Two pages ago, you've tried to measure Sarkeesian's work in the confines of a scientific study in natural sciences. That's what you're doing again here, and it can not work. Not that there is nothing scientific in there, but you missed the faculty.

It's a detail critique to exemplify one person's interpretation of a larger body of a work of art. I'm very familiar with this kind of method, because that's exactly what you do 24/7 in university when you're getting a degree in literature. It really must be understood as the necessary approach here.

As to the example games Sarkeesian picks, there's absolutely no denying that they are culturally VERY central to the so called 'core gamer' group (the reaction would not be quite as easily explained in any other case ;) ). In comparison, what use would it be to assess tens of thousands of entries on Mobygames, many of which are either completely unknown to the general public, devoid of storytelling (hence devoid of misogyny or "ideology"), or literally scorned by core gamers anyway ('mobile and facebook crap')? Seriously, not a damn thing.

Everyone is free to criticize the structural coherence and inherent logic of the interpretation as delivered by Sarkeesian. I'm hardly always completely content with the argumentation. However, I doubt that much sensible critique can be attributed to her choice of examples. She's taking from the core, from the traditional legendary, from the high profile contemporary. The relevance of those example games could hardly be any greater.

The cultural impact of any work of art can never, never ever be sensibly quantified in absolute numbers (especially not sales numbers). But I do hope we agree that Sarkeesian seldom picks games without significant cultural impact.

As to the business side of things, Sarkeesian is much in the same professional role as a video game journalist. I've no problem with either job.

Also known as cherry-picking...

...by people who do not understand the approach, or do not wish to understand the approach, sadly yes, very often.

But OK, let's go with the cherry picking for four seconds.

So in your understanding of the situation described in my above post, all of the video games Sarkeesian picked are in fact blatantly obvious misogynist crap?

Because I don't think so, and neither does Sarkeesian.

this isn't uni this the real world get with it or gtfo

My understanding is that the games used as an example seem to have select isolated scenes taken out of context then used as an example of so-called "misogyny". An honest acedemic critique wouldn't use such hyperbole as:

"The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon,because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters."

If that is what is called academic critique these days, our education system is in dire straits...

For crying out loud, are you blind or just trolling? It's right on her page, in bold text:
http://www.feministfrequency.com/contact/
The Kickstarter was just to get a foot in the door, and now that it has served its purpose there is no need to finish it either. That should be telling about how important of an "issue" this is to her.

Don't misuse the term "misogyny", it has a very specific feeling. How do video games harm anyone? I still need to hear an argument that explains why certain video games are "problematic". Is the chainmail bikini stupid? Of course it is, but so what? If the worst you can say about a video game is that that it's stupid, then you don't really have much of a point, do you?

If you think there should be more games like Gone Gay, then go ahead, make it, and if you were right there will be a huge market demand for your progressive new enlightenment. And if there isn't, then tough luck. That's the entire point of the free market, the customers decide what is right and what is wrong.

After all, it chainmail bikinis are soooo oppressive, how come women like to dress up that way? Just google-image sexy cosplay or something and see for yourself (remember to keep your whip at hand so you can flagellate yourself for looking at the pictures). Who are you to decide what is appropriate?

True, although considering that provocation is the basis of her entire fame it would be naive to believe that her choices are based solely on cultural significance. And she is still manipulating the data via the selection of the games she covers. Of course it would not make sense for her to analyze games which she has nothing to say about, however, she still creates a deformed image of reality by not even acknowledging the existence of equally significant games which do not show any traces of the stuff she accuses the entire mainstream game industry of. What's worse, however, is that she focuses on very specific kinds of games. Simple ones where she can't possibly go wrong with her analysis (and still does). In her videos she omits games which are more complex than simple action games, she omits games which do not use the simplest forms of story telling, she omits games which have a complex plot which requires deeper analysis and interpretation. She even omits games which are very relevant to feminism but where it's "risky" to cover them because she might accidentally praise something that should have been deemed sexist or criticize an icon of feminism in gaming. Then there is the thing that she does not group games, does not draw any lines based on their age, their country of origin etc..

So yeah, a whole lot can be criticized about her selection of games. Enough to accuse her of data manipulation.

It isn't the real world, it's video games.

What's happening here is narrative media critique. A often purely academic endeavour.

Understand that or continue making that impression.

Strong words by Sarkeesian, but an absolutely valid interpretation of the mechanics and narrative as presented by the video game. And certainly this is her "honest" opinion. Anything else really wouldn't be of any use. I don't quite understand what the point is here - do you think that Sarkeesian doesn't really think this to be the case?

