RockTurtle
Member
oh the thread became an oppression olympics discussion? welp, guess i can't contribute anymore.
GG, till next time.
GG, till next time.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
BobbyRobby
Member
Rape/sexual harassment happens to men, but it happens disproportionately more to women. It is commonly seen as a women's rights issue.
Should it not be??
Edit: I'm not an MRA. I want to highlight the problem of having partisan camps, pitting men and women against each other.
I personally only believe in human rights.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Is this a shot-out to me because I'm from St. Louis? If so, your efforts are wasted since I'm one of the few in the area that really doesn't care that much about baseball or the Cardinals. But I follow postseason stuff a little so I'll be happy to fake it and say something like "hahahaha take that you stupid Dodgers fans!" But really, my expert analysis of the situation is that the Dodgers lost because Mattingly refused to shave his sideburns.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Gee, I wonder who here is "pitting men and woman against each other". Probably the person saying feminism is wrong "because men have problems too".
If what you are posting isn't clearly connected to #gamergate (and the relative merits and failures of feminism aren't) then you are posting it in the wrong thread. Feel free to start a thread in OT if you'd like to discuss feminism in general. That isn't what this thread is for.
No more warnings.
No more warnings.
Riposte
Member
To be clear, does the "realism" of games argument currently ongoing fit under this discussion of feminism or is that something else? (Personally, I don't like that we are having the trope discussion in a thread about harassment, because some people would love to say it is all just one issue, but it keeps coming up.)
I honestly don't know anymore. Dan Vavra has inserted himself into #gg, and uses this argument, so that discussion might be fair game in the context of statements made by prominent #gg folk, but I hope not, because it's a boring argument and it has been beaten unto death in here.
I am aware, but I don't think studies based on random chat participants prove that the gaming celebrities targeted for death threats, and ongoing campaigns of abuse from large groups of people, which was is what my first post was in reference to, are overwhelmingly women. Two other names I forgot to mention are Jeff "8.8" Gertsmann, Phil Fish and Stephen Toulouse, the former head of Xbox Live policy and enforcement. The volume and nature of the violent threats he received forced him to request protection from Microsoft, which they refused, and were eventually part of why he quit.
Honestly I had no idea you were from St Louis. I had just seen the baseball score and was slightly unhappy about it, and figured I'd make a joke. Unfortunate coincidence I assure you.
Edit: But really though Cardinals fans are the worst.
Edit2: Please reply with #NotAllCardinalsFans so I don't get booted from the thread for being off topic.
JesseEwiak
Member
The thing is, the men at least get abuse for reasons. Now, they may be horrible, terrible reasons, but at least I can see in a weird fucked up way why you send Jeff a death threat for his 8.8. review. Phil Fish basically gets threats for being an ass online
From what I've read, women get abuse online for existing. There was a great video from last year's PAX from some women games press and personality types (Naomi Kyle, Tara Long, etc.) that showed the comments and reactions they got on completely innocuous videos.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I feel compelled to ban you if for no other reason than I think I'll be kicked out of the area if I don't. For most St. Louisians, Cardinals baseball is all we have.
JesseEwiak
Member
Well, I mean there's the fantastic history of the Blues - er, wait never mind. Um, well, you're basket - oh right, no professional team since the 70's - well, at least you've got a Super Bowl!
Steve Youngblood
Member
Again, if I was a sports guy, you'd be so banned. Instead, I'll just laugh at this post and assert that the Greatest Show on Turf was a damn good football team fifteen years ago.
LiegeWaffle
Member
Dying.
To be fair, they have an excellent taste; they managed to list the majority of my favorite game outlets there.
Other than that, nothing in that diagram actually makes sense. Like, why circles on one side, and hexagons on the other? Is that an attempt to subtly reference Polygon? Was this cloned from some other diagram where it made sense? How does any of the things on the right side follow from each other?
Also "brand loyalty, interest, hype" is a fascinating slogan.
MHWilliams
Member
Holy crap. I go away to handles some reviews/previews and everything gets crazy.
So, new hashtag today it seems?
So, new hashtag today it seems?
