Support NeoGAF

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Was an interesting video. Probably true when it comes to debate, period, on the internet since the rise of social media in general. It's being systemic of the internet, I think, and it's disappointing.

I do think it's particularly relevant to what I guess you could call "pop feminism" or "Jezebel feminism," which seems like a descendant of academic feminism that has become so utterly debased by its transition into the mainstream that it basically amounts to a standardized set of dogmas and debate tactics oriented towards fending off any threat of self-doubt. Sort of like the televangelist prosperity gospel form of Christianity.

 

[aeolist]

You really don't see why lumping one group of people under the same banner is an issue? This wasn't about sexism, this was about anyone who identified as a gamer being stereotyped as a sexist virgin because of other people who happen to identify with the same tag.

There is a middle ground:

Everyone needs to stop hating each other and everyone needs to stop trying to tell developers how to make their games.

who is trying to tell developers what to do?

 

[mo60]

From my perspective, this isn't an "argument" between two sides. It's one group of people asking to be heard, and another group staunchly and vehemently (and violently) refusing to listen. It's really gross. The idea that some people think there are "two sides" to this mess is incredibly disheartening. I mean, if there is a "middle ground" here, what is it between? How do you find common ground between inclusion and exclusion?

The middle ground is the people that want to discuss the stuff related to gamergate, but they are be drowned out by the other people that are associating with the gamergate tag.Some people also want this gamergate tag to disappear since a lot of people aren't using the tag that well.

 

[redder]

Yeah, it's great! But my point is that we (Kotaku) take ourselves seriously as journalists, despite the fact that we're covering entertainment. Sometimes our work can affect people's lives in real ways.

And the fact that your publication and others put out some great articles about the industry in general shows that.

I just think that some people seem to have completely unrealistic expectations about what the gaming press can be.

 

[system11]

It's one group of people asking to be heard, and another group staunchly and vehemently (and violently) refusing to listen.

There's no such thing as violently refusing to listen - that's just people being abusive. There's no inherent problem with one group of people having a voice, and another group absolutely not caring - that's the way opinions work. The problem is if the latter instead start saying "no, you're not allowed a voice, I'm going to harass you across the four corners of the internet to make sure".

 

[Curufinwe]

It's not unique to women. I disabled comments on my blog and removed the contact form feature before making my first post. It's the wild west out there aside from moderated forums.

Just look at the response a male podcaster got a few years ago for doing nothing but being in the Xbox Gamer Spotlight. A lot of people out there are consumed by irrational hate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_cJ7z5kdKA

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

who is trying to tell developers what to do?

Pretty much everyone, as far as I can tell.

"Your game is sexist", "Your game is SJW", "Your game is X and I don't like it because Y"

Just something I've noticed.

 

[jschreier]

Everyone needs to stop hating each other and everyone needs to stop trying to tell developers how to make their games.

This seems to be a common argument among the "we hate Social Justice Warriors" crowd.

I hope it's clear that cultural critique != telling developers how to make their games. Saying "the ending of MGS: Ground Zeroes is problematic and grosses me out" is not equivalent to saying "this shouldn't be made." Even Anita Sarkeesian -- the number one target for people associated with GamerGate -- often makes it clear that it's OK for people to enjoy problematic content. Hopefully the critique of that problematic content makes developers think twice about what they're saying before they do choose to put it out in the world, but I don't think feminist critics are often (if ever) telling developers not to put it out there in the first place.

 

[Mononoke]

Hey, that's cool. Was just trying to get some more insight into what you were thinking, so thanks for that!

Mm... ok. But I think that's actually a rather good argument for the whole GamerGate thing being largely quixotic in nature. It seems more like a smear campaign than a call to action.

Well an update, I got his PM and heard him out. I think his arguments were beyond reasonable. He basically argued that there were people with legitimate criticisms from the very beginning, and pointed to the Kotaku policy revision stuff, among some other examples that I had overlooked. So while I still believe that much of the push came from the extremist side of things, I am willing to say that it wasn't 100% just them, but it was a combination of factors and various groups.

However, I still think it's important to note that, a lot of how the press is reacting is a direct result of these attacks. And because apart of how GG is being handled is in reaction to the press, then I think that should be considered. Further, underneath all of this regardless of where you stand on GG (let's say your intention is purely the criticism of the media and has nothing to do with being anti-femnist, or zoe quinn), we should not ignore the fact that people are being driven out of the industry. That people are being harassed and threatened.

