Support NeoGAF

[Objectively Bad Opinion]

Also the fact that Adam Baldwin, Breitbart, Internet Aristocrat, thunderfoot, Five Guys, a guy who looks like an amateur magician, and some unclean dude in a bathrobe making hour-long youtube videos about SJW conspiracies were the ones backing Gamergate should inform people what type of people you are associating yourself with and what the cause you're supporting might effectively target.

Just fyi.

ad hominem

 

[Mononoke]

The thing is, I dont even know what's gonna happen now. Like how the culture is going to move on frem here. Will rationality and empathy win out? Will there be a pushback against the exclusionary behavior and the blindsided enthusiasts?

I'm personally pessimistic and I think the last couple of weeks have scared so many people away, most notably women. Which is perfectly understandable, I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to be part of and participate in a culture where you might be harassed and denied to the point of exhaustion.

I think the media has done a poor job with their message, and I think there is a group of enthusiasts that can't be controlled. And everyone else is going to get tired of this. And I don't think this will fall in the favor of the side that is right (ie. feminists).

Just the way I see it, sadly. I think any change will happen much later from now, when more and more devs start to move away from these problems and gradually implement change. But I don't really see how you can control or stop the extremists in this hobby from going full on crazy against anyone that has criticisms. I just don't see it happening. They will continue to do what they do. If only it were just verbal abuse and not actual doxxing/harassment and threats then it could be ignored. But it seems like this is a dangerous field to work in for some people. And no amount of collective press shaming these people is going to stop it.

But I do think the media/activist have also failed on some level, as I do not think they have done a great job educating people on these issues. The us vs. them mentality. The you are either with me or against me attitude. And while I DO THINK their message is correct, and IS how things should be. You have to educate and convince people of this. And I don't think they've done a good job in this regard.

Then again, they can't even voice an opinion/try to write a piece without extremists losing their shit and attacking them.

 

[Nanashrew]

From the outside of the gaming community, this doesn't even exist and the results of whatever happened will matter to no one outside of gaming so if you were to say you were a gamer, it wouldnt make you look like a horrible person as you claim but maybe what people consider a nerd or a geek to be.

Some gamers have this mentality that outside of the gaming "box", people actually know about all this. This is but the tiniest blip in the world right now.

It exists, they just have not bothered to step into the conversation. They're just choosing to avoid it and watch us eat ourselves like a snake eating its own tail. Liam O'Brien has talked with a lot of gamers in GamerGate and had discussed it with people he knows in his own industry no one is a fan of GamerGate and that they are horrified. Elijah Wood tweeted the Kotaku article on game developers signing their names to stop hate and harassment, Wil Wheaton has made quite a few comments himself. The Guardian even stepped into the ring. I think many on the outside are just going to look on with disgust and disassociate themselves with the word. The nerd or geek culture, or whatever you call it is an interconnected web even if none of them play games they'll learn and it will continue to spread.

Word is spreading on the outside though. And more in other industries are against GamerGate because they have no clear goals and see it's mostly being used to harass women.

 

[DarkFlow]

I have somehow completely missed all of this.

Same here, I had no idea this had turned into a shit storm. I vaguely remember reading about the Zoe Quinn stuff, but didn't really know all the details and kind of forgot about it. Then I find this thread, and holy shit.

 

[aspiegamer]

From the outside of the gaming community, this doesn't even exist and the results of whatever happened will matter to no one outside of gaming so if you were to say you were a gamer, it wouldnt make you look like a horrible person as you claim but maybe what people consider a nerd or a geek to be.

Some gamers have this mentality that outside of the gaming "box", people actually know about all this. This is but the tiniest blip in the world right now.

A tiny blip means it's still known of. There's been lots of big-name world-leading media covering this. Just because something isn't a big deal in the eyes of the average member of the public doesn't mean they don't have a strong opinion about it. "Sexism = bad!" (one part of this) isn't a very controversial stand to make and would never want to be even the tiniest bit accused of or in affiliation with.
Also understand that I was taking some liberty in self-deprecation for the same of my own sanity. But not much.

How is or can this be something sod defining to our culture when it seems so many of us are unaware of this "shift or explosion" happening at this moment.

Glad I'm not alone in the confusion, and unawareness.

Another problem is that the people who started it are making an active effort to keep it going. It re-isolates it a little but makes it difficult to gauge true general sentiment.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Far less, and you can't be serious.


Edit:
I'll expand. One will get you arrested, one will not. They may be both on a very negative side of things, but context and message counts in this comparison.

