Support NeoGAF

[Thornton Reed]

I have just read patrick's article on giantbomb

what is going on

 

[3rdamention]

It's this new? The #Gamersgate drama has made it to the front page of CNN today....



Behind the Furor over #Gamergate

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I've been trying to stay away from this particular hornets nest of a topic but having read through this thread I can't help myself and have decided to give my own view based on my observations.

I can't help feeling like a lot of the folks who have latched on to the Gamergate tag are not even aware of it's origins, or negativity. For that reason, I don't want to judge them too harshly because I think they are basically misguided and ill-informed rather than evil or bigoted.

On the other hand, ignorance is no excuse. If you are going to throw your weight behind something, you should know what it is you are supporting, but there is so much obfuscation and misinformation around GG that I can kind of see how some people just don't see the harm they are doing.

Just reading comments on any one of the many GG articles in the gaming press shows how completely oblivious some of the people defending GG are. It tells me that whilst we are right to condemn the so-called 'movement', we shouldn't be too quick to damn everyone supporting it, as in a lot of cases they don't truly understand what they are supporting.

I agree with most of what you say however wanted to add that there are many instance of the origin of GG being shown to people who then make the decision to ignore it and pretend that that is not what GG is about now. They continue to stand on a platform built on misogyny that they are well aware of when they could instead be campaigning under a new banner, one not built on hate. Those who are legitimately unaware are the only ones I'll give some benefit of the doubt however as you said ignorance is not an excuse. One really shouldn't sand upon a platform they are ignorant of.

 

[shamanick]

Well, you see wrong.

I admire your confidence, but I respectfully disagree.

Censorship is preventing something from being said or written. You can still find plenty of copies or versions with all that stuff still in there.

Censorship is the act of removing content from a work that is considered to be offensive, immoral, or harmful to society, which is exactly what I quoted.

There's also such thing as positive censorship. Censorship is not inherently a bad thing.
We recently had a thing in our country where, thankfully, the government retained its right to tell a particular shitty radio host he couldn't spout hateful, actively dangerous xenophobic shit on the radio anymore.

This would most likely fall under hate speech laws, which I am not arguing against at all.

That's censorship! Yay for censorship!

I guess?

To the point of Bayonetta, I think the dude's post you're taking issue with is probably being misinterpreted. Nobody's actually calling for zero sexualisation in games, just less.

I think people should be able to create any kind of game with (pretty much) any kind of content. Critics have the right to say what they think of the work. If this leads to less sexual objectification in games, then great! But I don’t think that it should be disallowed outright.

 

[mnz]

Dang, even the NY Times picked up on this story.

It's on their front page, wow.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2014/10/16/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf

 

[plagiarize]

I admire your confidence, but I respectfully disagree.

Censorship is the act of removing content from a work that is considered to be offensive, immoral, or harmful to society, which is exactly what I quoted.

This would most likely fall under hate speech laws, which I am not arguing against at all.

I guess?

I think people should be able to create any kind of game with (pretty much) any kind of content. Critics have the right to say what they think of the work. If this leads to less sexual objectification in games, then great! But I don’t think that it should be disallowed outright.

Who is saying it should be disallowed? Nobody.

 

[kmax]

Here's your problem. After almost two months Gamergate has shored up a lot of the cracks in their "Journalistic Ethics" facade. I imagine a lot of the stuff you're reading from our "Side" looks kind of crazy sometimes, and maybe hyperbolic, but the reality of it is that a lot of us have been watching this from the very start and are extremely frustrated that it's still going on.

Thanks for your input. Great post.

I must admit that it's difficult to sort through and condense everything that's out there from both sides, since this thing has been such a huge thing. I will say this though, I think that #GG is inherently flawed, and is definitely something I do not subscribe to. Unfortunately, people confuse this with me sympathizing with their cause, which is far from the case. I honestly don't know what they're trying to achieve, and I certainly don't agree with their means to achieve whatever goals they may have. I think we could have a mature, open discourse about the problems facing the industry, but #GG is definitely not the way to go.

What you seem to be doing though is equating Gamergate with all concerns about integrity in games writing.

The reality is that Gamergate as a whole never really believed in exploring journalistic corruption, it used that agreeable banner to draw more, frankly gullible people to the mob they created.

Nobody is saying Games journalism doesn't have problems. The thing is though, that Gamergate specifically has been targeting people with very little to do with any breaches of ethics and in fact are often the ones shining the uncomfortable light on the games writing business. .

What I'm saying is that #GG has from what I've see, lifted out some valid points about the problems within the industry. The means it has done so and how it has behaved throughout this whole ordeal is however, distasteful, and is something I strongly distance myself from. I definitely agree that #GG is not the way to go.

It demonstrably didn't happen. Here's a quick breakdown of Leigh Alexander's intro that everyone finds so inflammatory, and here's a good rundown of her whole article by someone who wasn't already bought into the idea of a woman attacking Gamers. Don't let someone else's uninformed and downright inaccurate reading of the articles define yours. Those are just examples of people breaking down Leigh's because it's the one everyone holds up as an example and seems to have the most trouble reading.

The point I was trying to make wasn't really meant to target her piece she wrote, but the collective about the death of the gamer identity throughout various publications. Thanks for the articles though, I shall be reading them.

I have personally seen many people say "Now I haven't read any of these articles, but people have told me I should hate them and that they say X,Y and Z." That kind of misinformation spread is characteristic of Gamergate. Browse the tag on twitter and I bet every single Pgdn press in the results will get you at least one person spreading a long disproven lie or libellous and unsubstantiated rumour.

You say you've been reading a lot of Gamergate arguments, and that's good, a lot of us have too, but we also probably have some perspective that you don't have that is going to better inform how we treat those arguments.

Hope this helped! Nobody is against the idea of improving Journalistic integrity (except maybe Gamergate) and nobody is rejecting out of hand reasoned investigation into possible breaches of ethics (except, again, Gamergate)

Again, thank you for your input.

