The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Farther than stars]

Until then she's just a booth babe with an agenda.

That is a bad thing say. <- That's not what I originally typed; originally I was a lot angrier, but then I realized that anger would probably only make you defensive and then that would ruin any chance of introspection on what you just said. Incidentally, saying that kind of thing is why we still need feminism.
And I would like to know: what exactly is so funny about a male feminist?

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I've watched a few of her videos, and, well, you'll have to add my voice to those who don't get the rage and the vitriol. I've seen the term "Boilerplate academic" used, and that describes her pretty well. The videos are essentially reformats of her thesis' approach - and theses aren't much more than extensively formulated *opinions*.

Her saying that Bayonetta is both being objectified and objectifying the female gender doesn't really bother me, for instance. I'd like her to detail her sources, yes, but beyond that, this is strictly her opinion.

If anything, I'd say that her producing these videos means that there's room for greater dialog on the subject - and I don't mean dialog of the "RAAAR, FEMINISM!" variety, like what's plagued The Escapist over the past few months. What really needs to be discussed, I think, is how females are allowed to or prevented from making a break in the industry, where they *might* be able to foster change from within.

As that's really the crux of the problem, more than any over-used narrative trope: the fact that, like it or not, game dev studios are still largely big great sausage fests who, by their very nature, are going to create content for hypothetical, yet *other* big sausage fests.

Otherwise, I've always been of the pro-sex variety, as a guy. Joanna Dark isn't the most deeply developed protagonist ever, yes, but she really isn't much more than a thin veneer of pixels to serve the purposes of escapism. Playing Perfect Dark as a kid, I never thought of her gender or her curves in any shape or form. She was the thing holding the guns, a mass of vertexes and textures that couldn't possibly have a gender because polygons and textures aren't *alive*. If I pick a female character in a fighting game, for instance, I won't do it for the boob-jiggling physics, much to the dismay of the Japanese demographics. I'll select her because her move set feels comfortable or familiar to me, and because I feel I can set myself at my best strategic position.

Honestly, gender issues have never really tinted my approach towards gaming. Women are fellow humans I cross while I'm walking down the street. Usually clever and interesting people, even if stupidity is fair and square in that it's unisex. Bayonetta couldn't possibly be considered as a woman, not only because of her proportions, but largely because of her nature as pure and simple artifice. Even FemShep, as wonderfully written as she might be, is nothing but a disembodied voice actress' work, some textures, a bunch of polygons and some pretty shaders.

All I really want is for more women to start *working* in the industry. Only then will the women the screen displays start to change. Even then, it'll be a while before the gray eminences in most big publishers' boardrooms warm up to the idea of taking risks and forgoing the usual route of pandering to the "Young, Caucasian, Male and Single" demographic.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I figured it was probably inevitable that MovieBob would say something on this subject after the Digital Gonzo Podcast on Fan Response. For those of you haven't heard it yet, here's a link:

Spoiler: Digital Gonzo Podcast

[link]http://www.gonzoplanet.com/2013/09/digital-gonzo-149-fan-response/[/link]

The play-button for the audiofile is at the bottom of the page (above the comments), but be warned, it is four hours long; the part on Anita Sarkeesian is somewhere in the middle (before the two-hour mark, if I remember correctly).

It's not a bad piece, despite its length. It also has Dan and LeeLee from Extra Credits and the podcast let me know about some really greats artists, including a musician and webcomic creator.

Thanks for the link. Love the other people, but haven't heard of the host before.
Seems like a nice guy. At the very least, entertaining.

Anyway.


xD Good Lord. Bob, you weren't kidding with that title. It's almost impressive how many people are SO scared of Anita.
If it wasn't so sad.

It still kind of shocks me when I hear women talk about how they had to "campaign" to get video games.
Then again, maybe it's because of how I grew up. My Mom played Mario on an old grey Gamboy, before she quit, my older sisters and brother had a SNES[sub](though I was too young to play/remember it much)[/sub], and my Dad bought me and my younger sister both our own Gameboy colors.[sub][sub]Despite all that Nintendo, I became a Sony fan with the first playstation.[/sub][/sub]

Until I came to the Escapist, I didn't really know that people making fun of gamers, or saying girls shouldn't play was even a thing. At least not to the amount that it is.
Thankfully that seems to be changing.
:/ Maybe that's what people really fear?