To be clear, I absolutely agree with you. I was hoping that being presented with that question would cause that poster to be more explicit in a way that could further the conversation. I really dislike all of this hand-waving, false-equivalence, "hey both sides are bad here guys" arguments, as they just serve to try and stifle debate. I don't think you should post in a thread attempting to discuss an issue if your only contribution is "everyone is bad (so please stop complaining.)"

 

[BuggyDClown]

This is so weird. I am what most would consider a "hardcore" gamer. Spend hours on GAF and playing games everyday.

Yet somehow have no idea who Zoe is when that happened, still don't know or care about any of this.

How is or can this be something sod defining to our culture when it seems so many of us are unaware of this "shift or explosion" happening at this moment.

Glad I'm not alone in the confusion, and unawareness.

 

[The Silver]

Actually this isn't the case. The first use of the #Gamergate tag was on 8/27. Leigh Alexander's article came out the following day.

The movement began after the Zoe Quinn thing broke and has not abated since. Though I have no doubt Alexander's article spiked participation.

I think what Leigh's article did was allow the trolls who started #GamerGate to manipulate people who otherwise wouldn't associate with them to instead rally together under that banner.

People like Boogie are a victim of this manipulation, they use people like him to make their cause seem just and hide the underlying insidiousness of the trolls harassing and forcing women out of the industry.

this is really some fucked up stuff brought about by a perfect storm of things happening at once.

 

[Cyrano]

The thing is, I dont even know what's gonna happen now. Like how the culture is going to move on frem here. Will rationality and empathy win out? Will there be a pushback against the exclusionary behavior and the blindsided enthusiasts?

I'm personally pessimistic and I think the last couple of weeks have scared so many people away, most notably women. Which is perfectly understandable, I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to be part of and participate in a culture where you might be harassed and denied to the point of exhaustion.

I would like to think so, but unfortunately I also kind of share that cynicism, especially when it comes to issues presented on the internet. Leigh was clearly disheartened by the process of events via GamerGate and the distortion of her message and the messages of many others into a strange, amorphous contingent of entities shouting from many corners arguments whose rationality never mattered. That worries me deeply because for whatever reason the larger gaming community seems fine with the swamp we're mired in.

I'm worried more than anything about complacency. That people are genuinely accepting of the status quo, and for reasons bigger than games. How do we make progress if something these people are so passionate about is also something they are defending vehemently to not change?

 

[jgminto]

If people are actually serious about corruption, they should be calling out everyone they see hurling abuse at individuals. It makes them look bad by association and is equivalent to watching a kid get assaulted at school, not doing anything is enabling the bully. I don't actually believe many are serious about corruption though, so they won't.

 

[Dragonborn]

I think the media has done a poor job with their message, and I think there is a group of enthusiasts that can't be controlled. And everyone else is going to get tired of this. And I don't think this will fall in the favor of the side that is right (ie. feminists).

Just the way I see it, sadly. I think any change will happen much later from now, when more and more devs start to move away from these problems. But I don't really see how you can control or stop the extremists in this hobby from going full on crazy against anyone that has criticisms. I just don't see it happening.

Yes, exactly.

Here's the way I view it (as someone who isn't heavily involved in all of the drama);

I look at the gamers harassing women and journalists and I know they're bad. I realize there's shitty elements to the community and when I'm able I, of course, go out of my way to chastise or call out said people (this is mostly on other sites with less moderation, like say, reddit).

But then, in comes this other group that's basically saying, either you're with us or you're a misogynist, demanding all sorts of things, and constantly pushing for things to change quickly. Now, I feel that it is an issue, and it should change but at the same time the constant outrage and drama kind of drowns out the real issues. You know, like I see it so often that eventually I'll get to the point where I say "who cares" and just go on with my day playing my games.

Trying to change something that's been pretty much the same way for decades will take time, and going out of your way to attack people (calling them names, insulting gamers, calling everyone misogynists, comparing to terrorists etc) is most certainly not the way. In fact, it may push people who are on the fence to other side of "I don't want to have anything to do with this (frankly) a-holes calling me names and whanot". People like Adam Sessler are honestly doing a better job of pushing people to the other side than they are trying to get people to understand their points.

Hopefully I'm explaining it well.

 

[unbias]

snip

It is a good article. It shows a lack of understanding of the difference between editorial, op-ed, article, and columns. And then you get the feeling that the media cares more about the industry then the consumer and you got your problems.

 

[Lime]

ad hominem

If Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter would be in agreement with a goal I was supporting, I sure as hell would reconsider what cause or movement I was actually supporting.

