The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[wulf3n]

First of wow this was delayed, wasn't this conversation like 2 days ago?

I can barely remember what we're talking about.

That's like me saying Basketball is a sport and you posting the definition of sports and basketball and pointing out they are not the same thing.

The media you consume includes advertising. Not all media is advertising, but all advertising is a form of media.

Not all sports played is basketball, but if you play basketball, you are playing a sport.

Yes that's the distinction I was making, the why I'll get to next.

Provide evidence that a square as four sides of equal length. The very definition of the word is all the evidence you should need. Asking for more than that is proof you are not interested in an intellectually honest debate.

But if you handed me an object and said "this is a square" I only have your word that all four sides are equal. So if I were asking for evidence this was a square I would expect to see thing that show the length of each side.

If advertising weren't a form of media, then no one would see it. Media is a method of mass communication. Ads only work if people can see them.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

What I was inferring is the idea that the type of media we consume is influenced by the advertising is just as plausible as your idea that the type of media we consume influences the type of advertising that gets created.

Essentially we have a cause and effect just like what I quoted Anita as saying. Without any evidence to show exactly what is the cause and what is the effect the statement can easily be reversed and still seem plausible which is why i did it.

 

[UberPubert]

Epic thread guys, absolutely epic. Let it die happily now. We lost good men to bannings and suspensions in here, let's never speak of it again. I didn't actually watch the video because I fully expect Movie Bob to be fawning over her and that would annoy me!

"Guys"? Good "men"? You sexist pig! (Totally kidding)

It wasn't a video by the way, it was just an article, though fawning is an accurate description.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

What I was inferring is the idea that the type of media we consume is influenced by the advertising is just as plausible as your idea that the type of media we consume influences the type of advertising that gets created.

Oh god... I think I'm going to get another warning replying to you.

"your idea that the type of media we consume influences the type of advertising that gets created."

This is not my idea. I have no idea how you could have interpreted what I said that way.

This is my idea...

The media we consume has an influence over us. If this were not true, then there would be no advertising (or propaganda). Advertising is a form of media. It isn't the only form of media, but it is certainly a form of media.

Got it?

Essentially we have a cause and effect just like what I quoted Anita as saying. Without any evidence to show exactly what is the cause and what is the effect the statement can easily be reversed and still seem plausible which is why i did it.

NO IT CAN'T.

You can't reverse the cause and effect and pretend it is just as likely.

The media we consume has an effect on our behavior. If this were not true, there would be no advertising. The fact that advertising is a $170 billion business in the United States is indisputable evidence that I'm right.

Got it? I have $170 billion worth of evidence backing up my argument. Stop pretending this evidence doesn't exist.

On the other hand, what do you have to back up your claim? Hell, I'm not even sure you know what you are trying to claim.

 

[wulf3n]

On the other hand, what do you have to back up your claim? Hell, I'm not even sure you know what you are trying to claim.

Funny that. Could it be that I'm not making any claim? just expecting evidence to be provided for the claims of others?

We wouldn't want you to get another warning so I'll say good day sir.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

The thing is, Anita is more well known than anyone else I know of on the topic. She gets the most attention for better or worse.
Until someone can eclipse her, or at least get as well known as her, she's likely to be the go-to person on this topic.
Like it or not, she's pretty much the champion of the cause due to being more of a household name than, say, Jim Sterling who's a better, IMO in presentation.
People can criticise her all they want, but until someone who can do a better job arises, odds are she'll be the only one listened to.
Sadly, I don't see anyone really qualified on the subject, and job trying to take her place as opposed to criticise her to no end.


You talk sense about the business practices up until kickstarters, IMO. Kickstarters are extremely unlikely to generate the money needed to make a game, and not likely to generate a profit, so due to it only showing interest and not necessarily profit, they're likely to ignore it completely.
It doesn't help any that Double Fine failed with their kickstarter attempt in that they asked for a certain amount of money, but, despite reaching that point, needed more as development costs grew unexpectedly.

As far as Nintendo goes, they seem most likely to have games with gender select. Yeah, it might amount to a sack of flour character, but it's closer than not having gender select, and having to play as a dude, so it's something better. It's nothing to live off of in gaming, mind you, but it's something.
Sooner or later, diversity'll be necessary.

Despite Terrarria, and Minecraft going to console, and the success, it seems like a pet project to game companies more than anything. I doubt they're saying "Wow, that forumla was really successful! We shoulf make a AAA version of that, huh?"
And if a winning formula isn't getting copied by the big leagues trying to cash in on it, it's really unlikely they'll emulate the idea of female protagonists. I really don't see Indie games changing anything.
If an indie game were to change the industry's views on female protagonists, it deserves more awards than those that exists. Even a series could be pretty ground breaking if it made the game industry realize female protagonists could be profitable... but then they'll prolly strip the formula, and replace the woman with a guy in hopes of even more money... and probably screw up the formula in the process.

But what do you think it says about the issue and community when the face of the movement to change things is largely considered an opportunistic charlatan? Yes, she is the most well known name, but that is because of controversy and sensationalism making her infamous, and say what you will, that doesn't help things in the end. It makes her, and by extension the issues she is associated with, all the easier to dismiss. It adds fuel to the presumption that gamers are all just whiny entitled privileged brats with "first world problems" and paints the community itself as even more volatile then politics, and therefore not to be paid much attention to. Furthermore, because she eclipses the issue, it means the discussion is more about her and less about the issues, to the point that people who don't care about games in the least will still get into screaming matches of over the differences in political ideology in discussions that should be about the medium itself. Movements are seen in the public light by who they choose to represent them. If you have an Alex Jones or Bill O'Riley representing you, you aren't taken seriously, all the more when you lack the numbers to force them to acknowledge you. But having Anita be the face of this issue, by allowing the sensationalistic bullshit and volatile drama to be how the topic is discussed, it makes it very easy for people to dismiss or not care about the topic at all. This sort of fame wears on people and unless they have a vested interest, it becomes white noise ignored if not spited. Tell me, how has accepting the Demagogues of politics to be the face of their parties and ideals worked to actually solve problems?

You undervalue kickstarters quite a bit. No, they are not a golden bullet, but they can and have earned enough to make games, especially when one steps back and remembers games do not need the best graphics or the deepest gameplay. I really think you also dismiss the pc and tablet markets to concentrate on consoles because that is what you are most familiar with, and to your harm for it. The triple A market is shrinking, the corporate culture behind it mixed with the draconian control of the product to the customer and lack of innovation (in regards to marketing or gameplay, not the innovation for innovation sake gimmicks and hardware they push) has stagnated it quite a bit and it does seem content to be what it is now more then ever. But look at the new consoles. Look at Sony's and Microsoft's push for indie titles, look at GoG and Steam's audience base. Look at the indie titles that have boomed beyond whatever the AAA industry shoveled out that year except possibly the company cash cows. Hell, look at the likes of http://freebirdgames.com/to_the_moon/ a game that I swear was made on a RPG maker online. You can and will find great games everywhere, even games that suit and represent your taste in protagonist and story as soon as you break free of the Triple A box you keep locking yourself in. And even if you only stick to consoles, the industry has noticed the rise of the indie to the point they are marketing consoles on how well and easy they are to get you those indie titles too.

I get the feeling that you want something quite specific here. There is some genre or bunch of titles that you want a female protagonist or a decent story for in particular, and I can relate there. But I am willing to bet that those titles and genre are so saturated by people who are receptive to lowest common denominator marketing and design, that those games are very unlikely to give you what you seek.