Thanks for sharing your experience, Bob.
Wonder if the people who hate Anita will make this thread as big as the "Critical Miss: WGDF GO!" ;p

 

[Icehearted]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

One thing I've never found very interesting is whether Sarkeesian is a 'real gamer' or not. Maybe it's true that she isn't, but I don't think it invalidates what she is saying if what she is saying is true if somewhat flawed. A lot of arguments and videos centre around attacking the person, which is rather boring. She may not be right in all circumstances, but I think there is something to her arguments.

Call me a hipster, but I came across her videos before she blew up on the internet. To me, they were a set of vods buried on youtube with an interesting take that analyzed the status quo and as someone interested in story, I always find analysis and criticism of status quo interesting. If I find what they are saying has a thread of truth that matches my own observations, then I find the argument compelling regardless of their 'realness' or lack therof.

And in Sarkeesian's case I saw more than a thread of truth and with tropes about as common as the black dude always dying in film or the soldier that pulls out a picture of his family getting shot less than a minute later. You may find counter examples, but a lot of this stuff exists and is fairly widespread. I like the idea of shaking up the status quo. Heck, the Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle shakes up the conventions of the knightly quest while using the familiar story found in Chaucer's Wife of Bath. A fresh approach is a great thing for story telling.

Which leads me to the whole 'credit/ source' controversy. It would be nice if she sourced the Let's Play videos, sure. But not necessary and once again it has very little to do with the actual arguments and more to do with the person. To me it is simply finding another avenue to hate Sarkessian and not a very interesting line of attack either. The source controversy to the extent that it has been blown up into a controversy misses the mark and has more to do with shoring up more reasons why they dislike her in the first place. But it is too strenuous.

Using footage from Let's Play videos has less to do with faking being a gamer and more to do with practicality in making a video using game footage. Having made a few vods myself using gameplay, I realize how time consuming this is and I could set up my scenarios relatively easy compared to having to play to the 13th level just to get the one clip you wanted to show.

I like this comment from Shamus Young's podcasters, Chris. (And yes, I am sourcing it. Diecast 25: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=20625 )

So I meant to go on sort of a long rant about this and only managed to get the short version into the podcast. But the thing is, it?s way less cut and dried than ?Credit everyone you take footage from.?

First off: It?s not their footage to lay claim to to begin with. I mean, this is why we can?t easily monetize Spoiler Warning on YouTube and make some scratch for our efforts; the footage we?re capturing quite literally doesn?t belong to us. It?s the property of whoever made the game to begin with. Let?s Players like to pretend that footage they captured is their ?property? but really they?re just making (questionable?) use of fair use laws and hoping it?s either transformative enough to pass (it usually isn?t) or is given to a small enough that none of the rights holders want to issue DMCA notices (it usually is). So right off the bat, people upset that ?their? footage wasn?t cited need to recognize that they can?t hit ?record? on a VHS player and then claim that the resulting copy of Star Wars is ?their? footage. It simply isn?t theirs to get or demand credit for.

Second: I did manage to cover this in the podcast, but I want to emphasize this: getting footage of games is hard. Like, harder than you?d imagine. I?ve done it for shows, it takes an enormous amount of time, especially if you?re looking for specific scenes. You need different equipment based on whether it?s a PC game or a modern console or a classic console or a handheld or a board game or arcade machine or whatever. And unlike film there are no fast forward buttons, there are no chapter skips, and you need to play through the whole thing until you get to the scene you?re interested in. But finally after countless hours and lots of money you?ve got your footage. Great! You?ve captured that scene! Now on to the 15 other games you need specific footage of that require you to play through MORE games and have MORE specialized equipement if they?re on another console.

Seriously, try scripting a really powerful essay and then realize that you reference an end-boss scene from an SNES game, and it fits your point *perfectly*. You?ve recorded your voice and now it?s time to edit the footage on top of it. What do you do? Do you find an SNES, a copy of the game, a CRT to play it on if you don?t have one, capture equipment for composite inputs, and then wait for a spare weekend to try and beat the game for 35 seconds of footage? Are you going to load up a copy of FRAPs and an emulator, pirate the game, and then try to beat it that way? Or are you going to get footage from a Let?s Play in 20 minutes and at virtually no cost? Now multiply this decision twenty times over because that?s how many games and scenes you want to talk about, and you?re starting to see the scope of the work involved. It is soul crushing to have an essay done but hundreds of hours of drudgery ahead just to get 35 seconds of footage.

