-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
#GamerGate thread 2: it's about feminism in games journalism
- Thread starter ModBot
- Start date
- Status
As a slight tangent, does anyone else feel that Gamergate behaviour taken a turn for the absurd ? It was terrible before, hateful stuff, it's still hateful stuff. But beyond that motivation, it was only irrational in order to justify that hatred and to brainwash people. Now, it's... even if I was a misogynist, racist and whatever, why would I think this would work? Why would I say this stuff?
A month ago it wouldn't even occur to me that this could be anything but a parody. If you told me that a Gamergater would pretend to be black in order to convince digital money proponents to join their causes, I'd ask you to tone it down.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
What a complete joke.
It's like hey guys, here's a chance to use some of that pent up ire and consumer power on an actual bigwig that is doing shady shit to push a game without proper critical filtering...but nope. They ain't about that life. I bet Ubi is one of the good guys because they stuck to their "artistic vision" and kept women out of AC multiplayer.
plagiarize
Banned
GamerGate peeps have told me on twitter more than once that they only care about what journalists are doing. They don't seem to want to criticize large game developers and publishers *at all* no matter what they do, even as they criticize the shit out of small indie games that don't fit their definition of what a game should be.
A game that was criticized for not including female playable characters is going to get a free pass from them. Hell, they're probably going to be ranting at game journalists in less than an hour for marking the game down for technical issues (and heaven forbid anyone bring up the lack of female playable characters in their reviews).
bodyofanamerican
Member
Wow! This...this could be interesting.
Intheflorsh
Banned
I think he deleted some tweets where he was complaining about the embargo.
I expect a minor shitstorm in a few minutes.
With customizable characters; I think that's the kicker.
There have been #notyourshield sock puppets from the beginning. This is just someone actually getting called out on it.
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
They just want an echo chamber.
plagiarize
Banned
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
So delusional.
And a community that will comprise primarily of self entitled white teenage assholes.
Was going to say since the last thing about it I could see on his Twitter was that he was reviewing it.
bodyofanamerican
Member
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
Just. Go.
Someone posted that "goodbye NeoGAF" thing yesterday. There were a lot of comments about wanting to create a new, Gamergate-controlled media there, too. It would be nice if Gators left for their own little world and left ours alone, but of course, that isn't how it's going to work.
Hi Galactic Fork, thanks for getting back and taking the time to reply. I think we're getting to a
My original claim was that the pervasiveness of the tropes was exaggerated in video games as a whole. I am on board with the tropes being potentially dangerous (though I disagree with the idea they are the creators social or moral responsibility). I'm not trying to tear down inclusiveness, I am just stating that one of the issues I had with the critiques is the claim that games without poor representations of women don't exist or are otherwise rare.
Perhaps the actual claim should be "Among games with a large focus on story/narrative, negative portrayals of women are pervasive" which might be closer to the truth. I'm not sure what you mean by counter productive. To me it doesn't feel counter productive to look and analyze tropes found in games to get a sense of how extensive they are. It doesn't make the tropes less harmful but I feel it's still important to get a broader perspective on the game industry.
I would disagree slightly, I think she gave reasons on why the games are dangerous; I don't think she gave reasons on why that is the creator(s)' responsibility, because that is a moral implication. Perhaps I am wrong -- please point me to where she provides reasons that it is the creators responsibility.
But even if she did, I would still disagree -- just as I am now. My disagreement does not really stem from the lack of reasons she gives; I just disagree that it is the creator's responsibility. Again, I don't think artists are responsible for how individuals interpret their works unless the interpretation can only be taken one way and as a direct call to action. I don't believe any of the games she's shown (or really, any game I've ever played) falls under that category.
Don't get me wrong, for the thousandth time, they might be dangerous (on average). And society can collectively decide if they are too dangerous and ban them. But I don't see the creators as responsible. Or, using the framework you've established.
(I believe) These games are not dangerously irresponsible because it implies creators have a responsibility for how the audience interprets them when the games themselves did not directly call for action in the real world and I believe multiple interpretations can exist. (I believe) Manuals for home made bombs are dangerously irresponsible because I don't see any interpretation that does not directly result in violence.
She made an argument for dangerous, which I agreed with (on average). She did not make an argument for creators responsibility. So yes, I disagree with her argument. I don't know what you mean by "don't like the way she made her argument", and I don't really see a difference.
Ah, I see the confusion now. Sorry by "fully support" I don't mean I would agree with her. But it's clear that's the implication. I just meant I would say "Okay Anita is expressing a personal opinion. That's wonderful." I would still disagree but would just chalk it up to personal differences.
But she isn't structuring it like an opinion, she is structuring it as fact, or at least an opinion that everyone should share ("It should goes without saying"). When you structure any personal opinion that way, I consider it open for debate and disagreement. That is what I meant, but I can see my poor word choice makes it sound like I would agree with her statement if she used different words (without changing the meaning). Let me know if that clarifies things.
