Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pinko Marx said:
Hey, I get it. I understand completely. But there was no semblance of nuance being used during that discussion. It was just mudslinging through and through on both sides.
And therein lies the problem, no one having any of these discussions is using the nuance that all these intertwining social and industry related issues need.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's particularly insightful to blame both sides equally when the GB crew themselves all posted how disgusted and disappointed they were at their own community, while saying it's perfectly ok to accept and receive criticism for their practices.


tengiants said:
I like Anita, but I do not like Zoe or Leigh. Where does this put me in the debate? I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Right with me.
Actually I'm lukewarm on the Tropes Against Women series personally
 
Mully said:
)76.

There is a stigma. I do features about issues just outside the industry's bubble. It gives me a good idea of what people think of the industry as they begin to enter.

Most of the people I talk to believe there is a stigma. My articles are about widening the gaming culture and making it more about the person than what they do.

I'm technically a gamer but I also enjoy writing, watching movies, and taking the stairs than the escalator. I think the whole gamer thing is less about the stigma and more about widening the scope of what the industry is.
Click to expand...

I guess. It must be all about the industry you are in? I've worked most of my life in the financial world, so my experiences have been very different, in terms of gamer connotation(doesn't really have one, outside of the literal term). But then again, it gets brought up so very little, that it is hard for me to notice. Sports fan, to me, has more of a recognizable, yet ambiguous, connotation to it at least in my circle.
 
APF said:
Again, if your concern is nepotism, your first target should be Giant Bomb. And yet it's not. "Hrm."
Click to expand...
The only reason Giant Bomb is a major target is their openness about their relationships. Bringing people on their shows. We have no clue about the hiring practice or contact other outlets even have.
 
APF said:
I don't think it's particularly insightful to blame both sides equally when the GB crew themselves all posted how disgusted and disappointed they were at their own community, while saying it's perfectly ok to accept and receive criticism for their practices.



Right with me.
Click to expand...

I didn't blame both sides equally, but both did act like assholes. Samantha Allen did not really open the conversation up in a welcoming way.
 
APF said:
That just seems so weird. I wonder if there's some connection between her harassment and the harassment of certain other figures in gaming lately.


EDIT for RockTurtle: in addition, here are some of the folks the GB folks are extremely close to: Supergiant Games, Cards Against Humanity, Iron Galaxy, Harmonix, Double Fine
Click to expand...

In case you aren't being sarcastic, this has been going on for a long while. E.g. just think of Jade Raymond 7 years ago and all that bile.

And those are only the stories we hear about. What about all the ones that go unheard or who don't speak up because they are afraid of harassment? Like someone really knowledgeable and insightful remarked on the last couple of events for victims of harassment in video games:

It's awful feeling like you have to be missing before people realize your importance. I feel like that hasn't happened yet for many people. They deserve to be remembered and instead we have people galvanizing around to save only the ultimate victims. Can you imagine how it feels to only be as worthy as the amount of abuse thrown at you? Do you think Sarkeesian and Quinn like that? Contributions are only valued when you're horrifically abused. which is why so many fade away, because they have yet to be publicly violated and people forget about them.
Click to expand...
 
Kadayi said:
I noticed in the comments of the al Jazeera article that someone said according to FOIA requests seemingly no police reports were in fact made regarding the death threats stuff? Anyone know if this is true?
Click to expand...
Did Anita actually make any requests of the federal government?
 
Cyrano said:
Did Anita actually make any requests of the federal government?
Click to expand...

You tell me (I'm from Euroland). I just wondered if there was anything to it or just some comment sniping? Presumably the death threat being through twitter would be an Federal thing versus local police? Did Polygon etc not confirm a report had been made when they ran the story?
 
I too would like more compressed jpgs done in mspaint with red underlining and zooming on the important parts of it.
 
Hey all! Is there any place or article out there that summarizes what is going on, from the start of the Zoe Quinn thing until now? I'm curious, but want to play some catch up.
 
Cyan said:
I strongly disagree. In fact, I'd say that conflation of a wide variety of issues is precisely the reason this whole thing is so godawful and contentious.

