I haven't really been following this entire thing too closely, but I'll give my 2 cents.

In my opinion, Sarkeesian wouldn't be gaining attention if at least something she said wasn't true. Obviously there must be some truth to the matter, even if it is only 10% of everything Sarkeesian has pointed out. (There is also the idiocy of GamerGate giving her attention by harassment and what not, but that's not my point) That being said, Sarkeesian, and GamerGate, are part of a larger trend I've started seeing in the US. It's the notion of us or them, the idea that there is no in between, there is only with me or against me. It's extremely prevalent in politics, and it seems to be filtering down to other parts of society as well. Sarkeesian might not be openly advocating for censorship, but she certainly does seem to believe in pressuring game devs into changing games. In my opinion, it's not too hard to go down the path of censorship (like with Comics Code Authority) with this kind of criticism. Her criticism is not entirely constructive/framed well and comes off as radical/anti gaming to some people. Some of what she points out (like the entire damsel in distress thing) is nitpicking in my opinion. A lot of what she points out can also be applied to MANY segments of pop culture (look at any music video from a popular music artist and you'll see plenty of sexism there, even movies are guilty of at least some of these tropes). This isn't strictly confined to games, some of which her work has focused on, to be fair. This is a wider cultural phenomenon and the only reason that gaming is receiving more attention is for two reasons. The first is because of the entire gamer gate scandal. The second is that it's a really new medium. New stuff always scares people.

That being said, like I said earlier, there must be some truth somewhere to this criticism. If we look at games, many of them do have overtly sexualized representations of women. Yes she is right with some of what she says. We should certainly try to think about all of this as game devs. But part of this also has to do with target audience, as many have pointed out. So far, game devs haven't really tried to target women. Like others have pointed out, they could certainly make more money if they did pay more attention to these details. It just hasn't mattered to date. Maybe it will now. Maybe it won't. Does it affect culture? Yes, but it's also culture that propagates the demand for such depictions. It's a feedback cycle, and it's not just games that are responsible for it. No doubt, if depictions weren't the way they are, there would be more female gamers playing hardcore games. I'm not too sure what to make of it all, to be very honest. I'm on the fence, cause part of me does understand the points, and part of me also thinks that a): she's going a bit too far and b): this problem is far larger than just depictions of women in games.

I personaly too do not understand your fundamental refusal of the critic towards stereotype of female heroes/audience in games production that have been mentioned, and did not spot any reasoning to explain your intensive proposition on that.

My hands are tied now. The evidence I have are tweets that her and McIntosh have deleted, but not before being archived. Unfortunately it is all connected to the GamerGate "story" that has been clearly banned from this discussion. McIntosh in one tweet made it clear that he doesn't not view pressuring a dev into changing their mind as a from of censorship. He even states that the petition that removed GTA V from Target in Australia wasn't censorship because only the government has the power to do so.

The thing I've found interesting is she claims her videos are used in academia, but apparently she doesn't even use any academia accepted method for making the videos and documentation. One of her sources that was revealed a few months back is just an article that mentions a study and then mentions Anita in the last paragraph or two.

McIntosh in one tweet made it clear that he doesn't not view pressuring a dev into changing their mind as a from of censorship.

And I strongly agree with him that this is NOT censorship. It's more akin to lobbying. OTOH I don't agree with the claim that only the government has the ability/tool of 'censorship' - I've stated previously in this thread that I consider AO rated games to be a broadly censored category, via willing censorship by retailers/distributors. Still, there's a fair argument to be made that this is simply fallout from free market dynamics. Consumers don't want to see marketplaces where this content is visible, so the market buries those who do not conform. Same applies to the Target incident. It's not clear-cut.

More importantly, it's a tenuous claim to be making when there's been no visible change in the dynamics of the market or its products as a result of the FemFreq work. For all the noise, I have yet to see anything concrete actually happen to actual games.

The thing I've found interesting is she claims her videos are used in academia, but apparently she doesn't even use any academia accepted method for making the videos and documentation.

I'm curious what you think an "academia accepted method" is. "Academia" is not an organization in itself and for the most part lacks accepted rules and standards. (Only a few things like peer review are very common, but don't seem to apply here.)

