Support NeoGAF

[Revenant]

"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.

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?

Some good stuff here,

people seem to want the gaming press to have this rational dialogue with them, but want to ignore the reader's responsibility to be capable of that rational discussion. Unfortunately there are enough people who don't want a discussion and just want their pound of flesh because something they love and are infatuated with didn't get a review score they deem fit, or their game of choice is being given a more thorough criticism, or are upset because their hobby is growing in all directions bringing in a lot of new thoughts/takes on it. Honestly I'm not sure why some people feel threatened by the variety of games that come out or the more diverse opinions we can see. If anything it's a great time to play games and part of that is the expansion of the hobby. I don't get why some seem to be so afraid of this.

 

[Lime]

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?

I like you.

 

[Bagels]

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", that 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.)

Sincere thanks for clearing that up. I don't agree with your points about art - I don't think having a broad definition of what constitutes art undermines its very existence - but the final aside raises an interesting questions for any creative endeavor. Games, novels, movies - there are examples that exist purely to entertain and there are examples that are trying to say bigger things. Most examples are going for a bit of both. Some of the gamergate "demands" seem to miss all this. Any call for reviews to "only discuss gameplay" - to treat games as purely entertainment products (as an aside, you're fine with the term entertainment? Is that so easy to define, or do we run into some of the same problems we have when we try to define art?) - are patently absurd.

Edit: and Ropaire's post has so much good stuff in it!

 

[zeldablue]

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.)

Art is all about critique though. Artifacts help us get into the minds' of our ancestors. Without analyzing and picking apart art we'd have no clue what these old cultures were about socially, emotionally and spiritually. The art and symbolism tells us everything we need to know about what that era or culture was all about on the subconscious level. Flemish art was filled to the brim with the fears and dreams of religious secular life. Mannerism depicting fear of STDs...every art piece has something to say. It's super important to critically critique not just the execution, but the thought process behind every work.

Gaming culture has a very distinct value system. There's no denying it. Everything is worth analyzing in every way. These games say a lot about us. Looking into it is the only way to keep people open to exploration and new ideas. Critique is a painful exercise, but you can only become a better person for listening to it.

What does this art piece tell us about the 70's?

 

[Revenant]

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

I've seen this video, and while I understand what he is saying I just can't agree how all of a sudden because of this all gamers are seen as bigots because of the vocal minority. To me it still feels like people are almost taking that implication upon themselves based off some articles when in reality this persecution isn't really there. Is this simply the gaming press that is supposedly associating all people that play games as "gamers" that are hateful. I certainly haven't encountered anyone in my day to day life who discriminated me because I mentioned I play video games.

 

[Bold One]

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?

I agree with you

You are absolutely spot on up until the bolded part.

There is nothing insidious about the last part of my post, inclusivity in this industry would be a fantastic thing, I say this as anon-white male a poor assumption on your part.

However I feel as though you think I am on the other side of this issue, I am not. Up until friday I had no idea what 'SJW' stood for, I am not in twitter.

I'm calling for better dialogue not because I care about the term 'gamer' or feel marginalised lol, no I am calling for a dialogue because some of those that do care are obviously frustrated and angry and a minority of them see no reprieve than to lash out and it generates a toxic environment.

Once again, I don't have a dog in this fight, otherwise I would have knee deep in it from day 1. I just feel its time we all tooled down and try a new approach unrealistic and naive as it may sound.

 

[Oersted]

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

We had a thread about the video with a long going discussion.

Edit in reference to your post above:

Part of the discussion was a exchange between Boogie and Schreier.

 

[Bold One]

We had a thread about the video with a long going discussion.

and what was the general consensus in that thread discussion?

 

[ArkkAngel007]

and what was the general consensus in that thread discussion?

While I wasn't involved to state any form of consensus, here's the thread. Until someone can get back to you on it you can look into the discussion.

We also spoke with Boogie yesterday in this thread for quite a bit.

Edit: I like this post from the thread from a quick skim. I quoted a part of it here to get to the point, but there's more context after the jump.

