Support NeoGAF

[DragonSworne]

It's known as Bike Shedding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality

Basically people get worked up about trivial things because they're easy to understand.

Easy to understand? I'm still having a hard time following what is exactly going on and why people are upset.

 

[Bold One]

That's your only conclusion?

I pretty much took the post as someone who already had their mind made up. With the resources in the OP and throughout the thread, that wouldn't be the first, only, and probably not even remotely the thing to conclude from all this.

Well that is your prerogative, I have found the coverage of this entire debacle to be a cluster-fuck of the highest order.

There are so many factors that point to a vice and I am out of time to go into all of it, suffice to say much gaming journalists are far too collusive between each other and developers and publishers to be taken seriously.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

I know I haven't been in here much but just a heads up. LodKaT had been streaming about the "real" problems in the industry and /v/ caught wind of his stream. It's all conspiracy theories on the IGF, indiecades and Maya Kramer. It's all completely stupid but that could very well be the next targets in all this. Short and simple of his conspiracy: Indies are evil and IGF is racketeering.

Also if you're curious to who LordKaT is, he's formally of TGWTG and most famous for his long and stupid rant about Spoony. That rant is also full of fud and he's very much an idiot who can't keep out of someone elses business.

There's really no saving GamerGate, it started as something terrible and will continue to be something terrible.

EDIT: here's on of his posts. http://www.lordkat.com/igf-and-indiecade-racketeering.html



Probably because FEZ is listed in LordKaT's article on IGF racketeering.

Regardless of my opinion on the IGF stuff, LordKaT is a piece of work; I remember during Spoony's public melt down a couple years back he said he hoped Spoony would shoot himself point-blank while his brother watches.

Dude's a spiteful dipshit.

And here's the thing you should understand.

Jonathan Blow says those tweets is essentially him having a conversation with thousands of people. And if you look at the replies, that's what some developers and journalists have all the time. Those who are replying are thinking of it as a conversation with Blow, not realizing he's also talking to many others. That's the nature of the beast.

The problem with that is this: if Blow gets tired of the hundreds of abusive/self-righteous replies (even if they're a mere fraction of the overall number of replies) and snaps at one respondent, that now redefines the entire conversation he's having with the masses. That won't be spread as "Blow snaps after abuse from a large number of people", it'll be spread as "Blow is an asshole because he snapped at this one person."

Which is why I think twitter is a bad environment to have these conversations and declarations; stuff is incredibly easy to take out of context or horribly misinterpret, and the 140 'stream of thought' nature of the site doesn't help things. I'm with people who earlier in this thread were saying there needs to be a 'safe' version of Twitter that doesn't limit what you say, prevents complete anonymity (that probably includes having screennames with wacky icons like myself, but message boards are still a thing so) and has a less obtuse reply system viewers can read coherently.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Well that is your prerogative, I have found the coverage of this entire debacle to be a cluster-fuck of the highest order.

There are so many factors that point to a vice and I am out of time to go into all of it, suffice to say much gaming journalists are far too collusive between each other and developers and publishers to be taken seriously.

There's a lot of issues with the media, but it's not something you can brush over as a whole. What collusion are you speaking of? Just the general junkets and favors, or is this more of the Zoe Quinn stuff?

I mean, there's people like Chris Grant [from Polygon] that try to stifle anything that doesn't fit their own world views (in his case going as far as to take part in and brag about a giant block list on Twitter, many who have never said a thing to him); but there's also people like Jim Sterling and Jason Schrier (I probably butchered the last name) that while you don't necessarily take agreeable positions, tend to be very inclusive and willing to give everyone a fair shake while providing good and sometimes original content.

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

As someone with a concentration in art history I can very clearly tell you art is all about the time and place. It is all about social commentary. Since the dawn of man.

Phew thanks for backing me up because I actually meant to type decades, not centuries! Cultural theory didn't really catch on until the 60s but it's been status quo since the 80s. But I totally agree that it's a fallacy to view even pre-modern art in a vacuum, and ESPECIALLY popular art.

 

[Fredescu]

Easy to understand? I'm still having a hard time following what is exactly going on and why people are upset.

I'm not saying that understanding this issue is easy. Understanding the motivations of a mob is difficult because you can't treat it like a single entity. Some people, like the person I quoted, don't understand why people get so worked up and angry about cosmically inconsequential things like video games (and sports etc). We should be getting angry about foreign policy, inequality, freedom, and so forth! But those subjects are complex and difficult with no easy answers. "I like video game X, you don't like video game X, we're now on opposing sides" is much easier.

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh is this where this discussion moved? I overlooked this thread somehow...

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

The general tone of #GamerGate can be so bizarre and melodramatic:

@ListerTheFister: @Jonathan_Blow you cant stop it, its happening and the seed of what you have done will haunt you, the fire rises #

Lol who wrote that tweet, Bane?

 

[Bold One]

There's a lot of issues with the media, but it's not something you can brush over as a whole. What collusion are you speaking of? Just the general junkets and favors, or is this more of the Zoe Quinn stuff?

The Zoe Quinn stuff is merely symptom of a greater issue, in any industry with actual checks and balances those sort of things wouldnt happen.

