I think you're missing his point. To group even "the larger sites" together is to miss that Kotaku and Polygon and IGN and Game Informer et al are all DRASTICALLY different outlets with way different goals, mandates, and content. To speak of them as "the gaming press" is failing to recognize that.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Neoriceisgood
Member
... Journalists donated people? Huh?
disastermouse
Banned
It was just poor thinking and poor thinking is rampant in games journalism.
Do these games journalists really think they can ban a self-described identity from the scene via proclamations from on high?
"The word you use to describe yourself is effectively over. Stay tuned for the new, correct terminology with which you should describe yourself in a future proclamation. Signed, the video game media."
LOL, wut?
A typo, I corrected, "...people journalists donated to on Patreon . .."
disastermouse
Banned
And that's different than lumping all 'gamers' together how?
You've drawn the lines of conflict with all those 'gamer' is dead pieces and now you're shocked - shocked! - that gamers are responding in kind? Really?
Glass Shark
Banned
I haven't see this posted yet in the thread... Leigh Alexander has a new piece for TIME about all of this stuff: http://time.com/3274247/video-game-culture-war/
I think it's a marginal improvement from her Gamasutra piece, but it still paints with a pretty broad brush and misrepresents gamers as a whole.
I think it's a marginal improvement from her Gamasutra piece, but it still paints with a pretty broad brush and misrepresents gamers as a whole.
Did I? I have never written that "gamers" are dead. Neither has Kotaku. By grouping me into whatever "you" you are referring to, you are doing exactly what people in this thread are criticizing.
ab.aeterno
Member
So let me understand: having something specific to say in your work is an agenda? How is arguing against its inclusion not the advocation of censorship? You can't remember the people that you're even talking about? Why is feminism (and diversity and inclusivity) an agenda that should be spurned, particularly when developers themselves are finding utility in it?
MikeXXIeaf
Banned
Why should publishers be the targets and not the culture-vulture sites who are perpetrating on gaming as we know it?
Lalalandia
Member
I see their point, mine was that being a multi-millionaire means you can afford very expensive personal security (whether you choose to use it or not) that gives one a strong feeling of security that a lowly paid internet scribe does not enjoy.
That is a silly agenda; I don't think writers or some indie dev could even if they wanted to and it's extremely questionable that their goals was to extinguish gamer culture. However the other side, the loud vocal anti-feminists are successfully making it embarrassing to call ourselves gamers. If anyone is ending the gamer identity it's these anti-feminist types who are loudly embarrassing themselves and us by association.
MHWilliams
Member
If you can point to where I wrote one, I'd be interested to see it.
Again, if you want to say "gamers" are individuals, then you you should probably realize the same can be said of the press.
Neoriceisgood
Member
You use the term extemist a lot but only vaguely defined it. I think it's a very counterproductive term because I've seen people use it to describe the entire aforementioned list in the entire #gamergate thing.
I wasn't trying to claim you thought media/activists were extreme, I just wanted to make clear that a large part of the discussion on "extremists" usually lumps them in as well.
(Which in the eyes of these "extremists & delusional gamers" would be seen as exclusive/counterproductive language.)
thatmariolover
Member
First, I apologize for saying something that could be taken so personally by so many people without fully understanding the issue or expounding on my reasoning. I forget how many journalists are part of the community, and that was unfair. However, you're taking it pretty personally and assuming I'm targeting you. I intentionally used language like 'many' instead of 'all', because I do think some of you are great. For critics, many of you seem to have a hard time with public criticism. Instead of being transparent and willing to engage us on legitimate issues we're bringing up, most of the gaming press seems to want to sweep this under the rug and blame it on a bunch of aging, bigoted, virgin, white, male nerds who can't stand to see the landscape of gaming change - which is bullshit.
----
1)Understood. To be honest, I heard about some of the initial Zoe drama at the beginning of this but the details were scant and it didn't seem worth wasting energy until the water cleared. I'm probably falling into the trap of projecting my own idea of gamergate (as many of the articles have already covered) instead of how it has been perceived by those who experienced it live or had their personal lives affected by it. You, Jason, would not have been my intended target regardless.
2) I did read the articles you suggested before I made my post. That said, you've stated yourself that your professional code of conduct does not have specific rules about gifts from the industry. I feel that without clear expectations, it's pretty easy to slide into grey territory. I work for a medical organization, and we have very clear professional conduct rules about gifts from people we do (or might do) business with. I think that's something I'm sensitive to.
3) I stand by what I said, though it was not meant for you and I'm sorry you took it personally. I am glad to hear that you guys discuss these issues behind the scenes. But without addressing it in an open forum or defining your journalistic ethos, it leaves a lot to faith. Particularly with rampant reports of tablets, Playstations, and other expensive freebies being given out at press events. GamerGate obviously represents different things to different people. The truth is, gaming journalism is largely dominated by gamers. Being on the 'inside' and having exclusive information is a hugely attractive draw for those people. It's hard to feel that you're not being constantly courted by the gaming industry, and if you don't talk about it I think it's obvious that we will.
Commenting on the inclusion of hotbutton social issues in video games, I would say I have no problem with it if there's a reason for it. That is to say, if the plot/goal is advanced in a cogent and thoughtful exploration of an issue then fine. Putting it in the game as a token nod to a specific demographic for market grab is insulting to the issue being represented and distracting to players.
I've only used extremists to describe those that are doxxing/sending threats/abusing people for having an opinion. That is not acceptable behavior. It IS extreme. That said, I apologize if I didn't make that clear. Because you guys are right, this is a complex thing that involves various people. Not all fall under that label. And it shouldn't be thrown away freely (but to be clear, I only used with the intention of labeling these specific people. I do feel the term was used right in my posts).
So, the Baldwin is party of the gaming industry?
Yes, I don't remember. They are rather unimportant to me, I am not familiar with their work and it doesn't interest me so I didn't bother to remember. I was merely answering his question and those are the big issues of Gamers Gate.
And yes, to the people involved in #GG they feel that being interested in, and expressing desire for, a more inclusive community is an agenda. I believe that a more inclusive community would be better since I'd rather not get sent a string of hatemail every time I play Street Fighter on XBL and some of games from different voices are pretty neat like Gone Home and I'd liek to see those ideas looked into further in lengthier packages.
If you think the identity debates that went on a few weeks ago were about abolishing a term then I can see why you'd think it's absurd but they weren't about that.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Yeah it's fine, I honestly think the hacking/doxxing crap is absolutely horrible and sickening.
I've been kinda bugged with people lumping "bad communication" & "severe harrassment" under extremist like they're the same thing, so when I see people use the term without clear definition it's started to bug me. /:
disastermouse
Banned
One of the things that people in this thread are criticizing.
You're part of the gaming press, right? Obviously you can all be lumped together. Wait, even better - why don't you control the terrible behavior of your 'movement'. That's right, it's your responsibility to police the bad behavior of your peer group (games journalism) and until you do, I'm not going to legitimately address you.
Am I doing it right? The broad brush is rough, right? You take your eye off the ball for a few days and suddenly you're lumped in with people doing things and espousing viewpoints for which you have no affinity.
(None of this is aimed at you, jschrier - that's kind of the point.)
MHWilliams
Member
Or the community? It's entirely possible. I don't know the man. Does he play games? His tweets prior to the incident don't seem to include anything about games, so I have no clue.
CosmicQueso
Member
Outstanding piece. Wow.
First one I've seen that summarizes the issue in a succinct and easily readable way for those unable/unwilling to go down the rabbit hole.
Some publishers, specifically their internal marketing or communications departments, are the gatekeepers of access to things like preview events, review code (and add giving sufficient time before release to play and write a review), exclusives, and even as far as researching who they should get from ____.com to write about their game because it will ensure favourable coverage.
For everyone trying to create the narrative wherein games writers are constantly accepting gifts or travel, who do you think is offering these things in the first place?
EDIT: Removed broad use of "publishers" and clarified to "some publishers" because not all publishers partake in these kinds of activities.
What? The "gaming press" is not a unified campaign. #GamerGate is. The "gaming press" is not a movement. #GamerGate is. The "gaming press" is a bunch of different outlets that all have different businesses, mandates, goals, personalities, perspectives, and so forth. Your analogy doesn't really work.
scoobidoo112
Member
That is true. It's a difficult to understand and complex subject. One of the first similar examples that comes to mind is racism. Within the mind of a racist, bad examples within the black community or high crime statistics reaffirm their belief that there is something inherently wrong with black people. This creates a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, where racists view and treat black people extremely poorly, over time causing the black community as a whole to both fall into poverty (and sometimes crime) and be searched and arrested all the time because of people's suspicions, which to them then reaffirms their inherently wrong beliefs.
Within feminism I believe a similar thing is going on. You have a general movement that fights for equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women by being very active on a social and political level, trying to ensure that women have equal footing when it comes to employment, health care, sexuality, reproductive rights, laws etc. This used to be a very cohesive movement that had a lot of success in getting us closer complete equality.
Since the 80's feminism has sort of branched off into various movements and standpoints, this mainly being a split between those who believe feminism has "achieved its goals", or post-feminists, and those who believe much more change is needed, some of those being standpoint feminists who want to address global issues and third-wave feminists who kick-started the sexual revolution (thank god for that), and then those movements intertwined with race-related movements etc.
This is the first problem. Because of all these branches, whenever someone says "feminism" or "feminist" it can mean at least ten different things. This makes the conversation very difficult as many people assume that when they say "feminist" you know exactly what you mean.
Secondly there is the problem of the internet. Because of social media, extreme voices have a place to gather, shout, organize and fight. The loudest voices often tend to stand for the most extreme interpretations of feminism and I believe many of them actively scare people away from listening to some of their legitimate grievances. This causes people on the internet to perceive feminism as this aggressive, accusatory, generalizing movement that they feel they need to defend themselves against, which then causes those feminists go on counter-attacks and you end up with two sides that just continuously reaffirm their own misconstrued beliefs.
In the meantime calm, rational, intelligent feminist; who would much rather sit down with people and have intelligent conversations and debates, trying to forge alliances and work together, are over-shouted and painted with same same brush people use to paint these extreme feminist.
I think what it comes down to is that feminism needs to be revolutionized again. It needs to be redefined as a single "thing", that is clearly defined and easy to understand for everyone. Something all rational, intelligent human being can stand behind and root for. There needs to be a way to stop some of these extreme individuals from redefining what feminism is supposed to be, I mean we've reached a point now where it's not just feminists versus "men", but feminists versus feminists.
I see nothing of value coming out of this current "war" that's going on. Everyone is going to have to sit down, take a deep breath and calm the hell down. We're going to need intelligent, rational voices to take control of the discussion, have actual journalists do some actual investigative journalism and present factual, as-neutral-as-possible reports, and most importantly we need to start listening to each other. These endless 140 character rants and ravings on twitter accomplish nothing but more hatred. Even here on NeoGaf I see a lot of people that just need to relax and stop being so judgmental. You can't force change upon any group of people over night by going all out on the attack. Change takes time and it takes intelligent leaders.
SkeptiMism
Member
Ah sorry, I misread that one sentence. I apologize.
However, the other people who replied to you made really good points and you should read them with thought.
The above isn't productive. You're using a bad version of an argument to attack someone who never made that type of argument. You should take a step back and think about what you actually want to say.
Zxrophantom
Member
You are free to feel like that and i'm sorry you do in fact feel that way. My counter to that point would be many jobs have ugly sides to them. Lawyers, doctors, artists, actors, Car salesman, lunch ladies, janitors, and garbageman have all most likely seen the ugly side of their jobs or the stereotypes given to their jobs. The point being many jobs get bad raps no matter how great the person is. So I feel all you can really do is own your work or job and stand out from the rest.
My problem with Leighs article is that it seems like a counter attack at "gamers" who seem to be different people depending on who you ask. I don't think returning the hate helps solve the problem and secondly since gamers seem to be different depending on who you ask it does not really pinpoint who is the problem.
disastermouse
Banned
Leigh Alexander. 'Nuff said. It's similar to posting a Fox News 'article' and expecting anyone not already converted to take it seriously.
