Aside from the interesting information about early iterations of certain games, I felt this particular video is about 20 minutes too long, in the wrong direction. Female objectification, in any medium, is a tired, and often sexist vehicle, but one that I thought we were moving away from. I admire Anita's conviction, but I don't really understand the purpose of this episode. We've gone past awareness - at least most of us have - and all I'm really seeing here is the beating of a dead horse, and therefore no real effort had to be made to make this point, yet again. Move it forward. Start with now, not 20 years ago. Hopefully the next episode will be more enlightening.

Oh, and, Travis, those are great examples of games that feature strong women protagonists. Any Metroid game, Portal, Fear Effect, or any game that allows the option of choosing a sex for your player - Skyrim, Borderlands, Dragon Age, etc. - are examples of how this has turned into a dying argument.

I meant that lack of awareness was a dying argument. Pointing out over and over again that women have been objectified in games is not serving any purpose. We know it happens. I want to hear her solution for overcoming/moving forward. She's just regurgitating what we already know. Sexism is bad. I just felt like she could have used that first episode - especially after all the eyes that would be watching it, due to the Kickstarter noise - to make a case for progress, rather than detail the offenses of the industries history, which has been done many times by many others, and, again, I thought we were already moving in a better direction.

I liken it to being good at math, music, reading, or any science: you forget about the basics if you don't go over them once in a while. I think it's easy to be sexist and not even be aware. But then again, am I really being sexist if I have no intent of it? It comes down to whether or not you're comparing this to the law or to morality. I can break the law even if I am not aware, but I am not immoral if my acts align with my morality.

Regardless of that discussion, there is no reason to revisit the facts: that racism can occur, it comes in various forms, and you should know how to recognize it. Besides, she's building a series. She has to make sure everyone in the audience has the same level of understanding. Who's to say that she won't eventually get around to the part where we are progressing against sexism in the gaming world.

I'll also be the first to admit, I didn't know what the word trope was before I saw this video.

I just worry that her videos will bring mostly bias against men, rather than an open discussion of what to do about this issue, if it really is an issue anymore. Watch her previous videos, if you haven't already. I spent most of yesterday and this morning watching a good portion of them, including her original "tropes vs women" series. It's all just more of the same, with no real point, other than to expose every perceived instance that could be construed as offensive or biased against women in popular pop-culture mediums. She says it would be awesome to play as Zelda in her own adventure, but would likely criticize that any role you put Zelda into would just be a role based on a male character design, only with a woman's body. And she's not opposed to skewing data in favor of her argument. She praises Dinosaur Planet at the offset of this video, stating that the game would have been "pretty cool, right?!" based on the idea that the protagonist was a strong, capable and heroic female tasked with saving the world. What she doesn't mention is that the other protagonist was a male figure named Sabre (supposedly Crystals sibling) who would have likely seen equal playability as the protagonist by player choice, similar to the character selection in Jet Force Gemini. She also conveniently clips the last bit of dialogue that Crystal has with General Scales after declaring who she is, stating that she has come for the princess. Meaning, the princess was captured, which is the exact trope she is trying to expose.

http://youtu.be/bQ7nyNf2a1M - dialogue is at :20

As far as the 'damsel in distress' plot vehicle goes, I just really don't see it around much these days. Look at your game library. How many of the games that you own have this as a concept, not even as the primary focus, but even as a sub-point. I just ran through mine, and of all the current-gen console games that I own (around 200 titles), maybe 12-14 of them actually use this trope, the most obvious being games like Prey, Rayman Legends, Limbo, and Ico/Shadow of Colossus, which was a remake.

Aside from Mario and Zelda titles, do any of you feel that this is being overused these days? I mean, honestly?

@jdodson, but why would you bring it up (damsel in distress)? Rather, why would you commit almost a half an hour talking about the way things used to be, as if that had anything to do with the state of games now? Unless, of course, the state of games now is in an offensive place. Why wouldn't you, on the other hand, praise the advancements? Maybe, focus on the positive? It almost seems insulting to ignore the work of artists these days that have made great strides in the stories and experiences in games, that are largely ambiguous, or at least not offensive to the female gamer.

Do I sound crazy?

@Talky, I would say that we already are moving forward. Look at the top games on metacritic. Look at the Gamer's Choice Awards. Look at the VGA award winners. Look at the creativity that's going on in the Indie scene. Yes, there are spots of sexism here and there, but mostly in the AAA realm. The industry is predominantly male. Most females were not compelled to enter a career field that did not interest them. However, more females these days are, in fact, becoming game designers, programmers, etc. That presence will influence the games that are made available to play, as it has already.