Now we have people shouting noise like "I'm a gamer and I'm NOT a bigot!!!" which doesn't actually accomplish anything but precisely what those individuals wanted: to distract. Nobody actually thinks all gamers are bigots. The fact that anybody believes that to be the case is actually insane to me. And even if you do, why would you think that the solution is to go and tell everybody that you're not like that instead of actually decrying the people who are currently making "gamers" look terrible? It's these people who are harassing others and causing some people to leave the industry that might actually color the perception of what a "gamer" is by the general populace. Not a bunch of people saying "I'm a gamer and I'm not like these other gamers."

 

[Lime]

and what was the general consensus in that thread discussion?

That it's misunderstood and unaware of its position within the context of the discussion. Boogie himself showed in this thread how unaware he was about the history of Gamergate and the key figures in it, so the video is basically unfortunately uninformed and relies on a strawman that no one ever used.

Also, it's basically #notallgamers

 

[Gsak]

Here's a new video rεgarding IGF, Indiecade, Polytron and shady dealings. It's rather... interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUVt7ujK-9TT9KByzL9g_2QQ&v=HM_Z5YTop7g&feature=player_detailpage

 

[Bold One]

That it's misunderstood and unaware of its position within the context of the discussion. Boogie himself showed in this thread how unaware he was about the history of Gamergate and the key figures in it, so the video is basically unfortunately uninformed and relies on a strawman that no one ever used.

Also, it's basically #notallgamers

Yeah I get that the problem is more complex than mere name calling, it is why I waited so long before jumping into the fray. However this post made in the first page echoes my sentiment and various users have jumped down my throat under the assumption that I lean one way or the other

There's a fundamental problem that I see in this whole discussion, and that's what has made me steer clear from most of it (especially since any timid attempt to discuss have resulted in my counterparts trying to argue against points I wasn't making at all with the usual "ah, then you support this!").

A large percentage of the proponents of both sides, including the most visible ones, seem to be much more interested in persuading the world that the other side is "evil" than in bringing forth (or actively supporting) real arguments of their own.

With that premise, there's really little room for discussion, unfortunately.

As far as I am concerned, none are righteous, not the games media and its at times questionable methods or the twitter trolls and cry-babies who want their precious hobbies all to themselves

 

[Oersted]

and what was the general consensus in that thread discussion?

Oh, that is hard to nail down, with all the different opinions. Probably questions.

Why did the hashtag start with the harassment of Zoe Quinn?
What is the problem with Sarkeesian videos?
Why do Gamers ( as in white, hetero males) feel opressed and persecuted?
Which corruption cases are these activists referring to?

There might be legitimate answers for all these questions, but we have yet to find them. Pretty much like in this thread. People say there are widespread issues, but we have yet to find them.

 

[Riposte]

Sincere thanks for clearing that up. I don't agree with your points about art - I don't think having a broad definition of what constitutes art undermines its very existence - but the final aside raises an interesting questions for any creative endeavor. Games, novels, movies - there are examples that exist purely to entertain and there are examples that are trying to say bigger things. Most examples are going for a bit of both. Some of the gamergate "demands" seem to miss all this. Any call for reviews to "only discuss gameplay" - to treat games as purely entertainment products (as an aside, you're fine with the term entertainment? Is that so easy to define, or do we run into some of the same problems we have when we try to define art?) - are patently absurd.

On me being fine with entertainment: The issue with art mainly comes into the play the moment there is an attempt to separate it from entertainment as a whole, inevitability in an attempt to rank it above mere entertainment (notice how you say "bigger things"). They are all "saying" "things", as in, stimulating parts of your brain and giving sensations that you ascribe meaning to based on past experiences (including, yes, social context). They do the exact same thing, you just have come to hold certain messages created by you in this way in a special, higher regard (the "socially" relevant, and agreeable, ones). Now I really didn't want to dwell too much on why I may find a favoritism towards social commentary problematic, but let's just leave it at this: If the point is the saying of "bigger things", why in the world are we engaging with immersion-based fiction and not cleanly written thoughts (e.g., our posts on this forum)? Indeed, the farther away a medium is from this ideal, perhaps the more ridiculous I find this process due to the increasing amount of distracting factors. Don't play imagination with a book with a plot or a movie with flashy visuals or a game with all the above and an action/strategy problem-solving element to learn about how governments manufacture consent, read Noam Chomsky. I would find it unfortunate if the ideal of fictional media is to be a dumbed-down/obscure version of basic communication. But that's my final word for now.