Nice to see she's trying to claim first dibs on the greater media outlook on the controversy. No one saw THAT coming from Leigh Alexander.
NoirVisage
Banned
congratulations, you've proved you get it but you just don't "get" it.
I agree, I can see where you are coming from. That is what I believe affords the celebrates the ability to poke fun at the tweets on mainstream TV. Not something I would suggest for your average gaming personality.
Which of course brings me full circle to just how incredibly ill-advised engaging with the trolls is. For instance (god I hope this doesn't get me banned) Zoe Quinn.
She can't afford security (I think). Now if she would have not engaged the trolls, this would most likely have blown over by now. Just report the threats to the Cops/FBI and keep doing your thing.
By responding to them, by announcing the threats, she not only brought herself back to the forefront, but also showed the trolls that they have exposure THROUGH her. She gives them the signal that what they are doing is working. It is playing with fire, and I really don't want to see anyone get hurt IRL.
Now you are splitting hairs. I see that you take exception to me lumping the larger sites, sites that have helped further push this quagmire (that should have died a week ago) into the the forefront to the embarrassment of us all. Yes, I can see that there are differences, but those differences do not absolve them from their part in this.
You however seem to take no exception to me lumping the larger news/media organizations together though.
Oh yeah, that was not my intention. The miscommunication and poorly worded message stuff in my posts were meant to be separate from the extremist comments (that was 100% just for the people attacking and abusing people). My posts were basically 3 parts. I guess some of it blended together.
Aren't you just perpetuating the cycle now? Given what she's already done, can she still not make valid points?
edit: Not to say the points she's making or valid or not; but to blatantly dismiss something because of who they are seems to not help anything.
Neoriceisgood
Member
We Might Be Witnessing The 'Death of An Identity'
That's a kotaku article quoting and linking to other site's articles about how "gamers" are dead. To the casual reader who wasn't following the situation it could be taken as insulting. It relies on a very narrow definition of gamer, where most people might fairly assume it means people who enjoy playing games. Like the words moviegoer or bookworm. Even the kotaku author feels the need to end the piece with a clarification on what precisely "gamer" is meant to refer to in this particular context:
Using a term with such an established meaning to target a narrow segment of that group was bound to be misinterpreted. You might as well as write an article about border smuggling where smugglers are only referred to as mexicans, then close the article by mentioning you mean smugglers when you say mexicans, and that lots of mexicans are cool.
robovanburen
Member
What exactly do you want to see happen? Have them videotape their ethics discussions? Because I'm sure like 5 people would watch that.
That's much better than her previous clickbait piece.
disastermouse
Banned
It was exactly what I wanted to say and the whole point is that he never made that argument. Good guy, bad guy - it doesn't matter, he's still part of the hated 'games journalism' moniker.
Now I'm off to write a piece for Time to make sure everyone knows who the 'bad guys' are before anyone looks too closely at the issue.
Explain and qualify your statement, please.
Good stuff. I'll be sharing this piece with my girlfriend / those not in the know.
My point was, the more radical individuals on both sides are more interested in their causes, not the games themselves which gamers are interested in (never mind actually playing any games as the case might be). To include them as being part of industry its self and giving them credit to how it has/would/could/should be shaped isn't fair to anyone who actually care about games.
A gamer or game journalist who as an issue with a mechanic or point out an inherent flaw with the code may give a suggestion (or in some instances, just fix it themselves and go on with their lives). A political individual seeks the empowerment of a group for validation of their point and doesn't care about the medium and what has to change in the process, only the end result and how it benefits them directly. Constructive versus potentially destructive natures and motivations are really the only difference outside of method employed. This isn't meant to imply that all gamer comments are particularly useful or constructive even if the underlying intent is meant to be good (which I can't prove for anyone who isn't me...).
Edit: ok, this time for sure I think I have nothing more to add. ><;
disastermouse
Banned
Sure she can! Even Shawn Hannity gets one or two right every now and again - that's just statistics.
