[Akalabeth Angel]

not that I've been keeping up on this thread and so I might be missing some important subtle nuance, but you know what else you get to kill a lot of with little to no consequence in video games other than sex workers?


...literally ...every ****ing other thing in reality or imagination.

Yes you did miss the nuance.
The nuance being that some people want video games to evolve. Not be stuck in whatever point or perception of their reality that you find comforting.

Removing realism from games and adding limitations to not offend anyone is not evolution, its degeneration.

EDIT - That's not what I was saying. So not really sure where that's coming from.

And by the way, realism in games? What games are we talking about? Arma? Operation Flashpoint Red River? Were we discussing those games? Seems to me that those are some of the only few games I've heard of that have realistic combat. Oh maybe Forza? Some other driving games? They're said to be fairly realistic in car handling. Or maybe European Bus Simulator?

[Phantom Hoover]

it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this

So talk about the general point instead?

[MP-Ryan]

The counter-argument is that the inclusion of these elements in games helps perpetuate the viewers acceptance or perceptions of women and also helps to reinforce patriarchal ideals about society.  And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.

Sarkeesian I think is an advocate of not challenging these ideals or stereotypes by their inclusion, but rather by their exclusion. By replacing weak female characters with strong ones, women who are strong as women not as men.

Yes, but she also argues directly against including women as setpieces in gendered roles... except we also see many games where men are included as setpieces in gendered roles, too.

I'm all for a shift in the way female characters are portrayed in video games (visuals aside, I actually thought DA:O and Mass Effect 2/3 accomplished this fairly well for player characters), but I think she undermines her point by dredging up pretty minor issues like the fact that a game about being a hitman includes a scenario where he is in a strip club, and the female strippers can be murdered just like everyone else.  That's called setting, and I don't think it's a true problem anywhere near the scope of everything from the way actual female characters are modelled and textured to how they are written.

Why would anyone be afraid of Anita Sarkeesian? She's under constant abuse from a very vocal and vitriolic gaming community. Depression Quest, a game which allegedly tries to tackle some of these important issues was just involved in the biggest **** storm of recent memory.  The vast majority of game developers are still men, not women. The vast majority of games, particularly successful ones have male protagonists, not women. Why would any developer be inclined to tackle social issues and gender inequality in such an environment?

Even Tomb Raider, a top-selling game with a female protagonist has been described by some journalists I follow as a torture simulator. The guy joked about the cops being called to his apartment because the whole thing is about Lara getting hurt and beat up, to the point where he felt dirty after playing the game despite enjoying the gameplay.

The developers aren't afraid of Sarkeesian, they're afraid the male hardcore masses wont buy their game and independent developers, particularly female ones, are probably not too inclined either unless some developers start making reactionary games to recent controversy.

If you're a developer who wants to do things differently and try to portray realistic females characters - which will always be an exercise in trial-and-error and knowing full well that it will directly challenge a very vocal but small cadre of self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" in the process, how motivated are you going to be to do that knowing full well you are now going to take crap from two vocal minority groups completely unrepresentative of the majority of people who play games?

My points here is all about picking and choosing meaningful battles to effect change in the way games use gendered roles and portray them.  I think Sarkeesian, for sake of trying to beat her point into the ground, overextends in her criticism and makes it LESS likely that major developers will pay attention to the lessons that are actually contained in her videos.  We see this in debate all the time - instead of focusing on the glaring issues she brings up, they can instead nitpick - much like has been demonstrated in this thread - that many of her examples are trivial and therefore trivialize her entire argument, despite the main points being completely accurate and relevant.

TL;DR:  Like many who approach sociological issues from the feminist theorists' perspective (which, for those unfamiliar with the theoretical side, is distinguished from the Marxist & Neo-marxist/Foucauldian schools by approaching power and class conflict/imbalance through an at least partial gendered lens, depending on the subtype of feminist; feminist theory is predominantly an offshoot of Marxist theory), Sarkeesian undermines her very legitimate points by introducing examples that her primary intended audience will find utterly trivial.  Which assumes her audience is not fellow feminists, I suppose, but the whole point of critical analysis is to convince other people, not like-minded ones.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Yes, but she also argues directly against including women as setpieces in gendered roles... except we also see many games where men are included as setpieces in gendered roles, too.

Which is relevant... how?