Ah okay I think we are getting somewhere. I'm not an academic scholar on censorship and may have misused the term. I agree she is not calling for explicit censorship, but I agree that is (more or less) the example I gave. I do think it's a call for so-called [self-censorship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship), but I can understand how that might not be seen as censorship by some. Yeah let me chew / sleep on it, I may be mistaken in my earlier claim regarding censorship. (Though I still disagree that the games are dangerously irresponsible).
Yeah I'll think on these examples some more. I feel restaurants don't have a moral or social responsibility to not serve cheese, so I would still disagree with the original article (as I have disagreed with the claim in Anita's videos). But it's hard to see that as a call for censorship. I'll think on it more, but I think it's likely you are right that I overextended my original claims about censorship.
I mean the language employed could be used as a call for censorship, but since she herself does not, it kind of goes back to my point earlier -- she shouldn't be responsible if others co-opt that language and use it as a call for censorship.
Yeah, I will have to think more about calls for self-censorship. I mean, I still disagree with her original claim (that the creators are responsible for the danger the games potentially impose on society). But I think you convinced me that calls for self-censorship is arguably not limiting artistic freedom as the artists may continue to ignore the call. Thank you for sticking it out!
My original claim was that the pervasiveness of the tropes was exaggerated in video games as a whole. I am on board with the tropes being potentially dangerous (though I disagree with the idea they are the creators social or moral responsibility). I'm not trying to tear down inclusiveness, I am just stating that one of the issues I had with the critiques is the claim that games without poor representations of women don't exist or are otherwise rare.
Perhaps the actual claim should be "Among games with a large focus on story/narrative, negative portrayals of women are pervasive" which might be closer to the truth. I'm not sure what you mean by counter productive. To me it doesn't feel counter productive to look and analyze tropes found in games to get a sense of how extensive they are. It doesn't make the tropes less harmful but I feel it's still important to get a broader perspective on the game industry.
I would disagree slightly, I think she gave reasons on why the games are dangerous; I don't think she gave reasons on why that is the creator(s)' responsibility, because that is a moral implication. Perhaps I am wrong -- please point me to where she provides reasons that it is the creators responsibility.
But even if she did, I would still disagree -- just as I am now. My disagreement does not really stem from the lack of reasons she gives; I just disagree that it is the creator's responsibility. Again, I don't think artists are responsible for how individuals interpret their works unless the interpretation can only be taken one way and as a direct call to action. I don't believe any of the games she's shown (or really, any game I've ever played) falls under that category.
Don't get me wrong, for the thousandth time, they might be dangerous (on average). And society can collectively decide if they are too dangerous and ban them. But I don't see the creators as responsible. Or, using the framework you've established.
(I believe) These games are not dangerously irresponsible because it implies creators have a responsibility for how the audience interprets them when the games themselves did not directly call for action in the real world and I believe multiple interpretations can exist. (I believe) Manuals for home made bombs are dangerously irresponsible because I don't see any interpretation that does not directly result in violence.
She made an argument for dangerous, which I agreed with (on average). She did not make an argument for creators responsibility. So yes, I disagree with her argument. I don't know what you mean by "don't like the way she made her argument", and I don't really see a difference.
Ah, I see the confusion now. Sorry by "fully support" I don't mean I would agree with her. But it's clear that's the implication. I just meant I would say "Okay Anita is expressing a personal opinion. That's wonderful." I would still disagree but would just chalk it up to personal differences.
But she isn't structuring it like an opinion, she is structuring it as fact, or at least an opinion that everyone should share ("It should goes without saying"). When you structure any personal opinion that way, I consider it open for debate and disagreement. That is what I meant, but I can see my poor word choice makes it sound like I would agree with her statement if she used different words (without changing the meaning). Let me know if that clarifies things.
Ah okay I think we are getting somewhere. I'm not an academic scholar on censorship and may have misused the term. I agree she is not calling for explicit censorship, but I agree that is (more or less) the example I gave. I do think it's a call for so-called [self-censorship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship), but I can understand how that might not be seen as censorship by some. Yeah let me chew / sleep on it, I may be mistaken in my earlier claim regarding censorship. (Though I still disagree that the games are dangerously irresponsible).
Yeah I'll think on these examples some more. I feel restaurants don't have a moral or social responsibility to not serve cheese, so I would still disagree with the original article (as I have disagreed with the claim in Anita's videos). But it's hard to see that as a call for censorship. I'll think on it more, but I think it's likely you are right that I overextended my original claims about censorship.
I mean the language employed could be used as a call for censorship, but since she herself does not, it kind of goes back to my point earlier -- she shouldn't be responsible if others co-opt that language and use it as a call for censorship.
Yeah, I will have to think more about calls for self-censorship. I mean, I still disagree with her original claim (that the creators are responsible for the danger the games potentially impose on society). But I think you convinced me that calls for self-censorship is arguably not limiting artistic freedom as the artists may continue to ignore the call. Thank you for sticking it out!
Introducing the idea of RedNet and Unsocial Media:
They just want an echo chamber.
