Neoriceisgood
Member
... Don't those usually get locked cause people start posting porn?
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
... Don't those usually get locked cause people start posting porn?
I haven't ever seen it actually happen. They get locked because they get swarmed with discussions over what is acceptable and whatnot, and it usually ends with an ugly name calling fest.
Petrae
Member
While such a generalization is unfair, since it's not ALL members of the press corps that have been on the assault, the trend has been general enough to make me just leave the press behind.
I'm tired of the browbeating, the insults, and the unprofessional behavior, and it's not worth the time and effort to create lists of who is and isn't being a jerk. This whole thing really was the last straw for me, after years of similar behavior.
At some point, you don't see change and so a choice of whether or not to keep subjecting yourself to the same thing has to be made. No riots need to be incited, no wars need to be waged, no one should have to fear for their lives. You just walk away, close the door, and don't look back.
robovanburen
Member
So what sort of thing would you like them to write? An ethics policy? A transcript of them discussing ethics? Genuinely curious.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Oh okay, maybe I'm thinking about a different type of niche anime game..
MHWilliams
Member
Most outlets have their own code of ethics. Most people just don't go look for it.
The closest you'll find to a boiler plate "this happened and then this happened" is this or AlJazeera's article.
I really don't know how women/journalist even put up with this. The amount of abuse they receive is insane. This whole ordeal has been enough that I've considered getting away from it. I'm a enthusiast (not in the industry), but I've been someone that has always kept up on the industry side of things. But the last couple of years have been pretty awful. And this is really like a tipping point. So much so I just want to walk away and not look back (obviously keep posting in Off Topic or in the communities I've made friends with).
And again, this isn't close to what other people are dealing with. They are better people than me, that's for sure.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=128535608&postcount=154
Not that, I'm saying my version is the definitive summary (I'm sure it has mistakes, and not everyone agrees with my take on it). But that is a summary.
EDIT: it should be noted this summary has a slan/bias as I do think the people that started the campaign were the extremists that have long been battling anyone that has had criticisms of this industry. So while I do think the summary for the most part, is semi-objective, I clearly take a stand on how I think certain things played out.
NoirVisage
Banned
just acknowledging that they hear the ones actually getting up at arms about the issues (to his credit only Shreier has done this, mostly in defense of the industry but its acknowledgement) other publications put their head in the sand completely.
MHWilliams
Member
Because then you can define some of the trolls and harassers as gamers. A people who self-identify as gamers would prefer that they not be lumped in with those who do wrong.
Some articles were aimed at the first group, but using the blanket statements like "the gamer is dead" angered the latter.
I'm almost hurt that I don't exist in this statement.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
I particularly agree with this quote from the Time piece:
I agree with this, and what some of the other devs have said - you just gotta ignore the asshole contingent, because trying to argue or engage with them is just about as fruitless as trying to respond to comments on youtube or fox news or whatever. No one wants to listen to each other and have a real discussion, just fling vitriol and smartass comments at each other, and twitter just helps that horrible process along.
That's why I laughed, when one of my colleagues asked why I didn't tweet about design philosophy and mechanics. I don't want to open myself up to the hatred of the masses just because I'm female, and I might say something that gets taken out of context or misunderstood as "threatening to gamers".
This so much. There are bad aspects of game journalism, but the things people are flinging at them currently are so unfair, not having anything to do with actual corruption.
Ok last time for real, since I know my perspective on this is alien in a sense.
Actually, I do dissasociate mechanics and code from art and story routinely when playing the games. In many instances the story is just bad, or the art is bad, but the mechanics are good and I can ignore them entirely. I can't look past bad code and mechanics though as that is integral to actually playing a game. I know I am not alone in this as the MOBA phenominon exists, arena FPS games exist, and so on where there is no plot/fluff relevance at all if even existing in the first place. When quite easily a fraction of a percent of the time is actually spent on plot compared to the rest of the title in many instances.
To me, when a poor portrayal occurs it just gets filed under bad story instead of racial injustice or cruel design intent that some articles read as. Could it be done better? Sure. To insinuate some grand design where deliberate oppression occurs or is reality is where you begin lose me. How relevant and factual those statements are with supporting evidence pulls me back, but those are few and far between while also simultaneously not occuring within the space of games journalism that I've read through. This is not to say none have tried.
