Damsel in distress Part 1 - Tropes vs. women in video games

I realize this is anecdotal, but in my experience people who like Sarkeesian are very receptive to criticism of her work or they might just agree with it. I actually do think that despite generally agreeing with her message, she's not particularly great at arguing her points, which should be very basic and easily defensible. Every time I've voiced that or my problems with a specific example not fitting or something, that criticism has been accepted nicely.

While there are certainly exceptions out there, you're probably not gonna be called a misogynist for finding flaws with her research and analysis. However if you participate in or approve of those who do participate in the widespread shaming and harassment of the person who dared put out some subpar analysis videos, you will almost certainly be called a misogynist.

If you disagree with the basis in simple feminist theory, then you might be called a misogynist. Obviously this is slightly more grey than they harassment, but Anita is generally working with very basic principles and just providing examples. Generally the idea will be something like "women having agency in art is a good thing." If you disagree with that, I'd say there's some misogyny in there. Usually she stays surface level, but specific theoretical disagreements are usually pretty open too. If you really honestly came forward with a critique of how she frames the concept of the male gaze, or if you honestly tried to argue against the concept itself even belonging in a feminist framework, the dominant response would almost certainly not be calling you a misogynist and dismissing you.

What did happen which could make it seem that way (coming from someone who was mildly on the anti-Sarkeesian train at the tine), is that you'd have these long response videos that would mix the general mean-spirited anti-feminist rhetoric or harassment or whatever with some more specific and sometimes even quite valid criticism, and those would get called misogynistic. Because, like, they were...even if not everything in them was.

Also, you don't get to strip it of being critical analysis because you don't think it's well supported enough or that it doesn't represent the industry accurately or whatever. The flaws are there but if that's all you think there is then denying it even being called critical analysis is just silly and strikes me as an over condemnation of a sub par analysis video that doesn't accurately portray games.

That's a good question, but the answer isn't as clear-cut as it might seem.

In simplest terms, yes, adolescent males do have the appearance of spending the most money on video games. However, this state of affairs hasn't come about because other demographics are intrinsically uninterested in the medium, but rather because the medium itself discourages their interest. Think of it like being invited to a party, but discovering that everyone in attendance would be required to punch one another in the face. You might very well have the desire to participate in a gathering of friends, but if the choice was between socialization and an unbroken nose, you'd probably think twice about making an appearance.

That's obviously an extreme metaphor, but it actually represents the state of the industry rather well: The games with the highest budgets and the most marketing behind them are targeted at a group which has already shown itself to be composed of willing consumers. This has the added effect of further alienating potential buyers who might not be interested in Shootin' Dudes 17: The Shootening, and also of casting the pastime as a whole in a light that makes it unappealing to people who want more than flashy graphics and scripted action sequences.

When we look at games like Fortnite, we actually see a significantly larger female userbase than we do when examining games like Call of Duty, despite the fact that both are ostensibly focused on introducing opponents to high-velocity lead. This is because the core mechanic – while still focused on violence and competition – is more intrinsically appealing from a gender-agnostic perspective. Splatoon was the example that I used in my article, which highlights the same point, and you can even see it reflected in games like League of Legends or Overwatch.

This is why a reskin of an existing title won't actually help with anything: You could release Tom Clancy's Kitchen Adventures with relative ease, but the gameplay's appeal wouldn't increase by default. (You'd also probably insult most of the women to whom you marketed the game.) Creating inclusive games requires a ground-up approach, not to mention a lot of time and investment. For a more direct comparison, think about how Skyrim has proven to be popular with female gamers, but Dark Souls hasn't seen quite the same success.

To summarize, there is a vast untapped market for video games, but that market is actively shunned in favor of repeating previous success. This fosters the impression that the medium doesn't (and shouldn't) welcome demographics outside of the existing one, which further discourages attempts at challenging the status quo. At this point, a game designed with the specific intention of holding cross-gender appeal would be seen as a risk... and if there's one thing that the industry hates, it's taking chances without a backup plan.