Sections

Anita Sarkeesian named to Time 100

Cultural critic the only gaming representative to crack list of most influential people

Time unveiled its annual list of the 100 most influential people today, and while various people who have ties to the game industry made the ranking (Microsoft's Satya Nadella and Apple's Tim Cook, for example), just a single person on the Time 100 was known primarily for her work in games. That would be cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, founder of Feminist Frequency, creator of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games video series, and frequent target of harassment that last year forced her to flee her home and cancel a talk in the wake of a school shooting threat.

Actor Wil Wheaton penned the text accompanying Sarkeesian's inclusion on the list, saying, "Anita is a feminist for the digital age, using modern tools and platforms to engage thousands of people who want to hear her thoughts and respond to the challenges she raises. A lesser person may throw up her hands and unplug her game console, but Anita is determined to ensure that video games are inclusive and representative of everyone who plays them. As her detractors grow increasingly unhinged, we have proof that her efforts are working."

Sarkeesian released her own statement about the list, saying, "I appreciate the honor of being included in the Time 100. It's gratifying to see Feminist Frequency's educational media criticism work recognized in this way. I'm encouraged that our video series on the portrayal of women in video games is starting to have a tangible impact on the gaming industry at large. This honor also highlights the importance of cultural and media criticism in promoting gender equity."

While Sarkeesian may have been the only gaming representative on the Time 100 this year, the magazine has included people from the industry on a number of previous occasions. Shigeru Miyamoto made the 2007 list amid the runaway success of the Wii. Rockstar Games' Sam and Dan Houser were named in 2009 version of the Time 100 in the wake of Grand Theft Auto IV's release. In 2012, Irrational Games' Ken Levine and Zynga's Mark Pincus made the shortlist of nominees, but were not ultimately included in the final 100.

More stories

Leading names from YouTube, TV, film, books and games set for Changing Channels

The new event in our GamesIndustry.biz Live series takes place on August 13th for free

By Christopher Dring

Tencent reportedly driving Huya and DouYu to merge into livestreaming giant

Merging Chinese Twitch rivals would create a business worth $10 billion with 300 million users

By James Batchelor

Latest comments (37)

Darren Adams Managing Director, ChaosTrend5 years ago
I have mixed feelings about this.

Obviously it is good to make it onto the most influential list, so congrats are in order for making it. But conversely, are we so defunct of character in our industry and say so little that the only person to make the list remotely involved with the games industry is Anita? Really?? Not to take anything away from Anita for being on the list or for what she does, but this is massively disturbing.

Where are the current charismatic champions of our art form? Are we all so insignificant and without vision that we have nobody else on the list at all?

Edited 4 times. Last edit by Darren Adams on 17th April 2015 10:07am

16Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jakub B- QA / Functionality Tester 5 years ago
Comment deleted. There's a reason we require using your real name when you post here. - Brendan

Edited 1 times. Last edit by a moderator on 17th April 2015 2:18pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrew Watson Tools Programmer 5 years ago
Anita is a feminist for the digital age, using modern tools and platforms to engage thousands of people who want to hear her thoughts and respond to the challenges she raises. [...] As her detractors grow increasingly unhinged, we have proof that her efforts are working.
So all I have to do to get on the Time 100 is make some youtube videos about a controversial subject that get lots of people mad? How inspiring!
10Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (37)
Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic 5 years ago
Influence covers a lot of things, though. If she manages to influence game development, or gets gamers to consider/reconsider gender attitudes, then that's actually a pretty big deal. Consider that, to me, Tim Cook's position as "head of a gigantic corporation" means less than his stand on equal rights (though the two are intertwined). Consider, also, that there's (possibly) an element of "figurehead" to her position in the list: Would the "female characters" issue be half as talked-about if she hadn't started making an issue of it?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 17th April 2015 10:51am

11Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Gowland Director, Ant Workshop5 years ago
Given that every comment thread on an article about her blows up (and I have high hopes for this one), and she's been at least in part responsible for various cultural movements around gender and inclusivity (both for and against her stance) that have had repercussions across an entire entertainment industry, I'd say yeah she's pretty influential.
18Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Darren Adams Managing Director, ChaosTrend5 years ago
Before this goes west, I should clarify that my point is why aren't there more games people on the list seeing as we are one of the most influential art forms out there at the moment, not that Anita shouldn't be on the list.
6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.5 years ago
Darren, my understanding of how this Time system works is that it's about getting people talking. If people are talking about you or something you did, caused, do, etc...(especially if it's a new discussion), then you're on the list.