You say minecraft and the like are pet projects of companies, but the opposite is true. They were threats to the companies because they were so popular so they put them on their consoles as well. I am sure losing audience to a competitor or to pc gaming does scare the big 3, all the more with the leek to mobile gaming and the fickle audience taste making the multi-million dollar investment strategies the AAA use all the riskier. Hell, they would not have made the access to indie and the like part of the system if they did not see both threat and potential profit sides of that coin.

If people don't like her, they can try and find someone else to raise up as a champion to take her place? The only reason she's staying where she is is that she doesn't have serious competition in the area of getting women better representation in gaming, and the industry.

I mean, the critics, they complain Anita's only complaining, and not taking action among attacks on her personally. What are the critics doing but only complaining, and trying to tear her down unsuccessfully?
It's not a good cycle.

I mean aside from Anita, the only other memorable person that seems to speak up about the issue with any decent frequency is Jim Sterling. Extr Credits who could likely to a frikking wonderful job dodges the subject like crazy, it feels like. I mean they did a few good videos, but eh.
The problem with Jim Sterling, though as he's somewhat unprofessional if that's not an understatement.
Extra Credits is a Cartoon, and we have tht unfortunate stigma in the west that grown men, and women don't watch cartoons, so it's kinda hard for thme to get their foot in the door, isn't it?

If critics want Anita gone, my best advice is to find someone else to represent the representation of women in gaming, and champion the cause. I just hope who ever they pick is someone who doesn't say "Gaming is fine, there is no gender issue!" coz they aren't exactly championing the cause with that sentiment, IMO.

Honestly, IMO, the solution to getting better representation of women is extremely simple:
1: Stop preventing female protagonists. It'll take the wind out of the sails of the whole Damsel in Distress thing, IMO. Variety will help deflate accusing the industry of a standard female protagonist.
2: Marketing would help. Stop shoving the games out of the nest, and hoping they'll fly. Have some budget for marketing.
3: It'd help if the games weren't drek, and were above average.

Optionally: Pull a stand alone DLC (like BLood Dragon, carnival of blood, liberty city stories), or what Ubisoft did with Assassin's Creed Liberation. Make cheap, HD remakes of games. Not sure if Nintendo's taking that route, exactly, though.

I mean, lets look at the Arkham Asylum/City/Origins (Bugs aside), how hard would it be to make a batgirl/batwoman game from those? Well, aside from trying to decide what Batgirl to use. <.< I mean classic Barbara Gordon? Cassandra Cain? Stephanie Brown? Or have Steph as Spoiler, and a team-up? It's not current, sure but do I care? Nope! lol

And holy crap, imagine if they made a Batwoman game with her lesbian relationship? Free controvercy there.

Could make a Catwoman game from it expandingon what Arkham City did.
Or a Gotham City Sirens arc in which Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, and Catwoman become room mates. It was a really nice comic book arc.
I mean the assets are right THERE, voices aside, and building with the assets.
I'd love it if I could do criminal stuff, and explore the criminal underworld of gotham. I mean yeah, Batman would horn in, guarenteed, and likely win guarenteedm but maybe have leaderboards for how long you can go without getting caught after a crime's started?
Or we could have some fun with it. Maybe you can set up traps, and temporarily capture him? Then he escapes, or Robin, or Batgirl pops up, helps him escape! Or Huntress, or other members of the bat family!
It might be sacreligious, but maybe make the game -without- batman? Pit the Gotham City Sirens vs the Birds of Prey? Could make 2 games in 1 out of that, played from each side/team.

And I really hope they Hire Gail Simone for writing. I hear the Tomb Raider sequel will have a comic with Gail's work in it accompanying it, but, well, games can go to limbo, so I'm not holding my breath. No telling when the seuqel is coming out, or what it'll be like. 'z little more than rumors.

Marvel's missing the boat, too, IMO. A Spider-girl game made from spiderman game assets, anyone?

The answers really shouldn't have to be spelled out, should they?

That's essentially it. Real simple, imo. I see no reason I'd be the only person to think of these things.

People want solutions, but the solutions are easy for the game industry to pull off, IMO.

Honestly, I don't hear a whole lot of good about Kickstarters, but I agree, gameplay over graphics, and it'd be nice if there were copnsole/handheld ports, too. and maybe if kickstarted did code cards you could buy. A small budget could work to make a game, sure.

Honestly, I think I'm really familiar with the PC, and tablet market.
I have an android tablet, a Pandigital Novel/Nova It's not the greatest, and it shows. I can barely trust it to be my alarm clock in the morning coz if I load to much on it, it crashes, or something.
It's kinda off brand because Google Play doesn't support it, but Getjar, and Amazon, and 1 market do.
The glut of simple tap games, and card games aren't fulfilling, though I prolly could end up addicted to the card collecting games. I'm a bit of a sucker for artwork.
The nation building games have absurd time sinks. I can't handle that stuff. I like gaming on my schedule.
And then there's the games where they want you to enlist friends. Meaning friends try to enlist you. Worse, still is those "friends" aren't friends, you're just a name they collected. I'm kinda apart from that because I understand what it is to collect names so I generally avoid such things. 'm not a great person to talk to if you can believe it. If I'm not absolutely passionate, then I'm a person of extremely few words, and there's little I'm really passionate about, and it's kinda out there. I'm an intensely private person that doesn't open up quickly, too. That said games where you rely on friends? They kinda suck for me.

I don't have a lot of luck in the PC market. Yeah, I know the game diverity is up there, but my Laptop can barely handle an android emulator.
It's a (insert make and model here) with 8 gigs of memory? I thought that upgrade would really help, but it mostly added to overheating issues. Luckily I have a fan pad.
I can't play warframe on it unless all the graphical settings are at the lowest, which is really sad looking, and it still struggles.
I can't play Vindictus either due to power issues.
And everything would have to be windowed coz I do have friends I use my laptop to talk to.
Here's a bit of a rub. I don't like using debit/credit cards, but I think steam has prepaid cards like PSN, and XLB, and Nintendo Shop so there's that.
Games, games, thousands of games, and not a computer strong enough to play them.

Oh, and the computer's need for upkeep, and maintenance/optimization. Drivers, compatability issues, crappy ports, controller support issues (I really do like controllers), etc. etc.
I mean I've built my own computer before, more or less in ordering the parts and having them assembled at the store. I could still do it myself, as I'm decently computer savvy. Fixing other people's computers was really eye opening as was looking at Geek Squad's prices for services.

If it makes you feel any better, though, I'll probably get a new PC over a next gen console if I can make a decent machine for not much more. With my preferrences, I'll be kinda dissapointed with the launch titles for a while, so it'd be better just to wait for the library to build.
I do look forward to seeing what sort of Indie titles will be available on ps4, though. I think Ill pass on Xbone a while.

So, I'd like to think I'm pretty in the know about Android, and PC gaming. I kinda prefer meatier games, and a higher chance of stability, even on the go. Hence a 2ds.

Much appreciation for the link to the game! Thank you!

Honestly, the only thing I really want is what I've been saying all along.
More games where you play as a female from start to finish, and only a female, and not reliant on gender select. Preferrably, and especially on consoles. That's really it. I like a wide variety of game genres, and no gameis really good enough to last forever with me. I'll get burned out eventually, no matter what.
Odds are variety will come with that, both in genre of game, and characterization. Of course my game ideas above for a DC comics game wouldn't hurt.
An occassional indie title is ok, but something a bit more epic, and graphically stunning is good, too. Gameplay's important regardless.