It harkens back to what I said in my initial post, this industry's media is far too reliant on net traffic to ever function in any real legitimate capacity, couple that with the incestuous relationships and exclusive first looks that media sites have with publishers and devs you have a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.

EDIT- regarding Sterling, I like his videos and has keen critical eye, however I would not class him as a journalist per se, he is more of a personality, one of the very few who has been able to successfully use the tried and tired British guy ranting motif popularised by the Yahtzee, unlike Marcus Beer who lacked the wit and wherewithal to carry his arguments.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I'm not saying that understanding this issue is easy. Understanding the motivations of a mob is difficult because you can't treat it like a single entity. Some people, like the person I quoted, don't understand why people get so worked up and angry about cosmically inconsequential things like video games (and sports etc). We should be getting angry about foreign policy, inequality, freedom, and so forth! But those subjects are complex and difficult with no easy answers. "I like video game X, you don't like video game X, we're now on opposing sides" is much easier.

You say that...but people do it all the time and in greater numbers when it comes to all those 'important' subjects. The conflict between Isreal and Palestine come to mind, same with Ferguson. The fits that were thrown about bringing the two Ebola infected missionaries/care workers to Atlanta...they happen all the time. But when you're in a gaming community environment, you're going to be seeing game related content for the most part.

It just depends on what the new and exciting spectacle is. If a view can be sold to people, they'll pile behind it with no thought since they assume someone already did the thinking for them. Otherwise why would there be a cause? And that's what makes it easy.

Fake edit: By the way, I don't mean any disrespect by using 'spectacle' in relation to the above situations or any others.

The Zoe Quinn stuff is merely symptom of a greater issue, in any industry with actual checks and balances those sort of things wouldnt happen.

It harkens back to what I said in my initial post, this industry's media is far too reliant on net traffic to ever function in any real legitimate capacity, couple that with the incestuous relationships and exclusive first looks that media sites have with publishers and devs you have a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.

EDIT- regarding Sterling, I like his videos and has keen critical eye, however I would not class him as a journalist per se, he is more of a personality, one of the very few who has been able to successfully use the tried and tired British guy ranting motif popularised by the Yahtzee, unlike Marcus Beer who lacked the wit and wherewithal to carry his arguments.

What sort of thing? That someone in the media wouldn't have a relationship with anyone in the industry? It happens. Government, military, business, Hollywood, entertainment industry, schools...You can put some protocols in place, but there's nothing wrong with people mingling so long as those protocols are adhered to and don't inherently compromise either position.

Outside that a relationship took place, with nothing gained from either party, what was the 'collusion'? What was it a symptom of?

As for the rest, that's an entirely separate issue with from #GAMERSGATE, even if some people like to think otherwise. There have been far more worthwhile instances to get up and arms over to actually drive that point if that was the subject.

Edit: Yes, Jim Sterling is more of a commentator, though I think he's written longer than his time doing "Jimquisition". As is most of the media from the now 'retired' Adam Sessler to Jeff Gerstmann. But honestly that is about as distant as you can get with the industry. If you're a journalist, you have to interact closely with the industry. You can't get inside stories otherwise unless someone comes to you or you steal/illegally obtain the information. And that does require a bit of collusion, though I still don't understand what you define it as (hopefully not the conspiracy stuff).

 

[jschreier]

The Zoe Quinn stuff is merely symptom of a greater issue, in any industry with actual checks and balances those sort of things wouldnt happen.

It harkens back to what I said in my initial post, this industry's media is far too reliant on net traffic to ever function in any real legitimate capacity, couple that with the incestuous relationships and exclusive first looks that media sites have with publishers and devs you have a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.

EDIT- regarding Sterling, I like his videos and has keen critical eye, however I would not class him as a journalist per se, he is more of a personality, one of the very few who has been able to successfully use the tried and tired British guy ranting motif popularised by the Yahtzee, unlike Marcus Beer who lacked the wit and wherewithal to carry his arguments.

What sort of stuff do you think is missing in the games media that you'd like to see?

 

[pslong009]

The Zoe Quinn stuff is merely symptom of a greater issue, in any industry with actual checks and balances those sort of things wouldnt happen.

It harkens back to what I said in my initial post, this industry's media is far too reliant on net traffic to ever function in any real legitimate capacity, couple that with the incestuous relationships and exclusive first looks that media sites have with publishers and devs you have a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.

EDIT- regarding Sterling, I like his videos and has keen critical eye, however I would not class him as a journalist per se, he is more of a personality, one of the very few who has been able to successfully use the tried and tired British guy ranting motif popularised by the Yahtzee, unlike Marcus Beer who lacked the wit and wherewithal to carry his arguments.

Okay, so how would you fix it? What do you want the journalists to do? They have an audience that demands in-depth previews, day-one reviews, and reviews that reflect the audience's POV to the point that giving a game an 8/10 instead of a 9/10 is a travesty that warrants its own thread on GAF. The only access journalists have to the content is through whatever the publisher drips out to them, and publishers can turn that spigot off at a moment's notice. The journalists also get paid terribly and are, as you said, dependent on net traffic. Yes, frankly, they're middlemen, but ones that are terribly useful for both publishers and the gaming audience. So what do you want them to do? And why is it on them to fix it, not on the publishers who have been the actual corrupting influence throughout the last two decades? And why is it that the only journalists that have really been targeted by this so far have been female?

