#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
tonysidaway said:
I tried to play GTAV because everybody is praising it. I found it really tedious. In my experience there seemed to be no legitimate way to play the game except by acting like a shithole. It was one of the most profoundly depressing game experiences of my life, so I stopped and put in the Portal 2 disc to see what that was all about. That worked out very well, as you may guess.

I can see your critic's point of view. I can't see yours, really, because I just don't find violent mistreatment of innocent people entertaining. No, not even in a game where my victims are simulations. Frankly it's very disturbing. Without participating in that, GTA V seems to me a fairly boring driving game with the annoying quirk that access to cars is only (or mostly) available via criminal in-game behaviour.

This is a purely personal view of course, but I'm not at all convinced that it's unreasonable to see enjoyment of GTA V as profoundly problematic.

There are apparently aspects of GTA V that focus on sexualised murder of women for entertainment. That sounds like sick and nasty stuff if it's true.
Click to expand...

Honestly most of your critiques are on point but then again all media has a fascination with criminal behaviour, from the earliest novels to cinema escapist fantasies built around an anti-hero are standard fare. In some ways the more recent GTAs are better at handling this than the earlier ones with the choice to make a world that is absurdly caricatured to the point of ridiculousness.

Most of the arbitrary violence is actually player created and a lot of the complaints about GTA IV and V are that they lack the side activities such as 'killing sprees' from the earlier games. The difficulty of the later games is much higher also, it was trivial to survive a 5 star rating in the former games but now surviving past 4 stars is tricky and 5 is usually only seen for breaking onto an army base shortly before a game over screen. I tend to think this was a reaction to the more 'realistic' nature of the next-gen consoles which would have made those activities far more disturbing than when you were mowing down low poly stick people.
 
More_Badass said:
So instead of focusing on the shady publisher/review copy deal, the recent pervading stance is..."#NeverKissAGamer"?
Click to expand...

From what I saw, I think #NeverKissAGamer was first used by writers of Us Vs Th3m, a uh, viral silly games site. Who were taking the piss. And people then thought it was serious. Or we're seriously deep in to not knowing what is parody or not.
 
JonathanEx said:
From what I saw, I think #NeverKissAGamer was first used by writers of Us Vs Th3m, a uh, viral silly games site. Who were taking the piss. And people then thought it was serious. Or we're seriously deep in to not knowing what is parody or not.
Click to expand...

No there's no question about it being a parody/joke, but it's not too shocking that #GGers don't actually look into the origin of a hashtag before jumping aboard.
 
Neoriceisgood said:
No there's no question about it being a parody/joke, but it's not too shocking that #GGers don't actually look into the origin of a hashtag before jumping aboard.
Click to expand...

Well it's also that I'm not sure if GGers don't know it's a parody, or know it and use it despite that for some campaigning effect.
 
I always find it weird when people get freaked out by millitant extermist feminists and point to the #killallmen hashtag as an example.

I just looked at it and the majority of the posts are misogynists and gamergaters quoting it as an example of something to be outraged about.
Meanwhile there are a minority of posts where it's used ironically and precisely no posts that I could find where it is actually meant literally, or even figuratively.

I strongly suspect that many gamergaters simply failed English and have poor reading comprehension - especially combined with the lack of context available in 140 characters. Otherwise, I just have major difficulties figuring out what their problem is.

Anyway, I found this article, which may be interesting to some people:
http://fortune.com/2014/10/02/women-leave-tech-culture/
I hope it's not off-topic, since gamergate discussion has largely revolved around whether or not 'gaming culture' is scaring women away from jobs in the industry.

TL;DR is that tech culture is really bad at dealing with or even acknowledging the needs of family life.

It's tech in broad terms rather than just games, but I'm surprised how bad the work environment is for women. I don't know if it's an American thing, or just that tech is stuck in 1950's attitudes ("We'll employ anyone, but they'd better not want time off to look after babies")

I guess I'm lucky to be in the UK (9 months mandatory maternity leave, which can be split between the 2 parents) and to not work in tech.
I'm a guy, but it's great to work in an environment that is (relatively) women-friendly, since it has benefits for both sexes. I often need to take time off to look after sick kids, and it means I don't get pressured with bullshit like, "Can't your wife handle it".

I think most industries are working out that you get a much better workforce and better productivity if you respect the fact that sensible people will put their family before their job. Companies trying to fight that will just lose people when they start a family (i.e. people aged 30+, but especially women) and you lose all their experience. In return, you just get some temporary productivity boosts by overclocking the 20-something guys until they burn out.