I for the most part, still stand by my overall summary. However, I think the revision I would make is that, while I think much of this originated from a sexist/anti feminist agenda, I do think there were people who were genuinely critical of the media that got pulled in early on, and who were not supporting these things. My issue though, is that I still feel those that were examining Quinn and saying there was a possible ethical breach when there was no proof, were doing so with an agenda. But that's just how I feel.

That's certainly fair. Unfortunately, #gamergate has pretty much avoided even touching on this particular topic in any serious way, even though the largest game publishers spend extravagantly to encourage press members to cover their games positively.

Instead, its attentions have been focused almost entirely on the people with the least resources and least economic involvement with the larger industry -- freelance writers and small-scale indie devs. So far the list of people successfully targeted includes Mattie Brice and Jenn Frank -- two writers who have been quite upfront about bringing in poverty-level wages from videogame writing. It does not, however, include any people with power in organizations that have significant economic involvement in the industry -- say, executives at AAA publishers.

Mostly what this tells me is that while there is certainly a mass of well-intentioned people participating in #gamergate out of some legitimate desire for some kind of reform, there is nobody in a leadership role who is seriously attempting to engage with questions of journalistic ethics, since there are no efforts being made to actually challenge the places where significant conflicts of interest actually occur. The effort that is being directed is pointed squarely at inclusivity: either targeting people (especially women) who have spoken out in favor of gender inclusiveness in gaming, or identifying networking and funding mechanisms used by small players in the industry (again, especially women) and targeting those for destruction.



For the last week a large part of my twitter timeline has been split between women saying that they're quitting because there's no earthly reason to put up with this kind of mistreatment and women saying that they're only not quitting to prove that they can be stubborn enough not to let misogynist assholes win. :/

Absolutely agree, great post. I think even if people are genuinely concerned about the press and ethics (and I do believe there are a large amount of people in GG who are), I don't think the campaign has any real direction, and is being completely mishandled. Doesn't help that, there are people using it as an outlet to push back at anyone for having any kind of criticism of their hobby though. Whole thing is a mess. But I really don't see anything positive coming from this, even if you are genuinely critical of the media (and that's what you are pushing for). I hope my posts didn't come off as me condemning anyone that has these opinions. That was not my intention. I have no issue with someone believing the press has an issue with ethics (although I would want them to have well thought out arguments, and explain what they mean if they want to discuss it). But I am very skeptical of the campaign for various reasons (one of which, I do find its origin questionable, and I'm not a fan of how some are using it). But also as you put, the lack of any goal, and its overall aimless direction.

 

[APF]

So if we stop telling developers what to do that means we can't be vocal about explotive DLC, game-breaking bugs, lack of reliable multiplayer, etc right?

 

[fantomena]

Am I a SJW if Im a feminist?

 

[thatmariolover]

That's certainly fair. Unfortunately, #gamergate has pretty much avoided even touching on this particular topic in any serious way, even though the largest game publishers spend extravagantly to encourage press members to cover their games positively.

Which part of #gamergate? I feel like there are number of us on NeoGaf being quite reasonable and explaining why we're frustrated. I feel like the journalists are minimizing their critics by saying Gamergate is only about a group of aging, bigoted, white, male nerds that are reluctant to see their gaming landscape troubled with modern social issues. When in fact most of the time when social issues are brought up in games, it's a token nod to an issue to score marketing points. It's insulting to the issue being covered and distracting from the game itself. Further, even journalists I like covering gaming are pretending there isn't a conflict of interest with their incestuous relationship with the industry they report on.

Ummm I don't think so? Our company isn't big on lists of rules, since ethical questions so rarely have easy answers. I've always felt like these things should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. (Kotaku does have some game-specific rules like "no paid travel from publishers" and "try to get rid of all this nonsense swag they keep sending us" but nothing written down anywhere.)

This is a problem. Other industries with potential conflicts of interest have a clearly defined professional code of conduct and rules for disclosure/recusal. The fact that you don't even see a problem with this exposes the underlying problem. It's not just you, it's gaming journalism as a whole.

 

[BobbyRobby]

if there wasn't demand for cultural criticism of games i don't think it would be happening, conversely if there actually was such strong demand for "apolitical" reviews we'd see far more of them

this just sounds like "gamers" are annoyed and lashing out because nobody is catering exclusively to them anymore, which is exactly what the critics of gamergate are suggesting

I don't agree with this. It reminds me of the post 9/11 narrative that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom, when in actuality it was blowback from our affairs in the middle east.

It is not because they aren't exclusively being catered to. I really doubt they would care if games came out that catered to females. It is already happening in the mobile space.They are upset because of the effort to take away and change things they hold dear.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Am I a SJW if Im a feminist?

SJW is usually an insult thrown at anyone outspoken about social issues,
it's a hollow term that tries to (and kinda fails due to sounding awesome) insult
and dismiss a badly-defined group.

Identifying as feminist makes you a "SJW" to some people who use that insult, yes.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Am I a SJW if Im a feminist?

Usage varies. I think the original meaning connoted hypocrisy and an aggressive lack of civility. Now I think it's just became a standard term of invective.

 

[ab.aeterno]

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: -

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.

And that would be who?

They are upset because of the effort to take away and change things they hold dear.

The hold dear the objectification and victimization of women in their games? The use of sexist tropes that see women as sexual objects not characters with agency? Making more games without that bullshit is taking something away?

Man, I would never have asked to be included as a minority if I knew that I was being so unfair.

 

[chrominance]

I don't think it's a problem that people want to critique these things. I think its cool that such critiques exist for the people who are interested. I guess one problem is that most gamers don't care. The amount of messaging is disproportionate to the audience's interest. There is a growing resentment both ways because neither side is catering to the other.

I think the larger problem is that said games are treated as a problem that must be dealt with, that they have to change in order for women to enter the hobby. Gamers are shamed for enjoying these shallow games.

Gamers are at odds with people who think the following,


I don't think this is true. I do not buy into the idea that media causes bad behavior, and find it more likely to act as an outlet for bad behavior.

Who's "gamers"? Who says "most gamers don't care"? Who says gamers are at odds with the statement you quoted, which says poor or lack of representations of minorities can absolutely be hurtful? This is exactly why there are people who found Leigh Alexander's article about how "gamers are over" totally in step with their experiences. You've just said that you're probably not a gamer if you care about this stuff. And it's not just you, honestly; there's been a constant din that says "you're not one of us if you don't subscribe to belief X." The identity of "gamer" is increasingly exclusive. There are more and more people who play games that don't fall into the very definitions you just made, possibly without realizing you were making those distinctions. These people have already been told they're not "gamers."

But to address specifically the question of whether poor representations of minorities can be harmful: they don't have to cause bad behavior to be harmful. Minorities play games too, and they appreciate seeing themselves in the media they consume. If you're an Arab and you only ever see Arabs being portrayed in video games as terrorists, you might think the video game industry is telling you they think of you as a terrorist. But even if you're not part of a minority that has outright awful stereotypes or tropes attached to it, think about how when you're a kid, you look up to figures in movies and television and video games. If there aren't people like you in movies and television and video games, what's your takeaway message as a kid? Look up Nichelle Nichols, who played Uhura in the original Star Trek. She thought about leaving the show early on because she felt she wasn't given enough to do:

In one interview, she famously described Uhura as "a glorified telephone operator in space". Then, at a civil rights protest, she met Martin Luther King Jr. -- who told her that he was a big fan of Star Trek. According to Nichols, when she told King she was thinking of quitting the show, he was shocked. "Don't you know you have the first non-stereotypical role in television?" she recalls King saying. "For the first time the world will see us as we should be seen -- people of quality in the future. You created a role with dignity and beauty and grace and intelligence. You're not just a role model for our children, but for people who don't look like us to see us for the first time as equals."

Seeing people of the same ethnicity as you is valuable in and of itself. Not seeing people of the same ethnicity as you makes games poorer. It hurts people by taking away the opportunity to see people like you as positive role models, even if those games encourage absolutely no bad behavior whatsoever.

 

[conman]

You really don't see why lumping one group of people under the same banner is an issue? This wasn't about sexism, this was about anyone who identified as a gamer being stereotyped as a sexist virgin because of other people who happen to identify with the same tag.

There is a middle ground:

Everyone needs to stop hating each other and everyone needs to stop trying to tell developers how to make their games.

This is exactly what I mean. People asking for a "middle ground" are effectively telling people who feel excluded/abused/mistreated to be silent or go away. It's gross. The "middle ground" is actually just the (unacceptable) status quo by another name.

 

[whybag]

I don’t have much to contribute to this issue in particular, but more a metacomment on the issue of “issues” like GamerGate. Twitter sucks. It needs to die a quick, horrible, and very painful death even though I know it won’t. I think Twitter is the perfect embodiment of a platform being unsuitable for social commentary due to the forced character limit. This limit removes all possible context by design, and seems to be why almost all the issues we find the public getting heated about start or ramp up on Twitter. Context is removed, so people take the words but not the meaning and skew them, this skewed interpretation is what gets the mindshare in the public, and no amount of rational explanation of the original context will quench the fires. Plus trolls and Poes pop in, their non-serious contributions are added to serious discussion due to the lack of context, and it all goes downhill fast.

Suffice it to say, I don’t have a Twitter.

For me, “Gamer” as a word is descriptive of a person that plays games, because that’s the only thing we really have in common. It would be annoying and a bit pedantic if I had to read news articles describing “journalists and people that play games showed up to buy new game/game console.” Like saying filmgoer or car nut, but then I’m not the type of person to associate broad, sweeping generalizations to unrelated words…

L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

Good article. I understand that the gaming press will never really be “objective”, I would just like them to be credible. As gamers, I would hope that they are interested in playing well made, functional games. When a website has every ad spot and the background plastered with the same game, they give the game a 9 or 10, and the game is a broken mess that won’t play or even let people log in, it seems to personify the “corruption” aspect. There will always be a level of chumminess in an enthusiast culture, but I for one want to hear about the Diablo 3s and The Sims and Battlefield 4s from the people paid to write about them BEFORE people that paid money to enjoy them get burned for months to come. This accusation of cronyism far predates Zoe Quinn and Doritos. I don’t even know if GamerGate delves into this aspect of development and publishing, it seems to be a target shifting way more than most because reasons. But I do know that the Activisions and EAs and Ubisofts of the world won’t substantively change unless they get a hit in the wallet, because they can weather the bad press storm. As gamers themselves, I think the gaming press should be telling us not to buy broken games until they are fixed, as the dividends may eventually trickle down us with publishers holding release until games are finished.

I hope I haven’t rambled too far off topic, I don’t have nearly the time to read and watch all the links posted here, but that seems to be a major problem with GamerGate and enumerated in this article, lots of people are coming into this hashtag with different arguments and different interpretations about “corruption”, but the only thing getting talked about is misogyny vs. feminism (from what I’ve seen).

TL;DR Twitter sucks, being a “gamer” should be OK, social issues are a minefield at the best of times, gaming press enables broken publishing practices.

 

[ibyea]

This middle ground people speak of, I don't see it. One side has been consistently far worse. And that is the side pretending that this is about journalistic integrity when it is really about their myopic view of what critcism and feminism is.

 

[APF]

Treat "SJW" with the same level of consideration you would "Feminazi."

 

[cubicle47b]

Am I a SJW if Im a feminist?

The original meaning of the term was more along the lines of someone who was abusive to others under the guise of social justice advocacy, but at this point, who knows.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I don’t have much to contribute to this issue in particular, but more a metacomment on the issue of “issues” like GamerGate. Twitter sucks. It needs to die a quick, horrible, and very painful death even though I know it won’t. I think Twitter is the perfect embodiment of a platform being unsuitable for social commentary due to the forced character limit. This limit removes all possible context by design, and seems to be why almost all the issues we find the public getting heated about start or ramp up on Twitter. Context is removed, so people take the words but not the meaning and skew them, this skewed interpretation is what gets the mindshare in the public, and no amount of rational explanation of the original context will quench the fires. Plus trolls and Poes pop in, their non-serious contributions are added to serious discussion due to the lack of context, and it all goes downhill fast.
Suffice it to say, I don’t have a Twitter.

Hear hear. I think anyone who argues with other people on Twitter is a god-damned lunatic.

This middle ground people speak of, I don't see it. One side has been consistently far worse. And that is the side pretending that this is about journalistic integrity when it is really about their myopic view of what critcism and feminism is.

Is there no middle ground between the US government and al-Qa‘ida just because one is far worse than the other?

 

[aeolist]

Pretty much everyone, as far as I can tell.

"Your game is sexist", "Your game is SJW", "Your game is X and I don't like it because Y"

Just something I've noticed.

I don't agree with this. It reminds me of the post 9/11 narrative that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom, when in actuality it was blowback from our affairs in the middle east.

It is not because they aren't exclusively being catered to. I really doubt they would care if games came out that catered to females. It is already happening in the mobile space.They are upset because of the effort to take away and change things they hold dear.

this is a microcosm of the entire issue, which as far as i can tell started with the tropes vs women kickstarter. a lot of people who play games cannot tell the difference between "this game contains this content which i believe is sexist" and "this game is misogynistic trash that shouldn't exist". it is possible to love a creative work while simultaneously recognizing and criticizing its problems.

for example, i love dishonored. it was probably my favorite game of 2012, but it has huge problems with female representation. the few named female characters have no real agency and exist to be used and abused for the convenience of the story, other than maybe granny rags who is a crazy witch.

i don't think dishonored should be banned from sale and i don't think arkane should be forcibly disbanded and forbidden from developing more games. i don't think that the developers are misogynists who created their female characters while cackling maniacally about how they were oppressing women. i also don't think they should be forced to watch anita's videos or make games that are only acceptable to her from now on.

i would like them to take the criticism to heart and try to do better next time because i think it would make their games better, but ultimately it's up to them.