Minecraft 360, and terraria (om psn) seemed like the companies said "Oh, look, these games are doing well! Lets get them imported in to make more money... but focus elsewhere."
I mean a winning formulas gets ripped off/imitted/inspire others. God of War spawned Dante's inferno, Heavenly Sword, and Darksiders to say the least. CoD spawned many imitators. GTA did the same. WoW did the same. Tomb raider probably inspired Uncharted, which inspired the Tomb Raider Reboot.
Yeah, minecraft kinda spawned terrarria but it just spawned more indie games, really, most of which I can't remember the name of. Maybe when I see Mario-craft where the Toadstool kingdom people build a kimgdom with blocks I'll be converted from that train of thought. Honestly that sounds like a fun idea to me, especially if we get Peach, and Daisy as characters.
I don't think the big 3 see indies as a huge threat, honestly. I mean, lets look at my grievance with the industry. PC is filling the void of female protagonsits they left via indie games, largely. Where's the similar treatment, there?
I don't see the acceptance of indie games as part of wanting to get more female protagonists to say the least. I guess it's sorta half way, depending on the indie library, though.
The indie part seems more like a side project to get more money. I don't really see a huge investment into indie games coming from the big 3 aside from giving them space. I mean, are tools being given? Are indie developers getting paid out of the company's own pocket, or given money to make games? It seems a bit like they just want to see where it goes.

Captcha: Hotel Indigo? dang, I wanted to book in Hotel California. <.<

 

[Karadalis]

Find another person?

Sorry but people like Bob here and whoever invites her into TV shows and to speak infront of classes have a little bit more pull then the rest of us.

You make it sound so easy but aslong as "garme jurnalsm" keeps heralding Arnita as some sort of Jesus figure for the female rights in video games she wont go away even if we ignore her.

Someone in this thread said that we who despise arnita are just afraid that somehow things in gaming will change.. as if we stand at the dawn of a new age of how women are depicted in gaming and that arnita will lead us into this new golden age or something.

No... thats not it. I am all for good female characters in games... i roll my eyes at stuff like DOA Beachabomination and despise what they did to Samus in Another M.

What im really concerned about is that people listen to Arnita who have no fucking clue about gaming in the first place but can sway the opinion of the masses.

When arnita is broadcasted on CNN and spews her unproven unresearched thesis that somehow all gamers are women hating douchebags who see females as nothing more as sex objects then people infront of their TV screens will listen.

The Gaming community had and even today still has to fight with the stigmata that games cause violence and are allways atleast partially to blame for school shootings.

Now Arnita steps into the light and tells the uneducated that games are infact so evil that they surpress womens rights.

But heres the kicker... does she actually have proof that games surpress womens rights in RL?

Are women treated differently in RL because of princess peach?

Do women earn less money because Zelda gets locked into a Crystal during endgame?

Do all these tropes actually really harm womens rights?

Or isnt it actually that they simply make for bad and lazy storywriting and bad games?

Thats the thing that Arnita does not provide.

She points at clichees and says that they are harmfull and actually have a real impact on women in real live. But there is no proof and rather strong indication that it doesnt.

The reason women should be protrait better in games is not to reinforce some socio political ideal but to make games better.

Better female characters = better games as far as i am concerned.

And since i never get tired to say it:

If you look through Arnitas collected works and videos you will come to the realisation that arnita simply does not want to see female characters portrait at all. Either they are sexist because they arent the leading role.. or they are sexist because they have perceived masculine traits.

So if the industry would actually listen to her then there would be no female characters anymore at all. But ofcourse that again she would claim is sexist because the "boys dont want to let the girls into their treehouse"

So what is her point?

That stereotypes are stereotypes?

That theres some illuminati like conspiracy going on in the games industry that wants to opress females?

Right now anita is wildly flailing in every direction and the people that applaud her have no fucking clue what arnita actually stands for or have ever taken a closer look at her works outside her "tropes vs. women" videos.

Or else they would realise that Arnita makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Thats the reason atleast I argue against her, her influence on the uneducated masses will just stigmatise gaming in general even further, all for the sake of her own career.

Dont give in to the illusion that she actually fights for womens rights here. She does it for the dollars. She gets paid for those interviews and to speak infront of those classes.

 

[runic knight]

If people don't like her, they can try and find someone else to raise up as a champion to take her place? The only reason she's staying where she is is that she doesn't have serious competition in the area of getting women better representation in gaming, and the industry.

I mean, the critics, they complain Anita's only complaining, and not taking action among attacks on her personally. What are the critics doing but only complaining, and trying to tear her down unsuccessfully?
It's not a good cycle.

I mean aside from Anita, the only other memorable person that seems to speak up about the issue with any decent frequency is Jim Sterling. Extr Credits who could likely to a frikking wonderful job dodges the subject like crazy, it feels like. I mean they did a few good videos, but eh.
The problem with Jim Sterling, though as he's somewhat unprofessional if that's not an understatement.
Extra Credits is a Cartoon, and we have tht unfortunate stigma in the west that grown men, and women don't watch cartoons, so it's kinda hard for thme to get their foot in the door, isn't it?

If critics want Anita gone, my best advice is to find someone else to represent the representation of women in gaming, and champion the cause. I just hope who ever they pick is someone who doesn't say "Gaming is fine, there is no gender issue!" coz they aren't exactly championing the cause with that sentiment, IMO.

Honestly, IMO, the solution to getting better representation of women is extremely simple:
1: Stop preventing female protagonists. It'll take the wind out of the sails of the whole Damsel in Distress thing, IMO. Variety will help deflate accusing the industry of a standard female protagonist.
2: Marketing would help. Stop shoving the games out of the nest, and hoping they'll fly. Have some budget for marketing.
3: It'd help if the games weren't drek, and were above average.

Optionally: Pull a stand alone DLC (like BLood Dragon, carnival of blood, liberty city stories), or what Ubisoft did with Assassin's Creed Liberation. Make cheap, HD remakes of games. Not sure if Nintendo's taking that route, exactly, though.

I mean, lets look at the Arkham Asylum/City/Origins (Bugs aside), how hard would it be to make a batgirl/batwoman game from those? Well, aside from trying to decide what Batgirl to use. <.< I mean classic Barbara Gordon? Cassandra Cain? Stephanie Brown? Or have Steph as Spoiler, and a team-up? It's not current, sure but do I care? Nope! lol

And holy crap, imagine if they made a Batwoman game with her lesbian relationship? Free controvercy there.

Could make a Catwoman game from it expandingon what Arkham City did.
Or a Gotham City Sirens arc in which Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, and Catwoman become room mates. It was a really nice comic book arc.
I mean the assets are right THERE, voices aside, and building with the assets.
I'd love it if I could do criminal stuff, and explore the criminal underworld of gotham. I mean yeah, Batman would horn in, guarenteed, and likely win guarenteedm but maybe have leaderboards for how long you can go without getting caught after a crime's started?
Or we could have some fun with it. Maybe you can set up traps, and temporarily capture him? Then he escapes, or Robin, or Batgirl pops up, helps him escape! Or Huntress, or other members of the bat family!
It might be sacreligious, but maybe make the game -without- batman? Pit the Gotham City Sirens vs the Birds of Prey? Could make 2 games in 1 out of that, played from each side/team.

And I really hope they Hire Gail Simone for writing. I hear the Tomb Raider sequel will have a comic with Gail's work in it accompanying it, but, well, games can go to limbo, so I'm not holding my breath. No telling when the seuqel is coming out, or what it'll be like. 'z little more than rumors.

Marvel's missing the boat, too, IMO. A Spider-girl game made from spiderman game assets, anyone?

The answers really shouldn't have to be spelled out, should they?

That's essentially it. Real simple, imo. I see no reason I'd be the only person to think of these things.

People want solutions, but the solutions are easy for the game industry to pull off, IMO.

