On Ian Danskin’s Theory Part 2: Where Do We Go From Here?

On Wednesday I talked about the first three videos in Innuendo Studios’ six-part series Why Are You So Angry?, which explores where online harassment and movements like Gamergate come from. The last three videos touch on how we can try to reframe our own thinking about morality and social justice.

It can feel overwhelming to imagine solutions to issues as big as these, but keeping some simple things in mind helps. As Danskin and Sarkeesian (and I and many others state): consuming problematic media doesn’t make us bad. Creating it doesn’t make us bad. Even becoming an AJ doesn’t make us irrevocably bad. We always have the power to change our beliefs and our behaviors, or to reconsider how they affect us and others.

By change I don’t mean stop playing your favorite video games or stop eating meat or stop existing as a privileged person. Simply acknowledging that the things we say, do, and enjoy are affected by society and have the capacity to reflect social problems/affect others is an important step that validates oppressed group’s experiences..

anita quote

Of course this can’t totally solve the problem. We can’t control another person’s choices, or force them to confront their own privilege. But we can control our own behaviors and hold others accountable for theirs.

So what can we ‘privileged few’ do to deal with our discomfort and make healthy choices for ourselves and others? What can we do to make it clear that harassment is not okay and that AJs are not welcome in our community?

Danskin still isn’t 100% sure on this, and I’d say most people are in the same boat. But through a conversation with the experts – women affected by GG like Zoe Quinn and Lindsay Ellis – and his own rumination, he came up with some tentative suggestions which I have expanded upon to create my own (incomplete) list:

First of all, we can try to stop thinking in absolutes. Binarism makes the world easier, especially for people with privilege.I think Danskin is right that puritanical and binary thinking are Western concepts, and not just that, but colonial concepts used to empower some while oppressing others. If everything is cut and dry, one or the other, we get out of grappling with nuance and the feelings it brings up in us.

source: Yael Megery - Pikiwiki Israel

source: Yael Megery – Pikiwiki Israel

Second, we can try to look at the big picture, which means beyond ourselves. This is hard, because being selfish allows humans to survive. Some would argue that it is the natural and primary instinct, and that humans do not do anything without some kind of personal benefit. With that argument, I wholeheartedly disagree, but that is another post for another blog. When I say look at the big picture, I mean examine how media and social norms shape our current beliefs and, when making a choice about our actions or attitudes, ask how it affects other people who don’t have our privileges?

Along these lines, we can practice compassion towards ourselves. Much of the anger and hatred and violence turned towards cultural critics or so-called SJWs – especially female, trans, disabled, queer, and black and brown folks from those categories – comes from a sense of entitlement we get from society, but another chunk of it is a deflection of the anger or disappointment we feel towards ourselves for not being what we define as ‘good,’ for not seeing our own privilege or having it at all.

If we allow ourselves to be flawed human beings who sometimes make bad choices or miss things, but are not inherently or permanently bad, then we stop feeling the need to attack others who make us uncomfortable. Instead, we learn to cope with those feelings and show ourselves the understanding we might show a friend.

jay smooth quote

Once we show that compassion to ourselves and others, we’re able to continue watching and reading and playing the things we loved before, but also to be critical of them and help make them better.

When faced with others who choose not to acknowledge privilege, and worse, to attack those who do we can react to them in a variety of ways depending on our connection with them. If we are their close friend or family member, we can call them out and ask them to stop, or we can ask a mentor they respect to call them out.

This, as Ellis and Quinn told Danskin in their recent Twitter conversation, is really the only way to plant any seeds of change in an individual. They have to be hear it from someone they respect and be ready and willing to stop toxic behaviors.


source: Innuendo Studios

We can also talk about privilege (and choice and social justice and popular culture in general) on our own platforms, to allow those who are open to listen and learn in a safe space, away from conspiracy theories, threats, or attacks. This helps minimize negative effects on bystanders doing similar work or affected by the issue when we speak out.