I.e. People with dubious values and a history of intolerant thinking and statements are not a good indication of the merits of your cause.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

As a fellow journalist who has stayed mostly out of the whole GamerGate/Zoe Quinn fiasco in terms of discussion, from what I am seeing it really just feels like a "well no you are wrong because I am right." Arguments coming left and right that point out clear problems with gaming journalism, which I do agree with, yet they aren't entirely focused on that discussion but rather on the drama.

Yes, change is needed to ensure fair reporting of gaming news, and this has been happening since the Dorito fiasco, but we can't have change if all the arguments are focused on feminism (which is a perfectly fine discussion!), MRA, SJW, Zoe Quinn and any other semi-related gaming bullshit. I want to see change in this industry, but this whole bickering between both sides on pedantic details is just muddying up the attempt to correct what is wrong.

Anyway, that's my piece and I'll leave it at that. Personally I prefer my site be about the gaming news rather than the drama, but of course discussion on that is needed at times.

I like this post because it highlights the underlying thread that ties us all together: the fact that we play and enjoy video games. It's nice that the press and the community have the opportunity to speak to tangentially related political and social justice topics associated with gaming from time to time. But when it becomes heated and all consuming, overshadowing the core interest, it can detract from progressing the core mission of the enthusiast press, which should be to inform the gaming consumer truthfully and to the best of their ability about the quality of games being consumed.

 

[Toxi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate

Cover up what?

A lot of people assumed that the lack of coverage of the allegations against Zoe Quinn was because the games media as a whole (Especially sites with writers who interacted with her in some way) was trying to keep "corruption" silent. When threads on sites like NeoGAF got locked because the mods thought it was inappropriate to discuss and led to shitty posts, that just exacerbated the accusations. The entire "Quinnspiracy" nickname used on boards like /v/ was adopted because people legitimately believed there was a conspiracy to keep quiet supposed nepotism in the games media.

This was long before Leigh Alexander's article hit or the Gamergate tag was in use. You can even see people talking about there being a cover-up in both the Phil Fish doxx thread and the Anita Sarkeesian harassment thread on this board.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

If Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter would be in agreement with a goal I was supporting, I sure as hell would reconsider what cause or movement I was actually supporting.

I.e. People with dubious values and a history of intolerant thinking and statements are not a good indication of the merits of your cause.

I bet all of those people you named think cancer is bad. Do you think cancer is good, Lime!?

And yes, this is a facetious post.

 

[RockTurtle]

If Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter would be in agreement with a goal I was supporting, I sure as hell would reconsider what cause or movement I was actually supporting.

I.e. People with dubious values and a history of intolerant thinking and statements are not a good indication of the merits of your cause.

that's....extreme.

 

[Mononoke]

Yes, exactly.

Here's the way I view it (as someone who isn't heavily involved in all of the drama);

I look at the gamers harassing women and journalists and I know they're bad. I realize there's shitty elements to the community and when I'm able I, of course, go out of my way to chastise or call out said people (this is mostly on other sites with less moderation, like say, reddit).

But then, in comes this other group that's basically saying, either you're with us or you're a misogynist, demanding all sorts of things, and constantly pushing for things to change quickly. Now, I feel that it is an issue, and it should change but at the same time the constant outrage and drama kind of drowns out the real issues. You know, like I see it so often that eventually I'll get to the point where I say "who cares" and just go on with my day playing my games.

Trying to change something that's been pretty much the same way for decades will take time, and going out of your way to attack people (calling them names, insulting gamers, calling everyone misogynists, comparing to terrorists etc) is most certainly not the way. In fact, it may push people who are on the fence to other side of "I don't want to have anything to do with this (frankly) a-holes calling me names and whanot".

Hopefully I'm explaining it well.

I think it's important to understand that, they are constantly being under attack and threats just for having any criticisms or opinions. So that is a factor, in why their message can sometimes be heavy handed. But I still think in the larger sense, you have to educate and convince people. This idea that you are going to force everyone to see your way, and if they don't, then they are going to be lashed out at...just turns away people. I have not been a fan of how the media has handled this (and I'm someone that heavily supports their cause). I think the "death to the gamer identification" is an example of this botched messaging (the presentation of the argument).

But again, keep in mind they are constantly being put under threat. Even if they took a different approach, they would still get attacked and threatened. There is a factor here, and that is the extremist that won't listen to reason. The only hope the activist side has, is that the overall industry gradually changes in 10-20 years. That the demographic shift, and the evolution of games makes these changes so that the extremists no longer have a say in the medium, no matter how much kicking and screaming they do.