You personally have referenced some of that in regard to hiring practices though in recent threads, while explaining how it might relate to specific instances within the industry. I see that as entirely different from instances where it is even questionable that the indivdual attempting the analysis has even played the game in question based off of the commentary involved. I have a hard time believing that both are to be treated the same or have equal value or even originate from an intent designed to be inline with the interest of gamers or industry in general.
Baldwin is an established easy target by others. I don't have the knowledge to have a similar inclusion all the way around, since I am not a political person. If one exists, so too must the other otherwise it wouldn't be a "battle".
Actually, I do dissasociate mechanics and code from art and story routinely when playing the games. In many instances the story is just bad, or the art is bad, but the mechanics are good and I can ignore them entirely. I can't look past bad code and mechanics though as that is integral to actually playing a game. I know I am not alone in this as the MOBA phenominon exists, arena FPS games exist, and so on where there is no plot/fluff relevance at all if even existing in the first place. When quite easily a fraction of a percent of the time is actually spent on plot compared to the rest of the title in many instances.
To me, when a poor portrayal occurs it just gets filed under bad story instead of racial injustice or cruel design intent that some articles read as. Could it be done better? Sure. To insinuate some grand design where deliberate oppression occurs or is reality is where you begin lose me. How relevant and factual those statements are with supporting evidence pulls me back, but those are few and far between while also simultaneously not occuring within the space of games journalism that I've read through. This is not to say none have tried.
You personally have referenced some of that in regard to hiring practices though in recent threads, while explaining how it might relate to specific instances within the industry. I see that as entirely different from instances where it is even questionable that the indivdual attempting the analysis has even played the game in question based off of the commentary involved. I have a hard time believing that both are to be treated the same or have equal value or even originate from an intent designed to be inline with the interest of gamers or industry in general.
I would also like to say, as someone that has been a passionate gamer for decades, and who has kept up on the industry and been apart of the community side of things for a long time....this industry has always had problems with expressing opinions. Yes, there were always extremists. But I think even beyond the crazies, there is a pattern of bad behavior from the community. Just look at how insane people get when reviews are posted. And while, again I do think there is a debate to be had about media ethics, not every single thing is related to a pay off or shady relationship between dev and journalist. That so many default that to that and lose their damn mind, is well IMO a problem. And before someone points to incidents like the Kane and Lynch stuff, I agree that there is clear incidents of media ethics that have helped shaped the view point of many. But there is still a reasonable and unreasonable way to express opinions. And I think we definitely have that problem.
So yeah, not everyone in this industry is harassing and sending death threats, I still think gamers have to grow up. I'm not saying the press is free from criticism, I'm just speaking for what I can speak for, and that's on the community side of things.
So yeah, not everyone in this industry is harassing and sending death threats, I still think gamers have to grow up. I'm not saying the press is free from criticism, I'm just speaking for what I can speak for, and that's on the community side of things.
robovanburen
Member
Kotaku did publish a post about the supposed conflict of interest regarding Quinn. Then, in a separate post, they announced they were changing their policy so that their writers can't donate to Patreon, in order to prevent any potential conflicts there: http://kotaku.com/a-brief-note-about-the-continued-discussion-about-kotak-1627041269
I'm not sure what else they need to specifically do to show that they care about ethics.
Personally, I feel you could amend this bit to be a bit more neutral/objective:
So if you thought this was a breach of ethics you're a misogynist?
Mr_Antimatter
Member
#GG is basically the same tripe we have seen come out of 4chan and similar sites for ages: they fear losing their secret club status.
You don't just see it in videogames, but basically any medium with a fanbase. /a/ for a long, long time would bash you for posting about certain mainstream series like Naruto or the like, arguing they were 'gateway anime' and thus both the work and their fanbase was unwelcome. It took a rather drastic act from Moot himself to undo that, at least for that particular show.
We see the same with games in such places. When game X or Y becomes too popular, their opinions turn against it, with recent examples being stuff like the ps4, or even neogaf. Their mindset demands that the things they like, and they promote, be exclusive to their group, because being into something unknown, or unpopular, somehow has come to define them. likewise, when something falls from popularity, they suddenly claim to love it, such as the case with the wii U. They are, well, cyber hipsters.
Toss in a heaping portion of pervertedness and love for scantly clad characters, and you have a recipe for anger when confronted with a world that seemingly, wants in on this whole game thing, and starts to request the types of games and characters that don't fit their exclusive mold of what they want their games to be.
It's when you add in the anonymous nature of the net that things get brutal. Without having to expose themselves to the world, they lash out in increasingly vicious and hostel ways and means.
Now, it's not just one site that's responsible, but instead, that whole subset of gamers out there who let themselves be defined by a core mindset of what games should be, rather then what they are capable of being. Stray too far from this groups vision, or allow yourself to get too popular for their tastes, and they seek to destroy you.
You don't just see it in videogames, but basically any medium with a fanbase. /a/ for a long, long time would bash you for posting about certain mainstream series like Naruto or the like, arguing they were 'gateway anime' and thus both the work and their fanbase was unwelcome. It took a rather drastic act from Moot himself to undo that, at least for that particular show.
We see the same with games in such places. When game X or Y becomes too popular, their opinions turn against it, with recent examples being stuff like the ps4, or even neogaf. Their mindset demands that the things they like, and they promote, be exclusive to their group, because being into something unknown, or unpopular, somehow has come to define them. likewise, when something falls from popularity, they suddenly claim to love it, such as the case with the wii U. They are, well, cyber hipsters.
Toss in a heaping portion of pervertedness and love for scantly clad characters, and you have a recipe for anger when confronted with a world that seemingly, wants in on this whole game thing, and starts to request the types of games and characters that don't fit their exclusive mold of what they want their games to be.
It's when you add in the anonymous nature of the net that things get brutal. Without having to expose themselves to the world, they lash out in increasingly vicious and hostel ways and means.
Now, it's not just one site that's responsible, but instead, that whole subset of gamers out there who let themselves be defined by a core mindset of what games should be, rather then what they are capable of being. Stray too far from this groups vision, or allow yourself to get too popular for their tastes, and they seek to destroy you.
No. But I also don't think there was any allegation that she did sleep for press (the boyfriend never alleged it). People dissected the information and extracted the possibility that a breach of ethics could have happened. There was never proof that she had a relationship prior to the ONE tiny piece being written by the RPS writer.
So while you are right, I'm being biased in assuming that the people pushing for the campaign against corruption (using this as their jumping off point) were the extremists, I guess it's just what I think happened. Because it doesn't make sense how anyone that is rational, could look at this (the lack of evidence), and then take off with this as corruption being rampant. But it does not make you a misogynist for believing that sleeping with someone for press coverage is corruption. Because it is. You are right though that as a summary, it's definitely got a slant/bias. But I truly think it's right. If someone thinks I'm wrong, I'm 100% open minded, and will admit that I have something wrong.
I'm always willing to listen to people.
Attempt at a neutral summary:
Some people attach a lot of bullshit qualifiers to the term. Phone games don't count, gaming has to be a "major" hobby, you need to spend X amount of time with video games on a regular basis, etc. It's a big elitist mess that some people are awfully attached to.
In the wake of gossip about Zoe Quinn (an indie game developer), she wound up becoming the target of some major harassment and threats. A lot of news outlets didn't cover the initial phase of things because the claims were poorly substantiated and mostly about her personal life, but they did report on the harassment because it got rather vicious, and afterwards a series of articles were published questioning the value of the "gamer" identity, since that seems to be where the bad behavior originated from. A lot of people reacted poorly to those last "gamer" articles, and started a movement under the Gamergate banner that tries to accomplish a number of different goals. What exactly it's trying to do depends on whom you ask.
My take:
The following are what I see as the major objectives of Gamergate:
- Opposing corruption and encouraging transparency in gaming media
- Defending the gamer identity
- Continuing a witch hunt against anyone perceived as a feminist of "SJW."
The second part is potentially benign, but deeply misguided. It correctly and reasonably argues that not all people who play video games hate women or send death threats, but this is basically defending against a straw man claim that very few people actually made. Some people also use it to dismiss the idea that the harassers were "gamers" in the first place.
The last part, despite what Gamergate folks will tell you, is still going on, and is a major part of the motivation behind this whole thing. Gamergate is really just a slightly less targeted version of the harassment received by Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. The threads on /v/ where all this stuff gets organized explicitly talk about it being a crusade against SJWs, and encourages people to pick fights with them on Twitter to help the cause, complete with misdirection tactics based on using some elements of the community as a "black best friend" who absolves the rest of all wrongdoing. It's spiteful, immature, and awful.
NoirVisage
Banned
well said, and sorry i have not read as much of your stuff as I have Kotaku dudes, I wouldn't mind more writers who aren't afraid to tackle subjects, I was referring to the common sites that come up when the going gets tough and they have no opinion or insight.. but I'm interested in what everyone has to say about whats going on, even if i don't share the opinion, I appreciate that they acknowledge that it is.
BobbyRobby
Member
The problem is that most games aren't trying to have any cultural message worth critiquing.
For a lot of games, it's like critiquing a Steven Seagal movie, or a porno movie. Of course there won't be any strong female characters. A lot of games are made to appeal to the base desires of men. Why treat them as some form of high art, when they clearly aren't deserving of the distinction?
The existence of these games isn't a problem. As others have said, it's the non-existence of games that appeal to women in the same way.
Most women won't like the way they are depicted in lame action movies. Most men won't like the way they are depicted in lame romantic comedies. There is room for both lame action movies and lame romantic comedies to exist.
I fully understand the desire for more games that tackle legitimate issues and treat women in a better light. I don't think the way you'll get them is demonizing current games that don't.
nah, you were closer the first time. the only link is the rage and the willingness to believe and hate. there were far more relevant targets, but the one with the most misogynist rage was chosen.
I don't particularly like reading Forbes in general, but the above linked article is really good at stating the points, without making any particular judgements. Thanks for linking it.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
Erik Kain is one of the best video game bloggers out there.
There are messages implicit in all media, though. Often times the unintentional and subliminal messages that many don't even detect are the most problematic. There's nothing wrong with discussing that.
MHWilliams
Member
It's all good. I'm just messing with you.
Exactly. This whole thing reminds me of people who can't differentiate between "You just said something racially offensive/insensitive." and "You are a racist and a bad person who intentionally does racist things all the time."
Even if the sexist content is accidental or just a by-product of shitty writing, that by itself is worth talking about. We can discuss why and how that happens, how the content depends on the underlying cultural attitudes in which it was made, etc.
Zxrophantom
Member
While i do believe the article is less on the mean spirited side and does a good job of catching people up to speed on the issue. It still seems to generalize the issue quite a bit. Which to me hurts the article because it still has a "spin" of a generation or demographic that does not want change or to open up the club to everyone. I feel like that is a broadly sweeping tone to have on the issue at large.
At least you admit the bias ;P.
I would like to believe that a rational person would be able to use that as a 'jumping off point' insomuch that it would spur their curiosity to explore this area and look for where there might actually be corruption, without being misogynist. I don't think you (the rational person) would use this to claim anything being rampant. Just that this would cause the eyebrow to raise, and drive the "I wonder..." factor of looking for information. You're taking some broad strokes, and you realize that it's giving bias; but I think if you want to use that post as an explanation of what's going on (to people who should be able to extrapolate their own belief from the information) it would need to not have a bias.
NoirVisage
Banned
I had no idea that editorial existed, interesting how quickly it turns in the comments, but kudos to them.. my point was, the "hushed" dark room dialogue that I believe ALL sites engage in, are not helping or educating their readership in any way.
There are plenty of games that appeal to women "in the same way" if we want to reduce women's "base desires" as say shopping or horse riding or something like that--and people do play those games--but I don't think a solution to these issues is more catering to "base desires" vs the solution being higher quality. The former just fragments people more. Movies work because there's both low quality pandering shit and a whole lot of high-quality universally-appealing work. The problem with gaming right now is the lack of balance. It's getting better, but in getting better it's sure shaking out the trees. My hope (prayer?) is that this is an actual "last throes" and not Cheney's version.
Right. A lot of it is just so culturally ingrained that it happens on a subconscious level. That's why I always feel that the cries for "artistic freedom" that follow social critiques are disingenuous -- comments from developers on Twitter and elsewhere reveal that much of the time the people who create this problematic content are well-meaning and do not realize how their work could be viewed as perpetuating harmful stereotypes about minorities until it is highlighted by someone else.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I think this is the stance I am taking. I don't like the term gamer and would never define myself as such, I play games, it's for entertainment. I also watch films and listen to and record music, but I do so for entertainment. I don't define myself by my recreational activities, but some people do and when you lump everyone into the same pot to make a point, the people who don't see themselves that way or don't want to associate with the trolls/shitflingers/idiots are going to speak out.
That said, for me, the whole debacle was never about Gamers vs Game Journalists, but about how the latter is constantly trying to make up imaginary battles between people who share the same hobby but share different opinions on the direction it should go. I don't think there's a conspiracy, outside of the publisher side of things, but I do think journalists, in general, not as individuals, over the past lot of years have shown a real disgust for their core userbase (maybe because they started calling them on their shit?) and tried to capture other demographics, whoever would have them.
