I would regard an "Academic accepted method" to follow fairly basic research and paper writing methods. Things like clearly citing your references, and ensuring that what you do cite is also following proper methods. No "I read in a paper that blah blah blah, but you can trust me and don't need to go looking for that paper, because I know what I'm talking about..." kind of thing. And the tricky part is making sure that anything you are citing is based on good methods as well, as I've seen decades worth of papers 'tainted' for relying on a poorly done paper from way back when that failed some of the core principals of good research.

Being based on 'good data' is also a key point that is expected. One of my former classmates had our professor tear her a new one when it came to light that she tossed out a handful of awkward and conflicting data from one set of tests for her thesis paper. Basically killed her academic career from my understanding, as she became flagged as being 'unreliable' and 'untrustworthy'. Excluding data or limiting your scope is something you have to be very careful about, as the point of research isn't to reinforce what you already believe.

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.

Perhaps the confusion here is that games engaging in sexism and misogyny is sexism and misogyny in the real world.

Let's do a little bit of substitution. If you encountered a computer game in which you wore a white robes and a pointed hood while pursuing and stringing up people of colour, would you insist it was not racist? Would you hold your head up high while you crow about how it's one of your fantasies and no one is being harmed in reality? Would you call "Censorship!!!1! Come see the oppression inherent in the system!!!" if some people of colour denounced it and stated overtly that in their opinion games makers should not make such games?

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.

Okay, I think you're getting too emotional here. While I don't believe that it's censorship, but in fact an exercise of freedom of speech, people are allowed to interpret her message any way they see fit. It may be idiotic and asinine to us, but it's how they act upon their views is what matters most.

As for the GG thing, I've heard so many different things about what it is, and how it got started. It took me months to finally find an unbiased article to form a more informed opinion that can be fairly weighed against supporting and opposing views. Now I'm quite sure that there's others out there who are still struggling to do the same, so I wouldn't make it so black and white if I were you. In case you are wondering, I also think the GG's actions are ridiculous and highly unnecessary. Only their alleged motive may sound good in theory.

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.

Indeed and agreed. I mean, who cares, and why should it matter? If you ask me, I do think there's a lack of maturity when it comes to certain games and genres. Everything from the adolescent "sexy female characters" to the immature and tasteless humor relying on lame ass sexual innuendo that I thought was funny back when I was 12. Prime example of this: Bulletstorm.

I've always found the whole sexualization of common games to be annoying, and I'm actually kinda glad that Sarkeesian is pointing that out. I may be a straight [black] man, but I don't wanna see that in every game I pick up. In fact, I've said this many times in person, but nobody ever listened. As a kid, I couldn't care less about anyone's gender on a game. What matters most to me is that a game is fun.

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.

Well said, but it seems to me that these days, just because so and so says that this is "_____ist", it automatically is, and therefore should be dealt with. I don't think that everything is a result of an "ism", but even when it's just ignorance or immaturity, someone's gotta call it.

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.

This. As I said before, if you don't like it, just ignore it; in droves if you have to, but trolls don't deserve respect.

Shogun

Saw this after I posted:

Ravyne, on 05 Mar 2015 - 5:21 PM, said:

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.[/quote]
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.

But how is that not a self-fulfilling prophecy? -- Game execs have sales stats and maybe some focus-group data that shows that male protagonists do better, but that alone doesn't constitute causation when overwhelmingly that very thing is nearly the only thing that they put out. Its not a problem, strictly speaking, to follow where the market leads you, but at a certain point when all you provide is the thing you perceive the market to want, you stop following and start leading. And when that happens, what you start to see is this positive feedback loop, where "only male-led games do well" so only male-led games get made, and so on -- and plenty of shitty male-led games get made and do poorly too -- where are the people who blame those games' poor performance on the male lead?

That's what the boys club is -- its insular and uses poorly founded logic as its basis of continuing to believe that things are the way they are for external reasons rather than internal ones. Its like a rich, walled city of white folks who believe their prosperity is inextricably linked to their community's historic lack of people of color, and so they don't let any people of color take up residence -- Okay, maybe just enough people of color to yield a grain of plausibility to their cries of "We're not racist!" The simple fact of the matter is that this community, like the games industry at large, is just comfortable with "the way things are" because they benefit from it -- they know how to live in this world and they're frankly terrified to change it.