For now though, I'm not optimistic in the short term. And unfortunately I think we are a tipping point where a lot of people who are supposed to be their audience, ie. the people they need to educate on these issues, I think t hey have become tired and burnt out on all this in fighting and have been turned off by how the messaging was done.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

It is a good article. It shows a lack of understanding of the difference between editorial, op-ed, article, and columns. And then you get the feeling that the media cares more about the industry then the consumer and you got your problems.

Have these distinctions ever been as absolute in the gaming media as they are in an old school newspaper? Do these distinctions matter in a modern media setting? Did these distinctions ever truly exist? Nothing is completely devoid of opinion. Even choosing which objective fact to include in an objective article involves judgment calls by the writer which will draw upon their personally held opinions and biases.

 

[paskowitz]

So after reading though this whole slog, the one thing I really do not understand is why anyone thinks a wide net is wise to cast.

 

[Lime]

I'm worried more than anything about complacency. That people are genuinely accepting of the status quo, and for reasons bigger than games. How do we make progress if something these people are so passionate about is also something they are defending vehemently to not change?

Okay, now I'm actually more terrified from entertaining that prospect of complacency :/

 

[Dragonborn]

I think it's important to understand that, they are constantly being under attack and threats just for having any criticism. So that is a factor, in why their message can sometimes be heavy handed. But I still think in the larger sense, you have to educate and convince people. This idea that you are going to force everyone to see your way, and if they don't, then they are going to be lashed out at...just turns away people. I have not been a fan of how the media has handled this (and I'm someone that heavily supports their cause). I think the "death to the gamer identification" is an example of this botched messaging (the presentation of the argument).

But again, keep in mind they are constantly being put under threat. Even if they took a different approach, they would still get attacked and threatened. There is a factor here, and that is the extremist that won't listen to reason. The only hope the activist side has, is that the overall industry gradually changes in 20-30 years. The the demographic shift, and the evolution of games makes these changes so that the extremists no longer have a say in the medium, no matter how much kicking and screaming they do.

For now though, I'm not optimistic in the short term.

Absolutely, I understand that, and I get why they're the way they are. All I'm saying is that their current method of trying to make change happen isn't the best. It's just pushing people away. Sure, perhaps it's not fair to ask them to remain calm and rational even when they're getting threats and vitriol thrown their way, but going about it the way they're doing now is even worse, as they're just giving a bad impression.

I honestly don't think anything will change until female gamers make up a good portion of core gamers (the core being the important part there). Until then, corporations won't care to cater to a tiny fraction of their audience and gamers in general will just go about their lives as usual since all this drama is kind of centered on an overall small group of people in the gaming community. In the meantime, the activist side that wants change should perhaps go about it slowly, and carefully so as to not "scare" away potential supporters.

 

[Antiwhippy]

I think it's important to understand that, they are constantly being under attack and threats just for having any criticisms or opinions. So that is a factor, in why their message can sometimes be heavy handed. But I still think in the larger sense, you have to educate and convince people. This idea that you are going to force everyone to see your way, and if they don't, then they are going to be lashed out at...just turns away people. I have not been a fan of how the media has handled this (and I'm someone that heavily supports their cause). I think the "death to the gamer identification" is an example of this botched messaging (the presentation of the argument).

But again, keep in mind they are constantly being put under threat. Even if they took a different approach, they would still get attacked and threatened. There is a factor here, and that is the extremist that won't listen to reason. The only hope the activist side has, is that the overall industry gradually changes in 10-20 years. That the demographic shift, and the evolution of games makes these changes so that the extremists no longer have a say in the medium, no matter how much kicking and screaming they do.

For now though, I'm not optimistic in the short term.

I dunno, if the creator of something as popular as the last of us claims that he is influenced by what Anita is doing I think it's saying that the industry it's starting to change at least.

 

[Mononoke]

Absolutely, I understand that, and I get why they're the way they are. All I'm saying is that their current method of trying to make change happen isn't the best. It's just pushing people away. Sure, perhaps it's not fair to ask them to remain calm and rational even when they're getting threats and vitriol thrown their way, but going about it the way they're doing now is even worse, as they're just giving a bad impression.

I think you are going to see both apathy/complacency as a result of how the media tried to approach this issue. For shame.

I dunno, if the creator of something as popular as the last of us claims that he is influenced by what Anita is doing I think it's saying that the industry it's starting to change at least.

It's encouraging, which is why I said I t think change is going to happen on the Dev side of things. But it's more complex then a couple devs being educated about the issues. I mean hell, I doubt most publishers even care about this. I doubt the $$$ side of the industry cares. And like any other industry, they aren't one to rock the boat when things are working (which is why you see so much resistance to female characters being on the cover of box art, or being main characters). They will keep milking the formula as long as they can.