Will I sift through the shit-pile looking for nuggets of gold? Not very likely.
This is the same Leigh Alexander who threatened to 'crush' a fledgling game critic for having the audacity to post in her Twitter feed, right?
Considering you were being very critical of bad communication, this really bugged me.
Well, I'm posting on a message a board, and they are trying to communicate a larger message to a broad audience. They are also professionals. Plus come on, I don't think my posts were that confusing.
Anyways, fistbump yo. We cool.
MHWilliams
Member
Who are the radical individuals on the other "side"?
Again, you delineate mechanics and code from art and story. You should not.It's all a part of the game's experience.
It's not political for me to say, "hey, that is a pretty bad representation of black people" and provide reasons why. That's the criticism.
ab.aeterno
Member
Ah, perhaps this is the piece I missed initially. I thought you were arguing those points, not repeating them. Thus my questions to understand what you were arguing.
John Rabbit
Banned
it's really a shame that Leigh Alexander can't produce focused content like this on a more consistent basis. perhaps it was the publication or the benefit of additional time to think about the issues, but this article is surprisingly (for me) well done.
i do however take issue with two comments:
unless Eron Gjoni has updated his writings since I last read the site (which was weeks ago now) he did not assert this anywhere in his ranting. this was a conclusion reached by over-zealous and myopic readers.
while i understand the need to "ground" the story to a more relatable and real-world analog like Ferguson for Time readers, this sentiment is expressed poorly. i think it's dangerous to suggest that squashing minority opinion in ANY venue is a positive (or rather, that allowing minority groups to remain "very loud" is a negative). everyone should obviously feel they have equal say, but i don't think this is how we should address that problem.
SenorArdilla
Member
What?
Anyways, this whole thing has spiraled out of control and both sides are attacking each other instead of talking about the problems. Kind of like those niche anime game topics on NeoGAF.
NoirVisage
Banned
ha ha ha ha
uh..they're journalists..if its being spoken, i'm sure they can uh..write about it?
Whether they think its happening or not, give their side of the story from the inside..honestly, if its about IMPOSSIBLY big breasted japanese game characters oppressing women with normal bust sizes, that's worth a scathing editorial demonizing the artist.. but if its even the inkling of possible ethical issues within gaming journalism, its whispered in dark rooms, but hey at least they acknowledge it.
From the outside looking in, I've come to realize, none of the issues that built up to gamergate by themselves were a big deal..they are trivial..he said she said levels of heresay.. Its that PUBLIC silence that's allowed this to get as bad as it is, the whole gamergate thing is what those who clam that tag see as bloody revolution.. they see these "personalities" as a status quot that needs toppling..
Of course that won't help anybody in the end, no one on either side "wins" this..except the actual gamers who get to sit back and see how everyone acts and reacts to all this.. while we continue to enjoy what we actually care about when it comes to gaming, and it's not the wanna be game journalism superstars, the sjw's, or thinly veiled anti-feminists who proclaim themselves the mouthpieces for gamers..for those that actually care about gaming, it will always be about the games.
I agree with the part of the 3rd article in the op that talks about the differences between journalism and the gaming press. Ironically though, this whole situation is one of the only times I find myself actually wanting a gaming journalist (of which I can find none).
Everything the op and every article I'm pointed to is an opinion piece. Are there any articles that only discuss the facts of wtf has happened without bias, opinion, or moral agenda? As someone who never ventures onto twitter and is only casually paying attention to this, I want to read that article and can't find it because I know of no one in the gaming press I actually consider to be a respected journalist. Someone who actually does adhere to things like the Reuters absolutes and SJP Code of Ethics?
Everything the op and every article I'm pointed to is an opinion piece. Are there any articles that only discuss the facts of wtf has happened without bias, opinion, or moral agenda? As someone who never ventures onto twitter and is only casually paying attention to this, I want to read that article and can't find it because I know of no one in the gaming press I actually consider to be a respected journalist. Someone who actually does adhere to things like the Reuters absolutes and SJP Code of Ethics?
- Status