He's saying that you are saying not all GG people are misogynists and they may not be, but they are rallying under the same flag so many other misogynists are. If they truly cared about important issues and equality in gaming why not rally under something that doesn't support misogyny or isn't instantly associated with it?

That's a very good question. I think that people who prescribe to #GG has grown in size because it's become this sort of resistance movement towards the establishment. However, it does appear to include misogyny, threats, sexism and other vile elements that makes it reprehensible in many ways. Despite its inherently flawed nature, it does lift out valid points that is wrong with the industry.

A human rights activist wouldn't rally under the KKK or nazism banner would they? No, because of the obvious connotations that would bring. So why rally under the banner started by a bunch of misogynists as a way to say nasty things to and about women?

Not quite, since groups like the KKK and Nazism have core values that is accepted across the board by its members. I don't prescribe to #GG, whatever the hell it tries to manifest itself to be, but I don't think that many folks that actually do, condone many of the vile things that is being said.

I'm not associating you with misogynists. I'm saying that if you want to highlight the ethical side of the debate, that you only hurt yourself by associating with misogynists.

Let me be clear, I'm not associating myself with #GG nor #StopGG. I look at both sides from a critical standpoint, as it would be stupid of me to align myself with a camp when I honestly don't know a whole lot about this controversy yet. I'm still learning a lot about this, so I'm trying to have an objective mind.

Anyone who associates themselves with GamerGate are associating themselves with misogynists. *Literally*.

I do not associate myself with any camp, and I'll get to why in a little bit. Those who prescribe to either camp are the ones who should be associated with respective camp.

I'm not committing a fallacy. I stayed away from this thread for weeks despite being very active in other threads that were overtly about misogyny, because I wanted to see if indeed GamerGate moved away from it's misogynistic origins. It clearly hasn't. It's still being driven by a core group of misogynists, and at this point, weeks in, the plausible deniability of someone waving the GamerGate flag and claiming that they are only looking for betting ethics in journalism has about disappeared completely

And I just started reading about this yesterday! Trust me, I'm not waving theirs, or anyone's flag for that matter.

If I ask someone if they're for or against misogyny, refusing to take a position *is* taking a position. It's a position that says 'I don't mind if misogyny occurs'. I get called unfair for pointing that out, but it's logically sound.

You think journalistic ethics is a bigger problem. I have no problem there. Everyone has their pet cause that they champion. But I wouldn't join a campaign pushing for better representation of women in gaming started and run by homophobes.

Because to do so I would be associating myself with and literally helping homophobes.

I would expect to be judged for doing that, and I would expect to be treated accordingly if my response to that criticism was 'Can't we just talk about representation of women in gaming?'.

I see where you're coming from. The reason why I'm not taking anyone's side is because I started reading about all of this yesterday. I literally had no idea what GG even was 24 hours ago, so I wouldn't exactly say that I'm championing for their cause. Misogyny and sexism are prevalent problems in the industry, but so are the lack of journalistic transparency and corruption that big publishers are involved in that we've seen.

So to reiterate, no I do not condone or in any shape or form prescribe to #GG. I think its inherent nature is flawed, and I think that many of the things that has been done under its name is disgusting. I think there are misogynistic elements that should be condemned, but I do think, despite its inherent flaws, that it lifts problems that are in fact prevalent in the industry.

 

[KTallguy]

To the point of Bayonetta, I think the dude's post you're taking issue with is probably being misinterpreted. Nobody's actually calling for zero sexualisation in games, just less.

I don't even think anyone is saying that.

I see the following key points:

1. You should be able to state your (critical) opinion on something without getting harassed.

2. We need more diverse works in the game industry.

3. We need more diverse creators in the game industry.

Bayonetta has a right to exist, hell even Duke Nukem and Postal has a right to exist. And people have a right to say whatever they want about them.

 

[SwissLion]

I've been trying to stay away from this particular hornets nest of a topic but having read through this thread I can't help myself and have decided to give my own view based on my observations.

I can't help feeling like a lot of the folks who have latched on to the Gamergate tag are not even aware of it's origins, or negativity. For that reason, I don't want to judge them too harshly because I think they are basically misguided and ill-informed rather than evil or bigoted.

On the other hand, ignorance is no excuse. If you are going to throw your weight behind something, you should know what it is you are supporting, but there is so much obfuscation and misinformation around GG that I can kind of see how some people just don't see the harm they are doing.

Just reading comments on any one of the many GG articles in the gaming press shows how completely oblivious some of the people defending GG are. It tells me that whilst we are right to condemn the so-called 'movement', we shouldn't be too quick to damn everyone supporting it, as in a lot of cases they don't truly understand what they are supporting.

This was where I was at for a good while.

It's definitely worth noting the egg-like composition of Gamergate when you talk about it, a solid, bright yolk of misogynistic and anti-feminist rage floating in the amorphous and ultimately transparent white of misinformed and ignorant people.

It does affect how we need to go about dealing with it, and it helps to avoid laziness in our thinking, and dehumanising 'opponents' and so forth.

But as you said, ignorance is a fine explanation, but it's long since stopped being an excuse, if it ever was, at least in my mind. After two months of this going on, of the only observable result of the movement's existence being the creation of a culture of fear and abuse for women and feminists, after two months of well thought out and intelligent breakdowns and criticisms of exactly what's going on with this movement (Which does get spread around their e-haunts)...

Good intentions only go so far when you are as stubbornly misinformed and ignorant, after weeks of refusing to think critically about what you're being fed by those manipulating the movement, or just jumping in the deep end because you see a mob and don't really care to see for yourself who it's stringing up.

We do have to strive to understand these people, but they've stopped being deserving of my sympathy.

Active, Aggressive action based on ignorance needs to be condemned right alongside naked bigoted abuse.

 

[Yagharek]

Gamergate has made me realise one thing about gaming journalism I never thought possible a year ago.

Ethics is not a major concern any more.