Honestly, I don't hear a whole lot of good about Kickstarters, but I agree, gameplay over graphics, and it'd be nice if there were copnsole/handheld ports, too. and maybe if kickstarted did code cards you could buy. A small budget could work to make a game, sure.

Honestly, I think I'm really familiar with the PC, and tablet market.
I have an android tablet, a Pandigital Novel/Nova It's not the greatest, and it shows. I can barely trust it to be my alarm clock in the morning coz if I load to much on it, it crashes, or something.
It's kinda off brand because Google Play doesn't support it, but Getjar, and Amazon, and 1 market do.
The glut of simple tap games, and card games aren't fulfilling, though I prolly could end up addicted to the card collecting games. I'm a bit of a sucker for artwork.
The nation building games have absurd time sinks. I can't handle that stuff. I like gaming on my schedule.
And then there's the games where they want you to enlist friends. Meaning friends try to enlist you. Worse, still is those "friends" aren't friends, you're just a name they collected. I'm kinda apart from that because I understand what it is to collect names so I generally avoid such things. 'm not a great person to talk to if you can believe it. If I'm not absolutely passionate, then I'm a person of extremely few words, and there's little I'm really passionate about, and it's kinda out there. I'm an intensely private person that doesn't open up quickly, too. That said games where you rely on friends? They kinda suck for me.

I don't have a lot of luck in the PC market. Yeah, I know the game diverity is up there, but my Laptop can barely handle an android emulator.
It's a (insert make and model here) with 8 gigs of memory? I thought that upgrade would really help, but it mostly added to overheating issues. Luckily I have a fan pad.
I can't play warframe on it unless all the graphical settings are at the lowest, which is really sad looking, and it still struggles.
I can't play Vindictus either due to power issues.
And everything would have to be windowed coz I do have friends I use my laptop to talk to.
Here's a bit of a rub. I don't like using debit/credit cards, but I think steam has prepaid cards like PSN, and XLB, and Nintendo Shop so there's that.
Games, games, thousands of games, and not a computer strong enough to play them.

Oh, and the computer's need for upkeep, and maintenance/optimization. Drivers, compatability issues, crappy ports, controller support issues (I really do like controllers), etc. etc.
I mean I've built my own computer before, more or less in ordering the parts and having them assembled at the store. I could still do it myself, as I'm decently computer savvy. Fixing other people's computers was really eye opening as was looking at Geek Squad's prices for services.

If it makes you feel any better, though, I'll probably get a new PC over a next gen console if I can make a decent machine for not much more. With my preferrences, I'll be kinda dissapointed with the launch titles for a while, so it'd be better just to wait for the library to build.
I do look forward to seeing what sort of Indie titles will be available on ps4, though. I think Ill pass on Xbone a while.

So, I'd like to think I'm pretty in the know about Android, and PC gaming. I kinda prefer meatier games, and a higher chance of stability, even on the go. Hence a 2ds.

Much appreciation for the link to the game! Thank you!

Honestly, the only thing I really want is what I've been saying all along.
More games where you play as a female from start to finish, and only a female, and not reliant on gender select. Preferrably, and especially on consoles. That's really it. I like a wide variety of game genres, and no gameis really good enough to last forever with me. I'll get burned out eventually, no matter what.
Odds are variety will come with that, both in genre of game, and characterization. Of course my game ideas above for a DC comics game wouldn't hurt.
An occassional indie title is ok, but something a bit more epic, and graphically stunning is good, too. Gameplay's important regardless.

Minecraft 360, and terraria (om psn) seemed like the companies said "Oh, look, these games are doing well! Lets get them imported in to make more money... but focus elsewhere."
I mean a winning formulas gets ripped off/imitted/inspire others. God of War spawned Dante's inferno, Heavenly Sword, and Darksiders to say the least. CoD spawned many imitators. GTA did the same. WoW did the same. Tomb raider probably inspired Uncharted, which inspired the Tomb Raider Reboot.
Yeah, minecraft kinda spawned terrarria but it just spawned more indie games, really, most of which I can't remember the name of. Maybe when I see Mario-craft where the Toadstool kingdom people build a kimgdom with blocks I'll be converted from that train of thought. Honestly that sounds like a fun idea to me, especially if we get Peach, and Daisy as characters.
I don't think the big 3 see indies as a huge threat, honestly. I mean, lets look at my grievance with the industry. PC is filling the void of female protagonsits they left via indie games, largely. Where's the similar treatment, there?
I don't see the acceptance of indie games as part of wanting to get more female protagonists to say the least. I guess it's sorta half way, depending on the indie library, though.
The indie part seems more like a side project to get more money. I don't really see a huge investment into indie games coming from the big 3 aside from giving them space. I mean, are tools being given? Are indie developers getting paid out of the company's own pocket, or given money to make games? It seems a bit like they just want to see where it goes.

Captcha: Hotel Indigo? dang, I wanted to book in Hotel California. <.<

No, I don't think it is lack of people wanting to talk about the issue at all. Hell, Jim and Moviebob around here talk about the issues and do them more justice. The guys over at Extra Credits do too, and did long before Anita. Hell, even many letsplayers end up having discussion on the topic in a way that at least addresses and acknowledges the industry failings and encourages actual discussion on the topic far more then Anita. It is sad when the GameGrumps offers better insight and topic of civilized discussion then a woman who's sole aspect of fame is that very topic. And keep in mind, that this is the only topic Anita talks about, where as all the otherso n the list address or at least try to, the complex web of issues and topics relating to gaming. Anita specialized in feminist ideology and presses that onto everything else. And doing so makes her a one note ideologue and creates controversy instead of discussion. No, much like when someone tries to claim the same about her political themed alternatives of O'Riley or Jones or 'insert fox news pundit here', her popularity has nothing to do with a lack of alternative and everything to do with the controversy around her. People talk about her because she is controversial (no, this is no because of the topic itself, otherwise every example I mentioned would have been just as big and just as prominent, but of method and shit stirring).
You dismiss the others unfairly as well and it highlights another issue as to why anita is presumed the face of the issue when she actually does nothing to help. Jim is volatile and satirical. Extra Credits use cartoons. Moviebob is short and to the point. All of them are designed, intentionally, for the gaming audience itself. Say what you will about their opinions, all of them make the product that is suppose to reach, and therefore influence, the gaming community. They also touch on many issues, showing an understanding of how there is more then one issue and even touch on how various issues relate and can feed each other, as well as often offering both sides to an argument. And even if done sometimes superficially, they still acknowledge that the other side has actual arguments and address them. It is easy to see that they care, and even when people disagree with them, the amount of reaction they get, even when making completely controversial topics, is still worlds less then the flack Anita brags about getting on the only video she had open oh sorry, I remember trying to post on that video, it wasn't open, it was authorized only comments.

Anita on the other hand, has shown no interest in any of that. From the combative personality to the inability to separate the individuals from the group, to the perpetual push of her ideology onto everything, she is a political demagogue. She is a false face that is suppose to pretend to be a representative of the community or issue in the same way that O'riley doesn't represent all conservatives, nor cares about conservative issues so much as his personal ideological drive and painting the world as black and white.
You dismiss the rest when they are the ones gamers would actually give a shit about and listen to. They are entertaining, they understand how gamers (or I suppose larger geek culture) think and they want to address the problem in a way that gamers can influence things. Anita wants to blame people and ***** about the issue, and while you'd think that would raise awareness, the issues are not unknown to gamers. She is the fox media pundit. Her fame is from controversy, her audience is not gamers per-say but ideologists or those ignorant of the topic or gaming itself. As others have made note of before, she is very comparable to the religious preacher type condemning games for causing violence. She is another Jack Thomson and no one would ever have accused him as representing the discussion so much as representing everything wrong in it.

