i don't have the link right now (i'll send it later) but there was a research link going deeper on the 50% fem thing. turns out there might be some truth, but it is far to simplistic. the article stated that mass effect with its female protag option still had only 16% female players, whereas professor Layton with its male protag had 50/50

only 20% or so of tf2 players was female, only 10% of league of legends and 4%(!!!!!) of DOTA2 players was female.



and they really done goofed with the dc cover.
Had the cover been the joker picking gordons teeth with a knife or revolver, would there have been an outrage? do these people even have ANY clue how horrible the joker is? the guy who made a poison that makes people literally laugh to death, smashed in robins skull with a crowbar. He is the summum of evil. He doesn't even have any ends, the means are the end to him. But when he is shown being mean to batgirl it goes to far? ZA FUK IS WRONG WITH THOSE PEOPLE.

My partner played Mass Effect, and you could hear her from far away when she was playing ME2, and they stuck Amanda's ass in the camera again - loud groan with a following "god, not again".... she had a female protagonist.

That's what I mean though. Almost everyone plays some sort of video game these days especially if you count solitaire and FB games. Since the population is split just about 50/50 in terms of gender (neglecting "others"), it just goes to reason that men and women will have about the same percent populations when asking about the very generic term "video games".

It would be like asking what percentage of people who enjoy movies are female. Of course the answer is about 50%, but that doesn't mean men and women enjoy the same types of movies either. The issue is when people try to claim that movies enjoyed by more men than women are inherently sexist (else why aren't the populations equal?). Should I have to mention Anita tried the same arguments with movies before she critiqued video games?

You can make up many excuses why popular movies for males are sexist, but if you do, then the reverse has to also be considered, that somehow movies enjoyed by women more than men must somehow inherently be sexist.

Either all movies (and video games) with unequal viewing/playing percentages are inherently sexist; or its just fine for different sub-groups of people to enjoy different movies (or games). Believing the latter sure makes one sleep better at night...

I don't know if you realise this, but you have just highlighted one of the critics many women have about games and gaming industry.

You do realize that if women feel entitled to complain that all games are not to their liking, then to be fair, games enjoyed by more women than men should go under the same scrutiny. So, by that logic, if men want to complain about Gone Home having no game play to speak of and that this should be changed, they should have an equal right to it.

Or better yet, no one complains about the games they don't like and people enjoy the games they do.

In movie terms, don't complain about my action films and I won't complain about your RomComs. Or how about books, if some books are considered sexist because men read them more than women, how about we make it fair and get rid of romance novels.

The problem is some people want to get rid of and change the games they don't like, but I bet they would be bitterly opposed to changes to the games they do like.

Or lets talk about toys. Since mostly boys play with GI Joe, it must be sexist. And since girls mostly have Barbies, it's sexist too. Does it really make sense to get rid of both of them? Or to make GI Joe more feminine or Barbie more masculine? Of course not.

you failed to see the main criticism :)

You put your finger on it on the Barbie and GI Joe dolls, again.

Wait, wait, do you have actual stats to back up your assertion that more girls than boys play (or 'play') Gone Home and it's popularity isn't just down to, say, the beards, roll-neck sweater and Wheat beer crowd?

I think we should start tagging news posts in some way so people who haven't got the time for debates can quickly keep up to date. Something like #news or #newsposts.

I wasn't sure if this has been mentioned but the twitter blockbot creators has had some legal shots fired at it using UK libel law.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/20/bbc-featured-block-bot-runs-into-legal-trouble/

Just to be clear - this appears to be about some atheist drama block bot, not the anti-GG one, although the anti-GG one almost certainly breaks the same laws, pending test case, of course

You are missing the point. The demographics are meaningless. There will always be media preferred by different subsets of people. Is it right for other subsets to call for a game's change or removal just because of demographics? Should every production be sanitized for the enjoyment of all? I guess swearing is out because it offends parents protecting their children. And anything that can be construed as an affront to any race or religion is right out. No Santas in mainstream games due his Christian origins. No religion, no politics. At the end of it all, you get a blank screen.

Or maybe all games need to be equally offensive to all. To even out the demographics some, maybe some boobies need to be added to candy crush

Yeah, I know what you're saying, bit I still think that it's weird that GG keep hinting that 'Arty' games are on their shitlist but they won't just come out and say it...

We could say the same thing about SJWs and feminists with games featuring manly behavior and/or punch-punch pew-pew.

Perhaps we'd all benefit if we spent more time figuring out what we ourselves support rather than constantly attack what the other guy does.

It may break similar laws, but absolutely not the same ones — the issue with the block bot is grounded in UK libel law, the ggautoblocker is entirely within US jurisdiction. Also, note that there is no legal problem with the way those blockers work, but with the way targets are described by the makers of those blockers. In my entirely unprofessional opinion, Randy Harper has been way more careful in that respect. She might still run into problems, though.

What you call "arty" games, the reason they come up is because they are often the overly lauded game reviewed by these so-called journalists. Often they receive glowing perfect reviews based on "daring content" or "innovation" despite significant flaws which go unmentioned. They are the Yin to the Bayonetta/GTA reviews Yang. They receive undue applause just as other games receive undue criticism.

You seem to turn everything into an attack. GG, at least the part of GG I support, is about the Truth. Don't give a glowing review just because it fits your idea of change or because its your friend's game.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/15/4620172/gone-home-review-if-these-walls-could-talk

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-15-gone-home-review

Just compare the two reviews. The first seems like an advertisement. Heck, they even go so far as add a tour the the studio who made the game... Doesn't even try to find fault. Highlights the good and only the good and ignores the rest.

The second seems far more complete covering many more aspects of the game.