I don't know if this is more or less contentious, but, as I hope I implied earlier, there are good reasons I can agree with that makes any desire to ignore social context flat out silly. Before even getting into the idea of social commentary as a pillar of criticism, our reaction to anything, down to our tastes, is based on context, including social context. Racism, for example, can be distasteful, provoke a negative reaction within a person that makes like a game less. In other words, while social commentary via videogame isn't very interesting to me, taste, influenced by social context, is all important. If this sounds contradictory with what I said above, think of it as "social commentary as entertainment" or "the entertainment value of social commentary". That's my main answer to the gamergate point you brought up. Two smaller answers are: 1) Anyone can be a social commentator or voice their immediate distaste for this or that kind of imagery, but someone with the expertise to cover game mechanics is increasingly rare and almost nonexistent for the published reviews of several genres. I can immediately relate with the ire for a review of King of Fighters that is more concerned with how Mai's breasts are portrayed than how the game actually plays, even if being upset with imagery is a perfectly reasonable response in itself. That's just being critical of criticism, having standards. 2) "gameplay" is a dumb word, especially when used to exclude something. Everything occurs while playing the game. Even cutscenes are gameplay.

Perhaps this discussion has gone on too long? I wanted to engage secondary arguments, but I didn't want to do so to an extent that distracts from the topic.

 

[unbias]

Here's a new video rεgarding IGF, Indiecade, Polytron and shady dealings. It's rather... interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUVt7ujK-9TT9KByzL9g_2QQ&v=HM_Z5YTop7g&feature=player_detailpage

Well that could be a problem.

So this completely kills the conspiracy theory that he hacked himself, so people cant claim this anymore. So I guess that is a plus.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Here's a new video rεgarding IGF, Indiecade, Polytron and shady dealings. It's rather... interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUVt7ujK-9TT9KByzL9g_2QQ&v=HM_Z5YTop7g&feature=player_detailpage

Just by looking at the description and title, I feel like it's just like the rest of the trash that has come out of YouTube the past few weeks. I'm not even sure I've seen a decent, non-agenda driven video surrounding any of these situations.

Boogie's was about as decent as I can recall, and even that was fairly misguided.

If I'm wrong about the above, inform me so and I'll give it a view. But given some of the other vids on the channel and their close association with people like InternetAristocrat and their messaging, I'm going to distance myself from it.

Edit: Hmm Unbias' post has me intrigued that maybe it isn't how I presumed.

 

[unbias]

Just by looking at the description and title, I feel like it's just like the rest of the trash that has come out of YouTube the past few weeks. I'm not even sure I've seen a decent, non-agenda driven video surrounding any of these situations.

Boogie's was about as decent as I can recall, and even that was fairly misguided.

If I'm wrong about the above, inform me so and I'll give it a view. But given some of the other vids on the channel and their close association with people like InternetAristocrat and their messaging, I'm going to distance myself from it.

It at least shows that Phil had no motivation to "fake" a hack, which some anon crazies were saying. If you are an indie dev I guess this story would matter more to you. They have some financial records that have implications...that could make indie people who participated in the IGF, well they might have some issues.

 

[Gattsu25]

Here's a new video rεgarding IGF, Indiecade, Polytron and shady dealings. It's rather... interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUVt7ujK-9TT9KByzL9g_2QQ&v=HM_Z5YTop7g&feature=player_detailpage

So this is using the financials hacked from polytron as a source, even though the polytron hack never actually happened and was a false flag?