Some of the issues:
-Zoe Quinn cheating on her boyfriend
-Zoe Quinn being too close to game journalists
-Zoe Quinn disliking an IndieGoGo campaign and speaking out against it
-Zoe Quinn getting harassed and/or doxxed
-Phil Fish getting doxxed
-Anita Sarkeesian getting death threats
-Leigh Alexander writing an angry column about "gamers"
-other game journalists writing similar columns or writing angry tweets
-a variety of awful Twitter hashtags
-the general idea of conflicts of interest in games journalism
-games journalism's interface with crowdfunding
-Kotaku's stance on disclosures
-corruption and/or the appearance thereof in IGF awards
-probably a bunch of other stuff I'm not remembering.

And of course this is going on against a background of:
-shifting demographics in video games
-shifts in "where the money is" from consoles to other platforms
-anger at IAPs, simple games, and "non-games"
-the rise of indie devs
-Tropes v Women in Games being a thing
-game devs in general becoming more sensitive and aware of the way women and minorities are represented in games

These intersect in all kinds of crazy ways. So you see someone saying "I think there might be a problem with conflicts of interest in games journalism because they all know each other," and then someone else looking at that, wondering why they didn't care until Zoe Quinn cheated on her boyfriend, conflating the two and calling that person a misogynist. Or you see someone saying "wow all this anti-Sarkeesian stuff makes me uncomfortable being called a gamer," and then other people looking at that, conflating it with Alexander's column, and assuming that person is a bully who hates all gamers. Or you see conspiracy videos that actively and carelessly conflate all of this stuff, because it suits their purposes to be lurid and to throw as much shit at the wall as possible.

Then, of course, you mix in tribalism, personal identities, and all of the background stuff, and suddenly it's a massive shitstorm where everyone is talking past each other, a lot of people are really angry, and nobody is really engaging in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

I highly recommend the best attitude to take as laughing at people being morons on twitter, regardless of their ideological allegiance. because honestly both sides have some really loathsome members in their ranks, and you dont want to endorse those views by marrying yourself to the cause.

except for that 13 year old kid who owned a bunch of people on twitter. kid owns
 
Mully said:
They're people who play games. They're the same people who watch movies and go on Facebook.

To be honest when I think of gamer I think of a disheveled person. A person that's lost and turned to gaming as false means of defining who they are. People are more than their hobby and it's unfair of people to lump the unfortunate number of people who choose to be something that's only part of who they are.

I think it's better to simply call them fans or players than gamers. Gamers is a stereotype. To break away from the stigma, "gamers," will have to do more than play games.
Click to expand...

That whole attitude is exactly the problem. A gamer is not automatically a disheveled person who's lost. The fact that you think that is the fucking problem. Think about how that would sound if you replaced "gamer" with any other category of people, such as LBGT. You would immediately be branded a prejudiced bigot, and rightly so.

You said you yourself are a gamer but you also enjoy other activities. I don't think you're a disheveled, lost person either. Guess what, the same can be said of most gamers!

The clique of people that you talk to is making the mistake of unfairly lumping all gamers in with the misogynistic neckbeards and obsessive losers and trying make gamer out to be a negative term, when they should be doing the exact opposite. Separate the misogynists and say these assholes are not representative of gamers.
 
flkraven said:
Hey all! Is there any place or article out there that summarizes what is going on, from the start of the Zoe Quinn thing until now? I'm curious, but want to play some catch up.
Click to expand...

sad as it is to say, the 'best' one stop shop is the encyclopedia dramatica entry on the quinncontroversy. ignore the obvious bias and just take in the linked documents. this is probably the fastest way to be brought up to speed on things.

just keep in mind they are basically 4chan

https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Zoe_Quinn

also this is not remotely safe for work

e: vvvv still it is an example of massive stereotyping. it doesnt have the same moral weight as bigotry, but it's kinda mean and dumb
 
Xetherion said:
That whole attitude is exactly the problem. A gamer is not automatically a disheveled person who's lost. The fact that you think that is the fucking problem. Think about how that would sound if you replaced "gamer" with any other category of people, such as LBGT. You would immediately be branded a prejudiced bigot, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

Please don't compare the prejudices and oppression that LBGTQ identities face with whatever it is these "gamers" experience.
 