I honestly don't think that Anita Sarkeesian is the game-advocate she makes herself out to be (the photo of her playing a SNES at a young age, implying she's been playing games for a long time). She's a feminist critic of pop-culture, and all I'm trying to do is understand what she really wants.

Travis, I like your point in the second paragraph about the simple games of the past, and how when working with what they had, story often took a backseat. They went for what was easy and focused on the game play. I wish she would have made that point. Not to mention, the whole idea of chivalry, which you brought up in an earlier post, should also be analyzed. I don't think many feminists like the idea of chivalry, though.

The armor from that King's Bounty character is sexual, but I don't think it's sexist. Is the current portrayal of Wonder Woman sexist? Nariko in Heavenly Sword? Cortana? Bayonetta, even? Sexuality may be prevalent (and even then, I don't think it's as widespread as people make it out to be, though it is there), but I don't see that sexism is. To be clear, I'm using the definition that sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex.

And I totally agree that we should continue to move away from, or at least attempt to expand from, the mundane, thoughtless story lines that have been the go-to for years. I'm not at all saying that we are above accountability, either. I do wholeheartedly agree that we should strive to do better :)

@jdodson - at a comic convention, I could see that happening, and it's probably typical (I've been to game cons, but not comic cons). But then you are talking about something that is specifically an art form. People still struggle to this day to consider games art.

@Travis - I would argue that even if Nariko had been middle aged and fully covered (I don't think it's necessary that she be unattractive, but even then...), that if the game play was the same, the sales would not have changed. You would have to believe that a warrior woman in her 40s, covered in chain mail, could move with the agility and dexterity that Nariko currently does, which might be the biggest detractor. I think I'd give the game purchasers the benefit of the doubt on that one. The big thing that sets gamers (at least gamers my age) apart in this is that we have a tendency to follow our "artists" on a mechanical level. We know that good graphics don't make a good game, but we know who makes the games, and we'll usually follow the maker, rather than the game. Take the Call of Duty franchise, for example. Infinity Ward always sold more games than Treyarch (until recently), because people loved the feel of Infinity Ward's game play mechanics. Same with the SMT/Persona series and Atlus. If anyone other than Atlus put out one of those games, they could put a full naked woman right on the cover, and I bet it wouldn't sell as well as the current games do. In the case of Rare and Dinosaur Planet, people would have bought it if it hadn't been converted to a Star Fox title, and it would have done well, because it's a fun game, and it was a Rare game. This isn't a ubiquitous outline, but it fits a majority of the time.

You had prompted a thought, though, and I'm curious to see how people respond to this question:

- What, in your opinion, makes a strong female character?

also, concerning the topic video series: a list of the proposed videos to come (I see a lot of open-mindedness coming):

• The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2
• The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3
• The Sexy Villainess - Video #4
• Background Decoration - Video #5
• Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress - Video #6
• Women as Reward - Video #7
• Mrs. Male Character - Video #8
• Unattractive Equals Evil - Video #9
• Man with Boobs - Video #10
• Positive Female Characters! - Video #11
• Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games

It was sarcasm, and I'll explain later, but right now I'm late for work! :) You bring up good points to discuss.

@Travis - Okay, so I was going to go into this lengthy explanation of the nature of my sarcasm in that previous post, but really what it boils down to is that I haven't made my mind up about the outcome of the videos, as much as I've resolved myself for more of the same, just pointed at a different trope. I'm not expecting much else. Part of that, is because I spent most of the weekend watching near all of her previous videos, and now I'm about to jump into her graduate thesis, which I found on Scribd.com (and, yes, I actually paid for it). It all sounds the same.

@Gary_Butterfield - you mentioned earlier that exceptions don't mean much against trends, and, as a whole, the medium hasn't made much progress. Progress from what? Sexism? I'd have to ask for clarity on that. I see a bias toward men, but I don't see rampant sexism. And I'd have to ask, what is innately wrong with a bias toward men in games, especially if men are the dominant producers of that product? Is the industry anti-women? Of course not. For the longest time it's been a damn sausage fest, but it isn't discriminatory against women. You have to remember who started the industry. If a lot of women were really into computer programming in the 80's, things would probably be different.

