Support NeoGAF

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Given the number of folks who want to write about games despite the horrible pay and conditions, it just opens a spot for someone else very talented.
That's the way it is in my line of work (for now, I might be laid off soon)

That said, I need to make it clear I am not wishing ill on anyone who quits- but there are plenty of motivated folks ready and able to take their places. Or it might be more opportunities for the remaining ones to have a more sustainable lifestyle.

That's an unfortunate and short-sighted opinion.

 

[Nexas]

There's nothing wrong as long as they're transparent. It's no different than when giant bomb refused to review super giant games. They recused themselves because they were impartial. If a writer supports a dev, then writes about it, just be transparents

I'm not saying transparency isn't a good thing, but people shouldn't be shocked that journalists would have nice things to say about someone they backed on Patreon. They wouldn't back them in the first place if they didn't like what they are doing. And again, this pales in comparison to how the large publishers try to blatantly manipulate the press with expensive trips, free swag, and threats of cutting off add support for sites that post negative reviews.

Speaking of those shitty practices, I really have to wonder why these companies keep doing them. I have heard numerous people in the press complain about having to fly all the way out to Hawaii just to spend two days in a hotel looking at games. Everyone seems to think that swag is stupid. And except for the Gerstmann incident, I've never heard of a site give in to that kind of pressure. If these things are not actually working, then why do these companies keep doing them? Is it just PR running wild with marketing budgets?

 

[Span]

It seems awfully hypocritical to care so much about chilling effects on your speech, without even mentioning the chilling effect all the harassment has had on Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Fish.

You're being myopic. I'm asking for an actual discussion on both sides.

 

[Exploratory]

Even taking the games journalism ethics concerns at face value, I don't really get it. Like, these worries that the gaming press is too close to publishers seem bizarre to me...

snip

I was in bed posting from my tablet (its 1:30 am and I have tomorrow mind you) and while I was crafting a response I realized I had to get to an actual keyboard so I could probably articulate what I want to say.

Lets tackle this one at a time.

So, games journalism. So, games journalism. What is it that consumers of games journalism want out of it, and what is the harm of games journalists being really chummy with publishers or developers? I'm probably not a typical consumer of games journalism. I mostly don't make any effort to keep abreast of goings-on, except around E3. But speaking of E3, what really stood out to me (and most of the rest of this forum, I gather) is how much better coverage of Nintendo's stuff was than coverage of anything else. Of course, Nintendo was providing that coverage themselves. Treehouse was basically hours and hours of Nintendo advertisements, right? And it was easily the best coverage of E3.

I guess it seems to me that mostly what consumers of games journalism want is any information about games they're looking forward to. And so access is king. In-house, publisher-funded journalism is actually best, generalizing from a sample size of one. Consumers want video of games being played, and the journalist's opinions, honest or not, are less and less important the more gamers can just see the games (I want to say I remember a Treehouse game where the players were heaping praise on it but it looked just terrible - this was still very useful to me as someone wanting to know about games). The value of games journalism is its ability to get the makers of games to willingly reveal things before they otherwise would, by wheedling or offering publicity, etc. It is a little hard to go about doing this in an ethically compromised way.
I'm probably not a typical consumer of games journalism. I mostly don't make any effort to keep abreast of goings-on, except around E3. But speaking of E3, what really stood out to me (and most of the rest of this forum, I gather) is how much better coverage of Nintendo's stuff was than coverage of anything else. Of course, Nintendo was providing that coverage themselves. Treehouse was basically hours and hours of Nintendo advertisements, right? And it was easily the best coverage of E3.

I guess it seems to me that mostly what consumers of games journalism want is any information about games they're looking forward to. And so access is king. In-house, publisher-funded journalism is actually best, generalizing from a sample size of one. Consumers want video of games being played, and the journalist's opinions, honest or not, are less and less important the more gamers can just see the games (I want to say I remember a Treehouse game where the players were heaping praise on it but it looked just terrible - this was still very useful to me as someone wanting to know about games). The value of games journalism is its ability to get the makers of games to willingly reveal things before they otherwise would, by wheedling or offering publicity, etc. It is a little hard to go about doing this in an ethically compromised way.

Okay I obviously cannot speak for gamers everywhere and neither can anyone else but I think its fair to say most gamers want:

1. Breaking news about games.
2. Investigative reporting about games. Finding out what a publisher or developer may not necessarily want you to know.
3. Honest opinions about games before release.
4. Unbiased reporting.

There's more but lets just focus on that. "So, games journalism. So, games journalism. What is it that consumers of games journalism want out of it, and what is the harm of games journalists being really chummy with publishers or developers?"

Well being cozy with the people you're covering creates inherent bias. Are you going to be as likely to properly report on a game pre release if you're good friends with the developer you're reporting on? Everyone knows its far harder to ask hard hitting questions that might negatively impact the person being asked if that person is a good friend. I wouldn't want a friend of mine to lose out on a bonus or their job because I asked a question that some suit somewhere didn't want answered. I've seen game journalists mention this when the idea of metacritic and review score bonuses come up.