Cyan said:
I strongly disagree. In fact, I'd say that conflation of a wide variety of issues is precisely the reason this whole thing is so godawful and contentious.

Some of the issues:
-Zoe Quinn cheating on her boyfriend
-Zoe Quinn being too close to game journalists
-Zoe Quinn disliking an IndieGoGo campaign and speaking out against it
-Zoe Quinn getting harassed and/or doxxed
-Phil Fish getting doxxed
-Anita Sarkeesian getting death threats
-Leigh Alexander writing an angry column about "gamers"
-other game journalists writing similar columns or writing angry tweets
-a variety of awful Twitter hashtags
-the general idea of conflicts of interest in games journalism
-games journalism's interface with crowdfunding
-Kotaku's stance on disclosures
-corruption and/or the appearance thereof in IGF awards
-probably a bunch of other stuff I'm not remembering.

And of course this is going on against a background of:
-shifting demographics in video games
-shifts in "where the money is" from consoles to other platforms
-anger at IAPs, simple games, and "non-games"
-the rise of indie devs
-Tropes v Women in Games being a thing
-game devs in general becoming more sensitive and aware of the way women and minorities are represented in games

These intersect in all kinds of crazy ways. So you see someone saying "I think there might be a problem with conflicts of interest in games journalism because they all know each other," and then someone else looking at that, wondering why they didn't care until Zoe Quinn cheated on her boyfriend, conflating the two and calling that person a misogynist. Or you see someone saying "wow all this anti-Sarkeesian stuff makes me uncomfortable being called a gamer," and then other people looking at that, conflating it with Alexander's column, and assuming that person is a bully who hates all gamers. Or you see conspiracy videos that actively and carelessly conflate all of this stuff, because it suits their purposes to be lurid and to throw as much shit at the wall as possible.

Then, of course, you mix in tribalism, personal identities, and all of the background stuff, and suddenly it's a massive shitstorm where everyone is talking past each other, a lot of people are really angry, and nobody is really engaging in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

I was going to ask for a summary of what this thread is about lately and I think you did a great job. After reading that, I kinda feel like I actually have been keeping up with all this even though it's almost impossible to follow.
 
Lime said:
Please don't compare the prejudices and oppression that LBGTQ identities face with whatever it is these "gamers" experience.
Click to expand...

Lime beat me to it but yeah, the problem with this kind of equivocation is that gamers, geeks, whatever don't face any kind of systemic oppression for their hobbies. Another problem is it's hard to say "those aren't gamers" when a vocal contingency is explicitly trying to exclude others because they aren't "real gamers" or whatever, while another probably bigger and also vocal contingency is just closing ranks and defending the "gamer" identity rather than being critical about the issues that have been raised. So we can keep saying no true Scotsman etc or we can accept that there are some fucked up attitudes endemic to the culture as currently defined.
 
Kadayi said:
You tell me (I'm from Euroland). I just wondered if there was anything to it or just some comment sniping? Presumably the death threat being through twitter would be an Federal thing versus local police? Did Polygon etc not confirm a report had been made when they ran the story?
Click to expand...
I haven't heard anything about it, so I'm just going to assume it's probably a person trolling. Regardless, FOIA's information largely tends to concern security and international issues; a request for a local individual's information regarding a death threat would likely not be granted in order to respect their privacy.
 
but seriously, this bullshit about moving past 'gamer' as an identity is fucking crazy! you can't just dictate linguistics like that. sure say that a large portion of the 'gamer' identity is toxic and loathsome. That's obviously true. I'm on board with that. But to say 'therefore we're gonna move to a whole new world for our identity, gamer+' or whatever. Jeez.

that's positively orwellian. and I make fun of people like fucking crazy for using the term orwellian.
 
Lime said:
I don't want to risk her getting exposure and receive harassment by naming her here in public, so I sent you a PM.
Click to expand...

I'm not the biggest fan of Dan at GB so far, but the huge portfolio of wacky/amusing video content he had created at Game Informer before being hired was unmatched. And being in videos like that is what they hired him to do, he wasn't hired to be a Videogame journalist or even a reviewer.
 