The article that was posted along with this also misled about the years that people were IGF judges as the people in question were not actually judges for the Nuovo award during the 2012 year in question.

I'll have to watch the vid to see if the same faulty logic is used here, as well.

edit: Ugh. Not off to a good start:

 

[Bold One]

Oh, that is hard to nail down, with all the different opinions. Probably questions.

Why did the hashtag start with the harassment of Zoe Quinn?
What is the problem with Sarkeesian videos?
Why do Gamers ( as in white, hetero males) feel opressed and persecuted?
Which corruption cases are these activists referring to?

There might be legitimate answers for all these questions, but we have yet to find them. Pretty much like in this thread. People say there are widespread issues, but we have yet to find them.

the term 'Gamer' is far too broad to have any deep implication, though some people fail to realize its an identity for a others. Which is why its sort of baffling how much disconnect there is within the community itself.

Sarkeesian is a whole other matter, I agree with a lot of what she says, its her messaging and delivery that gives me pause, but overall no issues there

these are all good question, I bet the answers will differ depending on the person and their background.

 

[Toxi]

So I was trawling the Esc forums when I came across this.

The whole movement has a taste for the dramatic, but I'm not entirely sure I'd call this thread an implosion.

The funny part is that there's a very obvious reason why gaming websites have less traffic at this time: College season just started and many people who visit those websites are college-age. That has far more of an impact than a hashtag.

 

[Yrael]

Here's a new video rεgarding IGF, Indiecade, Polytron and shady dealings. It's rather... interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUVt7ujK-9TT9KByzL9g_2QQ&v=HM_Z5YTop7g&feature=player_detailpage

Could only take a quick look, but 15 seconds in:

"Created by Kotaku's credibility and Zoe's vagina."

...sigh. :/

 

[Gsak]

edit: Ugh. Not off to a good start:

Could only take a quick look, but 15 seconds in:

"Created by Kotaku's credibility and Zoe's vagina."

...sigh. :/

I agree about the intro, it's stupid and unnecessary. But the content is bringing some legit questions on the "indie scene corruption" discussion table, imo.

 

[Lime]

I wonder how Boogie is going to position himself from now on

"Logical feminism"

 

[tiredheadcrab]

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?

The last paragraph sums it up well for me. Id like to play games and not get political about everything in them. I dont mind peoples agenda's at all. Express it through art if you wish.

I dont go to sites like Android Central to get very politcal about tech and the woman or men behind the industry. I just go there to read about phones, software, apps, and talk about little tricks or help with my phone incase i need it. I dont get why gaming journalists HAVE to push an agenda. I dont go to these looking for one. I got to IGN to read up on peoples opinions of games and hardware. I Youtube reviews of games and hardware. I guess thats why i dont care as much about kotaku and polygon as much because i feel like they dont cover what i want to see.

 

[Oersted]

the term 'Gamer' is far too broad to have any deep implication, though some people fail to realize its an identity for a others. Which is why its sort of baffling how much disconnect there is within the community itself.

Sarkeesian is a whole other matter, I agree with a lot of what she says, its her messaging and delivery that gives me pause, but overall no issues there

these are all good question, I bet the answers will differ depending on the person and their background.

The questions are caused by the rather vague accusiations towards the videogame industry. And not even that is clear. The Gamergate side (lets just name it for a second like that) has a trouble to name their problems, besides those on Reddit/Twitter/etc. , who wish death and similiar things for women and social justice.

I agree about the intro, it's stupid and unnecessary. But the content is bringing some legit questions on the "indie scene corruption" discussion table, imo.

Its blatant mysogony in its ugliest form.

 

[Gsak]

Its blatant mysogony in its ugliest form.

It could also be viewed as satire, but that's not the point. The main discussion here, should be what this video is talking about.