You dismiss the others and I can't see why except as arbitrarily. I can understand you may dislike them or they may not jump on the issue the way you like, that is fine, but lets be honest here, they are more highly respected by a larger segment of the community then Anita will ever be, and they never overshadow the topics they discuss. When talked about in relation to the issue, the discussion is still about the issue. How much of the back and forth in these threads since Anita have been more about her then the topic itself? People were having the right discussions on the topic before Anita, now there is just a hell of a lot more noise to deal with about her.


Your solution is, sadly, a risk. And when you remember that the industry is made of individual companies not very willing to make risks, you realize how hard it is to get change. Hell, they half-ass those attempts in order to mitigate the huge risks as it is. Hell, they do that to their largest games, sacrificing story or gameplay for "broader appeal" as it is, expecting them to do a female character based game any real justice is like finding a diamond in the rough.

Your ideas are, quite simply, awesome. I know I would enjoy playing a game like those, and they already have a lot of the potential art assets and issues made they could recycle for the batman one. It is unfortunatet though that the cost of making the game by a triple A company would mean that it would be the bean counters in charge of if it goes through, and the first question they will ask will be "why do it with second stringers, when Batman is the big name?" And that will be the end of that dream. Hell, look what happened to Arkham Origins alone. A batman game that lost a lot of appeal and polish because the company wanted to save a buck but still wanted to market off the popular name. And that is before we get going into backlash territory, where any game with a female protagonist will instantly be controversial, and not just because of the disgruntled fan, but because you can not make a game with a female protagonist without a shit ton of scrutiny about the character. Does she represent women well? Is she too sexualize? Why is she being hurt, that is misogynist and promotes violence against women. Why isn't she being hurt, that is treating her different then a male protagonist so it is misogynist. What about the villains, what are their gender. Why is the villain also female, that is misogynist and says women can't fight men. Why is it a male, that is misogynist because they aren't representing women enough.

Do I have to go on? I can understand the frustration, but a female protagonist especially in story based games being rare has as much to do with avoiding a negative backlash from media ideologues as it does with worry about male gamers being turned away, hell, given how most gamers don't care too much about the gender they play as(as seen by portal, L4D, metroid, Borderlands, and sections of games with female characters for shorter portions (batman for instance), I would wager that avoiding the extra undo bullshit that comes with a female protagonist would be even more so. And that is it's own self-feeding cycle, as female protagonists are rare so those that use them get extra bullshit to put up with, making them less likely to be used which feeds back to them being rare. This is one of the reasons I end up calling Anita cancerous as well, as she breeds that sort of mentality, the same that ultimately makes developers choose to not use female protagonists much, and instead go under the radar by doing the same as others. Hell, look at what happened with Lara Croft, how many shitstorms were raised on that alone, for what was ultimately a mediocre but harmless game. First the worry about it being more of the dumb boobs with guns chick, then a fit about the remodel still being to sexualized for reminiscing the iconic clothing, then the "protect" complaint, then the "rape scene" complaint, then the complaint that the game didn't do well because it wasn't advertised well enough, then the excuse that the female protagonist was what made people avoid the game (when by that point it was the media hype that made me, and I am sure a number of others, just pass on the game). And that is not even getting into the complaints by the other side of the crowd upset that the iconic character was changed in design and game style. And the same happens all the time now when a female character is used. Female character's proportions are exaggerated in a game that does it to every character? Female character is the companion and main character of the story (while the player character is the "action" and plot on tracks aspect)? Female child is main point of redemption of the protagonist? Every one of this ended up in drama and shitstorms because they were female characters by people who keep complaining there is not enough good female characters. Of course not when every attempt by wary publishers and developers are shot down for not being the perfect example and failures are not tolerated without calls of misogyny and a week or two of bad publicity to contend with. What is saddest about this all is that the characters are scrutinized like that solely because they are female.
Unfortuantely that extra scrutiny, especially when so often molehills, just decreases the odds of a game like you wants. Now I am not saying people shouldn't examine and argue about female characters, and I am not saying people need to shut up about the lack of them or the patterns they often fall into, but what happens now, the rapid, controversial seeking drama-fests about them that pop up over stupid shit, that is not healthy for the cause. It is just another roadblock, this one made by the very people who actively claim to want more female protagonists, in a long list of excuses companies have to not use them as it is. Hell, comics are known for sexy character designs, especially in female characters. Assuming the company making the game decided to choose the Bird of Prey instead of the Dark Knight for a title character and game, can you honestly tell me that how the characters look and how that relates to feminism and sexism would not be brought out, and that knowing that they would still wouldn't influence company decisions? When it is solely an argument of demand and market demographics, a female protagonist has a bit of an uphill battle to be used in games of certain genre. When you have these other aspects compounding on top of it, it is exponentially less likely.

It sounds simple, just add more female protagonists. Make half decent games. Done. And when you put it like that, yeah, it leaves you scratching your head why they can't just do it, but that question should have been the first point of warning that you were missing something. If the answer is so simple, why haven't they just done it? No reason not to if it will earn them a larger audience and more money. Well, because it isn't so simple. The corporations are run by the conservative and greedy, renown for dogmatic business policies and excess. Game design is more and more products of committee and demographic targeting decisions. Things that increase the odds of the target demographic choosing the game are chosen over alternatives, and things that cause excess controversy are avoided as much as possible or spun to deflect it. Look at some of the latest controversies with female characters. The Puppeteer guy and the Dragon's Dogma drama both were from game makers being passionate about what they wanted their games to be like. You think that next time they will be so lenient to pet projects after those mishaps? Or the recent Heavy Rain guy stuff? Every time there is such drama, the developers close ranks a little more and creative freedom is replaced with corporate pandering.
Whenever someone tries to make what you ask, everyone flocks to it, criticizing and smothering the thing and projecting their own ideals or grievances onto it. Such games are no longer their own projects, but considered cogs in a greater debate, and for all the discussion they may cause, dismissed and forgotten afterwords. And if they make no money in the end, they failed to the company and are less likely to be risked again. People love Beyond Good and Evil. Critics loved it. Feminists loved it even. But it didn't make coin, so it is regarded as a failure to the creators.

As for computers, I have found my $400 dollar desktop still holds strong enough to play whatever games I wish after 6 years, albeit on lower settings sometimes. The amount of value I have gotten out of it though compared to a PS3 or Xbone though is massive. Steam sales alone has gotten me a library of games for a combined price still probably less then a 360 and a game woulda got me at launch, to say nothing of live cost for the free online play I enjoy. Not had any real issues with maintenance or upgrade yet, with the worst being a 50 dollar virus purge. When I do upgrade it, it will still probably cost less then a next gen system and I wont lose my library of games to boot.

Minecraft did inspire the industry though. Yeah, we have dozens of games from indie publishers from terraria to cubeworld, to the space-themed ones and so on. In the triple A world, we have the push for "open world" and "destructible environments". Hell, don't we have an MMO coming out in a while that has that ability to shape the environment as a big gimmick? And do note that because they are indie, they can be bought and used in a way a little different then a first party title by a major competitor can. If God of War was an indie title, the companies would have hosted it as well instead of making copy cats, at least right away.