[Mr. Vega]

We interrupt this discussion to report that the conspiracy theorists have reached an all time high in loonieness:

https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/506171725516521472

[Phantom Hoover]

zoe quinn is preparing to stage a nuclear attack on the east coast

[Akalabeth Angel]

The counter-argument is that the inclusion of these elements in games helps perpetuate the viewers acceptance or perceptions of women and also helps to reinforce patriarchal ideals about society.  And don't anyone say that the media you view doesn't have an effect on how you react to aspects of the world, there are thousands of guys out there right now who can't get it off because the sex they're having isn't as exciting as the porn they've subjected themselves to.

Sarkeesian I think is an advocate of not challenging these ideals or stereotypes by their inclusion, but rather by their exclusion. By replacing weak female characters with strong ones, women who are strong as women not as men.

Yes, but she also argues directly against including women as setpieces in gendered roles... except we also see many games where men are included as setpieces in gendered roles, too.

And? Sarkeesian isn't the advocate for the portrayal of men in games. The way that men are treated neither excuses nor validates the treatment of women. Further, I would suspect that "gendered roles" for men in general equates to "dominant" role. Akin to "The hero for this video game is another white anglo-saxon, woe is the white man for being portrayed in another stereotypical role."

I'm all for a shift in the way female characters are portrayed in video games (visuals aside, I actually thought DA:O and Mass Effect 2/3 accomplished this fairly well for player characters), but I think she undermines her point by dredging up pretty minor issues like the fact that a game about being a hitman includes a scenario where he is in a strip club, and the female strippers can be murdered just like everyone else.  That's called setting, and I don't think it's a true problem anywhere near the scope of everything from the way actual female characters are modelled and textured to how they are written.

My understanding of that video is that she's not complaining that the women can be murdered, but rather that they're background decoration. The fact that they cna be killed is a consequence of the role that they're place in, but the main problem is the role itself.

People will come back and say "well it's realistic to have a strip club" but I'm sorry, there's nothing realistic about a video game like Hitman. It's a constructed fantasy, a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance but it is at its core a fantasy. No person in the world can hide behind a desk and see what's happening on the other side without popping their head up. No person in the world can take the sort of punishment they get away with. It's purely a fantasy world.

The funniest comment I've heard in months was on the Escapist where an individual responded to me and said that Call of Duty Modern Warfare was a realistic game. There's nothing realistic about that game or any of these other military shooters. From hitscan guns to regenerating health to over the top situations that make James Bond look like mister bean.

Realistic games are simulation games. 99% of gamers likely don't play simulation games because they're not that fun. They're for a niche audience.

If you're a developer who wants to do things differently and try to portray realistic females characters - which will always be an exercise in trial-and-error and knowing full well that it will directly challenge a very vocal but small cadre of self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" in the process, how motivated are you going to be to do that knowing full well you are now going to take crap from two vocal minority groups completely unrepresentative of the majority of people who play games?

Completely unrepresentative? Women are no longer the minority:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/female-adults-oust-teenage-boys-largest-gaming-demographic/

Whether you consider mobile games a game or not, they're making a ton of money and women are the ones playing them.

As for devs taking notice of Sarkeesian.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137124-Saints-Row-Writer-Supports-Change-for-the-Representation-of-Women-in-Games

Our own beloved Volition is taking notice of what she's saying and believe they are doing better in their portrayal of women, and accepting the criticism she's levied as some of their games in the past.

I've heard rumours that Anita is a consultant on both Mirror's Edge 2 and Remember Me 2 as well, though it may just be the former.

[Luis Dias]

As far as I've seen, Anita isn't making videos about Candy Crush, she's making videos about games that are mostly played by men. Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?

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.

Regarding the discussion above, I find that some commenters have a hard time figuring out the difference between fantasy and reality, and curiously enough, it's when people find this ambiguous that I wonder if they aren't dangerous...

[AdmiralRalwood]

Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?

Can you provide actual evidence of her examples being fake or badly chosen, instead of taking it for granted and calling her a "lazy con artist"?

[Dragon]

People will come back and say "well it's realistic to have a strip club" but I'm sorry, there's nothing realistic about a video game like Hitman. It's a constructed fantasy, a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance but it is at its core a fantasy. No person in the world can hide behind a desk and see what's happening on the other side without popping their head up. No person in the world can take the sort of punishment they get away with. It's purely a fantasy world.

The funniest comment I've heard in months was on the Escapist where an individual responded to me and said that Call of Duty Modern Warfare was a realistic game. There's nothing realistic about that game or any of these other military shooters. From hitscan guns to regenerating health to over the top situations that make James Bond look like mister bean.