And last, we can demand good moderation in our communities, and expel people who choose to put our safety at risk. While education can be an important step towards change for AJ, it is not the responsibility of Sarkeesian or the other people he attacks to educate him. It’s best if he can take initiative himself, but if he won’t, people close to him who also have privilege have the best chance of pushing him along the path.

So those are my thoughts on Ian Danskin’s thoughts on AJ’s thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian. Whew, that’s a mouthful! How do you guys deal with nuanced issues in your day to day life? What are the best ways we can foster critical conversations? Let me know in the comments.


On Ian Danskin’s Theory Part 1: Why We’re All So Angry

Recently, Ian Danskin of Innuendo Studios released a lovely, easily digestible video series about cultural criticism, harassment, and privilege. It was super thought-provoking, so I want to showcase and engage with his argument here. In this first piece, we’ll look at his first three videos and talk about what I think he gets wrong.

On the ‘About’ page of this blog, I talk a little bit about my tongue-in-cheek url and my drive to analyze the pieces of pop culture I love. I started this project because media we consume both shapes us and is shaped by us. The people I promote on this blog and my YouTube channel share these beliefs, and one of those people is Anita Sarkeesian.

If you haven’t yet heard of her, I’m a little concerned that you haven’t been on the internet in five years, but don’t worry–Danskin gives a great summary of her work and the backlash to it in his new videos.

Danskin’s central question is why do cultural critics like Sarkeesian receive not just floods of counter-arguments but also personal attacks against them ranging from ridiculous to terrifying? And why do some of those attackers join together to form movements like Gamergate? In essence, why are people so angry?

As a shorthand, he calls the people attacking Sarkeesian ‘Angry Jack’ or as I’ll call him ‘AJ.’ AJ is typically one or more of the following: white, male, straight, cis, and middle/upper class. This allows him to see the world at its most ideal: a world where he is not judged based on his gender, the color of his skin, his sexuality, the abilities of his body, the state of his mental health, or his wealth or class status. A world where he is an individual and defined by his individual actions.

credit: Amanda Watkins

Angry Jack, credit: Amanda Watkins

When someone says something like “I’m vegan,” or “I don’t drink,” or “that game is sexist,” it forces AJ to look at the world in a different way, to wonder whether doing or liking the things this person doesn’t do/like makes HIM a bad person. As Danskin points out, this is a complex question, but I’ll do my best to outline what we have to consider.

First things first, the value of a human being is inherent and does not come from their accomplishments or even their individual choices in isolation. Second things second, of course, we are all responsible for our own behaviors and accountable for the consequences of those behaviors. Behaviors can affect others and society at large.

Growing up, most of us believed what we saw and what we were told without questioning it. It would be exhausting to debate every single decision we made or belief we adopted, and the beliefs our society extolled are already long-established, so we accepted them as fact upon hearing of them and moved on.

source: Wikipedia

source: Wikipedia

That means that if/when we’re forced to question them, we’re questioning not just our beliefs at that moment, but an entire lifetime of attitudes and actions. And if we forget for a moment that what is up for debate is not our character as an individual, not our intentions, but the society we live in and how our attitudes and actions affect everyone, then that means we could believe we’ve been not just wrong but ‘bad’ for a long time. And that might make us feel judged for the groups we belong to or the things we enjoy rather than our character.

On all of this, Danskin and I agree, but I do think he gets one thing wrong in his argument; he posits that the AJs of the world feel this way but are hangers-on who go along with the real ‘bad guys.’ He contrasts them with ‘psychopaths’ who threaten and dox people they disagree with for no good reason. I don’t think that’s the case. First of all, as one of his viewers/followers pointed out, it is ableist to blame harmful behavior on mental illness or say that all psychopathic or sociopathic people will behave harmfully. But it’s also just plain not true.

The sad fact of the matter is, the abusers and rapists he uses as foils to online harassers in his videos are not the exceptions. They are parents and siblings and friends. They are humans. As are online harassers in communities like GG. That’s why things like rape culture and toxic gaming culture exist–those acts have the power of social norms and hierarchies behind them.