 

[ArkkAngel007]

It harkens back to what I said in my initial post, this industry's media is far too reliant on net traffic to ever function in any real legitimate capacity, couple that with the incestuous relationships and exclusive first looks that media sites have with publishers and devs you have a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.

This might be something you should look at as well, in regards to net traffic and 'journalism'.

In fact, Mike has made quite a few posts in relation to your concerns, which you could probably have an easier time searching through his post history than dissection of the thread.

 

[Bold One]

What sort of stuff do you think is missing in the games media that you'd like to see?

I feel Games Media needs to become a more democratic entity, I know its a bit of a pipe dream, but things like Reviews, articles and opinion pieces need to be used a catalyst to start a dialogue.

Perhaps take an example from the better side of YouTube by being inclusive in actually communicating with its audience. Issues like Gamersgate which has been dominating the twittersphere and net in general for an unprecedented 2 weeks show there is under-current of mistrust and deference.

Mr Schreier I can't claim to have all the answers but surely a diplomatic approach is better is better than the barrage of anti-gamer rhetoric we have seen in the past few days. When a small minority of idiots on our side decide to spew toxic ire, the media is the last institution I expect to descend into the mud with them.

There are a lot of problems on the table to address but as far as Gaming Media goes a greater degree of transparency and accountability would go a long way. If you are running an opinion piece state the source, give links to back your facts, use the facts to back up your opinions. There are too many people using the position afforded to them as a soap box for their personal agendas.

 

[Fredescu]

It just depends on what the new and exciting spectacle is. If a view can be sold to people, they'll pile behind it with no thought since they assume someone already did the thinking for them. Otherwise why would there be a cause? And that's what makes it easy.

True, good point.

 

[Oblivion]

I've read all 3 articles linked in the OP and I'm still confused as to what this "#gamergate" thing is about. I thought it was related to that drama going on about that Zoe Quinn chick, but they don't mention her either.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I've read all 3 articles linked in the OP and I'm still confused as to what this "#gamergate" thing is about. I thought it was related to that drama going on about that Zoe Quinn chick, but they don't mention her either.

While some opinions are displayed rather prominently over others and is more of an info dump than analytical or confirmation piece (so you'll need to do some research to separate 'facts' from fabrications), this article sums up the different facets.

 

[neurosisxeno]

And why is it on them to fix it, not on the publishers who have been the actual corrupting influence throughout the last two decades?

Because people are easier to target than a corporation.

 

[jschreier]

I feel Games Media needs to become a more democratic entity, I know its a bit of a pipe dream, but things like Reviews, articles and opinion pieces need to be used a catalyst to start a dialogue.

Perhaps take an example from the better side of YouTube by being inclusive in actually communicating with its audience. Issues like Gamersgate which has been dominating the twittersphere and net in general for an unprecedented 2 weeks show there is under-current of mistrust and deference.

I'm not sure what this means. So you want a place where comments are just as important as articles? Kotaku's got you covered. We're actually required to interact with and respond to comments.

Mr Schreier I can't claim to have all the answers but surely a diplomatic approach is better is better than the barrage of anti-gamer rhetoric we have seen in the past few days. When a small minority of idiots on our side decide to spew toxic ire, the media is the last institution I expect to descend into the mud with them.

As has been pointed out over and over again in this thread, this campaign has been toxic and misguided all along. Anyone interested in a dialogue or discussion on media issues would do well to stay away from the "anti-SJW" rhetoric that is coupled to every tweet and 4chan post about this campaign. That's the main reason people aren't taking this seriously.

There are a lot of problems on the table to address but as far as Gaming Media goes a greater degree of transparency and accountability would go a long way. If you are running an opinion piece state the source, give links to back your facts, use the facts to back up your opinions. There are too many people using the position afforded to them as a soap box for their personal agendas.

Can you give some examples of opinion pieces that don't use facts?

 

[Revenant]

I've read all 3 articles linked in the OP and I'm still confused as to what this "#gamergate" thing is about. I thought it was related to that drama going on about that Zoe Quinn chick, but they don't mention her either.

this is really the most confusing thing. To me it shouts "We Are Victims!" but i'm not really sure of what. Some of the things people point to a corrupt press sound like the way press is done in other hobby/media/etc. To some extent I feel like a reviewer can't win. I've seen enough people get attacked through social media etc about reviews and seen enough of the review threads here that have a decent amount of posters contribute a post insulting the reviewer or publication and that's it. Sure there is some actual discussion but I'm not sure if gamergate is suggesting that this "undercurrent of animosity" was somehow started by the gaming press. Which honestly just sounds so silly.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I feel Games Media needs to become a more democratic entity, I know its a bit of a pipe dream, but things like Reviews, articles and opinion pieces need to be used a catalyst to start a dialogue.