I wholeheartedly reject that the Treehouse method is the best method for receiving information on games. Many loved Treehouse but I think we need to wait until we've had a few E3s go by before we crown it as the best method of receiving info on games. What if in next years E3 a game is presented a certain way but 2 years later a game is released and we find out that some glaring flaw was omitted. Sure we don't have anyone asking questions of executives during press conferences, and on that front Treehouse may in fact be superior from a presentation standpoint, but we don't get as much access to the developers with the Treehouse style. I just think its too early to say that the Treehouse method of disseminating information is best. On another note Treehouse is all about gameplay which is great but many games aren't ready to have that much gameplay shown at E3 so it's not even a feasible method. I'm getting off topic though.

In fairness, there are two other things people care about. There are review scores, which, come on. No one needs to use those to decide if they're going to buy a game anymore, now that you can just watch the game being played and can within hours of release read lots of unfiltered impressions from actual gamers. Review scores are also really easy to keep track of (there are websites that do nothing but that) such that if an outlet is consistently bad at assigning review scores (however you want to determine badness) it's very easy to spot that and stop paying attention to their reviews. So it seems like it's going to be hard for corruption to manifest in a really problematic way.

Again I disagree with this. There are two reasons. The first is that watching a game being played can ruin an element of the game for me and I'm sure many others. This isn't a viable option. More importantly watching a stream doesn't properly convey how a game feels. Games aren't movies and you can miss a lot by just watching someone play the game.

The second far more important reason is that I need to know that the source of these "unfiltered" impressions is reliable. I'm sorry but YouTubers aren't reliable. Neither is GAF. I used to think they were but they both have their own problems. First YouTubers, streamers, etc have the same issues game journalism have. In fact its even worse because they aren't beholden to any sort of set of rules. Is the person I'm watching being paid to stream this game? Does YouTuber X really like developer Y so in reality their excitement isn't totally earned? It's exact same problems people having games journalism but even worse. They're beholden to no one but themselves. You could say "well find a YouTuber you like and stick with them". I can do that but then what's the difference between this person and a game journalist? A title? A platform? They're largely the same thing.

GAF is often unreliable because...shit that's a rabbit hole I don't want to even delve into. GAF can be reliable but I have no idea if the person who loves X game is sincere. That person could be being paid to shill for that game. Even WORSE that person could be an honest to god fanboy/girl who is seeing everything through the glasses provided to him or her by their chosen console manufacturer or favorite developer. I could take GAF's opinion as a whole then right? Also wrong. GAF is a segment of the gaming community and doesn't represent the whole. I don't like Dark Souls but that's the holy grail of GAF gaming. Multiple times a game I've been interested in hasn't gotten much love from GAF and if it does its not nearly enough for me to take these opinions as anything but musings of fans.

That's really the issue. If you purchased a game there was something you decided you liked enough to spend money on it for. That inherently sullies your opinion. Even worse how often do gamers get blinded by the marketing machine only to RTTP later and realize that really the game they played at release wasn't very good. Game journalists, hopefully, don't have these issues.

Now I know you said review scores, and not just "opinions" or "reviews" but they're the same thing at the end of the day for most people. The review score is just a summary (or it should be) of the written or spoken review. If a game journo has a bias then they cannot properly review or score a game.

I guess I feel like a lot of people are assuming that games journalism needs to work exactly the same way as hard-hitting investigative political reporting, say, without really thinking about what it is they want out of games journalism. Honestly, I suspect relatively few people who pay attention to games journalism would even bother to click on a story that really was the result of a lot of investigative work into something a publisher didn't want revealed (this would probably be boring and financial). But that's the sort of reporting the kinds of ethical standards being talked about are meant to support.

I know exactly what I want out of games journalism. I want truth without bias that serves the gaming community.

I know most people won't read all that but I did want to explain my reasoning. I also want to make clear I DON'T think game journalists are on the take or something. I do think there is value in discussing games journalism as a whole and the ways it can be improved. I hope I didn't come off as too aggressive. I apologize in advance for all the spelling and grammar issues. Its late...

Thanks for posting that by the way this is why I come to GAF for stuff like this.

 

[Objectively Bad Opinion]

It seems awfully hypocritical to care so much about chilling effects on your speech, without even mentioning the chilling effect all the harassment has had on Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Fish.

Concern trolling?

 

[Corpekata]

Brad Wardell from Stardock was basically slandered by Zoe.

How exactly is this slander? They're having a heated conversation. That's about it.

 

[Dragonborn]

That's an unfortunate and short-sighted opinion.

Why though? Honestly I kind of feel like some in the press give themselves too much self importance and and want to feel high and mighty looking down on the gaming audiance. When, in fact, they can easily and quickly be replaced. The press may have mattered at some point but it's time they start adjusting to new age. They're just not really important anymore. Info comes way faster through direct methods, user impressions are far better, LPers provide more insight, and heck, leaks and stuff like that regukarily break out on forums like GAF rather than industry scoops.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Why though? Honestly I kind of feel like some in the press give themselves too much self importance and and want to feel high and mighty looking down on the gaming audiance. When, in fact, they can easily and quickly be replaced. The press may have mattered at some point but it's time they start adjusting to new age. They're just not really important anymore. Info comes way faster through direct methods, user impressions are far better, LPers provide more insight, and heck, leaks and stuff like that regukarily break out on forums like GAF rather than industry scoops.

Well, for one thing, I was talking about the industry as a whole, not just journalists. Plenty of devs have been adversely affected as well.

