Support NeoGAF

[aeolist]

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.

one woman published a metaphorical article that went over everyone's heads, ignoring the fact that similar articles have been online for years without complaints

 

[Syriel]

Reviewers are being bribed by developers
This is leading to unreliable review scores

Can you show or link to some evidence of this?

Pick any mobile review site.

1) Do they charge developers for reviews?
2) If yes (and many do), there is your answer.

This isn't a secret. It's a well known practice in the industry.

Many writers won't work for such sites, but many will.

 

[whybag]

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

That's one of the triggers that seems to have started it, but it has spiraled way outside of that scope. Accusations of Quinn trading sexual favors for promotion and press for a new game is an interesting case study in ethics and conflicting interests, and should be added to the discussion of the industry and aforementioned money "buying" reviews". How that, within a few hours, morphed into "if you call yourself a gamer, then you hate women" blows my mind.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

As an addition to my last post:

I want to make it clear, I don't think women will ever have an easy time in the industry, not for a while, but I am also absolutely convinced, like books, music and movies, the legitimately good female developers and journalists will get the respect they deserve. We need more Patti Smiths in gaming and it will happen, but I just hope more websites actually promote the games rather than the developers, let their work speak for them and don't give the trolls their platform, don't let them make headline news, don't acknowledge them. If your website has comments available, quietly delete the comments and all comments that reference them, but do this for all misdirected hate. Make the journalism side a friendly place, which will make the whole industry a friendly place and push the sexists, racists and bigots to the fringe, to rot, with the waste from other media who have already done this.

 

[unbias]

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.

Twitter didn't get popular because of exchanging of idea's, it got popular because you could placate to your fanbase and expand your product(name) while at the same time ignoring any legit criticism because you normally are getting around 5% of abusive tweets that can be used to show that those who disagree are nut jobs. There have been some good side effects from twitter(news stories spread faster(but because of this ALL news stories spread faster for good or ill). On the whole though, I think the echo chamber that is twitter brings more harm then good.

Adam Baldwin is a perfect example. He has enough followers that agree with everything he is saying, that he can just cherry pick the shitty ones that gets thrown his way and say "see, all of these people suck". It is perpetual and it is never ending and it is why using twitter as a battle ground is a horrible jump off point.

All you have to do is look at the amount of celebrities and politicians who have been doxed to see the issues twitter presents. That is the true problem with #gamergate, it started on twitter, it probably means a whole lot of horrible shit is going to happen, that is why you don't support it or poke it. Leave it alone, let it die, let them scream in their proverbial corner until they run out of breath. Because poking it has proven to only introduce casualties. But I guess, to some, this is a war and you need armies to fight the war, and in wars some of your troops in your army will die, and that is ok, so keep on keeping on for the good of all gamers everywhere.

It's a twitter war, and it is winning. Twitter is winning and everyone is paying the price.

 

[APF]

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.

It might be irrelevant to you personally but in terms of what #gamergate was literally created to generate discussion around, it's enormously relevant. It does not help to ignore that. The harassment generating from both the initial ex-boyfriend blog post and then the firestorm created from #gamergate is the reason a couple of journalists tried to rationalize what was going on in the gaming community by suggesting it's because a small but very vocal contingent is clinging on to an identity that no longer applies.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

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

In all fairness, this is like saying "I'm a Muslim because I believe in one god and Muhammad's prophethood. That's also what Islam is."

At an extremely abstract level feminism really is simply "believing in equality between men and women." But arguments don't tend to happen at that extremely abstract level, they happen at levels where there is significant disagreement, among feminists and non-feminists alike, about what exactly "true feminism" is.

 

[Kade]

Pick any mobile review site.

1) Do they charge developers for reviews?
2) If yes (and many do), there is your answer.

This isn't a secret. It's a well known practice in the industry.

Many writers won't work for such sites, but many will.

What about the outlets that GamerGate is targeting? Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, Gamespot, etc.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

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

You're sitting in the wrong damn place.

Banning comments on an article or video does not silence dissenting opinions. It just moves them elsewhere. It's not an effort to silence the dissenter, but an effort from the original author to avoid hearing something they don't want to hear.

Freedom of speech means you have the right to express yourself. It doesn't mean you have the right to force someone to listen to you.

But really, I think you describing rape threats as a "tonal change" is pretty disgusting.