We'll make our own internet! WITH BLACKJACK AND HOOKERS!
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Let 'em have it I'd say. The less their filth spills into the lives of rational sane people the better. Them abandoning Twitter would shrink their impact and maybe even their ability to harass others. Unfortunately I doubt it'd happen mostly due to their incompetence. And even if it did it's only a matter of time before they attract the usual scum who post highly illegal content resulting in the site being targeted by authorities and ultimately forced to revoke the 'uncensored' nature of it.
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
lol
They could just use the TOR network. I wonder if there are any websites that have been created since GG started.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
Many books were written anonymously and a ton of people were persecuted for owned certain books.
Buy a diary. Geeze.
bodyofanamerican
Member
"Dear diary, Elizabeth Simins home address + phone number is...."
plagiarize
Banned
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
Just saying. Anonymity is more complicated than a fat chaner wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.
I will leave it that as is a bigger can of worms.
plagiarize
Banned
I've never even heard of playstation life.
I'm relatively happy with the number of outlets mentioning framerate issues (although some major ones haven't).
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
To be honest, those 7 reviews seem mighty generous, and considering all the crap in the game it seems it should score much lower. Many reviews don't even mention the plethora of technical problems, from horrid framerate to constant glitches and crashes and so on. So yeah, #gg should be all about those journalists lacking the balls to call out Ubisoft for their shit.
I predict they won't.
chaobreaker
Member
Meh. Felt that the gamergate angle was shoehorned in a tried and true comedic examination of Mario and Peach's relationship.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
This is the irony of hashtag ostensibly made to protect the sacred cow of the current AAA publishing model.
Yup. Collusion is great when everyone gets paid!
Twitter is run on a skeleton crew and still loses money hand over fist. The service would sink financially if they had adequate human moderation.
I'm just glad to see this consumer revolt finally achieving its goals of a better landscape for everybody in the industry except consumers. GG is just selfless like that.
Well, the ones handling it are men, so they know what they're doing, obviously.
They've discovered the conspiracy! http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAct..._days_ago_uazriel777_predicted_dai_would_get/
Maybe it's reviewing well because it's a good game? It isn't hard to predict people will like the game given EA had the confidence to drop the embargo a week before release.
Maybe it's reviewing well because it's a good game? It isn't hard to predict people will like the game given EA had the confidence to drop the embargo a week before release.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Wait, that's the game they decided to freak out about?
I love how video games are the only industry to operate on a functional review scale of 5-10.
The fanbase ties their identity to games so tightly that giving a game a 5 or less is seen as a direct, personal insult, and the death threats start going out. So the scores are shifted upwards to soften the blow.
Now the "virtual" 5, 7.5, is even viewed as an insult. They're going to have to move to a scale of 9-10, with 9.5 being the "virtual" 5.
The fanbase ties their identity to games so tightly that giving a game a 5 or less is seen as a direct, personal insult, and the death threats start going out. So the scores are shifted upwards to soften the blow.
Now the "virtual" 5, 7.5, is even viewed as an insult. They're going to have to move to a scale of 9-10, with 9.5 being the "virtual" 5.
robovanburen
Member
Third game in well-regarded series gets good reviews? Better get GG's best/worst reporters on this!
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
Movie Bob done a video about censorship:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vid...st&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all
TotalBiscuit is commenting:
That was not directed to Movie Bob.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vid...st&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all
TotalBiscuit is commenting:
That was not directed to Movie Bob.
Her videos do propose alternatives to the tropes and she never says they make the player sexist. It seems like he forgot whole sections at the start and the end.
It's about ethics in games journalism you guys.
It's pretty much the same reason why console wars exist, people need to feel justified in their purchase.
I don't really get the people that fall back on that score thing for Hitman. It's not the be all end all of the game. By that logic, you should only ever kill the target right? Yet the game introduced mechanics like Splinter Cell's "Mark and kill a whole room full of bad guys." The game's design purposefully allows you to circumvent the scoring system to play how you want. There's entire weapons and ideas throughout the game that go against the score system. You're also discouraged from fucking around in Grand Theft Auto because the police will likely come kill you and you'll lose money. Does that mean GTA encourages acting like a law abiding citizen? No, because that's stupid. They're sandbox games. Most of the things you can do in sandbox games are encouraged.
EmCeeGramr
Member
weird, totalbiscuit relying on a canard trumpeted by thunderf00t, crazy
Of the two big games whose embargoes are up, one strives to be inclusive with diverse characters, and one "can't animate women". One is made by an outspoken progressive developer, and one is made by a developer who either speaks in PR platitudes or can't form a coherent sentence.
Seeing as a lot of gamergate mirrors the appalling treatment of Jennifer Hepler (including the ridiculous MS-paint powered conspiracy bullshit), and she was working on the Dragon Age franchise it isn't really that surprising that they somehow manage to find fault with that particular game. But you know it totally is related to ethics in journalism and not hating women in the industry.
Well, of course. It's the game least connected to any actual ethical concerns whatsoever today.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll