Why are we afraid of criticism?

[QuietlyListening]

Some interesting responses, and mostly on-topic! Thank you!

Some of my own thoughts.

1. To those complaining that they're tired of the discussion: The discussion is pretty easy to avoid. No one is yelling at you while you're playing the game, and even if you're the type to interact with the community, that participation is pretty much at your discretion. Don't want to talk about social issues? Don't go into social issue threads.

2. There seems to be this strange dichotomy set up between fun vs. issues. Like most media, I play games for a variety of reasons. Sometimes I want to think. Sometimes I want to laugh. Sometimes I just want to blow something up with an Ion Cannon. But while the discussion of social issues isn't necessarily "fun" how these issues are implemented (or not implemented) in games doesn't have to compromise anything of the design. Not every game has to address every issue. In fact, if done properly, you probably won't outright notice unless you're approaching the game with a critical eye. For instance, I didn't really notice that Lee was black in the Walking Dead Games. Well, I understood that he was black, but it wasn't a "this is the story of race in America" sort of understanding. It was subtle; some dialogue here, an interaction there. It didn't get me depressed about the game (there were plenty of other mechanics at work doing a fine job of that already), but it did send off a ping in my brain. Now I can't speak for others, but I greatly enjoyed this aspect of the game; it made the characters feel richer, their relationships deeper, and the game had a greater sense of verisimilitude.

Conversely, by approaching design with a mind towards social issues games can avoid certain pratfalls that might impede an enjoyable experience. Look at Dead or Alive. I'm pretty certain that the amount of work that was put into boob physics could have been productively spent elsewhere to make these games better. Or in Dishonored, the whole Callista bathing interaction was intensely awkward and actively detracted from my enjoyment of the game.

It's for these reasons why I actually like social criticism of games. It compels artists to put greater care into their work, not just through visuals and mechanics, the crunchy bits, but the fluff, the narrative, the less defined pieces of games that make them special, and make them worth playing.

 

[Trunkage]

Often I have seen the refrain of, "Please stop talking about X. All this focus on social issues will suck the life and fun out of games."

This leads me to the following question:

WHAT!?

In what medium has criticism left art worse off? Are books terrible because there's literary criticism? Are movies worse because there are disciplines devoted to studying film? Is TV boring now that we analyze shows for social themes?

It boggles my mind that anyone could think that serious artistic criticism could be anything but good. Personally, some of the most enriching discussions I've had have been over some of the most trivial examples of entertainment. So what the hell are people afraid of?

People usually make a connection with what they do and who they are. If you criticise what they do, they take it as a criticism of who they are. Sometimes you need to realise they are just criticising the action not you, the person

 

[runequester]

People usually make a connection with what they do and who they are. If you criticise what they do, they take it as a criticism of who they are. Sometimes you need to realise they are just criticising the action not you, the person

I think people also tend to get caught up in the idea that if you "support" something, you must defend it 100% without any failure or question.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

There's a big reason I'd say why general criticism about a game (ie. 'the graphics are bad', 'the writing stinks', 'the mechanics are poor', etc.) is very different from criticizing a game under the guise of "social issues".

If you say "I don't like the mechanics of Assassin's Creed" (I just pulled AC out of a hat here), and I say "well I like the mechanics", that's pretty much the end of it, we have differing opinions on the mechanics.

On the other hand, if you say "I don't like Assassin's Creed because it's racist", what is the response? "Well I like Assassin's Creed because it's racist."? And if you don't think it's racist, now you're forced to defend why it isn't. And the reason you need to defend why it isn't is because, basically, the person claiming the game is racist is saying 1 of 2 things about those who like the game:
A: The game IS racist, those who like it are just too dumb/ignorant/'privileged' to see it. For pretty obvious reasons, people don't like that.
B: You know the game is racist but you play it anyway, which means that (at best) you're tolerant of racism, and (at worst) you're a racist yourself. People don't like that.

Criticizing through the lens of it being a social issue is, ultimately, an argument that you can't lose. Disagree that something is sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, etc? Well you just don't understand. Agree that something is _______ist, but play it and enjoy it anyway? You're tolerant of whatever ________ism we're talking about.

Okay, seriously, I think you're adding value judgements where there are none.

Look, I'm a fan of Robert E. Howard, and I've read every single one of the original Conan stories. Most of the time, they're an easy read, but every now and then you get one that has what I call the "wall o'racism," and you run into a jarring line like "We can't let those black savages hurt a white woman like you." Yes, it's racist. Yes, the author was racist - everybody in the 1930s was. That doesn't mean that by enjoying the rest of the stories that I'm condoning the racism that sometimes appears (and there are some of his stories set in the real world where the racism and "white man's burden" is bad enough that I can't stomach it). But, still a fan - the man knew how to write!

I'm also a fan of Richard Wagner, who was antisemitic in ways that defy, well, basic sanity (and I really mean that - the man was nuts...you could make the argument that he was viciously antisemitic at the same time you could make the argument that he wasn't). But he wrote great music. And, for the record, I'm Jewish.

It is possible to separate the work from the artist. And, any work is made of several parts, and it is possible to separate one part from the others. It is your beliefs and actions that determine if you're a sexist or racist, not whether you enjoyed something with some questionable content.

And, to use your example of "I didn't like Assassin's Creed because it was racist," there is a third answer: "I see where you're coming from, and I can see how it could be taken that way, but it didn't bother me that much - the characters are well drawn, the gameplay was solid, and the story drew me in. It's disappointing that some stereotypes were a bit questionable, but hopefully they'll do better next time." That is not an answer that suggests you're a racist. It is possible to enjoy something without condoning its more troubling aspects.

If, on the other hand, you go with answer #4: "Yeah, but those brown people are sub-human and deserve that crap," then YES, you are a racist, and you should be very ashamed of yourself.

I would also point out that whether something is racist is not an absolute claim, but something that is up for discussion. There are cases where the racism is clear, but there are cases where it is not. I've defended Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness from people who called it racist by pointing out that not only were things really that bad in the Congo at the time, but Conrad was pulling his punches - drawing attention to how badly people have been laid low is not racist unless you suggest that something about their race drew them naturally there, which Conrad didn't.

So, if you think something isn't racist, you can disagree and provide an argument, and that doesn't make you a racist. That just makes you a critical thinker (which is a GOOD thing).

 

[DementedSheep]

What fuck me off is the "remember when games use to be about fun" or "people play games to escape reality" and dismissing any criticism as "political agenda" response. Did you eve considerer that some of this might actually effect some peoples fun? That playing a game for "escapism" isn't going to work when it chock full of the attitudes and imagery you want to escape from?

 

[wulf3n]

Reason 2: They feel that criticism of the game is criticism of them as a person.

To be fair, it's not uncommon for a "criticism" to attack the developer/player. I can link several if you would like.

OT: It's because "criticism" especially around political or social issues nigh on always devolves into insults from both sides.

There's also this rather humerus phenomena in which a person who criticises a game will be met with accusations of censorship, which the person will legitimately refute. However criticise the criticism and that very same person will accuse you of trying to censor them, even though they just finished pointing out how critiscm != censorship.

 

[Melaphont]

snip

I dunno. I think simplifying the articles that were written, around the same time as all this stuff went down, was not written in the same style as back before all this. The stuff being talked about adds generalities to groups, where there need not be. This idea that there was a subset of gamers that were pandered to, prior to all this, and that their "days are coming to an end" is just a ridiculous notion, unless supported by facts. There is nothing that I see, where a certain subgroup was ever the "target" of the industry or any industry.

While I agree with you that those articles were not calling EVERYONE X, they were, imo for the most part fairly badly written and seemed to just be trying to circle the wagon's on a scarecrow to beat up the subculture that is gaming. There was inference that they were more epidemic then reality, and also seemed to infer they have the loudest voice, when it was the media giving them the loudest voice.

Also, the biggest problem, to me, is that those who initiate the claims or criticisms do not want their words criticized, which just riles up those who disagree with the talking points even more.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

theres criticism and theres compleinign for the sake of complaining

if your "criticism" isnt something that is going to make the game better, the game simply isnt meant for you

just because a game is not some sort of political comentary doesnt mean its worse as a game, same with painting, books, film, etc

 

[Ihateregistering1]

SNIP

You bring up several good points (though for arguments sake I'm going to leave out the "well it was written in the 1930's" type stuff, since that's a whole different ball of wax).

The problem with "answer #3" is you're acknowledging that you think there are racist or offensive elements in the game, but if you don't think those are in the game, then we go right back to "well you don't understand". Now, maybe you truly don't, but people don't like to be told "well you're ignorant/dumb".

"I would also point out that whether something is racist is not an absolute claim, but something that is up for discussion."
I wholeheartedly agree, but let's be blunt: for a lot of people, there isn't much grey area here.

Likewise, if we're talking about living, breathing authors, directors, game developers, etc. then you get into the even more sticky situation of "well by buying their game/book/movie, you're giving them money, and thus not helping to show that their beliefs are wrong". For an example, look no further than the petitions to tell people not to see "Ender's Game", since it was written by Orson Scott Card, a die-hard anti-gay marriage advocate.

Anyway, gotta run, but my overall point was simply that the criticism of "this game is sexist" isn't the same thing as "this game has bad graphics".

 

[Robert B. Marks]

snip

I dunno. I think simplifying the articles that were written, around the same time as all this stuff went down, was not written in the same style as back before all this. The stuff being talked about adds generalities to groups, where there need not be. This idea that there was a subset of gamers that were pandered to, prior to all this, and that their "days are coming to an end" is just a ridiculous notion, unless supported by facts. There is nothing that I see, where a certain subgroup was ever the "target" of the industry or any industry.

While I agree with you that those articles were not calling EVERYONE X, they were, imo for the most part fairly badly written and seemed to just be trying to circle the wagon's on a scarecrow to beat up the subculture that is gaming. There was inference that they were more epidemic then reality, and also seemed to infer they have the loudest voice, when it was the media giving them the loudest voice.

Also, the biggest problem, to me, is that those who initiate the claims or criticisms do not want their words criticized, which just riles up those who disagree with the talking points even more.

I'm not sure I agree...

First, when it comes to writing these things, #GamerGate moved quickly as a situation, and we do have people trying to fit into a 24-hour news cycle. So imagine for a moment seeing a vigorous attack by people identifying as gamers and claiming to be gamers against Zoe Quinn, and you have two or three hours to come to grips with how you're going to react and file the story. That's not going to lead to the best possible commentary. It just can't - there's not enough time. Just speaking for myself, after the chat logs came out it took three days for what they meant to sink in, and another two days for the shock to wear off and the reaction to sort itself out. So, that means that if I had written an article on Tuesday vs. if I had written an article today, they would be dramatically different from each other in tone and approach.

I'll agree - we saw some idiotic stuff. I can't say I was impressed with the Slate article that declared that game journalism was the thing that was dying, but didn't have so much as a single metric or statistic to illustrate or prove it. But, we also saw some very raw stuff, and once people have had a chance to calm down and get some perspective, I think a lot of the coverage will come across as being much better and less combative than it initially appeared.

As far as beating up the subculture that is gaming, though...sorry, but how were you expecting people to react in that situation? If a bunch of people start abusing and harassing female writers and developers in the name of journalism ethics - particularly those who aren't associated with the big studios or scandals of the past - the story is going to be the harassment, not the supposed justification. They reported on the action, which was what anybody would do.

As for your last point, I agree completely. The thing that bothered me the most about #GamerGate was the concerted effort to silence and literally drive out of the industry the "SJW"s - it was attempted censorship via internet mob. If somebody disagrees with Anita Sarkeesian, Bob Chipman or Jim Stirling, that's fine - there's nothing wrong with that. You want to make a counterpoint, do so - write it on a forum, a blog, or in an article. Add to the discussion! But don't try to silence them - that actually sounds like fascism, and it's definitely tyranny. Freedom of speech is there for everybody, even the people you disagree with...ESPECIALLY the people you disagree with.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

What fuck me off is the "remember when games use to be about fun" or "people play games to escape reality" and dismissing any criticism as "political agenda" response. Did you eve considerer that some of this might actually effect some peoples fun? That playing a game for "escapism" isn't going to work when it chock full of the attitudes and imagery you want to escape from?

play a different game?

 

[DementedSheep]

What fuck me off is the "remember when games use to be about fun" or "people play games to escape reality" and dismissing any criticism as "political agenda" response. Did you eve considerer that some of this might actually effect some peoples fun? That playing a game for "escapism" isn't going to work when it chock full of the attitudes and imagery you want to escape from?

play a different game?

Oh hey, the typical dismissive reply that can be levied at literally any criticism of a game. Don't know why we even have video game form since talking about games and thing you liked/didn't like in a game is apparently not allowed, at least not when that criticism is deemed feminist.

 

[Erttheking]

And for the hundredth time, Anita is NOT the main voice of feminism. I'd be willing to bet hard money that you don't follow feminism at all. You don't follow feminist blogs on Tumblr, feminist journals, youtube series. I'd be willing to bet your only exposure to feminism is Anita and what gaming journals print. I follow a friend's Tumblr. She is a massive feminist, constantly sharing posts from other feminist blogs. She rarely, if ever, comments on Anita. And when she does once in a blue moon, it's more about her being frustrated with all the harassment she is getting. Anita is BORING. She makes lousy argument, takes things out of context, this same feminist friend got mad at her when I talked to her about it. I am a feminist and I don't care about Anita. I desperately want her series to fade into obscurity and people to forget that she ever existed. But that won't happen. And I'll admit it, yes there is a lot of bullshit going on that comes from feminist origin. I'm not clear what's going on with Zoey Quinn, but the evidence that she's been up to questionable stuff is a long stronger than the evidence towards Anita. I can't get behind the people who defend her and there are plenty of feminists out there than are just plain sexist towards men. It hardly defines the movement though. And if I was just to take a wild guess, I think people are pretty frustrated with the argument about the extremists in the group because more often than not people assume those extremists are what they're all about, which is why they don't want to talk about them. It happens on both sides and is why I think this argument is so hostile.

You know, calling dissenting opinions whining and nagging, REALLY reflects badly on you. Also, 1. why can only women develop games with good female characters? Why can't men do it? 2. There are more than a few women in the industry already 3. more women would play games if gaming was more inclusive

And yeah, that was pretty fucking tasteless.

Anita is the main voice of feminism in gaming. Kotaku and RPS come second and they're just as terrible and greedy. As for feminism in general the top afaik are Jezebel and then there's tumblr which is a whole different can of worms [http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction].

Like I asked in the previous thread if you guys have any examples of gaming related feminists with more visibility than the ones I mentioned please share them (still waiting from the previous thread). Until then don't be surprised if the gaming community is frustrated at and rejects feminism given the kind of assholes that represent it and the way they treat both gamers and game creators. But that's the hypocrisy I'm talking about; feminists will never organize to publicly denounce these people but they're more than glad to use the typical by now No True Scotsman fallacy every time the movement is accused of extremism or irrationality.

No. She isn't. She wasn't elected voice of feminism in gaming by either the feminism comity or the gaming council. She is a very well known feminist, that is all. And I've seen that page before, and all it does it prove that there are extremists on Tumblr. They deserve to be called put but you can't let vocal minorities color your view of everyone on one side of an argument. If we did, I'd have some horrible things to say about the anti-Anita crowd based on youtube comments.

I don't follow main feminism blogs directly, I get most of them second hand from my friend's tumblr, if you look deep enough in there you can find what you're looking for there.

http://kitkatinahat.tumblr.com/

And people denounce Anita all the damn time on this website! Feminists like Phasmal, Zachary, MarsAtlas, Fappy and me. We think her arguments are lukewarm but we think she gets way too much abuse. We commonly write long posts about why we think her videos are lack luster, but we don't think that she's the god damn anti-Christ! And what's more, assholes that represent it? Oh for God's sake, Anita is not an asshole because you don't agree with her! And people can't denounce her in a way that would make you happy because making your voice by millions is MUCH easier said than done. They can't get the publicity needed to satisfy people like you, so your demand is actually pretty unreasonable.

 

[Racecarlock]

Games aren't going anywhere. They're not. As powerful as people seem to believe anita and zoe are, there is no fucking way they will ever censor games or otherwise. Stop comparing them to jack thompson. Jack Thompson was a legitimate threat for a small amount of time until science basically disproved him on every count and then he got disbarred.

Zoe is just some girl who made a text based adventure game. I don't know what happened to this fine young capitalists group, but I don't think she's the one that did it.

Anita is some girl who made some videos about gaming with a feminist slant. SHOCK HORROR! I mean, moviebob has a series about games, extra credits has a series about games, fucking yahtzee's whole career is based on his series about games. What in the hell makes anita's videos such a big threat?

The whole thing where journalists said gaming is dead? Well, maybe they should have used different wording. But there's no doubt that there is a significant presence of people who think "tits or GTFO" is a good pick up line to send women on xbox live. Sure, we shun them, but they don't get banned from using the service or anything. So it doesn't even matter that we hate the guy and don't associate with him, he's still out there asking to see naked pictures of every woman he sees on there.

No, gaming isn't dead, but people getting away with being an asshole is certainly going away, and with good reason.

Oh, and as for the stance that games aren't political, have you played bioshock infinite? Or the first bioshock? Or any COD game? I mean, I love COD, but it's clearly some right winger's fantasy of what military life is like. I mean, you're essentially james bond combined with a soldier in every game. And the majority of enemies are always russian or muslim. Except in ghosts. There's nothing political in those games?

Besides which, I thought we wanted games to be taken seriously as art. Well, for that to happen, even if it's not particularly good criticism, we have to accept that criticism is not always going to come from somebody inside the industry. And to say that all criticism when it comes to sexism is coming from people being mind controlled by anita sarkeesian? That's just complete bullshit. I mean, really, you should be ashamed for thinking it, let alone typing it. Just because someone doesn't entirely agree with you doesn't mean they're some kind of feminist shill or eeeeeeeevil "social justice warrior". Learn not to just stereotype people based on the worst extremists in their particular group and then we can talk.

But until we can take this kind of criticism and not have 6000 people immediately fly off the handle about how "It's just a game, don't take it seriously!", then I guess games can not and will not ever be high art.

That's how I see it.

 

[Fappy]

Like in Skyrim how there is a mission to slut sham a woman. Skyrim itself has a pretty positive portrayal of women, but that little tid bit is still a no-no.

I JUST saw this, not sure why. I very much have a problem with this mindset if you are infering it shouldnt be in teh game. Do I think slut shaming is bad? Yes. Do I think these controversial issues should be off limits or put into "perfect" context in art or storytelling? No, absolutely not. Stuff like that shouldn't be off limits. If people play skyrim and then think slut shaming is ok... Well, I want to meet this person.

I replayed this quest very recently. As a feminist myself, I only have a very small issue with the quest. I have no problem with slut shaming being an excepted practice in a fantasy world, but I think they could have gone a little further in implying the act is wrong. That said, if you decline the quest the girl who gives it to you says something to the effect of, "Oh yeah, I guess it was a pretty bad idea wasn't it?"

I don't think it's a big of a deal as some others, but it could have been handled better.