Realistic games are simulation games. 99% of gamers likely don't play simulation games because they're not that fun. They're for a niche audience.

Note, "realism" can mean different things for different people. For a simmer like me, it's accurate, by the numbers, representation of how the real thing operates. Few people actually look for that sort of things, those that do are usually the most "hardcore" gamers you can find (due to the fact sims, like things they simulate, often require a lot of dedication to learn and even more to master), and are a completely different demographic than usually imagined. Ironically, those very gamers often advocate having women portrayed realistically. Why? Because it's realistic, duh. See the reactions on BI forums upon finding no women in the latest ArmA at all. Some did indeed call BI out on sexism (the actual reason for their omission is likely technical. It's a lot of work to implement a new body type with AIII's loadout system, as discovered by one girl currently attempting to do just that in a mod).

But this is a small group. What I call "realism" most people call "rivet counting". Thinking of "realism", they're thinking of the game's self-consistency. For example, if the game establishes you can kill people, then introduces a character that is unkillable (with no good in-story reason for that), then it breaks self-consistency and "reminds you" you're in a game. If the world, no matter how fantastic, is self-consistent, then it can be immersed in. Notice that we want the same from books and movies. No fantasy universe can get away with breaking it's own rules, unless it's explicitly addressed. Ideally, any question you can ask can be answered in universe. If there's no in-universe reason, forcing you to answer "game mechanics", then the immersion breaks, unless it's a mechanic so ingrained in our minds we don't mind it (and even then, different people have different tolerances). Note that it's not dissimilar to a book or a movie. If you came across a (serious) book in which someone swings a sword at a stripper and it goes right through without harming her, would that "work"? No, it'd likely plunge the book right into farce/parody (unless, of course, the sword swinger realizes something is very wrong and reacts accordingly).

This is what realism means to most. The setting has to make sense within itself. If a district is seedy, you can expect a strip club. The strip club will likely hire human strippers. Being human, those strippers could die. You're free to make up a seedy district without strip clubs (say, they're illegal in the setting), with inhuman strippers (say, alien) or even ones that can't be interacted with (say, holographic), but it has to make sense. The closer your setting gets to reality, the more constrained you are. Hitman won't have holograms, and it'd be unlikely they'd have banned strip clubs by that time. So you're out of luck. The more "free-roaming" the game, the more of such things they should have, or else you risk breaking immersion. A lineal FPS set in WWII might have you not come across any woman at all, and that's fine. In some adventure games, you don't come across any humans at all. An open game set in more-or-less modern world, like GTA, on the other hand, has to have various female characters, in different professions (including the oldest one), because there would be something "amiss" if it ignored the fact they exist IRL.

In books and films, you're free to ignore certain aspects of human life, society, etc. as unimportant to the plot and thus not worth mentioning. It's implied to be there, but not mentioned because it's obvious and/or not needed right now. For lineal games, you can usually do the same. In a free-roaming game, on the other hand, the game devs stop being the sole authors of the story. The author just creates an universe in which the player creates his/her own story. This is my take on it. The author's duty in such case is to give the player a consistent, working universe. In an open world, the player is entirely responsible for his/her character's actions. On the other hand, the universe should punish acts that should, logically, be punished by it's laws. If you can murder everyone within a strip club and get away with it unbothered, it's an even bigger immersion breaker than having unkillable strippers.

[Akalabeth Angel]

As far as I've seen, Anita isn't making videos about Candy Crush, she's making videos about games that are mostly played by men. Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?

Yeah I can quote fancy foreign languages too: circulus in probando
Video games are made for male gamers, therefore female gamers should not be the target demographic.

Horse****.

According to nintendo, 50% of their users are women, 38% of xbox users are women.
The majority of people across all devices playing games are women.


Hell my friend was playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on her phone long before I met her. Afterwards, I introduced her to Might and Magic Clash of Heroes, Machinarium and Superbrothers Sword and Sworcery. Did she only become a gamer when she played these latter, "legitimate" games? Does the fact she owned a playstation years ago and played Rayman on it make her a gamer? Did she cease to be a gamer when she abandoned the PS2 for mobile games and did she become a gamer again when she played iOS games? Or are the games listed not violent enough to be real games?