Unlike other mediums, games tend to simplify use of tropes since the stories in them are usually not as deep or nuanced as in books or movies. And I can see why. A typical novel (avoiding picture books) is just words. You need very good writing in a book to grip an audience in picturing the characters, their motivations, and the setting. Movies and TV have visuals, and appealing to your sense of seeing lends a crutch to the story. Video games add both visuals and interactivity, so now the writing can be even less capable, needing a proper wheelchair and still get by. Story is more of a supporting role here, and not always necessary. Thus you can have a cliche barebones plot that is still working for the player because the gameplay itself is very fun (like Shovel Knight).

So when it comes to casting characters in a way that don't appear patronizing or degrading to a certain demographic, this is not the actual problem. It's a symptom to a problem. You'd need a reason to have complex characters, and that would be a story that demands complex characters. You need a deep story and/or lore to support an ensemble cast of rich characters. And just as important, you need a proper motive to integrate a deep story into the game.

My counterpoint to that is, there are cases where the designers do want to deliver a story for a cinematic experience, but it can get to the point where too much time is spent on the story and then reality hits with limited time and budget done to improve other aspects of the game which are fundamentally broken. How is the premise for the game set up? How much suspension of disbelief is required? Not all games need to be cleverly written, unless that is how you are marketing the game, or the player already expects it. Sometimes, though, good writing does ironically save a game from being bad if the gameplay is generic and uninspiring.

Theoretically I believe there should be nothing preventing even a simple / action / gameplay-oriented game from having nuanced characters and trope use in the writing, even if that effort lives more in the realm of backstory and not in what you see directly while playing. (*) But I get your point: it's an investment, and taken to the extreme would likely mean sacrificing the gameplay itself. Also, the need for the writing to tie into the game mechanics and objectives is going to limit the space of possible stories and characters.

There's also the conflict between "cutscene" writing and "gameplay" writing, which can lead into an "uncanny valley" situation writing-wise, where the cutscenes will have great characterization, but the actual gameplay needs the characters to react to the player's (potentially silly) actions, possibly with repeated sentences, getting in the player's way etc. and that conflict will be harder (both in AI engineering and writing sense) to overcome the more realistic the game world becomes. Retro-style games would be more forgiving in that sense, and I'd argue they could in fact have a better chance to positively surprise by having deep characters the player didn't expect.

(*) Sometimes the lack of nuance is the whole point of the game's aesthetic, like Far Cry Blood Dragon, and there I agree attempting anything too deep would only be a detriment.

Regarding Ms. Sarkeesian in general, one thought that I had that might be worth mentioning is that she's well, human. As with the output of any critic, I daresay, it seems unlikely to me that one will agree with absolutely everything that she says--but that doesn't mean that nothing that she says is valid.

For example, I have quite a bit of respect for TotalBiscuit, and agree with a number of the points that I've seen him make, I believe (the "60 fps/30fps" issue and Let's Plays being transformative works and thus candidates for becoming exceptions to copyright claims from developers or publishers, for example). However, I disagree with him on his definition of "games": I see no reason that a loss condition, even implicit, need be present, in part because I see the "game" part of "video game" as an artefact title, a reflection of where video games came from rather than a description of all that they are.

Dude in Distress http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DistressedDude

Ah, there are some good points on and drawn from that page and its distaff counterpart, the page for the traditional Damsel in Distress trope, I think.

First, I'll grant that the Distressed Dude trope does exist, and TV Tropes does point out that, to quote them:

[The "Damsel in Distress" trope] is definitely not as widespread in the western world as it used to be and there are many instances in media that are deliberately written as an aversion to this trope.

Further, there are indeed a fair few entries in the "Video Game" section of the "Distressed Dude" page.

However, I also note the following on the "Distressed Dude" page (bearing in mind that the following is presumably describing the trope in general use, rather than specific to video games):

Compared to the Damsel in Distress, the Distressed Dude is somewhat more likely to save himself in the end, to be saved by someone of the same sex, or, if saved by a woman, to be saved by one using her traditional, feminine strengths, rather than by someone using a more direct approach. When the Distressed Dude is rescued by an Action Girl, it's not uncommon for him (or for another character) to describe this as an injury to his masculinity.

Which seems somewhat silly (and sexist) to me. Why should it be any different when a man is the one in distress?

(I'm tempted to compare the lengths of the video game example sections given on the "Distressed Dude" and "Damsel in Distress" pages, but I'm not convinced that such would be a reliable measure, even as an indicator.)

While we can't find many (or any?) games that are a direct reversal of one specific trope ("damsel in distress"), that doesn't automatically mean no games cater to females.
...
So the industry as a whole aren't completely ignoring them

No, but the industry does seem to view women as distinct from men, with little overlap in interests. Otherwise why specifically target women, or men for that matter, rather than just making games, marketing them on their own merits, and letting whoever likes them buy them?