Your post and the one I was replying to just show a lot of bile

 

[Span]

Speaking of those shitty practices, I really have to wonder why these companies keep doing them. I have heard numerous people in the press complain about having to fly all the way out to Hawaii just to spend two days in a hotel looking at games. Everyone seems to think that swag is stupid. And except for the Gerstmann incident, I've never heard of a site give in to that kind of pressure. If these things are not actually working, then why do these companies keep doing them? Is it just PR running wild with marketing budgets?

The podcast EGM Live, Dan Shu was on once talking about crazy Sony events. In the midst of that conversation, he talked about having his writers pay for their own flight and keeping a general standard of ethics. It's a good listen, plus it made me foolishly expect more from writers I guess.

 

[Span]

How exactly is this slander? They're having a heated conversation. That's about it.

What she accused him of was proven false in court.

 

[Corpekata]

What she accused him of was proven false in court.

She linked the article. Fairly certain we've had threads on that topic. Are people that doubted him in that thread slandering him too?

 

[Dragonborn]

Well, for one thing, I was talking about the industry as a whole, not just journalists. Plenty of devs have been adversely affected as well.

Your post and the one I was replying too just show a lot of bile

I don't see how it's bile, it's the way I view things. And honestly, am I wrong? Game journalism is increasingly becoming irrlevant. Only those "journalists" with good followings will be able to go one doing what they do (and it would help if they stopped insulting their fans).

As for devs leaving the industry, as far as I know it's only Phil Fishe, no? And I've no doubt he'll be back

 

[Tetsuo9]

In fairness, there are two other things people care about. There are review scores, which, come on. No one needs to use those to decide if they're going to buy a game anymore, now that you can just watch the game being played and can within hours of release read lots of unfiltered impressions from actual gamers. Review scores are also really easy to keep track of (there are websites that do nothing but that) such that if an outlet is consistently bad at assigning review scores (however you want to determine badness) it's very easy to spot that and stop paying attention to their reviews. So it seems like it's going to be hard for corruption to manifest in a really problematic way.

I know plenty of people that before buying any game they check the metacritic scores. These people will not use any kind of filtered version. People just open the steam store page and there it is the metacritic score, if its more than 80 then deal, game sold.

Aggregators claim that they review the websites on a yearly basis, they claim to be constantly looking for high quality websites to join their "elite group".

Let me tell you about a proud member of that select group. Meristation. That publication has been a laughing stock for the hispanic community since the PS era, constantly making factual errors, using amateur writers and so on. Rumours about just inflating scores are nothing new. And there they sit in metacritic, 2.1 points higher than other publications on average. Do you want evidence?, I have none. I just have my distrust. And as little as it can be, they are influencing what games sells, what franchises will get a sequel and what studios will end.

 

[Bizzity]

This may not be a good idea, but I just wanted to post my thoughts about the 'issue'.

Personally, I have no problem with opinion pieces, editorials, and 'journalists' posting 'reviews' of games. (Read or ignore the quotation marks as per your opinion on the matter.) I believe that there is a valid market for those pieces to be expressed. I believe some people like a particular journalist or a particular 'publication' site. If these people only like these sites when they agree with them, then maybe they should look elsewhere. That said, I do think there is room for a small, gradual movement in the gaming industries journalistic space.

While, I don't take exceptional issue with problems at hand, I do understand the complaints. I would, personally, be much more interested in an actual unaffiliated review of a game. I would also be interested in true criticism of a game, including it's story, themes, story-telling techniques, immersion, etc. I would like to see journalists that report the facts, reviewers give an unbiased review, and critics actually try to over-analyze a game. However, I think it's on the consumers to allow this type of shift to occur. Crying that we want the current games 'media' to adhere to rules is asking a carnivorous dinosaur to suddenly start eating spinach. If you don't like what these sites are doing then avoid them. Give your clicks to actual news, without opinion, or to unbiased critics. Well, when you find them anyway.

 

[faceless007]

What she accused him of was proven false in court.

No, it wasn't, both parties agreed to settle their lawsuits outside of court. That is neither an admission of guilt nor innocence.

 

[Green Card]

I'd say if the bolded is a huge problem, you probably need to look at how much of your self-identity is wrapped up in a product.

I enjoy James Bond a great deal. I have the entire series on Blu-Ray. This doesn't stop me from acknowledging that the franchise is deeply sexist and racist at times. I still enjoy it. It's condemnation on those grounds doesn't make me less of a person.

I don't think he needs you coming in and telling him what he should base his self-identity on. I for one don't think there is anything wrong with being passionate about your hobby and being offended when people make sweeping generalizations about you for it. And for that matter I don't think there is anything trending calling people who like James Bond sexist degenerates so I don't think that example is very good. I would say most gamers would concede games can be sexist and racist and definitely have a long way to go in both of those regards.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Why though? Honestly I kind of feel like some in the press give themselves too much self importance and and want to feel high and mighty looking down on the gaming audiance. When, in fact, they can easily and quickly be replaced. The press may have mattered at some point but it's time they start adjusting to new age. They're just not really important anymore. Info comes way faster through direct methods, user impressions are far better, LPers provide more insight, and heck, leaks and stuff like that regukarily break out on forums like GAF rather than industry scoops.

How do you square the "game sites" are dying meme with the fact that Kotaku, Polygon, (according to jschrier earlier in this thread) and if I had to guess, IGN's numbers are probably up year-over-year?

Yeah, lots of people are looking at Youtube. But, I bet for a lot of people, YT is something they go to in addition to IGN/Gamespot/Kotaku/etc.

If these things are not actually working, then why do these companies keep doing them? Is it just PR running wild with marketing budgets?

Bluntly, PR people want company paid trips to Europe, Hawaii, and the like. Remember, the games press comes in, do their thing, and so on. The PR people likely have to get their a day or two early to "set up", then leave a day late to "finish everything up."

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't think he needs you coming in and telling him what he should base his self-identity on. I for one don't think there is anything wrong with being passionate about your hobby and being offended when people make sweeping generalizations about you for it.

No one said that. He said quite specifically:

You judge things I like, and by extension you judge me as a human being because I like those things

Which is purely his own view of the situation. He did not say "You judge me."

And for that matter I don't think there is anything trending calling people who like James Bond sexist degenerates so I don't think that example is very good. I would say most gamers would concede games can be sexist and racist and definitely have a long way to go in both of those regards.

That's distinctly outside of what he said. That is a direct judgement of a person.

Going from what he said: Someone says "James Bond is sexist at times," then he personally turns that into "You called me a sexist degenerate." The latter is a statement that was not made; instead it was manufactured wholly in the mind of the fan. If his self-identity is tied up enough that statements that aren't being said are made manifest, I'd call that a problem.

 

[unbias]

How do you square the "game sites" are dying meme with the fact that Kotaku, Polygon, (according to jschrier earlier in this thread) and if I had to guess, IGN's numbers are probably up year-over-year?

Yeah, lots of people are looking at Youtube. But, I bet for a lot of people, YT is something they go to in addition to IGN/Gamespot/Kotaku/etc.

Well, the market consolidated last year or so, quite a bit with layoffs and sites closing down. Although I doubt gawker media will go anywhere, if you are going of last year that was either a blip or a trend to contraction. IGN and gamespot had layoffs last year I believe, then you had 1up shut down, gametrailers has had layoffs as well. I'm assuming viewers migrated and what not. I dont think the "traditional" new game media is a growing one, is it? If it is growing that's good to know.

 

[Dragonborn]

How do you square the "game sites" are dying meme with the fact that Kotaku, Polygon, (according to jschrier earlier in this thread) and if I had to guess, IGN's numbers are probably up year-over-year?

Yeah, lots of people are looking at Youtube. But, I bet for a lot of people, YT is something they go to in addition to IGN/Gamespot/Kotaku/etc.



Bluntly, PR people want company paid trips to Europe, Hawaii, and the like. Remember, the games press comes in, do their thing, and so on. The PR people likely have to get their a day or two early to "set up", then leave a day late to "finish everything up."

I didn't say game sites are dying though (they will shrino though). I said the press in general is growing irrlevant. Big sites like IGN will weather the storm, they're too big to just go out of business. I'm speaking more about the field of journalism in gaming in general, if that makes any sense. For example, I haven't read a review in well over a year. I do look at the scores and metacritic threads but that's mostly just for fun, it's irrelevant to my purchase decisions

 

[Green Card]

No one said that. He said quite specifically:

Which is purely his own view of the situation. He did not say "You judge me."

That's distinctly outside of what he said. That is a direct judgement of a person.

Going from what he said: Someone says "James Bond is sexist at times," then he personally turns that into "You called me a sexist degenerate." The latter is a statement that was not made; instead it was manufactured wholly in the mind of the fan. If his self-identity is tied up enough that statements that aren't being said are made manifest, I'd call that a problem.

Okay I read that a bit differently then and maybe I was mistaken. When I read

You judge things I like, and by extension you judge me as a human being because I like those things

I thought he was referring to explicit statements made by people and not something he manufactured. What I had in mind was something like describeagamerin4words and not reading into a comment like James Bond is sexist at times to You called me a sexist degenerate.

 

[Visceir]

I enjoy James Bond a great deal. I have the entire series on Blu-Ray. This doesn't stop me from acknowledging that the franchise is deeply sexist and racist at times. I still enjoy it. It's condemnation on those grounds doesn't make me less of a person.

Are you looking forward to the next James Bond movies? What if someone came in and tried to change most things you enjoy about those movies to make them "more inclusive", to the point you wouldn't care about watching them anymore, would you be ok with that?

"As I said above, instead of trying to find and develop a new space, they rile against current games."

 

[City of Dis]

This is the first time I've seen this comment being made, and I really do believe that it's at the heart of the initial reaction to Zoe Quinn, which kickstarted this sordid drama.

I'm sure resentment always plays a part to some people when confronted with a sexually promiscuous woman. "She's only fucking those men to get good reviews." It's sexual entitlement as well as resentment that they don't have a sexual partner. "Why should she be fucking them and not me?".

This is the closest I've ever seen someone come to the heart of the issue at hand as I identify it, though I find your view that "sexual entitlement" as the source for all this vitriol to lack nuance. Not to say that it isn't correct (it is), but it's missing the comprehensive assessment necessary to make total sense of online misogyny and online harassment toward women.

I think part of the reason why this (and I'll get to exactly what "this" is soon) goes completely unaddressed is because - and I must stress that I say this as a feminist - women cannot empathize with the emotional fuel that drives these trolls to do what they do.

It is a fact, one barely acknowledged, that there exists a sizable portion of the young adult heterosexual male population who go perennially or perpetually without sexual intimacy. They are involuntarily celibate. They receive no positive attention from the opposite sex. Their life is without dating and sex, when they are told that these activities are not only normal, but expected, to people of their age. They are lonely, they are miserable, and they are hurt. I'm sure everyone reading this post can think of a few men in their lives who fit this description, if they don't themselves. I disagree that their state of mind can be properly described as "sexually entitled." I would argue that such a description is insulting.

4chan's /v/ has a community much like any other gaming forum; its populated by the same type of guy who would describe himself as a "gamer." What makes /v/ unique - and all of 4chan for that matter - is that every user is by default protected under the auspices of anonymity, and that nothing he ever says can be linked to his identity or the reputation thereof. There you can easily find posts from anonymous users lamenting the paucity or absence of a romantic or sex life.

But these young men have video games. It is a male space. It is medication from the pain that consumes their lives. It is one of the few things they have that is curtailed specially toward them, something that makes them feel empowered and in control. (And I think that this is a very, very bad thing.) So when someone like Anita Sarkeesian comes along, the results should be obvious. She says that feminine tropes in video games are shameful, when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame. She says that men are privileged in society, when these men feel anything but the sort. She says that women are troublingly represented in video games, when these men feel like video games are one of, if not the only, things in life they truly own.

They see an encroachment in what is supposed to be a safe space by the very entity that brings them unrelenting pain. And so they lash out. They lash out with misogynistic, hyper-sexualized vitriol. They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the male suicide rate has quadrupled since the advent of the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the incidence of mass shootings has steadily increased over the same period, nor that virtually all of them are perpetrated by lonely young men. And I don't think it's a coincidence that outspoken women, and especially feminists, experience a greater deluge of online harassment than people of any other hot button issue.

At least people seem to be aware of this last point. They recognize that feminist rhetoric riles up the internet hate machine like nothing else. But this is where the understanding stops. Their conclusion is "these men hate women," and don't go any further. Chalking it up plainly to "misogyny" is selling the issue very dangerously short.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I know exactly what I want out of games journalism. I want truth without bias that serves the gaming community.

I think you want something that just isn't possible, man. You recognize yourself that pretty much everyone is biased in some way when they give their opinion. And that's all a review is, an opinion of one person. No one can express an opinion completely devoid of bias. If they did, they would only be reporting objective facts. And the worth of a game is not an objective fact.

To the extent unbiased reporting is possible, I think you've got plenty of it. It's just that not that many interesting things happen without getting into subjective opinions. So all that's left is "this game will be released on this date for $60 and it will support split screen co op."

 

[CLEEK]

I mulled over what term to use. Sexual entitlement fitted, but I agree with your critique of its usage.

 

[MHWilliams]

Are you looking forward to the next James Bond movies? What if someone came in and tried to change most things you enjoy about those movies to make them "more inclusive", to the point you wouldn't care about watching them anymore, would you be ok with that?

"As I said above, instead of trying to find and develop a new space, they rile against current games."

Would I be okay with it? Sure. What do you think Casino Royale was? Or Skyfall? Q is young and Moneypenny is black! If Q was gay, so what? Worst-case scenario, someone else would fill the void or the unsuccessful James Bond would eventually be reverted. Play around with the concept. Twist it, turn it. All in the name of exploring " why?"

I'm a lifetime comic reader. I watch Kamen Rider and Gundam. My entertainment is a long line of adaptations and evolutions. Change is. I rile against my entertainment myself. I want it to get better.

Okay I read that a bit differently then and maybe I was mistaken. When I read
I thought he was referring to explicit statements made by people and not something he manufactured. What I had in mind was something like describeagamerin4words and not reading into a comment like James Bond is sexist at times to You called me a sexist degenerate.

It's all good.

 

[antigoon]

What's even the point of games writing without bias? That sounds boring as hell. I don't want to read consumer reports. I *like* when games writing is obviously influenced by the writer's experiences and outlook.

 

[jabuseika]

This is the closest I've ever seen someone come to the heart of the issue at hand as I identify it, though I find your view that "sexual entitlement" as the source for all this vitriol to lack nuance. Not to say that it isn't correct (it is), but it's missing the comprehensive assessment necessary to make total sense of online misogyny and online harassment toward women.

I think part of the reason why this (and I'll get to exactly what "this" is soon) goes completely unaddressed is because - and I must stress that I say this as a feminist - women cannot empathize with the emotional fuel that drives these trolls to do what they do.

It is a fact, one barely acknowledged, that there exists a sizable portion of the young adult heterosexual male population who go perennially or perpetually without sexual intimacy. They are involuntarily celibate. They receive no positive attention from the opposite sex. Their life is without dating and sex, when they are told that these activities are not only normal, but expected, to people of their age. They are lonely, they are miserable, and they are hurt. I'm sure everyone reading this post can think of a few men in their lives who fit this description, if they don't themselves. I disagree that their state of mind can be properly described as "sexually entitled." I would argue that such a description is insulting.

4chan's /v/ has a community much like any other gaming forum; its populated by the same type of guy who would describe himself as a "gamer." What makes /v/ unique - and all of 4chan for that matter - is that every user is by default protected under the auspices of anonymity, and that nothing he ever says can be linked to his identity or the reputation thereof. There you can easily find posts from anonymous users lamenting the paucity or absence of a romantic or sex life.