Frankly in this particular case, my interpretation is much the same. I don't see much hyperbole. You're dragging sexualised female corpses around, and yes of course that's meant to administer some kind of extra sexual jolt to a male target group, ta-dah. Cut out out the value judgement of Sarkeesian's words ("a perverse"), and Hoff Sommers would probably agree to the fullest, raising the "boys will be boys" fallacy in return, which HiPhish was bringing up just now.

As Jim Sterling put it, you can't vote with your wallet if you have no choice to make.

Misogynist tropes in abundance are something that accompany games suitable for every target group. Games that, in principle, I'd want to play. That's more or less a central point in Sarkeesian's videos. If I'd like less of that shit in the games I like, I can do pretty much nothing besides point out unwanted details in a youtube video, in the faint hope some game designer might take notice.

And here's the other problem. Fine, so you can't expect Anita to go through 10,000+ games...
But, with her "Damsel in Distress" trope it would be nice if she discussed exactly how many games she viewed. How many used that particular trope. In how many were similar but different tropes (such as men in distress). She has no statistics at all. How can you call it overused without numbers? Saying you have 30 examples when there are 10's of thousands of games is meaningless.

It's the same flaw as when you have 1 billion plus Muslims in the world and a small handful commit heinous acts, then claiming how it proves there is a rampant problem with Islam.

I don't know... my partner and I have been living together for many years now, and we have always played games together. But in the last couple of years she have become more and more annoyed with some of the portrayals of women, and the bit one sided take of things. Not all games are like this, granted, but the majority is. She has become a bit feed up lately, and for the last couple of years she have played mostly casual games. Not because she can not play other games, but they do not annoy her to that extent. I feel a bit sad about it, as for several games I know feel I have lost my best gaming partner. But it is how she feels about these things, and I do not think it is any others place to dictate how she should be feeling. Anyway, that's all I got to say about this issue.

A whole fucking lot.

http://tropesversuswomen.tumblr.com

Eventually, the decision whether a certain trope is "overused" is always a subjective one. That, too, is the nature of media critique.

Anita Sarkeesian says that the Damsel in Distress trope is way overused in video games. With my 25 years of video game experience, I say she's pretty darn right. But of course both opinions are subjective.

First, it not valid because every body in the game can be dragged around, male or female. She chooses to ignore mentioning that. Clearly deceptive. And this occurs in one of 17 missions...

So you don't see hyperbole in the claim that the designers specifically expected players to do this. That the game was designed with this goal in mind? You are nuts. You can't discuss anything with a fruit loop.

As I said cherry-picking. Bad science. Deceptive omissions. Basically utter bull crap, but of course you agree. But when real academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers use real statistics with real numbers, you can dismiss it with a wave of the hand. Who the hell are you to call her work a "fallacy"? What are your credentials? Heck, what are Anita's?

No, sorry, I'm not discussing on such purposefully low knowledge of the issues. You KNOW what the problem is here. Don't bring up repetitve argumentative structures if you're well aware of the counter arguments already.

THAT is deceptive.

The truth is deceptive. That's rich...

You always have the choice to not consume and it enough people share your opinion you will be validated. I do not like Steam, I refuse Steam and instead buy from GOG. Simple as that. Will it destroy Steam? No, but it will not help in making it even bigger. Thanks to people like me alternatives like GOG can exist and AAA indie developers like Larian do realise the market value and they sell their games here as well. To achieve this I did not need money thrown at me, it just needed a strong enough will to keep voting with my wallet.

That's an entirely different issue, it's an economic one. I fully agree that video games have become too focused on the typical "hardcore gamer", but that's an issue of business decisions. There are very few games for children, girls, women, grown-ups or elderly people, except for the lowest quality shovelware on mobile phones.

Nintendo tried to serve the market and they had fantastic success until they got arrogant and dropped the ball. But the thing with Nintendo is that there was no message, no political activism. They just made a proposition to the market and the market responded. Nintendo never tried to get any other games pushed from the market, they simply did their thing. On for that they got shit on by the same outlets who are now insulting us.

As I said, if you want to make walking simulators and I-learned-everying-about-depression-from-Wikipedia Quest go ahead, do your thing, but mind your own business. Let the market decide. I think that's something everyone should be able to agree with, right?

Tell us. Don't weasle around the issue, stand up and be upfront about it. What is the problem and why is it bad? Have some guts. All you keep doing is dodging questions and giving political answers.