IrishNinja said:
apologies then; i don't recall this, and you still follow dude's twitter so i felt it a safe assumption.
Click to expand...

It's been ages since that convo, and again true I have him followed, thing is with Twitter, since I use it rarely, people I follow at one point tend to stay on my feed, hell the only person I unfollowed recently was Andrew Vestal, and honestly the only reason I even thought to do it was you mentioning unfollowing some journos recently yourself. Personally I wish that a lot of celebs and pundits would stay the hell out of it as it just escalates things.



you've missed the parts linking /v/ to elements of the attacks/harassment, then? no, it's not my homepage, but i thought this was kinda known.
Click to expand...

The stuff I have seen was the people who claimed credit for the hacks themselves, who did the capital /V/, and haven't seen records of posts in /v/ stating that the hacks were something they did, or something the majority of them condoned. To be fair, I very well could have missed that, but I did at least a cursory look around for it. The issue that 4chan has overall, is its anonymity, but that same anonymity makes it extremely easy to pose as them as well. Though, my understanding, and again, correct me if I am wrong, is that 4chan boards as a whole tended to revel in hacks that they did. Or at least that is the narrative.


IrishNinja said:
those "fun ones" in the context you've presented them are, again, likely coming from said marginalized communities who - per my earlier post - have seen larger parts of their identity (not hobbies) used as ammo in the demonizing of SJW's/any call for progression/etc. i understand your affinity for polite tones & arguments to moderation, but why you seek that from people facing oppression i'll never know.
Click to expand...

I could just as easily argue that the worst of the posts on the other side come from people who have been bullied for their hobbies, or their social anxieties over time and are coming out against what they view as attacks on their self-created identities. Let's be honest, being a geek is only cool under fairly specific circumstances, and while it isn't nearly as bad as it was when we were in high school, in quite a lot of the country games are still seen as a far worse hobby than sports, or movies, or music.

I argue that anger is generally the worst emotion to act upon in a discussion, no matter how right you are.
 
I argue that anger is generally the worst emotion to act upon in a discussion, no matter how right you are.
Click to expand...

I disagree whole heartedly. Therr is powrr and passion and inspiration to be drawn from anger. Good has come from speech drawn from righteous fury. Hatred and contempt, those are the worst emotions to speak with.
 
JABEE said:
That doesn't mean we need to rid ourselves of the people who wait in line at events and dress like slobs. We don't need to evolve and leave those people behind because we view ourselves as cooler and more progressive than they are. Even of they define themselves entirely by one specific hobby that doesn't make them worthy if being excluded or treated like lepers.

You can move on from being that type of gamer without that type of gamer needing to die out. There is a place for obsessive film fans, sports fans, and game fans. I'm sure many great creative people who contribute to this medium were once these kinds of people.

I think there is room for more than one kind of gamer. We get to a point where it just becomes a case of separating yourself from the unwanted and ugly. That's a bit of a cruel attitude to have.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I lost the quote but I wanted to call out Cyan's post as well. Great overview for why things have gotten as messy as they are.

I disagree whole heartedly. Therr is powrr and passion and inspiration to be drawn from anger. Good has come from speech drawn from righteous fury. Hatred and contempt, those are the worst emotions to speak with.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from, but in an actual discussion, I think bringing one's anger to the fore tends to put people on the defensive, and can easily cement their views. Anger can have its place in a fiery speech, or inform it, no question, but in a conversation it more often then not harms your point.
 
I still honestly don't understand how moving on from the term "Gamer" is going to change anything.

The assholes would follow no matter what game enthusiasts called themselves.

Nor do I understand the equation of these vile people with enthusiasts. I doubt there's any real way to know how many of them are just opportunistic harassers and how many of them would even identify as capital G gamers.
 
bishopcruz said:
I could just as easily argue that the worst of the posts on the other side come from people who have been bullied for their hobbies
Click to expand...

you are now quite literally equivocating sexuality, gender identity etc with a consumer hobby.

