Jimquisition: Gamer Entitlement

[GonzoGamer]

I love this episode; the over/misuse of the term entitled is something that's annoyed me about visiting game forums over the past few years. But it seems to have died down lately. I just figured that many people realize that consumers are actually entitled to an opinion and a complete game for their $60; however the definition of "complete" seems to be everchanging lately.

The thing is that as an avid game consumer we have two mediums to devour: both the games themselves and the games media which is also a business in that you hope to attract hits (to get better advertising $) by being funny and informative. So I don't see anything wrong with "fans" criticizing games criticism, it's the natural outcome of consuming the material. But I'm just talking about regular criticism not psychotic death threats which I'm sure get thrown around too often.

 

[Talvrae]

It's all in the end a question of freedom of speech, and of Free Market... Buy what you want to buy, and critics what you want to critics. But don't try to force your opinions on others because they are entitled to theyr own opinions...

 

[Imp_Emissary]

http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/

Transcript is under the video. =w= b [sub](<-Thumbs up face)[/sub]

Spoiler: It's all there. No need to count it.

The damsel in distress trope would be morally wrong if the female was in distress due to some percieved flaw with the gender itself. Anita's argument is often broader than that. Some girls are dumb and do make mistakes, just like males do. So depicting a woman who is simply dumb magically turns into an evil trope even those said women really do exist and even though the game doesn't necessarily make the claim that women are typically that way. Real women are weaker than men on average by a significant margin (testosterone is a hell of a thing where strength is concerned, it's like one gender is doing steroids), so that's why the damsel in distress is such a common theme. What I think the takeaway from damsel in distress games is that its our duty, if we have the strength, to aid people who the strong take advantage of. Games don't train people to make women into damsels. It trains people to be the good guys. And I don't mean "rescuing" a girl from work or some silly ever-day thing. I mean coming to aid of a girl who is being beaten or raped. Same should be true for any weaker party being taken advantage of by the strong merely because they are weaker.

It's interesting that in today's society female characters have to be perfect intellectually and emotionally while also being competent physically. In some ways, feminism is just another side of a coin that portrays women perfectly. One side being perfect aesthetically, the other side being perfect internally. Both overstepping on reality.

If I'm tired of Anita, it's moreso the way she runs with things by holding onto a faulty premise without sticking around long enough to qualify the givens. She has every right to voice her opinions but thankfully we also have a right to be tired of it.

How about when the women in the game who get "distressed", but happen to be one of those rare cases of being arguably more powerful than even the male lead?

Like Peach and Zelda?
Both are suppose to be the people needed to put things all back in order in their game worlds (hence why Mario and Link got to go get them), and are actually fairly strong, physically, and mystically.

I mean Zelda is a great archer, has holy magic, and can turn into a freaking ninja. Can ya think of a class combo that sounds more OP than that?
And while Peach normally does almost nothing in a lot of the main Mario games, Nintendo has showed off her skills in other games, and the comic they had in Nintendo power, where she actually turns out to be pretty freaking awesome.
[sub]<.< Granted. This was when she was still called Princess Toadstool. So maybe that's why.[/sub]

Spoiler: Worth a look. Pretty good comic.

So the whole "well women are just weaker, generally", thing doesn't really hold water for me, as an excuse for why it happens so often in games.

Heck, in one Zelda game she's a badass pirate queen, then she gets found out to be the princess, is told to stay away from the fight, and then is immediately captured. Out of no where.
[sub][sub]Though, I guess you could spin that as a jab at the hole "keep the women folk out of the fight", but it just seems like they had it happen simply because that's what always happens.[/sub][/sub]

Ya can't say it was just because she happened to be weak. (especially because it wasn't done with physical force)


That's what's so bad about the trope. It's not about them being weak, or dumb. Smart and strong women,(ones in the games that even outshine the men on occasion), get taken and locked away, and it just comes off as a lazy way to hike up the stakes.

It's been done to death, and it's not even needed a lot of the time.

As you put it; "Games don't train people to make women into damsels. It trains people to be the good guys."