What game constitutes being a gamer and what does not? Sarkeesian mentions Super Mario Bros in her first video. Are you a gamer if you play Super Mario Bros but not a gamer if you play Mario Kart? Super Mario Bros was on the nintendo, another game from the era is Tetris. Many of the mobile games today have the same level of complexity yet they're not games when Tetris is? Is Clash of Clans not a game while Civilization or Red Alert is? What determines which is a game and which isn't?

People move the yardsticks constantly to suit their argument, excluding people and gameplay styles to reaffirm their own idea of what their hobby entails.
Personally I would say that Candy Crush is a **** game, based more on random luck than skill. That being said it's still a game. And the people who use it are still people playing games in the same way if I played Shadowrun Returns or whatnot I would be someone playing a game.

[Akalabeth Angel]

This is what realism means to most. The setting has to make sense within itself. If a district is seedy, you can expect a strip club. The strip club will likely hire human strippers. Being human, those strippers could die. You're free to make up a seedy district without strip clubs (say, they're illegal in the setting), with inhuman strippers (say, alien) or even ones that can't be interacted with (say, holographic), but it has to make sense. The closer your setting gets to reality, the more constrained you are. Hitman won't have holograms, and it'd be unlikely they'd have banned strip clubs by that time. So you're out of luck. The more "free-roaming" the game, the more of such things they should have, or else you risk breaking immersion. A lineal FPS set in WWII might have you not come across any woman at all, and that's fine. In some adventure games, you don't come across any humans at all. An open game set in more-or-less modern world, like GTA, on the other hand, has to have various female characters, in different professions (including the oldest one), because there would be something "amiss" if it ignored the fact they exist IRL.

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.

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.

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.

Where are the sewer levels with rats advocates I wonder? Would they have the same number? Or would no one care because despite potentially adding believability to a world they wouldn't be missed.

[MP-Ryan]

And? Sarkeesian isn't the advocate for the portrayal of men in games. The way that men are treated neither excuses nor validates the treatment of women. Further, I would suspect that "gendered roles" for men in general equates to "dominant" role. Akin to "The hero for this video game is another white anglo-saxon, woe is the white man for being portrayed in another stereotypical role."

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.

There is nothing wrong with gendered setpieces if it serves a function in conveying setting, plot, or background, particularly in a quasi-realistic context of something like the Hitman games.

My understanding of that video is that she's not complaining that the women can be murdered, but rather that they're background decoration. The fact that they cna be killed is a consequence of the role that they're place in, but the main problem is the role itself.

People will come back and say "well it's realistic to have a strip club" but I'm sorry, there's nothing realistic about a video game like Hitman. It's a constructed fantasy, a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance but it is at its core a fantasy. No person in the world can hide behind a desk and see what's happening on the other side without popping their head up. No person in the world can take the sort of punishment they get away with. It's purely a fantasy world.

See above.  And you just defeated your own argument:  it's "a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance."  Indeed.  And if I wanted to pick an establishment that is a collision of public access, seediness, and potential for criminal enterprise, strip club sits right at the top of the list.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the artistic choice.  Is it clever?  No.  Is it groundbreaking?  No.  Does it come off as more than just a little tired?  Sure.  Is it in invalid choice?  Nope.  This is why Sarkeesian is arguing the trivial - there is ample justification for the inclusion of a strip club as a setting other than simply "objectification of women."  Enough to make an argument, anyway.  Compare this to something like "all your male characters have armour, yet the females just have a steel bra and a slightly elongated belt" where there is literally no justification other than gender issues, where there is a much stronger argument.  Is Sarkeesian wrong about the strip club scene in Hitman?  Not really.  It's a singularly uncreative choice.  But it's an arguable choice, when there are so many that are purely indefensible.  This is why I keep hammering on this issue - instead of picking meaningful battles, she applies the shotgun approach and launches at all of the ones she can find, diluting her core argument.

Completely unrepresentative? Women are no longer the minority:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/female-adults-oust-teenage-boys-largest-gaming-demographic/

Whether you consider mobile games a game or not, they're making a ton of money and women are the ones playing them.

As for devs taking notice of Sarkeesian.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137124-Saints-Row-Writer-Supports-Change-for-the-Representation-of-Women-in-Games

Our own beloved Volition is taking notice of what she's saying and believe they are doing better in their portrayal of women, and accepting the criticism she's levied as some of their games in the past.

I've heard rumours that Anita is a consultant on both Mirror's Edge 2 and Remember Me 2 as well, though it may just be the former.