While others may be more directly influential on the industry itself, Anita has had more influence on a global discussion
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Matthew Bennett 3D Engine developer, Sitedesk5 years ago
Regardless of my feelings about Anita, I think congratulations are in order. However I can think of several people from the games industry who should be on this list. This oozes political statement from Time, and that is fine but if I were making the decisions I think the list would look very different.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.5 years ago
Matthew, if you look at the historic listings of these lists you'll notice that it's not so much a political statement but about those that makes waves (good or bad). Hitler and Saddam have both topped their list in the past.

We have to remember that this isn't about influences within their respective industries but influential on global discussion. It's a rather ambiguously sounding name (100 most influential people) given our initial impressions on what 'influential' means.
8Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Christopher Bowen Editor in Chief, Gaming Bus5 years ago
So, uh, Mr. Brightman... is it considered poor form to just post one of those Michael Jackson "popcorn" gifs?
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
James Brightman Editor, North America, GamesIndustry.biz5 years ago
Mr. Bowen, yeah let's leave that out of this.

As for the Time list, sure we can all think of more people in the games industry who could/should have made the list, but that doesn't mean Anita doesn't deserve congratulations. She's clearly had tons of influence, gotten people talking about women in games, and remember, she appeared on Colbert Report too.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robin Clarke Producer, AppyNation Ltd5 years ago
@Darren Adams - I don't think it's too much of a damning indictment. If this was just an entertainment industry list I'd expect more games people.

There would be more games people on the a general list of influential figures if we weren't so fixated on commercial success.
5Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jonatan Crafoord Indie Developer, Really Interactive AB5 years ago
I agree with the statement that it is sad that we as an industry don't have more people on this list. However, I feel 100% that Sarkeesian deserves to be on it regardless. It is rare for anyone to have stirred so much debate and caused such huge ripples throughout pop culture. And these last few years I honestly believe she has influenced more developers than most other notable individuals in our industry, maybe with a few exceptions. Her work also goes beyond video games, even if Tropes vs. Women in Games may be her most viewed videos, and the most heated topic within the games culture.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Jonatan Crafoord on 17th April 2015 4:53pm

7Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Adam Campbell Product Manager, Azoomee5 years ago
Perhaps she has made the most waves and had the most vocal influence recently. Maybe it will be a more positive voice in gaming, or champion of the art form next time, but for now, good for her.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Chan5 years ago
Time most influentional people is just a list - I don't think we should read much more into that. Albeit, the list has its reasoning and logic, and it does make sense that Anita makes the list (congratulations are most definitely in order). If you wonder why 2015 does not have additional people from the games industry you have to see the names that make the list year to year.

If you see prevous entries, the late Steve Jobs, Lady Gaga, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Kanye West (this year), and of course Anita. These people polarized conversations and debates, touched on subjects that are sensitive and put forth ideas that are daring - essentially newsmakers. Other than Anita and her opinions about gender in gaming, I find myself pressed to think about any issue or socio-cultural extravaganza that occured in the gaming industry that polarized generations, cultures, ideologies etc. - with one exception; violence in videogames.

Arguably you can attribute the original creator of Grand Theft Auto with that controversy, and even so that is pushing it - I would be comfortable thinking there is no one person who we can say is the firestarter to that subject. Maybe I am oversimplifying. So again, other than Anita, I honestly cannot think of any other one person in the industry who has polarized discussion around the world (for gamers and non-gamers) - which may actually be a good thing. Controversy and news-making can be harmful to an industry, especially negative news, so I don't see the need to be upset why the industry has more people on the list.

