Some people started an harassement campaign against a woman but (badly) masked it as a "discussion about gaming journalism ethics", some people bought that charade but the most vocal part of the campaign still uses it as a way to harass women in the industry.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Some people started an harassement campaign against a woman but (badly) masked it as a "discussion about gaming journalism ethics", some people bought that charade but the most vocal part of the campaign still uses it as a way to harass women in the industry.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
People are trying to make a singular event where some alpha male assholes doxxed a female game dev into an issue about journalism ethics.
Messofanego
Banned
Still doing EDGE columns, I hope. Also, Guardian is cool, Keith Stuart is cool.
tonysidaway
Member
I did try to work out what the beef was with Bayonetta, so I looked at some play videos on YouTube last month. It's visually gorgeous, and to be honest I didn't really notice lingering crotch shots. From what I could make out, this is a game I might like to play. I think there is room for both positive and negative feminist critiques. In particular, if this is an ambitious attempt to subvert sexist tropes, that's interesting, but how well does it so in that regard? Is it uncomfortable to play if you don't like leering at women's bodies? I think that's the reason why the Polygon reviewer, Arthur Gies, found it to be flawed.
But overall the YouTube views I saw a few weeks ago (presumably either previews of this sequel or scenes from the original Bayonetta) reminded me a little of Emma Peel from the 1960s TV series, The Avengers. That's pretty good.
In addition they're also trying to turn every conversation about enthusiast press ethics into some quest against people who say things they don't like
It's perfect, really.
More_Badass
Member
Thanks for posting that Gawker run-down. When you see this whole thing broken down, I can't understand how anyone could still support the hastag and "movement" and claim to be fighting for journalistic ethics. The hashtag has become too twisted and tainted at this point by the prior and continuing behaviors.
tonysidaway
Member
It was already in the UK quality broadsheets last month. All negative coverage.
From the Huffington Post article you link:
"As VentureBeat notes, some members of GamerGate claimed that Wu had staged the whole thing to disparage the movement."
#ThanksObama !
Is she still doing EDGE columns I thought she said months ago she was stopping, but I don't buy the mag so I wouldn't know.
Neoriceisgood
Member
My view on Bayonetta can be summarised as "It's shocking how well it did considering how badly it could've done it".
There's an entire thread about it though, I suggest you look there for this particular subject.
It's entirely true.
It is ironic though, that there were numerous outlets around the time of the XB1 launch who were behaving similarly, believing their words held significant weight and that they held real influence, insulting and belittling those who thought differently. In reality, though, the consumer was always going to rally against practices not in their favour. There were a few battered and bruised egos after that, some of whom still seem extremely bitter and hostile against their readership.
The dark side of gamergate showcases some truly appalling practices, but it's not like the journalistic side are squeaky clean either.
Sadly, however, neither side will admit any wrongdoing, and I expect this will probably go on until games journalism as we know it is finally starved of it's readership and dies out. You wouldn't believe we live in the 21st century...
GoodCoffeeJoey
Banned
The Vox article is probably the best place to start. It's been updated constantly so it's worth a look even for those familiar with this mess.
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting
Uncanny.
Messofanego
Banned
I would find it very appealing if Giant Bomb as a whole and not just Patrick Klepek or Alex Navarro said something about it. There was that blog post in the community that was taken into consideration by Rorie to maybe show to the staff.
http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/gen...giant-bomb-should-denounce-gamergate-1496897/
Kris Pistofferson
Banned
That pretty much nails it, in my opinion. If 'crotch shots' (which Bayonetta does have) is what people think is the huge feminist issue then those are the enormously overprotected people who have no clear idea how sexual violence works in the real world.
I had a friend who sold his girlfriend (who was also my friend) for drugs to pay for my own consumption. I didn't say a word because, hey, free drugs. Then I've had a gay man force his hands down my pants while a middle-aged woman was showing me her breasts to 'see if I was getting horny'. Neither of us experienced it as sexual assault at the time where it pretty much defines it. I've also had a gay man force his tongue down my throat and another invade my home where I was reaching for the knife drawer.
