I saw this comment on reddit, this is the best summary I have seen.
Anita Sarkeesian's critique of video games were pretty basic and mid. She was a very young writer at the time, so her analysis where very surface level. Honestly did a pretty bad job at applying what feminist were already saying about movies and representation decades before her. It is trivial to find 1000 other blogs by first year media critic majors what would say the same thing at the time.
But her simplistic argument made her the perfect straw-men for a new political movement looking to harness a new wave of male grievance politics, lead by right wing ghouls such as Steve Bannon and (I FUCKING KID YOU NOT) Jeffrey Epstein. No joke, the Epstein emails contains conversations about how to harness and amplify gamer-gate related rage, and funnel that in to a right wing politics.In the most literal and direct way, Trump is Gamergate. Not 100%, there are other things that Trump is, but it was a pretty big factor. The victim complex that these guys still carry is beyond pathetic. They say of Sarkeesian "she's trying to destroy gaming" or "she hates gamers". They really do see themselves as a minority group that's under attack. It's parallel to the broader "they're trying to destroy the white race" that so many other influencers spread. For these gamers, their masculinity is tied up in their gamer identity, and they feel that they have a divine right to enjoy sexist art. When you try to pin down what the divine source is they get vague. It's "entertainment", it's "a way to escape from the real world". It's a nebulous thing like whiteness itself, it only serves to provide the flimsy scaffold for the rage.