 

[MHWilliams]

Which part of #gamergate? I feel like there are number of us on NeoGaf being quite reasonable and explaining why we're frustrated. I feel like the journalists are minimizing their critics by saying Gamergate is only about a group of aging, bigoted, white, male nerds that are reluctant to see their gaming landscape troubled with modern social issues. When in fact most of the time when social issues are brought up in games, it's a token nod to an issue to score marketing points. It's insulting to the issue being covered and distracting from the game itself. Further, even journalists I like covering gaming are pretending there isn't a conflict of interest with their incestuous relationship with the industry they report on.

As a minority, I can equivocally say when I've written about race in gaming it's because I care about race in gaming. I'm not sure where "marketing points" would even enter into it. And as a person that has had direct contact with overt racism, I think I'm quite fine with saying my writing isn't an insult to the issue and deals with my experience with the game itself.

And specifics on the conflicts of interest?

This is a problem. Other industries with potential conflicts of interest have a clearly defined professional code of conduct and rules for disclosure/recusal. The fact that you don't even see a problem with this exposes the underlying problem. It's not just you, it's gaming journalism as a whole.

And yet, many other outlets do in fact have codes of conduct. Here's ours. It's been there from the beginning.

 

[RSLAEV]

Twitter Sucks

'Twitter sucks and I hope it dies' is a convenient means of removing accountability from the people using it.

You know who doesn't get in twitter flamewars? Real journalists

After what I've seen tweeted over the past few weeks I'm amazed so many people *still* have their jobs

 

[jschreier]

This is a problem. Other industries with potential conflicts of interest have a clearly defined professional code of conduct and rules for disclosure/recusal. The fact that you don't even see a problem with this exposes the underlying problem. It's not just you, it's gaming journalism as a whole.

I am pretty sure most gaming outlets have public ethics policies. AFAIK the main reason Kotaku doesn't is because our parent company doesn't really believe in them. This doesn't mean we don't have clearly-defined rules for what we can or can't do, as I said before: we have rules against taking paid travel from publisher, accepting swag, etc.

 

[Kadayi]

And that would be who?

RPS seem to be increasingly keen proponents of the 'No comments' approach to articles.

@jschreier

You disappoint

 

[vcc]

'Twitter sucks and I hope it dies' is a convenient means of removing accountability from the people using it.

You know who doesn't get in twitter flamewars? Real journalists

After what I've seen tweeted over the past few weeks I'm amazed so many people *still* have their jobs

What twitter did is humanize a lot of people, and in fact even 'REAL' journalists get themselves in trouble over twitter.

I personally don't find much value in twitter and it seems to be just a lot of extra noise but it's easy for lots of people to get entangled and start flame wars on twitter.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

RPS seem to be increasingly keen proponents of the 'No comments' approach to articles.

And yet the debate rages on...

What's worse, telling a group of people "don't post here go to a forum" or "don't speak at all you deserve to die and be raped"

 

[Vlade]

This middle ground people speak of, I don't see it. One side has been consistently far worse. And that is the side pretending that this is about journalistic integrity when it is really about their myopic view of what critcism and feminism is.

I still think this two sides arguement is the same as saying that the gamers are the misogynist bullies that harassed folks, so i'm having trouble seeing who is benefiting from keeping AS/ZQ/etc vs bullies fight and the gaming press vs gamers fight attached. seperate, there are bullies. together, gamers are the bullies.

seperate the issues if you think all gamers aren't bullies. if someone says zoe was harassed, dont say men are harassed too. not only is that foolish, in this conversation it's conflating gamers with bullies (as well as making light of the harassment)

The middle ground from one fight is trying to serve as the middle ground for the other. It's not good.

 

[kiryogi]

Who's "gamers"? Who says "most gamers don't care"? Who says gamers are at odds with the statement you quoted, which says poor or lack of representations of minorities can absolutely be hurtful? This is exactly why there are people who found Leigh Alexander's article about how "gamers are over" totally in step with their experiences. You've just said that you're probably not a gamer if you care about this stuff. And it's not just you, honestly; there's been a constant din that says "you're not one of us if you don't subscribe to belief X." The identity of "gamer" is increasingly exclusive. There are more and more people who play games that don't fall into the very definitions you just made, possibly without realizing you were making those distinctions. These people have already been told they're not "gamers."