 

[EmiPrime]

I wonder how Boogie is going to position himself from now on

Fucking hell. That's really disappointing. :/

 

[WARP10CK]

The questions are caused by the rather vague accusiations towards the videogame industry. And not even that is clear. The Gamergate side (lets just name it for a second like that) has a trouble to name their problems, besides those on Reddit/Twitter/etc. , who wish death and similiar things for women and social justice.



Its blatant mysogony in its ugliest form.

So lets take Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian out of the equation for a moment and say that this did not involve any women at all.

If the IFG jury corruption allegation is true which frankly does not seem that far fetched then that is a problem that is worthy of discussing.

 

[voodoopanda]

What I find weird/interesting about this whole thing is it feels like a scandal in search of a scandal.

This all started with the accusation that Zoe Quinn slept with journalists to get good reviews. That's scandalous, that's an exciting story straight out of the tabloids. That's what got this whole thing going in the first place. That's what the original gamergate hashtag was for, what the first youtube videos presented as fact. Of course, those reviews don't exist so the whole corruption/scandal story that launched gamergate doesn't exist either.

So now there seems to be a bunch of people searching for a new scandal to fill the place of the old one. It's a cart before the horse kind of deal. Tons of people upset about this corruption that hasn't been discovered yet. All these videos and imgur links are trying to come up with something, anything that is actually a sign of corruption so that they have justification for being upset about currently nonexistent corruption.

You can see this in all the attacks on journalists who are friends with the people they write about. Since the "slept with for good reviews" didn't happen, the only thing that was left was the idea that a games journalist was friends with a game dev. It isn't a scandal that a games reporter knows a game developer, that's not the kind of story that launches a anti-corruption campaign. Of course journalists are friendly with developers, that's how journalism works, but since this hole needs filling you see all these calls for every article to have complete disclosure of every little connection.

It's a real weird situation, even ignoring all the harassment stuff. It's a reaction to something that hasn't happened.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Could only take a quick look, but 15 seconds in:

"Created by Kotaku's credibility and Zoe's vagina."

...sigh. :/

6:22 in and it isn't much better. Like, it's really bizarre. He keeps saying all these things in a moderating fashion that don't seem to rub me as moderate. It's like "I'll say a good thing to keep you listening...but on the other hand" and so on and so forth.

And with the continued use of things like Five Guys, and the tone presented in the title and descriptions of the work, it's part of the issue why even if these things come to head I do not want to associate with these people. They try and say they don't condone the behavior of harassment, but continue to use objects used in that behavior in their messaging. Instead of separating from people like InternetAristocrat (has the top comment in the vid btw) who put out misleading and targeted content, they keep them in their inner circle.

Fake edit: Finished and it's still filled with the toxic content they say in the video they aren't associated with. It's good that they highlighted what came out of the doxx, but then they keep bringing attention to things that have nothing to do with 'objective journalism' like Wolf Wozniak's claims, using the site traffics without context, and saying things that equate to 'don't listen to anyone else but us'.

Actual edit: I have no problem discussing the IGF allegations. Just leave out the smut and fake smile. Most of all, don't fucking lie to me if you want me to be on your side.

 

[Oersted]

What I find weird/interesting about this whole thing is it feels like a scandal in search of a scandal.

This all started with the accusation that Zoe Quinn slept with journalists to get good reviews. That's scandalous, that's an exciting story straight out of the tabloids. That's what got this whole thing going in the first place. That's what the original gamergate hashtag was for, what the first youtube videos presented as fact. Of course, those reviews don't exist so the whole corruption/scandal story that launched gamergate doesn't exist either.

So now there seems to be a bunch of people searching for a new scandal to fill the place of the old one. It's a cart before the horse kind of deal. Tons of people upset about this corruption that hasn't been discovered yet. All these videos and imgur links are trying to come up with something, anything that is actually a sign of corruption so that they have justification for being upset about currently nonexistent corruption.

You can see this in all the attacks on journalists who are friends with the people they write about. Since the "slept with for good reviews" didn't happen, the only thing that was left was the idea that a games journalist was friends with a game dev. It isn't a scandal that a games reporter knows a game developer, that's not the kind of story that launches a anti-corruption campaign. Of course journalists are friendly with developers, that's how journalism works, but since this hole needs filling you see all these calls for every article to have complete disclosure of every little connection.