What does it all mean at the end? Anita has her name listed with the likes of Obama, Elton John, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, Condeleeza Rice, Conan O'Brien, Sarah Palin etc... If you care about the list, then maybe it means something to you. To me it's just a list.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Anthony Chan on 17th April 2015 5:16pm

1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Derek Smart Software Developer/Engineer, 3000AD, Inc5 years ago
Remember, she has absolutely nothing - nothing - to do with gaming proper. At all. If that's not a sign of dysfunction in the way the media portrays our industry, I don't know what is.
12Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Rashad Foux Character Artist, Hi-Rez Studios, Inc.5 years ago
Well I'm glad. She's been a positive, intelligent, and insightful critic of some of the things we do in games and media without really thinking about it.
She deserves this. The increased attention to her cause and beliefs benefit's us both directly and by association, because she does have good suggestions for how we can bring more people into gaming (especially women) into gaming. And that's awesome.
6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Chan5 years ago
ASIDE - Also arguably, I find the most influential people is very self serving for Time LOL. you could actually say the top 100 people who said or did things that helped Time sell copies of its magazine or made people visit the website to read an article. Essentially these are the top 100 people who helped TIME make money this year.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Anthony Chan on 17th April 2015 5:30pm

1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Chris Payne Managing Director & Founder, Quantum Soup Studios5 years ago
Remember, she has absolutely nothing - nothing - to do with gaming proper. At all. If that's not a sign of dysfunction in the way the media portrays our industry, I don't know what is.
What, critiquing games is not "properly" being involved? Mainstream media should stick to rating products on a numerical scale like the "proper" games media do, should they?

The way I see it, some genuine cultural and artistic criticism of our medium is LONG overdue, and I'm glad TIME has recognised Anita for sticking her neck out to apply some. Well done Anita, for holding us to a higher standard than we do ourselves.
20Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
Oh I have no doubt that she deserves to be on this list. She has made waves. Though personally, I don't think she deserves as much recognition as she has gotten, since most of her work is misleading, and total garbage at best. However, that is what got her noticed. She is more infamous than she is famous. The one thing she is really good at is getting people to pay her money. Though I am not sure why.
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Derek Smart Software Developer/Engineer, 3000AD, Inc5 years ago
As I said on Twitter, at this rate, they might as well stick the likes of TotalBiscuit, PewDiePie and their ilk in there as well; because they have more in common with gaming than she does.

I don't like her. I never did.

I don't like ANYTHING about her portrayal of our gaming culture.

I think she personifies the entire problem with how our gaming culture is portrayed.

She is an opportunistic who controls an echo chamber that is devoid of any merit as it relates to our gaming industry and culture.

She's pretty much the equivalent of a media personality who knows more about how to play into a narrative discourse, than how to accurately and in an unbiased fashion, discuss and promote the gaming culture proper. Which is precisely how she ended up on this list. After all, Putin, Mussolini, Hitler (?) et al have been on it. So there is that.

I don't care about her "contributions" or who benefits from them or doesn't. That's not what my commentary was about. It was purely related to Time's description of why she's on that list.

And if the Time editors think that description fits her role (whatever that may be), then clearly, whoever came up with that, is either an unapologetic fool, or they believe that her representation of our industry culture are in fact worthy (they are not) of merit. In which case, that points to dysfunction if she's the best that they think we can come up with. She's not.

I regard her "work" in much the same vein that I do the likes of all media personalities who "think" they know more about our culture than us who have been in it since it was a "thing" and who have contributed more to it than talking heads and their echo chambers.

That was my point. There are so many worthy people who, on a daily basis, make a difference to the gaming culture but who don't use controversy, fear-mongering and everything in-between to profit from it without putting anything INTO it. Bitching about angry White males is as effective as bitching about Westies picketing a war vet's funeral. They're assholes being assholes; it is expected.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Derek Smart on 18th April 2015 5:09pm

9Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.5 years ago
Derek, Time hasn't written anything about why she was included. The two blurbs you see in this article come from Anita herself and Wil Wheaton.

Nor did Time include her as if they needed to put someone in their "games" category The list isn't broken down into industry categories. I really don't think you grasp what the Time 100 is. At all.
9Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Derek Smart Software Developer/Engineer, 3000AD, Inc5 years ago
OK, I'll bite, since apparently I have to spell it out. Basically, being on the list is what continues to garner various opinions (mostly bullshit) regarding her role in "gaming" and how/why she made it into the list to begin with.

1. "The 100 Most Influential People" - in gaming

2. "Just a single person on the Time 100 was known primarily for her work in games"

3. Read everything that Wil Wheaton wrote in his missive

Let me know if you need me to add more references in support of my commentary
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
I don't like her. I never did.
Lucky for us you don't compile the Time 100 list then!

