Besides, the "SJW-sympathizing" game sites are still (AFAIK) the most popular. Are advertisers really going to pull advertising from Kotaku or Polygon in favor of (LOL) Goodgamers, just because of a loud-but-vocal minority?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Besides, the "SJW-sympathizing" game sites are still (AFAIK) the most popular. Are advertisers really going to pull advertising from Kotaku or Polygon in favor of (LOL) Goodgamers, just because of a loud-but-vocal minority?
GG seems convinced they will, and it's kind of funny to watch, I interacted with some people on Twitter who believed that RPS's subscription option was because they'd already dealt a massive blow to the site's readership and ad revenue.
There are regular tweets in the tag that amount to "REMEMBER, WE ARE WINNING, THE SJWS JUST DON'T WANT TO REPORT IT. WE. ARE. WINNING." Constantly reassuring yourself makes it true, right?
Nah, Intel looks like the bad guy right now. Judging from the PR release, Intel isn't quite sure what they did or what is going on.
Well, the biggest sites are still IGN and Gamespot, I believe.
The biggest thing I don't get:
Let's say Rock Paper Shotgun decided that from now on, every single article will be about feminism in games. No other articles will be published. Hell, let's go ever farther, let's say 100% of articles from now on will be on Depression Quest exclusively.
Would that be corruption? It's a gaming blog run by people who write about what they want to write about. Other gaming sites could write 100% about whatever else they want.
Is it that Digra thing where you think sites are being pressured into writing about certain topics? Because even in this super exaggerated example I don't see a problem here?
Let's say Rock Paper Shotgun decided that from now on, every single article will be about feminism in games. No other articles will be published. Hell, let's go ever farther, let's say 100% of articles from now on will be on Depression Quest exclusively.
Would that be corruption? It's a gaming blog run by people who write about what they want to write about. Other gaming sites could write 100% about whatever else they want.
Is it that Digra thing where you think sites are being pressured into writing about certain topics? Because even in this super exaggerated example I don't see a problem here?
If #GG had any real influence, these sites would have been hurting before #GG even started. "Gamer[Gater]s are over. That’s why they’re so mad."
BlastProcessing
Member
It kind of bugs me that they refer to it as a debate. It makes it sound like an issue between two parties, each with legitimate issues. An organized harassment campaign is not what I would call a debate.
MHWilliams
Member
I will say that this is a problem. Many are worried about blacklisting, but from what I've seen, that's less of a problem. Generally, if a publisher decides they don't like you, it's not an outright blacklist... you just don't get review copy. It gets lost, delayed, or whatever. It's such a fuzzy grey area.
Even then, I've only seen it happen once or twice, so I can't say how widespread it is. Generally, most PR people are on the up-and-up, so I'm going to hazard it's not a huge problem.
Pretty much. And these days, it's easier for publishers to outright create their own content, with the Evil Within/Sessler videos as a decent example. Many are completely fine with that information coming directly from company sources.
That's one of the things about enthusiast press, be it tech, auto, or whatever. Access to the information is predicated on either playing by the rules (embargos and NDAs) or being big enough to subvert those rules slightly.
I didn't even known about FYC until this all started. No one told me not to cover them, I just simply didn't know they existed.
Leigh's post were links to articles about all of those things.
In the example of those articles Alexander linked, the journalists cared enough to to research and write the stories. That they didn't gain more traction is mostly down to readers not particularly caring. For example, the YouTuber thing at Eurogamer. It's mostly known that the niche has larger potential ethical concerns than games press - in relation to the relative infancy of the space, not the moral character of the Youtubers themselves - but most people don't care. They love watching them and that's all that matters.
Sustained crunch at developers is bad, but most readers don't particularly care because they can't conceptually wrap their minds around it. It's an abstract problem to them unless it directly affects the development of a game.
Now part of our job as journalists is to present these ideas in such a way that readers do care. We're not always successful.
Yeah, I realize the reality of the situation and how few things can actually be done about it, I was just saying that it ranks much higher than Patreon on my list of things that could affect my level of trust with games journalism.
In my other post I did try to outline a solution of sorts, which wouldn't involve changing the status quo: Just more disclosure about what publishers give journos access to and the conditions associated with that. As much disclosure to consumers as they can reasonably manage, at least.
There are some sites and blogs that do that now, but if you're not one of the first with a review out, no one really cares.
Edit: sorry, I should say not many people care. The traffic generated is so slim that it's not something anyone can reliably do as a means of employment. There are people who care and even many people on this very website who do great breakdowns as LTTP posts or otherwise who are very dedicated to going further in depth and have written some amazing posts.
MHWilliams
Member
Someone brought up the idea of an independent organization to handle review copies that would receive the games/codes from publishers and vet journalists. But someone has to pay for that; the logical idea would be publishers, but they have no reason to move to such a system.
Rami Ismail is undertaking the creation of a similar system for indie devs.