But these young men have video games. It is a male space. It is medication from the pain that consumes their lives. It is one of the few things they have that is curtailed specially toward them, something that makes them feel empowered and in control. (And I think that this is a very, very bad thing.) So when someone like Anita Sarkeesian comes along, the results should be obvious. She says that feminine tropes in video games are shameful, when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame. She says that men are privileged in society, when these men feel anything but the sort. She says that women are troublingly represented in video games, when these men feel like video games are one of, if not the only, things in life they truly own.

They see an encroachment in what is supposed to be a safe space by the very entity that brings them unrelenting pain. And so they lash out. They lash out with misogynistic, hyper-sexualized vitriol. They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the male suicide rate has quadrupled since the advent of the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the incidence of mass shootings has steadily increased over the same period, nor that virtually all of them are perpetrated by lonely young men. And I don't think it's a coincidence that outspoken women, and especially feminists, experience a greater deluge of online harassment than people of any other hot button issue.

At least people seem to be aware of this last point. They recognize that feminist rhetoric riles up the internet hate machine like nothing else. But this is where the understanding stops. Their conclusion is "these men hate women," and don't go any further. Chalking it up plainly to "misogyny" is selling the issue very dangerously short.

Wow...

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Well, the market consolidated last year or so, quite a bit with layoffs and sites closing down. Although I doubt gawker media will go anywhere, if you are going of last year that was either a blip or a trend to contraction. IGN and gamespot had layoffs last year I believe, then you had 1up shut down, gametrailers has had layoffs as well. I'm assuming viewers migrated and what not. I dont think the "traditional" new game media is a growing one, is it? If it is growing that's good to know.

I never read IGN or 1-up much after I was out of high school, but they always seemed more "traditional" than Kotaku. If Kotaku is doing well while IGN Gamespot and 1-up aren't, wouldn't that mean that gamers actually find objective reporting and reviews boring?

 

[call_kotaku]

It's sort of strange to care so much about the integrity of gaming press when so much of the audience is moving to youtube where there is no standard of ethics whatsoever, and I'm not convinced that people's gripes are legitimately with a lack of journalistic rigorousness from the press, nor do I think that transparency will alleviate any of the problems these activists actually have. If anything, the fragmentation of the gaming consumer base is more destructive to wide-reaching gaming press than the "gamer identity" because people are moving to more specialized sources for their coverage, or getting info directly from company PR.

Transparency and ethics for gaming journalism in this context are like thick socks: they're nice to have and I wouldn't disagree with having more of it, but if you say you want socks for Christmas I'd think you were a crazy person. Having a massive twitter war over press ethics for, let's admit it, a very frivolous topic is a very disproportionate reaction. If anything, the ME3/DmC/XB1/Resolutiongate scandals have shown that the press is sometimes disconnected from the consumer base (or atleast the consumers that are active in discussing their hobby) because they spend more time interacting with each other and with publishers/devs than they do with their audience, and no amount of transparency will change that.

 

[Exploratory]

I think you want something that just isn't possible, man. You recognize yourself that pretty much everyone is biased in some way when they give their opinion. And that's all a review is, an opinion of one person. No one can express an opinion completely devoid of bias. If they did, they would only be reporting objective facts. And the worth of a game is not an objective fact.

To the extent unbiased reporting is possible, I think you've got plenty of it. It's just that not that many interesting things happen without getting into subjective opinions. So all that's left is "this game will be released on this date for $60 and it will support split screen co op."

Its not like I don't want opinion. I just don't want opinion influenced by being cozy with developers.

 

[antigoon]

This is the closest I've ever seen someone come to the heart of the issue at hand as I identify it, though I find your view that "sexual entitlement" as the source for all this vitriol to lack nuance. Not to say that it isn't correct (it is), but it's missing the comprehensive assessment necessary to make total sense of online misogyny and online harassment toward women.

I think part of the reason why this (and I'll get to exactly what "this" is soon) goes completely unaddressed is because - and I must stress that I say this as a feminist - women cannot empathize with the emotional fuel that drives these trolls to do what they do.

It is a fact, one barely acknowledged, that there exists a sizable portion of the young adult heterosexual male population who go perennially or perpetually without sexual intimacy. They are involuntarily celibate. They receive no positive attention from the opposite sex. Their life is without dating and sex, when they are told that these activities are not only normal, but expected, to people of their age. They are lonely, they are miserable, and they are hurt. I'm sure everyone reading this post can think of a few men in their lives who fit this description, if they don't themselves. I disagree that their state of mind can be properly described as "sexually entitled." I would argue that such a description is insulting.

4chan's /v/ has a community much like any other gaming forum; its populated by the same type of guy who would describe himself as a "gamer." What makes /v/ unique - and all of 4chan for that matter - is that every user is by default protected under the auspices of anonymity, and that nothing he ever says can be linked to his identity or the reputation thereof. There you can easily find posts from anonymous users lamenting the paucity or absence of a romantic or sex life.

But these young men have video games. It is a male space. It is medication from the pain that consumes their lives. It is one of the few things they have that is curtailed specially toward them, something that makes them feel empowered and in control. (And I think that this is a very, very bad thing.) So when someone like Anita Sarkeesian comes along, the results should be obvious. She says that feminine tropes in video games are shameful, when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame. She says that men are privileged in society, when these men feel anything but the sort. She says that women are troublingly represented in video games, when these men feel like video games are one of, if not the only, things in life they truly own.