If a reviewer wants to give high scores to a publishers game because of a press kit and trip to the studio, it doesn't matter if the game is crap because their reputation will be ruined and people will ignore them next time.

Instead they will migrate towards review outlets who published useful and reliable info.

Like in any industry though, there will be good and bad journalists covering it. That's unavoidable.

But the rampant lunacy displayed by some people harassing female developers or journalists or commentators shows there are some deep issues that need to be dealt with far more urgently.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

So to reiterate, no I do not condone or in any shape or form prescribe to #GG. I think its inherent nature is flawed, and I think that many of the things that has been done under its name is disgusting. I think there are misogynistic elements that should be condemned, but I do think, despite its inherent flaws, that it lifts problems that are in fact prevalent in the industry.

It always reminds me of how the anti-vaccine movement brings up "Big Pharma".

No conspiracy is complete without a few obvious general truths to distract from the outright madness at the core.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I think people should be able to create any kind of game with (pretty much) any kind of content. Critics have the right to say what they think of the work. If this leads to less sexual objectification in games, then great! But I don’t think that it should be disallowed outright.

Nobody is saying devs can't develop games how they want. We're only asking them to be aware that their representations have consequences that they perhaps weren't privy to before. With that said I agree that the Tom Sawyer thing is an act of censorship however it is one of self-censorship. An owner of a piece of work (or in this case, one that has been granted the right to publish it) has a right to censor it. It's our right to censor ourselves if we so choose. Just because a published version of a text had a word altered does not retroactively remove the unaltered copies from existence. Texts especially are altered all the time to make them approachable to a modern audience. You wouldn't condemn a modern print of Shakespeare would you? Even though it's removed many archaic terms, including a number of outdated slurs.

 

[GeordieMark]

I agree with most of what you say however wanted to add that there are many instance of the origin of GG being shown to people who then make the decision to ignore it and pretend that that is not what GG is about now. They continue to stand on a platform built on misogyny that they are well aware of when they could instead be campaigning under a new banner, one not built on hate. Those who are legitimately unaware are the only ones I'll give some benefit of the doubt however as you said ignorance is not an excuse. One really shouldn't sand upon a platform they are ignorant of.

I totally agree that anyone who, when presented with evidence of why GG is a bad thing, continues to support it deserves to be condemned. I see a lot of these people too, arguing for a lost cause.

I think the problem with trying to campaign under a new banner is twofold;

a/ What are they actually campaigning for? There seems to be a different view depending on who you listen to, and in most cases I've seen, they aren't very clear what they actually want.

b/ Whats to stop the new banner being co-opted by the original GG advocates? I believe this has been tried already and has failed.

 

[Mesoian]

To the point of Bayonetta, I think the dude's post you're taking issue with is probably being misinterpreted. Nobody's actually calling for zero sexualisation in games, just less.

I don't even see it as a call for less sexualization, but a call for more meaningful sexualization. Putting cheesecake for cheesecake's sake off to the side in order to build up some interesting, memorable female characters who aren't a pair of breasts first, a woman second. Bayonetta does this fantastically, and if the "Female Designs of Fall 2014 thread" is any indication, more studios are getting the message and acting accordingly. It's a topic worth discussing, which is why the constant harassment of anyone who brings it up is bewildering to me.

 

[plagiarize]

So to reiterate, no I do not condone or in any shape or form prescribe to #GG. I think its inherent nature is flawed, and I think that many of the things that has been done under its name is disgusting. I think there are misogynistic elements that should be condemned, but I do think, despite its inherent flaws, that it lifts problems that are in fact prevalent in the industry.

I didn't think you *were* waving their flag. I tried very hard to write a post that didn't sound like that, while talking about why I thought it was a bad idea for someone (you/me/anyone) who cared about ethics to demonstrate it by waving the gamergate flag.

Maybe I didn't quite manage that, but I think we're all clear now though.

The thing is GamerGate aren't about ethics, and that's demonstrated by their actions, no matter what they say their goal is (and I don't think they've even clearly outlined their supposed goals). I think that's why jschrier is calling for a separate thread to talk about the real ethical issues (which we used to have until this mess brought the whole thing down).

They do deserve discussion. I just don't know that this is the right place to discuss them, beyond "wondering" why GamerGate aren't talking about them.

 

[L Thammy]

Coincidentally, my friend showed me the Future of Culture Wars article. I know it's been posted already, but I wanted to share it again. He had just started reading about Gamergate and was keeping a tentative neutral position, but this convinced him that it wasn't the best position to take.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

a/ What are they actually campaigning for? There seems to be a different view depending on who you listen to, and in most cases I've seen, they aren't very clear what they actually want.

I'm talking about the people who legitimately believe GG is about journalistic integrity. If those such people wanted to abandon the GG flag to begin a new one which is for the goal of ethics then I would support them.

b/ Whats to stop the new banner being co-opted by the original GG advocates? I believe this has been tried already and has failed.

Sadly, nothing. And I fully expect the GG leadership will rebrand its platform of hatred as something new once GG is fully ruined. However I'm confident the truth on the platform will continue to be exposed as it has been time and time again.

 

[Intheflorsh]

It's on their front page, wow.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2014/10/16/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf

Ho-lee shit. I'm going to have to grab a copy today.

It's funny how the asshole who wanted to silence her through terrorism only managed to get her name on the front page of the NYT.

 

[Mesoian]

Gamergate has made me realise one thing about gaming journalism I never thought possible a year ago.

Ethics is not a major concern any more.

If a reviewer wants to give high scores to a publishers game because of a press kit and trip to the studio, it doesn't matter if the game is crap because their reputation will be ruined and people will ignore them next time.

Instead they will migrate towards review outlets who published useful and reliable info.

Like in any industry though, there will be good and bad journalists covering it. That's unavoidable.

But the rampant lunacy displayed by some people harassing female developers or journalists or commentators shows there are some deep issues that need to be dealt with far more urgently.

Here's the thing though, it was always this way. Even with stuff like Gerstmann-gate and Captivate and DoritosPope and SpikeTV and G4 Mountain Dew pandering, the integrity of written reviews always reflected on the author of said reviews, positively or negatively. That's a thing that's never changed, though back in the day of the early internet, people associated scores with sites rather than people. Now that we're in the early dawn of the new personality driven website push, people are going to be made famous or infamous by the things they write because people are actually paying more attention than they ever have in the past. It's why Polygon gets shit for waffling. It's why the head management of Gerstmann-gate got fired after the gamespot walkout.

The thing that annoys me most about GamerGate (well not most, but it's up there) is that they think that we, the gaming community, are unable to read the news and decide what's good and what's bad for ourselves, so they want to slide in front of us and say "Whoa guys, that Bethesda review code problem that happened two weeks ago? Not a problem, who cares. Interpersonal relationships with games journalists, THAT'S what you should upset over, because it's what WE'RE upset over." Which ends up making them sound like the Daily Mail.

 

[plagiarize]

I totally agree that anyone who, when presented with evidence of why GG is a bad thing, continues to support it deserves to be condemned. I see a lot of these people too, arguing for a lost cause.

I think the problem with trying to campaign under a new banner is twofold;

a/ What are they actually campaigning for? There seems to be a different view depending on who you listen to, and in most cases I've seen, they aren't very clear what they actually want.

b/ Whats to stop the new banner being co-opted by the original GG advocates? I believe this has been tried already and has failed.

To answer your second question... any banner that's truly about improving game writing is going to be supported by people like Jim Sterling and many other people on their list of SJW enemies to be fought at every turn. The bigots couldn't get behind a banner being waved by the people who also want to see better representations of women and minorities in gaming, and there's a good deal of overlap there.

Like, hello! Usually whenever JSchrier and I are posting in the same thread we're arguing about journalistic ethics and me feeling he doesn't do enough to call out his peers for being unethical (and generally I find Kotaku to be one of the more ethical spaces). I'm really happy to see him calling people out and maybe one day we can be friends.

But my point is, there is a large amount of overlap between those of us who want game journalism to improve and those of us who want gaming to improve, and any flag we might be waving, the bigots couldn't bring themselves to wave it either.

 

[shamanick]

Who is saying it should be disallowed? Nobody.

Great!

This is the last post I'll make on this particular point. You said

They might lose all the close ups of Bayonetta's crotch in Bayonetta 2, but I think we can all be handle a change like that, like we can all handle reprints of Tom Sawyer without hateful racist slurs in them.

Which seems like an endorsement of censorship after the creation of a work. That's what I have a problem with.

You wouldn't condemn a modern print of Shakespeare would you? Even though it's removed many archaic terms, including a number of outdated slurs.

I wouldn't condemn it but I sure as hell wouldn't read it or endorse it. And that's because the original works are (presumably, and hopefully) much more widely available.

 

[Oersted]

Sadly, nothing. And I fully expect the GG leadership will rebrand its platform of hatred as something new once GG is fully ruined. However I'm confident the truth on the platform will continue to be exposed as it has been time and time again.

Lets not kid ourselves, the only way GG could be even more ruined is an endorsement by Breivik. They got Breitbart, Alex Jones, American Enterprise Institute, Baldwin... you can't get much lower.

Great!

This is the last post I'll make on this particular point. You said



Which seems like an endorsement of censorship after the creation of a work. That's what I have a problem with.

You do realize that racial slurs are opression?

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Has this piece from The Guardian been posted yet because I think it has some good points.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...buse-feminist-new-york-times-anita-sarkeesian

 

[Patryn]

Ho-lee shit. I'm going to have to grab a copy today.

It's funny how the asshole who wanted to silence her through terrorism only managed to get her name on the front page of the NYT.

It's kind of ironic that in their efforts to destroy her, her enemies have done nothing but raise her profile into the stratosphere. They literally are providing a far bigger megaphone than she could have ever achieved on her own.

The tragic part of this is that those same enemies fail to understand their role in this, and can only think that somehow, because she's inadvertently benefited from all this, she must have caused all this and enjoyed it all.

I also suspect that if you asked her if her newfound fame was worth the price she's paid, she would unequivocally say no.

 

[tengiants]

Here's the thing though, it was always this way. Even with stuff like Gerstmann-gate and Captivate and DoritosPope and SpikeTV and G4 Mountain Dew pandering, the integrity of written reviews always reflected on the author of said reviews, positively or negatively. That's a thing that's never changed, though back in the day of the early internet, people associated scores with sites rather than people. Now that we're in the early dawn of the new personality driven website push, people are going to be made famous or infamous by the things they write because people are actually paying more attention than they ever have in the past. It's why Polygon gets shit for waffling. It's why the head management of Gerstmann-gate got fired after the gamespot walkout.

The thing that annoys me most about GamerGate (well not most, but it's up there) is that they think that we, the gaming community, are unable to read the news and decide what's good and what's bad for ourselves, so they want to slide in front of us and say "Whoa guys, that Bethesda review code problem that happened two weeks ago? Not a problem, who cares. Interpersonal relationships with games journalists, THAT'S what you should upset over, because it's what WE'RE upset over." Which ends up making them sound like the Daily Mail.

I don't know why, but this post got me thinking back to the days of EGM where they had 4 different reviewers per game. You could follow each reviewer's opinions over time and develop a trust with that reviewer. I think if I remember, Nintendo Power did that too, but the bias there was more readily visible and the different opinions didn't mean as much. Reviewers now are shuffled around and are hard to follow, and given no real voice. As you mention, this has changed a bit recently with sites like GiantBomb and youtube personalities, which are good things. I think if if the bigger news sites went back to an old EGM-like model, I would be a happier person with gaming journalism personally.

 

[SwissLion]

What I'm saying is that #GG has from what I've see, lifted out some valid points about the problems within the industry. The means it has done so and how it has behaved throughout this whole ordeal is however, distasteful, and is something I strongly distance myself from. I definitely agree that #GG is not the way to go.

