[Dragon]

You're not describing realism. You're describing believability or consistency or immersion.
If what your describing is what realism means to many people then those same people need to look up realism in a dictionary.

My point exactly. "Realism" gets thrown around far too much. It sounds good, implying some "natural order of things" which somehow seems more important than believeability. See "Reality is Unrealistic" trope. What it really means is "reality is unbelievable". It often is, but this is where "realistic games" and realistic games (simulators) diverge. The former will go with what people thing things work like. The latter will go with what they actually work like.

As for open world games. The world is what you choose to make it. It's entirely possible to make a seedy area without strip clubs, to make an open world game without prostitutes. Seedy areas may contain these elements but these elements are not required for seedy areas nor are seedy areas required for open world games.

Of course. But it's usually more believable if those elements are present, especially if you can't/won't write your universe in a way it's logical for those elements to be missing. Many games have supposedly seedy districts with nothing but a shop and a few thugs to beat you up. Others go all-out, with prostitutes waiting on street corners, thugs, gambling, drinking... Then you don't even need to be told the area is seedy. Well done, those things make the game seem "alive", immersive. The Witcher does a run down, shady district perfectly. So does Metro: Last Light. Indeed, Metro games are a perfect example of a game that is very fantastic, but immersive and frighteningly believable, especially for someone from Eastern Europe.

Funny if we were talking about Sewer levels in first person shooters, would this locale have the same number of proponents as strip clubs do? Sewers exist, therefore a game wherein a gun fight takes place in a sewer is necessary. What about rats? Rats are underground therefore a roleplaying game with areas underground must have rats or they will be missed. That's pretty much the same as saying prostitutes are required for seedy areas. But personally if I never have to fight another rat in a video game I would be a happy man indeed.

Err... actually, no. Sewers, as portrayed in video games, generally don't exist except in places like Paris and New York. If you're going for actual realism, sewers are tiny pipes chock-full of sewage. Manholes generally lead to storm drain system, which isn't exactly spacious in most places, either. Unless you're in a place where the sewer system is old and special, such as Paris, then excluding sewers is a perfectly sensible choice. Oh, and entering sewers/storm drains actually is prohibited to most people, unlike entering a strip club. If your protagonist is underage, then you can handily exclude a strip club from the game by having a closed door and a big, muscular bouncer who'll tell you to scram if you get near. As expected of a bouncer. Applying this to an adult protagonist would be tougher (but not impossible).

As fir the rats, they are generally known to be annoying, but directly harmless unless you corner one. They're not usually "fought" by humans. They are often present as "atmospheric" creatures, running and scurrying about, just as real rats do. Generally, "dangerous" rats need to be larger than usual, which warrants a justification (TES, for example, makes it's "rats" have little in common in what we know on Earth). In fact, I suspect TES only gets away with it because they've done it so bloody long that it became expected of them to have abnormally sized rats as early-game enemies. Other games trying that without a jab at TES series would get flak for using an old cliche.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Aesaar made a terrific treatise on its few pages Back and rather than addressing it, all I saw from you guys was "lol u defending hitman seriously? Lol", which was 100% besides the point. If anything, it should make you annoyed that Anita makes these arguments so badly that the conversation stopped being about sexism and became about wilful misrepresentation. You need more than having a case, you need to be good at your rethoric and at your honesty. You need, iow, to respect your audiences intelligence.

So you didn't actually read the thread, and have no actual evidence to support your claims. Good to know.

You and Ralwood both miss my point [and possibly the definition of setpieces].  A setpiece exists purely to provide background, setting, or a plot point.  They are not a primary character in a game, and exist much like a signpost or a set item in film, theatre, etc.  It's rather silly to criticize the inclusion of any gendered setpiece if that setpiece exists in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting.  In the context of something like the stripclub in Hitman (which I am definitely never going to play after this discussion), the strippers at setpieces to convey atmosphere - i.e "I am in a stripclub."  Now, had the developers been interested in turning that trope n its head, they could have set it in a male stripclub, but they played it safe... one reason among many not to bother with the game in the first place.  But criticizing the inclusion of a strip club in a game about criminal activity and the potential to treat the strippers in it in terrible ways strikes me as a completely trivial argument.