 

[vcc]

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.

I don't even think that's much to care about. Some journalists are just burnt out on all the negativity. The shrill vocal segments of the gamer population can be extremely noisy and aggressive over a lot of different things. Be it Sony vs MS; social issues in gaming; which FF was the best; etc... We also frequently lack perspective. The game press is inherently broken because of their business model and there is no alternative right now. The primary revenue stream for all game press is game ads which makes it inherently a conflict of interest. But no one actually cares about that it seems. It seems to be just outrage that some game press would write about social issues which is why it's so easy to write off the whole topic; because the most vocal voices seem unreasonable and lacking perspective.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

It might be irrelevant to you personally but in terms of what #gamergate was literally created to generate discussion around, it's enormously relevant. It does not help to ignore that. The harassment generating from both the initial ex-boyfriend blog post and then the firestorm created from #gamergate is the reason a couple of journalists tried to rationalize what was going on in the gaming community by suggesting it's because a small but very vocal contingent is clinging on to an identity that no longer applies.

I get that, but you can't just stereotype an entire group of people who may be equally as disgusted that they're in the same "fanbase".

 

[Shingro]

And that would be who?


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.

Depends on the type of feminism, are you thinking from a third or second wave perspective? I mean, if objectifying a digital woman isn't good, I expect slut shaming one isn't great either.

and besides, most of the criticisms are of charecters with agency anyway (sorceress/DoA/etc)

But by all means, be inflamatory and pidgonhole the opinion you don't agree with. It'll probably help.

 

[fantomena]

In all fairness, this is like saying "I'm a Muslim because I believe in one god and Muhammad's prophethood. That's also what Islam is."

At an extremely abstract level feminism really is simply "believing in equality between men and women." But arguments don't tend to happen at that extremely abstract level, they happen at levels where there is significant disagreement, among feminists and non-feminists alike, about what exactly "true feminism" is.

I understand. There are extreme feminists too, but they are using the feminism ideology as weapon.

 

[conman]

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.

The term "civil" has been used to silence more than its fair share of legitimate grievances, including, ironically enough, during the US "Civil Rights" Movements of the 1950s and '60s. Many people then--as now--were calling for a "middle ground" between those for and against segregation, and many accused black Americans and those who shared in their struggle of not being "civil." MLK frequently expressed his frustration with white northerners calling for "peace" and "quiet" and "civility."

Given the circumstances, I think Anita isn't "fanning" anything. She's resisting the campaign to silence her and others. People supporting the (unacceptable) status quo want nothing more than for people like her to just "let it be" and "leave it alone." It's the equivalent of people believing that racism would just "go away" if people of color would "just stop talking about it." She's behaving responsibly, justly, and ethically.

 

[APF]

I get that, but you can't just stereotype an entire group of people who may be equally as disgusted that they're in the same "fanbase".

The thing is, that's almost exactly what those articles (I think there were two? this is all over two articles) were saying.

 

[whybag]

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

I first saw SJW when referencing people that contributed nothing to conversations, but only waded in with "you're just a cis male [whatever]" (I had to look up cis the first time I was told this) or "you don't understand because you're white/male/[something]"brushing off all legitimate criticism about a topic. SJW now is thrown out as "you're not on my side, therefore you're a SJW and are wrong."

 

[Kadayi]

But really, I think you describing rape threats as a "tonal change" is pretty disgusting.

I'm not the one who posted two extremes and then asked me to decide. That I don't care to because it's an absurdity trap that bears no relation to the subject is not an act of support for either statement.

 

[BobbyRobby]

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

No. I was responding to the way he was framing objectification and lack of agency as a bad thing.

I wanted to come clean that I enjoy media that does this, as do most men. I reject the idea I should be shamed or villified for this the same way I reject that gamers should.

 

[Lime]

How that, within a few hours, morphed into "if you call yourself a gamer, then you hate women" blows my mind.

You have completely and utterly missed the point of those articles, as well as the subsequent comments and discussion on the issue if you believe that anyone ever claimed that "calling yourself is a gamer means you hate women".

 

[bigmf]

The thing is, that's almost exactly what those articles (I think there were two? this is all over two articles) were saying.