As for investment into the indie stuff, yeah, they are just giving them space, but that is sort of the point I was making. They are acknowledging them and even selling their consoles based on them. It is great for them because there is no overhead cost for the games to be made, and any one could be the next castle crashers or minecraft. It is actually funny in a way, because this set up was what made the consoles of the late 80's and early 90's so flush with great games and ideas, that you didn't need a monster budget to make them and you had the freedom to be creative instead of following corporate strategy. It is a reason I love the indie scene and growth, as I see it as a return to what made gaming great in the first place. And because of that freedom, and the lack of publicity many games get until after they are made, it cuts a lot of the issues lowering the odds of using a female protagonist down. No corporate suit saying to use a male because it has a 5.4% chance of improved reaction in play-testing, no controversy every step of the way, no compromising gameplay or story to chase a fickle audience, and much much more creators making what they want to make. Yeah the CoD and Skyrim out there are nice and pretty, but I prefer the fun of TF2 and the gameplay of Dark Souls so much more. Neither are "indie" by any means, but rather a result of a different culture of game making then the creators of the first two. Hell, maybe I am just bias for the indie scene lack of reliance of grey-brown fps bullshit.

The mario idea though, that sounds really cool. I mean, the world is made of bricks and mushroom as it is, and being they are plat-formers, you could just make the game to be reliant on user generated content similar to the sackboys. Hmm...

While I do appreciate this thread that will never die, I think the majority of our topic is moving more and more away from Anita itself and onto actual issue and understanding of the topic of women in gaming. Maybe we should start a sister thread based solely on the issue (and leave the most polarizing aspect of the thread, Anita herself, here).

 

[Smeatza]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on points 1, and 2, then since you find it unreasonable to balance the fact that there's dozens of games per year that are guy only.

Yeah I do. Certain trends within fiction will be more popular than others, certain trends will make more money than others. I don't think it's right to arbitrarily balance the genders of protagonists in video games regardless of demand (well not in the way you suggest).

If Citra was a man, the whole pregnancy arc would be to try an impregnate the main character, probably. I think that's quite a large change. The levels of creepiness could vary a lot. Heck it was creepy the way it is.

Practically it's a slight change but it would serve the same narrative purpose. It would be disturbing, it would give the player pause to think "who the hell am I teaming up with here?". In fact.....

Spoiler

The end of the game would make more sense. If the player decided to stay with male Citra to have the "royal baby" then the player character could be killed in some brutal ritualistic birthing ritual instead of for no reason whatsoever. Although admittedly that would require a "9 months later" screen or it presents more problems than it solves.

Still, the themes and events of the game would remain unchanged. Any differences would be purely in the eyes of the consumer.

I wouldn't complain if it were Jane Marston or Michelle De-Santa as main characters, but R* seems adverse to female leads. They hadn't utlized one since Oni, and that was a joint game with Bungie.

Probably because it's more difficult to pull of and would be ever more difficult in a typical Rockstar game.
And when you consider Rockstar seem to be trying to tell interesting stories these days, well I can imagine how easily a female protagonist in GTA 5 would have become a cartoon.

The point is, it could happen, but it doesn't. Just because it could happen doesn't make things better. It doesn't raise the amount of playable female protagonists.

No but the fact that it doesn't happen doesn't necessarily make things worse. If gender of the protagonist simply doesn't matter then it makes no sense to go with anything but male, the same way that if the race of the protagonist doesn't matter it makes no sense but to go with anything but white. At the end of the day potentially narrowing the audience for no narrative purpose, no artistic purpose, no aesthetic or continuity based purpose simply isn't going to happen in productions that have had large amounts of money put into them.

Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if there weren't a status quo. It would be nice if a white male with short brown hair wasn't considered to be the archtype of internationally-friendly, but it is. This is an issue that is much larger than video games and demanding an arbitrary balance in video game protagonist's race and gender wont do anything but cause financial losses.

Gender Neutral games where you can play as both genders are pretty limited in scope of story as everyhing has sync because there's a single script, romances aside,

If they're doing it well then it shouldn't be limited. Most situations wont see different responses from different genders though.

and living off those, and those alone is a pretty unreasonable thing to suggest. They don't even come out all that frequently, and they do vary in quality, but are largely RPGs.
Don't get me wrong, they're nice to play once, or twice, and that there's some LGBT options is really nice, but pretending a handful of games over the span of a few years repairs the problem is stretching it.

Well as somebody who spends 90% of their gaming time replaying DA:O, the Mass Effect series and the like, perhaps I'm just used to it.

Nah, I haven't crossed the line. Putting out a very small amount of games that provide 1, and 2 on my list is under representation. It just gives ammo for people complaining about the lack of representation as the few playable women in games get overscrutinized because they're so prominent, and NPCs are, well, they're NPCs. NPCs are nice, but they're no replacement for playable characters.
Those handful of games don't always cover genres well, either.

Well I think there's a big difference between asking for more games where you play as a woman and asking for more games where you can only play as a woman, where the game is told from an exclusively female perspective that is essential to the narrative and the characterisation of the protagonist.
And as far as I'm concerned that crosses the line from ethical issue to personal preference.

I must've been more tired than I thought last night as people are misunderstnading.
I do have NBA Jam.

There is no WNBA Jam. WNBA doesn't even piggyback on NBA games. Infact there's not much in th way of sports games with female athletes, is there?
If you wanna pretend there's no problems with the lack of female representation in sports games, that's up to you.

Your average NBA game attracts one and half million viewers. Your average WNBA game attracts under five hundred thousand.
No ask yourself this, bearing those figures in mind, why on earth would somebody make a WNBA game when it would be functionally exactly the same as an NBA game? Very few people will buy two near-identical games, and there is a large amount of overlap with fans of the NBA and the WNBA.
Also bear in mind that over the past couple of years we've had one NBA game a year. Compare that to half a decade ago and it seems that basketball games aren't as profitable as they once were.
I might say it would be feasible to do a small budget, non-AAA WNBA game. But the license would probably cost millions in itself.
Sports games will always reflect real life sports trends and I think it's unfair to blame them for that.

Yeah, and I'm not a fan of being around nasty people. I enjoy civility.

I enjoy it too, I wouldn't frequent this website otherwise.
But nasty people and heated competition have their merits too.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

Sadly we can't lock Featured Content/News Threads

Any reason as to WHY?

Because this thread is pretty bad. In fact it's one of the worst I've ever seen.
Had this thread been made by any ordinary user, it would've been locked within the first 3-5 pages.

One of the favorite anti-sarkeesian arguments is that by disabling comments on her youtube videos she's censoring her critics and shutting down debate, and I'm sure people would complain here if they weren't allowed to weigh in on the discussion as such.

They talk about it as if she did it completely out of the blue just to spite her critics. The death/rape threats and posting of her personal information in the comments had NOTHING to do with it, I'm sure.

 

[Drathnoxis]

It would certainly fit in with her other noted behavior. Without seeing paper receipts, we'll never know the provenance of the collection in that photo. It's entirely possible that the photo you're referring to is older than the Kickstarter.

Not to nitpick your nitpicking, but in the photo she has Lollipop Chainsaw which was released on June 12, 2012 while her Kickstarter was started on May 17, 2012 (both according to Wikipedia) so the photo is not older than the Kickstarter.

All I know is, if this thread reaches a thousand comments, I'm throwing a party. All hail the seeds of discontent!

I think it's time to dig out the party hats and start blowing up balloons, we can celebrate the fact that not everbody was banned.

 

[Pat Hulse]

I see a lot of well reasoned, seemingly logical arguments. But what I don't see is evidence. Just like the "violent video games cause real violence" argument, it seems logical but there's no evidence.