You've pretty much got a handle on things, it seems to me.

My only question would be what, specifically, has Gamergate brought up that are problems? As a newcomer, who doesn't have quite as much of a tint on their glasses yet, I'd be interested to hear your perspective on this in particular.

---

Probably the only thing I can think of is something that came up very early on in Kotaku's address of the whole thing. People sometimes will kind of take the size of the industry, especially the indie scene and those who cover it (relatively small) as a given. After all, they live in it every day. It's normal for that to start to seem, well, normal!

So when, inevitably, you spend a lot of time with the people you cover and vice versa, and probably develop friendly relationships, I would probably say most of the time it's not even worth disclosing if you go out for drinks with them regularly or chat with them on the internet pretty often. I think anyone who really cares about this industry knows that this is the case and if people aren't going to be allowed to write about people they like and interact with, Games writing suddenly starts getting very hard. What Totilo and others who have piped up about this issue have said is that basically we all know this is the case, and try to be aware of it, but sometimes it's good to have a solid reminder to keep you on your toes.

If that had been the one or two day discussion instead of... all this? That I would have considered a little bit of positive change. Instead we get this, and it's a goddamn shame.

Don't get me wrong, the event that started this was unequivocally shitty. It's been crap from the very beginning and I don't think it has ever been the intention of anyone involved in it to make that point but early on it was nice to see people who I like who writes in this industry pluck that little silver lining of self-reflection off of it. Made me feel good about the trust that I've placed, and that we all have to inevitably place in the people we choose to listen to about Games.

It's a tight community, and there's often little to no line between industry and press, and really I don't mind it that way. Frankly I think it leads to much, much more interesting coverage. You just have to trust that for the people you pick to read and listen to and watch, that when push comes to shove they stay professional, and I'd say well over 99% of the time, they do, and my trust is well placed. And in that fraction of a percent of times they crumble a little, what's the damage? A slightly different opinion of a game I probably wasn't gonna buy anyway? Seems like a decent balance to me!

 

[Patryn]

I don't know why, but this post got me thinking back to the days of EGM where they had 4 different reviewers per game. You could follow each reviewer's opinions over time and develop a trust with that reviewer. I think if I remember, Nintendo Power did that too, but the bias there was more readily visible and the different opinions didn't mean as much. Reviewers now are shuffled around and are hard to follow, and given no real voice. As you mention, this has changed a bit recently with sites like GiantBomb and youtube personalities, which are good things. I think if if the bigger news sites went back to an old EGM-like model, I would be a happier person with gaming journalism personally.

I feel like Gamespot is really attempting to evolve more towards this.

Sadly, the latest purge kind of helped the process along by drastically cutting the size of the staff down.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I don't even think anyone is saying that.

I see the following key points:

1. You should be able to state your (critical) opinion on something without getting harassed.

2. We need more diverse works in the game industry.

3. We need more diverse creators in the game industry.

Bayonetta has a right to exist, hell even Duke Nukem and Postal has a right to exist. And people have a right to say whatever they want about them.

Right. To me, the point is never to single out any particular work or creator and say "this is wrong." I always think the conversation gets sidetracked when one work is put under the microscope because the point isn't that this or that or the other thing are "bad" in as much as it is to highlight that when you examine all of these works together and not as individual games that exist in a vacuum, there's a pattern that some feel makes the marketplace less inclusive. It's a complex topic, and I think it can be oversimplified to the detriment of the conversation by people on either side of the divide.

The general feel is that a lot of times content is targeted towards young men because they comprise the bulk of the consumer base that buys games, or I guess I should clarify "core" games. And this often gets us into a "the chicken or the egg?" situation wherein it's not clear whether they are the ones who buy games because the content is aimed at them, or content is aimed at them because they're the ones spending the money. The concern many have is that creativity is stagnating because publishers are doubling and tripling down on that dwindling consumer base to the detriment of targeting wider audiences.

Now, does that mean that the game you like has no right to exist because this new wave of feminist critique doesn't approve of it? Of course not. If a creator really wants to make that kind of game, they should absolutely have a right to. But there's a desire to get out of the mindset that this is the default or what you have to do because that's what the audience wants.

 

[plagiarize]

Great!

This is the last post I'll make on this particular point. You said



Which seems like an endorsement of censorship after the creation of a work. That's what I have a problem with.



I wouldn't condemn it but I sure as hell wouldn't read it or endorse it. And that's because the original works are (presumably, and hopefully) much more widely available.

It was just an example of the sort of thing that I think we might see less of. I was just trying to find a real world example of the sort of thing I think those of us pushing for more inclusive games would hope to see. We aren't trying to see an end of games like Bayonetta, but maybe a game like that with a few tweaks here and there could still be a Bayonetta game that fans of the series love while simultaneously appealing to a wider audience.

If Bayonetta 2 had less fan service, I really don't think you'd be seeing many complaints about it.

If Nintendo rerelease it with less fan service, that wouldn't be censorship though, and Tom Sawyer hasn't been censored either, there are just some versions that have removed a word that has become hugely offensive that wasn't intended by the original author to mean what it now means.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

You do realize that racial slurs are opression?

To censor words from a different time period is terrible. Even if they are racial slurs. Art is a product of it's time and doing things like censoring words, no matter how bad they are, is a negative thing because it's sweeping the history of discrimination under the rug as if it never happened. It's a far more educational and worthwhile to keep the offensive language in the text as a reminder of how things historically were and as a reminder and tool of why it should never be that way again.

Censoring literature because of oppressive language from that past is the text equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling so loudly that no one can tell you anything.

 

[SkeptiMism]

Banning it or enforcing that is not the way to go about it though. That's from one extreme to the other.

Nobody is banning anything like that and nobody sensible even wants to ban anything like that (as Sarkeesian herself makes it clear for example). Nobody even has the power to ban something like that.