That is not what you said before; the statement I took issue with was your presentation of something related to video games' portrayal of men as though it was in any way relevant to a series of videos solely about sexist tropes related to women, despite that being completely outside the scope of the video series in question. Your "clarification" here bears no resemblance to the original statement, so I'm still not sure why you made it in the first place.

But even here: "exist[ing] in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting" does not preclude it being sexist, so why is criticizing it silly?

At this point, MP-Ryan, it sounds like all you're arguing is that "her arguments could be made better", which... is self-evident, and not very profound, since nothing is perfect.

[Dragon]

But even here: "exist[ing] in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting" does not preclude it being sexist, so why is criticizing it silly?

Because it's necessary? You need set pieces, of both genders. Strippers in a strip club, but also it's patrons. Strippers dance, patrons gawk, it's the only thing they ever do, and the only thing they need to do. World without those would be empty and lifeless. You need a guard holding a halberd in the Throne Room, or a cashier at the store, even if you can't buy anything. The only thing that differentiates strippers from any other set piece is that they are sexualized. It's that way in real life, too. In that case, the game portrays something that exists in real life. It's not even making a statement or anything. It just has a strip club. It's not a requirement for a game, especially a game like that, to take place in an idealized, perfect world where there's no gender inequality. It's hard to have a believable criminal underworld without a lot of gender discrimination. Or without murder, thievery and blackmail. That the world the game takes place in isn't perfect isn't a bad thing, quite the contrary. Of course, you can sometimes gloss over the worse parts of the world. But not in a game like Hitman, which is about the criminal scum in those very parts of the world.

It's not wrong to make games about criminals, either. Glamorizing crime and criminal life might be, but if they're shown as scum they are, then there's no problem. Pretending that gender discrimination doesn't exist doesn't change anything, either. It's good to make a statement about, as long as you're not heavy-handed with it, but that's all. For me, it's another bad thing about criminals.

[AdmiralRalwood]

But even here: "exist[ing] in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting" does not preclude it being sexist, so why is criticizing it silly?

Because it's necessary?

Why, exactly? What law of the universe required that a strip club be present in that particular game? What vital necessity was fulfilled by its presence?

It's not a requirement for a game, especially a game like that, to take place in an idealized, perfect world where there's no gender inequality.

It's also not a requirement that it has to have a strip club, that the strip club has to have strippers in it at the time the player goes through it, and that they be within the player's field of interaction so that players can kill them. None of these are required.

[The E]

In my book, Anita is a lazy con artist that found a niche that has placed her in a sweet spot. I find it unfortunate that this is the case, because I also find that the wider points she tries to raise in a very incompetent way should be raised in a way better manner.

I have no problem with people criticizing her methods, but I do have to ask how someone doing exactly what they said they were going to do with the money they asked for can be described as a con artist.

[Luis Dias]

I have no problem with people criticizing her methods, but I do have to ask how someone doing exactly what they said they were going to do with the money they asked for can be described as a con artist.

Am I being too harsh? Perhaps con-artistry is too much? I have always been very sympathetic in regards to Anita, especially considering what she had to put up with. I found her videos way before "it was cool" and the videos I saw were about movies, games came after and I was amazed at the harsh response she got over them.

And irrespectively of the demeanour of her critics (Thunderf00t's tone comes to mind), I have seen things about what she has done that makes me dislike her. A lot. Not only the examples she chooses in her own videos are wrong headed, she over generalizes and makes wild crazy statements (the statement of "it's a myth that men are stronger than women" comes to mind) and that was fine before I realised she was making a huge ton of money out of this. I had regarded her videos as amateurish attempts at criticism and they were free of charge, why are people so pissed about?

But she made a kickstarter out of the pity she instilled in the "community" that is being so villified right now in the gaming press, she promised 12 videos in a year for 5 thousand bucks. She got 160k bucks and made 3 videos. Why? Well, the industry got enamorated with what she symbolizes, a way to "greenwash" their own image (in a very analogous way that companies used environmentalism as a marketing tool), she got the jobs she wanted, so why waste any more time making videos for free in the internet?