Plus trying to figure out who would qualify and who wouldn't for those review copies would be an endless headache.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
Gameological was totally on this model, then they got folded back in to the AVClub mother ship and the game criticism output dripped to like 25% of what it previously was. It was sad. But I don't know if it was because of a lack of readership, or from the comments of the Gameological editor it may just have been too much of a personal toll on him. But damn, that was a good couple years.
Conversely, I think the opposite is equally ridiculous. Getting offended because someone likes a game that has something you don't agree with. Those who have a negative stigma over people who play certain types of games.
partyphone
Banned
This is not a widespread phenomenon and seems like it's intentionally trying to misrepresent reasoned critique.
Not saying the sentiment doesn't exist, but it doesn't have a hate mob established around it.
The thing you're responding to does.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Yeah! Everyone's always shitting on my love for Nintendo games. >:c
I often see people get so judgmental over (people who like) games that have rather suggestive or pervy content in them, moreso if they're Japanese and/or have an anime art style.
While I'm not exactly a fan of those types of games, I see no problem in people who are. People like different things and I think it's nice to see videogames cater to different tastes.
Neoriceisgood
Member
You mean the creepy loli game threads that pop up on gaf just to get locked? Or just animesque games in general? (e.g. persona, 999; whatever)
The ones I'm not a fan of? The former. But eh, some people like 'em and I'm fine with that. There are lots of "awful" stuff in games. Just don't let those influence the way you view and treat people in real life.
I know someone who likes those and I thlnk he's a pretty nice guy.
I know someone who likes those and I thlnk he's a pretty nice guy.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Like ... he likes the super sexual "grope a lolicon" games ... ?
You seriously say this as if gamer's main entertainment nowadays would not be killing enemy combatants (and in the case of GTA games, civilians as well) in the hundreds, without remorse or blinking. So....
Neoriceisgood
Member
Oh I don't like nor play those games either. (unless you count "weird cartoony monsters" as enemy combatants.)
Obligatory: and you are okay with people liking the be a mass murderer type games (like GTAV)?
Edit: Mario and Link are mass murderers too.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Clearly I stepped into a sensitive issue for some people.
I am not sure about that. I never bought/played the games you mentioned. But I can understand how there can be a market for it. My point with the violence was that games ar, at the end of the day, just that. No real being gets groped/hurt/tortured.
Yet I would still rather play nothing than play Manhunt, for example.
He's certainly a fan of the loli style but to that extent, I'm not so sure. But if he does, I won't take it against him, or anyone for that matter. Again, so long as you're not doing any real life harm, go. Who am I to tell you what and what not to enjoy?
I do find it very interesting to find out what people enjoy in things I don't like.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I don't care too much about chibi-esque styles in general being used, but when characters that are undeniably underaged are outright sexualized to the point where you can grope/molest them I really get uncomfortable.
Tbh what bugs me especially with the loli/sexual games is that those threads almost always derail in people posting really really creepy sexual posts that blur the line between "this is a game" & "I really want to do this".
I mostly stick to the smash thread, but we've had mods come in and get really upset before due to waifu-gaf members posting explicit descriptions of what they'd like to do to Samus or whatever. I've seen this sort of line-blurring behavior a lot less with violent shooters. (though this might be due to lack of overlap with the threads I read) & essentially not at all with Mario/Zelda games.
tonysidaway
Member
This thread probably isn't the most appropriate place to discuss intragamer snobbery about game preferences.
michaelius
Banned
Are we trying to pretend that Dragon Crown Kotaku debate and some Nintendo website asking for Senran Kagura boycott never happened ?
And some titles are even banned on GAF from having their own thread created.
Unfortunatly so called "inclusive" side of debate wants for games like this to not exist.
Which is why I'm really greatfull that gamer gate exists because it shows not everyone is ok with agresive feminism which tries to enforce self censorship on game developers.
I'd fully support them if the movement didn't have such shady origins and history of public mobbing of opponents.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Right, sorry.
Dr_LucienSanchez
Banned
It was probably the best site for games and features (and the community was also incredible). That community is still there to an extent, but it is a shame that output has slowed down so much. At least we're still getting stuff like the Eternal Darkness/B-movies feature though.
Again though, I don't think too many people are actually calling for these games to not be made. That's not what critique means.
It is perfectly appropriate! Are we not supposed to be against exclusion? Be it about female gamers, loli games etc.
Well there is nothing wrong to be uncomfortable about one fake (virtual) crime over another, but you should understand that that's just a personal preference and nothing more. For example, I'm uncomfortable with torture scenes in games, but I'm okay with other people liking it.
Prax
Member
I think the objection to those types of sexual objectification games comes from it hitting way too close to home and being a potential possibility, especially if the subjects are culturally seen as vulnerable (e.g. children or at least what appears to be the image of children/innocence). And it's probably seen as more possible that a person would violate a person sexually than outright perform mass murder, so there is some difference. Plus society on the whole looks down on the abuse of children a lot more harshly than abuse against adults, so there's a lot of cultural interpretation going on when these things are presented in games.