It's more like "hey could you please be more aware of what kind of things you're putting into your games and how it affects people and try to be a bit more inclusive?". The developer then is free to either ignore it completely, listen to it and think about it but still ignore it in the end, or then listen to it and do something about it.

And yes sure, at times it can be even "I'm not buying your game because I feel it portrays certain things in a horrible way", but again, that's the right of the consumer and then the developer can either ignore it or do something about it.

It's not censorship.

 

[May16]

If a reviewer wants to give high scores to a publishers game because of a press kit and trip to the studio, it doesn't matter if the game is crap because their reputation will be ruined and people will ignore them next time.

Instead they will migrate towards review outlets who published useful and reliable info.

Really?
I seem to notice the opposite.
High scores are almost never the target of reader/comment rage, but low scores.

People who've never played games come into comment sections of reviews and flip the hell out about "troll reviews" that are scored too low by "incompetent reviewers" or "haters" or "(other console or series) fanboys" and such. It seems like a lot of readers want advertorials rather than someone's real criticism. We see stuff like that all the time, even with games that go down in history as massive disappointments. People rage about low scores, and they rage hard.

 

[plagiarize]

To censor words from a different time period is terrible. Even if they are racial slurs. Art is a product of it's time and doing things like censoring words, no matter how bad they are, is a negative thing because it's sweeping the history of discrimination under the rug as if it never happened. It's a far more educational and worthwhile to keep the offensive language in the text as a reminder of how things historically were and as a reminder and tool of why it should never be that way again.

Censoring literature because of oppressive language from that past is the text equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling so loudly that no one can tell you anything.

Sorry I started this tangent.

Creating a version of a great kids book that a kid can just enjoy and read without being taught a lesson about how certain racial slurs used to be in common usage is no bad thing. The original text still exists, but that word has taken on a whole new meaning from when the book was written.

You aren't protecting the original authors work by demanding it stay in every version.

And it isn't censorship. It's a different version of a work in the public domain. If you're not against The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the Undead in principle, then you can't be against The Adventures of Tom Sawyer Without Racial Slurs either.

 

[besada]

I've said this a few times, but yeah, it'd be great to have another thread dedicated to ethics in games media, with no GG discussion allowed. I know the mods have been worried that it would be infected with GG talk, but I'd hope if the rules are clear, people will behave.

We hope that a lot, but it rarely turns out that way, unfortunately. Particularly not when we have a bevy of martyrs willing to burn sockpuppet accounts to shit up threads. Our issue is currently one of staffing. Existing staff is spending so much time dealing with a single GG thread that we're already having issues covering other threads, and we decided that for now, we can only handle this thread.

Of course, I'd be plenty happy if this thread actually discussed games journalism, given that's what #gg is supposedly about, and that would certainly be more interesting to me on a personal level than the fiftieth recitation of the definitions of feminism or censorship.

 

[Oersted]

To censor words from a different time period is terrible. Even if they are racial slurs. Art is a product of it's time and doing things like censoring words, no matter how bad they are, is a negative thing because it's sweeping the history of discrimination under the rug as if it never happened. It's a far more educational and worthwhile to keep the offensive language in the text as a reminder of how things historically were and as a reminder and tool of why it should never be that way again.

Censoring literature because of oppressive language from that past is the text equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling so loudly that no one can tell you anything.

To get rid of opressive language is terrible? Debatable. And yes, you can show it in a commented way, like Warner Brothers. But you know, sexism and racism is in videogames a completely different thing. It is not 200 years, not commented, it just exists to appeal a certain audience.

 

[FlyinJ]

Ho-lee shit. I'm going to have to grab a copy today.

It's funny how the asshole who wanted to silence her through terrorism only managed to get her name on the front page of the NYT.

It is a good article. There is one major fallacy in it, however:

The journalist states that Baldwin started the GamerGate tag to expose ethics problems in the game industry, not the actual reason the tag was started, which was to slut shame Zoe Quinn. Surprised the journalist let that one through.

Also, they refer to Anita as "Mr. Sarkeesian" later in the article... heh.

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

That kotakuinaction subreddit sure is something special, eh? I'm reading it now and the the top posts involve a really humorous boycott thing, some heroic GG effort against doxing, and an elaborate conversion story about somebody going from 'anti' to 'pro-gg.' I hate that I'm even suggesting this, but the last one reads like the biggest fantasy ever.

A lot of weird stuff. I had no idea.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Sorry I started this tangent.

Creating a version of a great kids book that a kid can just enjoy and read without being taught a lesson about how certain racial slurs used to be in common usage is no bad thing. The original text still exists, but that word has taken on a whole new meaning from when the book was written.

You aren't protecting the original authors work by demanding it stay in every version.

And it isn't censorship. It's a different version of a work in the public domain. If you're not against The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the Undead in principle, then you can't be against The Adventures of Tom Sawyer Without Racial Slurs either.

Oh, I don't oppose alternative versions of texts if that's what you guys were talking about. I kind of just came in on this page. That's my bad.

I honestly don't see the point in it, because Tom Sawyer looses a lot of it's lessons and humor if you take out the racial element of the story. Honestly, I'd rather my child just wait until they can get a full grasp of the themes and contexts of the story before handing them what is essentially a gimped version.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with making an alternative version for children, or any parent who would want their child to read an edited version at a younger age, and that's obviously not censorship. It's just an alternative.

To get rid of opressive language is terrible? Debatable. And yes, you can show it in a commented way, like Warner Brothers. But you know, sexism and racism is in videogames a completely different thing. It is not 200 years, not commented, it just exists to appeal a certain audience.

You can debate it all you want, but pretending like racism and oppression didn't and still don't happen is far worse then having some people get offended at the reality of history and the world around them. If you're trying to edit out something racial even when it's trying to make a good point, then all you're doing is depriving people of different perspectives. Without that nothing would ever change because we would just constantly pretend like nothing bad ever happened.