We are already saving the world in these games a lot of the time. By proxy, we're already saving ALL the women(and men) then.

Also, the women in games don't need to be perfect. Far from it.
They just need to be characters, instead of "that thing we got to go save". In a lot of the damsel in distress trope stories, you could replace the girl/woman with some magical macguffin thing, and the story wouldn't change much.

That's the issue with it all. It's not that D.I.D. is some statement about how women are weak, but rather that it makes them more often than not into something more akin to a prop than a living character.

Plus, I don't think we need games to teach us that beating/raping people is bad. It's kind of an obvious thing.

 

[goliath6711]

Okay, I have tried to ignore this. I have tried to move on from this. I had given my thoughts on this when it first happened and tried never to think about it again because it still fills me with a seething, smoldering rage every time I think about it. But it's been TWO DAMN YEARS and people just won't let this issue die. So let me give my definitive final thoughts on the whole Mass Effect 3 Ending Scandal. aka "One Set of Arrogant Douchebags vs Another Set of Arrogant Douchebags where one set at least has the advantage of actually being the ones that made the game." Okay, here it goes:

You wanna hate it? Fine, hate it.
You wanna blame EA and/or Bioware for it? Blame away.
You wanna boycott every game they've made and will make for it? That's on you.
You wanna share your grievances with the world about why you hate it? Go right ahead. I'll even listen to them if you put it out there in a logical manner. Just don't expect me to agree with it.

But here's what you don't do:
You don't tell me why I should hate it.
You don't tell anyone else who likes it why they should hate it (unless they asked you to).
You don't start calling for people's jobs over it.
You don't try and bully your feelings about it onto everyone you come across.
And you don't expect me to look at whatever thrown together bullshit that you essentially forced them to spit out to placate to you and accept it as anything other than that. (Known from this point on as the Fanfiction Cut.)

Any of you out there want to blow me off as being a blindly loyal fan that wants to ignore any faults, note that I don't just ignore faults, I try and work through them. Since when did trying to figure out a way to not let personal problems and discrepancies ruin your overall enjoyment of a game become code for "accepting substandard shit and letting the company steal your money"? But I just can't do it with the Fanfiction Cut here. I can't go through the last portion of what is my personal and touching story and suddenly see obviously thrown in garbage, starting with the answer to the burning question that nobody who thought about it for more than five seconds needed answered, and wade through a whole mess of unnecessary over-explanations, shitty unimportant epilogues for other characters that were also not needed, and a constant dangling sword of "You thought your decisions didn't matter before? We've now included a fourth decision that completely negates the entire purpose of the series.", just to get to the one final new cutscene that is an ACTUAL, LEGITIMATE, HEARTFELT benefit that would make the previous ending better (which only works with the decision I chose, as the other versions of it were merely bastardized versions of that scene).

And do you know what's really been infuriating since then? The number of people that I've seen trying to give whatever bullshit evidence they dream up that the fourth ending is somehow supposed to be the "official canonical" ending that Bioware had adopted since Day 1! That's right! The game whose official movie, comic and novel tie-ins never gave any definitive gender, description, backstory, or even the first name of its main hero or featured that hero in any of those other related stories because they wanted you to maintain the illusion that it would be your version of the character that everyone was talking about, they officially were leading to an ending that was not featured when the game was first released and could vaguely be referred to by completely screwing up or not buying any of the previous games. Yeah, keep trying to sell that shit to me. Maybe one day I won't want to see you choke on it.

And I will tell everyone out there that, as a dedicated fan of the Mass Effect series, this whole bullshit controversy and this Fanfiction Cut had the very real potential to completely turn me against the Mass Effect series, Bioware, EA, and probably gaming as a whole. If this had been presented as a mandatory download, if the game would somehow not work at all without adding it to my hard drive, if it somehow rewrote the disk itself so that it would be on there no matter what I thought of it, I wouldn't give a damn if the download was free or not, I would be the one calling for a lawsuit against EA and Bioware for false advertising. I would be the one demanding compensation for a product not being what was promised by this company. And I would be the one to contact the Federal Trade Commission and attempt to have them brought up on charges. The only thing that saved the game from this was that it's recurring theme, choice, even pertained to this piece of bile. I didn't want to have to deal with it, so I didn't have to.

