I don't think you quite know what feminism is about though. Those loud people who get most of the media attention, who talk about women taking over and men becoming the new "lower class", who want to enforce sterilization of men, create laws that force lower salaries for men and so on and so forth are a very small minority, but as those are the ones who make the most noise and who make good cover stories, those are the ones we see. Most feminists strive for equality, not female dominance.

in the age of Upworthy and Gawker clickthrough linkbait, making a shitstorm in the gender wars is the only viable business model. I don't think they necessarily believe all the bullshit they spew, but it sure pays them to write it.

TOPICAL!

I may repeat myself, but I wanted to elaborate.

I think gaming industry simply needs more women. I don't care about pixels and polygons, I care about people. From what I know, women have a hard time getting into bigger video game companies.

Ok, I get it, most programmers and coders are men, at least in Poland (you can see that from how many female students attend IT universities).

But there are plenty of talented graphics designers, concept artists, writers et cetera. Industry could only benefit from allowing more women to join their ranks.

And then we'd get a fairer representation of women in gaming. You can't really blame men for misportraying women in games made by men for men under men's authority.

If in AAA companies someone thought it would be better if female character were written by women and supervised by women, maybe then we would get better and richer femaler character. Like in Mirror's Edge or Bioshock Infinite.

I only managed to get through the third paragraph of the Deeponia 3 review before I decided that the author of the review (and judging by the story linked by the OP) probably entire team behind the site are basically a bunch of snivelling morons that want to impose their values and beliefs on me.

No thanks. I won't be wasting my internet bandwidth on that site again.

I fully agree with you here, but if the general perception is that gamers are males who are not interested in rich female characters and prefer boobs all around, then I guess it will be quite hard for women in AAA companies to get support for different ideas. So I think there's no harm in addressing the fact that this perception might not be true anymore and that it could pay off (even for male developers and publishers) not to ignore the various target groups. It's also a bit of a vicious circle because as long as there are hardly any games who cater to different audiences, these audiences might continue to think that gaming is a hobby for male teens only and therfore show little interest in the medium, resulting in more games for male teens etc. It's getting better these days, but it's still a long way to go.

I also agree with part of what Brasas said though. Not the part about journalists being more confrontational in entertainment than in politics (because yes, I would expect such questions directed especially at authorities and politicians too), but regarding this specific interview, I think the interviewer did push his personal agenda too aggressively. The article makes none of both parties look too good, and I think it's ok to point that out, no matter where you stand. Personally I don't read RPS and I don't know anything about the authors and I'm less concerned with defending journalists who ask these questions than with addressing the issue how people keep overreacting to any kind of discussion of this topic in general which I think is a worthy and interesting one and not the end of videogaming as we know it.

Powerful women... like in video games :D?

I don't mind the discussion, I don't mind "powerful" women, I don't mind "sexy" women, lack of women, abundance of women, large chests, small chests, princesses to save, or kicking ass in high heels. I do, however, think that RPS people are NOT the ones who should be asking these questions (because they are narrow-minded morons). I also don't think Browder should be the one answering them (he's not qualified, but unlike the RPS guys - he probably knows that). These questions shouldn't pop out out of the blue, forcing pre-established responses - matters should be given appropriate time, place, and RESPECT. Don't believe me? Imagine RPS guys discussing quantum physics.

What happened to games just being that? Games! Don't impose these social issues onto them. I like my entertainment because it doesn't/shouldn't need to be distracted by such. There's enough of that shit in real life. Yes, there are some games that actually are about such issues, so fine: criticize away! Just don't force it onto every piece in the digital medium.

As others have already said, if you don't like it don't play it. They can keep their damn crusades to themselves. Pfft. Game 'journalists'. Bunch of whiny bloggers is more like it. How about they tackle some real issues rather than what's happening in the virtual realm?

P.S. Yeah, that RPS Deponia 3 review was absolutely dreadful. Good thing I typically only check their site for gaming news, and not their ass-backwards way of trying to cram their views down my throat.

Why are you giving them hits? It's obvious they're just on the bandwagon pretending to understand feminism, or indeed journalism.

I have'nt read all that people have posted here or the whole article etc and I am not pointing fingers but it seems that it is only men that are posting and getting carried away every time someone, anyone talks about the female roles in anything.
I understand why people get frustrated when the world is as it is and try to, even with limited success and skill, change the way that some things are.
I am a white male, who am I to tell what is right or wrong when I can't understand how it is to be anything else?