There were eight articles. An except from the Slate artice:

Such articles appeared concurrently in Gamasutra (“ ‘Gamers’ are over” and “A guide to ending ‘gamers’ ”), Destructoid (“There are gamers at the gate, but they may already be dead”), Kotaku (“We might be witnessing the ‘death of an identity’ ”) and Rock, Paper, Shotgun (“Gamers are over”), as well as Ars Technica (“The death of the ‘gamers’ ”), Vice (“Killing the gamer identity”) and BuzzFeed (“Gaming is leaving ‘gamers’ behind”).

 

[aeolist]

No. I was responding to the way he was framing objectification and lack of agency as a bad thing.

I wanted to come clean that I enjoy media that does this, as do most men. I reject the idea I should be shamed or villified for this the same way I reject that gamers should.

and other people are free to call those things bad. nobody is calling you specifically a bad person and if you feel attacked then that's on you.

 

[CrazyArcadia]

If anyone wants to read a academic perspective on this: http://culturedigitally.org/2014/09/a-4-front-war/

The Ouroboros metaphor is fitting, I think.

First of all, I want to highlight this article again since it was so early in this thread and it really is a good read (as are some of the other articles on the first 3-4 pages, as well).

I admit to not reading the whole thread but only the first few and the last few pages. I was busy reading many of the articles instead of forum opinions repeated again and again - though I enjoy this thread for the long answers and the (most of the time) absence of 2 line snarky remarks but really, I always get the feeling that the same arguments come up and in the end, it just fades into obscure references, derailments and bans. I agree with the sentiment that this particular topic isn't about "sides" or "who's right" anymore at this point, really, but more about the way this kind of situation is even able to escalate in such a drastic and sometimes disgusting way in public/mainstream gaming culture. (I spoke with a friend of mine about this whole situation before the #GamersGate came up, about the opinions, the harassment and the kind of "discussion culture". That friend who's not really deeply involved in videogames was shocked and confused and I guess this would be the reaction of most sane people if or when stuff like this gets reported on in mainstream media). (Also, my respect goes to jschreier who made me re-boomark Kotaku after many years because of some very good posts coming from him.).

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.

I agree with you in so far as this is the case with mainstream games. Nevetheless, they carry a message (which often is a problematic message). Going the lazy route here and link to a very long post of mine from a few days back where I compared mainstream games to cinema (and some other stuff which also circle around this point:

It's not about stuff "for men" or "for women." [...] Media that perpetuates problematic stereotypes of minorities can absolutely be hurtful.

) -> http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=127821239&postcount=1867 and expanding on some of those points.

One is the wrong assertion of real depth in mainstream videogame storylines which is often used to explain or 'excuse" why morally questionable things are depicted in a certain way. There ARE actually many games which go beyond that and have a positive or thought-provoking message (mid-tier development and indie games really shine in that regard, though of course by far not all of them. many are just nostalgic love letters or versions of blockbuster games with a smaller budget), but they are not what the huge majority of people play or even affiliate with gaming in general.

Looking at the following examples within mainstream videogaming: GTAV, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed. GTA V has slowly become itself what the series once claimed to mock: mainstream media, mocking of stereotypes, glorification of violence and hateful dealing with women. Now does that make it a bad "game"? No. But it makes it a questionable piece of pop culture, especially in the videogames realm where it stands alone and has no "serious" alternative to go to. Assassins Creed is popcorn television, if anything. Similiar to other games with historical setpieces, it's really well done from a graphical point of view, it really tries to pull the player into a historical world... only to then provide a mostly paperthin overall plot which is more like a saturday morning cartoon with a bit more violence. Call of Duty is the videogame equivalent to Rambo, which would be fine if we also had the equivalent of Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now or Taxi Driver (hey, Spec Ops at least tried to provide something more, but otherwise, war shooting games could as well don't have any storyline.) Does that make these games bad? No. Is it worth pointing out that these games are of a certain quality when it comes to gameplay, but actually not that heavy on "thought provoking storylines"? Pointing out that these games can carry potentially problematic messages?

Yeah, that's called critique and the fact that videogames even get real critique is actually a good sign. Would these specific games need to change? I come back to that later.

Going to answer to another post:

That critique over Steven Seagal movies I found it quite funny, because one of my favorite movies from him is the one he fights against an oil company, protects an ethnic minority and ends with a speech in favour of alternative methods of energy. Totally 100% conservative.