Anita has had an enormous impact on the games industry - she's gotten people talking about the way we make our games and the way we treat women in games - both as characters and as human beings in the associated industry. Her influence cannot be denied - just look at how comment threads explode on every single article that mentions her name on this website and many others. You may not like her, but this is not a popularity contest.
10Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic 5 years ago
Remember, she has absolutely nothing - nothing - to do with gaming proper.
1) Pure elitism.

2) Every medium has commentators and critics who are outside that medium - movies, TV, music, art, theatre, books. You don't like it? Deal with it with more grace. Bare-bones, Anita's just a media studies critic. As gaming matures and broadens out, there's going to be more, not just like her, but better than her, and worse than her. There'll be critics and commentators with other agenda, and other politics - how this industry relates to them will determine (at least in some small measure) how the wider public sees gaming.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 19th April 2015 10:57am

11Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Jessica
Most of the things Anita has pointed out, really isn't an issue, because most of it is taken out of context. A game could be full of men getting shot, and the one scene in the entire game you happen to kill a women ... she takes that and makes it out to be as if the game is sexist. She has got people talking alright, but I don't really think the majority of it is discussing the game industry and it's game characters. Conversations are usually about her. In fact, I would say it's mostly people disagreeing with her and how she portrays certain games dishonestly, or people just insulting her. Let's also not forget the attention she gets from trolls.

But hey, if that is what she was shooting for, then she was very successful. There are more people who disagree and dislike her, than there are people who agree and actually think she is right. At least, that is the way I see it from my perspective.
8Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robert Mac-Donald Game Designer, Lethe Games5 years ago
At least they called her a cultural critic, not a game critic.

https://youtu.be/Afgtd8ZsXzI

A game critic should at least be a fan or have deep knowledge of the medium to get that title.
One of those youtube comments there equates her to Jack Thompson for criticizing a medium he had little knowledge of.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Derek Smart Software Developer/Engineer, 3000AD, Inc5 years ago
@jessica, I'm not sure what my comment which you excerpted out of context has to do with anything. Especially given the fact that I clearly outlined my reasons.

I don't like most of the people in politics, or even in media, but it doesn't take away the merits of what they are pitching.

I have a right to not like someone, regardless of merit; and that emotion is derived from what they portray and not from any personal connection. For example, some people don't like me, and some have stated it, and points to a number of reasons, including that I don't shy away from discourse, nor hide inside an echo chamber. Nobody puts me under siege, leaving me powerless and/or helpless to defend myself out of fear or whatever. It clearly hasn't prevented me from being who I want to be. People who feel they can dish it, are usually less likely to accept the same in kind. They're cowards.

This is not a popularity contest and people who don't have much to add to the narrative, other than ad hominem banter, are in fact part of the problem in and with how gaming is perceived and portrayed.

I don't like her. I never did; and never will. Think what you want, it changes nothing.

In fact, most of us in the industry are currently having a lengthy discussion about this very thing in my Facebook feed. Here is another excerpt which encapsulates my feelings and thoughts about this Time issue.

=====
Due to the many comments in this thread, it is easy to miss some of them. So just to be clear, my commentary and missives have nothing to do with her being threatened and all that, let alone about what people think/feel she has contributed to gaming. I think we all here abhor that, so there really is no need to explain, let alone debate, the merits of same.

My comment in the Times article, and its subsequent follow-ups are purely about me not acknowledging that she is worthy of being on the list, or such distinction as attributed to her ***contributions to gaming***, because I don't believe that she has impacted gaming proper to any degree that is worthy of such distinction (if you can call it that).

Which is why, right here in this thread, I have agreed with others who have eloquently made the case for her contributions as well as others who have gone the other way for whatever reason, regardless of whether or not they are worthy of merit in terms of contributing to gaming in any positive way.

And if Times (they had another non-gaming personality write up the missive, go figure) thinks that she is representative of our industry, then yes, it's just the same old media bullshit we've had to deal with, but which doesn't have any less of an impact in terms of the echoing "wtf?" that most of us are discussing now.

Again, it's just a list, right. However, the point is that being on it, as per gaming, it tantamount to all those "As seen on TV", "As seen on MSNBC" tag lines used to peddle bullshit products just because they were mentioned and/or mentioned. It goes on from there. Regardless of the fact that 80% of people voted against her being included, compared to the 20% that voted for it.