Sorry if this belongs in some OT political topic.
 
Oersted said:
You mean you tortured others emotionally?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly what I mean. I had it down to a science. It was art, the way I did it. No ticklin or nothin. It was delicious. Made the years upon years of social abuse cause I have Tourette's look like child's play. That medication cocktail rollercoaster for a solid five years was nothing compared to what I did to others. Riding that coaster of highs and lows, blood pressure spikes and drops in the middle of class, anxiety attacks, seeing myself on film being completely unable to keep still. And then I got to take advantage of the ADA and sailed through the remainder of school. Weren't any issues there. Being that kid that everyone knew had "mental problems" and that's all just after I was diagnosed. Years before it was even more incredible. People screaming at me to stop twitching, which made the motor tics even worse, cause you know, of the stress.

I could go on if you want.
 
Lalalandia said:
Honestly most of your critiques are on point but then again all media has a fascination with criminal behaviour, from the earliest novels to cinema escapist fantasies built around an anti-hero are standard fare. In some ways the more recent GTAs are better at handling this than the earlier ones with the choice to make a world that is absurdly caricatured to the point of ridiculousness.

Most of the arbitrary violence is actually player created and a lot of the complaints about GTA IV and V are that they lack the side activities such as 'killing sprees' from the earlier games. The difficulty of the later games is much higher also, it was trivial to survive a 5 star rating in the former games but now surviving past 4 stars is tricky and 5 is usually only seen for breaking onto an army base shortly before a game over screen. I tend to think this was a reaction to the more 'realistic' nature of the next-gen consoles which would have made those activities far more disturbing than when you were mowing down low poly stick people.
Click to expand...

I'm reasonably widely read, but I've never encountered anything like this before. Perhaps the closest is the noir film Sin City. But I'm sure most people watching that film (I'm not familiar with the original comic) empathise with Hartigan or Marv, or even Dwight, as depicted in the film. In my brief drive test of GTA V I even find it impossible to find a way to interact with NPCs that did not cement the degrading expectation that I should be threatening and hitting innocent people. Which I don't like to do. Maybe Marv, the fictional character depicted in Sin City, could have handled that kind of situation, but as an articulate human I don't need to and certainly wouldn't want to.

I don't think the existence of games like that is problematic. I can empathise with those who may fear people who enjoy playing them, though. I find that inexplicable myself, because I can't imagine why I would ever find that kind of highly scripted exercise in self-degradation entertaining.

There could be some high conceptual framework in the GTA series that makes more sense than just allowing myself to be press-ganged into simulated thuggery for half an hour or so. Bets?
 
Camp Freddie said:
I strongly suspect that many gamergaters simply failed English and have poor reading comprehension - especially combined with the lack of context available in 140 characters. Otherwise, I just have major difficulties figuring out what their problem is.
Click to expand...

Yeah you saw this with the Leigh Alexander piece where gamers felt she talked about all gamers or that poor gamers are oppressed. Or that gamers still dont get that consuming problematic media doesn't make you automatically a bigot despite Sarkeesian spelling it out a thousand times in big neon letter signs.

But it's not about reading skills, i think it's more to do with willful ignorance, lack of empathy, lack of perspective, structurally ingrained norms, deep-rooted bigotry, and fear or self-hate being projected towards others.

TL;DR is that tech culture is really bad at dealing with or even acknowledging the needs of family life.

Sorry if this belongs in some OT political topic.
Click to expand...

No, it is highly relevant. women in tech is this what is associated with. Other primarily white male dominated fields suffer from similar issues. With gaming though, you also have a history of geeks and nerds who have been insecure with their socially stigmatized hobby, so they feel oppressed (even though it isn't comparable to e.g. being African American, despite what Gamergaters might have you believe) and they scorn people who dont fit the narrative they have been fed by capitalistic marketing that nerd and geek stuff is for men only, as girls dont enjoy such things.
 
tonysidaway said:
I'm reasonably widely read, but I've never encountered anything like this before. Perhaps the closest is the noir film Sin City. But I'm sure most people watching that film (I'm not familiar with the original comic) empathise with Hartigan or Marv, or even Dwight, as depicted in the film. In my brief drive test of GTA V I even find it impossible to find a way to interact with NPCs that did not cement the degrading expectation that I should be threatening and hitting innocent people. Which I don't like to do. Maybe Marv, the fictional character depicted in Sin City, could have handled that kind of situation, but as an articulate human I don't need to and certainly wouldn't want to.

