Can she just be ignored ? I mean, most people probably won't even know her if she doesn't attack Witcher 3 over sexism, so she originally doesn't even exist.
What impact could she bring ? Is she really that powerful, sounds like a witch to me, but a witch with the only negative sense of the word.
I think this is the right attitude on the surface, but because of this:
http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/...ta-sarkeesian-s-right-to-criticize-his-games/ and how Bioware seems to be aligned with her, there is speculation she had much influence in how Dragon Age Inquisition turned out. Now, Bioware always has had a more progressive agenda in their games I suppose, so ignoring Anita's rants against the Witcher seem fine, I think, but Dragon Age Inquisition moved to the point of taking out romance options for role players who are straight males, I believe--I can't confirm that, that is what I have heard. The argument being go to one of the many other games "straight males" if you want your video game romance simulations, but to be honest, most role playing games don't offer those in the first place outside of Bioware and CDPR. So it is a touchy subject. I suppose I like that role playing aspect of the game for some reason--the romance, not the sex so much, but the romance because it sweeps me up in the narrative. I appreciate that some people might like Garrus coming to their cabin with roses, or a giant transgendered Qunari cradling them, but there should be options for all I suppose, and if her influence is to remove choice for the "patriarchy" then that seems problematic.
Anyway, the pressure could affect a company like CDPR, but her arguments are difficult to swallow. She raised a large amount of money in a kickstarter to fund a study on tropes in video games, specifically towards females (
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...-kickstarter-breakdown-raised-440000-in-2014/ Forbes hates her I think) and many of her observations were rather...I don't know, elementary? But she has garnered a massive amount of power and clout in a short amount of time, and gaming companies certainly seem to be feeling pressure from her. She has no context of the Witcher series, it seems, and her argument about the game being about ghouls and witches and realism falls flat because she promotes diversity like transgenderism in unrealistic worlds such as Dragon Age. People who don't want that in their games (wrongly so, I'd say) could use her logic against her and say, "Transgender characters may be real and a real issue in today's world, but they have no place in a game about demons and apostates."
The reason she is singling out video games, I believe, is because she sees the primary audience of gaming to be problematic in terms of the "patriarchy." Gamers tend to be male, and I suppose if we could look into the stats, there would be a high correlation to whiteness just because in the United States (where she is directing her anger) that is the majority. Because of this she believes there is inherent hegemony in gaming that needs to be changed, I'm assuming, if there is going to be systemic change in how gender, sex, and sexuality is viewed by males in our country.
There is a misogyny in the United States that needs to be dealt with too, so ignoring her isn't perhaps the right answer either. It only reinforces her point that females are considered secondary to men. Perhaps helping to understand the cultural significance of The Witcher and its literary background might help, though I have my doubts. It isn't the type of creative project that can just be changed by CDPR--it is a world that has been created and loved long before. It is also dealing with a lot of the issues she is bringing up too in a way worth analyzing.
Sorry for the long post, I think she is way off here, but she carries a lot of weight. Maybe.