I also like to play devil's advocate a lot.
the journalists implicated in the story were not targeted, there is every reason to believe there were other motivations. it's not really bias.
I dunno, I think we're generally pretty transparent about absolutely everything, though I don't think most of our readers are interested in articles about video game journalism.
Thanks for the reply. I guess my problem with it, is that so much of the Quinn stuff was very malicious and entrenched in the extremist side of things pushing back against the press/activist side of things criticizing their hobby. I don't even have an opinion on Quinn (outside of not liking her game). But IMO this was clearly visible from the start.
And so, it's hard for me to accept that, someone looked at this and said: well, there is no evidence of corruption, but the idea of this kind of corruption is enough to set me off to start launching an investigation into the greater games media and corruption. It is to be quite honest..kind of hard to believe. I know a lot of people that joined GamerGate, that did so AFTER the reaction piece by Alexander. Or they joined it after the campaign was defined as being a push to hold the media accountable for corruption. Because so many have had criticisms of the media and corruption for years now, many joined the campaign because it's something they've felt was over due.
I'm just seeing a disconnect between the Quinn thing and how this campaign started. At least for me, I really have a hard time believing that the original people chiming about corruption when there was no proof, were just general gamers who were against corruption. I mean, why would you scream and yell about corruption being present, when there is no proof of such? And the fact that this was all surrounded by the attacks of Quinn (who has been an activist, and who extremists have been butting heads with for a long time now).
That said, one aspect I left out of the summary (that I didn't do on purpose, but now that I'm realizing I did), was that a lot of people felt the media/ industry did a poor job covering the incident. And attributed this to their belief it's corrupt. And so I don't deny that there are people out there at the beginning of this incident that generally had a perception that this was corruption being covered up. But I really do think those that fueled it (who pushed for it), were the extremists. That's how I saw it unfold.
But maybe people disagree with that. Anyways, I've added an edit to my post to let me people know that there is a bias/slant. That I view the origins of this a specific way. I can accept that not everyone agrees with me. But I still think 100% the origin of all this was something else then what people think it is. And I still think even now that GG has taken off, I still think it's being pushed by people that are using it as an outlet to push back at women/activist/journalist. But I also know that not EVERYONE apart of GG is misogynistic or pushing back against these things. As I said, I think it's all been rolled into one big thing.
NoirVisage
Banned
when apt,I think they would be!
BobbyRobby
Member
Crafting a character that the opposing sex doesn't like isn't sexist.
I don't like Edward from Twilight or the dudes in most romantic comedies. They have weak personalities and live only to serve the desires of the women.
It is a fantasy. No real man is being hurt or compromised to make this fantasy man. I am not forced to adhere to the standards set by these characters. I am not forced to consume media that contains these types of men.
That said, I am happy that women have escapist media where they are the center of the universe. I don't think it's a problem.
I think the mindset is a side effect of the media(CNN/Fox/ect), up until Anita, telling the consumer base that games are bad. Kinda like how Kobe was vilified on ESPN for being in a COD commercial. So many people, now, when they here pop culture critique games, automatically feel threatened because they are trying to say video games are bad.
So when she says "these narratives are bad"(subjectively) people here the objective tone of, "video games are bad and you are bad for playing them". So then you get small group of very dedicated people trying to find conspiracies anywhere to try and prove that it isn't just a critique it is another jack Thompson group trying to ban video games or make them out to be the D&D persecution some probably grew up with. I think there is a dedicated group out there that believe that any criticism in gaming is not genuine and instead is an agenda to take away games. The reality of this is not even close, since nobody can take video games away at this point, but I think there is an irrational fear born out of history in games that creates this paranoia. Then you add twitter and the echo chamber becomes louder.
And this is also ignoring the very pervasive view of the enthusiast press in bed with the industry(which MHWilliams article demonstrates it is probably more pervasive then we think, thanks to politics in general).
This is a very simplistic oversimplification, but, I think it is not erroneous either.
robovanburen
Member
I don't think that they mean to be secretive. I'd imagine that they just figured that an ethical question like "Is it right for a journalist to spend even a small amount of money backing a Kickstarter?" is too dry and minor for their readers to care about.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
The intent of a creator or whether or not a game is attempting to be "high art" is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not any piece of media is able to be criticized.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of cultural criticism that tends to pop up a lot in video game boards. Maybe someone a bit more knowledgeable than me could explain this a bit better.