Perhaps take an example from the better side of YouTube by being inclusive in actually communicating with its audience. Issues like Gamersgate which has been dominating the twittersphere and net in general for an unprecedented 2 weeks show there is under-current of mistrust and deference.

Mr Schreier I can't claim to have all the answers but surely a diplomatic approach is better is better than the barrage of anti-gamer rhetoric we have seen in the past few days. When a small minority of idiots on our side decide to spew toxic ire, the media is the last institution I expect to descend into the mud with them.

There are a lot of problems on the table to address but as far as Gaming Media goes a greater degree of transparency and accountability would go a long way. If you are running an opinion piece state the source, give links to back your facts, use the facts to back up your opinions. There are too many people using the position afforded to them as a soap box for their personal agendas.

It sounds intriguing, but what do you mean democratic/diplomatic? Obviously there are some outlets that don't play nice with their audience that I could see what you mean by diplomatic, but I can't necessarily see what a democratic review and editorial system would be that hasn't already been done on somewhere like Kotaku (though lacking in some other places).

Can you give some examples of opinion pieces that don't use facts?

I could see that being directed at IGN's recent reports like with The Last Guardian's cancellation and Amy Henning being 'forced out' of Naughty Dog by Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley, though I know that there are a lot of cases that can't be sourced. On Kotaku instance of such situation where a source couldn't be given was the huge Modern Warfare...2? 3? leaks, which I think was released by Kotaku and not a report on the leaks coming from elsewhere.

 

[Candescence]

Bloody hell. This whole mess is completely fucked up almost beyond recognition. SERIOUSLY fucked up. Rhodes's article in particular was excellent, though.

I really wish we could just stop giving the assholes the time of day.

 

[milkham]

I don't know whats going on, i just got a tweet to a pastebin, apparently i'm on chris grant's block list on twitter but I have no idea why. the tweet had #gamergate attached to it

 

[Revenant]

I

Mr Schreier I can't claim to have all the answers but surely a diplomatic approach is better is better than the barrage of anti-gamer rhetoric we have seen in the past few days. When a small minority of idiots on our side decide to spew toxic ire, the media is the last institution I expect to descend into the mud with them.
.

Can you give an example of this or explain exactly what this means. How are "gamers" which is such a broad term being assaulted. I mean I'd consider gaming a strong hobby of mine, but i have no real thoughts on the term gamer one way or another. But there seems to be a big push on the meaning of it and I honestly don't understand this semantics war

 

[Oersted]

I feel Games Media needs to become a more democratic entity, I know its a bit of a pipe dream, but things like Reviews, articles and opinion pieces need to be used a catalyst to start a dialogue.

Perhaps take an example from the better side of YouTube by being inclusive in actually communicating with its audience. Issues like Gamersgate which has been dominating the twittersphere and net in general for an unprecedented 2 weeks show there is under-current of mistrust and deference.

Dialogue via Twitter/Tumblr/Facebook etc and in comment sections and on forums like Gaf have been a thing for a long while.

 

[Sneds]

I don't know whats going on, i just got a tweet to a pastebin, apparently i'm on chris grant's block list on twitter but I have no idea why. the tweet had #gamergate attached to it

Chris Grant has unblocked everyone now. He had combined some other people's blocklists. I was on there too and really can't imagine why. Maybe someone was blocking anyone who mentioned #gamergate at all.

 

[MrHoot]

What sort of stuff do you think is missing in the games media that you'd like to see?

I remember I saw one article and it was on kotaku, and I still love it a lot today: It was the article you guys had about Japan studio, what happened to it during the 7th gen and what they were planning for 8th. It had interviews, a backstory. I freaking love that article

Spoiler

Basically anything that can bring me closer to the last guardian really ;_;

 

[jschreier]

I remember I saw one article and it was on kotaku, and I still love it a lot today: It was the article you guys had about Japan studio, what happened to it during the 7th gen and what they were planning for 8th. It had interviews, a backstory. I freaking love that article

Spoiler

Basically anything that can bring me closer to the last guardian really ;_;

You might dig some of these: http://kotaku.com/tag/kotaku-longreads

 

[unbias]

Bloody hell. This whole mess is completely fucked up almost beyond recognition. SERIOUSLY fucked up. Rhodes's article in particular was excellent, though.

I really wish we could just stop giving the assholes the time of day.

It actually was dying, until we got the IRC incident. Then it shot back up. Just like when all this started. Every chance for it to die was stirred up all over again, and now everyone caught up on this is paying the price. It's like being an onlooker watching a 50 car pile up.

Oh, oh! And then the gameethics tag... Cause that didnt add fuel to the fire.

 

[milkham]

Chris Grant has unblocked everyone now. He had combined some other people's blocklists. I was on there too and really can't imagine why. Maybe someone was blocking anyone who mentioned #gamergate at all.

thats weird I haven't mentioned anything about anything even slightly related to this on twitter.

 

[zeldablue]

Phew thanks for backing me up because I actually meant to type decades, not centuries! Cultural theory didn't really catch on until the 60s but it's been status quo since the 80s. But I totally agree that it's a fallacy to view even pre-modern art in a vacuum, and ESPECIALLY popular art.

Yeah!