It was pretty disheartening just now when I went searching for this image to show the new female character in the upcoming Overwatch game:

And the very first Google result was some man-child blog lamenting that *this* is what horror Sarkeesian's critique has wrought. How great a travesty is was for her to point out that all of the five female characters were petite, scantily clad, and used the same base model, while the male characters possessed a great variety of physiques and appropriate armor styles. Oh, why! The horrible powers her words hold that a game had to stoop to the level of *not making every female character a Victoria's Secret model* to appease the critics. And don't get me started on just how much suffering this causes bro-club gamers -- oh, right.... None at all, they still have all the bro characters in all their bro glory. This character is a small step in the right direction (even if it remains to be seen whether they play her off as some other stereotype) and, without speaking for them obviously, something which I think Sarkeesian would agree embodies the kinds of changes she would like to see.

I think this new character looks awesome, and at least starts to bring some meaningful contrast among the female characters.

And the very first Google result was some man-child blog lamenting that *this* is what horror Sarkeesian's critique has wrought.

Confirmation bias. There is no way to know at all if this “change” has any relationship to Anita and said blogger is just being an idiot. It’s not as if this is the first time muscle-women have appeared in games, just now he finally has someone to blame.


Anyway I simply don’t understand people. I can’t understand why it matters whether a woman in a game is buff or not. Did I miss the memo stating that women aren’t humans? Last I checked, humans come in all shapes and sizes, and since women are humans I’d expect that to apply to them too.

Would I play this female character? No.

Would I be upset that they added a new character I wouldn’t play? What the fuck? It happens all the time. Of course not.

I don’t play muscular beefy characters in games period (except Ganondorf in Super Smash Bros. *, with whom I had a world record at one point) because quick-and-nimble is my style. I literally don’t see any difference here.

Not only is this just another character I wouldn’t play, which happens all the time already, but for the blogger to make a fuss this time and not all the other times is to literally say, “I am pissed that they didn’t give me a sex object at which to stare.”

Get a fucking life, asshole.

L. Spiro

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.

Okay, I think you're getting too emotional here. While I don't believe that it's censorship, but in fact an exercise of freedom of speech, people are allowed to interpret her message any way they see fit. It may be idiotic and asinine to us, but it's how they act upon their views is what matters most.

As for the GG thing, I've heard so many different things about what it is, and how it got started. It took me months to finally find an unbiased article to form a more informed opinion that can be fairly weighed against supporting and opposing views. Now I'm quite sure that there's others out there who are still struggling to do the same, so I wouldn't make it so black and white if I were you. In case you are wondering, I also think the GG's actions are ridiculous and highly unnecessary. Only their alleged motive may sound good in theory.

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.

Indeed and agreed. I mean, who cares, and why should it matter? If you ask me, I do think there's a lack of maturity when it comes to certain games and genres. Everything from the adolescent "sexy female characters" to the immature and tasteless humor relying on lame ass sexual innuendo that I thought was funny back when I was 12. Prime example of this: Bulletstorm.

I've always found the whole sexualization of common games to be annoying, and I'm actually kinda glad that Sarkeesian is pointing that out. I may be a straight [black] man, but I don't wanna see that in every game I pick up. In fact, I've said this many times in person, but nobody ever listened. As a kid, I couldn't care less about anyone's gender on a game. What matters most to me is that a game is fun.

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.

Well said, but it seems to me that these days, just because so and so says that this is "_____ist", it automatically is, and therefore should be dealt with. I don't think that everything is a result of an "ism", but even when it's just ignorance or immaturity, someone's gotta call it.

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.

This. As I said before, if you don't like it, just ignore it; in droves if you have to, but trolls don't deserve respect.

Shogun

Yea I think most of us here agree that it's not censorship. It can lead to censorship, but after more thought, I think that this is unlikely. After more thought, I think it's more likely for games to be censored due to violence or something rather than sexism or stereotyping. That's how comics first fell under the Code earlier.

