I'd wager the "feedback loop" is because the game industry has already found the profitable segment.

I remember when there were a whole bunch of "games for girls" dev teams launched in the PSX era, and most folded after releasing a few titles. I'd think the burden of trying to convince female gamers to shift from mobile/casual games to desktop/console games should be handled by the mobile/casual companies branching out their existing IP to console/desktop, because it's a concept that didn't work out for the usual AAA devs.

Who knows, if the mobile devs could take a game like clash of clans, put on some kind of desktop/console integration, they'd potentially make a killing if they could get the same size install base.

Or maybe the stereotypes of females who spend way too much time on their phone's are true, and they'd have no interest in playing on desktop/console.

BHX, did you ever stop to wonder why that 48% statistic is the way it is? I'll give you a hint: most women are not interested in mainstream or AAA games because of the specific points that Anita is raising. If more games took into account the points you cite in your original post, more women would play "hardcore" video games. Clearly, if we want more women to play video games, we need to make games that don't come across as sexist and objectifying.

Can you back this up, in any way? The 'BECAUSE' part, I mean, because that's a pretty authoritative claim.

My source is anecdotal, namely a number of my female friends who are sufficiently young as to be largely unaffected by the "social outcast" aspect of nerdiness. It was once the case that "geeky" meant "outcast," but that has changed. Nerds are pretty accepted among gen Y and following generations. So perhaps I should soften my statements to say, "there exist cases where women are not interested in some AAA games because of the way women are portrayed in them."

Some of them seem to really like games like Dark Souls where (most) armor is not revealing and female characters are not sex objects, though.

I remember when there were a whole bunch of "games for girls" dev teams launched in the PSX era, and most folded after releasing a few titles.

But how many of those titles were actually any good, and didn't rely on stereotypes of what women like (ponies, makeup, etc.)? What makes you think that women wouldn't like a decent RPG or action game, but without the trends in female representation that we're discussing?

The idea isn't to make "games targeted at women", but rather to improve the general representation of women in games.

Or maybe the stereotypes of females who spend way too much time on their phone's are true, and they'd have no interest in playing on desktop/console.

And yet, when I've taken part in communities centred around adventure games (by which I mean games like Gabriel Knight or Sherlock Holmes, not "action-adventure"), I've seemed to encounter a significant proportion of female forum-goers.

I don't think its quite right to say these people have no influence, and I think there is a legitimate concern of censorship. Just look at the situation with Hotline Miami 2 being banned in Australia. It's also completely reasonable to push back against unfounded or unreasonable criticism like that Dying Light tweet in the first post. Whether or not these culture critics have the political influence to censor games themselves, saying "these games are immoral and dangerous and they shouldn't exist" to a large audience of like minded activists is pretty much a call for censorship.

Besides, following the over-reactionary criticisms we've seen doesn't really result in more diverse or more inclusive games. If you denounce the writing of strong interesting characters like Jade in Dying Light for at any point needing assistance, but don't hold the male characters to the same standard, then that's still an implicit call for designing with the damsel in distress trope as the premise, but just doing the opposite. IMO if you start with a prejudiced idea, even if you intend to counteract it, that original prejudice is still going to be apparent in your writing and it's going to end up seeming either disingenuous or overly preachy. Better to ignore the idea of overused tropes entirely and just honestly and holistically write interesting stories. Unfortunately, with the current media climate, at this point it seems safer to just write male characters because they won't be attacked as aggressively for having small flaws.

The idea isn't to make "games targeted at women", but rather to improve the general representation of women in games.

I just want to emphasize this point. Whether or not you agree with the finer points of Sarkeesian's contentions, I think this is in itself an important thing to keep in mind.

I don't think its quite right to say these people have no influence, and I think there is a legitimate concern of censorship. Just look at the situation with Hotline Miami 2 being banned in Australia. It's also completely reasonable to push back against unfounded or unreasonable criticism like that Dying Light tweet in the first post. Whether or not these culture critics have the political influence to censor games themselves, saying "these games are immoral and dangerous and they shouldn't exist" to a large audience of like minded activists is pretty much a call for censorship.

No, you don't get to declare a call for changes in games as equivalent to a call for censorship of games. The activist crowd are asking for voluntary changes. Voluntary changes are not censorship, and Australia's broken system has nothing to do with it. Have they made any attempts at actual boycotts? (Seriously, have they?) What pressure has there been to punish those who don't fall in line? Because that's required to make a claim of censorship. Criticism cannot, on its own, be a form of censorship.

No, criticism in and of itself is not censorship, but it can be the beginnings of Attempting to establish censorship. And attempting to do something can be almost as dangerous as actually achieving those goals.

Countries don't wake up one morning and say "Hey, lets ban something today!", and then ban something that afternoon. Instead campaigns are begun, support is gathered, and changes are attempted. Often these changes get pushed through with shockingly little thought or consideration for larger impacts or even pesky little things like existing legal issues or human rights.

Encouraging new content and styles: Good

Trying to demand existing content and styles cease to be made: Bad.

No, you don't get to declare a call for changes in games as equivalent to a call for censorship of games. The activist crowd are asking for voluntary changes. Voluntary changes are not censorship, and Australia's broken system has nothing to do with it. Have they made any attempts at actual boycotts? (Seriously, have they?) What pressure has there been to punish those who don't fall in line? Because that's required to make a claim of censorship. Criticism cannot, on its own, be a form of censorship.

You missed the words "call for." Saying a game should be censored doesn't mean you've actually succeeded in censoring it. For example, there's the petition that got GTA V removed from Target Australia. If like that petition states, you actually believe that violent games fuel real life violence, then it would seem to be hugely irresponsible not to ban them. Of course study after study has shown that isn't the case, but if you actually think violent games cause real life violence and say that repeatedly, then the moral and logical thing to do would be to try and prevent people from playing them.

You missed the words "call for." Saying a game should be censored doesn't mean you've actually succeeded in censoring it. For example, there's the petition that got GTA V removed from Target Australia.

Okay, but again that's not what's happening here. As far as I've seen, Sarkeesian is calling for voluntary changes to games. She is not calling for restrictions or limitations to be imposed, nor is she calling for things to be removed from shelves or banned.

She is not calling for restrictions or limitations to be imposed, nor is she calling for things to be removed from shelves or banned.

And, more to the point, if calls for things being banned get enough noise and enough support that it happens then welcome to democracy and living in society; sometimes a large group decides they don't want X and so it doesn't happen.

Does it suck if it effects something you like? Sure... but that's how the world works.

However she isn't at that point and if the GG Harassment Brigade stopped making so much noise then she'd get less attention and the "problem" they have would go away... unfortunately (and predictably) this logic has escaped them so instead they try to bully people out of the way, drawing more attention to them and their message while at the same time giving Gamers a bad name.

(And yes, I believe the term 'gamer' still has relevance in a word where everyone plays games; much like Film Buffs separate themselves from the general population who watch films, so 'gamer' is a term I would argue applies to people who make games, the playing of, learning about and general enthusiasm about, even in a world where everyone plays games. Unfortunately the morons have ruined it for the rest of us and the media was quick to jump on that and missed the 'film buff' aspect of the comparison to people watching films.)