Take Islamic art for example. They weren't allowed to depict Allah or the prophet so they focused all their energy into making beautifully patterned mosaics and beautiful calligraphy instead.

If it wasn't for that cultural limitation, script writing wouldn't be what it is now!

Even the use of color and materials were important. Getting your hands on the color blue was extremely expensive and was only used on people who were especially important, like the Virgil Mary. Blue became her color simply because it was so hard to get the resources for blue ink.

The smallest crap in society had a profound affect on art.

When Americans watch anime, we can easily see that the stories, characters and style is influenced by Japan's culture. Likewise, when other countries watch our movies, they can clearly see we are overly patriotic and self-righteous id.

Our stories and art reveal a lot about our cultures' values, customs and beliefs.

 

[Bold One]

Can you give an example of this or explain exactly what this means. How are "gamers" which is such a broad term being assaulted. I mean I'd consider gaming a strong hobby of mine, but i have no real thoughts on the term gamer one way or another. But there seems to be a big push on the meaning of it and I honestly don't understand this semantics war

I agree with you, the term gamer is more broad than it is nebulous, it is a huge industry covering a demographic larger than any other on the planet, the tag 'gamer' however, whether you like it or not is reserved for us, the forum posters, those counting down the clock to the release of Destiny, those on the other side of the world staying to watch E3 conferences.

Whether we like it or not the label vicariously identifiable with you and me an anyone who considers playing video games a hobby.

 

[Lime]

L. Rhodes (writer of the Medium article)

"The more you rationalize sticking with #Gamergate, the more willing you seem to lend harassment indirect support in exchange for visibility"

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Oh, oh! And then the gameethics tag... Cause that didnt add fuel to the fire.

Has that gone to hell already? I remember it being mentioned yesterday by Jason and things looked fine at the time.

 

[Palette Swap]

I know it's been pointed out dozens of times but what this could achieve might be to make people migrate from traditional journalism (with which I have a number of grievances) to streamers/youtubers that aren't held to the same standards or don't always feel held to them.

Just as an example, while a lot of people are still angry about gamergate, EA might be very actively "encouraging" top streamers to play and stream The Sims 4. I don't even know if the allegations raised in the thread about it are true but it feels surreal that a $2.5B franchise would be cause for less scrutiny than Zoe "who again?" Quinn. (*)

I feel obligated to mention this isn't a deflection. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe there are some systemic issues to how the industry operates and blatantly tries to use the press as marketing, but I have no reason to believe alternative venues will magically be more responsible when they face less checks and balances.


(* I have absolutely no grudge against ZQ but it's important to keep in mind few people even remembered who she was, that gives some crucial context IMO)

 

[Bagels]

A religious commentary is just a certain flavor of social commentary. If you want to understand where I'm coming from, you should say "supernatural" in place of religious, which of course leads to nonsense. For that matter, to fix the Dickens statement into something I can't honestly disagree with you must replace "artistic" with "entertainment", or whatever would be proper form of that word in that situation lol.

I have no idea what your point is at this point.

 

[robovanburen]

The general tone of #GamerGate can be so bizarre and melodramatic:

@ListerTheFister: @Jonathan_Blow you cant stop it, its happening and the seed of what you have done will haunt you, the fire rises

I do find it hilarious that they're using a quote from Bane as some kind of warcry. Bane, the leader of a faux populist movement that takes over Gotham to supposedly oust the corrupt and powerful but really just wants to blow the whole place up. Probably not the image they're going for.

 

[Revenant]

I agree with you, the term gamer is more broad than it is nebulous, it is a huge industry covering a demographic larger than any other on the planet, the tag 'gamer' however, whether you like it or not is reserved for us, the forum posters, those counting down the clock to the release of Destiny, those on the other side of the world staying to watch E3 conferences.

Whether we like it or not the label vicariously identifiable with you and me an anyone who considers playing video games a hobby.

identifiable but it doesn't define me. I have no issue if is somehow tied to me or not in a very loose sense. I don't believe it defines me. Yet I feel like in this movement there are some people who are tying gamer to themselves as they would race/sex/creed/religion. That seems a bit extreme to me. Also how are you as a gamer under duress right now? I mean compare someone having their life basically exposed because of a spiteful ex/ someone not feeling safe in their own home because of their address being posted and feeling threatened, all because they have a different take on gaming and it's culture, seems like a much more troubling plight than how the term gamer is perceived. I'm still not sure what gamergate is other than a chance to be a victim in a sense and I'm honestly hoping someone can give me some direction here.

I know it's been pointed out dozens of times but what this could achieve might be to make people migrate from traditional journalism (with which I have a number of grievances) to streamers/youtubers that aren't held to the same standards or don't always feel held to them.

Just as an example, while a lot of people are still angry about gamergate, EA might be very actively "encouraging" top streamers to play and stream The Sims 4. I don't even know if the allegations raised in the thread about it are true but it feels surreal that a $2.5B franchise would be cause for less scrutiny than Zoe "who again?" Quinn. (*)

I feel obligated to mention this isn't a deflection. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe there are some systemic issues to how the industry operates and blatantly tries to use the press as marketing, but I have no reason to believe alternative venues will magically be more responsible when they face less checks and balances.