Let's be honest, being a geek is only cool under fairly specific circumstances, and while it isn't nearly as bad as it was when we were in high school, in quite a lot of the country games are still seen as a far worse hobby than sports, or movies, or music.
Click to expand...

i honestly don't give much thought to 80s tropes/high school geek/nerd/etc labels, nor where they rate on another's echelon. to be clear though, you wish for consumers of our hobby of choice to be put in the same context as legitimately marginalized minorities/communities, am I understand you correctly?
and yes i do note your arbitrary quantifying of some having social anxiety/etc disorders but given the presence of such on "my side" i don't know what you want to do with this point

I argue that anger is generally the worst emotion to act upon in a discussion, no matter how right you are.
Click to expand...

with respect: this is because you clearly seem to emphasize tone rather than content. if someone's oppressed, they often might express this in a somewhat righteous anger; i tend to not shut myself off to the message simply because it's delivered ungraciously.

JABEE said:
That doesn't mean we need to rid ourselves of the people who wait in line at events and dress like slobs. We don't need to evolve and leave those people behind because we view ourselves as cooler and more progressive than they are. Even of they define themselves entirely by one specific hobby that doesn't make them worthy if being excluded or treated like lepers.
Click to expand...

this group of consumers, as it were, has a multi-billion dollar industry catering to them, more hardcore places than ever to talk online, a higher level of social acceptance than ever, and events loaded with pretty people cosplaying for them. what are they owed that they're not receiving? are they really in need of defense because leigh & a few others tried to take away/mock their word?

it didn't go anywhere. they're still gamers. if that's what exclusion feels like, i'd say it's a pretty good life.
 
poorlonelycomputer said:
Lime beat me to it but yeah, the problem with this kind of equivocation is that gamers, geeks, whatever don't face any kind of systemic oppression for their hobbies.
Click to expand...
Any mention towards a "unified" message against the stuff being posted against gamers would be an effort to avoid that outcome. This, of course, assumes there is in fact a unified message among gamers. Gamers who commonly have plenty of infighting amongst each other for any number of reasons.


poorlonelycomputer said:
Another problem is it's hard to say "those aren't gamers" when a vocal contingency is explicitly trying to exclude others because they aren't "real gamers" or whatever, while another probably bigger and also vocal contingency is just closing ranks and defending the "gamer" identity rather than being critical about the issues that have been raised. So we can keep saying no true Scotsman etc or we can accept that there are some fucked up attitudes endemic to the culture as currently defined.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is just a vocal minorty of folks who are being assholes, rather than being gamers (this makes the most sense, because we are labeling by actions those individuals take in both terminologies). Gamers were playing games when most of this went down and had no idea of it until it boiled over and spilled out and started seeping into more and more places like the aljazeera article is begining to demonstrate.

The concept of gamers, in general, having any kind of unified orgnization or structure in order to create a movement and "close ranks" as it were seems a bit laughable in of its self since "gamers" are not like political/religious groups who seek power and therefore mandate one unified message and organization (never mind the aforementioned infighting). Also, as such there is no one among gamers to make a call for such action and have it actually occur. The only time something close to that happening that I can think of would be in regard to when the xbox1 was about to be revealed and subsequently revealed at E3 regardingt he DRM check ins.

It would be far more useful to not try and equate out gamers to being something that they are not. It is not about the scottsman fallacy rather than treating folks who had nothing to do with what is being referenced as the core and cause of the issue at hand. Labeling gamers as such is a strawman at best.
 
PsychoSoldier said:
I still honestly don't understand how moving on from the term "Gamer" is going to change anything.
Click to expand...

At least people won't identify themselves through the products they consume and thereby avoid playing into the identities constructed by corporate and marketing, which are solely aimed to increase profits and consumption.
 
Lime said:
At least people won't identify themselves through the products they consume and thereby avoid playing into the identities constructed by corporate and marketing, which are solely aimed to increase profits and consumption.
Click to expand...

Corporations are going to do that regardless of how folks who enjoy playing games self identify. It is what corporations do.
 
Xetherion said:
That whole attitude is exactly the problem. A gamer is not automatically a disheveled person who's lost. The fact that you think that is the fucking problem. Think about how that would sound if you replaced "gamer" with any other category of people, such as LBGT. You would immediately be branded a prejudiced bigot, and rightly so.