I made a very similar statement on page 3 or 4.  Again, my point whistled right by your head.

The vast majority of gamers are neither the 'hardcore stereotype' nor the vocal minority that launch themselves at any gender issues, no matter how trivial.  The vast majority are people who enjoy playing well-crafted games that provide entertaining gameplay, engaging plots (if present), and realistic characters who look and act like real people.  These people are unlikely to care if a Hitman mission occurs in a strip club and someone decides the rambo the place and kill the strippers.  On the other hand, they're likely to find FFF sized breasts and clothing that was purchased from the scrap bin of a lingerie or adult store on the female characters more than a little irritating.

So my point - again, the thing I keep hammering on - is that if feminists like Sarkeesian want a meaningful effect on the games industry to the benefit of the medium and the majority of people who play it, they should focus not on the trivial and mundane, but the glaringly obvious and unjustifiably sexist aspects of female (and male for that matter!) characters portrayed in games.  And there are a bloody shipload to choose from without dallying in the sidestreets of "oh dear, there's a stripclub setting in a game about being a criminal and it has strippers in it!"

[MP-Ryan]

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 don't know about the con artist part - all I know of Anita Sarkeesian's critiques comes from her Tropes Vs Women - but I certainly agree with your second sentence.  I don't find the examples of her work I've seen compelling critical analysis or particularly well-crafted.  Maybe her Master's thesis was better... she did earn her M.A. at York University, so it must have avoided at least some of the trivial argumentation she displays in her latest work.  EDIT:  Then again, York U is the institution where a professor quite reasonably told a male student he couldn't opt out of groupwork because it required him to work with female students (which student said was against his religion... ha), and the Dean tried to override the prof, so it's hard to tell some days.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

Dominic Osmond, friend of Edward Wade, a mercenary of the Colombian drug cartels, and friend/informant to Blake Dexter Blake owner of Dexter Industries.
Helped the above mentioned individuals track and kidnap some genetically enhanced girl named Victoria.

So what do you think Dominic Osmond does?
Well he runs a strip club of course!

Given such a disparate narrative and assembly of characters it would be hard to justify this locale being specifically set inside of a strip club for reasons of either realism or believability or immersion. It's a creative choice that could have gone a dozens different ways and yet went for the lowest common denominator.

See above.  And you just defeated your own argument:  it's "a fantasy which draws upon elements from the real world to try and give its fantasy world weight and relevance."  Indeed.  And if I wanted to pick an establishment that is a collision of public access, seediness, and potential for criminal enterprise, strip club sits right at the top of the list.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the artistic choice.  Is it clever?  No.  Is it groundbreaking?  No.  Does it come off as more than just a little tired?  Sure.  Is it in invalid choice?  Nope.  This is why Sarkeesian is arguing the trivial - there is ample justification for the inclusion of a strip club as a setting other than simply "objectification of women."  Enough to make an argument, anyway.  Compare this to something like "all your male characters have armour, yet the females just have a steel bra and a slightly elongated belt" where there is literally no justification other than gender issues, where there is a much stronger argument.  Is Sarkeesian wrong about the strip club scene in Hitman?  Not really.  It's a singularly uncreative choice.  But it's an arguable choice, when there are so many that are purely indefensible.  This is why I keep hammering on this issue - instead of picking meaningful battles, she applies the shotgun approach and launches at all of the ones she can find, diluting her core argument.

Funny I thought my argument was that Hitman was not a realistic game. And that its lack of realism negated the NEED for specific real world elements to be introduced. Thus every choice included in the world is a creative choice and its these creative choices that Sarkeesian and others would draw issue with. Creative choices can be scrutinized, particularly ones that would be expected. Its very often the thing that people take for granted that are the worst offenders of gender inequality because they're subversive rather than overt. Overt examples like chainmail bikni is obvious and apparent, another game set in a strip club is not. 

What you call shotgun approach, an academic would call citing examples. 

The vast majority of gamers are neither the 'hardcore stereotype' nor the vocal minority that launch themselves at any gender issues, no matter how trivial.  The vast majority are people who enjoy playing well-crafted games that provide entertaining gameplay, engaging plots (if present), and realistic characters who look and act like real people.  These people are unlikely to care if a Hitman mission occurs in a strip club and someone decides the rambo the place and kill the strippers.  On the other hand, they're likely to find FFF sized breasts and clothing that was purchased from the scrap bin of a lingerie or adult store on the female characters more than a little irritating.