It's a real weird situation, even ignoring all the harassment stuff. It's a reaction to something that hasn't happened.

Yep, that has been the problem the whole time, besides the staggering sexism. Where is the problem? Where is the scandal? And when will we find it?

 

[Toxi]

It could also be viewed as satire, but that's not the point. The main discussion here, should be what this video is talking about.

Satire is humorous criticism. To satirize something, you must treat it as ridiculous and stupid, because otherwise you're just restating the same arguments you're supposed to be satirizing. "A Modest Proposal" didn't just say insult the poor, it took the same arguments used against poor people and brought them to an obviously ridiculous conclusion to show that they're stupid.

So no, I don't think it can be viewed as satire.

 

[Warm Machine]

I really wish the game media would just back off and not engage with this. There is no winning to be had and retweeting their friends pithy comments is just creating a defensive wall echo chamber for themselves while riling up the other side. It doesn't matter how right or wrong someone is, this is not a battle that can be won.

The whole thing is a cloudy ugly mess with no way through. Who wants to be dealing with this non issue a month or more from now?

 

[Candescence]

What I find weird/interesting about this whole thing is it feels like a scandal in search of a scandal.

This all started with the accusation that Zoe Quinn slept with journalists to get good reviews. That's scandalous, that's an exciting story straight out of the tabloids. That's what got this whole thing going in the first place. That's what the original gamergate hashtag was for, what the first youtube videos presented as fact. Of course, those reviews don't exist so the whole corruption/scandal story that launched gamergate doesn't exist either.

So now there seems to be a bunch of people searching for a new scandal to fill the place of the old one. It's a cart before the horse kind of deal. Tons of people upset about this corruption that hasn't been discovered yet. All these videos and imgur links are trying to come up with something, anything that is actually a sign of corruption so that they have justification for being upset about currently nonexistent corruption.

You can see this in all the attacks on journalists who are friends with the people they write about. Since the "slept with for good reviews" didn't happen, the only thing that was left was the idea that a games journalist was friends with a game dev. It isn't a scandal that a games reporter knows a game developer, that's not the kind of story that launches a anti-corruption campaign. Of course journalists are friendly with developers, that's how journalism works, but since this hole needs filling you see all these calls for every article to have complete disclosure of every little connection.

It's a real weird situation, even ignoring all the harassment stuff. It's a reaction to something that hasn't happened.

So... In other words, a whole lot of vitriol over a whole lot of basically nothing that has exposed the obvious truth that a lot of people in the community are enormous dickheads.

This whole mess is just stupid as all hell.

 

[JDSN]

I wonder how Boogie is going to position himself from now on

"Logical feminism"

Damn, at least he fully committed to embarrassing himself rather than his illusion of being moderate, I guess the increased traffic made it easier.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

I wonder how Boogie is going to position himself from now on

"Logical feminism"

Who's Sommers?

 

[Dr. Hoofington]

Who's Sommers?

Check out Mumei's summary:

Christina Hoff Summers is a professional anti-feminist, in the sense that she is hostile to the espoused concerns of feminism, claims that feminists routinely lie, and that information offered by feminism is largely false. While she calls herself a feminist, her brand of feminism, power feminism is notable for its hostility to traditional feminist concerns (e.g. domestic, violence, sexual assault, education, gap in wage earnings, etc.), and is feminist only in the nominal sense that they agree that there should be equal rights. Power feminism is notable for contributing to the denial of research into the prevalence of rape, because power feminists felt that rape was being misused to describe ordinary sexual relations, and set about misrepresenting respected research in the field into order to argue that point. Their opposition to this, as well as research into domestic violence, also stems from the fact that they feel that the problem with women is that they are thinking of themselves as victims; that the only thing holding women back from equality is their failure to grab what is already available to them.