So I still am not optimistic about the short term. I'm especially not optimistic for women continuing to work in this industry, when extremists can't be controlled.

 

[Objectively Bad Opinion]

If Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter would be in agreement with a goal I was supporting, I sure as hell would reconsider what cause or movement I was actually supporting.

I.e. People with dubious values and a history of intolerant thinking and statements are not a good indication of the merits of your cause.

That is still ad hominem though.

You can argue the cause, or can't you?

 

[jgminto]

I think what Leigh's article did was allow the trolls who started #GamerGate to manipulate people who otherwise wouldn't associate with them to instead rally together under that banner.

People like Boogie are a victim of this manipulation, they use people like him to make their cause seem just and hide the underlying insidiousness of the trolls harassing and forcing women out of the industry.

this is really some fucked up stuff brought about by a perfect storm of things happening at once.

I'm not really a fan of Leigh's writing style. While I usually agree with a lot of the points she makes and it's totally understandable that she'd be pissed off from recent events, I do feel like it did more harm than good.

 

[CLEEK]

If Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter would be in agreement with a goal I was supporting, I sure as hell would reconsider what cause or movement I was actually supporting.

I.e. People with dubious values and a history of intolerant thinking and statements are not a good indication of the merits of your cause.

I'm sure all those people are vocally opposed to ISIS.

Does this make you an Islamic State sympathiser?

You're making a school boy error, in not separating the message from the messenger. If I was to hold ideological beliefs based on just agreeing with whoever seemed nicest, my world view would be worthless. There are foul people on both sides of this 'debate'. If you selectively focus on one side and use it as evidence that your side is ideologically and morally pure, you're using the exact same tactics as the very people you've named in your post.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I love to be steeped in gaming news but I honestly have no idea what this is about. I started reading the third article in the OP, which mentioned things everyone here should know from experience:

-Tradional "game journalists" have an essential conflict of interest in that they are beholden to publishers for content.

-Online players are overwhelmingly abrasive and abusive towards all fellow players, but especially more towards people that are not straight, white, male, young adults.

I'll read the articles but I just don't see why there would be any sort of controversy.

 

[unbias]

Have these distinctions ever been as absolute in the gaming media as they are in an old school newspaper? Do these distinctions matter in a modern media setting? Did these distinctions ever truly exist? Nothing is completely devoid of opinion. Even choosing which objective fact to include in an objective article involves judgment calls by the writer which will draw upon their personally held opinions and biases.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? Yes, these still exist. Do they exist as much in new media? No, probably not(but then again, I dont go around counting the websites that do this). I do think though, due to traditional media there is this view of how things should be separate and then you have people think that enthusiast press is full of journalists who dont follow the rules. I agree though, at least with game enthusiasts press, most is gonzo journalism. However if I use sports media on ESPN.com, they still use most if not all the distinctions(outside of op-ed, I dont think they do op-ed much).

 

[graywolf323]

I think what Leigh's article did was allow the trolls who started #GamerGate to manipulate people who otherwise wouldn't associate with them to instead rally together under that banner.

People like Boogie are a victim of this manipulation, they use people like him to make their cause seem just and hide the underlying insidiousness of the trolls harassing and forcing women out of the industry.

this is really some fucked up stuff brought about by a perfect storm of things happening at once.

that's really damn insulting towards Boogie to imply that you think so little of him that he was somehow manipulated into his opinion despite the fact his first video on the matter predates the GamerGate tag by three days

 

[Keyu]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this stigma. I never feel like I'm being judged because, I play video games. Everyone plays video games. I was in the middle of class today and my professor was looking a articles of Destiny. I feel bad that a Women in this industry, can not enjoy their job with out some asshole harassing them. I just come to terms that people are pieces of shit, that internet just gives them a path way to express themselves sadly.

Now a days there isn't much of a stigma from the outside which is what makes this recent use of terms like 'nerd' as an insult from other gamers, journalists, and devs seem so weird to me.

I've yet to see anyone (on gaf at least) disagree with the idea that the harassment going on is horrible. I fail to see what that has to do with the term 'gamer' though. Again it just seems like a major distraction from the actual harassment, that feeds into this us vs them mentality, and needlessly lumps people in with the misogynists. Attacking the term gamer helps no one and only further confuses the entire shitstorm.

Just my 2¢ at least.