They see an encroachment in what is supposed to be a safe space by the very entity that brings them unrelenting pain. And so they lash out. They lash out with misogynistic, hyper-sexualized vitriol. They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the male suicide rate has quadrupled since the advent of the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the incidence of mass shootings has steadily increased over the same period, nor that virtually all of them are perpetrated by lonely young men. And I don't think it's a coincidence that outspoken women, and especially feminists, experience a greater deluge of online harassment than people of any other hot button issue.

At least people seem to be aware of this last point. They recognize that feminist rhetoric riles up the internet hate machine like nothing else. But this is where the understanding stops. Their conclusion is "these men hate women," and don't go any further. Chalking it up plainly to "misogyny" is selling the issue very dangerously short.

Brilliant post. I think this gets to the root of the issue and it's something that has been touched upon in at least one article over at badass digest. Great stuff.

 

[Green Card]

snip

Well said.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Nevermind

 

[unbias]

I never read IGN or 1-up much after I was out of high school, but they always seemed more "traditional" than Kotaku. If Kotaku is doing well while IGN Gamespot and 1-up aren't, wouldn't that mean that gamers actually find objective reporting and reviews boring?

Probably? I mean, I dont know, I never followed IGN so I dont even know if they had objective reporting and all that stuff, I remember them getting a lot of hate but that is about it. I think youtube and twitch, alone, shows their was a stronger demand for something else. Although I consider both of them to be in the same vein. Only difference would be kotaku has a lot more buzz feed like stuff in it. Like I said though, Gawker Media probably isnt going anywhere. I think there will always be room for a handful of traditional game media, but I still think it will drift more into Giantbomb stuff if not twitch/youtube content.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Its not like I don't want opinion. I just don't want opinion influenced by being cozy with developers.

What makes bias stemming from a personal relationship worse than any other kind of bias?

 

[Ropaire]

This is the closest I've ever seen someone come to the heart of the issue at hand as I identify it, though I find your view that "sexual entitlement" as the source for all this vitriol to lack nuance. Not to say that it isn't correct (it is), but it's missing the comprehensive assessment necessary to make total sense of online misogyny and online harassment toward women.

I think part of the reason why this (and I'll get to exactly what "this" is soon) goes completely unaddressed is because - and I must stress that I say this as a feminist - women cannot empathize with the emotional fuel that drives these trolls to do what they do.

It is a fact, one barely acknowledged, that there exists a sizable portion of the young adult heterosexual male population who go perennially or perpetually without sexual intimacy. They are involuntarily celibate. They receive no positive attention from the opposite sex. Their life is without dating and sex, when they are told that these activities are not only normal, but expected, to people of their age. They are lonely, they are miserable, and they are hurt. I'm sure everyone reading this post can think of a few men in their lives who fit this description, if they don't themselves. I disagree that their state of mind can be properly described as "sexually entitled." I would argue that such a description is insulting.

4chan's /v/ has a community much like any other gaming forum; its populated by the same type of guy who would describe himself as a "gamer." What makes /v/ unique - and all of 4chan for that matter - is that every user is by default protected under the auspices of anonymity, and that nothing he ever says can be linked to his identity or the reputation thereof. There you can easily find posts from anonymous users lamenting the paucity or absence of a romantic or sex life.

But these young men have video games. It is a male space. It is medication from the pain that consumes their lives. It is one of the few things they have that is curtailed specially toward them, something that makes them feel empowered and in control. (And I think that this is a very, very bad thing.) So when someone like Anita Sarkeesian comes along, the results should be obvious. She says that feminine tropes in video games are shameful, when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame. She says that men are privileged in society, when these men feel anything but the sort. She says that women are troublingly represented in video games, when these men feel like video games are one of, if not the only, things in life they truly own.

They see an encroachment in what is supposed to be a safe space by the very entity that brings them unrelenting pain. And so they lash out. They lash out with misogynistic, hyper-sexualized vitriol. They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the male suicide rate has quadrupled since the advent of the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the incidence of mass shootings has steadily increased over the same period, nor that virtually all of them are perpetrated by lonely young men. And I don't think it's a coincidence that outspoken women, and especially feminists, experience a greater deluge of online harassment than people of any other hot button issue.

At least people seem to be aware of this last point. They recognize that feminist rhetoric riles up the internet hate machine like nothing else. But this is where the understanding stops. Their conclusion is "these men hate women," and don't go any further. Chalking it up plainly to "misogyny" is selling the issue very dangerously short.

Your point doesn't fall on deaf ears, but what would you call that, if not misogyny? Being threatened by feminine sexuality is not an invention of modern times - do you think sexism was a purely arbitrary hatred and oppression otherwise?

Attempting to establish an equal sense of victimization for the unloved inhabitants of 4chan is not a constructive platform. Articulating the thought process behind their harassment and abuse is one thing, but your post is very clearly written as a means to sympathize with and validate their actions.

 

[shootfast]

snip

I disagree on all those points, general sweeping assumptions made on stereotypes that no way reflect whom gamer's are. Just as bad as misogyny and bigotry in gaming.

 

[theSlacker]

snip

Screenshotted your post to read again at later times. Don't do that often on here. It is also something that isn't often articulated this well. The downside is that it offers no real solution, and can/will be seen by some as a way to excuse bad behaviors and actions, not just an explanation of them. An explanation does help some realize that people don't just wake up and decide to be a terrible person, but to most that is irrelevant.