Sarkeesian certainly has merit in some of her criticism. There are many games that rely heavily on overt sexualization of women. I do agree that some games could benefit from less of this. There are a lot of things that are nitpicking or things that I honestly don't think really make much sense. I think it's the second part that makes the argument less constructive than it can be. Here's something about the Mass Effect trilogy from the tropes vs women transcript of an episode on the Ms. Male Character:

"Everything we have discussed in this episode thus far has been related to visual design or narrative connection. But there is another way that the Ms. Male Character trope can manifest itself, and that is through marketing and promotional materials. A great illustration of this trend can be found in Bioware’s highly regarded Mass Effect series. The games offer players a choice between a male or female version of the protagonist Commander Shepard (each with a range of cosmetic customizable options). The female option is well designed and her overall narrative is also nearly indistinguishable from her male counterpart’s, aside from some of the romance options.

However, if we take a step back from the game experience itself and look at the marketing campaigns for the trilogy, we see that the female variant of Shepard is practically non-existent. In mainstream advertising of the franchise, the male commander is used almost exclusively. His image is front and center on the box covers for all releases including the special editions. He is the one featured in the TV commercials, teasers, trailers, web banners, street posters and print ads and his face appears on most of the magazine covers. All of this positions the male Commander Shepard as the default protagonist of the series.

Clip- Mass Effect Trilogy Trailer
“One man, one very specific man, might be all that stands between humanity and the greatest threat of our brief existence.”

That is how Bioware is selling the Mass Effect experience. Nearly everything about the advertising campaign explicitly tells players that Commander Shepard is a man and by extension associates the official storyline with the male version of the hero. This marketing strategy contributes to the fact that only 18-20% of players choose the female option (despite the fact that Jennifer Hale’s voice acting is widely praised as being far superior).

Clip- Mass Effect 3
“You brought me here to confirm what you already know: The reapers are here.”

Still, the female version has a dedicated fanbase who frequently refers to her as “FemShep”. And although this is meant as an affectionate nickname, it does further highlight her designation as a Ms. Male Character. She is the one with the qualifier attached to her name. She is “Female Shepard” whereas the male version simply gets to be, “Shepard”.

During the advertising of Mass Effect 3, Bioware made a little more effort to include female Shepard with items like an alternate reversible slip cover for the game box (which features the male version by default) as well as a special web only trailer but these gestures feel like an afterthought or niche specialty marketing and hardly what I would call a substantial or equitable inclusion.

While Mass Effect’s advertising strategy might not undermine the story or gameplay, it is a glaring example of how the Ms. Male Character trope can be perpetuated by marketing departments unless careful consideration is given to how gender is represented when advertising games that do offer players a choice."

I'm curious what people think of this excerpt. In my opinion, I don't think this argument has merit. I encourage people to read the rest of the transcript of the episode as well at this link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/11/ms-male-character-tropes-vs-women/

In this link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2014/08/women-as-background-decoration-part-2/ I feel that there is some merit to the arguments, but again I'm curious what people think.

This is a link to something the OP stated (the damsel in distress): http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/05/damsel-in-distress-part-2-tropes-vs-women/

There is some merit, in some ways, but in other ways, I think that it's a plot device that many have used and many have not used. People have also done the opposite. Again, I'd love to hear thoughts.

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.

Perhaps the confusion here is that games engaging in sexism and misogyny is sexism and misogyny in the real world.

Let's do a little bit of substitution. If you encountered a computer game in which you wore a white robes and a pointed hood while pursuing and stringing up people of colour, would you insist it was not racist? Would you hold your head up high while you crow about how it's one of your fantasies and no one is being harmed in reality? Would you call "Censorship!!!1! Come see the oppression inherent in the system!!!" if some people of colour denounced it and stated overtly that in their opinion games makers should not make such games?

I'm not sure if that's quite equivalent for the argument about sexism in games. It might be in some cases, but not all of them. The argument here is about the portrayal of women in games, not necessarily the gameplay itself. There are some games that straight up involve gameplay that is questionable.

Out of curiosity, what do people think of Heavenly Sword? Would it be considered as sexist? Certainly the main character is scantily clad, so sexualization is an issue.