*shrugs*

Not sure if irony, so: Sorry if I fall into the trap of answering you even though you made a joke: So if Kratos from God of War would do the exact same things he does in the God of War games, but would do them to protect an ethnic minority and inbetween killing his enemies would deliever a speech about equality (instead of revenge), that would give God of War a deep or intellectually challenging story about minorities and human value?

There's one central aspect keeping many games from being able to tell a good or relateable story: Violence (not violence as a topic but the permanent need to kill at least 10 dudes per minute). That per se is not bad as it is connected to a certain way of gameplay - fighting. It can be a problem since many players take those stories more serious than they should be taken. The PR of those games compares them to movies, often promising emotional depth or a complexity which just isn't there.

For me, one of the messages I have taken from the critiques against the depiction of women in games was "There is a problem." Yes, there is. For many people, it won't matter because they like the status quo or it will become a problem because they

fear losing their secret club status.

(another good point). But for other people who want to enter the realm of gaming as a dev, a writer or a fan coming from different target groups or who want to see gaming evolve into something worth of critical thought and academic research apart from studies about the effects of games on people... in other words, people who want to see the medium evolve for real and stand next to books and movies (and graphic novels) when it comes to public perception and personal intellectual gain: For these people, the current state of the industry, the current culture of discussion in many gaming circles and the hateful dealing with people who raise an opinion against the status quo of the mainstream videogame is not only hurtful - they will leave gaming again and videogames will fail to evolve into anything new and exiting. Without this new influx of people who have another point of view on what makes a good game and a good game story, the medium will stop evolving apart from graphics and will stay what it is now when it comes to million-selling posterchilds: A poor attempt at trying to "grow up" while keeping itself restrained to the levels of superficial action movies.

It was certainly made worse by the gaming media getting all preachy about it. Nobody likes being told they can't have something they enjoy. They especially don't like being told how awful they are for liking it. But there's a line between disagreeing with media / bloggers being preachy and obnoxious, and sending people bags of burning monkey dung in the post. In a way it was like some kind of absurd mass white knighting and self promotional posturing exercise, which I don't think Anita ever asked for.

I'm definitely in the 'there should also be content available with objectified men draped around the scenery like candy' camp which is more interested in everyone getting things they like, instead of taking away from people things you personally dislike.

As for the 'gamer' label itself. I was a gamer before most of these people fighting and preaching touched a joystick, those of us who have been around that long have seen 'gamer' attacked for various reasons over the years and we're still here. And long after these latest idiots drop from view we will still be here, until it's time to turn out the lights or until we've passed into the abyss. I feel a considerable level of detachment from the whole situation, it's like a passing storm.

.. I like games such as Dead or Alive or Ninja Gaiden or Bayonetta. I look at them and I know that I like them not only for the gameplay, but also for superficial stuff like "over the top ninja coolness" "boob physics" or "Fly me to the moon Jpop version playing while I kill angels". If anyone tells me that I'm a bad person for playing games that are like this - they can have their opinion but that's indeed rude. If someone tells me that this kind of media is superficial and kinda stupid (not me, but the media I consume), I say "Yes, I know that and this is why I play them when I don't want to think, you know, like watching a really stupid comedy movie or an 80s action flick. This is not the only thing I consume and I don't take away lessons from these games which I then want to carry over to the real world."
I would really love to play more games with an engaging storyline, with realistic characters and without discrimination or "power fantasies" being the foundation for the whole thing. The older I get (I'm in my early 30s... in Germany, so I also got a glimpse of real and succsessful witchhunts against videogames. You know, we actually got games banned. Most of this did not compare to the current criticism which is more than justified.) the more I find myself going to other media since most storytelling in videogames is... well, boring and superficial. I find myself watching good movies or reading books when I want to be intellectually involved with the medium and when I get my urges to shut of my brain, I watch a zombie slasher or play a videogame, but videogames could be so much more than that (and are, in certain cases outside of most of the AAA industry). There's also games which I play because the gameplay is fun, but seldom do I go "Oh I play this game for the gameplay AND the story."
It's also not at all about taking something away or replacing bad female depiction in games with bad male depiction in games (that's kind of a strange argument, anyway). It's about complementing superficial "shut off the brain" experiences with something else. E.g. Anita Sarkeesians videos are NOT a guide to "bad videogames" which she also makes very clear but an observation of a trend which is very real in videogames (and other media; Though in other media, violent stories are a genre whereas in videogames, it often seems to be the mediums general purpose to be violent and womenhating and minority-badmouthing superficial - even if it isn't true when digging deeper). So really, what's the worst that can happen? Games that deal with real-world problems, games with strong female characters, games cartering to another target group... If someone does not like that, so what? It's not like these will replace current gaming experiences, noone who does not want to has to buy into those potentially "new experiences".







This comes now full circle back to the ' this isn't about "sides" or "who's right" '. This is also a bit abstract and strongly IMO, but:

When it comes to media consumption, everyone's right as long as he/she doesn't harm anyone else.
Everyone is free to consume whatever media they want.
Everyone is free to voice their opinion about a certain piece of media.
Everyone is free to point out problems with certain products, request different media to be made in addition to the current media or actually make different media themselves.

Many devs, writers and gaming enthusiasts are fed up with the current state of the industry, so they try to change it - not only by producing something else (Indie and mid-tier devs) but also through raising awareness. That's also a key difference to the other kind of storms the videogame industry has seen - this is not a call to censor or banning certain kind of media, it as about expanding the range of possibilities within the videogame industry. In the end, it's about making videogames as a medium better. There will always be videogames cartering to the "male 20/30 something target group" as well as games which carter to the "puzzle game on the smartphone" group won't go away anytime soon. I don't at all understand why the target group of the currently predominant videogames in the console gaming space is in fear of loosing that because that fear is not justified at all. All that could happen is that there'd be more diversity and more good games next to what we have now and many more happy people playing videogames ("happy people playing videogames" seems to be a rare construct nowadays).

 

[charlequin]

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"

Do you notice how despite claiming that everyone is "telling developers what to do," none of your three quoted examples actually contain an imperative command, and instead each one is just a description of the game, sometimes followed by a personal reaction or judgment to that observation?

Which part of #gamergate?

The massive torrent of activist effluvia on Twitter and other social media that's actually trying to effect change? Inasmuch as there's a "movement" or whatever here, it's the active group of people who constitute it and determine its efficacy and goals.

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.

To speak metaphorically here for a second, you walked in on a scene where a group of aging, bigoted, white, male nerds that are reluctant to see their landscape troubled were screaming, shouting, and threatening game developers and writers, then you stood next to those bigoted nerds while saying "Also I have some other, less strident demands!" The only rational reaction is to ignore you because you have chosen the worst possible way to raise any legitimate issue.

 

[whybag]

Twitter didn't get popular because of exchanging of idea's, it got popular because you could placate to your fanbase and expand your product(name) while at the same time ignoring any legit criticism ... There have been some good side effects from twitter(news stories spread faster(but because of this ALL news stories spread faster for good or ill). On the whole though, I think the echo chamber that is twitter brings more harm then good.

...

It's a twitter war, and it is winning. Twitter is winning and everyone is paying the price.

Yep, some good things have come from Twitter, but I feel they are wholly outweighed by the negatives. News spreads at an exponential pace, but so does fake news before it is vetted. As a joke example, remember when The Onion's Abortionplex spread everywhere before people even realized it was The Onion? The Onion is well known, but Twitter does the same with a couple of other satire sites that embed themselves in arguments before people grasp they're satire, and they kind of stay in the argument despite being fake.

 

[Gsak]

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

Egalitarianism

 

[conman]

To speak metaphorically here for a second, you walked in on a scene where a group of aging, bigoted, white, male nerds that are reluctant to see their landscape troubled were screaming, shouting, and threatening game developers and writers, then you stood next to those bigoted nerds while saying "Also I have some other, less strident demands!" The only rational reaction is to ignore you because you have chosen the worst possible way to raise any legitimate issue.

I like you. You make me laugh, and you speak truth. Much needed in times like these. Thanks.

 

[thatmariolover]

To speak metaphorically here for a second, you walked in on a scene where a group of aging, bigoted, white, male nerds that are reluctant to see their landscape troubled were screaming, shouting, and threatening game developers and writers, then you stood next to those bigoted nerds while saying "Also I have some other, less strident demands!" The only rational reaction is to ignore you because you have chosen the worst possible way to raise any legitimate issue.

I walked in on the aftermath, and when I discovered a surprisingly logical discussion occurring here I hopped in. A couple of the articles discuss the various different groups that have rallied around #gamergate and what their beliefs are.