Based on what exactly? You say that the "vast majority of gamers are. . . " but where exactly does your information come from? A study? Opinion poll?
How do you know what the vast majority of gamers is? What they care about or don't care about? Or is it pure supposition?

[Luis Dias]

Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?

Can you provide actual evidence of her examples being fake or badly chosen, instead of taking it for granted and calling her a "lazy con artist"?

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.

[Luis Dias]

As far as I've seen, Anita isn't making videos about Candy Crush,

As far as I've seen, Anita isn't making videos about Candy Crush, she's making videos about games that are mostly played by men. Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?

Yeah I can quote fancy foreign languages too: circulus in probando
Video games are made for male gamers, therefore female gamers should not be the target demographic.

Horse****.

According to nintendo, 50% of their users are women, 38% of xbox users are women.
The majority of people across all devices playing games are women.


Hell my friend was playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on her phone long before I met her. Afterwards, I introduced her to Might and Magic Clash of Heroes, Machinarium and Superbrothers Sword and Sworcery. Did she only become a gamer when she played these latter, "legitimate" games? Does the fact she owned a playstation years ago and played Rayman on it make her a gamer? Did she cease to be a gamer when she abandoned the PS2 for mobile games and did she become a gamer again when she played iOS games? Or are the games listed not violent enough to be real games?

What game constitutes being a gamer and what does not? Sarkeesian mentions Super Mario Bros in her first video. Are you a gamer if you play Super Mario Bros but not a gamer if you play Mario Kart? Super Mario Bros was on the nintendo, another game from the era is Tetris. Many of the mobile games today have the same level of complexity yet they're not games when Tetris is? Is Clash of Clans not a game while Civilization or Red Alert is? What determines which is a game and which isn't?

People move the yardsticks constantly to suit their argument, excluding people and gameplay styles to reaffirm their own idea of what their hobby entails.
Personally I would say that Candy Crush is a **** game, based more on random luck than skill. That being said it's still a game. And the people who use it are still people playing games in the same way if I played Shadowrun Returns or whatnot I would be someone playing a game.

she's making videos about games that are mostly played by men. Some commenters here state that the fact that her examples are fake or badly chosen isn't relevant, what matters is the wider point."se non è vero, è ben trovato" and so on. That would be great, except for the simple detail that these videos are trying to conduct a case, and if she isn't paying attention to her case studies why would anyone believe her in her wider point?

Yeah I can quote fancy foreign languages too: circulus in probando
Video games are made for male gamers, therefore female gamers should not be the target demographic.

Horse****.

According to nintendo, 50% of their users are women, 38% of xbox users are women.
The majority of people across all devices playing games are women.


Hell my friend was playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on her phone long before I met her. Afterwards, I introduced her to Might and Magic Clash of Heroes, Machinarium and Superbrothers Sword and Sworcery. Did she only become a gamer when she played these latter, "legitimate" games? Does the fact she owned a playstation years ago and played Rayman on it make her a gamer? Did she cease to be a gamer when she abandoned the PS2 for mobile games and did she become a gamer again when she played iOS games? Or are the games listed not violent enough to be real games?

What game constitutes being a gamer and what does not? Sarkeesian mentions Super Mario Bros in her first video. Are you a gamer if you play Super Mario Bros but not a gamer if you play Mario Kart? Super Mario Bros was on the nintendo, another game from the era is Tetris. Many of the mobile games today have the same level of complexity yet they're not games when Tetris is? Is Clash of Clans not a game while Civilization or Red Alert is? What determines which is a game and which isn't?

People move the yardsticks constantly to suit their argument, excluding people and gameplay styles to reaffirm their own idea of what their hobby entails.
Personally I would say that Candy Crush is a **** game, based more on random luck than skill. That being said it's still a game. And the people who use it are still people playing games in the same way if I played Shadowrun Returns or whatnot I would be someone playing a game.

Where did I ever stated such games aren't games, such gamers aren't gamers, etc? My point is way sharper than what your prejudices allow it: if you are going to criticize games like hitman or GTA or Last of Us, don't pretend that half of the audience for these games are women, this is flatly untrue. Now you can demand all the representation in these games of any kind of human you can think of, women, women of color, Asian old men, whatever. You can, and should, demand these different ethnicities and genders, transgenders, etc. be represented without bigotry, misogyny or stereotypes. Do all of that, I'm right behind you. Hell, I mostly played mass effect with Jane Shepard and she was great, I love to experience diversity myself.

