What 34 Studies Taught Me About Gender and Video Games

If you ever took a gender studies course as I have, or spent enough time in gaming spaces, you’ve probably heard the same argument repeated over and over:

Video games portray women as damsels in distress or hypersexualized objects.

It’s one of the most recognized discussions in video game scholarship. But after reading 34 academic articles published between 1997 and 2023 for my undergraduate thesis, I started asking a different question:

Are scholars still relying on the same assumptions they made over twenty-five years ago?

Beyond the Gaming

Most Scholars Ask the Same Questions

One of the biggest patterns I found was through methodology.

Nearly 29 of the 34 studies relied primarily on qualitative analysis, with most focusing on either player experiences or interpretations of game content rather than measurable outcomes. Interestingly, over half the research examined people (players, developers, or gaming communities) rather than the games themselves.

Of course, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

But it does mean that much of the literature examines perceptions of games rather than the games themselves.

The Same Argument Keeps Appearing

Across twenty-six years of scholarship, one conclusion remained consistent.

23 of the 34 studies argued that women remain underrepresented or heavily stereotyped in video games. 

Only a handful suggested that representation has meaningfully improved.

This consistency raises an important question: 

Has representation truly remained stagnant, or have researchers continued interpreting newer games through older theoretical frameworks?

The Scholar Everyone Cites

Dr. Tracy Dietz’s 1998 article was cited twelve times within my dataset, making it the most influential study in the literature I examined. Most authors referenced it in their literature reviews or used it as evidence to support their arguments. Even I, during the class my independent study branched off of, used it as a jumping-off point in my research.

There’s just one problem:

When I looked closer, I found several issues with the original paper.

Dietz incorrectly cited multiple games in her dataset, made factual errors about publication dates, and presented inconsistencies between the games she claimed to analyze and the ones actually listed in her tables.

Of course, these mistakes do not necessarily invalidate her conclusions. But they do raise a bigger concern:

Why has such an influential study gone largely unquestioned for over two decades?

Let’s Think About Zelda

God, I love Zelda. But seriously, let’s think about it for a second.

Now, as a lifelong Legend of Zelda fan, I couldn’t help but notice an example that perfectly illustrates the issues I see in Dietz’s writing.

Princess Zelda, the titular character of Nintendo’s The Legend of Zelda series, is often described in academic literature as the quintessential “damsel in distress.” But anyone who has played more recent entries knows that description is incomplete.

In games like Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild, Zelda may still become a captive during certain points of the story, but she is far from helpless. She actively shapes the narrative, sacrifices herself for Hyrule, and ultimately becomes one of the story’s central heroes.

The “damsel” label has persisted longer in academic discussions than it arguably has in the games themselves.

A Missing Piece of the Puzzle

Another surprising finding was how rarely scholars discussed male representation.

Most articles focused exclusively on women, while only twelve meaningfully examined masculinity. Even then, researchers were divided on whether male characters experienced harmful stereotypes at all.

Here’s my complaint: if we are interested in studying how games construct gender, shouldn’t we study ALL genders?

So… Is the Research Wrong?

No, not at all!

Many of these studies remain valuable and shape how we think about representation in games. But listen: scholarship shouldn’t become untouchable.

One of academia’s strengths is the ability to revisit older research, question assumptions, and refine conclusions as new evidence emerges. 

Ironically, that’s exactly what hasn’t happened enough in this field. Based on the sample size I studied. 

Researchers frequently cite foundational studies such as Dietz (1998), but rarely examine whether those studies still reflect today’s games or whether their methods and assumptions warrant critical re-evaluation.

But What’s the Point?

The point is, video games have changed dramatically since the 1990s. They are larger and more diverse, telling far more complex stories than the games that originally shaped gender studies scholarship.

If the medium has evolved, our research should evolve alongside it.

Instead of asking whether games still contain stereotypes, perhaps the better question is:

Are we still analyzing modern games using a framework built for a very different gaming industry?

---

Thanks for reading! This post is derived from my undergraduate thesis “Damsels in Distressed or Distressed Damsels? A critical examination of academic literature on video games and gender studies.”

Interested in reading more about it? See my paper through my SSRN profile!