So, no, she's not feminist in the sense that most people use the term, and self-identified feminists would not recognize Christina Hoff Summers' as their own.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Yep, that has been the problem the whole time, besides the staggering sexism. Where is the problem? Where is the scandal? And when will we find it?

If Phil Fish hadn't made a comment during this whole thing, would this IGF discussion be even taking place? Where is the evidence of a direct relationship between the chair or whoever that was in the IGF and outlets like Kotaku doing anything beyond a basic writeup for pay?

If people would just leave off with the actual, objective content, there wouldn't be an issue. Some may take issue with it, but overall there would be far less holds to grasp on to since it's all supposition beyond that.

But since they go ahead and supply the supposition that fits their agendas and predispositions of the situation, there's hardly an opportunity to really take in anything since it's buried under or overwhelmed by those suppositions.

I really wish the game media would just back off and not engage with this. There is no winning to be had and retweeting their friends pithy comments is just creating a defensive wall echo chamber for themselves while riling up the other side. It doesn't matter how right or wrong someone is, this is not a battle that can be won.

The whole thing is a cloudy ugly mess with no way through. Who wants to be dealing with this non issue a month or more from now?

They have, and the #GAMERGATE response has been that these places are censoring them and hiding the truth. Same thing happened to NeoGAF in regards to...ugh 'Quinnspiracy', even after EviLore made a thread after he and the mods figured out how to allow discussion while also demonstrating how off base the discussion was.

 

[JDSN]

Who's Sommers?

Writer of:

The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men.
Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women.



....yeah.

 

[Bold One]

Check out Mumei's summary:

so like Karen Straughan aka girlwriteswhat

 

[Gsak]

By the way, here's a snippet from the video's description. Do listen to the podcast, because it offers additional insight coming from people who were/still are IGF judges.

Podcast of Team Meat & Anthony Burch discussing corrupt IGF voting culture (starts at 6 min) - http://chirb.it/gBGHGv

 

[DICKS AHOY]

So basically what Jason Riley is to black-rights?

 

[Oersted]

so like Karen Straughan aka girlwriteswhat

More or less, yeah.

 

[Riposte]

I wonder if people are being lured into moving towards the conservative right by Sommers and Baldwin.

EDIT: Actually, the Forbes guy already talked about this.

 

[EmiPrime]

Damn, at least he fully committed to embarrassing himself rather than his illusion of being moderate, I guess the increased traffic made it easier.

He really has thrown his lot in with the MRAs if he is championing Sommers, no turning back now. I have given up giving him the benefit of the doubt and unsubscribed to both his channels.

 

[Dr. Hoofington]

I wonder if people are being lured into moving towards the conservative right by Sommers and Baldwin.

Isn't that exactly what's happening here? So much for "revolution."

 

[aeolist]

I wonder if people are being lured into moving towards the conservative right by Sommers and Baldwin.

shit like that and breitbart getting exposure in gaming circles is one of the weirder things to come out of this

 

[ArkkAngel007]

By the way, here's a snippet from the video's description. Do listen to the podcast, because it offers additional insight coming from people who were/still are IGF judges.

I think I'll just do some self research or look for the most objective summary that I can if someone makes one. After that video I have no interest in giving them anymore type of support though views, traffic, and so on and so forth.

Thanks for sharing it to see more in regards to the IGF and something that should be further looked into, but I can't support their ancillary messaging from the 'listen to just us' to the 'we're not misogynists' while continuously throwing in contrary content and associating with misogynistic individuals. This coming from someone who hasn't taken part in much social rights discussion for feeling like his privilege will be used to push him out of discussion regardless of the support I would give on account of my wife and friends.

 

[Oersted]

Really? C'mon, be better than this.

See it as satire, which actually made people laugh

shit like that and breitbart getting exposure in gaming circles is one of the weirder things to come out of this

Guys realizing they are rightwing conservatives hopefully results in less beating around the bushes. Let them have their coming-out.

 

[Bold One]

....

yeah I am done here for the day lol