So don't come to me and cry about how much time, effort and money you spent and what you feel that you're owed. Because guess what, I spent the same time, effort and money. And while it may not have been presented perfectly, I felt that I was given everything that was promised to me as an ending to this series. If you don't that's YOUR problem, not mine and not anyone else that disagrees with you. I personally think that last year's Tomb Raider was presented in previews as an insult to me as a fan of the Tomb Raider games that came before it and you couldn't pay me $60 to even try it. Yet I didn't seek out every positive review and forum post gushing over the game and tell them how much of a doofus they all collectively were and try to say that they're somehow trying to misrepresent it and should be fired. Because the thing that you all seem to forget is that the one thing that you were raging over was based off of your OPINION. And as such, your opinion does not need to matter to everyone else. If you attempted to play a game and it didn't work, i.e. the game locks up, the sound goes out when it's not supposed to, then that's on the company. If you didn't like the method of how the game is being played, then that's on you. No game is made to cater to you and ONLY you above everyone else.

 

[nightazday]

Jim is wrong when he claims that criticising the opinions of game critics is being entitled. If a critic claims a game is the "game of the year" but it turns out that this game is awful then anyone who relied on the critics appraisal has every right to criticise the critic for providing such a misleading review. This is especially true when the critics are paid to review a game on behalf of their audience, since they're not doing their job properly. Examples of this are reviews of games such as Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2, and Spore where the majority of critics praised these games but the majority of people who bought these games hated them. These gamers aren't being entitled for criticising the critics, they're just annoyed that the critics didn't do their job.

Finally it's not being entitled to point out that Anita's arguments are heavily skewed rather than informative and that due to their inaccuracies these videos adding nothing to a debate.

Not really the critic calling it "the game of the year" is just his opinion and you thinking it sucks is just yours. He can't be called "misleading" to you if he really thought this game was the best one he every played that particular year. he doesn't even know what types of games you like (or if he even considers them good). You pay the critic to give his opinion on things, not to be lock-step with your opinion which he doesn't even know.

If you think his taste is awful because he likes Dragon Age 2 then find a critic who has taste that matches yours.

 

[Cyclic Infinity]

The problem is that a lot of the groups under attack are the ones that allow companies to do the things that your calling justified criticism. To put things into perspective, without say "Farmville" players you probably never wound have seen things like "Dungeon Keeper Online", without "Call Of Duty" players you wouldn't see shooter franchises strangling the market. For that matter without FPS players purchasing overpriced map packs it probably wouldn't have lead to the gaming industry embracing a lot of the DLC practices you see now. There is a point where you have to realize, as balanced and fair as you might want to be, that some groups of people DO represent a "cancer" afflicting the whole. The problem of course being that today people have been socially conditioned to think it's wrong to weed out groups of people and take action against them, and to look at the individual and what you can see on a personal level rather than looking at the type of person as a group or what that person does when your not around, whether that applies to general social politics, or more limited cosms like gaming.

Right now, the fact that the gaming industry can rely on the casual gamers to pretty much support whatever garbage they churn out, and prop up some of these business models, is exactly why casual gamers need to be forced out of gaming. On some levels those making points about "entitled" gamers being a minority are correct because so called "real" gamers have become a minority in their own hobby compared to the casual sheeple that make it viable to pretty much focus only on "Call Of Duty" and similar established franchises, neglect entire generes of games, and make enough money off of things like "Dungeon Keeper Mobile" that it and games like "Trexels" become a viable business strategy which overshadows all else.

. . .