Credit: Chase Carter

Credit: Chase Carter

In the most benign of forms, AJ dismisses rather than engages with privilege. He resorts to derailment in the name of things like ‘journalism ethics.’ He posits that he and his fellow AJs are a ‘minority’ who deserves to speak, or that he is engaging in an ‘intellectual debate’ with two equally valid sides. He is Taylor Swift tweeting to Nicki Minaj about the VMAs.

At his most dangerous, the same AJ is violent and abusive. He uses hate speech to scare people who speak up about issues they care about. He makes an online game where people can punch Sarkeesian in the face. He is Redditors sending death threats to former CEO Ellen Pao.

Danskin points out that many people believe that harassers are gonna harass no matter what. But that isn’t exactly true. Harassment is a choice, a reaction to discomfort, to anger and disappointment and doubt that previously didn’t exist, that makes it harder to continue living the way we always had until someone like Sarkeesian spoke up. Those who bring social issues to AJ’s attention and spark this discomfort become symbols of the destruction of ease and innocence in AJ’s life, so to cope he chooses to lash out at them.

source: City of Renton website

source: City of Renton website

Many AJs have most grown up seeing gaming as a safe space for them, an area of culture where they can go to escape their personal disappointments. This helps explain, but not excuse, why someone like AJ might attack someone like Sarkeesian, who asks him to examine games and how they affect others. To him, this means he has to question himself, which is a scary, difficult, and – if we’re honest – life-long process.

It’s much easier to deflect. Danskin says that AJ is less a type of person and more the mindset we enter when we are faced with our privilege and enter defend-and-attack mode. I agree that every person with privilege, at one point in another in their lives, feels uncomfortable about taking advantage of privilege or having it at all says about their character. We privileged few each have the ability to become an AJ.

But that reaction is a choice. To avoid becoming one, we have to develop alternative reactions, new coping mechanisms. We have to recognize that a) it’s okay to feel discomfort but b) the social issues being exposed are bigger than our individual discomfort and therefore c) the debate at hand isn’t actually about our morality at all.

Thanks for reading! On Saturday we’ll talk about how we can create just online spaces and hold ourselves and others accountable. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts, like what do you think of Danskin’s videos? Where does harassment come from? Why do I get so defensive when someone says they don’t drink soda?

What’s In a Name? Part 3: Conclusion – Thematic Analysis of Her Story

SPOILER ALERT: this series contains plot details for the game.

If you haven’t seen them yet, check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this series now.

In case you have no idea what’s going on, this is the third and final installment of WIAN, my analysis of the game Her Story. So far, we’ve talked about the title of the game, the names of the main characters, and their sisterly relationship. In addition to Hannah and Eve, many other characters in the game share names with figures from history or mythology, which is what I want to look as we wrap up today. Watch the video below or keep reading for more.

Florence, the midwife who steals and raises Eve, shows similarities to Florence Nightingale, a nurse during the Crimean War who also had an interest in writing.

Simon is the name of the apostle later called Peter in the New Testament.The name Simon means “he has heard,” and in the end his character doesn’t just bear witness to Hannah and Eve’s story, his death allows it to be shared.

When Hannah gets pregnant, Simon wants to name the baby ‘Ava,’ but Hannah refuses. She doesn’t want her daughter to have a symmetrical name and be plagued by the same issues of identity and reflection as she and her sister were. She wants to name the baby Sarah, another biblical name.

source: Good Reads

source: Good Reads

The Orson Scott Card novel Sarah describes the events that befall Abraham and Sarah in Genesis from Sarah’s point of view, expanding the few sentences they get in the bible to 300 pages. Eve’s interviews do a similar thing for her life and that of her sister.

After the events of the game, Eve’s child is named Sarah, as we know from the chat messages that appear on the database computer. The player watches the videos alongside Sarah, to learn ‘why her mother did what she did.’