Riposte
Member
"Realism" is a misnomer in this discussion, if not a red herring. It is indeed true that fantasies can be arbitrarily realistic, however what matters most is what that fantasy(atmosphere, world) is trying to achieve, what is true to its (inherited) ideals. Abstraction and exaggeration (and, admittedly, subversion) are natural and beneficial here and in no way oppose those ideals even at the expense of reality. Breaks from reality, or even the fantasy itself, could even just be unavoidable compromises that are worth taking for a higher goal than being "realistic" or "consistent" (namely, for engagement of the player). What this ultimately boils down to is "if you can bend reality in a way you like, why can't you bend it in a way I like" - the problem being the demands of the latter may be irrelevant to the former if not outright opposed to it (e.g., I don't like the way you bend reality, I don't like the way you don't bend reality). I would go as far to say there isn't even a slight hypocrisy involved, this just making design choices (some of which is going to come from a vague sense of aesthetics rather than precise sociological debate logic). To keep this post short that's all I'll say and instead point to the argument I made detailing this entirely.
However, I agree that pushing developers to question their designs they do is only a good thing - that applies to everything that happens in the development of a videogame (although not necessarily possible given other restraints). If they do the same thing anyway, then it's only a stronger choice after having been questioned (although I figure no less forgiven). I will say though, these criticisms (and the larger ideal of a feminist critique, not to mention other things that have popped up in this thread) are themselves worthy of criticism and their worth questionable. I hope people can come to engage kind of game criticisms they find poor head on rather than dismiss them out of hand or even go as far as to turn to ugly internet warfare and destroy the discussion altogether. The latter is particularly troubling because it pretty much hands over the realm of intellectualism to who you may consider your opponents (those who you may even consider pseudo-intellectual).
Exploitation of themes or trends, not people. I dislike the notion of "exploitation" in the first place. Everything "exploits" an idea or some concept of existence in creating a simulacrum of it (and ultimately for the purpose of our entertainment, with occasionally given justifications being superficial at best compared to actual activism, policing, or even research), but the ones that were called exploitation were those that offend in a moralistic manner: Sex, violence, etc. Naughty things shown in naughty ways. Such moralizing is what leads to the idea that escapism must be used to combat some sin or crime outside of its illusion, which at the very least shifts the priorities. I think it would be in the best interests of those who seek to create simulating (which is exactly the same as titillating, only you are suppose to feel dirty and sinful about the latter) works to not have their works limited by an overbearing moral "responsibility", in this case going as far as to become tools for the greater good.
Yet the argument can be quite fixated on individual examples, saying something along the lines of "this is wrong unless you do it like *this*", occasionally with putting a lot of emphasis on how wrong it is. In many cases, the criticism and their severity would still be apt even if there weren't common at all. Seems dishonest to say otherwise. It is also worth noting that the condition where it is acceptable can go as far as completely change the intention/tone of the game, scene, image, theme, etc. (this is relative to how severe the theme is made to sound). On that thought, I think there are greater incompatibilities in these debates that justify many concerns, which end up being articulated, poorly, as "censorship". I really dislike it when these are brushed over amicably when an argument goes in many directions.
Anyway, I question whether what I said above really applies to this thread. Certainly, arguing against feminist arguments is concerned with the desires of many participants of "GamerGate", but I want nothing less than to have such arguments be contextualized far away from such an ordeal. So, I feel I'm being off-topic at best, hurting my points by association at worst (although the fact the careless association is being made is what drives me to post in the first place). As such, I won't be replying to any rebuttals (although I will certainly read them), unless they make grave misunderstandings. Personally, I am in the camp that believes in this thread doesn't need to continue. Without the off-topic(?) discussion like above or the feminism debate that seems pretty central to why at least some people would pick up these hashtags, I can't help but feel this thread is finding ugly things on the internet (that wouldn't be tolerated on GAF otherwise) to laugh and/or cry about in an echo chamber of sorts. Even if this is done on the side of the "good guys", I don't really see this as a worthwhile discussion and it's kind of petty (for what it matters, which isn't a lot by my own reckoning, I assume it also doesn't help with the image that GAF is this determined soldier for specific beliefs rather than an open forum with certainly more diversity in opinions than any one or dozen game news outlets). This is just what I see browsing the thread every once in awhile, but I don't think the top poster list posed above really disagrees with that notion. Note I'm only saying this because it was asked before.
Wait what? There's a new hashtag now?
Steve Youngblood
Member
You know, regardless of whatever good has come from benevolent hash tag campaigns, I think if given the choice to keep them or get rid of them entirely, I'd choose to eradicate any and all hash tag campaigns.
MHWilliams
Member
They tend to be all over the map more often than not.