 

[Patryn]

The Rhodes article is great because I'm so confused by the people behind #Gamersgate. Rhodes does a nice job pointing out how they can't even agree on what they mean by corruption in gaming journalism, but what I'm most confused by is why they can't just ignore all the big gaming media sites. Why is this such a huge issue for them?

You can be a "gamer" and never visit Gamespot, IGN, Polygon, Giant Bomb, etc. so I've never quite understood how a "corrupt" gaming press harmed them.

The only way it makes sense is if they're worried about the press having an influence on devs as opposed to the opposite, and then pushing a so-called progressive ideology. At which point it would seem to me that it does mean that they are against greater diversity in gaming, but I could be just connecting dots that aren't there.

I suppose that it could be said that it influences people to get games they consider bad due to compromised review scores, but then how can you tell if a person isn't getting it because they genuinely want the game? I mean as it is, pre-orders are pushed so hard that many people buy games before seeing review one.

So I'm really asking: even if we assume gaming media is corrupt, what effect does it have on a person who doesn't visit those sites or any gaming media?

 

[Mononoke]

I'm sure all those people are vocally opposed to ISIS.

Does this make you an Islamic State sympathiser?

You're making a school boy error, in not separating the message from the messenger. If I was to hold ideological beliefs based on just agreeing with whoever seemed nicest, my world view would be worthless. There are foul people on both sides of this 'debate'. If you selectively focus on one side and use it as evidence that your side is ideologically and morally pure, you're using the exact same tactics as the very people you've named in your post.

I think what he really meant was "any social cause" they support.

 

[Lime]

That is still ad hominem though.

You can argue the cause, or can't you?

Of course, but it would still serve as a motivation for me re-evaluating what I am doing. I.e. A red flag. Their presence or allyship if you will doesn't negate the cause - but they would definitely motivate me to make sure that my convictions are in the right and would make me reassure my research and understanding of the topic and cause.

Moreover, the targets of the campaign happened to be women, so there would be another red flag for me if I was supporting the cause.

 

[Brakke]

ad hominem

Also effective.

 

[Cyrano]

Okay, now I'm actually more terrified from entertaining that prospect of complacency :/

I... uh... sorry. :/

Fuck me.

 

[Shingro]

I love to be steeped in gaming news but I honestly have no idea what this is about. I started reading the third article in the OP, which mentioned things everyone here should know from experience:

-Tradional "game journalists" have an essential conflict of interest in that they are beholden to publishers for content.

-Online players are overwhelmingly abrasive and abusive towards all fellow players, but especially more towards people that are not straight, white, male, young adults.

I'll read the articles but I just don't see why there would be any sort of controversy.

Much of the games press decided that the way to stop anonymous people from being jerks online was to declare that the identity of gaming was dead, and have generally been casting a wide net over all of gaming culture.

So your average gamer went "Christ, I JUST GOT DONE with being a "Vicious violent teenager" now I gotta go through being a Mysogenist?

In the meantime attention is exactly what the trolls wanted so they've been attacking even more seriously, which leads to more outcry, which leads to more serious attacks. We've lost a game dev and a game journalist so far and everyone feels depressed.

So basically the only people who got what they want is trolls, and since everyone is focused on giving them all the attention, and acting as if they're the only important thing on the board they're unlikely to stop any time soon.

 

[jgminto]

A lot of people assumed that the lack of coverage of the allegations against Zoe Quinn was because the games media as a whole (Especially sites with writers who interacted with her in some way) was trying to keep "corruption" silent. When threads on sites like NeoGAF got locked because the mods thought it was inappropriate to discuss and led to shitty posts, that just exacerbated the accusations. The entire "Quinnspiracy" nickname used on boards like /v/ was adopted because people legitimately believed there was a conspiracy to keep quiet supposed nepotism in the games media.

This was long before Leigh Alexander's article hit or the Gamergate tag was in use. You can even see people talking about there being a cover-up in both the Phil Fish doxx thread and the Anita Sarkeesian harassment thread on this board.

Except there was nothing to cover up and it was clear to see, the only person who was actually involved with the media was Nathan and he posted zero articles about Depression Quest during the time they were in a relationship. All that is left to cover is tabloid-grade trash.

Also Quinnspiracy was her website and twitter handle before this.

 

[The Silver]

that's really damn insulting towards Boogie to imply that you think so little of him that he was somehow manipulated into his opinion despite the fact his first video on the matter predates the GamerGate tag by three days

Well its a good thing I said people LIKE him.

You seem to be drawing/thinking of something else when I said manipulaton, his opinion isn't the problem, its how the #GamerGate trolls have been consolidating these people with maybe or maybe not valid concerns under the #GamerGate banner. No one was manipulated into having an opinion, rather the opinion itself is what was manipulated.