(* I have absolutely no grudge against ZQ but it's important to keep in mind few people even remembered who she was, that gives some crucial context IMO)

And this is sort of what bothers me. It's like Zoe Quinn was low hanging vulnerable fruit and the jackals came out in droves to drag her through the mud in the name of gaming ethics, yet all she seems guilty of is sleeping around(if that story is even as it is since we only get the spurned lovers side). And Besides that's a personal issue that should be discussed on a personal level. It has no bearing on the gaming industry at all and the fact she may have had some relationship with gaming journalists just seems like a convenient way to fuel the fire as opposed to having any sort of actual breach of ethics. Honestly a lot of these ethical issues seem to be wanting fixed in gaming just seem odd, since they seem to be how the press works regardless of medium. If you want a completely "objective" game review with no bias I suggest one reads press releases.

 

[unbias]

Has that gone to hell already? I remember it being mentioned yesterday by Jason and things looked fine at the time.

Anon declared war on it. Whatever the hell that means, started cheerleading to ignore it and use the "right" hash-tag yada yada.

 

[SCHUEY F1]

identifiable but it doesn't define me. I have no issue if is somehow tied to me or not in a very loose sense. I don't believe it defines me. Yet I feel like in this movement there are some people who are tying gamer to themselves as they would race/sex/creed/religion. That seems a bit extreme to me. Also how are you as a gamer under duress right now? I mean compare someone having their life basically exposed because of a spiteful ex/ someone not feeling safe in their own home because of their address being posted and feeling threatened, all because they have a different take on gaming and it's culture, seems like a much more troubling plight than how the term gamer is perceived. I'm still not sure what gamergate is other than a chance to be a victim in a sense and I'm honestly hoping someone can give me some direction here.

Great post!

 

[Riposte]

As someone with a concentration in art history I can very clearly tell you art is all about the time and place. It is all about social commentary. Since the dawn of man.

Entertainment is all about time and place, and for that matter so is everything. Nothing is free from the influence of the world, which goes far beyond just what we define as "social" concepts.

It is true you can interpret (read: create) social commentary from any piece you sense (and it doesn't even need to be man-made, let alone "intentional") based on its social context (and yes, all things do have a social context), but to say it is "all about social commentary" is a very confusing statement. Perhaps you mean to say art criticism has always been, but even that's far too simplistic. Context, while undeniable to exist for everything, is not commentary in itself, commentary can only follow. On the process of interpreting social commentary, people can have disagreements on the value it provides, which doesn't deny the existence of context.

However, this is entirely besides my initial point, which was a remark on how the term art was used; you seem to think I'm trying to box out social commentary, or, actually, social context (the latter is an undeniable influence, even in "matters of taste"). For complete clarity, here is just the initial point I was trying to make: art as a concept is extremely nebulous and prone to abuse in part thanks to its nonsensical nature mixed with the power it holds (hence my comparison to the process of attributing supernatural qualities to things, e.g., holiness). The idea of applying pressure on videogames/criticism to be more like "art" or follow suit of other "arts", particularly in comparison to the concept of entertainment, when art having such a poor foundation in itself, begs my contention. I found the question annoying. It's a particular thing that has come to bother me, when people know concepts like art, or perhaps something like "maturity", are so poorly defined and established, yet see no problem using it as a foundation of their reasoning and how often that goes unchallenged. To be honest, I was satisfied with antigoon's reply even he continued to use the terminology I didn't like; I didn't want to get in a discussion what was good criticism, no more than he wanted to on the definition of art. I can't even disagree that the increasing popularity of social commentary as criticism is a sign of growth, although I'd just as quickly remember how growth can be a bad thing.

(I also made a small remark that there is the implication when connecting the process of interpreting social commentary and artistic quality, you empower the examples that better fit the criticism process of the former, which creates a favoritism, but the problem there is not necessarily that favoritism, although disagreeable I may find it, it is the means it was created. I'm attacking art as concept.)

 

[Oersted]

I think I lost track. These guys now accussing IGF of being rigged. How come?

 

[Gsak]

AEI= right-wing think tink. I'd put anything coming from there with heavy skepticism.

Yes but people on the opposite side are saying that, but they just change a word: "left-wing think tank. I'd put anything coming from there with heavy skepticism." Endless cycle.

Why is this interesting? Cause a woman said it? Does that all the sudden mean she can't be biased and it has to be true? Cause women can very well be sexist against women. Being a woman doesn't automatically make you not biased or not sexist (against men or women).

So, I take it that being a man/woman/lgbt gamer, doesn't automatically make you biased or sexist (against anyone) then?

 

[GamerJM]

Rhodes' article was quite good, as others here have said. I still think this whole situation is a mess on both sides, honestly. It's sad, because I like a lot of the concepts of GamerGate as a whole; demanding more integrity, transparency, and professionalism from the press; making the title "gamer," be more inclusive to everyone, and just improving the gaming landscape in general. But instead it's heavily rooted in misogyny and bigotry and has resulted in harassment and threats, and way too many people involved seem way too concerned with waging war on the nonthreats that are "Social Justice Warriors". And the fact that Twitter is the main battleground for this has just resulted in many people slinging incomprehensible shit at each other through short tweets. I wish more of the opponents of GamerGate could be less hostile and asshole-ish in general, but I suppose that comes with the territory here.