Ideally the industry would take the time and effort to support all gamers, it would produce the casual games (including shooters), the turn based RPGs, the adventure games, metroidvania platformers and similar things in numbers sufficient to at least keep the gamers fairly satisfied, as opposed to focusing on the same money-grabbing garbage each year and maybe kicking over a decent RPG once in a blue moon (and once they do, casualization to make things "even more popular" sets in and generally divides the fan base). Neglect major audiences, especially groups like RPG fans that really were responsible for the gaming industry getting to the point where it is now, and expect backlash. Right now though the industry won't do that, it's content to simply focus on the most profitable sectors, rather than dealing with still profitable but not as profitable groups like serious RPG gamers, and as a result you see these kinds of tensions.

. . .

2. I'll be blunt, I'm not sure if the gaming industry can be saved, which is why I am one of those who has been suspecting that there will be another crash. We're at a point right now where "real gamers" really don't represent enough of a financial stake compared to casuals that we can influence all that much. By costing the gaming industry money, all we do is cause it to do is consider re-investing more towards casual games. Indeed we already see industry announcements about this with a lot of companies saying they want to move away from AAA game development entirely to focus on the new frontier of "app space" and micro-transaction fueled cash grabs. They pretty much want to sheer the sheeple as long and hard as they can.

. . .

Or in short, I keep trying, but at the end of the day when I look at things rationally I think we're doomed. It's sort of like my thoughts on "Occupy Wall Street" where people rallied without the violence, that means nothing (except an eyesore) to people who can just fly over the crowds in their private helicopters. Right now the industry ultimately holds so many cards, that they can kind of ignore us, which is half the problem. Your typical publisher's attitude is akin to "I'm sorry, I can't hear what your saying over the sounds of all these counting machines sorting my money?"

I'm mostly adressing the bolded parts. Great post, though.

Although I agree with you wholeheartedly, I feel that one has to look to the movie industry to gain a proper understanding of what is happening to gaming right now. It's not a perfect analogy, of course, as the two forms of media are massively different, but hardcore gamers are becoming akin to film buffs. Within the consumer base for their preferred form of media they are the vast minority, and as such big budget AAA releases are unlikely to satisfy them, though occasionally a good one does stumble along.

In the same way the best films are not those the average consumer heads off to see, and are often indie or whatever, the best games are going to be made by indie developers. The two are actually oddly analogous at the moment as big budget releases are relegated to soulless cash-grabs and endless sequels and remakes. Anyway, for hardcore gamers, it's likely that they will never be catered to with games with bloated budgets, but they will always get something, albeit shorter and less graphically cutting-edge than it could be.

That said, this shift differs from film in that films started out as a broadly accepted form of media. This is more akin to another sort of hobby going mainstream, but videogames are practically alone in the category of casualisable hobbies. This is due to the fact that videogames can be made that don't require any previous investment of energy and time for enjoyment. And, of course, anything that can be enjoyed without any effort on the consumer's part is something that caters to large swaths of the population, and opens it up to people who invested their hobbying elsewhere (or are idiots and sheep).

Because the people (publishers) who fund big-budget games (or movies) are in it solely for the money, most of those games will go mainstream once the companies figure out how to market it to that broader audience. This change was inevitable. When it comes to developers who pull this same shit (i.e. mobile developers), my analogy falls short. I'd come up with some way to make sense of this, but I'm just too lazy

So the point I'm trying to make is that, while in a perfect world AAA games would meet hardcore gamer standards for whatever genre they're in (and be made for every genre), this would be the same world where 200 million dollar films would be made that cater to film buffs. It's not a great analogy, as film buffs are a far lesser percentage of movie-goers than hardcore gamers are of gamers as a whole, but I think it gets the job done. If anything, it allows hope that we can change the industry.

I've also heard the "a crash is inevitable" argument in regards to the movie industry as well, as it has the same sequelitis and reboot-mania problem as video games, and the same vast quantity of shitty big-budget projects put out every year. The actual argument is more involved but, again, I'm lazy.