But to address specifically the question of whether poor representations of minorities can be harmful: they don't have to cause bad behavior to be harmful. Minorities play games too, and they appreciate seeing themselves in the media they consume. If you're an Arab and you only ever see Arabs being portrayed in video games as terrorists, you might think the video game industry is telling you they think of you as a terrorist. But even if you're not part of a minority that has outright awful stereotypes or tropes attached to it, think about how when you're a kid, you look up to figures in movies and television and video games. If there aren't people like you in movies and television and video games, what's your takeaway message as a kid? Look up Nichelle Nichols, who played Uhura in the original Star Trek. She thought about leaving the show early on because she felt she wasn't given enough to do:



Seeing people of the same ethnicity as you is valuable in and of itself. Not seeing people of the same ethnicity as you makes games poorer. It hurts people by taking away the opportunity to see people like you as positive role models, even if those games encourage absolutely no bad behavior whatsoever.

I didn't know about. . . MLK really was an amazing man. Right now the biggest issue we face in this whole controversy, as some have mentioned before, and I mentioned in a lighter note. There is no respectable leadership leading this charge in any proper manner. And just looking at Anitas twitter retweeting someone's tweet with something like this:

Make no mistake: #gamergate is a deliberate, sustained purge of female voices from the gaming industry.

She isn't helping the situation, and she's seen as one of the key figures in all of this. What's the sense in fanning the flames further? I really appreciate Jason for some civil representation of at least Kotaku, but not many other outlets have been very civil/vocal about the matter. It's sad to say the little people here can't do much since they're all drowned out otherwise.

 

[antigoon]

Will we ever see the end of the "if you don't allow comments on your work you are stifling debate" argument? Ever?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Will we ever see the end of the "if you don't allow comments on your work you are stifling debate" argument? Ever?

Probably. I'd say the gaming website comment section is even more doomed than the gaming website.

 

[JackDT]

When in fact most of the time when social issues are brought up in games, it's a token nod to an issue to score marketing points. It's insulting to the issue being covered and distracting from the game itself.

A reviewer disliking the art in Dragon's Crown. Is that what this comes to, really, a desire for more uniformity in game reviews?

 

[whybag]

What twitter did is humanize a lot of people, and in fact even 'REAL' journalists get themselves in trouble over twitter.

I personally don't find much value in twitter and it seems to be just a lot of extra noise but it's easy for lots of people to get entangled and start flame wars on twitter.

I also view that as part of the problem, lots of people seem to get in trouble, but little value seems to ever be contributed. Starting the war of one-liners is too easy, but the cooler heads can't seem to get heard.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

This seems to be a common argument among the "we hate Social Justice Warriors" crowd.

I hope it's clear that cultural critique != telling developers how to make their games. Saying "the ending of MGS: Ground Zeroes is problematic and grosses me out" is not equivalent to saying "this shouldn't be made." Even Anita Sarkeesian -- the number one target for people associated with GamerGate -- often makes it clear that it's OK for people to enjoy problematic content. Hopefully the critique of that problematic content makes developers think twice about what they're saying before they do choose to put it out in the world, but I don't think feminist critics are often (if ever) telling developers not to put it out there in the first place.

I know a sensible critique isn't the same as telling a developer how to make their game, but both statements were directed at both sides.

I definitely have no sympathy for the anti-SJW side because their agenda is basically "no women in the boy's club" and I cannot for the life of me work out why this is (I do like to play devil's advocate, as I said though) but I also have no time for being told I'm a sexist or "blind to rape culture" for a different perception of a situation or not seeing something as sexist (which has happened before). In any case, this all comes down to trying to change perceptions using the anonymity of the internet and that is as foolish as anything else because people can ignore points and attack people in a way that wouldn't happen face to face. It's a shame that when someone is forward about their identity, that's what brings out the worst of the hate and, yes, it's definitely worst for women. The internet allows you to reach the widest number of people, but the more people you reach, the more extreme the opinions become.

Anyway, my point is that I never specified which side my comments were directed at, but people make a very quick assumption even though I staunchly won't back a "side" in this whole mess because I know sexism exists, I know the video game maket is making questionable decisions in regards to content and I am just as bored of the tropes as anyone else, but I also know that the best way to change this is to get more females on board, both playing and developing, to get more female journalists on board, to get more games made by women for, well, everyone. Does anyone ever sit down and ask females what sort of games they want or do we just continue to point out the current problematic content? Where do we draw a line under this?