Reflection, Representation, and Storytelling

In her interviews, Eve often connects her life to fairy tales she read in books growing up. She even calls her final interview ‘a real life fairy tale.’ For her, growing up across the road from Hannah, Hannah’s life was what hers was supposed to look like, what she read about in books. So she cut her hair like Hannah’s, moved like Hannah, and eventually lived not just with Hannah, but as Hannah.

Many women feel compelled to look, dress, and act like the characters they learn about as children, the women they see on television or in movies. They are princesses or evil witches, good or bad seeds, and they provide archetypes after which girls are expected to model their own lives. Girls are set up to compete with their sisters to be the prettier or more likeable one, to perform womanhood more perfectly, because only then can they receive their fairy tale ending or their blessing from God.

source: Wikimedia Commons

source: Wikimedia Commons

These ideas of what makes someone a successful girl, what makes them the hero of their own story, are passed down from generation to generation in stories we tell and books we read. We learn them from such a young age that it can be difficult to remember they’re only stories

As time went on, both Hannah and Eve realized that aspects of living as one person didn’t feel good. That it limited them, made it difficult for each to be her authentic self. When Eve finally lets go of being one with Hannah, she embraces her individuality, getting a tattoo and wearing a wig. And when she is ‘herself,’ the man she’d always fawned over falls in love with her, separately from the character she played, and gives her the baby she’d longed for when her sister was pregnant.

Hannah is understandably angry at this turn of events. She was taught that acting a certain way would deliver her happiness and then found out that wasn’t true. She lashes out, and although she may not have intended to, she kills Simon.

source: Sam Barlow

source: Sam Barlow

But Eve doesn’t condemn Hannah or blame her. She protects her because in the end, neither of them is a ‘villain’ or a ‘damsel,’ and they aren’t in competition with one another. By telling her story, Eve liberates not just herself, but also her sister and her daughter, from these boxes. As Eve is giving her last interview to the detectives, Hannah is escaping the police and her past.

Each of the women in the story sheds the skin of her namesake and embraces her flawed, fully realized self. And as we play the game, we learn to let go of a little bit of our own preconceptions. To question the stories we tell ourselves.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this analysis, you might like my review of GTFO The Movie or my analysis of the Mass Effect Trilogy.

What’s In a Name? Part 2: Hannah and Sisterhood – Thematic Analysis of Her Story

SPOILER ALERT: this series contains plot details for the game. 

On Sunday I published Part 1 of my three-part mini-series on Her Story, which focused on the meaning behind the title of the game and Eve’s name. Like Eve, Hannah shares much with her biblical namesake, but has a critically different fate in the game. To hear more, watch the video below or keep reading.


In Judeo-Christian mythology, Hannah is Elkanah’s first wife of two and his favorite, but she doesn’t give him children. This upsets her, so she prays to God for a child and eventually is blessed by Eli the High Priest with six.

In Her Story, Hannah falls in love with Simon first and doesn’t want to share him with Eve. She marries him and gets pregnant by him, but has a miscarriage which renders her infertile. Yet she never receives a blessing, never bears him a child, and never lives the story book life that sat just out of reach for so many years.

Sisterhood and Rivalry

Throughout the game, we hear of times that Hannah resented Eve. She once held her head underwater, considering drowning her before relenting and letting her breathe. Another time, she hit her ‘harder than she needed to’ when imitating a bruise she got because of Eve’s actions. It’s even suggested that she tried to kill Eve before she was born, that Eve was never supposed to make it into the world. The song Eve plays for the detectives further underlines this ambivalent relationship.

In ‘The [Dreadful] Wind and the Rain,’ the older sister drowns the younger, prettier one because the man she loves is more infatuated with her. The younger sister is described as having long yellow hair. Since Eve wears a blonde wig when she performs as a musician, and is the one whose pregnancy is successful and who Simon eventually ‘chooses,’ she can be read as the younger sister in the song. But instead of having her story told by a fiddle made of her body, Eve tells her story herself.