Now, to make all this relevant to entitlement. Certain gamers have invested so much time and effort in their gaming that they feel entitled to be catered to. That's probably not going to happen in the manner to which they're accustomed again (though anything is possible), so they're going to complain. Although some of these people may be twats about it, if you've invested a few thousand hours of time in gaming, and have become involved in gaming culture, I don't think it's terrible to feel entitled in that manner. I don't and I'll just live with the change, but some people can't go with the flow. Of course, I vote with my wallet (no money to EA or microtransaction or F2P or day 1 DLC or any of that bullshit) on the off chance everyone else decides to join in, the casual sheeple get tired of being sheared, and COD players finally realise it's the same game every time and stop wasting their money, and force change in the industry, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think that Jim and others dismiss all criticisms as angry misogyny, and that's a problem.

They're not. They're dismissing a large chunk as angry misogyny, which given the fact that they threaten her, dosmiss her for being a woman and often haven't even watched the videos certainly looks true.

 

[Twinmill5000]

Jim, I just want to say, that

you hit the nail right on the head there,

but... (and this is where I add my two cents).

As someone who refuses to identify as a gamer anymore, in general, I have to say that there's still a tremendous amount of elitist toxicity in the gaming community as a whole. It seems like it's just flat out to be expected to have a LoL vs DoTA argument end in flames with monkeys throwing shit at other monkeys because their game is better. It seems like, if I got into WoW, I wouldn't be able to share it, because suddenly, that would make me less of a gamer, and my gamer-peen is somehow shorter because I didn't get into something edgy and more hardcore.

I used to let it get to me, but I've stopped caring. I play video games, don't get me wrong. I play them for fun. I'm still going to defend someone when a horde of elitists attacks them, too, regardless of gender-- wait, stop right there. The fact that I had to add that, 'regardless of gender', puts forth my point stronger than I ever could without following a real writing process for this post.

Complaining about a product because you expect more is one thing. There's some downright shady practices in the industry today, and I agree that it's absolutely killing it. Even if they're in the wrong, if they don't like it, they can complain, and cast a vote with their wallet on whether or not they support a practice-- this is also why reviews are important, and why my next point is going to hurt.

Like Jim said, when reviewers have to worry about giving an honest opinion on a game just because there might be some rabid fans there with their fingers poised over their keyboards, their lack of understanding of the english language and death threats in hand. I'm not going to finish that statement. Instead, I'm just going to say, if I was a reviewer, I'd be extremely careful of what I said too, even if it got in the way of exposing flaws in a bad game, or highlighting the gems in a legitimately good title that went unrecognized.

Still, when you get flamed, ostracized and called terrible things, just for admitting that you helped Anita Sarkeesian's kickstarter, and are satisfied with what she had to offer from it, even to this date, while all you really do, at the end of the day, is play video games for fun, because you enjoy them, and don't want to identify with someone who would impose their opinions as if they were religion, you'd probably stop identifying with the term 'gamer' too.

I like 'video game enthusiast'; it's much more fitting. I do it as a hobby, a really big one at that, and I'd prefer to associate with a word that implies my discussions about games are good ("Oh, you play Call of Duty? Cool. I'm NOT going to call you a plebian, and am instead going to take genuine interest in why you like Call of Duty.")


tl;dr: Jim's right. Though, I think there's more toxic people in the gamer community than he's implying.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Okay, I have tried to ignore this. I have tried to move on from this. I had given my thoughts on this when it first happened and tried never to think about it again because it still fills me with a seething, smoldering rage every time I think about it. But it's been TWO DAMN YEARS and people just won't let this issue die. So let me give my definitive final thoughts on the whole Mass Effect 3 Ending Scandal. aka "One Set of Arrogant Douchebags vs Another Set of Arrogant Douchebags where one set at least has the advantage of actually being the ones that made the game." Okay, here it goes:

...tons of text...

So don't come to me and cry about how much time, effort and money you spent and what you feel that you're owed. Because guess what, I spent the same time, effort and money. And while it may not have been presented perfectly, I felt that I was given everything that was promised to me as an ending to this series. If you don't that's YOUR problem, not mine and not anyone else that disagrees with you. I personally think that last year's Tomb Raider was presented in previews as an insult to me as a fan of the Tomb Raider games that came before it and you couldn't pay me $60 to even try it. Yet I didn't seek out every positive review and forum post gushing over the game and tell them how much of a doofus they all collectively were and try to say that they're somehow trying to misrepresent it and should be fired. Because the thing that you all seem to forget is that the one thing that you were raging over was based off of your OPINION. And as such, your opinion does not need to matter to everyone else. If you attempted to play a game and it didn't work, i.e. the game locks up, the sound goes out when it's not supposed to, then that's on the company. If you didn't like the method of how the game is being played, then that's on you. No game is made to cater to you and ONLY you above everyone else.