My stance on gamers gate, and I will reiterated it, is that people involved in journalism hate their userbase and tried to divide "gamers" for no other reason than they needed a group to lable as the main cause of the sexism and hatred again Quinn, Sarkeesian and probably countless others and, in doing so, gave the trolls and shitflingers a platform, the same way they do in their comments sections and "opinion pieces" about the trolls, rather than focusing their attention on games. Sexism in video games is only a small part in the much bigger issue of sexism and, as Stormfront still exists, sexism online is not going to go away, especially when it's given a platform, rather than being ignored and pushed out until it becomes so irrelevent, it has to start its own forum.

 

[BobbyRobby]

The hold dear the objectification and victimization of women in their games? The use of sexist tropes that see women as sexual objects not characters with agency? Making more games without that bullshit is taking something away?

Man, I would never have asked to be included as a minority if I knew that I was being so unfair.

Yes, that is what they hold dear. Like I said, I don't think these disgruntled gamers would care if more games were made that didn't do this.

I mostly play Nintendo and classic games so I cannot fully relate, buy I am a regular watcher of pornogtaphy.

I enjoy it and I am not ashamed of it. Hell, I hold it dear to me. This is a medium where women are purely seen as sexual objects with no agency, whereas in games it is only occasional.

It seems weird that games are such a large target for this when porn exists. It is more widely consumed, and the issues you have are much more severe.

It's like attacking marijuana when alcohol is expontially more dangerous. I guess because like marijuana, games are a much easier target.

 

[Kadayi]

What's worse, telling a group of people "don't post here go to a forum" or "don't speak at all you deserve to die and be raped"

Beyond the tone not much from where I'm sitting.

Will we ever see the end of the "if you don't allow comments on your work you are stifling debate" argument? Ever?

I've yet to see a compelling case for.

 

[aeolist]

Yes, that is what they hold dear. Like I said, I don't think these disgruntled gamers would care if more games were made that didn't do this.

I mostly play Nintendo and classic games so I cannot fully relate, buy I am a regular watcher of pornogtaphy.

I enjoy it and I am not ashamed of it. This is a medium where women are purely seen as sexual objects with no agency, whereas in games it is only occasional.

It seems weird that games are such a large target for this when porn exists. It is more widely consumed, and the issues you have are much more severe.

It's like attacking marijuana when alcohol is expontially more dangerous. I guess because like marijuana, games are a much easier target.

do you seriously think there aren't any feminist critiques of the porn industry or are you just being disingenuous?

 

[Lime]

Since the ridiculous "comments should be allowed" argument is popping up, I want to refer people to this article: http://sufficientlyhuman.com/archives/398

Commenting on the internet—especially commenting meant to insincerely troll, or very sincerely damage and offend—is the easiest thing a person can do. Insulting a stranger takes very little creativity or effort, with most of the worst offenders reaching for the most standard insults they can muster to do the most damage, especially if their target is a woman or visible minority. Allowing a platform for this kind of thing contributes nothing of value to anybody, and in the worst case scenario it might actually leave someone badly hurt in a way no one can see. This is all while reconstituting noxious ideas and turning a “free space” for conversation into a tightly controlled space for emotional and intellectual manipulators.

 

[APF]

My stance on gamers gate, and I will reiterated it, is that people involved in journalism hate their userbase

Except it started to promote discussion of Zoe Quinn and her relationships. That's literally what it was about.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Except it started to promote discussion of Zoe Quinn and her relationships. That's literally what it was about.

Again, I didn't even take any interest in that whole affair because it was irrelevent. I only cared when the journos decided that gamers were dead.

 

[antigoon]

Yes, that is what they hold dear. Like I said, I don't think these disgruntled gamers would care if more games were made that didn't do this.

I mostly play Nintendo and classic games so I cannot fully relate, buy I am a regular watcher of pornogtaphy.

I enjoy it and I am not ashamed of it. Hell, I hold it dear to me. This is a medium where women are purely seen as sexual objects with no agency, whereas in games it is only occasional.

It seems weird that games are such a large target for this when porn exists. It is more widely consumed, and the issues you have are much more severe.

It's like attacking marijuana when alcohol is expontially more dangerous. I guess because like marijuana, games are a much easier target.

You say this like there isn't widespread feminist commentary on pornography already.

And besides, problems don't need to be solved in order of perceived severity.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Since the ridiculous "comments should be allowed" argument is popping up, I want to refer people to this article: http://sufficientlyhuman.com/archives/398

2. Don't drop a link and say, "That's how I feel!" If you can't be bothered to put your opinions into your own words, don't post.

 

[antigoon]

2. Don't drop a link and say, "That's how I feel!" If you can't be bothered to put your opinions into your own words, don't post.