As far as video games, I didn't comment on that aspect of it for the reason you stated. My post was based solely on the idea that we should censor things because of oppressive language. But I see now that people were just talking about alternative versions of stories and not trying to replace them, which as I have mentioned I have no problem with.

 

[SliceSabre]

Now, does that mean that the game you like has no right to exist because this new wave of feminist critique doesn't approve of it? Of course not. If a creator really wants to make that kind of game, they should absolutely have a right to. But there's a desire to get out of the mindset that this is the default or what you have to do because that's what the audience wants.

It was just an example of the sort of thing that I think we might see less of. I was just trying to find a real world example of the sort of thing I think those of us pushing for more inclusive games would hope to see. We aren't trying to see an end of games like Bayonetta, but maybe a game like that with a few tweaks here and there could still be a Bayonetta game that fans of the series love while simultaneously appealing to a wider audience.

If Bayonetta 2 had less fan service, I really don't think you'd be seeing many complaints about it.

If Nintendo rerelease it with less fan service, that wouldn't be censorship though, and Tom Sawyer hasn't been censored either, there are just some versions that have removed a word that has become hugely offensive that wasn't intended by the original author to mean what it now means.

I think a lot of the fear from the GG camp is that the people on the other side want those games gone. Completely. Show a so called 'SJW' screenshots from a Senran Kagura game or DoA and I expect those games would be railed against and many people in fact don't want games like that to exist. If you're a fan of those games you don't want them changed to fit a wider audience or to be more tasteful to feminist critique because it would take a lot of changing to make them acceptable which would probably ruin what they like about those games. I guess that's where you get the "Don't touch my games." portion from.

 

[SteveO409]

That kotakuinaction subreddit sure is something special, eh? I'm reading it now and the the top posts involve a really humorous boycott thing, some heroic GG effort against doxing, and an elaborate conversion story about somebody going from 'anti' to 'pro-gg.' I hate that I'm even suggesting this, but the last one reads like the biggest fantasy ever.

A lot of weird stuff. I had no idea.

Some of the "stuff" is pretty funny. Brianna Wu accidentally mistaken a fruit company as Dice

 

[tengiants]

It was just an example of the sort of thing that I think we might see less of. I was just trying to find a real world example of the sort of thing I think those of us pushing for more inclusive games would hope to see. We aren't trying to see an end of games like Bayonetta, but maybe a game like that with a few tweaks here and there could still be a Bayonetta game that fans of the series love while simultaneously appealing to a wider audience.

If Bayonetta 2 had less fan service, I really don't think you'd be seeing many complaints about it.

If Nintendo rerelease it with less fan service, that wouldn't be censorship though, and Tom Sawyer hasn't been censored either, there are just some versions that have removed a word that has become hugely offensive that wasn't intended by the original author to mean what it now means.

Bayonetta is an interesting game. I was initially put off by the over sexuality of her character design, but then I remember reading an article going into detail about her design, by a feminist, that talked about how Bayonetta is actually a positive image for women in videogames. I can't find the specific blog post anymore, but interestingly when I searched for it I did find an old GamePro article where even Leigh Alexander says "I already know that women can do all the same things men can. This time, I get to see a woman do plenty of things men can't. And I love it. " (The article isn't available on GamePro anymore from what I can see).

This opinion, from feminists, got me to reconsider the fact that maybe I was just a prude and that I should try the game. I have since decided to try it when it comes out on Wii U later this month. Is this now something I should reconsider? This whole thing has me realize I'm still very confused and don't really have a clear perspective on anything going on.

 

[NoCryingUntilTheEnd]

If Bayonetta 2 had less fan service, I really don't think you'd be seeing many complaints about it.

Oh I'd complain about it, that's for sure. Love me some sexy Bayonetta.

 

[plagiarize]

That kotakuinaction subreddit sure is something special, eh? I'm reading it now and the the top posts involve a really humorous boycott thing, some heroic GG effort against doxing, and an elaborate conversion story about somebody going from 'anti' to 'pro-gg.' I hate that I'm even suggesting this, but the last one reads like the biggest fantasy ever.

A lot of weird stuff. I had no idea.

They are calling for a boycott of Blizzard on that page. So I think to myself... gee... it MUST be because of the Gamespot stuff.

But no. It's because Blizzard advertise on Kotaku and 'Kotaku attacks their customers'.

I'm sure that some of Blizzard's customers are misogynists... but somehow I don't think it's a segment of the market that they're going to directly worry about upsetting.

Oh I'd complain about it, that's for sure. Love me some sexy Bayonetta.

I'm not even saying I think Bayonetta's character design should be changed. Just that less shots that focus on her crotch would probably do nothing to hurt the appeal of the game.

 

[freddy]

I've said this a few times, but yeah, it'd be great to have another thread dedicated to ethics in games media, with no GG discussion allowed. I know the mods have been worried that it would be infected with GG talk, but I'd hope if the rules are clear, people will behave.

Your best chance is to wait until this reaches 20k and then maybe it can be split into two smaller threads. One about corruption and one about the ongoing controversy, maybe. I suspect you have some interesting things to say that you might not be able to say elsewhere. Also, I think if it were discussed in this thread it would turn into a shit show before too long.

 

[CosmicQueso]

The general feel is that a lot of times content is targeted towards young men because they comprise the bulk of the consumer base that buys games, or I guess I should clarify "core" games. And this often gets us into a "the chicken or the egg?" situation wherein it's not clear whether they are the ones who buy games because the content is aimed at them, or content is aimed at them because they're the ones spending the money. The concern many have is that creativity is stagnating because publishers are doubling and tripling down on that dwindling consumer base to the detriment of targeting wider audiences.

If I may, I'd like to tweak that slightly.

Game companies, across all gaming mediums, are trying to appeal to all kinds of customers, more than they ever have before. However, they're doing so by broadening away from traditional Console/HH/PC development by branching into Mobile, F2P and Web.