And those people think that Bayonetta is sexist despite a highly feminist undercurrent? Sorry that I don't take it seriously.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I was actually shitting on game journalism quite a bit before #GG starter, I had made it one of my life missions to show that atrocious polygon piechart to as many people as humanly possible.
I don't particularly like Polygon or Kotaku at all, but I'm somehow forced to defend them because #GG is a conspiratorial disaster that ruins any media discussion it touches.
Leigh Alexander has just released a book, don't think it has much to do with #gg but posting it here for people who want to support women in industry. I like her writing, even in that infamous article so I've bought it.
Clipping Through: One Mad Week In Video Games
Clipping Through: One Mad Week In Video Games
It won't have anything about GG she released it before all this started and being working on it since GDC in FEbruary/March.
No game press benifits from stepping into that nonsense. Gerstmann has already expressed his digust about the events that occured.
It's a significant signal to send to everyone on your site that Gamergate should be denounced. It tells people not in the know and people who are prone to listen to the words by Giant Bomb that GG is a toxic movement that shouldn't be condoned or approved of.
Making a tweet or a conference talk is good, but it would be even better to publicly and collectively decry it as a games community/organisation.
tonysidaway
Member
Harsh but not unjust. I've every sympathy with Boogie who seems like a very nice guy. But he kept coming back to this thread and every time it would balloon up with discussion of his own personal issues, to the detriment of the topic. This despite his easy access to a huge YouTube audience, and skills in debate and writing that he could put to more effective use on WordPress or Matter.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Did anyone ever try to transmigrate onto the #GAMERETHICS hashtag?
Could better discuss journalistic ethics and anti-consumerist practices within the videogame industry there, since it is clear the #gamergate thing is about something completely different.
Could better discuss journalistic ethics and anti-consumerist practices within the videogame industry there, since it is clear the #gamergate thing is about something completely different.
I don't think he had any debate skills. It was just a toned down version of the #gg rhetoric and he didn't become aggressive when his position was questioned but he also didn't defend his position well.
CambriaRising
Member
If I remember correctly, Rami over at Vlambeer tried to do that and GG was resistant because he's a "SJW"
Edit: Brianna just tweeted this: http://spacekatgal.tumblr.com/post/99950527903/changing-the-new-normal
Apparently Milo has been saying that she abandoned their planned show tonight, when that wasn't the case.
Riposte
Member
Maybe I'm wrong, but "SJW" was probably originally intended for niche, "radical feminists" (e.g., TERFs) or people who dedicated an excessive amount of their existence and personality to such a cause - essentially people who treat social justice as a war (not unlike console warrior). The problem is that when you also approach social justice like a war, just in the opposite direction, then you don't have much of a foot to stand on. If the issue was that these specific feminists were going too far and calling everything misogynistic, you've essentially done the same by equating the entire feminist movement to its worst elements. The fact "SJW" is the whole other side says we are passed that point.
Regarding my point on Alexander's article: I feel like what I was saying expressed itself fine, but to state it plainly, I'm not saying it is what caused GamerGate or is even directly responsible for a huge boost in support for it. I believe if you to map out the history of this event, it would be an extremely important bullet point, if only because of the immediate aftermath of it and similar articles (that aftermath and the reach of the sentiment likely played more of a role than the article itself). It was received negatively, whether you like that people feel that way or not, more so among individuals who were already distancing themselves from the gaming press for years at this point for various controversies. More to the point, explaining this negative reaction isn't trying to justify disgusting actions or even attitudes, which is what I was directly replying to. Moreover, people have a problem with it being criticized (in favor of criticizing more pressing matters, naturally), but if there's an effort to discuss its meaning or defend it, you are opening the door to disagreement, thus discussion.
I wouldn't say it's no different, although I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point. Movies and games should not be compared 1:1 so carelessly. Bayonetta 2 operates under very different rules which could change how even the same imagery relates to the whole. The scope of its "premise" or "subject matter" is bigger and the talent of its overall craft is not necessarily so connected to that one part as a basis, unlike the example you provide (or film in general). While one may feel the score still stands even with that in mind, I think your comparison doesn't capture the nuance of what a videogame is.
I don't disagree though that it's perfectly fine to let the aesthetic themes of Bayonetta influence your opinion, and that can be measured by some metric (although if that range is more than a 1-5 score it begins to become comical, "Bayonetta is 2 to 2.5 degrees sexist"). Someone who completely rejects this idea is probably an unknowing hypocrite (or experiences games in a way that's far outside the norm). I've seen my share of Platinum or Nintendo fanboys make it a point to insult a game because it has a pseudo-realistic military theme or is "brown/grey" - not all about "gameplay" then, are they!
But I have a few conflicting thoughts on this, all surrounding the idea that criticism itself can and should be criticized. First, one can still dismiss Gies (and Ebert too for that matter) as valuable voice on a subject on the basis of him having a limited palette or a weak stomach, mainly when "I'm uncomfortable" is a barrier to fully appreciating what the subject is; you can only take this so far, because there's no accounting for taste, as they say. (This is easier when the limitation is more visible, like them not being able to play the game properly.)
Second, if something is distasteful for him, then it's his duty to describe their reaction to it (ideally with a lot of retrospection and thought, not just flinging out negative feelings). As others have said, there's really not much different from finding anything distasteful, such a game system or ugly piece of art. However, on the idea that there is also a different kind of criticism at play, well, there's a fine (if not imperceptible) line between this and having an objective extends beyond describing your personal reaction. If you believe this is a moral matter, that the subject is morally wrong, moving beyond the realm of mere "taste", then you, at the very least, are trying to accomplish something different. I imagine this is where any sort of involvement of GamerGate (although the sentiment doesn't need to be limited to such a toxic brand) comes from, the idea that reviewers are using their visibility granted for evaluating games as a platform for their beliefs, to make those beliefs stronger and enact change. To be specific (and perhaps more conspiratorial), the idea might be that Gies is more interested in making a "political" statement than an evaluation of the experience that is Bayonetta 2. It's a different set of priorities, presented perhaps dishonestly, in any case, so I think there's room to say at least "that's different", if not even "that's bad criticism / bad for criticism" depending on your beliefs (btw, this being a thing in other mediums doesn't mean it has to be accepted, you can feel it is bad there too). One problem though is that once the possibility is understood, then it is all too easy for some people to assume everyone's intent reaches beyond their personal taste (and it's generally difficult and distracting to try to pin point when its true unless one admits to it), which is shortsighted and dumb. Annoying at least, when it happens to me, ironically enough.
Finally, as I've hinted at, I don't think there's anything wrong in thinking an approach (and thus, a critic of that approach) is a bad or useless one (not to mention, specifically bad examples of it). People may make it sound like you have to accept, for example, feminist critiques as a peer to a more product or experience based one ("traditional"); you don't. You don't have to follow in anyone's footsteps no matter how much it is said this is what "art" or being "adult" is about. You can even accept some of its merits and still think it isn't very important or helpful. The real problem is how you react when you come across one you don't like. The GamerGate way of framing it as corruption (although, to be honest, I haven't seen much of this myself) is as helpful for critical discussion as GamerGate's contribution to "ethics"; it's actually harmful and weakens your position. I mean you have some people who go as far as to back their criticism of "power fantasy" games by using the fact you play successful superheros in games as an explanation to why people have a hard time accepting criticism; people love giving idiotic explanations for why people are idiots, so don't give them an excuse and be an idiot. If you must engage with an approach you think is, at best, distracting (and there's plenty of times when you should, namely when there's the implication that this is "higher" or "mature" criticism, that this is real "culture"), then do so by attacking its supposed merits and relevancy, not a shadowy intent behind it.
Sorry if this became off-topic, I tried to relate it to how I feel GamerGate or similar attitudes weigh into it, but I was also wondering if I should have made this post in another thread (at the same time, I really didn't want to make the Bayonetta thread more about sexism, given there's like only one review about it).
EDIT: For GiantBomb, does this article not count?
