The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

gizmo

Timmyctc wrote: »

Its hard to get consistent unbiased opinions of her on the net. This brief bit about her on this thread has been probably amongst the most objective I've come across tbh. Most of the girl's opinions I've seen about her have been misinformed or extreme. (Tbh thats the same for all the male opinions on her from 4chan and Reddits circlejerk over hating her)

I've yet to see a proper unbiased review of her work from a femal too. For example recently there was some silly campaign about getting some AAA title to introduce a choice for Female lead character (months into development) and when that obviously didn't happen there was loads of uproar from misinformed fauxministic types assuming that they it was just a matter of implementing a female asset in place of the male character.
It was from these people that I've only seen female opinions on Sarkeesian personally.
The only games my female friends play are generally Pokemon and a few select DS or wii titles. Most wouldn't be that IN to gaming to actually have been acquainted with Sarkeesians work.

Here's one from awhile back.

Timmyctc

gizmo wrote: »

Here's one from awhile back.

<FAKKIN VIDJO INNIT>

Cheers. I'll give this a watcharooney later.

Reekwind

Cormac... wrote: »

Also if anyone is going to consider her an academic...

I'm going to stop you there until you can tell me who has suggested that Sarkeesian is an academic or that Tropes v Women is an academic work. Hint: it's been published on youTube.

Potatoeman wrote:

She doesnt try and convince you of much. She seems to start from a position that she is right and not explain why.

Or, radical thought here, she's not trying to convince you of anything? This is not an argument or attack.

There really seems to be a lack of understanding as to just what cultural criticism actually is. People here have expected a scientific work, a piece of 'balanced' reporting, a broad industry survey, an academic thesis and now a work of rhetoric. It's none of those. Cultural criticism is at its core about exploring a particular medium through a certain lens/framework, particularly regarding the context and values of the art. This can be as informal and as formal as the author likes.

Which is why this thread (or what it's turned into) is slightly strange. People can disagree with her specific points (although I'd expect more than 'she uses big words') but not her employment of a feminist framework to study gaming tropes. Which is where most of the discussion has been - people trying to wrap their heads around analysing games from a particular critical (in this case feminist) perspective.

Frankly, it shows just how immature gaming is in this regard. A large body of such analysis has been building up around pretty much every other artform for decades now. The video that e_e posted earlier nailed it: 'gamers' want games to be treated as serious hobbies or art but get upset when anyone actually subjects their favourite games to the same art analysis.

salamanca22

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm going to stop you there until you can tell me who has suggested that Sarkeesian is an academic or that Tropes v Women is an academic work. Hint: it's been published on youTube.

Or, radical thought here, she's not trying to convince you of anything? This is not an argument or attack.

There really seems to be a lack of understanding as to just what cultural criticism actually is. People here have expected a scientific work, a piece of 'balanced' reporting, a broad industry survey, an academic thesis and now a work of rhetoric. It's none of those. Cultural criticism is at its core about exploring a particular medium through a certain lens/framework, particularly regarding the context and values of the art. This can be as informal and as formal as the author likes.

Which is why this thread (or what it's turned into) is slightly strange. People can disagree with her specific points (although I'd expect more than 'she uses big words') but not her employment of a feminist framework to study gaming tropes. Which is where most of the discussion has been - people trying to wrap their heads around analysing games from a particular critical (in this case feminist) perspective.

Frankly, it shows just how immature gaming is in this regard. A large body of such analysis has been building up around pretty much every other artform for decades now. The video that e_e posted earlier nailed it: 'gamers' want games to be treated as serious hobbies or art but get upset when anyone actually subjects their favourite games to the same art analysis.

:rolleyes: and the author has posted their work to the public and not to mention being funded by the public and is open to as much scrutiny as the games she is posting her opinion on.

Retr0gamer

Cultural criticism and cultural studies are still a science. The conclusions might not be hard fact but the theories and hypotheses still need to be backed up. It's not an excuse for terrible research. To be honest I've seen very little cultural criticism at all in Anita's work. So far she has just pointed out tropes, which has been a big long series of statements of the obvious. Now the last video I looked at in the last 3 minutes she actually did do some cultural criticism based on the effect of objectifying women. I would be very interested in seeing more of that but so far it's been just glossed over.

Generic Dreadhead

Reekwind wrote: »

People can disagree with her specific points (although I'd expect more than 'she uses big words')

Well it's good that I did cite a lot more so in that case :rolleyes:
From examples, counter-arguements, quotes, writing style-employed up to also my own personal issues with her being considered even a cultural critic due to her complete contempt for plagiarism and producing her own work.

Picking out just parts of my counter of her analysis is indicative of exactly what she does. I made about 15 points over 2 posts and you chose to pick one third of one of those points.

I find it strange to admit this but I would have taken the points Anita raised more seriously if Laci Green had made them because at least it would have been a Cultural Commentary from the go, and not masquerading as anything more serious or academic

Evade

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm going to stop you there until you can tell me who has suggested that Sarkeesian is an academic or that Tropes v Women is an academic work. Hint: it's been published on youTube.

I'll retract that point. I misread one of the stretch goals as getting the videos into classrooms when it was actually creating an accompanying classroom curriculum.

mewso

gizmo wrote: »

Here's one from awhile back.

Very good video and sums it up well imo. I think we should be able to move away from the academic stuff here and stop measuring her videos by that standard but it's perfectly fair as in the above video to have serious problems with her conclusions by implication or otherwise. I've already said that it's very easy to point out these tropes and I have no problem with her doing so but it's irresponsible imo to be stating as fact how damaging these tropes are and why they happen without having some kind of research to back it up. This is where Sarkeesian lets her bias interfere with what could have been something much more.

Reekwind

salamanca22 wrote: »

:rolleyes: and the author has posted their work to the public and not to mention being funded by the public and is open to as much scrutiny as the games she is posting her opinion on.

People are always free to comment. The only worthwhile comments are however those that are informed. Criticising this series for something it's not (eg a work of science) or for being something it's supposed to be (eg a feminist work) is just silly.

Retr0gamer wrote:

The conclusions might not be hard fact but the theories and hypotheses still need to be backed up

How have the conclusions not been backed up? Does anyone deny that these tropes exist in gaming? And how is the exploration of these - if only establishing that they exist - not cultural criticism?

Cormac wrote:

Well it's good that I did cite a lot more so in that case

I was talking quality, not quantity. But I be happy to return to your post when you answer the academic question.

Nody

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm going to stop you there until you can tell me who has suggested that Sarkeesian is an academic or that Tropes v Women is an academic work. Hint: it's been published on youTube.

Or, radical thought here, she's not trying to convince you of anything? This is not an argument or attack.

There really seems to be a lack of understanding as to just what cultural criticism actually is. People here have expected a scientific work, a piece of 'balanced' reporting, a broad industry survey, an academic thesis and now a work of rhetoric. It's none of those. Cultural criticism is at its core about exploring a particular medium through a certain lens/framework, particularly regarding the context and values of the art. This can be as informal and as formal as the author likes.

Which is why this thread (or what it's turned into) is slightly strange. People can disagree with her specific points (although I'd expect more than 'she uses big words') but not her employment of a feminist framework to study gaming tropes. Which is where most of the discussion has been - people trying to wrap their heads around analysing games from a particular critical (in this case feminist) perspective.

Frankly, it shows just how immature gaming is in this regard. A large body of such analysis has been building up around pretty much every other artform for decades now. The video that e_e posted earlier nailed it: 'gamers' want games to be treated as serious hobbies or art but get upset when anyone actually subjects their favourite games to the same art analysis.

This goes back to the original question though; what's the point of the series if the only people who're going to agree are the people who're already viewing with that view point? If all you want to do is analyze gaming through the feminist framework and phrase it in a way that only people who already have a feminist framework mindset actually agree with the review what have you achieved to progress the viewset beyond the already convinced people?

This is why the whole analytical side and the approach to the videos are challenged; because they only appear to be for the people who agree with her in the first place. That does not in any way promote further discussion or self review by the gaming industry and simply acts as a glorified high five among the people who're already convinced that they were right all along. If the goal is rather to try to promote discussion or encourage change in the mindset of game makers then clearly that's not an appropriate approach.

What I'd expect, and I'd guess I'm not the only one, is for her to present it from a feminist framework and highlight why this is wrong, why this should change and how this will have an (positive) impact over all. If not then you have to ask what's the point of producing a video series anyone without any knowledge can point out in 15 min of random youtube game videos?

After all her stated goal was:

Help me create another successful video series that will contribute to and help amplify the existing conversations happening about female characters in games and maybe even get the attention of the gaming industry to start creating more interesting, engaging and complex female characters, that avoid the standard boring cliches.

Generic Dreadhead

Reekwind wrote: »

I was talking quality, not quantity. But I be happy to return to your post when you answer the academic question.

I'm gonna go and throw this out there:
If someone considers getting "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" into a Classroom Curriculum, then they consider themselves an expert on an area to such an extend it them you to provide school materials to be studied in an academic institution, and there's very ifs, ands or buts about it. She's aiming for her material to be academically used.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

And bare in mind I came at this subject as a complete blank slate with no agenda. I did my research, read my bits, did some musings and these are my findings on Anita.... I by no means am defining anything I'm writing to be a commentary on Sexism/Femimism overall.

I watched everything she had to offer on the subject (and more) and an equal amount of counter points... IMHO the counter points won through.

e_e

Nody wrote: »

what's the point of the series if the only people who're going to agree are the people who're already viewing with that view point?

I don't think this is the case at all. Just look at how much more this stuff is discussed than it was half a decade ago, as well as this I've read a lot of responses to Anita that are the opposite of "Well this is what I already thought". Even from my own perspective it was not something I considered much prior to the Tropes vs Women series and I've been playing video games for around 20 years now. That and I'm still consistently surprised by the oversaturation of negative tropes in the industry with each new episode that gets released (the newest episode in particular was a shocker to me).

Yes it's a little rudimentary but it's absolutely necessary given the amount of discussion it's provoked and I'd argue that some of the most ridiculous and hateful responses only serve to prove her point that there is a lot wrong with the industry.

Lauren Bacall said of cinema "The industry is ****, it's the medium that's great." and I think it's very applicable to games too.

Potatoeman

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm going to stop you there until you can tell me who has suggested that Sarkeesian is an academic or that Tropes v Women is an academic work. Hint: it's been published on youTube.

Or, radical thought here, she's not trying to convince you of anything? This is not an argument or attack.

There really seems to be a lack of understanding as to just what cultural criticism actually is. People here have expected a scientific work, a piece of 'balanced' reporting, a broad industry survey, an academic thesis and now a work of rhetoric. It's none of those. Cultural criticism is at its core about exploring a particular medium through a certain lens/framework, particularly regarding the context and values of the art. This can be as informal and as formal as the author likes.

Which is why this thread (or what it's turned into) is slightly strange. People can disagree with her specific points (although I'd expect more than 'she uses big words') but not her employment of a feminist framework to study gaming tropes. Which is where most of the discussion has been - people trying to wrap their heads around analysing games from a particular critical (in this case feminist) perspective.

Frankly, it shows just how immature gaming is in this regard. A large body of such analysis has been building up around pretty much every other artform for decades now. The video that e_e posted earlier nailed it: 'gamers' want games to be treated as serious hobbies or art but get upset when anyone actually subjects their favourite games to the same art analysis.

I do think fair play to her for getting people to give so much money for what would usually be a free youtube video.

That said the amount does bias my opinion in that I expected more. As critique of gender in games it needs to fleshout and explain the ideas it is using.

Who is he target audience? Do they know or accept that tropes are bad or a problem in games and why? I think when you make this kind of video you need to explain your reasoning. People need to know what your views are and why.

Reekwind

Nody wrote: »

This goes back to the original question though; what's the point of the series if the only people who're going to agree are the people who're already viewing with that view point? If all you want to do is analyze gaming through the feminist framework and phrase it in a way that only people who already have a feminist framework mindset actually agree with the review what have you achieved to progress the viewset beyond the already convinced people?

But that only seems to be the case in relation to games. In every other medium people are perfectly capable of reading/digesting critiques from other perspectives (eg Marxian, feminist, structuralist, etc) without difficultly. Look at the long and potted history of literary or film criticism, for example. It's only in gaming that people start calling 'bias' and refusing to engage. When Sarkeesian talks of 'conversations', she's referring to contributing a viewpoint to the current discussions on gender and narratives in gaming.

So I don't think it requires that people agree with feminism and its precepts, just that they're willing to listen and acknowledge the merit of her theoretical framework. That doesn't mean that it's the only framework that's correct, of course, but that it's got something to add to the discussion.

If not then you have to ask what's the point of producing a video series anyone without any knowledge can point out in 15 min of random youtube game videos?

I think you're overestimating the maturity of many gamers. Look at the reaction to this whole endeavour, for example. Sometimes merely documenting these tropes, with named examples, has value in itself.

What is a valid question is whether this exercise would have worked better as a shorter series that focused more explicitly on that. But she can hardly be faulted for receiving a hell of a lot more than she asked for. How do you manage scope when you ask for 6k and receive 125k? Which is unfortunate because it, and the publicity its received, have probably generated expectations far in excess of what the project was intended to deliver. So well done to the internet trolls.

(That's also for Potatoeman.)

Cormac wrote:

She's aiming for her material to be academically used.

No, she's saying that her videos have been used in schools. That's completely different from developing an academic proposition.

The example that I used earlier in the thread was the use of Minecraft in education; is Notch now to be held to the standards of academia? For that matter, I remember watching some Roald Dahl films in school as a child; should I have been requesting sources for the BFG?

Potatoeman

e_e wrote: »

I don't think this is the case at all. Just look at how much more this stuff is discussed than it was half a decade ago, as well as this I've read a lot of responses to Anita that are the opposite of "Well this is what I already thought". Even from my own perspective it was not something I considered much prior to the Tropes vs Women series and I've been playing video games for around 20 years now. That and I'm still consistently surprised by the oversaturation of negative tropes in the industry with each new episode that gets released (the newest episode in particular was a shocker to me).

Yes it's a little rudimentary but it's absolutely necessary given the amount of discussion it's provoked and I'd argue that some of the most ridiculous and hateful responses only serve to prove her point that there is a lot wrong with the industry.

Lauren Bacall said of cinema "The industry is ****, it's the medium that's great." and I think it's very applicable to games too.

I think one of the biggest failings of her video os how much she missed out on discussing.

As Ive said above lasy writting and pandering are a huge issue with how women are portrayed in games but saying that we need more strong interesting female characters ignores that fact that many game characters are paper thin anyway.

Going on about Mario being a sexist character ignores that the trope was picked for its simplicity and I dont think its sexist so much as lasy.

Just like the MK / DOA female characters seem to be pandering to the teenage boy market.

richymcdermott

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

Potatoeman

Reekwind wrote: »

But that only seems to be the case in relation to games. In every other medium people are perfectly capable of reading/digesting critiques from other perspectives (eg Marxian, feminist, structuralist, etc) without difficultly. Look at the long and potted history of literary or film criticism, for example. It's only in gaming that people start calling 'bias' and refusing to engage. When Sarkeesian talks of 'conversations', she's referring to contributing a viewpoint to the current discussions on gender and narratives in gaming.

So I don't think it requires that people agree with feminism and its precepts, just that they're willing to listen and acknowledge the merit of her theoretical framework. That doesn't mean that it's the only framework that's correct, of course, but that it's got something to add to the discussion.

I think you're overestimating the maturity of many gamers. Look at the reaction to this whole endeavour, for example. Sometimes merely documenting these tropes, with named examples, has value in itself.

What is a valid question is whether this exercise would have worked better as a shorter series that focused more explicitly on that. But she can hardly be faulted for receiving a hell of a lot more than she asked for. How do you manage scope when you ask for 6k and receive 125k? Which is unfortunate because it, and the publicity its received, have probably generated expectations far in excess of what the project was intended to deliver. So well done to the internet trolls.

(That's also for Potatoeman.)

No, she's saying that her videos have been used in schools. That's completely different from developing an academic proposition.

The example that I used earlier in the thread was the use of Minecraft in education; is Notch now to be held to the standards of academia? For that matter, I remember watching some Roald Dahl films in school as a child; should I have been requesting sources for the BFG?

It was a good idea just badly executed. I think the internet keyboard warriors went overboard as usual and restricted debate.

As for the money raised Im sure she could have set a limit or expanded the topic. People were always going to use this against her.

As for using it in schools you cant really say that with a biased opinion piece. It does not explain it self as that either. If she even said in my opinion tropes are bad maybe you could argue that but she presents her opinion as fact so its vert different from minecraft which has educational benefits.

Generic Dreadhead

Potatoeman wrote: »

I think one of the biggest failings of her video os how much she missed out on discussing.

Very true

Potatoeman wrote: »

It was a good idea just badly executed. I think the internet keyboard warriors went overboard as usual and restricted debate.

Precisely

Reekwind wrote: »

No, she's saying that her videos have been used in schools. That's completely different from developing an academic proposition.

Yes. Yes she is, did you actually look at her Kickstarter project?
It's right there, it's a goal of hers



Also if she's contributing to discussion then she could have enabled comments. We all know that juts because people choose to comment on your video, doesn't mean you need to read/respond to said comments. I own my own youtube channel and these notifications can simply be ignore/disabled as she sees fit.

But as others have said before in counter-arguement videos the actual idea of not allowing discussion on the channel itself very much has a "We'll call it a discussion but I'm going to talk at you" kind of vide.

The funny thing is that in 10 or so videos I watched that were actual discussions on her videos or counter arguments all had comments enabled and a great, great many of the top comments were fair points in their own right:

Examples:

5.40 B...b...BORDERLANDS 2? How does that have anything to do with sexism? You can play either male or female and you kill a male character...the only damsel in distress is a 6 foot 4 black man with a sentry....woman please.

I think you're probably one of the only respectful critics of Sarkeesian. Thank you for not being a sexist asshole and actually being...you know, intelligent. It's good to critique her, since she needs it (whether or not she wants to take it), but the majority end up sounding a bit (or blatantly) misogynistic. Thanks! 

They never mention a game like Resident Evil or Tomb Raider. Where the female protagonist smashes all the male antagonists. Should males be offended by that? Seems silly to me.

I could go on, but simply put, there is plenty of material out there countering Anitas points as there is videos of Anita making said points, and it's all available to everyone on youtube. If people are willing to listen to 4 hours of her tell your why she's right, please do the subjet justice and consider looking at some of the materials that say she's wrong (disclaimer: some of it is sexist cr@p though).

I was once told (something resembling) the following in school: "A debate is easier to win when you know what the opposing teams points are going to be. Look at the debate from how you would display their arguments, what are they thinking, how would you portray their points"

Evade

Cormac... wrote: »

Yes. Yes she is, did you actually look at her Kickstarter project?
It's right there, it's a goal of hers

That's what I was referring to yesterday but when you click into the stretch goal link it says "create an accompanying curriculum." Whether that means videos plus something or something stand alone isn't clear. Either way a bit more research would be needed.

johnny_ultimate

It's important to highlight the specifics of the intended classroom curriculum from the update on the topic:

I believe that video games and gaming in general should be integrated into classrooms and educational institutions to a much larger degree. With this in mind, I will create a curriculum with teaching guides and classroom activities to accompany this Tropes vs Women in Gaming video series. My hope is that this curriculum can serve as a small example of how discussions around gaming can be an important part of media literacy education. These mini-lesson plans and classroom exercises focusing on female representations in video games will offer teachers an easy way to encourage critical thinking, enhance media literacy skills and promote conversations about gender representations in the mass media with their students. This curriculum will be Creative Commons licensed making it available for anyone to download and use with their schools, organizations or families.

So the curriculum is actually separate (if interconnected) to the video series. There's also no indication that it would be an academic proposition (although personally when I read academic I instantly think peer-reviewed, in-depth works and studies) but merely some simple supplementary and free material teachers can use when discussing media analysis and criticism with school (and when I see the word 'school' I think secondary eduction) students. I wouldn't consider that much different than introducing examples of subjective reviews or personal essays at a relatively age - again, these are all vital elements of the wider cultural landscape, and should be introduced in classrooms.

As an aside and only generally related to that point, I think it's really important that media studies is given more prominence in the classroom, and that teenagers especially are encouraged to read and analyse media in a subjective and critical manner. I think it's more beneficial that this is done with the media they enjoy - there's a lot of benefit in having them look more deeply at that stuff as well as the standard Shakespeare and poetry curriculums. Looking at video games in the classroom is potentially an excellent teaching tool, and a great way to introduce different strands of critical thinking (better than jumping straight into Greer or Barthes!) in an understandable and accessible way. Sadly, encouraging independent and critical thinking is not something that the education system in Ireland favours

And back on track :pac:: Another key point on the kickstarter page, Sarkeesian identifies herself as:

a gamer, a pop culture critic and a fan

So again there's no mention of academia or scientific there, she highlights that she is a pop culture critic and fan of games first and foremost. Now there's plenty of valid criticisms to be levelled here about the presentation, some of which have been articulated in the thread (personally, I'd say her presentational style is often lacking character and can be quite long-winded). But as myself and others have restressed, there's a sense she's being criticised for not being something she never pretended to be. The Kickstarter page more than anything highlights how clear the parameters and terms of the videos have been to date.

She also points out her videos:

even served as a guide for some professional writers and media creators to actively avoid gendered character stereotypes and create more in-depth, and more engaging female characters.

Above all else, even independent of the quality of the videos themselves, Tropes vs Video Games has garnered support from Tim Schafer, Derek Yu and many others, who seem to have consciously acknowledged some of the points raised. If developers are now more actively considering some of these representational issues, then that's a bigger success for Sarkeesian and therefore gaming more generally than the quality of the videos themselves.

Retr0gamer wrote:

Cultural criticism and cultural studies are still a science

They are not - it's exactly why qualifications are divided into separate schools of science and art. You don't get a BSc in cultural or media studies, just like you don't get an MA in medicine They can and do crossover in several respects, but the divisions are pretty definitively established and what is accepted in one would be useless or even damaging in the other. I have a BA and an MSc, and certainly there were quite different expectations, attitudes and rules I needed to adapt to when transitioning from one to the other.

DeVore

Ask yourselves some questions:

1. What % of murder victims in video games are female?




2. What gender are the remaining murder victims?




3. Why is that ok?



I'm not espousing a position here, I would just like to see those questions honestly asked and answered and see where it brings us ALL.

Evade

DeVore wrote: »

Ask yourselves some questions:

1. What % of murder victims in video games are female?

That would depend entirely on your definition of murder.

Generic Dreadhead

DeVore wrote: »

Ask yourselves some questions:
1. What % of murder victims in video games are female?
2. What gender are the remaining murder victims?
3. Why is that ok?
I'm not espousing a position here, I would just like to see those questions honestly asked and answered and see where it brings us ALL.

You could stand in one spot for a full year straight in GTA5 killing either Gender.
Are you referring to kills you must make in a game to advance the narrative?

DeVore

I guess it would be useful to know both "kinds" of murder: Those forced on you by the game plot (or shown in cutscenes) and those the player could avoid but chooses not to.

Evade

DeVore wrote: »

I guess it would be useful to know both "kinds" of murder: Those forced on you by the game plot (or shown in cutscenes) and those the player could avoid but chooses not to.

I was actually looking for more of a definition of what murder is in this context. Is a soldier being killed in Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc murder? Or is it more the killing innocent bystanders?

DeVore

Well there is already a gender bias inherent in "soldier death" but lets suppose we exclude anyone killed in warfare-combat situations.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

They are not - it's exactly why qualifications are divided into separate schools of science and art. You don't get a BSc in cultural or media studies, just like you don't get an MA in medicine They can and do crossover in several respects, but the divisions are pretty definitively established and what is accepted in one would be useless or even damaging in the other. I have a BA and an MSc, and certainly there were quite different expectations, attitudes and rules I needed to adapt to when transitioning from one to the other.

Those schools aren't a good way of segregating different subjects though. For instance I've got a PhD, a doctorate in philosophy, for my work in chemistry and biology. There's still an academic process to be followed in arts and I think saying it isn't a science is a bit of a disservice to something like sociology and social studies is just wrong which is where this belongs. I mean she's not analysing art, but that art's affect on society. That there is a scientific study. There's different ways of approaching that kind of study from a purely scientific one but there's still a right way and a wrong way.

Evade

DeVore wrote: »

Well there is already a gender bias inherent in "soldier death" but lets suppose we exclude anyone killed in warfare-combat situations.

Even discounting the soldier death, by volume it's most likely men. That's due to the vast majority of characters being men. If you were to go by number of deaths per 100 of both sexes it will most likely be a higher number of women than men.

the incredible pudding

Evade wrote: »

If you were to go by number of deaths per 100 of both sexes it will most likely be a higher number of women than men.

?

I don't understand what you're saying here.

DeVore

I presume he means pro-rata with the number of characters. That's an interesting approach too... if you are a male/female character in a game, what is the likelihood of a violent outcome for your character's story? (Lets lump violent assault in with murder too, seems reasonable).

I reckon its still pretty bad for male characters. Not many princesses in towers getting slaughtered at the end (though it raises an interesting question of why they are consigned by the designers to the tower in the first place... but that's another question).