It's interesting that so many guys, young and old, have watched My Little Pony. ...

Alas, I haven't had much opportunity to watch it, I fear. I've heard a lot of good things about it, however, as you affirm.

Indeed, I don't think that I've seen many modern children's programs, so I'm not in much of a position to comment on them; I'm happy to take your word on their quality. I have seen some of the CG movies of recent, such as Wreck it Ralph, and I've thought well of at least some of them (the aforementioned included)--although again I have yet to see Frozen.

I did watch She-Ra when I was little, I rather vaguely recall, and I think that I enjoyed it.

I'm not saying all cliches should be avoided either (anymore than tropes should be avoided - they are tools to use), but that a cliche on its own, does not make a character.

Oh, I don't advocate dropping cliches in and of themselves, as they can be very useful tools, especially for works in which the plot isn't terribly important (as in the early Super Mario Bros. games)--although I do wonder whether video games these days don't perhaps rely a little too heavily on them for my liking (Mr. Ill-tempered Stubbly Brown-haired Fourty-ish Protagonist, I'm looking at you ).

Rather, I'm arguing against gender-related issues (such as imbalances) in their uses.

That's what we need in games, IMO. Richer characters, all around.

I would love to see better characterisation (on average) in games, I do believe.

(I'll confess that I haven't read Jane Austen (when I read, I generally read fantasy--and no, I haven't read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies ), but have rather enjoyed some of the film adaptations, I do believe.)

Once we have a wider variety of richer characters, instead of two-dimensional cookie-cutter characters, I think it'd naturally occur that greater diversity in character ensembles, protagonists, and antagonists, will come out of it.

To some degree, perhaps, but I'm not convinced that it will solve the gender issues present, because I think they they stem to some degree from gender-related perceptions on the parts of the developers or publishers--not necessarily conscious perceptions, note however. After all, the grizzled male space marine might be all but planar, but that doesn't explain the fact that he's so often male, specifically. For one thing, there seems to still be a tendency to see "male" as the default, with women tending to turn up when their sex is relevant in some way.

To clarify, when I said "gender-swapped" earlier, I was derogatorily meaning when someone takes a male character and, without changing anything ...

Aah, fair enough--I see what you mean now, I believe.

Video games add both visuals and interactivity, so now the writing can be even less capable, needing a proper wheelchair and still get by.

True, granted, but I don't think that that's much of an excuse in at least some cases. In particular, games in which narrative is important may be significantly lessened by poor writing, I feel.

So when it comes to casting characters in a way that don't appear patronizing or degrading to a certain demographic, this is not the actual problem. It's a symptom to a problem. You'd need a reason to have complex characters, and that would be a story that demands complex characters.

But I don't believe that characters have to be deep for the overall trends of gender-related issues to be done away with. If all we had were Doom-style games with excuse plots, the scowling faces in the bottom-centre of our screens could nevertheless as easily be women as men, and the snarling enemies likewise. If anything, I'm inclined to think that excuse plots should make it easier to at the least have reasonable gender representation (in terms of numbers and roles), if not decent characterisation.

My counterpoint to that is, there are cases where the designers do want to deliver a story for a cinematic experience, but it can get to the point where too much time is spent on the story and then reality hits with limited time and budget done to improve other aspects of the game which are fundamentally broken.

I think that I'd rather they took the resources from the graphics than the writing, personally. As you say, good writing can save a mediocre game, but how often has graphical quality saved one?

But that's another gripe entirely. ^^;

This is a wider cultural phenomenon and the only reason that gaming is receiving more attention is for two reasons. The first is because of the entire gamer gate scandal. The second is that it's a really new medium. New stuff always scares people.

I'm not sure that I agree. Even though these things exist outside of gaming, we address the problems before us. Speaking for myself, I'm not a movie buff, so I don't comment much on trends in movies; I do know somewhat about games, I think, and have a passion there, so I'm more inclined towards activism in that field. I don't know Ms. Sarkeesian, but it seems entirely plausible that something similar is true for her.

In any case, addressing a part of the problem may make it easier to deal with the whole; after all, if we start noticing these things in one medium, are we not more likely to pick them up in others, and if cultural perceptions shift as a result of activism within one medium, might the effects not propogate to other media?