You said you yourself are a gamer but you also enjoy other activities. I don't think you're a disheveled, lost person either. Guess what, the same can be said of most gamers!

The clique of people that you talk to is making the mistake of unfairly lumping all gamers in with the misogynistic neckbeards and obsessive losers and trying make gamer out to be a negative term, when they should be doing the exact opposite. Separate the misogynists and say these assholes are not representative of gamers.
Click to expand...

It's not a clique. Anita Saarkeesian did not invent the dislike of the term gamers.

Millions of people including the ones that actually purchase Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, Battlefield think of gamers in a negative light.

That has to do with how gamers was marketed for nearly two decades: hardcore gamers who buy anything. It's very easy to entice an audience that already feels ostracized.

I think what we're seeing here is the last vestige of people who use the term gamer to define themselves. They feel threatened at the notion that a word like gamer is being questioned as a defining characteristic of those who play games.

It's more than just Mega Man fans and that's what the discussion is about at its simplest form. Journalists want to reach a wider audience that simply doesn't include gamers but gaming as a whole.
 
Lime said:
At least people won't identify themselves through the products they consume and thereby avoid playing into the identities constructed by corporate and marketing, which are solely aimed to increase profits and consumption.
Click to expand...

Man, book fans are just part of this corporate machine man, and they are just like, part of this industry that makes money off of them, and like, the culture of book fans is terrible.

If you have a problem with a subculture being based around buying stuff, then why aren't you getting angry at literally the tons of hobby enthusiasts that buy stuff and become "gearheads" or, "bookworms" or "filmbuffs" or the thousands of other things.

That's not an indictment on gamers, as you're once again labeling a massive conglomerate of people under 1 specific idea.

There are issues within the gamer community, is that the fault of gamers? or is that the fault of those who are causing the issues. Gamer is literally such a neutral term for a hobbyist in the industry.

Mully said:
It's not a clique. Anita Saarkeesian did not invent the dislike of the term gamers.

Millions of people including the ones that actually purchase Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, Battlefield think of gamers in a negative light.

That has to do with how gamers was marketed for nearly two decades: hardcore gamers who buy anything. It's very easy to entice an audience that already feels ostracized.

I think what we're seeing here is the last vestige of people who use the term gamer to define themselves. They feel threatened at the notion that a word like gamer is being questioned as a defining characteristic of those who play games.

It's more than just Mega Man fans and that's what the discussion is about at its simplest form. Journalists want to reach a wider audience that simply doesn't include gamers but gaming as a whole.
Click to expand...

You're mistaking gamers for possibly hardcore gamers or core gamers

and even then, are those foundations based on anything actually there, or are they just founded on The Big Bang Theory and depictions of enthusiast cultures.

If journalists want to reach a wider audience, then there's no reason to stop reaching to the same audience it has while also adding to the group.

Im sorry that you have such a hatred for other human beings that share a hobby with you, and im sorry that you still have this great idea that "WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE SMELLY NERD GAMERS BECAUSE SOCIETY IS TOO BIGOTED AGAINST A GROUP FOR NO REASON"
 
Lime said:
Please don't compare the prejudices and oppression that LBGTQ identities face with whatever it is these "gamers" experience.
Click to expand...

poorlonelycomputer said:
Lime beat me to it but yeah, the problem with this kind of equivocation is that gamers, geeks, whatever don't face any kind of systemic oppression for their hobbies.
Click to expand...

in hindsight i really should've just quoted these posts
also Limes if you take away corporate messaging you sort've ether the poor souls of countless console warriors, you terrible monster
 
Lime said:
At least people won't identify themselves through the products they consume and thereby avoid playing into the identities constructed by corporate and marketing, which are solely aimed to increase profits and consumption.
Click to expand...
Maybe consumers might even question the motives of large profit-seeking companies who claim to provide entertainment and not a McDonald's-esque consumable product.

*sigh*
 
Mully said:
It's not a clique. Anita Saarkeesian did not invent the dislike of the term gamers.