Let's not even dwell much on the fact she kept repeating she "loves games" when we all know this was a white lie to get "inside" the community "she's one of us, she's just critical of the things she loves". She didn't. And Thunderf00t might be a complete asshole (I think he is), but his paranoia about Anita sharing this persecution of her right on top of her last video release is probably right on the money.

I don't know, I'm probably being too unfair to her, I have no personal qualms with her (I love critical pieces like Errant Signal and so on), but she just smells wrong for me. Zoe Quinn was another person which personally seems incredibly distasteful as a human being, but that doesn't mean I agree with the witch hunt that was created around her persona. The level of hatred and aggression thrown at these women is just beyond the pale, but that should have never been used as an argument for their own causes. It's self-serving and creates a ridiculous atmosphere of divisiveness and polarization. It's as if now the internet is divided between the monster mysogynistic basement dweller gamers and white knight mangina pussies, as if anyone of us would fit in such idiotic categories or even believed for a second this duality is a good representation of anything resembling reality. If you read all the gaming sites today however, you'd think exactly that.

Oh and of course:

[Rheyah]

Sarkessian can be debunked using the same set of articles that dealt with and beat Thompson.

"Show me the evidence."  Given how pervasive video game culture is in society, you would expect a significant rise in domestic or misogynistic abuse amongst those people who play violent or sexist games.  Instead, you find the opposite.  There's no statistically significant correlation.

Which gives rise to the popular feminist diatribe "games keep rapists indoors."  It's postmodernist bullcrap.  Makes me want to repeat that wonderful feat of getting a virtually randomly generated article into a major postmodernist academic journal again.

As for basement trolls, welcome to the internet.  I have had all kinds of personal threats aimed at me over the years.  Some were brilliantly nonsensical.  The internet just doesn't like being played or being spoken down to.

Now, I go on record as saying that I don't particularly like the gaming community as a whole.  I find it irrational, overbearing and frankly far too ****ing opinionated for the level of understanding it has.  It just so happens that I apply the same standards to game developers and critics as well.  Yes, gaming can be a hostile environment, but no more so than anywhere else in society and it sure as hell isn't split down gender roles.

Game journalism is pitiful.  It's embarassing and if this "medium" ever wants to be taken seriously, it needs a complete clearout.

EDIT:  I should note, by the way, that this crying of misogyny is something that happens almost constantly amongst female columnists.  It's not even a particularly new tactic either - religious pressure groups, trans exclusionary feminists and even Jack Thompson were constantly crying about oppression.  One of the main tactics of the pressure group is to reframe any critique as hatred.

[The E]

Oh and of course:

Of course WHAT? So she says in one video that she doesn't like a certain type of videogame, and that means she likes NO videogames? Try harder. Seriously. If that's the sort of thing you want to uses to "debunk her", whatever the **** that means, you are no better than she is in finding arguments for your position; you are arguably worse, since she at least has the decency to cite a variety of sources for her positions.

"Show me the evidence."  Given how pervasive video game culture is in society, you would expect a significant rise in domestic or misogynistic abuse amongst those people who play violent or sexist games.  Instead, you find the opposite.  There's no statistically significant correlation.

Please show where she has claimed that this is the case.

As for basement trolls, welcome to the internet.  I have had all kinds of personal threats aimed at me over the years.  Some were brilliantly nonsensical.  The internet just doesn't like being played or being spoken down to.

Have you been doxxed? Have people spent time and effort to learn your personal details, hack your various bank and social media accounts, harrassed you over the phone, mail, and any other communication method available? No? Then you have no basis of comparison, and claiming that you know what it's like is laughable.

[Rheyah]

Please show where she has claimed that this is the case.

Her meta argument is IDENTICAL to Thompsons.  We need to change this BECAUSE.  It's not good enough to say "women need better representation in games".  You need to say why.  The implication, as it is in all feminist arguments of this nature, is that this phenomenon is damaging to culture.  If her argument was simply "I want women to have better representation in games with more positive role models" then that's not a bad message, but it isn't.  It has -never- been about that.

