I'm confused. How are these in any way linked? Also... What optional thing in Portal? Nothing in Portal is optional... It's an entirely linear game... And my point about Mass Effect was that she was a strong protagonist in spite of being optional... So. Yes? You're getting it right? Sort of?
The point there was "Optional things don't count when they show examples of sexism, but they totally count when they show strong female characters!" It's... kinda hypocritical. And the operation you described to see Chell in Portal? Not exactly part of solving any of the puzzles. ie, optional.
Hey, I made it clear that I didn't understand her point not that I was ignoring it. I've never played Injustice and so I had no idea what she was talking about. Also the phrase "women in the fridge" is something I've never heard of and still don't particularly understand... Although I feel like I'm getting a picture now.
I have a new response then to the original argument, though I suspect like you aren't going to like it. This still feels irrelevant. Superman is simply a more recognisable character than Wonder Woman. Obviously people know Wonder Woman and you don't even have to know much about Marvel to know much about her. BUT Superman is the more popular character (I don't think that's too unrealistic to assume that is the case) especially as Wonder Woman did pretty much start off as a female Superman (as far as I'm aware). So perhaps in this case they wanted to use Superman because he is the more recognisable of the two... Although I am aware that this feels very much like an argument to make in retrospect and not one they actually had at the time.
Still ignoring the key point: The entire motivation for the whole story is "Joker murders Lois Lane." Again, woman killed off for no reason except to motivate a man. That
is what "women in refrigerators" is about.
Also... you, um, know pretty much nothing about Wonder Woman, and it's kinda showing. She started off as a bondage enthusiast's way to sneak things that would get him off into his job, and then was salvaged into an actual strong female character. Depending on who's writing, of course.
And why does it have to be male then? Is that the future of gaming? You will have a team of 4 soldiers: Jim, Bob, Necessary Female One, Necessary Female Two? Otherwise everybody loses their minds that there are more men than women in the game (like this whole bloody kerfuffle over the "bro-op" in Assassin's Creed Unity).
Yes. Of course. The only
possible alternative to 99.5% male heroes, 99.5% female victims is "everything perfectly 50/50 and if you ever deviate from that by a single character anywhere, all hell will break loose."
I understand what you mean, and you know it is something that could do with changing. I can't even count the number of games where you are out to avenge your wife/sister/mother or some other helpless woman who had no strong man to protect her. I get that. However, I also feel like too big an issue is made of it. Maybe that's because I'm male, but maybe that's also because I'm judging the games/characters based on the merit of the games/characters and not their genitals (my favourite point you may see, because I've made it twice now).
So... if the characters' genitalia is no big deal... why should it be such a big deal to break from the assumed defaults? Why shouldn't we have more female protagonists and male rescuees? If it's no big deal to you - and it clearly is
a big deal to a lot of people who want more characters they can identify with - where's the problem with some equality?
I'd like to cite an example from TV here: Have you ever seen Leverage? It was an incredibly beloved show with a strong ensemble of protagonists, all of whom - male and female - were shown to be eminently
capable in their fields, and there was actually a behind-the-scenes policy that the female leads would never be put in "damsel-in-distress" situations to be rescued. You would have a hard time making the case that this weakened the show in any way - and in fact, they did a very
moving episode centered around the damsel-in-distress trope. So we can
do good media where nobody is depicted as weak or incapable because of their gender - why shouldn't we?
I also feel I ought to point out that in many of the examples used previously the females wouldn't have an equal capability (take Dishonored as an example there, which is set in a Victorian style era where women were considered inferior to me and definitely would have had fewer opportunities, including the opportunity to learn how to fight).
I'm not about to do your research for you, but... yeah, there have been female warriors, soldiers, and fighters as long as there have been warriors, soldiers, and fighters. It might not have been the expected norm, but that's a very far cry from "didn't happen".
As to the Witcher thing. I actually don't have an argument against that. I suppose I can see why you feel this is derogatory and sexist. And I feel very reluctant saying that because I'm aware the Witcher is a fantastic game and one I really want. Can you at least collect cards for sleeping with men as well (I don't know if you have the option of being gay in the game)?
Well, that's an important thing that seems to be being missed here: A problematic element does not mean it's a bad game and you should feel bad for liking it. (Hell, Saint's Row 3, one of the games that has been noted in this thread for equality, is pretty much nothing but
problematic elements, used well for the most part.) It means it could
be a better
game. Anita Sarkeesian wants games to be better
- that is literally the point of critique.
Right now, we say that games aren't very inviting to women because of sexist elements, yes? (For the sake of discussion I'll simply agree that yes, this is correct, although there are other elements I'd like to debate later.) However, how did we get to the current point?
Gaming has always been a male-dominated hobby. Yet the culture of games, and specifically sexism in games, had to start somewhere, right? Assuming all other things being equal, when games were in their infancy, we would expect them to be enjoyed by both men and women roughly equally, right? Yet that wasn't the case, and this was before everyone started looking at the sexism in games. Essentially, we're going around in circles: games are sexist because they're pandering to a primarily male audience, there's primarily a male audience for games because the games pander to them... the cycle had to start somewhere, yes?
I, for one, would put my money on that "somewhere" being the difficulty of making a career in the STEM fields as a woman, and the marketing of early games. There were pretty much no women involved in early games design, and the initial marketing was to boys. It'd be shocking if it didn't
turn into an insular boys' club in those circumstances.