[gnarbarian]

Would you demand the same of other art forms? We don't tell artists what to paint. If something is offensive it's deemed 'powerful' for the emotions it's capable of invoking. If we hate it we move on and don't look at that painting. We all have the right to an opinion about art but we are not entitled to forcing our opinions on those who create it.

[anextio]

Other art forms have been subject to feminist and other criticism for a long time.

Only recently has attention been turned to video games, as the genre is so new. The reaction from a minority in the video games community seems to view this criticism as an extraordinary attack, even some kind of corruption or conspiracy if you listen to some people on reddit.

These recent controversies (#GamerGate included) look pretty transparent from people with no stakes in the game. A lot of really violent backlash against an industry that is growing up.

If a book is published, it is allowed for journalists or other writers to say that this book is abhorrent for x, y, and z. It is also allowed for them to criticize and chastise the author for writing such an abhorrent book. This is not the same as censorship.

When a large part of society condemns something for whatever reason, or if a certain segment wishes to use their arguments to try convince enough people that something should be condemned, this is a natural, largely unpredictable, and unrelenting process that happens all the time to reflect shifting social values and morals. It's folly to fight that, and the trick is predicting where it will go. In my opinion, that is how companies and institutions survive.

A few years ago it might have been in (any random abstract) company's best interest to fire a gay employee. Regardless of the views of the decision maker at that company, for the sake of PR, this is the way it goes. These days, that decision goes the other way, particularly on the national scale.

The game studios are subject to these kinds of effects too, and that is what what will hurt the status quo of games in the long run (although there are arguments to be made that the desired status quo is already long gone, I dunno, it's been a while since I was attached to the games industry).

[thirdtruck]

I agree: "we are not entitled to forcing our opinions on those who create it."

However, in the context of extensive advertising and unavoidable public discussion, we are having the opinions of those creators foisted on us.

It's not a matter of "choosing not to play" when the overwhelming prevalence (contrasted with the mere existence) of sexist or racist games shapes how you're perceived by everyone around you. It already an uphill battle to be recognized as an individual without the constant stream of objectifying media.

There's far more money and political power backing those invested in exploiting and perpetuating stereotypes. They can afford to defend themselves.

[gnarbarian]

There is no right to not be offended or to not be exposed to media you disagree with.

I am offended by the likes of Anita Sarkeesian who is plastered all over games media. I believe she is wrong and her critiques are self serving, lacking in depth, and ignore the overall context by simply cherry picking things that seem outrageous to her audience. But her right to speech trumps my desire to not hear it Despite the triggering nature of her articles. To me it sounds like this is about controlling thought and language to silence those you disagree with or perceived threats on your worldview.

If you really can't bear to even hear people talking about a game you disagree with then put on a pair of headphones or grow a thicker skin.

Beyond that, the claims of sexism/racism/misogyny in games is silly when you also include the male tropes (when's the last time you've seen realistic portrayals of male physique in a videogame that wasn't negative). Also If you really believe women aren't thought of as individuals in the western world you are living in a oppression-fantasy.

[chipsy]

There are many creators out there who want to remain completely uncritical. They are happy they made something, and they don't need to be told that they're doing it wrong, because their goals were internal and self-set from the beginning. But the whole premise of the artist even trying to speak to an audience is to decide what is important to say, what is necessary and what is unnecessary - both what the audience will like, and what is good for them to like. And so artists who are aiming not just to say anything, but to say the "best" things possible, eventually gravitate towards a critical lens.

Critique is a discussion that is semi-private: It takes place between the critic and the artist, and not the audience as a whole. Audience members have the final decision in that they can walk away from the resulting discourse, but this doesn't mean that they need to intervene and announce which things should or should not be open for critique. When the audience does intervene directly in criticism, it generally amounts to bullying of either the critic or the artist, or sometimes both; it's not productive.

Where this dialogue becomes messy is when the space of discussion has not been agreed upon: Should this discussion aim for criticism or not? If "no," simply say you're thinking that. But if you're presenting an argument to avoid criticism as a means of shutting down a criticism, you're being a bully.

[dragonwriter]

> Would you demand the same of other art forms?

Other popular, socially influential, commercial media are subject to pretty similar pressures -- particularly media that are consumed heavily by youth; less popular/pervasive/commercial media are subject to criticism on similar grounds, but generally not pressure that something needs to be done to correct the problems in the medium (likely in part because even the groups that see individual works as problematic don't see the less-pervasive medium involved as having a substantial problematic influence on society.)