Hence what makes this a debate, and more importantly, a subject worth debating. This is not the sort of thing someone can easily gather information about, particularly accurate information. While I could cite articles from scientists and sociologists etc., any information they provide is subject to interpretation. Facts are only useful if you believe them, and unless they can be empirically proven in some fashion, belief is still a matter of opinion and ideas. Any papers or statistics I link would undoubtedly be analyzed and deemed flawed in some fashion because of the nature of the topic. A simple manner in which a question is phrased could deem a survey biased or invalid. As such, debates such as these are better suited to a conversation of ideas and ethical ruminations. A sharing of ideas and perspectives on an issue without a lot of concrete data to work from in order to expand a mutual understanding of a topic and hopefully make some progress towards resolving it.

When it comes to the "violent video games" argument, the issue is less that there is a considerable amount of reliable evidence to support or refute it and more that it was rendered moot through various aspects of debate and reasoning. Do violent video games inspire violent behavior? It's difficult to say for certain one way or another. I certainly don't believe so, but I'm biased because I play many violent video games and don't feel that they negatively affected my psyche. Meanwhile others may believe so, partially because they may see video games as vulgar, unnecessary, and uninteresting. Yet the argument was effectively rendered pointless when the Supreme Court changed the discussion from whether or not violent video games inspired real violence and instead focused on whether video games needed to be treated differently from other media as a result of the interactive component. They decided it didn't. Therefore, the argument is pointless.

Similarly, I likely can't convince you that the prevalent sexism in video games has a clear negative effect on our community's attitudes towards women just as you probably couldn't convince me of the opposite. There simply isn't enough compelling evidence and compelling evidence is unlikely ever to be found. However, what I would suggest is that this particular aspect doesn't necessarily matter so long as I can convince you that my side of the argument is at least a probability. Imagine that in this particular debate, you and I both have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Either sexism in video games is truly causing harm to men and women, or it isn't and women and feminists are just feeling alienated. You yourself admitted that alienation is itself present.

So I ask you then, assuming we could both be right, what reason is there to not act as though I were correct? It cannot be argued that sexism doesn't exist and that it doesn't alienate a significant number of gamers and potential gamers, so even if it doesn't truly contribute to a number of various feminist sociological theories, what harm is there in making games more inclusive? Reducing sexism solely for the sake of making some people feel more comfortable? What do we gain from having prevalent sexism in video games going unremarked upon, even if it truly doesn't cause any harm? It's not as though there's a remote possibility that this sexism has any real positive benefits outside of simple titillation for a small margin of players who already have plenty of avenues for that sort of titillation.

I ask because unless the sociological harm of sexism in video games can somehow be empirically measured and quantified in a satisfying way, there is no way that it will convince anyone who has already made up their minds. If it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it causes no harm, then feminists would likely feel less alienated by it. If the opposite could be proven, then those opposed would likely be less hostile. But since such a thing is more or less impossible to come by, it seems to me it would be more logical to assess the potential risk/reward of how to proceed, and I feel I've made a compelling argument that the potential gain of analyzing and curbing sexism in games far outweighs the potential losses and that the potential gain of inaction is far outweighed by its clear negative aspects that it may already be partially causing.

If you wish to continue this debate, I'd recommend explaining how you feel curbing sexism (through popular demand, not through direct censorship) could cause negative consequences greater than or equal to the perceived negative consequences of the present state of the industry, because in my mind, that's the only way I could imagine being convinced. Or perhaps you feel there's some other side to this debate that I've failed to grasp, in which case I'd be more than happy to learn of it. And if I'm wrong and you feel there IS concrete data regarding this issue, I'd be happy to see it.

 

[Pat Hulse]

Well that would be what the kids on Tumblr would refer to as "privilege". As (I'm assuming, sorry) heterosexual white men in North America, people's negative opinions of us don't really bother us. As Louis C.K. would put it, "You can't even hurt my feelings." That's because even if we don't like people making negative assumptions about us, those negative assumptions will probably never prevent us from getting a job or hold us up in the airport or make us more likely to get pulled over.

But is that entirely true though? There are stereotypes which actually do have negative consequences in RL. As a man it would for instance take more trust for someone to trust you with their children or trust that you won't cause harm. For instance i have a male housekeeper and i already have friends who told me they found that weird and wouldn't ever feel comfortable with a random man around the house like that. Than as a white person you're also much more likely to be assumed to be a racist when foreigners are involved. Ironically the prejudice and negative consequences coming from them towards white men (i'll admit being straight doesn't seem to have any) are often overlooked because no one cares and bothers thinking about them. (and some people probably do it on purpose in order to be able to keep throwing the word "privilege" around)

This is true, but it's about more than hurt feelings. Yes, white men have our own share of issues, but first off, it's important to understand that a great deal of them stem from oppression and prejudices for other people. For example, it's unusual for a man to be a housekeeper because it is a role society has largely forced upon women. If women were not expected to have certain jobs (housekeeper, babysitter, secretary, nurse) a man having those jobs would not seem odd or off-putting.

Additionally, those sorts of prejudices rarely if ever negatively affect white men in the same way prejudices affect the underprivileged. When people ignore our white man pain, it's not that they don't care that our feelings are hurt, it's that this whole prejudice thing isn't just about hurt feelings. It's about everyone in society having a fair shot. Sure, I might have a harder time getting a job as an exotic dancer, but there aren't exactly a lot of white men aspiring to that sort of career. In fact, there aren't a lot of people in general aspiring to that career. However, the sorts of careers that your average person would aspire to -- well-paying, secure, fulfilling careers -- are typically stacked in favor of white men. White men are more likely to be given a better education, white men are more likely to be chosen for opportunities, white men are more likely to be evaluated on their talent and actions alone rather than on whether or not they fit into a certain box.

So I'd say there are two things to take away from this. 1) People don't care about our problems because our problems don't usually drive us to drugs, crime, serious psychological trauma, and death in disproportionately high numbers when compared to the truly underprivileged. 2) Many of the problems we do have would likely be mitigated, at least partially, by attempting to resolve the problems of the underprivileged. If femininity is no longer treated as inferior, men won't be concerned with behaving in a traditionally feminine manner or assuming traditionally feminine roles. If people of color are given more representation, opportunity and equality, white men will probably be less frequently assumed to be racist.

White men have just as much to gain from social equality as everyone else. Just not necessarily as directly.

 

[WindKnight]

Sadly we can't lock Featured Content/News Threads

Any reason as to WHY?

Because this thread is pretty bad. In fact it's one of the worst I've ever seen.
Had this thread been made by any ordinary user, it would've been locked within the first 3-5 pages.

One of the favorite anti-sarkeesian arguments is that by disabling comments on her youtube videos she's censoring her critics and shutting down debate, and I'm sure people would complain here if they weren't allowed to weigh in on the discussion as such.

They talk about it as if she did it completely out of the blue just to spite her critics. The death/rape threats and posting of her personal information in the comments had NOTHING to do with it, I'm sure.

Hey, I agree with you. I'm just making the point if people get told they can't spew their bile, they use it as 'evidence' their being oppressed and their target is automatically in the wrong, and its potentially something the escapist wanted to avoid.

 

[wulf3n]

Hence what makes this a debate, and more importantly, a subject worth debating. This is not the sort of thing someone can easily gather information about, particularly accurate information. While I could cite articles from scientists and sociologists etc., any information they provide is subject to interpretation. Facts are only useful if you believe them, and unless they can be empirically proven in some fashion, belief is still a matter of opinion and ideas. Any papers or statistics I link would undoubtedly be analyzed and deemed flawed in some fashion because of the nature of the topic. A simple manner in which a question is phrased could deem a survey biased or invalid. As such, debates such as these are better suited to a conversation of ideas and ethical ruminations. A sharing of ideas and perspectives on an issue without a lot of concrete data to work from in order to expand a mutual understanding of a topic and hopefully make some progress towards resolving it.

When it comes to the "violent video games" argument, the issue is less that there is a considerable amount of reliable evidence to support or refute it and more that it was rendered moot through various aspects of debate and reasoning. Do violent video games inspire violent behavior? It's difficult to say for certain one way or another. I certainly don't believe so, but I'm biased because I play many violent video games and don't feel that they negatively affected my psyche. Meanwhile others may believe so, partially because they may see video games as vulgar, unnecessary, and uninteresting. Yet the argument was effectively rendered pointless when the Supreme Court changed the discussion from whether or not violent video games inspired real violence and instead focused on whether video games needed to be treated differently from other media as a result of the interactive component. They decided it didn't. Therefore, the argument is pointless.

Similarly, I likely can't convince you that the prevalent sexism in video games has a clear negative effect on our community's attitudes towards women just as you probably couldn't convince me of the opposite. There simply isn't enough compelling evidence and compelling evidence is unlikely ever to be found. However, what I would suggest is that this particular aspect doesn't necessarily matter so long as I can convince you that my side of the argument is at least a probability. Imagine that in this particular debate, you and I both have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Either sexism in video games is truly causing harm to men and women, or it isn't and women and feminists are just feeling alienated. You yourself admitted that alienation is itself present.

Exactly. Honestly I'd have no problem if people preface the "argument" with "In my opinion" or "I believe" x reinforces influences whatever. It's when it is presented as a fact that I disregard the persons argument.

So I ask you then, assuming we could both be right, what reason is there to not act as though I were correct? It cannot be argued that sexism doesn't exist and that it doesn't alienate a significant number of gamers and potential gamers, so even if it doesn't truly contribute to a number of various feminist sociological theories, what harm is there in making games more inclusive? Reducing sexism solely for the sake of making some people feel more comfortable? What do we gain from having prevalent sexism in video games going unremarked upon, even if it truly doesn't cause any harm? It's not as though there's a remote possibility that this sexism has any real positive benefits outside of simple titillation for a small margin of players who already have plenty of avenues for that sort of titillation.

I don't think making games more inclusive would have any harm, but I question the current approach taken. Implying real world harm cause and effect relationship from games with out any evidence is likely to make publishers turn away from making more inclusive games. It doesn't help when a game is labelled Sexist and Misogynistic because despite popular opinion, calling a game "X" when that wasn't the developers goal implies the developer is "X" even if the person saying it says otherwise. The same is true of the consumer.

I ask because unless the sociological harm of sexism in video games can somehow be empirically measured and quantified in a satisfying way, there is no way that it will convince anyone who has already made up their minds. If it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it causes no harm, then feminists would likely feel less alienated by it. If the opposite could be proven, then those opposed would likely be less hostile. But since such a thing is more or less impossible to come by, it seems to me it would be more logical to assess the potential risk/reward of how to proceed, and I feel I've made a compelling argument that the potential gain of analyzing and curbing sexism in games far outweighs the potential losses and that the potential gain of inaction is far outweighed by its clear negative aspects that it may already be partially causing.

I have no problem with attempting to make things better with out knowing all the facts.

If you wish to continue this debate, I'd recommend explaining how you feel curbing sexism (through popular demand, not through direct censorship) could cause negative consequences greater than or equal to the perceived negative consequences of the present state of the industry, because in my mind, that's the only way I could imagine being convinced. Or perhaps you feel there's some other side to this debate that I've failed to grasp, in which case I'd be more than happy to learn of it. And if I'm wrong and you feel there IS concrete data regarding this issue, I'd be happy to see it.

I don't believe curbing sexism would have negative effects, but what I do believe is the current approach taken by Anita and her ilk isn't going to provide the end they're looking for, and is more likely to make gaming more male oriented.

When designers receive constant "criticism" over something "sexist" or "misogynistic" without the critic bothering to consider the intent of the designer I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to pack up their toys and go home.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you. We want games to be more inclusive, then we need to prove that more inclusive games will sell.

 

[DarkSpartan]

It would certainly fit in with her other noted behavior. Without seeing paper receipts, we'll never know the provenance of the collection in that photo. It's entirely possible that the photo you're referring to is older than the Kickstarter.

Not to nitpick your nitpicking, but in the photo she has Lollipop Chainsaw which was released on June 12, 2012 while her Kickstarter was started on May 17, 2012 (both according to Wikipedia) so the photo is not older than the Kickstarter.

Okay, fair enough.

The photo doesn't predate the Kickstarter. However, Lollipop Chainsaw doesn't necessarily meet the intended burden of evidence to say she bought it (or any games) with the Kickstarter money: That didn't end until the 16th of the same month. Nor do the existence of a any part of the pile guarantee they're even hers. It only dates the photo to 12JUN12 at earliest.

Short of paper receipts, we won't know.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

Sadly we can't lock Featured Content/News Threads

Any reason as to WHY?

Because this thread is pretty bad. In fact it's one of the worst I've ever seen.
Had this thread been made by any ordinary user, it would've been locked within the first 3-5 pages.

One of the favorite anti-sarkeesian arguments is that by disabling comments on her youtube videos she's censoring her critics and shutting down debate, and I'm sure people would complain here if they weren't allowed to weigh in on the discussion as such.

They talk about it as if she did it completely out of the blue just to spite her critics. The death/rape threats and posting of her personal information in the comments had NOTHING to do with it, I'm sure.

Hey, I agree with you. I'm just making the point if people get told they can't spew their bile, they use it as 'evidence' their being oppressed and their target is automatically in the wrong, and its potentially something the escapist wanted to avoid.

I agree as well. Maybe it was my tone :/ Sorry
Watching the fallout resulting from an anti-Sarkeesian thread closure would be kinda fun though.

 

[soulblade06]

Wow, a lot of responses generated here. Which is somewhat of a testament to Sarkeesian's notoriety more than anything else. I mean, are we really surprised about any of this article? Is there anything new here? Bob has been on this stint about equality in new media for quite a while (to the point where he is the most outspoken male feminist I know of, but to be fair I know very little on the subject), and regardless of what Sarkeesian's presentation actually contained he would have portrayed her positively. I very honestly doubt that she's a sinister, selfish, or in any way bad person, but I hold that belief about people until proven otherwise, and this article didn't really contain much information to push me one way or the other.

The article itself does call attention to some good topics, but the stereotypes and objectification it talks about aren't really that hard to find or understand. If you are at all intelligent, you have probably noticed them. So, if the article doesn't say anything revolutionary about the content of games, does it say anything revolutionary about Anita? Besides the bit about her trying to get a Gameboy, I don't feel like I learned anything. I mean, if she wasn't dedicated to gaming would she really have endured all of this?

I'm glad to hear that she is better at presenting in-person than online, because online she falls flat. The problem is that she makes her videos in a vacuum. She isn't talking to developers and game studios to find out WHY stereotypes are persisting (in addition to and even beyond the obvious "we are selling to 14-year-olds"). She isn't talking to big figures in the industry to support her view that sex appeal isn't the sole selling factor of a game. Her videos do confirm that stereotypes exist, but I could get on my webcam right now and make a 20-minute series of clips of racially-biased characterizations in movies or another media. I don't need a kickstarter for that. If she wants to make a change, she needs to expose why developers and studios perpetuate the problems, which ones are the big trouble-makers, and what would change their minds. We can all pat ourselves on the back and say "We're such good people! We know there are stereotypes and they're bad!", but does that really accomplish anything?

Anita has definitely received unreasonable hate and harassment solely on the basis of her gender, and I don't condemn her for exposing the problems with portrayals of women in videogames. I just wish she would do more than state the obvious.