Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Why do women play Baldur's Gate?

11416181920

Comments

  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,419
    edited October 2015
    @Squire Whether they're a minority or not, is irrelevant. They enjoy it for the same reasons we do, if not, for similar ones.
    Anything else are assumptions.

    Like I said in my analogy, men typically are in the minority of book readers.
    That's irrelevant. We read books for the same reasons women do.

    the_spyder
  • NonnahswriterNonnahswriter Member Posts: 2,520
    Archaos said:

    Almateria said:

    DO NOT post about gamergate.

    Why the hell not? Unless it's specifically against the rules.
    Because discussions concerning gamergate tend to go...poorly, at best. >_>;;

    (Then again, I have been waiting for this thread to close for a while...)

    the_spyderBelgarathMTHJuliusBorisov
  • AlmateriaAlmateria Member Posts: 257
    Squire said:


    What you are describing here is a non-statistically significant sample size along with confirmation bias. Basically, you are finding the results that you are expecting to find.

    Except I could actually give you a head count. I could list every member of the NWN2 server along with their gender (I won't though - I don't think people will be too happy if I start throwing their names about with wild abandon). I could even show you a list of members on the Facebook page of my local gaming group (again, I won't). Each time, you would see that the majority is male.

    Sorry if I'm being argumentative but I really don't think this 50% figure is true. I would expect such a statistic to be reflected across the board, but if a forum like this, full of relatively mature people who don't ostracise, threaten, abuse, or otherwise make life difficult for, female gamers, can only boast a female population of 17%...well, I may be no mathematician but 83/17 looks a considerably long way from 50/50 to me. ;)

    Again, I should point out that I have nothing whatsoever against female gamers. This isn't supposed to tell anybody that they can't, or shouldn't, play games...I'm merely stating my observations. I would love there to be more girls in the gaming community, but I simply don't see that being the case.
    This might be shocking, but an obscure internet forum about an ancient male power fantasy game is NOT a statistical average!! !!!!! !

    the_spyderNonnahswriterBelgarathMTH
  • ElrandirElrandir Member Posts: 1,584
    I feel like when talking about statistics on gamer's genders, you have to draw very clear lines on what you are qualifying as "gaming". For instance, everyone (except for myself because I despise it) plays Angry Birds. Now, do I consider someone who plays Angry Birds as a "gamer". No. Now can a "gamer" play Angry Birds? Of course. My definition of a gamer does not exclude Angry Birds, but that game alone does not qualify one for the title of "gamer". Now because "gamer" is such an all-inclusive term with literally endless possibilities for personal definition, it's challenging to provide accurate statistics on what gender has more gamers. To best show evidence of either argument, one needs to clearly define their definition, or, more effectively, shrink the statistic gathering to things like genre. Trying to figure out what percentage of males/females play RPGs as opposed to being a "gamer" would provide much more definitive statistics, but even then, you can't ask everyone in existence, thereby providing a large margin for error.

    BelgarathMTHJuliusBorisov
  • TheElfTheElf Member Posts: 798

    Because discussions concerning gamergate tend to go...poorly, at best. >_>;;

    Even saying that word can only end in tears, from what little I've seen about it on the internet. Or 'weird, confusing things I don't understand and don't really want to' if I'm being literal, but that's less catchy.

    NonnahswriterBelgarathMTH
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,017
    I agree that a definition of sorts is probably a good idea, but I think labeling by genre is probably not the greatest way to go about it. I would think that the actual ratio based on gender probably fluctuates quite heavily across different genres. Which isn't to say that there is a "Right" type of game for a given gender (or a wrong one for that matter), merely that different types of games may appeal to different demographics.

    I do think that we can agree that 'Time wasters' like Angry Birds and Bejewelled probably are not what would define 'A gamer'. Not that gamers can't play games like that (I play Bejewelled more than I care to admit), but that I would think that in order to meet the criteria of a 'Gamer' would take a bit more than simply one or two time wasters. On the other hand, someone that does just play time wasters, but habitually does to the tune of 4-6 hours a day on average over the course of years, I would have no problem calling them a gamer.

    In short, it is tough to label or compartmentalize things.