 

[Sneds]

thats weird I haven't mentioned anything about anything even slightly related to this on twitter.

It is weird. There's another blocklist with around 4700 people on it. I'm on there along with PlaystationLifestyle, random people with no connection to video games and at least one journalists who I happened to see:

https://mobile.twitter.com/xoxogossipgita/status/508293989792247809

 

[Bold One]

I'm not sure what this means. So you want a place where comments are just as important as articles? Kotaku's got you covered. We're actually required to interact with and respond to comments.


As has been pointed out over and over again in this thread, this campaign has been toxic and misguided all along. Anyone interested in a dialogue or discussion on media issues would do well to stay away from the "anti-SJW" rhetoric that is coupled to every tweet and 4chan post about this campaign. That's the main reason people aren't taking this seriously.


Can you give some examples of opinion pieces that don't use facts?

Having only just caught up with the mess and frankly I am still getting my head around it. However from what I understand

Let it be know that I am not absolving the denizens of places like 4chan and twitter of blame in this mess.

However there has been toxicity on both sides and from now on I will pick my words very carefully.

When I talk about interaction, I mean this, what you and I doing, a back forth under a moderation model that insures a respectful dialogue as opposed to a throwaway comment under an article, I know this happens in a lot sites already but nearly enough. I never said I had a solution and whatever solution I could come up with wouldn't be novel or revolutionary.

I think we can both agree that the status quo is slightly broken and a lot of the animosity and toxicity is bred from frustration that the gaming press are perceived as having are more invested interest in hits than in actual dialogue. Now this may not be the case but the headline after headline from Kotaku, Gama, rock paper shotgun pinning every derogatory association with the word 'gamer' would always spark a negative reaction.


With regard to the toxicity of the whole gamersgate issue, I am LTTP and thus I have not read all 2000+ comments that have been made so far.

regarding opinion pieces not using facts, that was a miscommunication on my end, I apologize, its 2 am here.

 

[Ropaire]

I feel Games Media needs to become a more democratic entity, I know its a bit of a pipe dream, but things like Reviews, articles and opinion pieces need to be used a catalyst to start a dialogue.

Perhaps take an example from the better side of YouTube by being inclusive in actually communicating with its audience. Issues like Gamersgate which has been dominating the twittersphere and net in general for an unprecedented 2 weeks show there is under-current of mistrust and deference.

Mr Schreier I can't claim to have all the answers but surely a diplomatic approach is better is better than the barrage of anti-gamer rhetoric we have seen in the past few days. When a small minority of idiots on our side decide to spew toxic ire, the media is the last institution I expect to descend into the mud with them.

There are a lot of problems on the table to address but as far as Gaming Media goes a greater degree of transparency and accountability would go a long way. If you are running an opinion piece state the source, give links to back your facts, use the facts to back up your opinions. There are too many people using the position afforded to them as a soap box for their personal agendas.

I used to care so much about games journalism and op-eds being more transparent and grassroots, and eliminating the gap between those who play games and write about games, that I made a website specifically with that goal in mind - open call to any writer to contribute, open podcast, etc. It had a silly little six month run, fizzled like game blogs do. But time has changed and I honestly cannot muster any energy to see this as a fight worth having anymore.

"Starting a dialogue" isn't a passable or plausible goal, in my opinion, because this is a young, immature community with few things of value to say. Regardless of the hatespeech epidemic which may or may not be attributed to a "small minority," it's a strawman to act as though Leigh Alexander and others speak for the media as a whole and there has been a monolithic reaction of "anti-gamer rhetoric" (the very phrase itself is embarrassing). If anything I see people like Jason Schreier and others whose personae are more diplomatic bending over backward to maintain a dialogue with people who clearly are more incensed, more invested, and less able to see the forest for the trees on this issue. These are men and women in their late twenties and all the way into their forties, with college degrees and life experience, trying to communicate with children with anime and My Little Pony avatars on Twitter, who are insisting that #GamerGate is changing the industry forever.

Stop going to gaming sites. If you want a dialogue, get all your news from NeoGAF - it's probably available there first. When you've convinced yourself that the act of reading the words of someone who can't read yours is inherently unfair, text-based media is no longer a venue for you.

But what's worse, and what is insidious, about posts like this, is that you sneak in right at the end of your point that this isn't simply about being able to Web 2.0 your way into a better, brighter tomorrow where the lines are blurred between journalist and reader - what this is actually about, what really makes, you, the reader feel voiceless and is the catalyst for all this hashtag activism, is that you feel infringed upon by gaming journalists' "personal agendas." That poison in the well of our past time, ruining it for the people who just want to enjoy games without it being so political. Calling it their "personal agenda" makes it an extreme viewpoint, rather than just baseline human decency and ethical coverage of gaming that is consumable by demographics more diverse than white, male, Mtn Dewdes. So, why don't we work on starting a dialogue when the reason you care about doing so isn't because you feel marginalized for being a gamer?