EDIT: Also, not say anything too strongly one way or another, I don't really see the value of dwelling on Boogie's personal health or why he got banned in such a way that it's like a news event for all of us to gawk at. It doesn't seem pressing for what this thread is about and it just comes off as weird. He may have been a drama queen of sorts, but I don't know if the amount of disproportionate attention he got helped any (it was clearly negatively affecting him in any case, hopefully he has the willpower to stop reading this thread at this point).
Regarding my point on Alexander's article: I feel like what I was saying expressed itself fine, but to state it plainly, I'm not saying it is what caused GamerGate or is even directly responsible for a huge boost in support for it. I believe if you to map out the history of this event, it would be an extremely important bullet point, if only because of the immediate aftermath of it and similar articles (that aftermath and the reach of the sentiment likely played more of a role than the article itself). It was received negatively, whether you like that people feel that way or not, more so among individuals who were already distancing themselves from the gaming press for years at this point for various controversies. More to the point, explaining this negative reaction isn't trying to justify disgusting actions or even attitudes, which is what I was directly replying to. Moreover, people have a problem with it being criticized (in favor of criticizing more pressing matters, naturally), but if there's an effort to discuss its meaning or defend it, you are opening the door to disagreement, thus discussion.
I wouldn't say it's no different, although I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point. Movies and games should not be compared 1:1 so carelessly. Bayonetta 2 operates under very different rules which could change how even the same imagery relates to the whole. The scope of its "premise" or "subject matter" is bigger and the talent of its overall craft is not necessarily so connected to that one part as a basis, unlike the example you provide (or film in general). While one may feel the score still stands even with that in mind, I think your comparison doesn't capture the nuance of what a videogame is.
I don't disagree though that it's perfectly fine to let the aesthetic themes of Bayonetta influence your opinion, and that can be measured by some metric (although if that range is more than a 1-5 score it begins to become comical, "Bayonetta is 2 to 2.5 degrees sexist"). Someone who completely rejects this idea is probably an unknowing hypocrite (or experiences games in a way that's far outside the norm). I've seen my share of Platinum or Nintendo fanboys make it a point to insult a game because it has a pseudo-realistic military theme or is "brown/grey" - not all about "gameplay" then, are they!
But I have a few conflicting thoughts on this, all surrounding the idea that criticism itself can and should be criticized. First, one can still dismiss Gies (and Ebert too for that matter) as valuable voice on a subject on the basis of him having a limited palette or a weak stomach, mainly when "I'm uncomfortable" is a barrier to fully appreciating what the subject is; you can only take this so far, because there's no accounting for taste, as they say. (This is easier when the limitation is more visible, like them not being able to play the game properly.)
Second, if something is distasteful for him, then it's his duty to describe their reaction to it (ideally with a lot of retrospection and thought, not just flinging out negative feelings). As others have said, there's really not much different from finding anything distasteful, such a game system or ugly piece of art. However, on the idea that there is also a different kind of criticism at play, well, there's a fine (if not imperceptible) line between this and having an objective extends beyond describing your personal reaction. If you believe this is a moral matter, that the subject is morally wrong, moving beyond the realm of mere "taste", then you, at the very least, are trying to accomplish something different. I imagine this is where any sort of involvement of GamerGate (although the sentiment doesn't need to be limited to such a toxic brand) comes from, the idea that reviewers are using their visibility granted for evaluating games as a platform for their beliefs, to make those beliefs stronger and enact change. To be specific (and perhaps more conspiratorial), the idea might be that Gies is more interested in making a "political" statement than an evaluation of the experience that is Bayonetta 2. It's a different set of priorities, presented perhaps dishonestly, in any case, so I think there's room to say at least "that's different", if not even "that's bad criticism / bad for criticism" depending on your beliefs (btw, this being a thing in other mediums doesn't mean it has to be accepted, you can feel it is bad there too). One problem though is that once the possibility is understood, then it is all too easy for some people to assume everyone's intent reaches beyond their personal taste (and it's generally difficult and distracting to try to pin point when its true unless one admits to it), which is shortsighted and dumb. Annoying at least, when it happens to me, ironically enough.