There's plenty of hideous DOA volleyball ripoffs and rapelay games and all that hideous **** that gets dredged up out of the corner of the internet.  All of it niche stuff, as niche as the horrid yaoi fanfiction and Doctor Who incest slashfic that comes out of all similar communities.  I just don't play any of that - why would I?  I'm not a scumbag.

Have you been doxxed? Have people spent time and effort to learn your personal details, hack your various bank and social media accounts, harrassed you over the phone, mail, and any other communication method available? No? Then you have no basis of comparison.

I had someone send packages to my house which went to the police because they disagreed with me on the internet.  I am also bisexual in real life and have faced physical violence due to that which I will not go into - I learned how to kickbox because of this.

I still have the scars, by the way.  I recommend you don't pursue that line of argument any further.  I don't think you've ever had someone tell you to your face that you're a disease spreading cancer on society and mean it.

[The E]

Her meta argument is IDENTICAL to Thompsons.  We need to change this BECAUSE.  It's not good enough to say "women need better representation in games".  You need to say why.  The implication, as it is in all feminist arguments of this nature, is that this phenomenon is damaging to culture.  If her argument was simply "I want women to have better representation in games with more positive role models" then that's not a bad message, but it isn't.  It has -never- been about that.

Hasn't it? I mean, that was the message I got from these videos.
Also, why is the limited representation of women in games not damaging? I'd like you to explain to me why one of the most dominant media forms in our culture is completely irrelevant when it comes to shaping expectations and behaviours of those who consume them.

Finally, what's so bad about better representation of women (and by extension non-heteronormative people)?

There's plenty of hideous DOA volleyball ripoffs and rapelay games and all that hideous **** that gets dredged up out of the corner of the internet.  All of it niche stuff, as niche as the horrid yaoi fanfiction and Doctor Who incest slashfic that comes out of all similar communities.

You know what else is niche? Games with female protagonists. See this list right here? Isn't that a bit short? Are the millions of sales that games like that hitman game, or any of the GTA games get indicative of it being a "niche" phenomenon?

I still have the scars, by the way.  I recommend you don't pursue that line of argument any further.

Okay then, I won't.

[Luis Dias]

Of course WHAT? So she says in one video that she doesn't like a certain type of videogame, and that means she likes NO videogames? Try harder. Seriously. If that's the sort of thing you want to uses to "debunk her", whatever the **** that means, you are no better than she is in finding arguments for your position; you are arguably worse, since she at least has the decency to cite a variety of sources for her positions.

"I am not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn a lot about videogames in the process of doing this"

Proceeds to go on interviews claiming to "love games, I'm I'm a a f f  fan of videogames"

You might rationalize this away as not being sufficient evidence, "lacks context" or some other reason you are thinking about. That's fine, I don't have any grudges with anyone who thinks she's being honest here, it's not an irrational opinion at all. I watch that and all her marketing approach, all she has achieved, all the usage of victim status to get herself points and so on and I paint a picture of her persona in my head which is less favorable.

"Show me the evidence."  Given how pervasive video game culture is in society, you would expect a significant rise in domestic or misogynistic abuse amongst those people who play violent or sexist games.  Instead, you find the opposite.  There's no statistically significant correlation.

Please show where she has claimed that this is the case.

She did claim that "while it may be comforting to think that we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences this is simply not the case, in short the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected" "IOW, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how women are perceived and treated in the world around them".

She's stating all these abhorrent things that happen in videogames have an impact in "real life" mysogyny and so on. Well, except there's no evidence for this. Zero. Zilch. None. Doesn't mean we should like all these abhorrent things. Doesn't mean these things are out of the scope of critique. It just means the rationale and the fearmongering ala Thompson is just the wrong way to deal with it. If anything, correlation between violence and violent games are negative, so isn't that funny.

[The E]

"I am not a fan of videogames, I actually had to learn a lot about videogames in the process of doing this"

Proceeds to go on interviews claiming to "love games, I'm I'm a a f f  fan of videogames"

You might rationalize this away as not being sufficient evidence, "lacks context" or some other reason you are thinking about. That's fine, I don't have any grudges with anyone who thinks she's being honest here, it's not an irrational opinion at all. I watch that and all her marketing approach, all she has achieved, all the usage of victim status to get herself points and so on and I paint a picture of her persona in my head which is less favorable.