Millions of people including the ones that actually purchase Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, Battlefield think of gamers in a negative light.

That has to do with how gamers was marketed for nearly two decades: hardcore gamers who buy anything. It's very easy to entice an audience that already feels ostracized.

I think what we're seeing here is the last vestige of people who use the term gamer to define themselves. They feel threatened at the notion that a word like gamer is being questioned as a defining characteristic of those who play games.

It's more than just Mega Man fans and that's what the discussion is about at its simplest form. Journalists want to reach a wider audience that simply doesn't include gamers but gaming as a whole.
Click to expand...

honestly that just sounds like self-congratulatory masturbation. "Gamer" refers to enthusiasts towards video games, by the shared experience we call linguistics. You and I both know that no one is going to read these articles except enthusiasts. It just sounds so much like a bunch of insecure people trying to ironically distance themselves from their hobby to avoid being criticized for liking the wrong things.

(and obnoxious journalists trying to assume additional prestige for a career in mediocre reporting on electronic toys)
 
Lime said:
Please don't compare the prejudices and oppression that LBGTQ identities face with whatever it is these "gamers" experience.
Click to expand...

I don't care about gamers and their gender. I care about PEOPLE getting harassed. All harassment and hatred, no matter where it comes from, should be condemned. All these gamers, all these feminists, all these LGBT, ALL of them are Actual. Human. Beings.
 
Inflammable Slinky said:
honestly that just sounds like self-congratulatory masturbation. "Gamer" refers to enthusiasts towards video games, by the shared experience we call linguistics. You and I both know that no one is going to read these articles except enthusiasts. It just sounds so much like a bunch of insecure people trying to ironically distance themselves from their hobby to avoid being criticized for liking the wrong things.
Click to expand...

That's why I don't write them. The reporters that do see a reason to. I don't. I'd rather simply not include the term and move on.
 
Lime said:
At least people won't identify themselves through the products they consume and thereby avoid playing into the identities constructed by corporate and marketing, which are solely aimed to increase profits and consumption.
Click to expand...
Aren't you really just replacing one label for corporations to exploit with another? Corporations have no trouble re-appropriating labels and identities held by the sophisticated and progressive people to sell products. Organic food markets and gluten-free food products are sold to people who don't have coeliac disease. They represent products that are sold to support an identity. Many of these more expensive products are bought and consumed by professional people who you would think are educated and politically engaged.

Most labels and identities are exploited by corporations. That doesn't mean these labels don't bring positives to people. Corporations will find ways to profit off of everyone's differences. It's part of determining Market segments. That doesn't make calling oneself a gamer any more wrong than calling yourself a traveler or a surfer. Both are used by Marketers and enforced, neither identities are something that people should feel shame about.
 
Mully said:
It's not a clique. Anita Saarkeesian did not invent the dislike of the term gamers.

Millions of people including the ones that actually purchase Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, Battlefield think of gamers in a negative light.

That has to do with how gamers was marketed for nearly two decades: hardcore gamers who buy anything. It's very easy to entice an audience that already feels ostracized.

I think what we're seeing here is the last vestige of people who use the term gamer to define themselves. They feel threatened at the notion that a word like gamer is being questioned as a defining characteristic of those who play games.

It's more than just Mega Man fans and that's what the discussion is about at its simplest form. Journalists want to reach a wider audience that simply doesn't include gamers but gaming as a whole.
Click to expand...

The why aren't both press and audience questioning the PR/Marketing teams of companies? It's not sarcasm, it's a legit question.
 
Inflammable Slinky said:
but seriously, this bullshit about moving past 'gamer' as an identity is fucking crazy! you can't just dictate linguistics like that. sure say that a large portion of the 'gamer' identity is toxic and loathsome. That's obviously true. I'm on board with that. But to say 'therefore we're gonna move to a whole new world for our identity, gamer+' or whatever. Jeez.

that's positively orwellian. and I make fun of people like fucking crazy for using the term orwellian.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is trying to dictate linguistics. People shouldn't take these critics of gaming culture as a simple way to change the definition of a term. That's why I've been saying "Gamer is dead, long live the gamer" because it's a metaphorical death of previous stereotypes based on market shift.