    One thing that I did find in my research was that "of the women surveyed", the average length of gaming was more than 8 years. Angry birds and Candy Crush have not been around for that long and in fact the phenomenon of 'time waster' games on portable devices wasn't even a real big thing 8 years ago. So if the mean length is 8 years, that means that at least 50% played other types of games in addition to time wasters.

    BelgarathMTH
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,399
    @Dee , can you confirm or dispel that "fact" that this board has an 83/17 male/female ratio? Also, what about users who either refuse to give their gender, and after those, females who might deliberately pose as males due to perceived social bias?

    I smell "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

    The reason we don't want to talk about Gamergate is that it tends to generate such vitriol that posts about it violate forum rules, and threads about it get shut down.

    This topic is flirting with drawing some forum-rule violating posts that might get it shut down just like the original Gamergate thread.

    NimranBillyYankNonnahswriterJuliusBorisov
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806

    @Squire - I respect that you have your opinion. I have mine. I see no reason to continue to convince anyone of anything here.

    I would like to point out that what percent of gamers are women(what we seem to be arguing about) is not an opinion. It's a fact. It's a fact we don't know, but given a clear definition of "gamer" and a clear definition of "woman" it's something that can be objectively disproven or proven.
    I'd also like to clarify that that IS Indeed what we're arguing about. That @the_spyder thinks that the 52/48 stat is true(do you?) and that I do not think its representative of what people generally think of as the "gaming" community.(I do) I don't think that the 48/52 stat is technically false, given their definition of "gamer", but I think we need a better definition of gamer to really get the idea across. So who's a "gamer?" One easy definition is "do you consider yourself a "gamer?" Yes or no.

    Archaos said:

    Almateria said:

    DO NOT post about gamergate.

    Why the hell not? Unless it's specifically against the rules.
    Because discussions concerning gamergate tend to go...poorly, at best. >_>;;

    (Then again, I have been waiting for this thread to close for a while...)
    This isn't directed solely at you nonnah, (or anyone else really) but I'd rather not have the thread closed simply because we're discussing a touchy issue. If we don't ever talk about touchy issues like this then best case scenario they stay touchy, inflammatory messes. I don't think anyone is breaking any rules here (please no one do) and discussion is how we resolve issues like this. If we treat gamergate like "that which cannot be named" then it can only stay that way, but if we can talk about it respectfully then we and the controversy on the whole is all the better for it.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,017
    edited October 2015
    meagloth said:


    I would like to point out that what percent of gamers are women(what we seem to be arguing about) is not an opinion.

    You are 100% correct. However, what constitutes an unbiased statistically sound representative pool of random sample participants apparently IS in contention here. As I stated, i have no interest in nor reason to pursue convincing someone that my method is any better (or worse) than anyone else. So I rest my argument there.

    BelgarathMTHOlvynChuru
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Differences_between_the_genders
    This has some good stats, which seem to support about a 30/70 split, depending. It looks like most of the data leans towards 50/50 but again... Definitions.

    meagloth said:


    However, for lack of a better data a present you this anecdote: ALL of my male friends are card-carrying console owning "hardcore" gamers. NONE of my female friends are. Most of the males I know, period, play videogames. I can think of two girls I know that I would call "gamers". I know that that is not a data set, but in kinda justifies my stated view.

    What you are describing here is a non-statistically significant sample size along with confirmation bias. Basically, you are finding the results that you are expecting to find. And that isn't all that unusual. I suspect that a LOT of people do exactly the same thing and that is why the general public belief is what it is.

    If you are ever really interested, go attend (or merely hang out outside) Comic Con or Gen Con or whatever Geek/nerd Convention that happens to go on in your area and you might see something completely different.

    In any case, it's all good.
    Yes, hence the "for lack of a better data a present you this anecdote:"
    And your experience at gen con is no more or less anecdotal than my friends.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,017
    And since we can't see eye to eye, I see zero reason to continue the debate.

    BelgarathMTH
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    Archaos said:

    @Squire Whether they're a minority or not, is irrelevant. They enjoy it for the same reasons we do, if not, for similar ones.