But please, do stop using bad argumentation. Just because women also play games, it does not mean every game should cater to their desires, just like not every game should cater to men's.

[MP-Ryan]

Given such a disparate narrative and assembly of characters it would be hard to justify this locale being specifically set inside of a strip club for reasons of either realism or believability or immersion. It's a creative choice that could have gone a dozens different ways and yet went for the lowest common denominator.

Funny I thought my argument was that Hitman was not a realistic game. And that its lack of realism negated the NEED for specific real world elements to be introduced. Thus every choice included in the world is a creative choice and its these creative choices that Sarkeesian and others would draw issue with. Creative choices can be scrutinized, particularly ones that would be expected. Its very often the thing that people take for granted that are the worst offenders of gender inequality because they're subversive rather than overt. Overt examples like chainmail bikni is obvious and apparent, another game set in a strip club is not.

Every choice in a game is a creative choice.  You argued - successfully - that Hitman is a fantasy that draws on real-world aspects to form its universe.  A setting like a strip club is not blatantly out of line with that universe.  It's not an inspired choice, but it's not an invalid or gender-driven one either.

What you call shotgun approach, an academic would call citing examples.

Depends on the academic, I suppose.  I've handily earned degrees in both hard sciences (genetics) and the soft sciences / liberal arts (sociology and psychology).  I find her approach to be an attempt to broaden her argument by mixing the trivial with the egregious in the hopes of cementing a point, instead of steadily deconstructing major equality and power issues in key areas in a concerted manner.  If she is trying to win broad support for change, she fails at her premise, as too many of her arguments are prima facie debatable.  Sarkeesian still writes and argues in a preaching-to-the-choir approach (at least in the Tropes series), a manner which she should have been disabused of in the second year of her undergrad.  Perhaps she was and she's just being a little bit lazy; I'd have to read her thesis for a good idea of her thought process, and I have neither the time nor the motivation.  This, incidentally, is a major hurdle she would have to overcome:  for an issue like sexism in video games, she has a limited audience with limited patience for lengthy arguments.  Her best approach is to make them strongly and concisely; she does neither.

Based on what exactly? You say that the "vast majority of gamers are. . . " but where exactly does your information come from? A study? Opinion poll?
How do you know what the vast majority of gamers is? What they care about or don't care about? Or is it pure supposition?

Statistics.  The vast majority of 'gamers' are not gamers at all; they are people who happen to play video games.  In short: predominantly younger (under 50), middle-class, majority male but with an increasing female cohort, hailing from countries based on principles of classical liberalism, predominantly secular or minimally religious, and either currently being educated or have received a minimum of high school education (in the case of adults).  This is not, as a whole, a demographic set that whips into a frenzy over social issues they perceive as minor.  This is not a demographic set that will care one whit if a game includes a strip club in a game about assassinations.  These are people who, as a whole, have a capacity to care about social issues, but limited by their time.  In short, people you should be aiming concise, convincing, incontrovertible arguments toward concerning sexism who will then react to it.

[MP-Ryan]

Just because women also play games, it does not mean every game should cater to their desires, just like not every game should cater to men's.

Assuming that females who play games have the same desires for content that certain feminist critics argue for.  That is not necessarily the case.  There are many things that feminists argue both for and against that I completely agree with; there are many others that I think they need to quit quibbling over trivialities.  I suspect many other men and women who play games feel much the same way, if they pay attention to the issue at all.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Based on what exactly? You say that the "vast majority of gamers are. . . " but where exactly does your information come from? A study? Opinion poll?
How do you know what the vast majority of gamers is? What they care about or don't care about? Or is it pure supposition?

Statistics.  The vast majority of 'gamers' are not gamers at all; they are people who happen to play video games.  In short: predominantly younger (under 50), middle-class, majority male but with an increasing female cohort, hailing from countries based on principles of classical liberalism, predominantly secular or minimally religious, and either currently being educated or have received a minimum of high school education (in the case of adults).  This is not, as a whole, a demographic set that whips into a frenzy over social issues they perceive as minor.  This is not a demographic set that will care one whit if a game includes a strip club in a game about assassinations.  These are people who, as a whole, have a capacity to care about social issues, but limited by their time.  In short, people you should be aiming concise, convincing, incontrovertible arguments toward concerning sexism who will then react to it.

So pure supposition then.