Third: This argument makes Let?s Players into giant hypocrites. The argument for Let?s Plays fighting against Nintendo?s claims that they should be getting ad revenue from their videos is that they?re claimed to be transformative enough to be fair use. We?ve yet to really see this be proven in court, but that?s the argument: They?re taking a small sample of the game by taking only video of a single playthrough and then turning it into criticism or entertainment. But then if someone else turns around and takes, say, 30 seconds out of a 6 hour Let?s Play to make their own criticism or entertainment video that?s ?stealing?? I mean, if a Let?s Play is transformative content from videogame footage (and? ehhh?) I fail to see how what Sarkeesian does isn?t transformative to Let?s Play content. And again, this part completely ignores the fact that it isn?t their footage to give to begin with.

Mumbles copped to do thing. I do this. Sarkeesian does this. But it?s not out of malice or neglect or laziness; it?s out born of the realities of making a video that references several specific moments in games.

 

[Adventurer2626]

I appreciate the showmanship Bob. Made me imagine being there. She's not the symbol non-male gamers deserve but she's one of the few "fighting in the trenches." Pioneers and other movers and shakers traditionally have a high failure rate so don't expect a demi-god to pop out of nowhere and change the world overnight. She could be better but at least she's highlighting valid issues and keeping gender equality in everyone's consciousness. This will be a long transition period, not a blitzkrieg victory. Symptoms of sexism will keep cropping up until a new status quo is reached with an acceptable balance for all genders. As long as people have differences, someone, somewhere will have a problem with them. Treat all gamers like human beings, try to make female/other characters interesting beyond their polygons and keep fighting the good fight. Three-Dog bow-wow.

 

[QuantumWalker]

However, with Anita's project she is almost exclusively focusing on the non-interactive components of games, their cutscenes. When she does focus on the interactive sequences it is usually the heavily scripted portions of the game. The moments where the outcome will always play out the same no matter what action the player takes. e.g. killing Jenny in Prey.

Yes, but how could she address entirely player-controlled sections?

And anyway... so what? She's not talking about the player-controlled aspects. She's talking about the story aspects.

There's a lot of game design philosophy lately that only the player-controlled stuff matters. Anita doesn't agree. If you disagree with that, then fine. But that doesn't mean she's "cheery picking" - she's simply addressing the only section that is the same for everyone.

Well, the games narrative is not solely restricted to cut scenes. Look at old games, the game play is the story as much as the flavor text. Missle command was a game designed to show what trying to fend off a nuclear attack with no hope of survival would be like. This is conveyed through the game play in a number of ways. You can't actually win the game because nobody wins in an all out war. You are tasked with protecting a number of cities with only a limited number of shots per round but eventually the game will get to the point where you have to consider sacrificing some areas in order to protect others. It's a game telling the story about tough decisions in a futile situation. This experience is the same for everyone and the only difference is how well you do and how high your score is at the end. Different player experiences, same story told.

Fast forward to modern games and the same trend occurs. Game designers use their mechanics to tell a story alongside exposition. How the game equips the player to interact with the game world is relevant. And how the other actors in the story are written and interact with the player matters. In the Legend of Zelda Wind Waker Tetra/Zelda acts as your first means of getting of your home island. She and her crew train you in some basic stealth and mobility mechanics and she is the person who helps you infiltrate the forbidden fortress. When she joins you in the final fight you literally cannot defeat Ganondorf without her help. Is that the mark of a dis-empowered female?

Anita dismisses the actions of female characters who just so happened to be captured at any point within the narrative as "pseudo empowerment" and labels them helpful damsels. But does the act of being captured invalidate all the contributions that character may have made before and after her capture? My answer is no. Anita's focus on the non interactive parts of games presents a limited perspective on what the game's narrative is actually about. And her method of reducing characters to binary traits diminishes the significance they can have to the story.

Agency is also an overlooked factor of this discussion that Anita completely ignores. In a games story the player is the one who affects change. If npc's do something it is because the player has completed enough objectives to progress the plot. Not acnnowledging the difference between the roles of NPC's and PC's in a games narrative is a huge oversight. If you played a game with a female protagonist and you were captured, you would then play out your escape. If a male NPC was captured in this same game you would have to rescue them because they would likely not be written to escape by themselves. (e.g. Tomb Raider, Remember Me, Beyond: Two Souls)

And she is cherry picking.

Cherry Picking a.k.a. suppression evidence fallacy:
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one?s own conclusion. Perhaps the arguer is not mentioning that experts have recently objected to one of his premises.