    I never stated otherwise. In fact I even said the same thing myself earlier in this thread (at least I think I did). :)

  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,419
    edited October 2015
    Dee said:


    (And yeah, there's a lot in Baldur's Gate that is sexist or at least problematic, and not just Anomen's chauvanism or Aerie's weakness, both of which are purposeful and addressed within the game itself. If you're paying attention, it's pretty easy to spot.)

    I'm curious to know a few examples of sexism in BG. Because I cannot remember any off the top of my head.
    Maybe Shar-Teel. She hates men and call them "male scum". That is sexist. Discrimination because of one's gender.
    What is considered "sexist" nowadays is pretty subjective and usually grabbing at straws.
    And sexism works both ways. Women don't get a free pass to be sexist.

    For example, there is a widely known society in the Realms that is dictionary sexist.
    Drow.
    Male drow are considered second-class citizens and disposable.
    They are there to do what the females want and don't get an opinion on it.
    They're not just matriarchal, they're sexist about it. Men are below women and inferior, there. By force.

    And everyone is fine with it. Would people nowadays be still fine if the roles were reversed?
    What if the female drow were considered second-class citizens and were there to do what the males wanted?
    What if there was a male NPC that called women "female scum"?

    We can't give a free pass to one side to be sexist/racist but be offended by the other one.
    Equality needs to work both ways. Otherwise it's not equality.

    Anyway, I'm honestly curious to know specifically what you consider sexist in BG @Dee .

    Post edited by Archaos on
    BelgarathMTHsemiticgod
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,805
    Yeah, I'm pretty sure people would still be fine with it, @Archaos, particularly if they were still portrayed as the Always Chaotic Evil society like the Drow is.

    Setting aside the whole "dominatrix" fantasy that the Drow also plays into, at least. That would probably make the opposite rather sensitive.so fairly obviously plays into.

  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,419
    edited October 2015
    scriver said:

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure people would still be fine with it, @Archaos, particularly if they were still portrayed as the Always Chaotic Evil society like the Drow is.

    Setting aside the whole "dominatrix" fantasy that the Drow also plays into, at least. That would probably make the opposite rather sensitive.so fairly obviously plays into.

    For the former, I kind of doubt it nowadays. People look for excuses to call something "sexist" and "racist" all the time.

    As for the argument of "sensitivity", that is 100% subjective and personal. Everyone is sensitive to something.
    If I am sensitive to spiders, that's my problem. It doesn't give me the right to tell others: "Don't put spiders in Baldur's Gate, it's insensitive to arachnophobes and it triggers me".

    If I'm sensitive to blood and gore, that's my personal problem and responsibility as an adult to avoid media that have them.
    I don't get to tell the developers of Mortal Kombat: "It is extremely insensitive of you to put blood and gore in your game."

  • AlmateriaAlmateria Member Posts: 257
    Can we all at least agree on the fact that anyone who calls themselves a gamer based on which genre they play is a terrible person

    FinneousPJ
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    It contributes in the same way that any conversation you have with a person in real-life contributes to your world view. One conversation with an extremist isn't going to change your point of view--but if you spend your whole life talking to extremists, that's certainly going to have an impact on the way you think about things.

    The same holds true of art. One game filled with violence won't make you a violent person. But playing nothing but violent video games will certainly change your perspective on violence. Sexism and stereotypes are no different; it's the reason why propaganda is effective, and it shouldn't be ignored, whether it's intentional or not.

    Will playing sexist video games your whole life make you sexist? No, certainly not. But it may make you blind to more systemic problems in society's treatment of women, it may make you turn a blind eye when you see a woman being abused or harrassed.

    That's why feminists tend to focus on women's issues (which is, itself, problematic, since a lot of feminist groups also tend to marginalize or ignore the LGBTQ community or racial minorities): no one's worried about society's treatment of men, because historically men have held most of the power.

    There's nothing wrong with egalitarianism. At their cores, the LGBTQ and feminist communities are after the same goals. "Black Lives Matter" is after the same goal, too. They're just focusing on different parts of the conversation--and that kind of focus is just as important as the broad perspective promoted by egalitarianism.

    To put it another way, feminism is a tree in the egalitarian forest. It's a bad idea to ignore or marginalize either one of them.