Skyrim is still one of my favorite games though

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

What fuck me off is the "remember when games use to be about fun" or "people play games to escape reality" and dismissing any criticism as "political agenda" response. Did you eve considerer that some of this might actually effect some peoples fun? That playing a game for "escapism" isn't going to work when it chock full of the attitudes and imagery you want to escape from?

play a different game?

Oh hey, the typical dismissive reply that can be levied at literally any criticism of a game. Don't know why we even have video game form since talking about games and thing you liked/didn't like in a game is apparently not allowed, at least not when that criticism is deemed feminist.

listen, what im saying is, if a game is not fun for you, dont play it, its simply a game that DOES NOT APPEAL TO YOU

and its fine, because it happens, in other forms of art as well, some works simply do not appeal to you, that doesnt make the work any worse

a "sexist" character does not make a game worse, there are weak, submissive and promiscuous women just like there are weak, submissive and promiscuous men

a character can be any of that and still be a good character, because those are traits a writer can work with

 

[QuietlyListening]

It's not that a game on the whole isn't fun. It's that particular aspect isn't fun. And not in the "oh that made me think" kind of not fun. Just not fun not fun. We all want good games, and the only way to fix these problems is to address them head on.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Often I have seen the refrain of, "Please stop talking about X. All this focus on social issues will suck the life and fun out of games."

This leads me to the following question:

WHAT!?

In what medium has criticism left art worse off? Are books terrible because there's literary criticism? Are movies worse because there are disciplines devoted to studying film? Is TV boring now that we analyze shows for social themes?

It boggles my mind that anyone could think that serious artistic criticism could be anything but good. Personally, some of the most enriching discussions I've had have been over some of the most trivial examples of entertainment. So what the hell are people afraid of?

There's a big reason I'd say why general criticism about a game (ie. 'the graphics are bad', 'the writing stinks', 'the mechanics are poor', etc.) is very different from criticizing a game under the guise of "social issues".

If you say "I don't like the mechanics of Assassin's Creed" (I just pulled AC out of a hat here), and I say "well I like the mechanics", that's pretty much the end of it, we have differing opinions on the mechanics.

On the other hand, if you say "I don't like Assassin's Creed because it's racist", what is the response? "Well I like Assassin's Creed because it's racist."? And if you don't think it's racist, now you're forced to defend why it isn't. And the reason you need to defend why it isn't is because, basically, the person claiming the game is racist is saying 1 of 2 things about those who like the game:
A: The game IS racist, those who like it are just too dumb/ignorant/'privileged' to see it. For pretty obvious reasons, people don't like that.
B: You know the game is racist but you play it anyway, which means that (at best) you're tolerant of racism, and (at worst) you're a racist yourself. People don't like that.

Criticizing through the lens of it being a social issue is, ultimately, an argument that you can't lose. Disagree that something is sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, etc? Well you just don't understand. Agree that something is _______ist, but play it and enjoy it anyway? You're tolerant of whatever ________ism we're talking about.

This post sums up my issues with the current climate of gaming criticism quite well, so, thank you for being more eloquent and concise about it than I could be.

It genuinely isn't about "criticism" itself. It's about this specific type and the fact that we've been bombarded with it for several years by a large segment of gaming journalists. *shrug*

 

[DementedSheep]

What fuck me off is the "remember when games use to be about fun" or "people play games to escape reality" and dismissing any criticism as "political agenda" response. Did you eve considerer that some of this might actually effect some peoples fun? That playing a game for "escapism" isn't going to work when it chock full of the attitudes and imagery you want to escape from?

play a different game?

Oh hey, the typical dismissive reply that can be levied at literally any criticism of a game. Don't know why we even have video game form since talking about games and thing you liked/didn't like in a game is apparently not allowed, at least not when that criticism is deemed feminist.

listen, what im saying is, if a game is not fun for you, dont play it, its simply a game that DOES NOT APPEAL TO YOU

and its fine, because it happens, in other forms of art as well, some works simply do not appeal to you, that doesnt make the work any worse

a "sexist" character does not make a game worse, there are weak, submissive and promiscuous women just like there are weak, submissive and promiscuous men

a character can be any of that and still be a good character, because those are traits a writer can work with

If I never played any games that I have criticism for or that have some aspect that impacts negatively on my fun I would never play any games and its not like this shit is always advertised on the box. They don't put a warning on them saying "hey if you don't want to feel like shit because of your gender today don't play this game because all the women in it are going to be dead weight victims and whores" or "that female character you foolishly got your hopes up about is going to do fuck all and be damseled".

