girls (i.e.: Tits or GTFO!).

There is only one "video game" channel and that is G4 (I realize it's not about video games anymore but...).
 
They can do pretty much anything they want, and they'll still have an audience until a real video game channel threatens to take their audience away.

G4 gets a bad rap and deservedly so. First off they ruined ZDTV. Second, they ruined themselves. G4 used to be a gaming only channel.

As far as gamer girls I give Morgan Webb a pass. First off she was a geek that came over with the ZDTV crew and was on shows like Screen Savers before becoming a co-host with Sessler. I blame the network for some of the persona they forced on her because at her core she's a sweet girl.

Now Olivia Munn may or may not like games but she seems to genuinely like gadgets. But really she was just very talented and witty and fit very well alongside K. Perera. The rest of them though... they're pretty much there for the eye candy. I get it from a viewers standpoint. They're like the step-child of Spike where they're just trying to cater to the alpha-male in all of us. But really the whole network is just a dung-heap. If Sessler and Webb could jump ship then that'd be great for their respectability.

On the flip side there is Jessica Chobot. Here's a girl who got a job just because she was an attractive female - who licks... excuse me... likes games. She was pretty shaky as a video personality at first but she is actually very good. Pretty natural at what she does. So, for possibly being brought in for the wrong reasons she actually brings something to the team at IGN.

As a whole I'd be lying if I said "who needs attractive females in gaming?" I think in some ways it can act as a role model for non-gamer girls to be attracted to hobby - which is great. The more widely accepted it is the better for all of us. But I am not a fan of putting a woman in front of a camera pretending to be something they're not. That just comes across as disingenuous and is NOT healthy for the industry.