I'd definitely think we should be able to critique these types of themes founds in games (along with themes of violence, power, agency, representation etc.) and be able to relate it to the wider culture in general. I think discussion about these things are important. That people may identify too closely to these things or that others may judge/condemn others based on their consumption of questionable content isn't ideal, but I think being able to critique and deconstruct these things and even ask for better is more important.
And it should be understandable that maybe some people don't want "rapey" games or racist games or torture porn games to really exist and would not support them and ask whether those things perpetuate a toxic culture already found in society. Maybe they will exist anyway because of popular demand, but that doesn't mean we should shut down the debate about the implications that such games exist or are glorified even.
You're conflating two different issues. In fact, any loli game that involves groping would be guilty of the tropes against women that Anita argues against.
Like I said, Jason Schreier's comments on Dragon's Crown are pretty far out of the norm, and didn't even call for the game not to exist. And knowing about some of the stuff in that game, I don't even find him saying, somewhat jokingly, that the game was made by 14-year-old boys. That may bum you out or whatever, but he's not calling for censorship. And then oh yeah, the devs responded in a pretty homophobic and childish way...
It's the same concept as the militant man-hating feminist. Barely any of these people exist but people have a vested interest in spreading the idea that anyone who identifies as a Feminist, or in this case, has issues with the presentation of certain games, is more likely than not going to take an extreme position like that.
It's a pointless strawman, and being "glad" a hatemob exists so that it can defend gaming from something that has an influence level approaching absolute zero is a pretty shitty position.
Social norms of what is acceptable in the mass media does play a huge role. I mean, other crimes that are much more likely to be a potential possibility gets a pass. For example, stealing from innocents (see Asscreed), Breaking traffic laws, grand theft auto (the crime, not the game).
The problem is, these social norms are discriminatory.
Would it really? In general, those lolis are not background decoration, not a Ms. male character, not a damsel in distress. For example, see Monster Monpiece. Also, they usually pass the Bechdel test with flying colours.
Uhm, why don't you direct your ire towards the ESRB or PEGI who actually "censor" or influence creators in what they can and cannot make instead of small subset of feminists in video games who hold little to no power other than having a Twitter account or a guest editorial*?
*if we even assume the falsely premise that feminists don't want groping-sexualized-children/women games not to exist
I haven't played those games but it sounds like the lolis are sex objects.
They are, but they are also much more than that. Like Bayonetta.
It's a similar version to the usual argument that anti-bigots should tolerate racists/homophobes, because otherwise anti-bigots are being intolerant.
But I think SwissLion covered the argument that was brought up the best.
Wow, that's like the absolute opposite of what they're saying. Have you actually watched one of Anita's videos? She says in the first minutes of the very first one that she's not calling for these games to not exist. So yeah, citation needed.
What they want is to be able to criticise them without receiving DEATH THREATS.
Prax
Member
They are, but perhaps for good reason? There are concepts of different levels of "wrongness" depending on the context and culture one grows up in. And not all "discrimination" in the pure technical sense is terrible (e.g. discriminating against poisonous food, as a benign example). So I think being able to feel okay to critique and deconstruct these things to better understand why it's the way it is and what the implications are is important (and interesting!).
Perhaps that the industry recently seems to glorify crime more and presents playing as the "badguy" or "vengeful soul pushed to perform atrocities to survive!!!" as the ultimate protagonist in escapist fantasy games says something.
The Gamergaters to me seem to want to shut down any discussion on these matters because it would bring them into some area of discomfort to have to examine their own consumption or identification with such products.
On top of that, the fact that some extremists are going through lengths to threaten and harm people who dare offer critique or cultural analyses (along with suggestions for change) while more moderate/passive people in the movement seem to be cheering them on or at least not ostracizing/ejecting the extremists... It makes me all the less sympathetic to cries of feeling "discriminated against" (reminiscent of "WHY DON'T YOU TOLERATE MY INTOLERANCE!" wailings).
Like come on. How disingenuous can you get. Perhaps they are dealing with huge cognitive dissonance, which I kind of pity, but not so much that I would want anyone to stop critiquing the industry.
I also want to note that "inclusiveness" in games also means people feeling safe and represented well to be able to enjoy videogames, but if a large (possibly choking) amount of games available only have uncomfortable options, then that's an issue and I'd like to hope for game designers and the industry in general to expand their scope. People ask for better graphics and mechanics and less bugs as games evolve, and they can ask for better themes and more focus on inclusiveness and less problematic/cringey stuff too.
We do need a proper discussion about this, to separate which social norms are rational and have good reason, and which ones are just there by sheer inertia. Also, I was thinking discrimination in the sense of the social stigma you get versus other forms of games, even among "gamers".
Which is kinda my point about the social stigma. Why should it exist? (I know why it does.)
This probably isn't the place for it.
Prax, want to start a thread for this? I'm a junior member, so I can't.
- Status