If you’ld like to know more about the differences between men and women in game play, you should look into the research Cheskin and Interval did on how girls and boys play differently. The result of this research became Purple Moon, a girls-only game company in the 1990s. While they targeted teens in the research, much of it still applies to people (of both genders) older than teens and, besides, all of these players were once teens (so much of the findings still underpin their behavior).

Brenda Laurel, the head developer at Purple Moon, spoke about how the values at the core of the games her team developed aren’t just important to girls but they have identified another large, unserved market segment who also responded to this type of game play, but in different visual and narrative contexts: boys.

Some comments from your original post:

• I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize older games as “visually unappealing.” Both at the time, and even now, they have a certain asthetic that most found (and continue to find) appealing. The graphics on some games have gotten incredibly photoreal and rich but these are, generally, this isn’t the only reason they’re successful, nor are they the games that appeal mostly to women.

• “…women have an opportunity to influence video games content on more socially desirable aspects such as constructive, interactive tasks.’

Just like with the twitch games, you shouldn’t expect more positive (in some eyes’) values to just emerge from women entering more of the game market. These games may not be based on killing, but there are plenty of other social behaviors that they make available that aren’t mucch better (such as gossiping, back-stabing, ostracizing, etc.). Just because twitch games are predominantly male doesn’t mean that only males can exhibit questionable behavior, nor does it mean that only men and boys are attracked to these behaviors, nor that they don’t respond to other types of game play (that might otherwise be seen as more constructive).