Saying that someone is ignoring facts or missing the point is a criticism of their argument.

Calling someone a liar or a hypocrite is an attack on the person. There is a fundamental difference.

Heh, there's a plan. Why look at dismemberment and entrails when you can be browsing an ad for cup ramen?

Jesus, why am I still doing this...

You know, I'm not even going to address all of this, because your arguments veer between bizarrely irrelevant and wildly disingenuous (with insults like calling me a liar and a hypocrite tossed in for good measure, because that kind of shit ALWAYS improves a conversation). Seriously, at this point, it would be an…

The censorship in Tokyo Ghoul was bad enough (and made parts borderline unwatchable), but this has crossed the line into full-on self parody.

Really, those black bars might as well just be brightly-colored banners with text reading "Buy the blu-ray, out soon!"

Yeah, you're right. It's totally my fault for thinking it's gross to describe a random stranger as "some fat ugly chick". That was totally a great way to start off a calm, rational discussion about the whole thing.

Look at the links I provided or don't. It's up to you. I'm done.

You don't see how calling some random woman online who you don't even know, in a discussion about how people have been sending her death threats and harassment, "a fat ugly chick" is shitty?

Or are you just trolling at this point?

I'm not ignoring that games are complex systems. Glitches are completely different from what we're discussing here, which is that the game explicitly puts helpless, sexualized women in as background decoration with the added bonus that you can also strangle them.

"She lied"

No, she didn't.

That is not a particularly honest or accurate summary of her argument.

The Hitman "rebuttal" that I often see also relies on a total misreading of her actual argument (and essentially requires one to ignore everything she says prior to that short video clip).

The fact that you think Anita is a "liar" leads me to believe you haven't actually listened to her arguments. Either that or you're relying on people like thunderf00t to provide over-simplified, disingenuous interpretations of what she's actually saying.

I'm berating you for stuff like "some fat ugly chick made a shitty game", which is a pretty shitty comment.

If you want a summary, go to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate…

Or, hell:
http://gawker.com/what-is-gamerg…

I get that it's only a trailer, but I'm really not getting a "Walker and Pilgrim" vibe from those two. With Walker spouting profanity and punching things, it almost seems like they've reversed the personalities of the two characters. Deena is usually the hot-headed one, and Walker is the calm, unflappable one.

Still,…

I will admit that I haven't been following him as closely as I have others, but some of his language immediately gives me pause, including his conflation of "criticism" and "censorship" in his GaymerX video.

It's not so much about a female perspective as it is about a critical/academic one, I think. She's doing a very specific type of criticism that's rooted in a tradition of academic media analysis, but lots of people try to engage with it on totally different terms.

The Starfox example I'll concede, because that's one of the ones I don't really know enough about. I think the AC examples are relevant, though.

Part of the problem I have with the "general play experience" idea is that there's more to the game and its design than the critical-path intended playthrough. That's one of…

I think calling Mundane Matt "impartial" is...quite a stretch, really. It's like declaring that Internet Aristocrat is a neutral observer.

Wow, that might seriously be the least accurate, most immature summary of the whole thing I've seen so far. Congratulations.

(And in case you're actually interested in something other than making gross comments: whether Depression Quest is a "shitty game" or not is irrelevant, and the "sleeping with people for positive…

Having played the vast majority of the games she's commenting on, that (meaning "terrible research practices" etc.) has not been my perception.

Um, as someone who's played probably 90+% of the games Sarkeesian talks about, and as someone with a background in the sort of critique she's doing...no, her claims are not based off of a "hilariously weak grasp of the games she mentions".

Most of the "rebuttals" I've seen to her work involve a hilariously weak grasp…