More_Badass
Member
People interpret the hashtags different ways, so these hashtags campaigns come off as disjointed
With #INeedDiverseGames, I've seen posts related to racial/ethic diversity, posts about diversity in the games themselves, and mocking posts from the Gamergate crowd
There's no focus
Not that I'm against diversity, bring it on, I'm Hispanic and would love to see a melting pot of cultures/ethnicity in games, but not all iconic games are strictly 30 year old male protagonists. Although some of it is true, we can't deny that there is some cherry-picking being done. Instead of pointing out the games that don't feature female protagonist, point out the ones that do so others can see. There are critically acclaimed games that have female protagonists, only thing is that these games may not be explosively as popular as say COD, GOW, GTA5 and the rest of AAA games.
Additionally, does anyone have any statistics on the ethnicity and age for gamers? Demographically speaking since if over 50% are Caucasian and over the age of 25, there might be a reason why developers strive for such a protagonist, just using this as an example since I'm trying to make some sense out of this.
I'm not trying to cause an argument, just trying to get informed over here.
partyphone
Banned
the issue is that popular games almost always star a white dude because most popular games are big budget games and to get a big budget you have to be safe. and investors consider the status quo to be safe. they see anything else as unnecessary risk. and it's all based on the misconception that women don't play games and that it's best to market them to the 18-25 year old dudebro.
and increasing diversity will just make games better. a more diverse cast of characters means more variety, more stories and, hopefully, that will translate into better stories and better games.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
I think you have cherry picking backwards. What you're suggesting the right thing to do is cherry picking.
then i guess the people who buy games are the cause of the problem cause they buy these games? you cant really hate on what sells, they are trying to make a business, a kinda crappy one though with no diversity. the joy of appealing games to a larger demographic with a risk of a loss is not on the companies agenda. pachter would say this and its true in this situation: vote with your wallet. publishers might think otherwise when making a game because we have to show that we as people who are consumers command the tide on their titles.
and on the bolded, this i agree with whole heartedly and what i hope developers strive for but when publishers lay down the law, there's not much they can do. they just do what they're told.
i only said that when i clicked on the twitter link above and saw someone post an image of a bunch of white male protagonist and making it seem as if every game is like that. maybe cherry picking might not be the best term.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Yeah, there are. This is correct. And there are a lot of scenes that portray it (the abundance is part of the purpose of the video). And they pretty much always do it in a way to express how bad the men are. Showing the women as mere props of their evil (pointing this out is also a purpose of the video). The women are directly affected by these men, but it's never about them, what they as people are going through is never considered. It's about the hero and the villain.
She's not trying to censor, just shed a light on how often these things happen, and hope creators will add a bit of variety.
But if developers are already at a starting point of "this demographic buys our games", if "other demographics" stopped buying games by speaking with their wallet, they are just confirming the beliefs and they'd focus their attention even deeper on their perceived sole demographic.
We first have to get developers to recognize there are other demographics that'd like to be catered to.
I retract my statement, this is more logical. It'd be pretty difficult to get this started but I guess that's why forums like NeoGAF exist.
We here at GamerGate are good consumers who surrender our money and loyalty to massive corporations out of some incredibly misguided sense of obligation. No one should ever turn a critical eye toward video games or the people who play them.
Thank God that these wonderful people are here to protect hype and interest. Destiny had me worried.
What's this realism position that's being debated above? Is that like the "pirate/war video games should let you rape women because that's what happened back then" bit? I've seen that before, but not in this context.
I suppose they're advocating a "healthy" relationship with developers and publishers where people buy what they want and never express a single thought about what content they don't want to see in games.
...Unless it's something like Gone Home, of course. Can't have that gay stuff in our precious vidya gaems. Gay people are still okay if they're arguing for our side, though.
Oh wait it's laughably self-contradicting from the start and #GG continues to surprise absolutely no one.
...Unless it's something like Gone Home, of course. Can't have that gay stuff in our precious vidya gaems. Gay people are still okay if they're arguing for our side, though.
Oh wait it's laughably self-contradicting from the start and #GG continues to surprise absolutely no one.
Dying.
Interesting seeing Nintendo on the Good Guys list. I guess people forgot about when Nintendo apologized for the lack of same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life after that big Miiquality campaign. I remember a lot of people defending Nintendo with arguments similar to ones used against Anita's videos like "Nintendo has the creative freedom to do whatever they want" and "Who cares? Stop complaining."
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Dying.
How does consumer shaming lead to creator shaming? And how does creator shaming cause a victim complex? I don't think they understand how a cycle works.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I honestly thought this graph was satirical at first. I can't believe it's actually played straight.
Well, I can, I guess, at this point... xD
Well, I can, I guess, at this point... xD
deathkiller
Member
There are already lots of different games that cater a lot of different demographics, for example there are tons of (high quality but not necessarily budget) female oriented games in Facebook and Mobile. It depends a lot of the genre/theme of the game, for example RPGs tend to be very neutral regarding demographics so is important for them to cater variety but that doesn't apply to military shooters or military strategy games. Said this, is important for games to be respectful to all demographics.
PD: I also think that adding empowered women (when it fits and usually fits) to games is something that makes games better rather than an attempt to cater women.
Why would you assume that the stats for random distributions or surveyed groups would change as soon as people become "Gaming Celebrities"?
Literally all you're doing is naming anecdotes you're familiar with. Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Patricia Hernandez, Leigh Alexander, Samantha Allen, Samantha Kalman, Jennifer Hepler, Mattie Brice, Jenn Frank.
Disgustingly, I can keep this up all day, but if the only thing that you have against the numerous reputable links people have been supplying you with for the past few pages is anecdotal evidence it doesn't really seem like there's much of a point.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
There is a question of cause and effect. Are the genres/themes that fewer women play that way because they also have the most sexist content/online environment or do they have the sexist content/environment because fewer women play them? Would those themes/genre see an increased participation of women if they didn't appear to actively exclude women?
My use of cater was facetious. I see catering as focusing on one group disregarding or at the expense of other groups. This is what I see the bigger publishers doing. So I don't actually think they should "cater" to any one group.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Dying.
The shame industry graphic is actually a pretty sharp summary of Gamergate itself.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yup, which is why I thought it was satire, haha.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Hrm... I quoted that image earlier and didn't even notice NeoGaf was one of anti-expression sites. I wonder if the person who made it was banned from here.
How do you make a snazzy list like that?
Click the Number of Posts next to the thread in the forum list, and you can get a complete broken down count.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
vacalactica
Banned
That hits the nail in the head.
There are a lot of points to this gamergate situation, my opinions are below.
- Ethics in gaming journalism - Being a relatively "new" kind of media and mostly composed of amateur journalists , the conflict of interest issues are unavoidable. Im not saying its natural, but gaming reviews are a huge driver for sales, relatively bigger than movie and book reviews. This whole death to gamers situation only made it worse.
- Harassment of women in gaming This is a problem, but a problem thats engraved deeper into society. A fraction of the population being misogynists sociopaths, its only natural that there are gamers who go all the way to make rape and death threats. Games didnt make them this way, diverse games will not fix this, but better parents and better education would.
- Games will make gamers misogynists No, some games can have a misogynist plot or characters, but that will not make gamers misogynists or help perpetrate a culture of patriarchy. Thats like saying people who watch South Park will turn into anti-Semites, misogynist and racists because of Cartman.
- Games are not diverse enough As the quote above explains very well, big publishers a risk adverse, like it or not, female and gay gamers occupy a much smaller fraction of the AAA games audience compared to straight white males. But this has changed a lot in recent years with the rise of indie game developers. But Im yet to see a developer who supports the diversity movement build a game with a gay protagonist. Surprisingly enough, the closest I could think of was Trevor from GTA5 who was bisexual (any hole is a goal!) and he is one of the most controversial characters ever.
EDIT: Whoops, you talked about gamers, not characters. Then I would look towards ESA (North America) and ISRF (Europe). Let me see what I can find.
Williams et al., 2009 analyzing the 150 top-selling video games:
Note that the prevalence of Black characters are because of top-selling sports games.
Not the best argument when a whole lot of people are still using that awful South Park episode as their excuse for using homophobic slurs.
Media doesn't have to turn someone into a bigot a propos of nothing to contribute to bigotry.
I've had an account here since 2009 and I never knew that.
*nods respectfully towards you*
vacalactica
Banned
The last chart says a lot about the state of the industry. Males greatly outweigh females in the level of interest for gaming.
That's why it's not reliable to measure female interest in games by these statistics, because they all consider casual Facebook and mobile games. Not core/AAA games, which are pretty much all games discussed in this site.
Oh man, it's Death TO Gamers now?
Not content with simple misinterpretation they've gone full on nutbars now.
- Status