I don't think the existence of games like that is problematic. I can empathise with those who may fear people who enjoy playing them, though. I find that inexplicable myself, because I can't imagine why I would ever find that kind of highly scripted exercise in self-degradation entertaining.

There could be some high conceptual framework in the GTA series that makes more sense than just allowing myself to be press-ganged into simulated thuggery for half an hour or so. Bets?
Click to expand...

Well in cinema I'd cite films like White Heat with James Cagney, Taxi Driver with De Niro, Goodfellas or the Godfather series. For books The Count of Monte Cristo (remember he plans to murder his former lovers son until almost the last moment), All focus on bad people doing bad things but they exalt the central character because they hold to an internal moral code regardless of how that conflicts with the law.

Oddly GTA V does this with two of the characters, Franklin and Michael, but makes the funniest character, Trevor, a deeply unpleasant person who shocks with their violent nature.
He's introduced murdering a former player character, Johnny Klebitz from a GTA IV DLC, and later murders an innocent couple after they object to the way he has been treating them like shit.
I kind of like how up until the latter incident I was starting to think of Trevor as being like most anti-heroes 'a bit crazy but basically a good guy' but no those actions revealed him to be a garden variety sociopath and forced me tor re-evaluate my actions as Trevor to that point.

Overall is GTA V a thought provoking challenge to AAA design? For me the answer is no but it does have more nuance than the gonzo violence aesthetic suggests and Rockstar are definitely willing to challenge their audience more than most. They do however indulge in some very gross transphobia and the games have always been hyper masculine being almost entirely devoid of any female characters.
 
Prax said:
You seem like you're having a thread meltdown because your responses are becoming less coherent and increasingly into the realm of paranoid persecution. You should probably leave the thread for your own mental health.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm fine. Just amused by a stupid question and figured I might as well briefly mention some of the horrible things I had to suffer through. But please, by all means, snark away.
 
The Blue Jihad said:
snip
Click to expand...

As you might have guessed, my question is coming from somewhere. Posts like this

Eh, I know she's going to die alone, so I'll still have the last laugh. With her, there's nothing to destroy, because she's broken anyway. Plus I've never been one for physical annihilation; I much prefer getting in someone's head...and it's so easy getting in her head when she starts shit.
Click to expand...


and like your post right now, do make you sound like someone who atleast excuses mental abuse, when he thinks its warranted.
I can imagine what you went trough was truly horrible, but you know, your lesson shouldn't be that abuse is fine. Under any circumstances.

Edit: You are banned. If you are still lurking:
I feel sorry for you, I truly do. But it seems like you learned the wrong lessons. Get well.
 
The one where he used ISIS as a comparison to Gamergate.
LINK

It's all I've been hearing on other forums. Pretty much angered everybody as far as I can see, gamergate or not.

I'm going to keep out of the anti or pro stuff mainly because I hate the idea of picking a side publicly so everyone can judge either way (I'll leave it at that) but, personally, I honestly think comparing anyone at all to ISIS is kind of disgusting.
The idea that anyone would be compared to people who murder and behead people and then show it off to the world is insane. I hate he used the suffering that ISIS has caused as a comparison to anything. The family members of anyone who has lost a life doesn't need to hear how a bunch of gamers on twitter are like their parent/siblings murderers.
 
Static Jak said:
So, I know this thread is a bit...one sided to say the least (don't shoot) but has anyone discussed the George Reese tweet?
Click to expand...

I think the best assesment I have is "edgy", and it will probably end up on those quote collages with similar quote from Devin Faraci.

I am intrigued by concept of "GamerGate cabal", though. Does this still exist even after 4chan IRC was leaked?
 
it's a comparison with some merit but is too inflammatory to really accomplish anything

and in any case ISIS is centrally organized and is actually pretty honest about what they do, so there's differences too
 
Static Jak said:
I'm going to keep out of the anti or pro stuff mainly because I hate the idea of picking a side[...]
Click to expand...
Sorry to pick on this, but...

Why?

I mean, besides the fact that there isn't even really "two sides" here, why must you maintain this facade of remaining neutral or uninvolved? What are you so afraid of?
 
partyphone said:
No. is it an obvious problem? if it is then it should be super easy for you to explain why it's a problem!
Click to expand...
I'm all for criticizing this GamerGate movement and their behavior and beliefs, but I believe comparing them to ISIS is much too exteme. As disturbing as an Internet mob can be, it's not really fair to put those people in the same category as actual terrorists who have committed beheadings and other inhuman atrocities.

At least, that's my opinion
 
Comparing anyone to ISIS is stupid.