In the Bible and the song Hannah’s ‘character’ competes with other women for a man’s affection. But unlike in those stories, in Her Story (as in the mini-game in the recycle bin) ‘Player Two’ or Eve ‘wins.’ The game offers an alternative to the cultural mythology about femininity and the role of women in society: maybe obedient, shy, and innocent is not the natural or only way to be. Eve is gnostic, confident, and even a little reckless but she still wins Simon’s heart, and is not the person who kills him. Of course, in the end the sisterhood is not really a rivalry at all. Instead, Eve’s acceptance of her individuality gives each woman freedom; the autonomy to tell her own story.

her story artwork

Thanks for reading! Share your theories in the comments and keep your eyes peeled for Part 3 of this analysis. Part 3 is here!

What’s In a Name? Part 1: Herstory and Eve – Thematic Analysis of Her Story

Warning: this series contains HEAVY SPOILERS for the game. If you don’t want to know who killed Simon, get outta here while you still can!

Disclaimer: my interpretation of the game is based on Hannah and Eve being twin sisters, not two personalities in the same body. #sorrynotsorry

You may remember from last week that one of my favorite Let’s Play channels, Geek Remix, recently played Her Story. After watching a few minutes of gameplay, I knew I wanted in on this, and I can tell you the game doesn’t disappoint. A non-linear, story-based game, the player combs through interview footage of Hannah Smith from a police investigation into the death of her husband Simon. The videos are archived based on their transcripts, so searching any keyword will bring up clips where the term is used. (When you begin, the first suggestion is ‘murder.’)

Written by Sam Barlow, the same person who brought us Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, the game conjures a similar mood and aesthetic while doing something that feels very new. It handles theme, allusion, and symbolism so well that I decided to write a three-part analysis of the names used in the game. Woo! Watch the video below, or read on for more.

Let’s start with the title, shall we?


‘Herstory’ is history told from the feminist perspective, a reaction to male-dominated accounts of past events, many of which do not acknowledge the differing experiences of women or the patriarchal values society held at that time.

While the term ‘herstory’ has many connotations depending on its context, at its core it refers to a woman’s side of the story, which is a particularly apt way to refer to the game’s account of Simon’s death. By alluding to and then subverting traditional historical and mythological tales, Her Story allows its female characters to speak for themselves and tells a different, more explicit and nuanced story of female persistence, survival, and ultimately freedom.


Of course, the title is not the only meaningful name in the story. Almost every character’s name is biblically, historically, or mythologically significant in some way. The most obvious connection the game makes to the Hebrew Bible is Eve, Hannah’s twin sister. She has a tattoo of a serpent wrapped around an apple, a clear reference to Adam’s wife and the first woman created by God, who ate fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and shared it with her husband. Her name means ‘living’ or ‘life source.’

Hannah’s sister Eve is obviously not the first human woman in existence in the universe of Her Story, but she seems to be the first person the detectives interview about Simon (although they believe she is Hannah at the time). As in the Bible, Eve discovers and disseminates knowledge of ‘good and evil,’ or in this case, of the twins lives and who is guilty of Simon’s murder. But the Biblical Eve is commonly perceived as an emblem of female weakness and the evils of temptation and knowledge, and our Eve is not so cut and dry.

It’s never made clear whether Eve was responsible for the deaths around her (Florence, the twins’ parents, and maybe even Hannah’s baby), whether they were prompted by knowledge that Hannah, and then later the detectives, did not have: the knowledge that Eve and Hannah are sisters. But we do know Eve did not murder Simon and is not expelled from her paradise because of her pursuit of knowledge.

In fact her curiosity allows her to escape her physical confinement by Florence and later by Hannah. Telling her story allows her to exist as an individual in a way she never could before, and to be acknowledged not just by the detectives, but by anyone who views her interviews. Her Story subverts the traditional narrative by allowing Eve’s side of the story to be heard and shared.

her story

First time posting in-depth analysis or making a video! What do you think? Would you like more of this? What interested you most about Her Story? Let me know in the comments!