This is a pretty cheap shot considering Lime has been substantively posting in this and related threads for a while now.

 

[TheLight]

Yes, that is what they hold dear. Like I said, I don't think these disgruntled gamers would care if more games were made that didn't do this.

Exactly. No gamer(in their right mind) is out there saying "fuck you!" to equality and strong female leads. That's a beautiful thing! It's when you invade an already existing thing and try to mold and cater it to you. That is the only issue. That's the reason why the whole AC4 situation, comments from dev's aside, was so insane. Not everything has, will, and does cater to you right now but things are changing. We know this. Jumping into existing franchises and demanding representation is dookie.

No one you should give a shit about is "anti-equality". For some reason, however, people ignore this and paint gamers as misogynistic, fat, Cheetos-dust sprinkled trolls. This whole "death to gamers" concept is crazy.

 

[Kadayi]

Since the ridiculous "comments should be allowed" argument is popping up, I want to refer people to this article: http://sufficientlyhuman.com/archives/398

And counter point: -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_oIIeWoeTE

 

[Lime]

I'm sorry to dig this up from a few pages back, but it's great to see a AAA developer chiming in with his experience with the toxic culture of gamers.

As a developer on multiple AAA MMOs, I have experienced a lot of what Leigh Alexander expressed in her article. We are required to maintain a community presence and interact on a personal level with our players. And people can be really mean. I've been called out by name, multiple times, on our own game forums, twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. Players have called for my firing, for my death, for horrible things to happen to myself and my family. I've been called countless names, repeatedly and endlessly personally attacked, and even confronted in person by individuals who probably thought they were being rather intimidating.

I've dealt with all of that, almost every day, for the past 5 years. And I will admit that female developers get it easily 10x worse (my wife is also a dev and the shit she gets is insane sometimes - including needing to seriously involve the authorities a couple times).

However, you know how we both deal with it? We don't get into pointless twitter arguments. We don't engage and try to 'teach those assholes a lesson'. We don't try to get back at them. We just fucking ignore them.

Because after 5 years, you realize something - or at least you should. Those people who say and do those things, they are an extremely vocal, extremely small minority. For every one of them, despite being as loud as 1000 others, there are 100 players who absolutely worship the ground you walk on. Who hang on your every word wanting to hear what you have to say. Who genuinely love your products and want, desperately, for you to make more of them. And they are usually very quiet and very grateful.

Those people are gamers.

I appreciate your comment and I respect that you choose not to engage with the toxic elements of video game culture. People shouldn't be forced to risk their well-being in order to convince people of their bigotry.

However, I would like to say that as a developer and as someone with influence (maybe not you, but the company or developer or executive), it does not help to simply let the toxic elements be. They will fester and be cultivated by inaction - i.e. by not addressing their toxic and bigoted behavior towards women and minorities, you automatically allow them sufficient space and time to continue harassing and excluding other people from your video game spaces.

Developers and companies with influence are able to and should do something about their fanbases. At least signal that it's not okay. The neutral majority or bystanders will then be inspired or influenced by the people they look up to (like you said yourself: the people who worship the ground you walk on) will take a stand against the ones spouting sexist, homophobic, racist, hate-filled speech and behavior towards other people.

As such, I would geniunely love if you took a note of this and tried to talk about it within your company and try to perhaps talk about a strategy on how to ensure a healthy and safe space around the culture of your products. I know you are only one guy, but bringing it up to your higher-ups or the organization itself would go a long way to making things progress little by little.

So maybe the greater gaming press should takes notes from developers and enthusiasts and start listening to the people who actually enjoy gaming and stop listening to assholes on the internet.

Again, this is ignoring what is going and it is equivalent to sticking your head into the sand. People are affected by the harassment. They receive all sorts of threats that they simply cannot avoid, because they have the right to exist on social media platforms. And everyone else around these people who are harassed and threatened and bullied cannot simply choose to "ignore" and "stop listening to assholes", because these bullies will still affect and harm the targeted people, especially women.

 

[fantomena]

SJW is usually an insult thrown at anyone outspoken about social issues,
it's a hollow term that tries to (and kinda fails due to sounding awesome) insult
and dismiss a badly-defined group.

Identifying as feminist makes you a "SJW" to some people who use that insult, yes.

Usage varies. I think the original meaning connoted hypocrisy and an aggressive lack of civility. Now I think it's just became a standard term of invective.

The original meaning of the term was more along the lines of someone who was abusive to others under the guise of social justice advocacy, but at this point, who knows.

Okay. Im a feminist because I believe in equality between men and women. Simple as that. That is also what feminism is.