Unfortunately, all of this "Bioware developed what they wanted, live with it" can be easily negated, since the endings that were released aren't even what the actual developers wanted.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

Lead writers wrote it all, shoved it through, and didn't even get it vetted from the other writers. And now it's too late.

The absolute dumbfounding thing about it is that it appears the ending was the last thing they wrote. They literally had no plan on how to end the series. You'd think it would have been something they thought through sometime during the development of Mass Effect 2...you know, so as not to write themselves into a corner? Then they procede to do just that.

The fact remains that Bioware screwed it up in a completely unprecedented way not seen in the history of video games. Never before has a series promised so much customization out of its story and broken so many promises in the end result.

When Bioware writers criticize the Deus Ex: HR ending and then procede to do the exact same thing, when Bioware *advertised* the game using such taglines as "experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome" and "Along the way, your choices drive powerful outcomes, including relationships with key characters, the fate of entire civilizations, and even radically different ending scenarios." they deserve all criticism for lying to our faces.

If you're fine with getting lied to, ok. But to get angry at the people who actually DO get angry for being lied to? Well, perhaps rewatch this week's Jimquisition.

 

[TelHybrid]

Is this what the gaming community has come down to?

We're all such petty argumentative children that we need a famous internet personality to essentially say "play nice"?

We're so big headed that we need to be told to stay off that pedestal?

Shameful...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

My issue with the whole ME3 ending thing is that you had people forming whole gamer movements to get Bioware to change it. Okay sure, criticize, begrudge, bemoan, whine, complain, whatever; but when you start forming whole movements, esp. ones arrogantly called "Retake Mass Effect," then you've crossed the line into entitlement and ridiculous levels of entitlement to boot. "Retake Mass Effect???" You can't retake something that was never yours to begin with.

Anyway, I don't have a problem if people like what I don't like as long as they're civil about it. ...which is hard to find on the Internet.

 

[Pogilrup]

Look I have watched, rewatched, and rewatched again all of Anita's Videos over and over again. The woman straight out blames a perpetuated misogynistic view of women, by gamers, because of how they are portrayed in video games.

As in all you right here, are misogynists because of games portrayal of women. That is her very thesis. I am not making this shit up, that is her damned basic premise for all her videos.

This is Wacko Jacko ENTIRELY in a nutshell. We are all out to be angry murderers because we play violent games.

She is blaming the entirety of the gaming community for a negative aspect of humanity as a whole for the media we consume, and she is getting a damned free pass on the simple principle of being a woman.

Jack Thompson was threatened by people who actually knew where he lived in massive numbers. Anita was threatened on the Internet, both bad, but he had actual reason to fear for his life.

She has told all gamers we are Misogynists because of games.

Just like Jack Thompson insists we were all murderers in the making for violent video games. These are the exact same premise. And the gaming community is sick and tired of being told they are terrible and horrible and it's because of the games they play.

It doesn't matter if they have a good point or not. People are against her because she blames the very community she tries to reach. The fact that many of you don't get this is extremely disturbing.

Did she ever say that explicitly?

Did she, in any statement online or off, explicitly say that every member of the gaming community is misogynistic?

Now personally, I have no problem swallowing my pride when it comes to the possibility that a work can unintentionally portray a social group in an negative light or perpetuate some bad ideals.

Besides Jack Thompson talked in absolutes and dealt in absolutes. Sarkessian acknowledges that great works can still be great despite their flaws.

 

[Pogilrup]

Accidental double post

 

[camazotz]

Who has tried to make Anita Sarkeesian's videos disappear? I mostly see people arguing against her with, like, logic and arguments.