Another point you made was that RPGs with optional gender selection, really just leads to playing as a man in a woman costume, but then you later ask the question "How does a girl stab a troll differently than a guy?" In role-playing games, you decide to do just that, play a role. As a man, you can't actually play a game as a woman, because you aren't a woman. You can try to understand, try to empathize, but your experience in a female role is always filtered through your experience as a real life male. But if a woman were to play that role, the experience would be different. Skyrim Mom is perfect example of this.

Here's a point to think on: some men create female characters in choose-your-gender type games (Skryim is mentioned above, but I'll at World of Warcraft to the mix) because they want to objectify their own character. I've heard several men tell me that they choose to portray themselves as women online so that they get extra help (i.e. free loot or gold) from other real-life males that also want to objectify women. This goes to support the idea that choosing your own gender in a game is not a representation of that gender directly.

I'm posting these, because they are a fair rebuttal and opposing analysis of Anita Sarkeesian and her bodies of work.

Part 1 - http://youtu.be/p6gLmcS3-NI
Part 2 - http://youtu.be/LpFk5F-S_hI

Many valid points.

@Travis : citations for women actively working in and influencing the gaming industry:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/the-top-100-uk-women-in-video-games/0112138
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112763014/video-game-industry-breaking-into-the-boys-club-011413/
http://www.giantbomb.com/kim-swift/3040-90039/
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/07/business/la-fi-himi7-2010feb07 (especially her comments near the end of the article)

Are there male idiots and assholes in the industry that patronize and/or harass women? Obviously, and I think that presence will continue to dwindle. That doesn't mean that the industry as a whole is anti-women. Far from.

@Gary_Butterfield: "If video games are to be taken seriously as a medium, as an art, they have represent people as a whole, not just a portion."

I think I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree with this statement. I believe you are confusing production and art. Art is typically made by the artist as an expression of the artist. The minute art tries to be all-encompassing and tries instead to please people, that's when the artist is labelled a "sell-out" and the art ceases to become art and rather becomes a product. Now, having said that, some games can be art (works of creative expression), and some games can be products (items manufactured for the purpose of profit). A product can be aesthetically pleasant to look at, but that doesn't make it art. Video games don't need women in order to be sustainable as an art form. They don't even need women to be sustainable as a business. These points muddy the more important point, which is: We need each other, and inasmuch, we need to learn to coexist. However, it's also true that we don't always need each other.

@Travis, just because people are getting killed in this country, doesn't mean that the country condones murder. I never said there wasn't hostility toward women in some corners of the games industry. I just don't think it's as pervasive as you think it is. Context is everything. Likewise, the issue of sexism in gaming requires context. I see very few instances of the games industry being anti-women. In fact, the examples I gave prove that point precisely. How does that "not really mean anything" in your eyes?

Are you saying that there is evidence showing that most women in the games industry are discriminated against?

As I stated earlier with your analogy to murder, a reversal of accusations, stating that 5 African Americans were discriminated against in the past 5 years, does nothing to indicate that racism is a growing concern. You call my evidence anecdotal and faulty, yet praise Sarkeesian as being "mostly spot on" for providing mostly nothing more than her opinions, nonetheless, as a critic. The evidence that I provided, however, points to many successful women in the games industry. Not 5, 15 or 30, but over a hundred (I could find more, if you like. What would it take to satisfy you?), and no indication that number will do anything other than grow in the coming years. Showing that many women can, and do, succeed in the games industry gives credence to the argument that the games industry is not anti-women. Isn't it possible that the industry can be a realm of equal opportunity, and still have some issues with sexism at the same time? And, if those lingering issues are in fact shrinking (statistics seem to indicate they are. In the industry, women comprise 10% of the workforce, as consumers they are up to 40%), what good does it do to continually point the finger at the past, when the present and future are so much more promising?

"...how many women are *not* in the industry because of sexism?"

From what position? Women who left the industry because of sexism, or women who never entered the industry for fear of discrimination? I don't think the latter could be objectively quantified.

I liked Adam Sessler's response to the #1ReasonWhy:

http://youtu.be/Umj2dnACo64

@jdodson, I appreciate the simplicity of your perspective. It's refreshing.