Part 2 of this series is up now! Check it out!

Review: GTFO The Movie

I’d been intrigued by GTFO: The Movie, Shannon Sun-Higginson’s indie documentary about sexist harassment in gaming culture, since I learned about it at South by Southwest in March of 2015. Of course, I didn’t sell my soul for a SXSW film festival pass, so I wasn’t able to catch it when it was in town, but it finally went up on Vimeo, iTunes, and the like and now that I’ve seen it I can say with confidence that it was worth the wait. As a woman who plays video games, it didn’t necessarily tell me something I couldn’t have imagined or guessed at before, but it built the perfect spring-board for a continued conversation about misogyny, media, and society.


In the film, journalist and gamer Maddy Myers, Dragon Age writer Jennifer Brandes Hepler, activist and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, and an array of other women from the gaming world shared how they fit into it and when things went terribly wrong for each of them (i.e. online harassment, discrimination, and even rape and death threats). While the women themselves often told their stories with a wry smile, seeing and hearing the explicit, horrific messages sent their way was incredibly uncomfortable and scary. But that’s not the sole focus of the film. The movie examined several aspects of the game industry including marketing, character-design, multi-player online games, and competitive gaming. It also delved in-depth into two major events in recent gaming history: Capcom’s reality show Cross Assault, and the #Gamergate controversy (the latter of which seemed like a last-minute addition, but more on that later).

source: Shannon Sun-Hugginson / GTFO The Movie

source: Shannon Sun-Hugginson / GTFO The Movie

The film touched on a lot of things I myself think about on an almost daily basis, like what it means to make gaming an integral part of your identity or how to go about changing a toxic culture. What I really appreciated about it, though, was that it broke down a few stereotypes about gaming along the way, including:

If You Play Your Cards Right, You’re Safe

People often believe that the only gamers being harassed are the women who ‘flaunt’ their gender or otherwise invite criticism. But I think Todd Harper, author of The Culture of Digital Fighting Games and another voice in the film, said it best when describing Miranda Pakozdi’s reaction to her time on Cross Assault. He believes women who play games are given two unappealing choices: they either don’t point out the harassment they/their peers experience in order to protect themselves and to continue doing something they love, or they speak up and at best, receive backlash, but at worst, are isolated from their own community. There’s really no ‘safe’ option for girl gamers.

Harassment Comes From Anonymity

Again, the film’s examination of Cross Assault does a great job of debunking this myth. The fact that Aris Bakhtanians felt comfortable touching, smelling, ogleing, and heckling Miranda on camera and telling a reporter point blank that “sexual harassment is part of [fighting game] culture” shows that anonymity is not what produces this behavior. Rather, it’s a set of beliefs. Of course Aris, and the folks involved in Gamergate, are not the only people whose actions and attitudes are harmful to women, and these beliefs didn’t appear out of thin air. Which brings me to the last, and in my opinion, most important point…

Gaming is More Sexist Than X

Many people outside of the gaming community perceive the video game industry to be somehow more misogynistic or more toxic than the rest of the world, or to be at fault for sexist behavior. But as Harper and Sarkeesian point out, gaming doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s a form of media just like television, film, or music and it reflects the same attitudes we carry into all aspects of our day-to-day lives. That the rest of society seems eager to look to games as a cause of misogyny, or to call it out without examining other media, is willfully short-sighted and a point of contention among many gamers.

While the film isn’t exactly polished – shots are reused, quality varies from scene to scene, and the Gamergate montage was clearly added after the rightful end of the film, delivering a somewhat jarring/dissatisfying close – the ideas it explores are integral to the understanding of gaming culture and how it fits into the greater context and history of sexism; the animation and score are enjoyable; and director Shannon Sun-Higginson rightly continues the conversation online.