I significantly objected to how she covered Mass Effect as well - I felt it was a very unfair, pithy take on a game that worked so, so hard to produce a powerful female character that exemplifies essentially no gender or even genre stereotypes at all. Yes, the marketing snubbed that work badly. I was always upset at Bioware/EA for that - I remember talking to my girlfriend even when ME1 was released, long before this type of criticism became fashionable.

I honestly feel that the writing and voice performance turned in for FemShep in Mass Effect blew away any game out there - including the male Shepard in Mass Effect. Maybe that's because the male lead in ME is... a gender and genre stereotype! He's another damned space marine who has to save the galaxy. Who the hell cares. I mean it was done competently, but ultimately male Shepard is a forgettable footnote in gaming history, while female Shepard is a gaming classic. I really do feel that strongly, and to have Sarkeesian brush it off because the marketing didn't do it justice? That's unfair. If you're going to undertake this kind of criticism, it behooves you to really talk about the people who did it right, who didn't follow the tropes and stereotypes, and who really did everything right. That's the counterpoint when doing a critical piece, and I was dismayed to see it brushed off with a resounding "meh".

As for Heavenly Sword... I barely made it through the demo. I just wanted her to shut up so badly. The characterization and voice work in that game rubbed me the wrong way far too much for me to get into any critical analysis of it. I've been meaning to play Bayonetta, which seems to be a game that puzzles people on both sides of the aisle. Bayonetta is sexualized, but actually she owns her sexuality? Maybe? Nobody seems quite sure. After all, desexualizing a character doesn't mean denying their sexuality, and Bayonetta doesn't seem to fit into anyone's box.

Another one I played recently was the new Tomb Raider, which is a mix of contradictions from a trope/character point of view. (It's also formulaic and paint by the numbers, but we'll let that slide for a minute.) On the surface, TR is a game about Lara's transition from a young, weak, powerless, and largely naive girl into a take-charge, bring em on action hero. It does follow that arc... but Lara also spends at least half the game sobbing. The benchmark is a slow camera rotation as she sobs. The early part of the game enjoys hurting Lara to prove their point. I get what they're going for but it's laid on too thick and her change over to an empowered character is too long and too late, I felt. It hurts the feeling of development, because you spend so little time as tough Lara. The damsel in distress trope is still right there, with Lara saving her young, frail and totally powerless friend from the evil bad guy. The layering of those two character types on top of each other is amusing, I find.

I'm curious what people think of this excerpt. In my opinion, I don't think this argument has merit.

That pretty much describes how I think. I want to play the game the designers designed, and if I get the impression one path was "tacked on", I'd be much less likely to play it on my first run through. And because there are so many games to play, I'm unlikely to return for a second run through, unless the game is so fantastic it becomes one of my absolutely favorite games ever.

With KOTOR, I played the male because it seemed to me that was the "real one" the game was designed around. Whether or not this impression is accurate, it certainly influenced my decision.

I never played Mass Effect, but "female just tacked on" was definitely the impression I got from the marketing, so I would've played the male without giving it any more thought, and probably would've missed out.

Now comparing (my impression of) KOTOR, to Threads of Fate, where both the protagonists (Rue [male] and Mint [female]) are equally well written for, both have separate backplots and stories, and neither is implied to somehow be the "real" protagonist, I chose Mint because, all things being equally, I liked her abilities better. After beating the game, I went and played as Rue, and then as Mint again.

If the male and female characters are 100% the same (except for dialog adjustments), I default to the male character most of the time. But if they are different in capabilities or backplot, I consider both of them before deciding which one sounds more interesting.

When playing something like Borderlands or Trine (where each character has different abilities), I give genuine thought to which character I want to play, considering the females equally.

With playing something like Morrowind (build-your-own-character), I default to male, because there is zero difference in plot or gameplay either way.

I have no problem playing Joanna Dark from Perfect Dark either (because she's competent and not annoying - my biggest gripe with most younger videogame females), and that, in retrospect, is an example of a game where there's no male protagonist choice. Something that didn't occur to me when playing it.

With KOTOR, I played the male because it seemed to me that was the "real one" the game was designed around. Whether or not this impression is accurate, it certainly influenced my decision.

Did you play KOTOR 2?