    BelgarathMTHNonnahswritersemiticgod
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    A last point about Baldur's Gate: You're right, that most of the characters in that game are more or less archetypes, owing to their lack of meaningful dialogue. With limited text, players are left with characters that only exist in their singular dimensions. The few characters I mentioned were examples, not an exhaustive list of every problematic character in the game (although Coran, Shar-Teel, and Safana in particular are by far the most problematic).

    I'll say again, that this doesn't make Baldur's Gate a bad game, or even that players should never recruit Coran into their party (in fact there's some delightful banter that only occurs when you have Coran, Skie, and Garrick all in your party, as insane as it sounds to have three bards in your group). But it's worth paying attention to. A player might see Shar-Teel's man-hating behavior and draw the conclusion that all feminists share the same misandrist beliefs. That colors the player's perspective when talking to anyone about feminist issues, which clutters the discussion about equality. By the same token, a female player might see Coran's womanizing behavior as a sign that all men are pigs, and that also has an effect on their interactions in the real world. A male player might see Garrick's reaction to Coran as a sign that women are delicate flowers that need to be "rescued", which is also problematic.

    If you're paying attention while you're playing, you'll probably draw the conclusion that these characters are not good role models, that they're exaggerations and stereotypes and should be taken with a grain of salt. But a lot of people don't take them with a grain of salt; they take them at face value, and add them to their lexicon of human experience, and that's when it becomes a problem (which is why we call it "problematic"--not because it causes a problem 100% of the time, but because it can be reasonably predicted that it will cause a problem at least some of the time, and maybe next time we'll do better).

    BelgarathMTHNonnahswriter
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,419
    edited October 2015
    @Dee

    Yes, with that I would agree. Safana is one example of one stereotype though. In a roster of NPCs that like I said, are most of them stereotypes.

    It would be harmful if all female NPCs were depicted as man-hating or femme-fatales or weak.
    But including a variety of characters prevents that.
    In other words, one stereotypical character, doesn't override other stereotypical characters or even non-stereotypical characters.

    A character that is a femme fatale, should be as valid as a character that is not a femme fatale.

    What a player might think when seeing a specific character talk, is their personal problem.
    Someone might be stupid and demented enough that when they play GTA, they believe that they should be like that in real life and run over people for fun.
    NPCs and games shouldn't be censored and become politically correct because one player cannot separate fantasy from reality.

    About your second post, I don't like that video game characters should be used as role models.
    It reinforces the idea that all video games are directed to children and they must be used to teach them something.

    A good story doesn't need to teach you something. Characters shouldn't be treated as role models.
    They should act as any other character in a movie or a book.
    Flawed, maybe weak, maybe sexist or racist or maybe powerful, with their own values and morals or world-views.

    About feminism, this is what it should be in theory.
    In modern practice, it has turned into a Tumblr-based, man-hating, self-victimizing group of extremists that more and more have an ideology of "either you're a feminist and agree with us, or you're a misogynist".

    There are more and more women and men that denounce feminism because it has turned into a double-standard hate-group.
    The so called "Third Wave Feminism".

    There are countless feminists that act just the way I described above in countless videos or articles or parades.
    They are not a few here and there in the depths of the internet.
    In response (other videos/articles), many women have noticed that and want nothing to do with what this movement has become.
    Even professors have acknowledged them and responded.

    Feminists saying "You had it better in the past, so your issues are unimportant" is a double-standard.
    Because like I said, that is sexism from the other side. Discrimination against men, because they had it better in the past.

    One example of many on my views.

    Post edited by Archaos on
    the_spyderArtona
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    I would say that the definition of a gamer is one who actively seeks to game as a hobby in and of itself, rather than just a convenient way to pass time while waiting for something else.

    By which I mean, there's a difference between "The bus isn't due for another 20 minutes, so I might as well play some Candy Crush to pass the time!", and "I can't wait to get home and get some Call of Duty in!". ;)

    A casual gamer is one for whom a game is merely a means to an end. A hardcore gamer is one for whom the game IS the end. A hardcore gamer makes time to game, because it is what he/she enjoys.