But let's not pretend like comparing people to really evil people is meant to be taken literally. I mean, if Milo retweets a video in which SJWs are Nazis (which he did), does anyone really think Milo thinks they're literal Nazis? It's an easy shorthand for a quick insult. It's dumb, but the people that act like it's the most evil thing in the world are ignoring that it's a pretty common thing and not meant literally.
 
Static Jak said:
The one where he used ISIS as a comparison to Gamergate.
LINK

It's all I've been hearing on other forums. Pretty much angered everybody as far as I can see, gamergate or not.

I'm going to keep out of the anti or pro stuff mainly because I hate the idea of picking a side but, personally, I honestly think comparing anyone at all to ISIS is kind of disgusting.
The idea that anyone would be compared to people who murder and behead people and then show it off to the world is insane. I hate he used the suffering that ISIS has caused as a comparison to anything. The family members of anyone who has lost a life doesn't need to hear how a bunch of gamers on twitter are like their parent/siblings murderers.
Click to expand...

The comparison is wrong, yes.
 
vasilvv said:
I think the best assesment I have is "edgy", and it will probably end up on those quote collages with similar quote from Devin Faraci.

I am intrigued by concept of "GamerGate cabal", though. Does this still exist even after 4chan IRC was leaked?
Click to expand...

Gamergate is indeed a cabal at this point. There is some fluidity, but there are some "heads" that try to police the movement, chose targets and strategise next moves. They seem to take all this as a "multiplayer social game", feminism, sjws, Leigh, Zoe are just plot points of this.
 
Tbh I think the only difference between Isis comparisons & Nazi comparisons is that Isis is slightly more relevant, the off-hand comparisons people make all the time comparing people to nazis/fascists piss me off just the same.

I think that in general "hey you're like mass murdering totalitarian group x" is an awful position to voice, be it ISIS, nazis or soviet Russia.
 
It's like saying "You're basically Hitler.", only you don't intend for it to be a dumb joke.

I don't know why people feel the need to make such a worthless, pointless, stupid, obviously inappropriate observation, when there exists words like "ggate has issues with sexism". Or whatever. Use your words and common sense, please. Or you know, go ahead and make yourself look like an ass if that's your thing.
 
Lalalandia said:
Well in cinema I'd cite films like White Heat with James Cagney, Taxi Driver with De Niro, Goodfellas or the Godfather series.
Click to expand...

You may not be surprised to hear that I don't think much of that kind of film either. But those films don't give you the same bleak experience as GTA V, and people don't generally watch them repeatedly for fun. That's not a comment on the presumed heinousness of GTA, incidentally, it's just an innervating on the difference between film and video game as an experience.

For books The Count of Monte Cristo (remember he plans to murder his former lovers son until almost the last moment), All focus on bad people doing bad things but they exalt the central character because they hold to an internal moral code regardless of how that conflicts with the law.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. I recall Stephen Fry played with this trope in his novel "The Stars' Tennis Balls" (published in the United States as "Revenge"). His view is that the Edmond Dantès character in his novel (Ned Maddstone) is a mere vehicle of vengeance. The telling of the tale changes its meaning.

Oddly GTA V does this with two of the characters, Franklin and Michael, but makes the funniest character, Trevor, a deeply unpleasant person who shocks with their violent nature.
He's introduced murdering a former player character, Johnny Klebitz from a GTA IV DLC, and later murders an innocent couple after they object to the way he has been treating them like shit.
I kind of like how up until the latter incident I was starting to think of Trevor as being like most anti-heroes 'a bit crazy but basically a good guy' but no those actions revealed him to be a garden variety sociopath and forced me tor re-evaluate my actions as Trevor to that point.
Click to expand...

I'm probably missing this kind of nuance because I found the introduction so repellant and dull. For similar reasons I don't enjoy The Godfather or anything similar that glorifies thuggish behaviour and intimidation. There are obviously people who can stomach that and more, and enjoy it. Bear that in mind when I say I can understand why someone might think appreciation of GTA games a sign of an extreme sociopath. The evidence of the game's popularity tells me that instinct is wrong, because I live in a social democracy with a low crime rate and a reasonably sane social climate, yet GTA games are popular here.

Overall is GTA V a thought provoking challenge to AAA design? For me the answer is no but it does have more nuance than the gonzo violence aesthetic suggests and Rockstar are definitely willing to challenge their audience more than most. They do however indulge in some very gross transphobia and the games have always been hyper masculine being almost entirely devoid of any female characters.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that the same could be said about most AAA games.