Except, it's probably not serious journalism. It's probably a writer aping the "ermergerd sercial jerstirce" movement in order to generate some controversy and clicks by ambushing Browder. I wouldn't call that journalism, I'd call it thinly veiled sensationalism, poorly cloaked in a hot button issue so people won't dare to criticize it.
...Postal 2 had a character named Krotchy, that was a giant penis. That game had a large cult following and people still like and play that game. Your point is invalid. :P

I think drawing a black and white line to that debased conclusion is wrong, because it dismisses the fact that a character can be both sexy AND strong at the same time. Drawing that particular line is just as much as a copout, imo.

Pretty much.

No matter how much I agree with them from day to day the simple fact is I don't want to be preached at every damn time I look at video game news.

(Sorry for the wall of text, but since I was asked directly ... ;) )

I'm not sure I understood the question (so please bear with me if I'm missing the point ;) ), but I'll try to answer regardless. ;)

I'm generally not fond of evasive answers, regardless of the speaker's profession. I do believe that when it's your job to talk about a given topic, and you're doing your job well, then there shouldn't be a need of evasive answers. Giving an evasive answer always means that you failed giving a meaningful reply. Regarding politicians, I do hold them to the same standards as game producers, or (for that matter) myself. I find it easier to respect a politician who clearly explains his beliefs and goals, even if I disagree with them, than to respect one whose main concern is to evade direct questions.

Could you provide an example? It is difficult for me to envision an "affirmation that I'm not willing to give". As an example: I have a physical condition that might make it harder for me to get a job, but that would be easy to conceal during an application. The general recommendation is to not mention it and block respective questions with "This is none of your concern" or "These questions have no place in an application talk." I always mention it because it's a part of me, and I want to be honest with the people around me. I rather give a potentially disadvantageous answer than a false or evasive one.

I find the question fair, but the answer comes across (to me) as marketspeak. It does not address the issue, instead it tries to deflect any possible criticism with the all-purpose "We are not sending a message" argument, which (imho) is just rubbish. Of course they are sending a message, they can't help it. I completely believe them that they don't have a particular _agenda_ when designing their characters, but they can't help sending many messages with the choices that they make. Browder then tries to sugarcoat this insufficient/evasive answer by (seemingly) partly agreeing, and by labeling the criticism "fair".

Personally, I would simply have asked what parts in particular the interviewer found problematic, then address those. That's basically rule one in interviews - if a critical interviewer makes a vague statement, ask for the details. If one asks "It has been said that ...", ask for the source. If one says "I think there's something wrong with ...", ask what exactly. But Browder doesn't even seem interested in what exactly the perceived problem is, his main interest is to politely evade the question while retaining the (so far) cordial atmosphere.

Since the first answer was (imho) clearly insufficient, the interviewer opts for a follow-up. It's not the one I would have chosen, but it's a valid question. Basically, at this point, the interviewer had asked "How will you address sexism", Browder had answered "We're basing our work on comic art and don't send a message", so now the interviewer is questioning whether basing the game's imagery on a medium that may have issues with sexism as well, is really a good way to address sexism. Fair question.

The answer is ... somewhere between evasive, crude, and helpless. Browder again wasted his chance to ask for the details, he's still not interested in them. He seems surprised by the fact that his first answer wasn't sufficient. He had several viable strategies at that point (asking for details, asking for the relevance of the question, explaining that comics aren't sexist per se, pointing out that women might like playing these characters as well, etc.), but he just states that "no one should look at his game this way". That's a very poor answer. He can't control how people look at his game, and if they see a matter of concern there, then he should at least address it.

I agree that there are poor aspects about this question, but at the core, I believe, it was meant to illustrate why Browder's "We aren't sending a message" is not a sufficient answer. The interviewer tries to explain that even if the devs aren't consciously sending out a message of "Women need to be sexed up", a part of the audience might still feel excluded if they can only choose characters they feel uncomfortable with. But it's not presented in any way that would allow Browder to address it. Browder's answer sounds like "Whatever. Bye.", which would be another blunder, but I'm reluctant to criticize him for that since a) he was probably indeed pressed for time, the first indication for that happened when the tone was still cordial, and b) the question would have been difficult to work with even with more time.

It seems we're seeing things differently. ;)

I think I answered your questions in the stuff I wrote above, but feel free to ask for clarification. ;)