I won't go too much into detail as I can be pretty long winded but here is a specific example of her cherry picking evidence. From her 2nd episode

• When I say Violence Against Women I'm primarily referring to images of women being victimized or when violence is specifically linked to a character?s gender or sexuality. Female characters who happen to be involved in violent or combat situations on relatively equal footing with their opponents are typically be exempt them from this category because they are usually not framed as victims.

See the slight of hand? By her definition it's only violence against women if they can't fight back. But if this were say a fighting game and Chun-li were being attacked by M. Bison then it's not violence against Chun-li because she knows how to use a spinning bird kick. She's deliberately skewed a definition so that it only apply to instances where women in games are not able to defend themselves. In doing so she eliminates the need for her to acknowledge that their are female characters who are put in harmful situations but overcome them.

This definition also implies that all instances of violence against female characters occur because the character is female, as if no other motivations exist for wanting to hurt them. But that is another can of worms I don't want to open tonight.

Facts are the truth about things regardless of interpretation and they do exist in this case. What I am trying to say is that just because the nature of video game analysis is subjective, does not illustrate that their is no objectivity to that same analysis.

Yes, fine. Just like Orson Scott Card hates gay people. And yes, that has an effect on his books. But I don't recall saying otherwise.

I provided examples of the type of thing I was talking about (in previous posts, but again, I kinda assumed you read up-thread).

Is Ophelia (in Shakespeare's Hamlet) insane? Most readers will assume that, yes, she is. However, I can demonstrate that she is not. Some people agree with me. Others do not.

It is fact that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet. But no one is writing papers about that. (okay, a few crazies are, but all historical evidence says they're crazies)

Also Note: The people arguing that Shakespeare didn't write Hamlet are writing history papers, not literary analysis. Two different disciplines.

My intent was never to contest the historical legitimacy of a story. But if we want to be particular Anita is not conducting a literary Analysis, she is a cultural critic attempting to demonstrate how certain narrative tropes are indicative of a larger societal problem regarding women's representation in the gaming community. Her focus was not to analyze the Damsel in Distress trope with respect to the stories they happen in, but to track the trope in its incarnations throughout the history of humanity.

I interpreted your statements regarding facts under the idea that you don't believe that their is anything concrete that can be used when analyzing fictional narratives. I was attempting to point out that their are consistencies of fictional stories that exist outside of personal interpretations made by others. If a character was written with certain qualities than that is what they were written with. If the author makes a character a certain way than that is how the character is written, and it is the reader who projects their own cannon over that. But this does not supersede the intentions of the author. If Shakespeare wrote Ophelia to be insane based on the working definition, or his personal definition, of what insanity during his lifetime than she was written as insane. We can only argue from our own perspective which ironically would blend historical and literary analysis. The word may have changed in meaning and we no longer live with the mindset of people living in the 16th - 17th century. If you were arguing whether or not Ophelia was insane from a modern interpretation of insanity you would still have to acknowledge that Shakespeare did not have that exact definition during his lifetime.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

She's deliberately skewed a definition so that it only apply to instances where women in games are not able to defend themselves. In doing so she eliminates the need for her to acknowledge that their are female characters who are put in harmful situations but overcome them.

... but that's not what she's doing.

She's not saying that instances where women fight back don't exist.

She's saying that she APPROVES of those instances, and so doesn't need to talk about them.

It isn't Cherry picking (by the definition you provided) when you leave it out because you LIKE it.

This is why I find this argument infuriating. She's showing you the bad stuff and saying "this stuff is bad."

Your response is "but there's good stuff too!"

... but she never said otherwise! If she isn't mentioning it, it's because she has no problem with it. She's only being critical of the parts she doesn't like.

It's like when Yahtzee says "if I don't mention it, assume I liked it" during a review.

I almost hope I misunderstood you somehow, because if I understood correctly, you're pissed at her not mentioning the good things that she likes... why? If she has no complaints about good stuff... then why would she bring it up? It's a CRITIQUE. Like Yahtzee says - the point of a critique is to complain about the stuff you don't like.

If she makes a video called Tropes FOR Women, then sure. But the entire point of these videos is to talk about the bad stuff. So OF COURSE she's only talking about the bad stuff. That's her TOPIC.

To talk about the good stuff would be OFF TOPIC. By definition.

I was concerned before because I thought that the people claiming Cherry picking didn't understand how literary arguments worked. Now I think they don't understand how topics work.