Remember, though, that I'm probably much more of an outsider than a gamer by most sane definitions. I still play Quake 1, and have a high regard for Monkey Island, and the only comparably entertaining game I've encountered since then is Portal 2. I'm undoubtedly missing a huge amount of nuance.
 
Probably not smart to make the comparison as it's incredibly easy to misconstrue and be taken out of context, but I want to point out that "technology world's ISIS" is not ISIS.
 
As awful as I find the ISIS tweet, I also find making that tweet into a rallying cry to fight against the injustices being levies against the good name of gamers awful.
 
Not to defend gamergate, but why would youtubers come into a conversation about journalism ethics. I mean, I realize that enthusiast gaming press isn't traditional journalism but youtubers aren't even enthusiast press. I view them as entertainment(that I don't personally enjoy) but who decided they need to be beholden to journalistic standards?
 
JackDT said:
As awful as I find the ISIS tweet, I also find making that tweet into a rallying cry to fight against the injustices being levies against the good name of gamers awful.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Reductio ad hitlerum never ends well for anyone. Especially for a situation as volatile as what we're observing.
 
If you grew up reading magazines or sites, it's easy to have missed that there are single youtubers now with more more influence than entire press outlets. Marketing teams at studios increasingly target them. They are the new gaming media.

Hell I wouldn't be shocked if the top youtubers had more revenue than the entirety of many gaming sites, that is, all salaries combined.
 
Moon_frogger said:
Not to defend gamergate, but why would youtubers come into a conversation about journalism ethics. I mean, I realize that enthusiast gaming press isn't traditional journalism but youtubers aren't even enthusiast press. I view them as entertainment(that I don't personally enjoy) but who decided they need to be beholden to journalistic standards?
Click to expand...

Probably because they are often held up by many fans as bastions of ethics. I don't think many are really rallying for them to have the same standards, but they are often used as examples of "how to do it right," when, like you said, they don't have the same standards.

But really, I don't think "disclosing you were paid to promote this" is even a journalism standard. I'd say that's a standard for anyone that's looking to present their opinions as honest, which many of them do. You'll see a great many of them give shpiels about protecting consumers and fighting for the rights of the little guy, which is a little harder to believe if they're making content for anyone that'll spring a few bucks at them.
 
Moon_frogger said:
Not to defend gamergate, but why would youtubers come into a conversation about journalism ethics. I mean, I realize that enthusiast gaming press isn't traditional journalism but youtubers aren't even enthusiast press. I view them as entertainment(that I don't personally enjoy) but who decided they need to be beholden to journalistic standards?
Click to expand...
Because more and more people are "trusting" youtubers more than conventional press nowadays. How many times have I read people dismissing professional reviews, saying they'll stick with the more honest and down to earth Let's Players on youtube?

Yet now youtubers are getting insane ad revenue, and publishers are targeting them more and more.

JackDT said:
If you grew up reading magazines or sites, it's easy to have missed that there are single youtubers now with more more influence than entire press outlets. Marketing teams at studios increasingly target them. They are the new gaming media.

Hell I wouldn't be shocked if the top youtubers had more revenue than the entirety of many gaming sites, that is, all salaries combined.
Click to expand...
^ Basically, this.
 
I wonder if being involved in #Gamergate is going to bite any of these kids in the ass down the road when they grow up, want jobs in the games industry and have a digital footprint of being a persecuting douchebag.
 
VibratingDonkey said:
I don't know why people feel the need to make such a worthless, pointless, stupid, obviously inappropriate observation, when there exists words like "ggate has issues with sexism". Or whatever. Use your words and common sense, please. Or you know, go ahead and make yourself look like an ass if that's your thing.
Click to expand...

Tbh I feel this way about a lot of things e.g. dismissing people as just being "(too) stupid".

It's fine to call out harassment, abuse, conspiratorial thinking & whatnot; but outright equating that with "oh they're stupid and evil lol" feels more self-congratulatory than useful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NeoGAF Digital Key Giveaway Thread - Read Instructions in OP
Staff  3 4 5 6 7
330
3K
Gubaldo replied
The Riftbreaker - Official Update 2.0: Co-op Mode Trailer
Trailer 
9
333
IbizaPocholo replied
Dying Light 2 solely for the co-op experience, worth it now?
18
1K
Jigsaah replied
The developer of critically acclaimed co-op platformer Pico Park says they’ve accidentally made the game permanently free on Steam
News Indie 
17
210
Soodanim replied
Recommendations for Co-op survival games
9
373
Mikado replied
Top Bottom