I've been avoiding this topic, mainly because I'm getting tired of this topic in general, but I'll at least share my views once so others can critique it.

I don't really like Anita Sarkeesian as a journalist and a feminist, and I think that many of her views are ludicrous at best (at least, the words she uses to convey those points). She's been known to plagiarize and use misinforming information, which may or may not have been intentional, and IMO, seems to be all bark and no bite (and no, I'm not calling her a bitch). However, she has the right to her opinion(s), and freedom of speech as per the murican constitution.

Now, if there's one thing I absolutely have to agree with Anita on, is the oversexualization thing. And that's because I personally don't wanna see that s@#%. Lingere is not armour, and I don't want all of my female characters to be sexualized. It's a dammed video game, not a porno. Now, some "sexy" outfits here and there wouldn't bother me, if it weren't so common. So I don't blame her for critiquing that.

Other than that, I just don't pay attention to her. I have more important things to worry about, and that's getting my game(s) finished and out the door, while making them both entertaining and profitable.

Shogun

Anyone who thinks that Anita and others are angling for a way to censor games that don't comply with some hypothetical list of "demands" she supposedly has is an idiot. If that's you, sorry, not sorry -- I'm not about to mince words with anyone on this topic. That very idea is basically the fuel behind all the vitriol that the gamergate crowd is laying, disproportionately and with enthusiastic malice, against female game critics and those who side with them. You're either against GG and what they really stand for, you're one of them, or you're one of the useful idiots they hide behind.

Pointing out that most games--in fact nearly all games--kowtow to the fantasies of a typical adolescent boy should not be a controversial idea to anyone with a pair of eyes. Neither should the idea that someone critiquing games through the lens of feminist perspective would have something contrary to say about it. The days when games were almost exclusively the domain of adolescent boys has long-since been over, and yet the industries perception of who their core demographic is lags behind -- not always in word, but in deed. As a recent example, Mass Effect's Cmdr. Shephard was originally designed and proposed to be a woman, and when they went looking for publishers everyone basically said "Hey guys, looks like a great game! We just want you to make one, teeny-tiny change..." which was of course to make the protagonist a dude -- This is one of the biggest franchises in recent history, roundly acclaimed, and yet a female protagonist was a scary bet to make in spite of that. That's how embedded the "boys club" mentality is in the games industry.

*That* and its results are what Anita and crew really have a problem with -- the objectified, one-dimensional image of women in games, either as "the sexy protagonist" or the damsel in distress, or as the future-victim-to-be-avenged -- what kind of choice is it to be either a sex object or, basically, a co-star in basically any Jean-claude Van Damme movie?

I'm sure they would all love to see fewer tropes and stereotypes in games -- so do I. But none of us are out to sensor anyone. Its not censorship for someone to point out you're being a little or a lot _____ist, when you in fact are. Someone needs to call people out on their bullshit. It doesn't mean you can't do those things anyways, but you're not free to cry censorship in an attempt to stop them from calling you to the floor over it -- well, you are free to do so but I have less than zero sympathy for you, this will lead me to lose respect for you pretty rapidly unless you have some seriously insightful shit to back it up. But you're certainly not free to rally an army of anonymous internet nerds into a flurry of one-upmanship over who can make these critics suffer most. And most especially of all its increadibly hypocritical to cry over Anita and Co's "attempted censorship" and then to turn around and commit threats of death, violence, rape, and terror in an effort to achieve the same censorship of their criticism -- that's entirely beyond the pale.

I'm curious what you think an "academia accepted method" is. "Academia" is not an organization in itself and for the most part lacks accepted rules and standards. (Only a few things like peer review are very common, but don't seem to apply here.)

Her sources that she listed on her first video (which I believe was removed) just linked to several opinion pieces. One link did in fact talk about a study and mentioned Sarkeesian at the bottom paragraph or two. The issue with the study is that it does in fact talk about the perception of the gamers, but it was gamers after playing VR games that are specifically designed to mirror reality in many aspects and not computer and console games. Her angle is that these console and computer games that are a work of fiction somehow contribute to sexism and misogyny in the real world. Every video claims she did research, but none have the links to her sources used. She refuses to have open discussions about her points and if you link to things that prove her points wrong or that male characters are sexualized or objectified she blocks you from her twitter feed. Taking into account that she refuses to acknowledge male equivalents that prove her wrong and that she stated this: "There's no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." it makes me wonder if she is the right person to be pointing this out and if she is doing it for the right reasons or if she is just seeking to push women into something she deems male only.