A lot its down to shitty wining, laziness and lack of thought anyway not some artist or planned thing. It dose make the game worse even if you don't personally care and most criticisms are going to be in some way subjective, that doesn't make them not valid criticism. A lot games are full of things put in there specifically designed to appeal to potential players and because that is what marketing thinks people want. Why is such an issue to to point out how some these things aren't exactly nice for some your player base, might turn them off and might put across some pretty awful messages especially when its repeated across a lot of games? and that people other than white males exist and play games so you should maybe think about it a little bit when you are designing characters and especially with customization options? why not have dialogue about that? If the developers still want to do whatever or can't be assed putting in some effort they are going do that anyway.
Just not playing the games and voting with your wallet doesn't work because unless you say what you want its open to many different interpretations. Buying a game with X doesn't mean you like X. It can mean you like everything else enough to play it anyway. Just like not buying a game with Y doesn't mean you don't like Y. It might have other issues.

 

[nuclearday]

listen, what im saying is, if a game is not fun for you, dont play it, its simply a game that DOES NOT APPEAL TO YOU

and its fine, because it happens, in other forms of art as well, some works simply do not appeal to you, that doesnt make the work any worse

a "sexist" character does not make a game worse, there are weak, submissive and promiscuous women just like there are weak, submissive and promiscuous men

a character can be any of that and still be a good character, because those are traits a writer can work with

Just myself, I think it's plain faulty criticism to define a negative trait and then apply, in broad strokes, a negative value judgement on any example that has that trait. It's ignoring the nuance that art is supposed to have.

I think the worst thing Anita Sarkeesian did was end up framing this debate in absolutes, intentionally or not. (And really it applies to all of video game criticism, I think.) And there's also something to said for faulty of logic of applying macro critical analysis to micro.

For example, if I were to say "not every female character should be sexually objectified" I don't think that's a terribly controversial view. I don't think many people want every every woman character in every game to be unbelievably proportioned and wearing nothing but a chainmail g-string. But that also doesn't mean I would think every instance of an objectified woman is an innately evil thing regardless of context.

For one, I think how something is presented is incredibly important, and often gets left out of these discussions altogether; or what purpose that element serves to the overall gestalt, not to mention what the creator was trying to say or what stylistic choices they were making.

The Witcher, for example, has very strong, sexually empowered women in it. Characters that are neither token additions for the mere sake of inclusivity or one-note cardboard cutouts that serve no other purpose or have no agency of their own. Rather, characters with depth and dimension and an internal life.

But the game also definitely objectifies females - I can't call an optional collection quest where you get a naughty trading card for sleeping with these characters anything other than objectification, right?

But I still thought it was a good game (still haven't got around to playing #2.) There's a degree of nuance that is lost if I start to bring in hyperbole or polarize the views about the game.

I feel rampant objectification of women isn't a good thing. But that doesn't mean I was offended with The Witcher, even though it has that element. Partly because I think the game possessed a degree of self-awareness and maturity when dealing with these subjects. If I were to denounce the entire game as "Sexist" because of some elements taken out of context, then I'm overlooking the positive examples that are also to be found in the core of the game.

I think it's important to be able to be critical of something, or even of something that an otherwise fine game contains; but still be able to appreciate it for what it is. I mean, Fallout 3 wasn't the "true Fallout sequel" I'd been wanting for a long time - but because I have some misgivings about the path the game took doesn't mean I think it's a terrible game. I might say I don't like Quick Time Events, but that doesn't mean I can't still really like Heavy Rain.