    That's how I see it anyway.

    meaglothsemiticgod
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,017
    So, just my two cents on the most recent turn of the conversation.

    It is a logical fallacy that the inclusion of one stereotype (non-politically correct) character will inevitably lead to a proliferation of same.

    It is also a logical fallacy that a correlation between increased exposure to violent (or otherwise negative influenced) games invariably leads to promoting those negative behaviors in the player. Correlation does not equal causation. In most cases it is found that people who end up with those types of anti-social behaviors were taught them elsewhere, usually in the family setting and the subject merely identifies well with the type of game as it reinforces already existing beliefs/behaviors.

    It is true that Feminism in it's purist form 'Should be' a 'Tree in the forest of Egalitarianism'. Most forms of Feminism that I encounter presented today are more reactionary and retaliatory in nature and give Feminism a bad name.

    @Squire - try this on for size. I have "Knights of the old republic" on my Ipod. I also have a long train commute and will often times play that while waiting to get down town. Which camp does that put me in?

    BelgarathMTH
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447

    So, just my two cents on the most recent turn of the conversation.

    It is a logical fallacy that the inclusion of one stereotype (non-politically correct) character will inevitably lead to a proliferation of same.

    It is also a logical fallacy that a correlation between increased exposure to violent (or otherwise negative influenced) games invariably leads to promoting those negative behaviors in the player. Correlation does not equal causation. In most cases it is found that people who end up with those types of anti-social behaviors were taught them elsewhere, usually in the family setting and the subject merely identifies well with the type of game as it reinforces already existing beliefs/behaviors.

    I just want to point out that at no point did I say the one inevitably causes the other. I thought I was pretty clear that I was talking about influence, in the same vein as any stimulus you experience in your daily life. But that point clearly got missed, so here it is again...

    As I said--if you play violent video games, you're not inevitably going to go out and kill people. But inevitably, that violence is going to be a part of your experience. It has to be. If it weren't, you wouldn't remember playing those games.

    You remember them, so it's part of you. And because it's part of you, it has an influence on your thoughts, because you don't just remember playing these games, you have opinions about them, you have feelings about what felt good and what felt bad when you were playing them. Is that automatically going to turn you into a sociopath? No, of course not, or we'd all be sociopaths. But to say that it has no effect on you whatsoever is akin to saying that the people around you have no effect on you, that the television you watch has no effect on you, that the books you read and the classes you take have no effect on you.

    When it comes to violence, there's one of any number of outcomes. Maybe it just means you now know a bit more about the velocity of gunfire, or the physics of blood splattter. That can be useful information if it ever comes up, but it doesn't exactly affect your personality. Maybe it means you get an emotional high out of taking headshots, because you like the precision involved. That can also be useful, building your reflexes and manual dexterity, but again it doesn't necessarily affect your personality. Maybe it unlocks a latent desire to kill people that you already had, and now you're more likely to try it out in real life--or maybe you find that it fills the void and you don't need to exert that vioence in the real world. In both cases, it affects you on a visceral level. If it's strong enough, experienced often enough, that can affect your personality and behavior--for better or worse.

    When it comes to gender representation, the same possibilities exist. Except now you're being affected by what the game is deeming "acceptable" behavior. You see a male character exert dominance over a woman in a game and you don't see anyone in the game point out that it's wrong, and that joins the catalogue of experiences you have that combine to determine your own feelings about that sort of behavior, which can (though not necessarily will) affect your behavior in real life.

    Does that mean you can't have a womanizing character in your game? No, of course not. But if you're being careful, if you're being aware, if you're being responsible as a content creator, you should probably know that if your womanizing character doesn't face any sort of consequences for their behavior, that inevitably sends the message to the player that, within the setting you've created, womanizing behavior is acceptable--and, along with the rest of your player's experiences, that can lead some players to believe it's okay to (for example) make cat-calls at women on the street.

    Feminist literary criticism (of which the above paragraphs are an example) aims to point out that the stories we consume, in literature, film, television, and games, is part of our culture, it becomes a part of us, and if we're not paying attention and thinking critically about it, it can lead to negative outcomes for a number of historically marginalized groups. It's not about coddling women; it's about holding our art to a higher standard, and acknowledging that our audience is made up of more than straight white men, and acknowledging that as artists we do have power, and we should be responsible for wielding that power in a positive way.