I ask because the Star Wars canon states that the protagonist of 1 is male and the protagonist of 2 is female. I'm curious about whether you feel this comes across in the games. I feel like it's difficult to say one way or the other because the protagonist really has no characterization at all in KOTOR. (Versus ME, which very heavily characterizes Shepard however you play it.) I do tend to agree with you, in the sense that it feels like the minimum amount of dialog rework was done to enable KOTOR's female playthrough and that was that. It's been too long since I played 2 to comment, though I suspect it will also feel like the female was tacked on.

I'm curious what people think of this excerpt. In my opinion, I don't think this argument has merit.

That pretty much describes how I think. I want to play the game the designers designed, and if I get the impression one path was "tacked on", I'd be much less likely to play it on my first run through. And because there are so many games to play, I'm unlikely to return for a second run through, unless the game is so fantastic it becomes one of my absolutely favorite games ever.

With KOTOR, I played the male because it seemed to me that was the "real one" the game was designed around. Whether or not this impression is accurate, it certainly influenced my decision.

I never played Mass Effect, but "female just tacked on" was definitely the impression I got from the marketing, so I would've played the male without giving it any more thought, and probably would've missed out.

I did see more marketing posters with the male Shepard, but there were definitely posters with the female Shepard as well. I guess it's true that the cover of the game had the male version and not the female version, but I feel that this might just be nitpicking. Honestly it's a game where the character can be anyone, not a specific person. You design the character the way you want it to look. I get the feeling that since marketing was marketing to males, they thought it'd be a better idea to have more males on the posters. Again, just my take.

I significantly objected to how she covered Mass Effect as well - I felt it was a very unfair, pithy take on a game that worked so, so hard to produce a powerful female character that exemplifies essentially no gender or even genre stereotypes at all. Yes, the marketing snubbed that work badly. I was always upset at Bioware/EA for that - I remember talking to my girlfriend even when ME1 was released, long before this type of criticism became fashionable.

I honestly feel that the writing and voice performance turned in for FemShep in Mass Effect blew away any game out there - including the male Shepard in Mass Effect. Maybe that's because the male lead in ME is... a gender and genre stereotype! He's another damned space marine who has to save the galaxy. Who the hell cares. I mean it was done competently, but ultimately male Shepard is a forgettable footnote in gaming history, while female Shepard is a gaming classic. I really do feel that strongly, and to have Sarkeesian brush it off because the marketing didn't do it justice? That's unfair. If you're going to undertake this kind of criticism, it behooves you to really talk about the people who did it right, who didn't follow the tropes and stereotypes, and who really did everything right. That's the counterpoint when doing a critical piece, and I was dismayed to see it brushed off with a resounding "meh".

As for Heavenly Sword... I barely made it through the demo. I just wanted her to shut up so badly. The characterization and voice work in that game rubbed me the wrong way far too much for me to get into any critical analysis of it. I've been meaning to play Bayonetta, which seems to be a game that puzzles people on both sides of the aisle. Bayonetta is sexualized, but actually she owns her sexuality? Maybe? Nobody seems quite sure. After all, desexualizing a character doesn't mean denying their sexuality, and Bayonetta doesn't seem to fit into anyone's box.

Another one I played recently was the new Tomb Raider, which is a mix of contradictions from a trope/character point of view. (It's also formulaic and paint by the numbers, but we'll let that slide for a minute.) On the surface, TR is a game about Lara's transition from a young, weak, powerless, and largely naive girl into a take-charge, bring em on action hero. It does follow that arc... but Lara also spends at least half the game sobbing. The benchmark is a slow camera rotation as she sobs. The early part of the game enjoys hurting Lara to prove their point. I get what they're going for but it's laid on too thick and her change over to an empowered character is too long and too late, I felt. It hurts the feeling of development, because you spend so little time as tough Lara. The damsel in distress trope is still right there, with Lara saving her young, frail and totally powerless friend from the evil bad guy. The layering of those two character types on top of each other is amusing, I find.

I really do think that she brushed off Mass Effect too quickly. Mass Effect is a good example of a game that doesn't promote gender stereotypes. I really questioned the arguments she was making here honestly. It seemed just to be finding fault with any thing that she could find for the game.

I haven't played Tomb Raider or Bayonetta. I'm honestly curious if any of the games with female leads are considered sexist/promoting sexist stereotypes.