I'd love to know where. Every attack I've ever seen on Anita boils down to a character assassination. The few efforts I've seen at actually challenging her premise or conclusion in her videos have been hampered by the blatant inability of the attacker to recognize their own agenda in the process. It's almost a joke now; see someone attack Anita, and you basically see someone who's just outed themselves as a mysognis.

 

[Jkdfasdfg]

For me when it comes to Anita, I ultimately disagree with her beliefs, many of them that are flawed. Many of these pieces of work that she has made that I disagree with have been deleted by her, but were published by her regardless and transcends into her other work.

?Female action heroes, although not helpless, are still subject to the male gaze in a way that male heroes are not. Placing women in these non-traditional roles makes it more acceptable for women to emulate masculine power dynamics, not necessarily a positive step towards solid, complex and positive representations of women. Lara Croft, for example, is the star of a video game and movie series who emulates masculine behaviors through violent conflict resolution and a tough emotional exterior. So while there are now female heroes that fit within patriarchal norms and adopt masculine traits, it is still not acceptable to have a situation wherein feminine qualities can be transformed as heroic characteristics.?

Anita dislikes the militarization of women or women who are aggressive because these traits are attributed to males. She argues that females that demonstrate these traits attempt to be men themselves by emulating their traits. As a female character becomes more masculine, they repudiate the feminine, becoming, in effect, sexless and less ?human? mirrors of male action heroes. She is also opposed to dumb or foolish female characters because she identifies it was a masculine trait. However female heroes that do display their sexuality then become objects of desire or hyper sexualized. In her own words, she advocates for characters that are positive anti-oppressive, that encourages progressive politics. She is against strong female hero that can display her sexuality which is counter intuitive to modern feminist theory.

This is just one of the many problems that I have with Anita's beliefs.

 

[irishda]

I don't often, but I'll give you a thumbs up for this one Jim

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i really dont like jims defense of anita


im not saying there arent issues in the portrait of gender and sex in video games or that they are not worth discussing, i do believe they exist and i do beleive they are, however anita is a scam artist, he got several times over the amount of cash she needed to make her videos on kickstarter and she hasnt completed em yet, she has gone on record saying shes not a gamer, and id say that someone who is not inmerssed in this culture has much validity in their arguments when it comes to critizing it, finally when you actually see her videos, well, i saw her female male character video and i can say the vast mayority of the examples she provided to defend her point are incredibly wrong, the games she critized for color swapping the male character into a female one are games that fall into these categories:

-old games, in which the limited processing power made telling what the main character was supposed to be in the first place a challenge on itself, therefore there is nothing wrong relying on tropes to help the player know they were controlling a female character

-games aimed at children in which they wanted to convey the idea of a female character in the most clear way possible for children

-games that are absolutely no serious at all and cartoony, do you seriously think rogue legacy or Ms splosion man are denigrating to women?

 

[Pogilrup]

Anyways, I think if one really wants to be in control of the company that one is customer of, don't just buy when they are ethical and refuse when they are not.

Remember those shareholders that are often complained about? One of those shareholders could be you.

After all as a shareholder you have more at stake in the company than you do as a fan or customer. While you might not be able to change things at a production level, if you and many other shareholders feel upper management is doing a shitty job then perhaps one can vote some of them out.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Who has tried to make Anita Sarkeesian's videos disappear? I mostly see people arguing against her with, like, logic and arguments.

I'd love to know where. Every attack I've ever seen on Anita boils down to a character assassination. The few efforts I've seen at actually challenging her premise or conclusion in her videos have been hampered by the blatant inability of the attacker to recognize their own agenda in the process. It's almost a joke now; see someone attack Anita, and you basically see someone who's just outed themselves as a mysognis.

You can look in this topic. I see numerous people disagreeing with her without flaming.

 

[Vegosiux]

Okay, was this a video on the subject of "entitlement" or an attempt to bring up Anita Sarkeesian again, because it's just not acceptable to not have one of those threads on Escapist for an entire month.