Finally, as I've hinted at, I don't think there's anything wrong in thinking an approach (and thus, a critic of that approach) is a bad or useless one (not to mention, specifically bad examples of it). People may make it sound like you have to accept, for example, feminist critiques as a peer to a more product or experience based one ("traditional"); you don't. You don't have to follow in anyone's footsteps no matter how much it is said this is what "art" or being "adult" is about. You can even accept some of its merits and still think it isn't very important or helpful. The real problem is how you react when you come across one you don't like. The GamerGate way of framing it as corruption (although, to be honest, I haven't seen much of this myself) is as helpful for critical discussion as GamerGate's contribution to "ethics"; it's actually harmful and weakens your position. I mean you have some people who go as far as to back their criticism of "power fantasy" games by using the fact you play successful superheros in games as an explanation to why people have a hard time accepting criticism; people love giving idiotic explanations for why people are idiots, so don't give them an excuse and be an idiot. If you must engage with an approach you think is, at best, distracting (and there's plenty of times when you should, namely when there's the implication that this is "higher" or "mature" criticism, that this is real "culture"), then do so by attacking its supposed merits and relevancy, not a shadowy intent behind it.
Sorry if this became off-topic, I tried to relate it to how I feel GamerGate or similar attitudes weigh into it, but I was also wondering if I should have made this post in another thread (at the same time, I really didn't want to make the Bayonetta thread more about sexism, given there's like only one review about it).
EDIT: For GiantBomb, does this article not count?
EDIT: Also, not say anything too strongly one way or another, I don't really see the value of dwelling on Boogie's personal health or why he got banned in such a way that it's like a news event for all of us to gawk at. It doesn't seem pressing for what this thread is about and it just comes off as weird. He may have been a drama queen of sorts, but I don't know if the amount of disproportionate attention he got helped any (it was clearly negatively affecting him in any case, hopefully he has the willpower to stop reading this thread at this point).
I'd seen this linked but I finally watched it:
http://siskelandebert.org/video/N5SUHUORRKB9/Women-In-Danger-SP1980
Ebert does an entire episode that is basically: 'Tropes vs Women in Horror Movies' on primetime TV in 1980. Even the format is quite similar to Sarkeesian. They're much harsher on them than anything Anita ever says too.
http://siskelandebert.org/video/N5SUHUORRKB9/Women-In-Danger-SP1980
Ebert does an entire episode that is basically: 'Tropes vs Women in Horror Movies' on primetime TV in 1980. Even the format is quite similar to Sarkeesian. They're much harsher on them than anything Anita ever says too.
Rami from Vlambeer and Joe Köller tried to get it started. I also created a thread back then, but some posters didn't think Gamergate was misogynistic, so it got locked almost immediately. The replies are in retrospect distressing to read (also, the title might have been too offensive for some I assume?).
More_Badass
Member
I have to say, I'm glad this thread is still around. I got invested in the GamerGate situation late, so I don't know if the thread was bad or crazy at the start, but it's good to have a place to actually discuss this thing at length. Because Twitter sucks as a place to discuss stuff
The effects of these past weeks/months are going to revebrate through the industry and medium for years to come IMO
The effects of these past weeks/months are going to revebrate through the industry and medium for years to come IMO
Nope. Its trivial. In several months it'll just be a poorly remember embarassment to gamers. Things like this have happened before. This time the same old people who are passionate about this but they organized to be louder.
More_Badass
Member
Riposte
Member
This is what I believe, although I believe it a little less a month or two after I first thought it and the movement in question was instead the "Quinnspiracy", something a lot smaller than this. Convincing the members of GamerGate that is needs to moderate itself and codify it's beliefs and behaviors into something more pleasant seems a little more appealing now, although they understand how self-destructive this would likely be.
I hope you're right, but I'm kind of uncertain:
- Chilling effect is in full force.
- People I know or hear of that decide they either want out or they don't want to pursue something in video games.
- Broken bonds between people entrenching themselves in Gamergate, while the rest consider them to be beyond reach.
- Social justice issues will be more sensitive and hurtful in the future.
- Some people will dig themselves into the epistemic bubbles where they can espouse their views and hype each other up.