With Anita, what it boils down to is "What is she really about?" She implies one thing, then says another. I personally feel like she contradicts herself, and her intention seems less than altruistic. She is getting a lot of media attention now, and more people will listen to her because of it. Some will look at it the way you have, as a simple message of awareness, and go about their day, because those people, like you and many others on this forum, have a good heart. Others will stir the pot, throwing around misleading, uninformed questions like "Worldwide, 3 billion hours a week are spent playing video games; do we really want misogynists in control of the message?" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2012/11/29/1reasonwhy-you-should-be-worried-about-gender-equality-in-the-game-industry/ )

Then you have people like me, who are a little jaded and more skeptical - who have been burned too often by people claiming to have good intentions, but in the end lied or manipulated to maintain control - these people pick up on subtle inconsistencies, and their ears perk up, and start to ask questions like "What do you really mean?" or "How does your position on X line up with your position on Y?" Because it's in the congruity of the meaning, and the resulting fruit of that position, that can win or lose the skeptics respect. Yes, I'm talking about integrity, something I am as guilty of betraying as I am a victim of betrayal. I don't expect people to be perfect, but I like to know what they are really trying to say when they speak, especially when speaking from a soapbox. It's really easy to create "truth" out of thin air, and it doesn't take much for people to believe that truth.

I'm not trying to "win" anything, just trying to define what you asked me to define, but, whatever. You say my argument is invalid because I'm cherry-picking facts, but you agree with Sarkeesian, who also cherry-picked facts. I'm hearing you say that I can't argue that the games industry, for the most part, is accepting of women, but Sarkeesian can argue that the games industry is predominantly misogynistic.

@Gary_Butterfield, in response to what biases against men might look like, and why I fear them, I have this link and a quick comment:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4132752/thug-mentality-how-two-dick-jokes-exploded-into-ddos-and-death-threats

With great power comes great responsibility.

It's easy for me to see certain "victims" abusing the power that comes with trying to balance the playing field. It's the proverbial noobtube attack. In such situations, a woman can make a claim against a man, and the man takes a backseat to the accusations, regardless of context. In such situations, the man is guilty until proven innocent. By the the time the smoke clears, it's often too late.

@Gary_Butterfield: I live in world where men can find themselves tip-toeing around women, because they don't want to accidentally say the wrong thing and lose their job, or possibly even go to jail for it. I live in a world where a woman can claim domestic violence, get a restraining order against a man without that man's knowledge, and that man be arrested for crossing some line he didn't even know existed. A world where standards in a work environment are deliberately lowered, to allow women to qualify to do the same jobs that men are doing, for the sake of "equality." These things scare me, not because I personally have anything to fear, but because, on the face of it, our society is more concerned with the needs of "me" rather than the needs of "you." I'm pretty sure it's the same world you live in, you just might not be aware of what's going on. And, yes, you very much can get someone fired, maybe not directly, but you can set the wheels in motion. Cause and effect. Words are very powerful things.

There is no real black and white about sexism. It's often a matter of context. The point of no return could be anywhere, depending on whose company you find yourself in. What that person should have done was turned around, spoken to those two men directly, and expressed her issue with them, rather than snap a photo and post a twitter feed about it, and then proudly proclaim that her actions helped to save the future of programming. I wonder if you read this link as well, and what you thought of these responses:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681

Those men should have been confronted, but not demonized and publicly humiliated in a digital ambush. There is a better way. A more excellent way, if you will.

Really good episode. I can't wait for the next season. :D

That cliff is racking up the kills haha.

A light shineth down from the heavens.

This is one series that eluded me through the years. I love that feeling, though, when you think you've lost something, then you hear it will be returned to you soon. A moment of completion that seems to happen often for gamers. For instance, yesterday, a friend told me that Nintendo was remaking The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker in HD for the Wii U!

One way to get EA to fix the servers would be to hang money in front of them. Considering that is the only thing they care about.

Maybe EA will think twice before screwing people next time. God they make me mad. They ruin all my favorite games.

Maybe buying simcity causes a magical increase in social life. MAYBE, this was EA`s plan the entire time. Instead of creating a fictional city, by not being able to play the game, we will all do better in our actual society, causing our cities to grow. :P

In the long run, I doubt they'll lose much. Anyone that has the game now, or wants it, will get back on it as soon as it's available and fixed. Maybe in the past, or even in a different market, a poor release would kill a product, but games seem to weather this storm better than most. Some refunds will go out, and people will call for EA's balls on a platter (as they should), but I think in a few weeks it will all be a distant memory. I mean, if Sony can survive a massive security breech and still keep it's user base, a bad launch won't kill SimCity. Sounds like from Signal's review of what he got to play, the game is actually worth it.

Well, that sucks :( Sorry to hear that it's that bug laden.

Good times, and pretty hilarious kills! Can't wait to do this again :)