 

[Abelian75]

Also the fact that Adam Baldwin, Breitbart, Internet Aristocrat, thunderfoot, Five Guys, a guy who looks like an amateur magician, and some unclean dude in a bathrobe making hour-long youtube videos about SJW conspiracies were the ones backing Gamergate should inform people what type of people you are associating yourself with and what the cause you're supporting might effectively target.

Just fyi.

A lot of people, including myself, have been trying to de-escalate this. It shouldn't be particularly controversial that shaming people is less important than de-escalating the situation so that people are not getting harassed out of the industry.

If you really need to hear it, fine: You're right, we were all wrong. You win. Nothing can be worth this much hatred.

 

[John Rabbit]

Right, but that's a different conversation. When someone says something like "Reviewers are being bribed by developers" it's pretty important to post evidence to back up that accusation!

agreed, but like the Rhodes' article you quoted states:

After all, the point is to increase transparency, but how can you know which outlets to boycott unless they’re already being transparent about those relationships? [...] Without some means of forcing recalcitrant outlets to make their relationships more transparent, the only viable way to decide who gets boycotted is the shotgun approach. But to send an effective message, a boycott must be narrowly targeted. The nature of your complaint makes that practically impossible.

gamers, by-and-large, are not empowered to detect, access, or verify this kind of information. if i ask you, "do you take bribes?" and you tell me "no, of course not, that's against my ethics as a journalist and as a human being" then i have to literally take your word for it. as a consumer on the other end of an internet conversation, i do not have the ability to verify your statement other than to trust you based on my experience of reading your comments on this board and output as a journalist; neither of which really speak to your level of trustworthiness, more to your skill as a writer.

so what am i, as a gamer/consumer, to use as a gauge for trusting that an individual or an outlet isn't actively accepting bribes or favors for positive coverage? given that gaming media (again, referencing Rhodes) largely has it's roots in the enthusiast press the largest barometer of "quality" often seems to be driven by personality; whether or not you're liked by the readership. this is not a great way to judge legitimacy as the nicest of people can turn out to be the most heinous of offenders.

i'm not singling you out, or suggesting any impropriety on your part either. i'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

 

[Toxi]

Except there was nothing to cover up and it was clear to see, the only person who was actually involved with the media was Nathan and he posted zero articles about Depression Quest during the time they were in a relationship. All that is left to cover is tabloid-grade trash.

Also Quinnspiracy was her website and twitter handle before this.

Didn't know the name already existed, huh.

But yeah, you're right. It was tabloid-grade trash. I think the problem was that once a lot of people got an idea planted in their heads, a lack of evidence or mountain of counter-evidence would be assumed as part of the conspiracy.

 

[Lime]

A lot of people, including myself, have been trying to de-escalate this. It shouldn't be particularly controversial that shaming people is less important than de-escalating the situation so that people are not getting harassed out of the industry.

If you really need to hear it, fine: You're right, we were all wrong. You win. Nothing can be worth this much hatred.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to shame anyone. Just pointing out how the different facets of Gamergate has been polluted from the outset and that dubious personalities have been associated with it.

If anyone feels hurt by this, I apologize

 

[call_kotaku]

Didn't know the name already existed, huh.

But yeah, you're right. It was tabloid-grade trash. I think the problem was that once a lot of people got an idea planted in their heads, a lack of evidence or mountain of counter-evidence would be assumed as part of the conspiracy.

That's how conspiracy theories actually work, and how they persist despite any amount of evidence disproving them

Sorry, I wasn't trying to shame anyone. Just pointing out how the different facets of Gamergate has been polluted from the outset and that dubious personalities have been associated with it.

If anyone feels hurt by this, I apologize

There's been a trend for the last couple of years with the ubiquity of social media of people using social activism pulpits as a means to effectively bully people, and it was especially apparent on reddit with the shitredditsays subreddit and the MRAs that came afterwards. They set up some sort of extreme philosophical position that's unassailable by the people they end up abusing ("men can't comment on women's issues", "you're not a real gamer like us", etc), and use it as a way to hurt people with impunity while working under the guise of trying to forward some sort of activist agenda. Anita Sarkeesian can be arguably included in this group (and it's how her detractors generally portray her), but #gamergate was definitely driven or manipulated by these sorts of people. I'd hesitate to identify it as a gamer problem, it's just how politics in social media have warped the culture.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

agreed, but like the Rhodes' article you quoted states:

gamers, by-and-large, are not empowered to detect, access, or verify this kind of information. if i ask you, "do you take bribes?" and you tell me "no, of course not, that's against my ethics as a journalist and as a human being" then i have to literally take your word for it. as a consumer on the other end of an internet conversation, i do not have the ability to verify your statement other than to trust you based on my experience of reading your comments on this board and output as a journalist; neither of which really speak to your level of trustworthiness, more to your skill as a writer.