Kadayi
Banned
Not sure if it's been posted before, but a rather insightful video by a political activist and actor Nicholas Goroff talking about recent controversies and the inherent problems with the evangelizing of moral authority coming from certain quarters: -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_oIIeWoeTE
Be aware, it's about 25 minutes long, but is pretty articulate and considered and personally ties in nicely with my own thoughts about the way in which certain people are using censorship and 'no comments' as a means to shutter discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_oIIeWoeTE
Be aware, it's about 25 minutes long, but is pretty articulate and considered and personally ties in nicely with my own thoughts about the way in which certain people are using censorship and 'no comments' as a means to shutter discussion.
I'd like to say that I would definitely like to read more about journalism in videogames, but I agree with your sentiment after everything that's occurred in the past few weeks. I'm not at all sure what the "gamer" culture wants anymore, but I think after we see some progress, journalism will have a chance. Sloughing off a lot of this grossness isn't a clean or easy process, but I like to think some good will come of it.
I've been listening to Pharrell Williams.
chrominance
Member
It would probably surprise you to know, then, that both these things do get critiqued, especially in academic circles but also in general pop culture. You could consider Star Wars the most populist of entertainment, but RedLetterMedia did a whole video series dissecting Episodes I-III to examine why those movies were such abject failures. Or to speak more directly to your point, this was on the very first page of the Google search results for "critical reading steven seagal":
I would look up academic critiques of porn for you but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Less academic critiques of porn include porn publishers and directors trying to push more diverse body styles, ethnicities and gender identities into porn.
There's this underlying assumption in a lot of the discussion about what is "fair" to criticize and what is not that says anything that isn't "high art" isn't worth of critique. Two things wrong with this statement, as I see it: one, video games as a whole have been considered, in different eras and even by people in this one (ex. the late Roger Ebert), to be "low art" or even not art at all. This is something lots of people who play games have fought against, and for good reason. You can't have it both ways--you can't agitate for video games to be considered an art, and then reject artistic, political and socioeconomic critiques that other artistic endeavors embrace as part of the tradition.
But even if you're the kind of person that rejects this wholeheartedly and says, no, I don't care if video games are art or not or what kind of art they are, it's still problematic to say some video games should be criticized and some shouldn't. You say that something that isn't "high art" shouldn't be criticized in the same way because it never had aspirations to be "good," for whatever value of "good" you're rejecting--i.e. this game never tried to have strong female characters so why should it be criticized on those grounds when clearly the developers never cared. But people don't make games in a vacuum and we don't critique games solely on whether the final product meets the standards of their creators. Anyone who makes a game and says "this isn't intended to be a political statement" is essentially making a political statement anyway. That's the definition of hegemony: a cultural or political norm that is seen as the status quo, or "the way things have always been." It's a political stance by default, essentially: by saying politics aren't involved, you're saying "I'm okay with whatever is going on now."
And that's fine! Games and their creators are totally allowed to do this. No Steven Seagal film is ever going to truly challenge the political status quo (although even On Deadly Ground tried to make a statement, so there!). But critique is still valuable in that it can tell us HOW a piece of art supports the status quo, and may even give us insight into countercultural readings of a work.
There's no such thing as a game that isn't worthy of a cultural critique. The worst game I played this year is worthy of a cultural critique. (It's Starlight Inception, by the way.) It doesn't matter what the intentions of the creator were, and it doesn't matter if the game is supposed to be trashy good fun or has higher pretentions.
But I remember that people pretty much slammed the door for you guys to cover the florence story. I remember hundreds of comments in some kotaku page at the time.
Probably that article didn´t get a lot of viewers in the end?
It's not about stuff "for men" or "for women." There has been prominent feminist critique of the Twilight series.
Media that perpetuates problematic stereotypes of minorities can absolutely be hurtful.
I'm not quite sure why people are calling for the gaming press to all of a sudden start acting like real journalists.
This is gaming we are taking about, it's a hobby for the majority of us.
Gaming press are hobby press.
They aren't reporting on life or death events, they are reporting on a large entertainment industry.
Their peers are music press, film press and tech press not The New York Times.
This is gaming we are taking about, it's a hobby for the majority of us.
Gaming press are hobby press.
They aren't reporting on life or death events, they are reporting on a large entertainment industry.
Their peers are music press, film press and tech press not The New York Times.
- Status