    BelgarathMTHsemiticgodSon_of_Imoen
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,017
    @Dee - I take your point, but you don't take mine. Yes, playing game makes an impression on us.

    Where we differ is, you are saying that the influence 'Can' change a person. Not so according to modern psychological thinking. Take a bunch of people and show them violent images all day long and the only ones that then go out and act on them are those already pre-disposed to do so, precisely because we DO critically think about them. We process that information every single day and in many ways that people don't give credit for.

    Once our internal value system is set, it is hard in the extreme to change it. 'Can' it happen? Yes. Should we hide away every possible influence like some dirty little secret and just pretend that it doesn't exist? No.

    As for the feminism, again I disagree. If you show a womanizing character, particularly one with no consequences, the worst that will happen is that someone will cry foul and make a big public stink about it. It isn't going to Sway someone to become a womanizer unless they were already pre-disposed to be that way.

    Son_of_Imoen
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    edited October 2015
    One such character won't make much of a difference, you're right. But a thousand such characters across a hundred or more works of fiction creates a cultural trend, and that does create influence in the culture where it exists. Critical analysis exposes those things and forces people to pay attention to it.

    How many politicians use Atlas Shrugged as their personal mantra? There is a lot of power in a piece of art; if there weren't, we wouldn't spend so much energy creating it.

    EDIT: Also, again, I'm not saying we should burn all the sexist video games. I'm saying we should be able to look at them and say "Hey, that's sexist". We can then move on to talk about how much fun they are in spite of that, but if the culture stops pointing out that the thing is sexist, eventually the culture will stop believing it's sexist.

    As I've repeatedly said, the goal is not to censor content creators. The goal is to make sure content creators are aware that these things are problematic. It's then their responsibility to take that into consideration when deciding what to create next.

    BelgarathMTHsemiticgod
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,017
    edited October 2015
    @Dee - where you are seeing causal events, I am seeing potentially correlated events, yes; but no evidence that one CAUSED the other. To use your own example, are those politicians that you reference people who were influenced by Atlas Shrugged? Or were they merely of a mind/value set such that the book reflected/reinforced what they already believed, and further provided a platform that was eloquent enough to be quoted and recognized?

    At the end of the day, I applaud any 'Content provider' that is educated and measured in their craft. I do believe (and I am not saying anyone HERE) that quite a lot of the time such efforts are little more than self censorship. And to me, censorship is akin to someone telling me that they, not me, are the guardians of my values.

    Political correctness may have been a good idea at one time. Now it is a reactionary tool that anyone and everyone uses as excuse for their sound byte and 15 minutes of fame. That I am firmly against.

    Not wanting to show reckless abandon wantonly where values are concerned? That's a good thing. Not wanting to show something because it is ugly and potentially unsavory? That's a bad thing. There's a fine line there and I feel that far too many 'Content providers' err so far into the latter as to be almost worse than the any potential consequences of not censoring.

    To illustrate this point, I think that GTA crosses the line into reckless abandon as far as values are concerned. However, (and this is the line I draw) I would not campaign to have this franchise removed from the shelves, nor support any campaign that did, nor even counsel someone else not to buy/play/like the game. I would merely not play the game myself. And if my children were exposed to it, I would spend time with them to make sure they understood that, where the game play differs from my value system, the game play does not equal real life. They are intelligent kids and can figure it out.

    But we can absolutely agree to disagree. I do not wish to sway anyone's opinion, nor to put mine as superior to anyone else's, merely I wished to join the discussion.

    Dee
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    @the_spyder
    Actually, everything you just described is exactly what I mean when I describe myself as a feminist. it's about educating yourself and others about where that line is, and (more importantly) the difference between a game that uses problematic elements for powerful effect (like in the Witcher 3), and a game that uses them gratuitously (like the first Witcher). And it's about giving people the tools to define where the line is for themselves, so that when they go play a new game, they can make their own decision about whether or not it passes the "Me test", regardless of whether it passes the "Bechdel test".

    the_spyder
This discussion has been closed.