As you made the valid comparison as per "Roger Ebert had nothing to do with film", I would counter that nobody ever attributed him to making films, nor influencing how films were made, discussed, regarded etc. And he certainly (at least not to my knowledge), didn't pick a trope, capitalized on it, then used it as a platform to shape a narrative that, to me and others in film, does more harm than good.

And she has opted to focus more on negativity than positivity. Which is precisely how she continued to attract the attention of all people, even the best of us who can make our case. And it is the shaping and nature of that narrative, that has a lot of people up in arms and the anti-social misfits use that to harass and attack her because, unlike most, they would rather engage in such actions, than debate the merits.

My take on her work is, with or without merit, she's like a politician. What they do is pick something (good or bad) that is important to a caste of people, and beat it into the ground. A lot of nefarious politicians run on such narrative, and even against all odds, tend to win.

Let's put it another way. If you, Jade Raymond or many - many - other of our important, powerful, well-respected women who have in fact ***contributed*** to gaming in a positive manner and helped shaped games and indeed how we regard, make and play them, we'd be having a completely different conversation. Why? Simple. My guess is that, the women that I know in the industry and who I have had the pleasure of meeting, interacting with etc, are probably not likely to shape the narrative the way she has.

I think that, unlike most, given my tenure and success in the industry, and someone who, even as a minority (there's that word again), against all odds, got where I am today through hard work and amid lots of crap, I think that I have earned the right to stand up and say, "...hey! hang on a minute, that doesn't look right!". Why? Because nobody gave me a damn thing; and unlike most, I have never - ever - worked for *any* industry company. I built it all on my own, and was around when it all started. So lest some forget, I'm not bitching for the sake of jumping on a bandwagon. I'm bitching because I have a stake in *this* industry because I helped build it from the ground up.

So yes, I am pissed that this Times list is just another platform that is only going to continue to serve as a platform to promote more negative than positive narrative about gaming, and by a personality who knows as much about gaming as I do about making Lasagna.

===== as to her "positive" videos =====

I have watched all of them and have each one bookmarked. Since I tend to be one of the smartest people in the room, I tend not to jump into discussions without having a good knowledge of what it is I'm discussing.

So yes, I am aware of some of those videos, but in my book, they are not "positive" as much as they are attempts at balancing out previous narratives that she continues to be called out on. If that's her answer to counter that, good for her, but it still doesn't go far enough to balance out the past, let alone convince anyone that she can be fair and unbiased.

And if she were to jump on the "positivity" narrative, my guess is that her 30 mins would've been over before it even started.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Derek Smart on 19th April 2015 2:42pm

3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Ruben Monteiro Engineer 5 years ago
* facepalm *
7Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic 5 years ago
As you made the valid comparison as per "Roger Ebert had nothing to do with film", I would counter that nobody ever attributed him to making films, nor influencing how films were made, discussed, regarded etc
No-one explicitly attributes this, because it is implicit in the fact that Roger Ebert is a critic. The very fact that an outsider to film - in the sense of having no creative or financial involvement in the industry - criticises and provides commentary on the medium means that he has an influence, to others also outside the industry, as well as to those inside it. This is, actually, the very basis of the critical artform, I think you'll find.

I think, though, having written that, I should just point you to the Wiki on Pauline Kael, who did very much influence how films were made, discussed, and regarded (specifically the Influence heading): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael#Influence

This bit is especially interesting:
In 1978, she was awarded the Women in Film Crystal Award for outstanding women who, through their endurance and the excellence of their work, have helped to expand the role of women within the entertainment industry.

Edited 4 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 19th April 2015 3:26pm

6Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Derek Smart Software Developer/Engineer, 3000AD, Inc5 years ago
Yes - but I was responding to someone who raised the issue that discounting Anita's contributions to "gaming" would be similar to raising the issue that Ebert has nothing to do with film. So I pointed out precisely (I thought) what my issue with it is, and not in the vein of saying that she can't be a gaming critic.

btw, your reference to Pauline Kael is a very good one. However, that's the not the same thing here.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Derek Smart on 19th April 2015 3:50pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany5 years ago
@Andrew: Any troll can make a few people mad. Anita made a lot of people uncomfortable by rinsing an issue that made them think and they were unable to proof wrong in most of cases. If this were not the case, she would have passed unnoticed and ignored like many other people who criticize videogames online.