Have you watched the movie? What were your thoughts? Share them below, or find out where you can watch here.


Flashback Friday: Mass Effect

The Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) wrapped up June 18th, but in its three day span it brought us more information about the most anticipated games and most beloved series of the year than the other 362 days bring us combined. One highlight of the E3 coverage was Bioware’s announcement of the fourth game in the sci-fi action RPG series Mass Effect.

While Mass Effect: Andromeda takes place in the same universe as the first three Mass Effect games and brings back some familiar elements (like that damn Mako), it takes place in the Andromeda Galaxy rather than the Milky Way, and will not revolve around the trilogy’s hero Commander Shepard. Instead, an entirely new human protagonist will take his/her place.

When I saw the N7 logo and heard the familiar chimes play at the end of the trailer, a wave of nostalgia passed through me. I actually played the Mass Effect games after they’d all three been released, but the effect they had on me and my life is irrefutable, so I figured I’d take a few moments this Friday to honor what I unabashedly call my favorite video game to date.

In Mass Effect, the player can customize their character’s race, gender, and appearance. The female Commander Shepard, voiced by Jennifer Hale and affectionately nicknamed ‘Femshep,’ was one of the first female protagonists I played who really resonated with me. Yes, I’d played Tomb Raider growing up, and I’ve made no shortage of female Elder Scrolls characters in my time, but no other female playable character in a game has made the same impact on me as Femshep.

source: Bioware

source: Bioware

There are a few factors that play into this. First, as I mentioned, Jennifer Hale is a phenomenal voice actor who brings humor, strength, empathy, and nuance to her performance in the trilogy. Without her skillful portrayal of Femshep, I doubt Manshep’s female counterpart would have received anywhere nearly as much love from the fans as she did.

In addition, Femshep’s story arc breaks from storytelling tradition. There are literally millions of stories about one man saving the world from imminent doom, but how often do we see a woman take that role in a game? And how often is she able to do it not as a brusque anti-hero, but as a compassionate and generally well-adjusted human being?

Of course, playing Paragon is a choice, which is another thing that helped Mass Effect succeed. The player is in total control of Femshep’s abilities, what she says in conversation, which missions she takes, and with whom she starts/maintains relationships. If Mass Effect weren’t a choice-based game within a rich and well-designed universe, her character would not feel nearly as relatable. (Those of you who are already starting your rant about the ending, stay with me.)

source: Mass Effect Wiki

On that note, the friendships and romances available to Shepard bring another layer of meaning to the experience. In all three games, Femshep is given both male and female romance options (the Asari gender debate aside). And Manshep has male love interests in the third game. This romantic and sexual fluidity allows the player to see their lives represented by the hero character. LGBT people–and particularly bisexual, asexual, and trans folks–rarely see themselves depicted on any screen, so seeing themselves reflected in an accomplished and important character is incredibly meaningful.

Of course, it’s not just Femshep who fans find inspirational. Kaidan, Ashley, Garrus, Liara, Thane, and the other characters in the game each have passionate followings, because their personalities and back stories were carefully and intricately constructed. (And come on, have you heard Garrus’ voice?) Bioware chose not to shy away from those relationships, even releasing downloadable content after the end of the trilogy that allowed the player to get closure from those relationships regardless of how their playthrough ended.

Mass Effect certainly hit some stumbling blocks along its journey. As I touched on before, the ending left something to be desired for many players. The sexualizing makeovers female characters like Femshep, Jack, and Ashley received from game to game were puzzling for lots of folks (do biotic implants also refer to…well, implants??), and the lack of gay male romances in the first two games was frustrating for some as well. We can only hope that Bioware has learned from those mistakes.

source: Bioware

source: Bioware

But at the end of the day, I’m as excited for ME4 (which Bioware insists we NOT call it) as I’ve ever been for a game. And since it’s not coming out until ‘Holiday 2016,’ I have plenty of time to complete my…would it be the fourth playthrough? Eh, who’s counting…