I think this will change the industry for good. the gaming media already didn't like their readership based on how they constantly talked down to them, and now they probably were shocked a lot of their readership was more centrist than left leaning. But they should have figured it out as most of their readers were young people.
Personally this has changed my outlook on gamers and gaming journalism. I think its absolutely fine to criticize the industry and it should be done. I've done it about how there are no black people, hardly at all in gaming, but at the same time I don't want social commentary in my games. the Tropes videos I didn't much care about, but when video game sites decided to put their politics front and center, it changed the conversation the tone, everything.
How can I take these journalists seriously these gamers seriously when they decry horrible things in one instance, but continue to support corrupt companies and practices that companies like EA do, or Microsoft tried to pull? Or a lot of the blatant racism in most games. Will this commentary constantly be in game reviews an editorials now? About how the companies like EA/Acti/MS have absolutely insane work practices? will they review COD next game and talk up on the Bullshit non white characters in the game? Or how its having an overall negative impact on society with what it pushes? No they won't.
Game journalist should just being writing two reviews, their "Game review" and their "social impact" review of said game.
and its shown me gamers as a whole cannot discuss and debate anything of real substance without it resorting to a smear campaign, harassment, or demonization. This industry isn't ready to be considered as art.
Personally this has changed my outlook on gamers and gaming journalism. I think its absolutely fine to criticize the industry and it should be done. I've done it about how there are no black people, hardly at all in gaming, but at the same time I don't want social commentary in my games. the Tropes videos I didn't much care about, but when video game sites decided to put their politics front and center, it changed the conversation the tone, everything.
How can I take these journalists seriously these gamers seriously when they decry horrible things in one instance, but continue to support corrupt companies and practices that companies like EA do, or Microsoft tried to pull? Or a lot of the blatant racism in most games. Will this commentary constantly be in game reviews an editorials now? About how the companies like EA/Acti/MS have absolutely insane work practices? will they review COD next game and talk up on the Bullshit non white characters in the game? Or how its having an overall negative impact on society with what it pushes? No they won't.
Game journalist should just being writing two reviews, their "Game review" and their "social impact" review of said game.
and its shown me gamers as a whole cannot discuss and debate anything of real substance without it resorting to a smear campaign, harassment, or demonization. This industry isn't ready to be considered as art.
Not as widespread but in smaller incidents. Serkasian (SIC) was harassed in a similar way a while back for her kick starter. For the same reasons. The same sort of screaming match occured with penny arcade and some over zealous feminists voices but it was tammer. Pretty much any time people discuss gender in games a segment of gamers gets crazy. This time they just dragged in some vicious non gamer groups as well like reddiys MRA TiA and TRP posters. A lot of the people directing and encouraging the outrage came from there and actually before that from 4chan.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
But this was always a hate campaign.
It was never about gamers as a whole it was always about the loud and insecure folks who are afraid of any change and any voice but theirs.
The reason your arguments will never have traction with people outside of the same reactionary groups is because its philosophical frame work rests on assumptions. Some groups accept those assumptions like MRA groups and it gets traction there. To everyone else those assumptions are ridiculous thus all statements derived from them are ridiculous.
Those assumptions center around finding any feminist opinion s to be outrage worthy. If you have those then the #gg stuff would make sense to you. If you dont the it looks like a lot of crazy people shouting.
Edit: another core assumption is that saying anything negatuve about gamers is outrage worthy. Which also not a widely help assumption.
I'm curious, how can you think that this is for good? People have been harassed and threatened, others are afraid of speaking up, whole publications are scared to say anything, people have been driven out of the industry, and there's a lack of incentive to join something that threatens your existence simply by virtue of who you are. This has sent a clear message about the toxic state video game culture is in when it comes to inclusion and representation.
I don't think talking about social and political issues is talking down to its readership. What do you mean?
Your games? What games are yours?
When did video game sites put politics front and center? And should they have put it in the back of their sites, hidden away? Should they not comment on something political if that political thing exists in a specific video game?
Why not encourage them to do so then? I think these are all marvellous points! I would love to get more coverage and insight like that.
You literally cannot separate the two if you want qualitative statements about a video game. You are asking for this as a review:
Or this: http://objectivegamereviews.com/
Then I think you also realize that this movement hasn't changed the industry for good. Or could you elaborate on how the industry has been changed for the better while this still shows that gamers as a whole cannot discuss issues of real substance?
I think there's more to it than that now. Gamergate also serves to protect itself as a movement by pressuring those that speak out against it. Even from its original vigilante goal, it's become totally distracted.
it started that way. I thought it could change, but its obvious it can't as no one wants to listen. It's only "You're evil!" "no we're not!" over and over, for ever. The funniest thing is that the real debate to be had won't ever be had now because it will be a constant dicussion of attack and defend.
Meanwhile we'll keep having the Shadows of Modor bullshit going on and the continuation of other nonsense. So thats why I said maybe those people who DO care about ethics should abandon it now, because now the conversation has been set, and much like american politics, liberal and conservative, once you're branded as either, many people will write you off.
I hope the ladies involved understand that a few horrible people don't represent all gamers, and I hope the gamers understand that this conversation effectively is over. it's too late. Once real life was brought into it, it ended any chance of it being salvaged.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
You wouldn't make trying to make that thread again, with a tweaked title? I think it'd be interesting.
I think it's become less not more. It lost its initial energy and it lost even it initial dubious direction. Now it's just a confused shrinking and shouting mob.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
It can't change because it was nothing more than hate speech.
You're trying to attribute meaning to it that was never there to begin with.
You can't make it about ethics in journalism because there isn't anything to latch on to. There never was.
EDIT: Instantly going to "it's the fault of everyone else" isn't doing you any favors.
I'm curious, how can you think that this is for good? People have been harassed and threatened, others are afraid of speaking up, whole publications are scared to say anything, people have been driven out of the industry, and there's a lack of incentive to join something that threatens your existence simply by virtue of who you are. This has sent a clear message about the toxic state video game culture is in when it comes to inclusion and representation.
I don't think talking about social and political issues is talking down to its readership. What do you mean?
Your games? What games are yours?
When did video game sites put politics front and center? And should they have put it in the back of their sites, hidden away? Should they not comment on something political if that political thing exists in a specific video game?
Why not encourage them to do so then? I think these are all marvellous points! I would love to get more coverage and insight like that.
You literally cannot separate the two if you want qualitative statements about a video game. You are asking for this as a review:
Or this: http://objectivegamereviews.com/
Then I think you also realize that this movement hasn't changed the industry for good. Or could you elaborate on how the industry has been changed for the better while this still shows that gamers as a whole cannot discuss issues of real substance?
I mean good as in the industry itselfi s changed "for good". It won't ever be what it was prior to this entire debacle happening. and I never said it was a good change by the way. I ended my statement saying "this shows the industry is not grown up, its not ready to be considered as art."
My games. I consider gaming my hobby like many others, I speak for MYSELF when i say i don't want political commentary in what i do for relaxation. I read news papers, discuss politics with friends, adversaries and others etc when I am wanting to do that,.
And we can use sports as an example. The was a huge change over the last few years in sports reporting. It suddenly had A LOT more women involved than before. this didn't happen in a vacuum, there were death threats, hate groups, everything else popping up, but the sports reporters didn't band together, and tell the sports fans how they should be. they TOLD them this is the way it'll be. Period. Some accepted it, others didnt, but ultimately now its the norm. it happened without a "gameregate" or a "antigamer gate" campaign as well. So again it tells me obviously this industry is too young, or infantile to handle any real discussion on these complex subjects. and lets not forget, sports are FAR, FAR more male driven than gaming ever was, but somehow they grew without the same kind of stuff going on right now.
It really is tragic. It's just heartbreaking to think that people dedicated to doing something positive are wasting their energy on an outlet that doesn't have that as a goal. Maybe some small portion of it does, but it gets buried under the amount of people with other interests.
I feel like the best thing would be for the moderates of Gamergate not just to leave, but to fracture. To separate based on their specific goals, to create group that clearly stand for certain things, and to state right from the beginning that there is certain sort of behaviour that they will not tolerate.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Yup, yup, yup.
- Status