so what am i, as a gamer/consumer, to use as a gauge for trusting that an individual or an outlet isn't actively accepting bribes or favors for positive coverage? given that gaming media (again, referencing Rhodes) largely has it's roots in the enthusiast press the largest barometer of "quality" often seems to be driven by personality; whether or not you're liked by the readership. this is not a great way to judge legitimacy as the nicest of people can turn out to be the most heinous of offenders.

i'm not singling you out, or suggesting any impropriety on your part either. i'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

I don't think you need to "trust" any reviewer. Don't approach criticism or a review as a buyers guide, approach it as someone making an argument about a piece of media, which you are free to agree or disagree with.

 

[DrSlek]

We've lost a game dev and a game journalist so far and everyone feels depressed.

I assume the game dev is Phil Fish (good riddance honestly), but who is the journalist?

 

[CLEEK]

That's how conspiracy theories actually work, and how they persist despite any amount of evidence disproving them

Evidence disproving their belief is dismissed as their particular bogeyman using their power to cover it up. It reaffirms the conspiracy, rather than disproving it.

In this debate, you have the extremes on one side suggesting that all gamers are a bunch of rabid misogynists who all hate and harass women. On the other side, you have the view that the games industry has been infiltrated by SJWs who hate gamers and want to destroy their hobby. Both sides think the other is everywhere and out to get them.

 

[pastrami]

If Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter would be in agreement with a goal I was supporting, I sure as hell would reconsider what cause or movement I was actually supporting.

I.e. People with dubious values and a history of intolerant thinking and statements are not a good indication of the merits of your cause.

I would hope that anyone supporting a cause would support it because of the values of that cause, rather than the people for or against it.

And that seems to be a major problem behind this huge mess. Admittedly I haven't kept up with this news since the original Zoe Quinn story broke out (and was frankly unaware of how large an issue it had become). But it seems like the conversation has devolved away from the actual issues that people are bringing to the table, and instead moved to the people behind those issues. So rather than having conversations about games journalism and women in gaming (the two big issues I believe this is about), people are just attacking each other with labels (SJW, MRA, gamer, etc) and direct threats/doxxing. What is going on is absolutely reprehensible.

 

[Gotchaye]

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.

Now, it's clearly true that when we're talking about something like political journalism, a balance needs to be struck between reporters building relationships with sources and reporters maintaining a properly adversarial stance with respect to people they're supposed to be keeping an eye on. The chief value of political journalism is in reporting things that politicians don't want reported. Politicians are pretty good at getting their own messages out. These are journalists who need to be abiding by strict ethical standards.

Political journalism isn't just reporters, though. There are a set of people we call pundits or analysts who don't really break news, except to the extent that they're chosen by someone to help leak something due to their prominence. It really doesn't seem to matter that much if they're chummy with politicians. To the extent that it allows them to pass off as their own analysis the thinking of politicians who wouldn't be willing to talk on the record, it seems like a great thing. Already we've got a class of journalists in a really important field where it seems like something really dirty has to be going on in order for there to be a real ethical concern.

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.

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.

The other thing people say they care about, which I suspect only came up because of how all of this started with Quinn, is having some sort of unbiased aggregator of interesting (indie) games that would otherwise not be noticed. This is one area where I kind of get the complaint that it's best if the person you're going to for recommendations isn't just recommending their friends' games. But I don't really see the alternative. Nobody's playing even a significant fraction of all games. Even the aggregators are relying on social networks to bring games to their attention, no matter what. You're not getting around that with ethics rules, and even with strict separation of makers and aggregators you're just obscuring the social connections. Given that they try a game, maybe they end up slightly more likely to recommend a game if the maker is a personal friend? Eh. Just like game reviews, if you're paying attention to an aggregator who gives you bad recommendations, stop paying attention. If they're giving you good recommendations, then you should be happy that they've got the social connections which are bringing these good games to their attention. Your aggregator being friends with people who make good games seems like a huge advantage, especially going forward, since it means they're likely to have more in-depth previews of future good games, are more likely to have interviews with the people making good games, etc.

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.

 

[Lime]

So now Lana Polansky (developer and writer) has decided to quit as well.