Next you'll be asking me to define the word "it". There's a Clinton joke for you. Goodnight.

Edit: One last clarification. Including the good stuff as a counterpoint would only work if she was arguing against games. But she's not. She likes games. She wants to improve games. Thus she is only pointing out the flaws, so they can be corrected to make games better. That's how critique works.

 

[seditary]

What I don't get is the gaming media, its like there's been an industry wide agreement to either support everything Anita does or ignore her entirely.

I've only ever seen one article pointing out factual inaccuracies she made in an interview and nothing actually discussing her work in order to have that dialogue everyone claims they want to have.

Pretty sure there's been stuff in blogs and possibly specialist websites for social issues but in the wider gaming press?

 

[OctoberFox]

Please don't post anymore stuff about Anita Sarkeesian, she has nothing interesting to say.

I second this, and will add that these discussions are often not remotely fruitful or constructive either.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

ok, reasons why people think Sarkeesian isn't legit:
- the only time she allowed comments to be open and un-moderated was on her Kickstarter video. She has openly bragged about rejecting abusive comments on her youtube channel before, so to allow them un-moderated seems unusual especially considering the abusive nature of previous commentors on her channel. After she allowed the comments through she immediately highlighted them and laid specific blame on 'gamers' for this vitriol and not rather her persistent following of trolls.
- Her Kickstarter video was repeatedly spammed on 4chan, this in itself is not unusual, however her screencaps of the reactions to this spam are suspect to some. For someone who was sickened by Kanye West's 'monster' video the last place you would ever want to lurk to avoid misogynistic attitudes is 4chan.
- Her alledged (although it looks pretty damn clear) piracy of footage
http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
- The several misleading and borderline incorrect statements she has made
Dinosaur Planet was supposedly : "her [Krystal's] own game" while it was initially intended as dual protagonist game (she mentions the duality of protagonists tokenly)
Sarkeesian lambasts Super Princess Peach for how Peach's powers in that game are "her out-of-control female emotions." However, the actual plot of the game is about Bowser causing everyone's emotions to become super-powered and out-of-control and Peach being the only one capable of controlling her emotions.
She will occasionally use games with a gender-neutral protagonist as male-centered, such as claiming Borderlands 2 features male-on-female violence, when the player can play as two female classes, or Fable II has a girl die for the sake of a supposedly male protagonist.
- Sarkeesian closed her comments section on the day her Kickstarter project ended, many of those who accuse Sarkeesian of attempting to exploit the backlash against her particularly point to her use of moderation (and lack-thereof) in the comments of her videos while trying to raise funds. She was clearly aware of the backlash, but instead of trying to prevent it or properly moderate it she purposely used as an example of 'gamer' specific mysoginy.
- The video leaked of her in 2010 admitting she didn't play games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw) this at least discredits her assertion she's played games 'since [this implies continuity] I was 5 years old'.

Sarkeesian has contributed nothing except to splinter and dissolusion the modern gaming community, of course you can't expect a balanced analysis with a title like 'feminist frequency', but her overwhelming bias and continual exploitation of what was largely a 4chan based raid has led to a toxic image being presented of gamers. Not dissimilar to Jack Thompson's or Micheal Atkinson's work (people who both have also claimed harrasment on behalf of gamers), however as Sarkeesian was the 'victim' before she 'stated anything'(although her thesis statment 'Have you ever noticed that... basically all female charecters in video games fall into a small handful of cliches and stereotypes' said while images of sexy female charecters roll across the screen isn't exactly implying any positive implications, nor a lack of opinion) she has been granted a free pass by the gaming press all the while constantly imlying the demonic nature of the 'gamer community'. Whenever anyone tries to rebuke her as toxic sycophantic assailant attaching herself to the gaming community, her legions of sympathizers move in to assert that gamers 'brought this upon themselves' and her usually baseless assertions on gamers are affirmed by the way she was treated by 'gamers'.

Although gamers (and especially /v/) didn't.
Gamers have continually rebuked the backlash are viscous and wrong yet have been laid the blame for the actions of (what seems to be) 4chan and other internet hooligans who are in no way representative of the gamer community.

 

[VondeVon]

As much as I believe her kickstarter was an unnecessary and dishonest cash grab, the notoriety it earned her is now letting her reach people academically, so that's a good thing.

I don't understand this notion, that her kickstarter was a dishonest cash grab. She asked for $6000 to make a series of videos about feminist issues in gaming. She got the money (donated freely by people who were interested in what she was making) and then she made the videos.