I found this: http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/is-gaming-a-boys-club.pdf

Saw this after I posted:

As a recent example, Mass Effect's Cmdr. Shephard was originally designed and proposed to be a woman, and when they went looking for publishers everyone basically said "Hey guys, looks like a great game! We just want you to make one, teeny-tiny change..." which was of course to make the protagonist a dude -- This is one of the biggest franchises in recent history, roundly acclaimed, and yet a female protagonist was a scary bet to make in spite of that. That's how embedded the "boys club" mentality is in the games industry.

You use that as proof of the "boys club" mentality. The game industry is about making money and from what I've read and been told the industry falls back on male characters because the games with female leads usually don't sell or perform as well as those with male protagonists. They are just picking a safe bet where they know they can make their money back. If I remember right the devs almost gave in and made Lara Croft a male, but they didn't and they oversexualized her in order attract the gamers of the time. When publishing companies know they can have female protagonists in a game and sell as well as the games with male protagonists then I'm sure they will put out more games with female leads. The problem isn't the developers, it is more the publishers wanting that safe bet to get their invested money back.

I'm curious what you think an "academia accepted method" is. "Academia" is not an organization in itself and for the most part lacks accepted rules and standards. (Only a few things like peer review are very common, but don't seem to apply here.)

Her sources that she listed on her first video (which I believe was removed) just linked to several opinion pieces. One link did in fact talk about a study and mentioned Sarkeesian at the bottom paragraph or two. The issue with the study is that it does in fact talk about the perception of the gamers, but it was gamers after playing VR games that are specifically designed to mirror reality in many aspects and not computer and console games. Her angle is that these console and computer games that are a work of fiction somehow contribute to sexism and misogyny in the real world. Every video claims she did research, but none have the links to her sources used. She refuses to have open discussions about her points and if you link to things that prove her points wrong or that male characters are sexualized or objectified she blocks you from her twitter feed. Taking into account that she refuses to acknowledge male equivalents that prove her wrong and that she stated this: "There's no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." it makes me wonder if she is the right person to be pointing this out and if she is doing it for the right reasons or if she is just seeking to push women into something she deems male only.

I found this: http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/is-gaming-a-boys-club.pdf

I understand that you disagree with Anita on many, most, or all points. You should understand that many of us also disagree with Anita on some or many points. I believe she cherry picks, discards, ignores, and tweaks to build a narrative that is not necessarily fair to the games involved, IMO. I believe that several points in her list that you posted at the beginning of this thread are off-base - I disagree strongly with the point about vocalizations in particular. So again, your assertion on Twitter that this is a community that "agrees with Anita" is a severe mischaracterization of what's happening here. I just want to make that crystal clear at this stage.

However, there is nearly universal agreement in this community that she has every right to say these things - regardless of her motivations, credentials, or willingness to engage. I don't care whether she's doing it for the "right reasons"; I don't care why she's doing it at all. There's been a certain obsession with linking her (imagined) personal beliefs and politics into the videos she's producing. This doesn't interest me at all. I don't even care where she claims the videos are being shown or cited either. These are totally unimportant details of her life. Either her criticism is on-point, in which case it'll inform my game design decisions, or it's off-base, in which case I'll discard it. Debating her about it became impossible in any online forum many months ago - what was she going to do, sift through tens of thousands of abusive comments to find the half dozen honest criticisms? Come on. She has every right to simply ignore the world if she wishes. And you have every right to ignore her, but that's not what you chose to do.

But that's a distraction. I was aiming at something much narrower, namely this statement:

The thing I've found interesting is she claims her videos are used in academia, but apparently she doesn't even use any academia accepted method for making the videos and documentation.

Basically I don't know what you think you mean by "academia accepted method for making [...]". As close as I can figure, you object to her lack of citing sources in her videos, and lack of accompanying documentation. You're welcome to object, but these don't constitute any sort of "academia accepted method" unless you're attempting to publish a peer reviewed paper, which she is not. Most of what she's said and written falls under what Wikipedia editors describe as "original research". It's not cited or documented because it's stuff she wrote about some games after playing some games. There's nothing to cite or document, as such. If you tried to make the text of her videos into Wikipedia articles, they would not survive that review process.

Basically I don't know what you think you mean by "academia accepted method for making [...]".

When I was doing searches, it became my understanding that college and universities that do higher education and research had set methods that had to be met in regards of having her sources. I guess I just misunderstood what I read.