I think there are a number of us that have been frustrated with the direction of journalism in the games industry for a while. It's unfortunate that it took a disgusting event like #gamergate to open a dialogue like this. But refusal to take part in a legitimate discussion about the non-hateful criticisms we have just because of how it started is pointlessly dismissive. Especially when there's opportunity for growth on both sides.

 

[Lime]

really great post, crazyacardia. This especially stood out for me:

For these people, the current state of the industry, the current culture of discussion in many gaming circles and the hateful dealing with people who raise an opinion against the status quo of the mainstream videogame is not only hurtful - they will leave gaming again and videogames will fail to evolve into anything new and exiting. Without this new influx of people who have another point of view on what makes a good game and a good game story, the medium will stop evolving apart from graphics and will stay what it is now when it comes to million-selling posterchilds: A poor attempt at trying to "grow up" while keeping itself restrained to the levels of superficial action movies.

Besides actually losing people to the evolutionary discourse of the medium (and obviously people getting hurt and harmed), this is also one of the things that have saddened me by all the harassment and loss of insightful and inspirational voices. That the future of (mainstream?) video games have suffered a critical blow in terms of diversity, ethics, standards, and criticisms.

 

[ab.aeterno]

Exactly. No gamer(in their right mind) is out there saying "fuck you!" to equality and strong female leads.

I'm going to quote myself from another topic (to save myself the time of rewriting it on mobile):

I can safely call bullshit as a participant in the many past threads on this very topic. Of note is that these are only some of the threads I participated in dealing with diversity issues in gaming, so there are undoubtedly a number more I wasn't a part of.

You can go ahead and read through all of those threads, and if you still want to claim that everyone is all for representation and diversity and inclusiveness, then you're either in denial or being purposefully obtuse. Because in those threads range arguments from the dismissive (who gives a fuck?/is it really a problem?/you're making something out of nothing/you're just looking to be outraged) to the stupid (you're perpetuating sexism by discussing it/maybe you're the real bigot/if we stop talking about it it goes away/stop being divisive/what about other groups?/you better represent everyone or no one then/stop forcing creators to suit your whims) to the offensive (it's totally OK to say faggot) to the misguided (minority characters need to justify their existence/they need to be included for a reason/not in my game/but what if they're bad/it's shoehorning) to the angry (stop trying to ruin my games/SJWs/why do you hate men) to the tone deaf oblivious (but what about men?/not all men/what about x female character I have to play as?).

So if you want to assert that everyone thinks diversity is great, you can feel free to do so, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it. Even taking you at your probable intended meaning of speaking in generalities (which is ironic in a thread with a lot of posts hand-wringing over gamers or games being generalized), the threads speak for themselves. They're not short and full of head nodding and murmurs of agreement, there is significant and sometimes incredibly gross pushback or dismissal at the idea of inclusiveness and representation.

Feel free to count distinct users and whether they agree, disagree, or don't care about representation and diversity. The results will probably shock you.

I really encourage you to look through some of the topics on this board that I linked. Because you'll find it pretty clear that plenty of people oppose equality and representation and inclusiveness of any kind. The problem with how you've framed it, as though anyone opposed isn't in their right mind, is problematic because it let's you excuse or dismiss all of the people who do say this as though they're crazy, when clearly they are not. Maybe it's worth acknowledging that there is a significant number of people who hold these views and that should be discussed instead of dismissing them as crazy people.

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.

If games in the franchise are independent, why would it be shit to ask for more representation in the next game? Because let me be clear, people have argued against that too.

And you know what? Almost nothing does cater to me already, so saying it like that, as though it's an entitled demand instead of a request to not be ignored, is pretty fucking depressing. If people can demand that games not have DLC or day one patches or always online, do I really get no day in what I want?

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.

Well, it certainly says plenty about anyone who is truly angry that sexist content might get reduced in the media that consumer.

As for the second part, I can safely call bullshit. There have been threads here where people suggest that to do so would be pushing an agenda, or bigotry, or they still treat it as a zero sum game in which more of the content you're suggesting means less for them, or that minorities don't deserve to be catered to, or that it's not an issue at all.

 

[APF]

There were eight articles. An except from the Slate artice:

But really people are only talking about one or two articles. Here's another quote: "A good number of them link to an obscure blog post by academic Dan Golding, “The End of Gamers”"

And while people show that jpeg of a bunch of outlets speaking on the same theme, I only see people *talking* about Leigh Alexander and not the others.

 

[Orayn]

Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is a philosophical position and feminism is a gender-egalitarian movement, with the exception of a few shitty branches like TERFs.

 

[ibyea]

Egalitarianism

While I understand the sentiment, just egalitarianism doesn't do justice to the understanding that there are unique challenges that women face in our society. I guess you could say feminism is a subset of egalitarianism, and it is all too necessary to bring to light such issues faced by women.

 

[BobbyRobby]

and other people are free to call those things bad. nobody is calling you specifically a bad person and if you feel attacked then that's on you.

Sure. Likewise, I think feminists should not be taking objectified fictional women or a disagreement with feminist beliefs as a misogynistic attack on women.

 

[vcc]

I walked in on the aftermath, and when I discovered a surprisingly logical discussion occurring here I hopped in. A couple of the articles discuss the various different groups that have rallied around #gamergate and what their beliefs are.

I think there are a number of us that have been frustrated with the direction of journalism in the games industry for a while. It's unfortunate that it took a disgusting event like #gamergate to open a dialogue like this. But refusal to take part in a legitimate discussion about the non-hateful criticisms we have just because of how it started is pointlessly dismissive. Especially when there's opportunity for growth on both sides.

The thing troubling me is that the only topic that's discussed much is game press talking about social issues. I don't think that is a very good point. Why is that a problem at all? I hear people allude to other 'corruption' but the only point the most vocal people have is that one and it seems like a non issue compared to the intrinsic problem of the game press business model and the lack of a viable alternative.

 

[Lime]

But refusal to take part in a legitimate discussion about the non-hateful criticisms we have just because of how it started is pointlessly dismissive. Especially when there's opportunity for growth on both sides.

Where's the opportunity for growth for the side that's been harassed, threatened, and bullied to the point of quitting, as well as a severe chilling effect on all involved?

 

[Kadayi]

Egalitarianism

There's more than one school of feminism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism

 

[Orayn]

Sure. Likewise, I think feminists should not be taking objectified fictional women or a disagreement with feminist beliefs as a misogynistic attack on women.

What "feminist beliefs" do you think are reasonable to take issue with? Because the core idea is that women and men should have equal rights and equal value as people, and disagreeing with that is misogynistic.

 

[Petrae]

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

I'm a proponent of ending open comments and bringing back a "Letters to the Editor" type of format, where comments/letters are moderated first and published as appropriate later.

It keeps moderators employed, prevents dealing with bans and questions revolving around bans, and makes those responding earn the right to have their viewpoint heard. If you write bile, you get nothing; if you write a thought out response that makes sense and isn't offensive, you get published.

 

[conman]

Sure. Likewise, I think feminists should not be taking objectified fictional women or a disagreement with feminist beliefs as a misogynistic attack on women.

Except that there's a very strong case to be made that representations along the lines you describe aren't harmless. It's one thing to say that violence in games is harmless, but it's something else altogether to claim that the treatment of a particular group of people in a particular way for the benefit of another particular (and privileged) group is "harmless."

 

[jschreier]

We just published a thing. I agree with every word of this: http://kotaku.com/about-gamergate-1630707501

 

[BobbyRobby]

What "feminist beliefs" do you think are reasonable to take issue with? Because the core idea is that women and men should have equal rights and equal value as people, and disagreeing with that is misogynistic.

Stuff like rape culture, the belief that fiction causes real life rape or misogyny.

I don't think it is a proven or valid claim.

 

[APF]

The only "corruption" I really saw people talking about in specific terms that actually had a basis in verifiable reality was the concept of nondisclosure of patreon backing. This is the idea that #gamergate followers used to literally emotionally torture Jenn Frank on even though she disclosed her backing to the publication in question. Awesome, great job guys. You should be very proud of yourselves, she quit the industry. Bravo.

 

[thatmariolover]

Where's the opportunity for growth for the side that's been harassed, threatened, and bullied to the point of quitting, as well as a severe chilling effect on all involved?

There's always going to be unreasonable criticism levied at public figures. Are you saying that they can't take any criticism, even logical nonthreatening criticism?

The internet is not censored. If you want it to be censored so people will be nice to public figures, we have a bigger problem. You have to realize there are crazies out there. I don't support them, most of us don't.

 

[ab.aeterno]

Depends on the type of feminism, are you thinking from a third or second wave perspective? I mean, if objectifying a digital woman isn't good, I expect slut shaming one isn't great either.

It depends on the context; often, what is being criticized are female characters who are sexualized for the sole purpose of being eye candy or a prop or whatever, which is different from a female character who is owning and expressing their sexuality. I would wager there is far more of one of those than the other.

and besides, most of the criticisms are of charecters with agency anyway (sorceress/DoA/etc)

But by all means, be inflamatory and pidgonhole the opinion you don't agree with. It'll probably help.

I'm not sure how I'm pigeonholing when the person I was posing that to answered yes, particularly when that person specifically insinuated they held dear the type of content I was outlining, but if you want to dismiss me, go ahead.

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

So you were only speaking about RPS? Then why not simply say so? Or if, as I am guessing, you are addressing a larger group, why aren't you being clear who you're talking about? It seems incredibly ironic, in a thread containing people upset at being unfairly grouped with other people, to address criticism against a vague group you never define -- and that's setting aside how impossible it makes discussion.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm a proponent of ending open comments and bringing back a "Letters to the Editor" type of format, where comments/letters are moderated first and published as appropriate later.

Bringing back? Has any gaming website ever tried this?

It keeps moderators employed, prevents dealing with bans and questions revolving around bans, and makes those responding earn the right to have their viewpoint heard. If you write bile, you get nothing; if you write a thought out response that makes sense and isn't offensive, you get published.

I think you'll find the editor still decides whether that happens regardless of how good your writing is.

So you were only speaking about RPS?

I'm pretty sure I've seen 'no comments' approach deployed at other sites, RPS just happened to be the one that sprang to mind.

 

[vcc]

There's always going to be unreasonable criticism levied at public figures. Are you saying that they can't take any criticism, even logical nonthreatening criticism?

The internet is not censored. If you want it to be censored so people will be nice to public figures, we have a bigger problem. You have to realize there are crazies out there. I don't support them, most of us don't.

I think it's not very proportionate compared to the actual importance of the subject. This is death threats and outrageous amounts of abuse over what is a trivial topic.

 

[Orayn]

Stuff like rape culture, the belief that fiction causes real life rape or misogyny.

I don't think it is a proven or valid claim.

Well it's not a claim that many people make. Even Anita doesn't say "If you play this kind of game it will turn you into a violent misogynist."

 

[charlequin]

How that, within a few hours, morphed into "if you call yourself a gamer, then you hate women" blows my mind.

It morphed into that so quickly because the critique in the articles was nuanced, which means that it's easy to twist into something very different from what it was intended to be. Notice how pretty much every one of these articles doesn't refer to "gamers" in the title, but rather " 'gamers' " -- it puts the word in scare-quotes specifically because they aren't discussing gamers, the category of people, but rather "gamers," the term which is being presented as a concrete measure of identity. The point is that the concept of "gamers," or even moreso "real gamers," was an exclusionary and increasingly inaccurate model, and these events show that it's past its breaking point.

If there were actually an epidemic of articles claiming that all people who are active in the gaming hobby are virginal misogynists with bad hair, I'd certainly object to that, but that's not really what's been going on. Pretty much every one of those articles is written by someone who is very much, by both vocation and avocation, a gamer, or at least a person who is heavily engaged with games and gaming. These are internal critiques by people who are frustrated by the choice between tacitly supporting brutal misogyny and disassociating themselves from their hobby. The fact that so many people have perceived them as external speaks to the original issue -- the fact that these critiques were made by women has led them to be widely viewed as coming from outside, even if the people making them are dyed-in-the-wool members of the community.

 

[ibyea]

Stuff like rape culture, the belief that fiction causes real life rape or misogyny.

I don't think it is a proven or valid claim.

What about rape culture isn't real? There are far too many stories of rapists getting away with it while the victims are shamed by their community and peers.

Meanwhile, no one claimed fiction causes rape or misoginy. There have been studies, though, that shows it can strenghten certain biases that already exists, and the more you believe it doesn't affect you, the more it does.

 

[bigmf]

We just published a thing. I agree with every word of this: http://kotaku.com/about-gamergate-1630707501

I agree with all of that as well. Especially the first two sentences of paragraph three.

I disagree about the ants. I hate ants.