She didn't promise anything she didn't deliver. She didn't make dummy accounts and spam herself with bile. She didn't ask other sites to advertise both her kickstarter and the backlash against it - which in turn prompted people to donate to her as a backlash against the backlash.

She was just a chick, asking for money, to make something she then made. Nobody gave her money who didn't have to. There was nothing dishonest about it and if she asked for more money than she 'needed' (and who are we to judge that? Doing things for free takes time and time is money) to do it - so what? She asked. People gave. End of story.

If she asked for $6000 to make videos where she danced in a jelly bean suit, and people paid, followed by her dancing in a jelly bean suit... that wouldn't be dishonest either. We might not think it was worth the price, but it's only the business of those who paid for it!

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

- Sarkeesian closed her comments section on the day her Kickstarter project ended, many of those who accuse Sarkeesian of attempting to exploit the backlash against her particularly point to her use of moderation (and lack-thereof) in the comments of her videos while trying to raise funds. She was clearly aware of the backlash, but instead of trying to prevent it or properly moderate it she purposely used as an example of 'gamer' specific mysoginy.

Even if this conspiracy mentality is true, the blame doesn't fall on Sarkeesian. Unless you mean to say those commenters simply couldn't help themselves. Like moths to a light, they were unswervingly drawn to their deaths. What a trick she pulled, allowing comments and then disallowing them. If there is nothing to exploit, then opening and closing comments should have had zero effect beyond either no comments (thus showing passive disinterest) or reasonable debate. If you buy the "It was a trap" argument (which I don't), then there needed to be something to catch in the first place and in this case, it wasn't particularly hard. That points back to us than it does to her that we were so easily 'trapped' and bamboozeld.

The reason for the blocks in the first place was the original vitriol. Opening it briefly was like opening the dam to release the floodwaters before closing it back up again. If there were no flood waters, the opening of the dam would have been greeted by the sound of crickets. That was clearly not the case, but the fault does not like with the dam, but with what was behind it.

It's not like she was resorting to sock puppets to manufacture a controversy. I think it is the height of unreasonable creativity to manufacture an explanation that she master-minded and engineered a controversy.

 

[VondeVon]

What I don't get is the gaming media, its like there's been an industry wide agreement to either support everything Anita does or ignore her entirely.

I've only ever seen one article pointing out factual inaccuracies she made in an interview and nothing actually discussing her work in order to have that dialogue everyone claims they want to have.

Pretty sure there's been stuff in blogs and possibly specialist websites for social issues but in the wider gaming press?

Afraid of calling the storm upon themselves, I think.

I'm still hoping Yahtzee will one day do something. Will check all the facts, accusations and then just lay it out with a tongue lashing for whoever deserves it on both sides.

 

[VondeVon]

As for Nintendo knowing if people are against Zelda getting her own game, I can't say I know, but I'd say it's likely they tried to contact nintendo about it. If nintendo heard, or cares, I can't say.

I contacted Nintendo once, just to offer my support for an idea. I was politely replied to by letter, in which Nintendo informed me that they weren't interested in sourcing the opinion of their customers, thank you.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Alright, I'll bite: name one game that's sexist, and I'll tell you why it's not.

You mean start with a fully formed conclusion in mind? You mean exactly like Sarkeesian does? That's terrible.

Alternatively, name one game that would be in line with Anita's tastes and I'll tell you why it'll suck.

Please?

Portal. Go ahead, tell me why one of the best loved and critically acclaimed games in recent times 'sucks.'

I was being sarcastic. I should have put a /sarcasm after all that.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Alright, I'll bite: name one game that's sexist, and I'll tell you why it's not.

Custer's Revenge

Alternatively, name one game that would be in line with Anita's tastes and I'll tell you why it'll suck.

Thomas Was Alone

Alright. Probably should have put more though into my challenge but here goes;

Custer's revenge is a porno game made solely for base titillation. Would you condemn an interracial porno flick as racist? I don't think the people stroking off care about racial stereotypes. Now granted, it's a piece of shit and is very much bad porn, but sexism/racism/classism fly out the window when all you care about is two blobs of pixels getting busy.

Thomas Was Alone: have not played it. Don't want to spew bullshit anymore than I already have. But since everyone loves it and it apparently it's an indie game about friendship using a minimalist style, I'm almost guaranteed to hate it anyway for what it is.