Because, as we all know, noone can ever change their opinions, ever. That is just not done. Completely unbelievable that one person could say two more or less contradictory things over the course of several years.

She did claim that "while it may be comforting to think that we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences this is simply not the case, in short the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected" "IOW, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how women are perceived and treated in the world around them".

She's stating all these abhorrent things that happen in videogames have an impact in "real life" mysogyny and so on. Well, except there's no evidence for this. Zero. Zilch. None. Doesn't mean we should like all these abhorrent things. Doesn't mean these things are out of the scope of critique. It just means the rationale and the fearmongering ala Thompson is just the wrong way to deal with it. If anything, correlation between violence and violent games are negative, so isn't that funny.

So, is the counterclaim then that media (not just games, but media in general) will never have any impact whatsoever on the opinions and attitudes of those who consume them?

[Rheyah]

First off, thank you for not pursuing that further.  It isn't a pleasant story and I have no wish to share it other than to make the point that these people are not the only ones who have been abused.

Hasn't it? I mean, that was the message I got from these videos.
Also, why is the limited representation of women in games not damaging? I'd like you to explain to me why one of the most dominant media forms in our culture is completely irrelevant when it comes to shaping expectations and behaviours of those who consume them.

Finally, what's so bad about better representation of women (and by extension non-heteronormative people)?

You know what else is niche? Games with female protagonists. See this list right here? Isn't that a bit short? Are the millions of sales that games like that hitman game, or any of the GTA games get indicative of it being a "niche" phenomenon?

Well, I didn't really want to spoil it but my own campaign right here is fronted by a woman, Lilian Shawcross and even (by design) passes the Bedechel test in every mission two women feature.  If you want the evidence to prove it then I can happily show you my design documents from the last eight months - one of which is already posted on my thread.  I chose to be the change I wanted to see, rather than just complain about it.  For the record, my campaign also features LGBT people - namely a bisexual male, which puts me in a crowd of uh...  I think about 3 or 4 games?  In total?  Not even male power fantasies cater to mine, after all.

Most RPGs will sort that out by default and other than Planescape Torment, nearly all of them allow you to do as you like with your character with only LGBT relationships excluded until the last few years.  On that list alone I see the best multiplayer RPG of all time (NWN), Baldurs Gate, KOTOR, Mass Effect, all roguelikes and MMORPGs and the list if those games were included would be virtually endless.  I should also note that the gaming industry accepted LGBT relationships long before we got the right to marry - far from being regressive, it was progressive even by the standards of most modern media.

Not every game is character centric or even human.  You'd have to be mad to put a gender on Katamari Demarci.  What about Earthworm Jim, a game about a species that by definition is hermaphoditic?  Never mind the ending where he turned out to be a giant cow in a suit, or rather where they all turned out to be that.  What about XCOM, where the gender of your best (and worst) troops is entirely randomised?  Or real time strategy games?  I notice Starcraft 2:  Heart of the Swarm and Starcraft:  Brood War isn't mentioned despite the most important character in the whole series being female - the so called Queen ***** of the Universe.  These are not small games either.  Some of these titles are amongst the most lauded and loved in the whole gaming sector.  Never mind that some of the games on that list are considered amongst the best games of all time.  Portal for one comes to mind.

There are also tons of games out there which don't have protagonists.  Even our own, Freespace 2, doesn't really have much of one - Petrarch doesn't even refer to the gender of the protagonist.  The protagonist is a blank slate.  So what you're really arguing for is protagonist representation in two or three very specific genres of games:

- first person speaking protagonist games
- first/third person adventure games
- character driven games

The first:  Well let's be honest here.  Other than maybe one or two shooters in recent history, is there really anything to recommend the plots from first person shooters or first person adventure games?  They tend to be a mechanism through which gameplay is delivered, rather than the other way around.  With an ideal first person shooter, you need to have a character capable of dealing with often hundreds of adversaries for hours on end without really slowing down.  Originally, that was the thing that seperated out modern military spunkgargleweewees from old fashioned shooters - that you didn't necessarily play an immortal rocket jumping supersoldier that never spoke a word.