@Dereck: "I think she personifies the entire problem with how our gaming culture is portrayed."

The entire problem of how our gaming culture is portrayed, is the ranting immature reaction to her videos from so many gamers. That mob reaction rose against her has more in common with an unstable teenager that can't take or deny criticism than from a grown up able to counter-argument or take the blame when applicable.
Every cultural movement is measured by how it's followers behave. Ours is no different and it's portrayed by how gamers behave. If you want to blame somebody for that I would say you start with those GamerGate sympathizers that were kicked out of a Canadian gaming event last week.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 20th April 2015 8:00am

11Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Robin Clarke Producer, AppyNation Ltd5 years ago
It's absurd to say that Sarkeesian hasn't contributed to games. We now have creators, publishers, critics and players questioning a status quo that was increasingly stifling creativity and pushing away new talent.

Complaints about focusing on negativity are equally absurd. You solve problems by addressing them, not ignoring them or throwing your hands up and saying this is as it ever was. It's not credible to pretend that everything has always been fine, and to demand that critics reflect this whitewashed view.
15Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 5 years ago
@Alfonso
Anita made a lot of people uncomfortable by rinsing an issue that made them think and they were unable to proof wrong in most of cases.
Unable to prove wrong? What exactly has she pointed out that needs to be proven wrong? She hasn't even proven she is right yet. So there isn't anything. What really riled people up, isn't that they can't prove her wrong. They are riled up because of the way she does things. Lies, misleads, and takes things out of context. In other words, she is the one causing the problems. Do I have to take to Twitter and quote some of her crap to show you that she pretty much tries to get a reaction out of people? In most places on the net, the things she does would cause her to be banned. It's called inciting.

What makes it even worse is when you have some people who take her seriously, which in turn just makes many others even more angry and irritated. Especially when it's a company that folds and makes changes to their game due to such crap.

Then when you learn she isn't even a person who plays games, it really pisses people off. I mean, I don't know how anyone can expect any other reaction toward her. Of course many people are angry and I feel they have every right to be.

I didn't even mention how she doesn't even respond to constructive criticism.
If this were not the case, she would have passed unnoticed and ignored like many other people who criticize videogames online.
I really don't see how you can say such non sense. You really think just because something can be proven to be wrong, that it will just pass unnoticed? Violence in video games? That never happened? Last I remember, it was taken pretty seriously, even though it most certainly was wrong.

The issue is not that people can't prove these things wrong. The issue is these claims and the people behind these claims are simply ignorant. Then, on top, you have a bunch of ignorant people who agree and try to change these things, when they have no business too in the first place.

Let's be honest here. The amount of crap that people actually believe ... is pretty ridiculous. People will jump on these things well before they even know if it's true or false. Even after proof shows the exact opposite of what they believe, they still don't change their views. So ... ya ... things that are wrong can most certainly be noticed and not ignored, because the world is full of ignorant people who like to jump the gun and don't care about proof.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.5 years ago
Again I think a lot of you are completely missing the point of the Time 100 list. Being right or wrong in their commentary is irrelevant.

If it gets people talking, and by the looks of this article alone, then they have produced an influence. It's not always about what they did or said, it's about how that generates discourse.

Again, you do not have to be right or wrong....you just have to get people talking. THAT'S being influential.
7Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic 5 years ago
I find it interesting a lot of the negative comments about her keep coming back to "She doesn't even play games". I wonder, should that even matter? I mean, there's a difference between being smart/analytical/knowledgeable/able to propose a hypothesis, and being a "gamer" (for want of a better term). As an outside-gaming analogy, I don't think anyone here is a political commentator, but that doesn't mean we can't make reasoned statements and arguments about political parties, using material at hand and research, without being a member of a party or having volunteered for one.

Edit:

Unless, what people mean when they say "She's not a gamer" is that she's not smart/knowledgeable enough. Which implies (and only implies, here, not trying to put words in anyone's mouth) that if she were smart/knowledgeable enough then she'd obviously come to a different conclusion.

Edited 5 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 20th April 2015 2:58pm

4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Gowland Director, Ant Workshop5 years ago
Hooray, Godwin. This thread went ... as expected.
10Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.