Even if it were 100% true that she exchanged sex for positive press:

So?

Get pissed at the dudes who lack all integrity and credibility for providing fake praise for sex.

Don't get pissed at the girl playing the game by taking advantage of her assets.

I am quoting this to also address Smokeys point.

Internet trolls against women is common, just as it is for the trolls to call someone a fag, nigger, spic, etc. to someone that is not a straight white male. It is nothing new and death threats, as much as they are hateful and disgusting, are relatively common when you are putting your face out there for the public to see. It sucks that it comes with the territory, but the best thing to do is to ignore the bullshit and move forward. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. The fact that people are blowing this shit out of proportion is what bothers me (hell, maybe I am adding fuel to the fire by mentioning on this forum).

You can address the issues head on and not try to hide it through a "game" that is not a game. I'll put my knowledge in history to some good use: the word "game" refers to the Germanic word meaning "amusement" and holy shit, I find absolutely NO amusement in Emo-Simulator 2014. Maybe I don't see the point, but I sure as hell wouldn't call it a game. Make a game where the woman stands on equal or even superior ground to their enemies. Metroid is a prime example of this and that game came out in the 80s!

To say that these two are coming under fire just for being a woman is a fallacy, they HAD to do something to anger the fat neckbeards hiding behind the computer; even if it was something absolutely insignificant. The internet gets riled up over nothing and in a weeks time everyone will go back to their keyboards and comment on the next drama infused debacle.

If anything, I am angry at the dudes who would forsake journalistic integrity for some poon; which is actually not that hard to get if you know how to speak to a woman.

I don't think anybody is saying that, I think the accusations of misogyny are founded in the scale and intensity of the reaction.

Take a minute to reverse the roles. Replace Zoe Quinn with a man, would the outrage be this intense? Would the men's rights neck-beards hiding behind their screen-names and anime avatars be this violent and abhorrent?

With Sarkeesian, it's a bit different, as I genuinely don't think she's done anything at all wrong. The main 'criticisms' I've seen are:
a) she's a con-artist because her kick-starter went over its goal and there's no way that series can require that much money to make, meaning she HAS to be keeping some of that money for herself.
b) she's not a 'gamer', why should she have the right to critique OUR games?
c) it's been ages since the kickstarter ended and she's only made a couple of episodes. ONCE AGAIN, SHE'S A CON-ARTIST
d) she selectively cherry-picks examples to make video games seem evil and worthless


Why I believe these are wrong:
a) Sarkeesian didn't make people keep donating to her kickstarter once it reached her established goal, these people did so willingfully in the knowledge that this money wasn't entirely necessary to create the video series. They did this because they liked her idea, believed that this road of critique was one worth pursuing and this person and her ideas were something that was worthy of their monetary support. With regard to Sarkeesian making money from this? God forbid a person living in a capitalist society receive money in return for their creative efforts. What an outrage that would be.
b) Regardless of the fact that she literally shows a photo of herself playing a Super NES as a child in the first video about the Damsel in Distress trope, this point is meaningless. It doesn't matter if she doesn't play games. If video games are to grow as a medium then the games themselves and the development and fan communities built around them need to be receptive to outside criticism. The concept of Sarkeesian's series is the application of a number of women-centric tropes to video games, and she is clearly immensely familiar with said tropes (she has a masters degree in Social and Political Thought and her thesis was based around female representation, she is clearly well educated on the matter), and as such, in my opinion, is well-equipped to identify these tropes within video games and create a series about them as long as she does the research required to provide examples of these tropes in video games. Which brings me on to the next point.
c) If she's doesn't play games, she isn't going to have these examples ready to go, so she's going to have to spend a lot of time either talking to other people who have played this games or actually playing these games. If she does play games, then she still needs to spend time researching the ones she hasn't played. Add on to that writing scripts, actually filming the things, capturing the requisite video, etc. etc. Things take time.
d) In the introduction to the first Damsel in Distress video, Sarkeesian literally says: "Remember, that it's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media, while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects" which immediately does away with the claim that she is attempting to make video games seem worthless. The first part about cherry-picking requires a bit more attention but that quote also helps provide context for this next argument. Sarkeesian isn't looking to examine video games, she's looking to specifically examine women-centric tropes within video games (which of course is itself analysis of video games, but that's besides the point) and the analysis of tropes is inherently something which requires the critic to take examples out of their respective medium because tropes aren't that whole thing. Tropes are like pieces of the jigsaw that come together to form the piece of media they exist within, examining each individual trope is going to require taking bits and pieces out of a game or its narrative to exemplify them because that is what tropes are, and that brings this point full circle back to the point about enjoying the media while also criticising it. She isn't saying that Super Mario Bros is a worthless misogynist piece of shit and that its jumping mechanics oppress women, she's saying that the main plot device is a trope and as such is only required to talk about that part of the game.

So exactly what has Sarkeesian done wrong then? In my mind she's had a vision, taken to kickstarter to find help in executing it, and received far more than she ever envisioned or required, subsequently executed it in the manner she intended and may well have made money off of it.

If these people thought that Sarkeesian's analysis was wrong, they'd be looking to respond in an equally mindful and critical manner, instead of threatening to kill her family and rape her too. There might be some people actually responding in this critical manner, and those people are helping to advance the gaming zeitgeist by engaging in this critical discussion, but at the moment they're having a hard time being heard over the misogynists and sociopaths that shout loudest.

EDIT: Forgot to add that the people criticising what she does with the money don't seem like the people that actually contributed to the kickstarter, and subsequently very little ground to stand on when slating what she does with it. The only people that have the right to do that are those that contributed, and in my (admittedly limited) experience, I haven't seen many contributors complaining.

Apparently, one person did complain about where her first video is and she blocked them from viewing any more backer exclusive stuff. Though this is the internet so grain of salt.

My only complaint is from her not using her own gameplay in her vids and not giving the original video maker credit. To me, that seems lazy.

So apparently supporters of Gamergate are being blocked on Mighty Number 9's twitter.

As any respectable person should do.

I'm 12 and what is this

How?

"Gamergate" is built on lies and bullshit. Even in the highly improbable event that there's any element of truth to the allegations, who the fuck are any of these people to throw stones and judge someone's sex life? If you're really that fucking bothered about "ethics in journalism", not only would it make sense to target the reviewer rather than the developer, but there are A LOT more important outlets that need your "guidance" than fucking Kotaku.

Anyone with any sort of professional or personal integrity should be giving these people a wide berth, because even though stupidity probably isn't contagious, more space between you and the crazy definitely doesn't hurt.

From what I've gathered, Gamergate is based around stopping journalists from attacking their audiences, which started with the whole "gamers are dead" articles that kotaku and polygon started putting out. They also don't condone harassment and mentioning Quinn or Sarkesian is a no no. They just want fair and unbiased journalism.

That is all I agree with. And a developer blacklisting people based off of their beliefs shouldn't be allowed.

That's the excuse that MRA assholes use to dress up their blatant misogyny. It started with attacks on Quinn and spread from there. If you want ethical journalism, bully for you. Don't associate yourself with Gamergate, because that has nothing to do with what you want.

This is nothing more than children/man-shaped children expressing their deep-seated psychological issues in the most virulent manner possible. This is the reason why I can't enjoy Firefly or Chuck like I used to, because apparently Adam Baldwin is a piece of shit on the inside. This is why I can finally look at Phil Fish with something other than disdain, because he spoke against the abuse and got torn to shreds in every arena possible. This is why we, as gamers, can't have nice things, because the collective gaming sphere still hasn't figured out how to grow the fuck up.

The hell is gamergate? What did Nixon do this time?