In that context, does it even matter what gender the protagonist is?  They have all the impact of a wet condom filled with jelly.  The Master Chief even has a generic name:  John.  What's the difference between the Master Chief being called John or Jane?  Well, a different voice actor for one - two voice actors.  Doubling all the voice acting dialogue to take out gendered references or double them up.  The main issue with changing it now as we know the Master Chief.  He's a guy.  A big gruff super soldier guy and it's hard to retcon all of that.  Is there anything stopping you from rewriting the Halo series with a female protagonist?  Not really.  It already has a lot of female SPARTANs.  They're already doing superhuman bull**** so the gender doesn't really matter.

What you're actually asking for is better writing and there, we agree.  I like my games to have tight, fun narratives and those narratives can then be easily twisted.  I doubt anyone really give the character of the Master Chief any real thought beyond "he wears some power armour and carries a big gun."  Nameless characterless space marine has become a trope itself.  It's got no real connection to anyone living - it's just a useful vehicle.  I don't really see anything wrong with putting a woman in that power armour.  It's equally as stupid, equally as unrelatable and equally as boring.

It even has its satire and critiques.  Take Spec Ops:  The Line which absolutely tore apart the lone man on a mission narrative and make you genuinely feel ill.  It was also universally lauded for its story but - of course - its mechanics weren't brilliant and it wasn't a particularly good game.  It was just an amazing experience.

So what about character driven games then?

Here, you have a problem.  Character driven games are immensely dialogue or exposition heavy.  Sure, you can rely on the scenary to do a lot of the work, but mostly its just writing and storyboarding.  If you're spending 8,000 hours of your life writing dialogue for a character, you:

A - have to want to do it
B - have to have some connection to it
C - it's your character

The audience has no rights other than to decide whether they want to purchase your product or not.  This is where my patience with these people wears thin.  I wanted to write a story about a female soldier in wartime dealing with losing close friends, family and eventually moving on and becoming institutionalized.  So I did it.  It's taken the best part of EIGHT MONTHS.

I didn't tell anyone else to do it.

I didn't demand the industry to accomodate.

I just got off my arse and got to writing and DID IT.  Just the same as all of us have done it.  Anyone here who has released a campaign knows how much of a ballache just scripting a bit of convincing dialogue can be.  I've written entire segments of dialogue that I have had to bin because either the mission was overloaded with spam or just plain didn't work.   Never mind getting the characters right, writing background fiction, setting up assets, tables, scripting.  All that **** you have to do and this by the way is on top of not getting paid for it.

You just do it because you want to and at the end of the day, it's something I wanted to do and write.

Maybe someone will play it and it'll catch on.  Maybe it won't.  What's important is I did something that I wanted to.  I will never turn around to someone else involved in content creation and tell them the stories they should be writing.  I might disagree with their take on it, but I will never turn around to someone like Battuta or Darius and tell him how he should be writing his stories.

If I want to do my own take on it, I'll bloody do it and give them the credit for having inspired me to write something, as I did when I wrote the little take on Steele I did.  I have no right to tell others what they should be doing and frankly, all the social justice in the world isn't going to get me to write a female character if I don't want to write one.

[Luis Dias]

Because, as we all know, noone can ever change their opinions, ever. That is just not done. Completely unbelievable that one person could say two more or less contradictory things over the course of several years.

Except the idea is that she never did. She has stories on how she convinced her parents that the "GameBoy" wasn't just for "boys" and other cute but daring and activist stories. She's "always" been a gamer herself, she tells us. Watch her interview with IGN.

So, is the counterclaim then that media (not just games, but media in general) will never have any impact whatsoever on the opinions and attitudes of those who consume them?

No, the counterclaim is that videogames are not producing a widespread mysogynystic virulent infection on society. Just as it didn't do so in regards to violence in the nineties. I was very clear on this but you seem hellbent on strawmanning me on this. If you insist on it, well I don't think I'll have anything to add.


e: Regarding what Rheyah said. I agree with him entirely except on one small point. I do think critique is needed. And critique doesn't need to be "telling people what to create", but rather "Hey people we have a lack of representation here and there, we have a lack of good content here portraying women as they deserve to be portrayed", etc. I do think that this kind of critique was essential for Battuta's and Rheyah's and many other people to think a bit on this issue and change some things, consider what is important to do, etc.