It's really that simple. I've considered over the course of the afternoon the consternation caused by certain articles on the issue and it seems to me that the core misunderstanding comes from the idea that a select few are somehow trying to kill 'gamer' as a noun... which I agree is kind of a ridiculous notion.
 
Gsak said:
The why aren't both press and audience questioning the PR/Marketing teams of companies? It's not sarcasm, it's a legit question.
Click to expand...

It's a very specific niche. Gamers has become a common term within it. No one questions it (until recently) because most people within the niche identified by it.
 
Mully said:
That's why I don't write them. The reporters that do see a reason to. I don't. I'd rather simply not include the term and move on.
Click to expand...

oh so youre more on a people-who-play-video-games rather than gamer thing. ok i'm down with that. i just can't tell if the people that are writing these articles are hilarious or pathetic.

it's like, a bunch of folk are trying to make this issue into the flashpoint for a huge cultural shift, one extending beyond gaming, when it's better described as a tempest in a teapot at best, and more realisticly as a neverending cascade of twitter tantrums
 
Inflammable Slinky said:
oh so youre more on a people-who-play-video-games rather than gamer thing. ok i'm down with that. i just can't tell if the people that are writing these articles are hilarious or pathetic.


it's like, everyone is trying to make this issue into the galvanizing point for a huge cultural shift beyond gaming when it's a tempest in a teapot at best, and more realistic a neverending cascade of twitter tantrums
Click to expand...

If someone asked if I was a gamer I'm not going to correct them, but yeah, I'd rather remove myself of the stigma created by marketers and move on from it.

I'm more than just a gamer and it's silly to be stigmatized by people who don't play games who look down gamers based on childish marketing and ignorance.
 
Gsak said:
The why aren't both press and audience questioning the PR/Marketing teams of companies? It's not sarcasm, it's a legit question.
Click to expand...

If you don't think there was any criticism of the corporations pushing gamer culture within the criticisms of gamer culture, then I don't know what to tell you. Just because they don't say, "Bob Smith, or Smith Marketing is wrong because..."

I really don't get it. Shouldn't people in order to get hired, be evaluated, first and foremost, according to their skills?
Click to expand...

I think the idea there's any measurable skill of hiring a person to be a personality on a website was kind of thrown out in the original GB kerfluffle. "Hiring only to skill" is a misnomer.
 
Mully said:
If someone asked if I was a gamer I'm not going to correct them, but yeah, I'd rather remove myself of the stigma created by marketers and move on from it.

I'm more than just a gamer and it's silly to be stigmatized by people who don't play games simply based on childish marketing and ignorance.
Click to expand...
Marketers will just come up with another word to represent this splinter segment.

"Interactive Entertainment Consumers- mid 30s professionals who walk to the beat of a different drum."
 
Gsak said:
The why aren't both press and audience questioning the PR/Marketing teams of companies? It's not sarcasm, it's a legit question.
Click to expand...

I believe that's part of the discussion happening. We'll have to get through this phase of shitfliging on twitter though before more serious discussion of that issue can take place.

Inflammable Slinky said:
oh so youre more on a people-who-play-video-games rather than gamer thing. ok i'm down with that. i just can't tell if the people that are writing these articles are hilarious or pathetic.

it's like, a bunch of folk are trying to make this issue into the flashpoint for a huge cultural shift, one extending beyond gaming, when it's better described as a tempest in a teapot at best, and more realistic a neverending cascade of twitter tantrums
Click to expand...

I can't agree with your first paragraph but your second paragraph is spot on. It's a non-issue that's brought out the worst of two opposing forces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LTTP: Tomb Raider (2013)
16
838
Gamerguy84 replied
AI-generated vocals removed from Tomb Raider IV-V-VI Remastered
6
363
Draugoth replied
Tomb Raider Pinball FX Announced
News 
4
338
Madflavor replied
Tomb Raider TV show moving forward at Amazon, Sophie Turner cast as Lara Croft
2 3 4
197
1K
Emedan replied
Ace Combat or Tomb Raider which one will release there next game first.
23
1K
Durin replied
Top Bottom