So, we have to separate, as you state, the "core" from the "mass".

The Console audience, after a period in the last cycle of great demographic expansion, has returned this gen to being predominantly male and leaning younger (although older than in the past). The more mass audience (that bought Wiis, for example) has, for the most part, left the Console ecosystem for Tablet and Mobile.

So Publishers aren't doubling down on that Core so much as they're de-emphasizing Console development altogether. Retail, disc based Console game release counts have been in sharp decline since the market peak in 2009-11. 32% fewer releases came to market in the launch of the current cycle versus the previous one.

And publishers are doing so because the risk/reward ratio in Console development is becoming more challenging while other investment paths (ie Mobile) have less cost, with a lower % chance of success, but a higher reward if success happens. Diversification is the new normal.

The big games being created for the Core Console market are more homogeneous because of the risks in Console development, the costs, which has led to a dwindling release count. Far fewer risks are being taken in the Console space because the risk/reward ratio of that development is not attractive.

So creativity in the Core Console space isn't dwindling because of a doubling down, it's dwindling because companies are choosing to not participate on Console as much and are instead choosing to diversify their development investments.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Bayonetta is an interesting game. I was initially put off by the over sexuality of her character design, but then I remember reading an article going into detail about her design, by a feminist, that talked about how Bayonetta is actually a positive image for women in videogames. I can't find the specific blog post anymore, but interestingly when I searched for it I did find an old GamePro article where even Leigh Alexander says "I already know that women can do all the same things men can. This time, I get to see a woman do plenty of things men can't. And I love it. " (The article isn't available on GamePro anymore from what I can see).

This opinion, from feminists, got me to reconsider the fact that maybe I was just a prude and that I should try the game. I have since decided to try it when it comes out on Wii U later this month. Is this now something I should reconsider? This whole thing has me realize I'm still very confused and don't really have a clear perspective on anything going on.

I never played Bayonetta 1. Partially because I thought the fanservice stuff looked silly, but more importantly just because it wasn't a game on my radar at all. However, my interest was piqued when I found out Bayo 2 would include the first. Further, I've conversed with several people that echo the sentiment that you and I (appear to) share, but assure me that it works within the context of the game. So if I can find the time this fall between the two versions of Smash and everything else this fall, I plan on checking it out.

 

[More_Badass]

They are calling for a boycott of Blizzard on that page. So I think to myself... gee... it MUST be because of the Gamespot stuff.

But no. It's because Blizzard advertise on Kotaku and 'Kotaku attacks their customers'.

I'm sure that some of Blizzard's customers are misogynists... but somehow I don't think it's a segment of the market that they're going to directly worry about upsetting.



I'm not even saying I think Bayonetta's character design should be changed. Just that less shots that focus on her crotch would probably do nothing to hurt the appeal of the game.

Talk about selective reading comprehension

Excepts from emails people sent

Which in turn refers to gamers as: "These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers"

I am a liberal man who has been raised to respect all genders, races and sexual orientations equally. Never judge someone on how they're born but instead on how they behave. I have always kept myself to that. With that, these baseless attacks cut deep and as a result I have decided to discontinue visiting or supporting any and all of these websites.

. As I'm also you're aware these publications are smearing gamers with labels like "misogynists", "racist", "neckbeard pissbabies" and a whole host of far worse names.

In the space of a few hours 11 different sites "didn't collude" but did somehow coincidentally manage to publish hit pieces on gamers all with the exact same message. Imagine if I as a parent saw that as my first intro to gaming culture I would never have risked exposing my daughter to the hate, ignorance and abuse that is apparently endemic in the gaming culture. I hope these journalists, with their histrionics, vitriol and abuse do not scare off any other prospective players or gaming will have lost.

Man, people get hung up on one phrase, one sentence, without considering the whole content of the piece.

 

[NoCryingUntilTheEnd]

I'm not even saying I think Bayonetta's character design should be changed. Just that less shots that focus on her crotch would probably do nothing to hurt the appeal of the game.

I don't think it would make me too less interested in the game to hear that there are less crotch shots, but I'm sure I'd notice the lack of crotch shots during the game and feel as if the game overall is lacking in comparison to the first. Those crotch shots were humorously sexy in a great way.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

If I may, I'd like to tweak that slightly.

Game companies, across all gaming mediums, are trying to appeal to all kinds of customers, more than they ever have before. However, they're doing so by broadening away from traditional Console/HH/PC development by branching into Mobile, F2P and Web.

So, we have to separate, as you state, the "core" from the "mass".

The Console audience, after a period in the last cycle of great demographic expansion, has returned this gen to being predominantly male and leaning younger (although older than in the past). The more mass audience (that bought Wiis, for example) has, for the most part, left the Console ecosystem for Tablet and Mobile.

So Publishers aren't doubling down on that Core so much as they're de-emphasizing Console development altogether. Retail, disc based Console game release counts have been in sharp decline since the market peak in 2009-11. 32% fewer releases came to market in the launch of the current cycle versus the previous one.

And publishers are doing so because the risk/reward ratio in Console development is becoming more challenging while other investment paths (ie Mobile) have less cost, with a lower % chance of success, but a higher reward if success happens. Diversification is the new normal.

The big games being created for the Core Console market are more homogeneous because of the risks in Console development, the costs, which has led to a dwindling release count. Far fewer risks are being taken in the Console space because the risk/reward ratio of that development is not attractive.

So creativity in the Core Console space isn't dwindling because of a doubling down, it's dwindling because companies are choosing to not participate on Console as much and are instead choosing to diversify their development investments.

Good insight. I'll happily defer to you here. For the purposes of this conversation, I was shying away from acknowledging the growth in mobile/social development not because I don't think they count as "real" games or anything silly like that, but because it certainly complicates the analysis of assessing how diverse gaming is.

 

[plagiarize]

Talk about selective reading comprehension

Excepts from emails people sent

Edit: I think I totally misunderstood you. Disregard.