 

[antigoon]

your post is very clearly written as a means to sympathize with and validate their actions.

I didn't really read it that way at all. I think it's important to identify the root causes of this particular brand of misogyny. Doing that isn't excusing the behavior.

 

[Objectively Bad Opinion]

.

While compelling, I don't think this is totally accurate. There are more than just boys behind gamergate.

Feelings of social alienation are universal and fit the post just as well, without (over and over and over again) pigeonholing gamers as sexually frustrated males.

 

[jgminto]

This is the closest I've ever seen someone come to the heart of the issue at hand as I identify it, though I find your view that "sexual entitlement" as the source for all this vitriol to lack nuance. Not to say that it isn't correct (it is), but it's missing the comprehensive assessment necessary to make total sense of online misogyny and online harassment toward women.

I think part of the reason why this (and I'll get to exactly what "this" is soon) goes completely unaddressed is because - and I must stress that I say this as a feminist - women cannot empathize with the emotional fuel that drives these trolls to do what they do.

At least people seem to be aware of this last point. They recognise that feminist rhetoric riles up the internet hate machine like nothing else. But this is where the understanding stops. Their conclusion is "these men hate women," and don't go any further. Chalking it up plainly to "misogyny" is selling the issue very dangerously short.

I think many people understand why they're aggressive. The thing is it isn't relevant. Women don't have any responsibility for the frustration of straight male gamers, it's on them. Their sexuality is their own responsibility and nobody else's. And I think the comment about women not understanding it is ridiculous. Any rational person isn't going to be able to empathise with a person that both reduces them to an object and hates them for simply existing at the same time.

 

[Myggen]

I disagree on all those points, general sweeping assumptions made on stereotypes that no way reflect whom gamer's are. Just as bad as misogyny and bigotry in gaming.

Of course it isn't. Even the worst stereotype of a gamer isn't as bad as misogyny or straight up bigotry, you're trivializing those things by even comparing them.

I'm not a fan of the "gamer" stereotypes even though I don't really care about it too much (call me a fucking nerd, I don't give a shit), but it's you've lost all perspective if you even compare that to misogyny and bigotry.

 

[unbias]

snip

My 4 years at Michigan Tech says loudly, no, whether that makes me right I dont know, but from my experiences that is not the case, at all. The worst offenders are most definitely not people who have not had sex... Not by a long shot from my experience. Besides that, most kids now have sex by the age of 18 I think, something like 70%. But beyond that, just...ya, hard to believe that the worst offenders are virgins who I went to school with.

I mean some of the stuff that went on in frat houses makes it really hard for me to believe that misogyny in a subset of people comes from not getting any. I dont know though, we all have different experiences, but I dunno, I'm not sure what or why your life experiences taught you that, but dorm life taught me different. It's so easy to get it anymore, I just find it so hard to believe that is the issue.

I most definitely dont think those of us who have or are sexually active are at any less risk of hating women(and I know plenty of guys who have sex who are sexist) simply because we are not virgins. I mean the hell man.

 

[call_kotaku]

involuntarily celibate is probably the most offensive term I've heard in the last year, from back during that UCSB shooting

 

[shootfast]

Of course it isn't. Even the worst stereotype of a gamer isn't as bad as misogyny or straight up bigotry, you're trivializing those things by even comparing them.

I'm not a fan of the "gamer" stereotypes even though I don't really care about it too much (call me a fucking nerd, I don't give a shit), but it's you've lost all perspective if you even compare that to misogyny and bigotry.

It is, as a recipient of racism this crap that is occurring to gamer's is exact same thing. if gamer's were a race this would out right racism what City of Dis wrote. Lets see "medication from the pain that consumes their lives" + "when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame" + "They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche". Replace gamers with skin colour of your choice.

 

[kittens]

Fundamental reading.

https://overland.org.au/2014/09/game-of-moans-the-death-throes-of-the-male-gamer/

 

[City of Dis]

Your point doesn't fall on deaf ears, but what would you call that, if not misogyny? Being threatened by feminine sexuality is not an invention of modern times - do you think sexism was a purely arbitrary hatred and oppression otherwise?

Attempting to establish an equal sense of victimization for the unloved inhabitants of 4chan is not a constructive platform. Articulating the thought process behind their harassment and abuse is one thing, but your post is very clearly written as a means to sympathize with and validate their actions.

I would call it misogyny. But misogyny is too broad a term to be useful in most contexts. The "misogyny" that fuels gamergate trolls is very different than the "misogyny" that motivates Pat Robertson to tell wives to be subservient to their husbands.

My post was a thesis on the underlying motivation, conscious or unconscious, of these trolls. That necessarily humanizes them. Attack my thesis all you want, but arguing that I mean to "establish an equal sense of victimization for the unloved inhabitants of 4chan" or "sympathize with and validate their actions" is a strawman.

 

[shootfast]

Fundamental reading.

https://overland.org.au/2014/09/game-of-moans-the-death-throes-of-the-male-gamer/

Just as this one is

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...sts_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html

 

[jgminto]

I think people are being facetious if they think that this is about everyone who plays video games or even everyone who identifies as "gamer". It's not, it's about a subset of gamers who are extremely abusive and exclusionary and feel gaming is something for them and them alone. Obviously not every single person who identifies as a republican is a racist, homophobic bigot either but there's a stigma attached because of a loud collection and key figures.