It's probably hard to distinguish between "telling people what to do" and "I'm just making critiques", so I always assume they are doing the latter, even if they are being aggressive over it. My problem with Anita has never been that one in particular. Even if I dislike her, I do watch her videos, there could be some important things that she somewhat tries to convey in them that might be helpful and interesting.

[Rheyah]

So, is the counterclaim then that media (not just games, but media in general) will never have any impact whatsoever on the opinions and attitudes of those who consume them?

This is only one example, but similar effects have been reported for a variety of media.

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/moviescrime07-12-20.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44294/

The low standards of both positive and negative studies suggest that if there is an effect, it is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.  So yes, it has virtually no impact at all.  Indeed, given that western society continues on a trend of becoming less violent, less misogynistic, less racist and more LGBT tolerant, any correlations are going to be negative no matter what is suggested.

[Spoon]

There's plenty of hideous DOA volleyball ripoffs

Name me a few, because I can think of none.

and rapelay games

1 rapelay game. Which caused such a stink with western media that it made a large amount of japanese (erotic) developers decide that they would never try to sell anything outside of japan anymore.

and all that hideous **** that gets dredged up out of the corner of the internet.  All of it niche stuff, as niche as the horrid yaoi fanfiction and Doctor Who incest slashfic that comes out of all similar communities.  I just don't play any of that - why would I?  I'm not a scumbag.

Playing niche stuff or playing stuff that caters to your specific fetish makes you a scumbag now? Delicious sweeping global remark.
I find this oddly ironic coming for someone who just went "but muh LGBT", you want people to cater to your niche but in the same breath call every other niche that is not yours scumbags.

You know what else is niche? Games with female protagonists. See this list right here? Isn't that a bit short?

A bit short indeed, because that list isn't nearly close to being complete (As it says on the site itself even). So why even bother using it to make a point?

[Rheyah]

I really wish I didn't try to be reasonable about this whole debate.  It's much easier to just shout and get angry at people.

Name me a few, because I can think of none.

I saw a (free trial) game last night called Girl Fight which is featured on the PS store which purports to be a "female fighting simulator" for which the box art is two extremely scantily clad anime looking girls feeling each other up.

That's just the one I played most recently.  There's plenty of others to choose from.  Just look at the box art.  Does it have tits and arse?  Then it's a DOA Volleyball ripoff - a game which had literally no redeeming features beyond breast physics.

For the record, it was 1.4 gig.  We played the Pacific Rim movie game instead.  An hour of Gypsy Danger punching Knifehead.  Good times.

1 rapelay game. Which caused such a stink with western media that it made a large amount of japanese (erotic) developers decide that they would never try to sell anything outside of japan anymore.

Rightly so.  It was ****ing horrible.  I don't want to play a game where I stalk and rape someone.  I sure as hell don't want them to become mainstream.  They aren't the only games of that genre, though thankfully most of them are hideous flash based GIF art designed to last long enough to wank to.  I found one after one google search - I won't link to it but it involves forced anal intercourse all told from the perspective of a rape survivor recounting her "loving rape."

I can play vampires, mass murderers, even play DEFCON where I wipe out the human race, but I am not going to play a game where the reward for me clicking on a womans arse is to watch her squeal and scream "GET OFF ME" while getting a full frontal view of her genitals.

It's just...  messed up.  I could understand if there was a redeeming quality to the game itself, but there never is.  They're always awful, both in content and gameplay.  I don't play ****ty games unless there's a bit of comedy value for it.

Playing niche stuff or playing stuff that caters to your specific fetish makes you a scumbag now? Delicious sweeping global remark.
I find this oddly ironic coming for someone who just went "but muh LGBT", you want people to cater to your niche but in the same breath call every other niche that is not yours scumbags.

Er.  What?  I said I was LGBT in defense of the fact that someone implied that I don't know what harassment feels like.  Well, I do.  I never said a word about developers cowtowing to my personal desires.  My personal desires are more than happily dealt with in real life, thank you.  I don't need fantasy romance options to get my kicks.