 

[MHWilliams]

I think I lost track. These guys now accussing IGF of being rigged. How come?

Stuff about Fez. They say people invested in Fez, became IGF judges, and then vote Fez to win to recoup their investment.

The IGF just released a statement on the matter.

You may have recently seen some odd claims of collusion between independent developers/funders & both the Independent Games Festival and Indiecade, most recently with untrue allegations that select independent developers have worked to 'fix' both award events.

The IGF (and its parent company, which has looked into these claims) would like to assure all entrants and gamers that we take the idea of conflict of interest seriously in selecting our judging and jurying pools. Worries about the Independent Games Festival are nothing new (thanks to its perceived 'star-making' qualities), but for those who are unaware, we'll explain again how the process works.

An explanation of their process is there as well.

I used to care so much about games journalism and op-eds being more transparent and grassroots, and eliminating the gap between those who play games and write about games, that I made a website specifically with that goal in mind - open call to any writer to contribute, open podcast, etc. It had a silly little six month run, fizzled like game blogs do. But time has changed and I honestly cannot muster any energy to see this as a fight worth having anymore.

It's a shame that you burned out, as the community can always use new voices.

"Starting a dialogue" isn't a passable or plausible goal, in my opinion, because this is a young, immature community with few things of value to say. Regardless of the hatespeech epidemic which may or may not be attributed to a "small minority," it's a strawman to act as though Leigh Alexander and others speak for the media as a whole and there has been a monolithic reaction of "anti-gamer rhetoric" (the very phrase itself is embarrassing). If anything I see people like Jason Schreier and others whose personae are more diplomatic bending over backward to maintain a dialogue with people who clearly are more incensed, more invested, and less able to see the forest for the trees on this issue. These are men and women in their late twenties and all the way into their forties, with college degrees and life experience, trying to communicate with children with anime and My Little Pony avatars on Twitter, who are insisting that #GamerGate is changing the industry forever.

Stop going to gaming sites. If you want a dialogue, get all your news from NeoGAF - it's probably available there first. When you've convinced yourself that the act of reading the words of someone who can't read yours is inherently unfair, text-based media is no longer a venue for you.

But what's worse, and what is insidious, about posts like this, is that you sneak in right at the end of your point that this isn't simply about being able to Web 2.0 your way into a better, brighter tomorrow where the lines are blurred between journalist and reader - what this is actually about, what really makes, you, the reader feel voiceless and is the catalyst for all this hashtag activism, is that you feel infringed upon by gaming journalists' "personal agendas." That poison in the well of our past time, ruining it for the people who just want to enjoy games without it being so political. Calling it their "personal agenda" makes it an extreme viewpoint, rather than just baseline human decency and ethical coverage of gaming that is consumable by demographics more diverse than white, male, Mtn Dewdes. So, why don't we work on starting a dialogue when the reason you care about doing so isn't because you feel marginalized for being a gamer?

And the following bit highlights the fact that you'll be missed.

 

[Zabka]

Can you give an example of this or explain exactly what this means. How are "gamers" which is such a broad term being assaulted. I mean I'd consider gaming a strong hobby of mine, but i have no real thoughts on the term gamer one way or another. But there seems to be a big push on the meaning of it and I honestly don't understand this semantics war

Some gaming journalists view the term "gamer" solely as the marketing term for the teen to middle-aged straight white male demographic that the industry cultivated for the past few decades. Following that, they believe that people who use this term to describe themselves have been snookered by the industry into believing they are somehow special. As more women enter the video game industry (including the media) this demographic believes their special status is being threatened and lash out.

That's not my personal view of the gamer term though and I have zero problem with people using it to describe themselves. The media definition of gamer is why you see these inflammatory articles attacking "gamers" and "gamer culture" while self-identified gamers, who aren't familiar with it in the marketing sense, take great offense.

I might be wrong about that though. I gave up following a lot of this stuff last week.

 

[Bold One]

identifiable but it doesn't define me. I have no issue if is somehow tied to me or not in a very loose sense. I don't believe it defines me. Yet I feel like in this movement there are some people who are tying gamer to themselves as they would race/sex/creed/religion. That seems a bit extreme to me. Also how are you as a gamer under duress right now? I mean compare someone having their life basically exposed because of a spiteful ex/ someone not feeling safe in their own home because of their address being posted and feeling threatened, all because they have a different take on gaming and it's culture, seems like a much more troubling plight than how the term gamer is perceived. I'm still not sure what gamergate is other than a chance to be a victim in a sense and I'm honestly hoping someone can give me some direction here.

You are right in a sense,

There are some who wear their gamer badge with a bit too much pride and will unleash bile any one who threatens that identity no matter what it may be, what I am saying is that you and I may not subscribe willingly to that label, it may not make up a part of how we identify ourselves. However we are by association seen as part of that sub-culture.

Its ok that you dont see yourself as a gamer or part of that culture, I never said you should or did. Its sort of like how in America if you have an alternative lifestyle you make maybe more times than not associated with the Democratic party regardless of you political views.


This video in some ways illustrate what I am trying to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbQk5YqjO0E