Maybe I am being harsh (I probably am), but it feels queezy, the idea of playing a game where the primary objective is to rape someone.  It's just..  wrong.

[Rheyah]

e: Regarding what Rheyah said. I agree with him entirely except on one small point. I do think critique is needed. And critique doesn't need to be "telling people what to create", but rather "Hey people we have a lack of representation here and there, we have a lack of good content here portraying women as they deserve to be portrayed", etc. I do think that this kind of critique was essential for Battuta's and Rheyah's and many other people to think a bit on this issue and change some things, consider what is important to do, etc.

It's probably hard to distinguish between "telling people what to do" and "I'm just making critiques", so I always assume they are doing the latter, even if they are being aggressive over it. My problem with Anita has never been that one in particular. Even if I dislike her, I do watch her videos, there could be some important things that she somewhat tries to convey in them that might be helpful and interesting.

Yes, see, this is what I mean.  If you turn around to me and say "hey, you're a good/okay/bad writer, but you're a bit light on the ground for women.  What's the issue there?" then that's a failing on my part.  If I am not writing women and I don't say "well I didn't see much room for women in this story, but have always had [X idea] involving women where a women finds herself in [Y situation] and has to [do Z]" then that is a discussion worth having. 

What I dislike is when people say "Your work is bad because you don't have enough women in it."  What about if I don't have much confidence in my ability to write women?  What if I don't want to include women in this story because I feel there's enough misogyny already out there and everyone in the story dies?  What if I just don't feel this character in particular is appropriate to be a woman?

There is a huge difference between giving critique and making demands.  A critique takes what is and shows you what it could be.  A demand takes what isn't and tells you what yours should be.

EDIT: I should note that if people want to continue this discussion with me, please feel free to send me messages in private.  I so far have managed to keep my interactions with HLP as positive as possible and enjoy my time modding, writing mission files and enjoying the creativity of this community.  I have no desire to get any deeper into political debate than I have to so I have said all I am going to say on this.

I'd much rather work on my campaign than dick about discussing issues that ultimately won't change anything.

[The E]

Except the idea is that she never did. She has stories on how she convinced her parents that the "GameBoy" wasn't just for "boys" and other cute but daring and activist stories. She's "always" been a gamer herself, she tells us. Watch her interview with IGN.

And going from one opinion to its opposite and then coming back around to the starting position is forbidden?

See, the thing is, the argument seems to boil down to "You said this one thing once, therefore whenever you are saying something else, you're lying", which I find to be rather silly.

I mean, the full quote is "...so it's not exactly a fandom, I'm not a fan of video games. I had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this. And also, video games, I would love to play video games, but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads, and it's just gross, so...".
Interesting how the video you cited cut out the "And also, video games, I would love to play video games, but..." part.
In addition, I'm having trouble seeing this as hard, irrefutable proof of duplicity. Seems to me that she's got an issue with the kinds of games that are pulling in the big money; not necessarily every game ever made.

No, the counterclaim is that videogames are not producing a widespread mysogynystic virulent infection on society. Just as it didn't do so in regards to violence in the nineties. I was very clear on this but you seem hellbent on strawmanning me on this. If you insist on it, well I don't think I'll have anything to add.

Okay, so they're not causing misogynism. I can buy that. But are they helping in the defeat of misogyny? Or are they acting as a retardant? My guess is more towards the latter rather than the former, because most games are stuck in terms of gender representation on what game writers believe teenage boys can accept, which apparently isn't a whole lot.

e: Regarding what Rheyah said. I agree with him entirely except on one small point. I do think critique is needed. And critique doesn't need to be "telling people what to create", but rather "Hey people we have a lack of representation here and there, we have a lack of good content here portraying women as they deserve to be portrayed", etc. I do think that this kind of critique was essential for Battuta's and Rheyah's and many other people to think a bit on this issue and change some things, consider what is important to do, etc.

Yes, this.

[Rheyah]

A serious question.  Is it possible to get yourself banned from individual forums?  I really don't want to infect myself with a temptation to get involved in political rows if I can avoid it.

If so, I'd like never to read this forum ever again