Support NeoGAF

[RadarScope1]

I guess I don't get the #notyourshield hashtag. I am loving the diversity I see there. It's real and it's great. Then people are also supporting and adding the #gamergate hashtag.

It looked to me like gamergate was a reaction to the press who are scolding the trolls that are dragging people's sex lives into the open and sending dearth threats to people? It seemed like gamergate was a boiling over point for people who had distrusted games press (for some truly legit reasons over the years, as well as some paranoia) and used the reactionary tweets and articles written by a few press about "gamers" to lash out once and for all?

The people being accused for being "social justice warriors" are derided for saying that maybe we should more thoughtful and inclusive, though some of them said so in truly derisive ways themselves. Then some of the people who you'd think would more or less agree with that viewpoint (minus the derisivness) are saying they're cool with the status quo. Is that essentially the story to this point?

I'll fully admit I'm having a hard time keeping up now that the long weekend is over...

 

[Intheflorsh]

This reminds me of how global warming deniers treat CO2 charts.

 

[The Adder]

I'm not offended by any of the things that's been going on because I understand what the problems are. The jokes, mockery, and slander on gamers have nothing to do with me because they're aimed at the bigots, the trolls and the overall worst people in the community just generalized in a term everyone understands. Gamers. It's no different to those who do the same thing to bronies or the Sonic fandom or otaku. They're called out all the time because their communities have grown rampant with terrible people, and the good people never once tried to stop or acknowledge their dark side. They're generalized in the same way. We've mostly just sat here just letting things happen and hoping that ignoring things will make these trolls go away, but the reverse has happened.


I often make the parallel to the term otaku. Otaku is an incredibly negative term that some (mostly in the west) love to use more casually. If you watch anime then you should realize there are a ton of series that go out of their way to make fun of otaku or show the deep depressing and shameless side of the culture that's heavily prevalent. The industry doesn't seem to like otaku much either and many prominent figures have spoken out on the pandering to them. Many otaku often hate anything that Hayao Miyazaki has to say about the industry because it doesn't line up with their world views, same can be said about any prominent person who has different opinions or world views. And they hate feminists just as much as some of those gamers do and believe just the same that they are ruining the medium.

If you were in Japan, you'd never want to be found out as some otaku because it can be social suicide. I know plenty of people who don't associate with the labels in the anime industry because they don't match them. They have had eye-opening experiences but they still watch and read manga, some even speak and understand the language because of their hobby.

The perception of those labels are seen as bad inside and outside of the communities and often generalized. Sometimes new words might get created in these communities to separate the bad like weaboo, to call out the truly obsessed and shallow world views some people have that they truly believe that Japan is the best place on earth to live, western cartoons are trash and that Japan is the safe haven for anime fans/otaku.

Because of the explosion that has happened over these few weeks, it has actually been eye-opening for some because this side of gaming has finally been thrusted into their face and now they're forced to acknowledge its existence.

Just because you may have had your head buried in the sand doesn't mean the rest of us have. Some of us are active pro-civil rights activists. Some of us spend our weekends marching in demonstrations. Some of us donate fairly large sums, given their meager paycheck, to causes worth fighting for. And a lot of us spend heaping helpings of what spare time we DO have arguing with racist, sexist, homophobic assholes on the internet. Those of us do these things, you can understand, may not appreciate having a term that has been a part of our personal identity for a decade or more of our lives dragged through the god damned mud because some asshole wants to make a point and holds a position in aprofession that allows them to create a narrative that others follow.

Fuck that.

I'm a gamer, and I'm willing to bet I've done more good in my life than half the people who would give me shit for saying that.

 

[Lime]

Just because you may have had your head buried in the sand doesn't mean the rest of us have. Some of us are active pro-civil rights activists. Some of us spend our weekends marching in demonstrations. Some of us donate fairly large sums, given their meager paycheck, to causes worth fighting for. And a lot of us spend heaping helpings of what spare time we DO have arguing with racist, sexist, homophobic assholes on the internet. Those of us do these things, you can understand, may not appreciate having a term that has been a part of our personal identity for a decade or more of our lives dragged through the god damned mud because some asshole wants to make a point and holds a position in aprofession that allows them to create a narrative that others follow.

Fuck that.

I'm a gamer, and I'm willing to bet I've done more good in my life than half the people who would give me shit for saying that.

You're not understanding the post correctly if you're identifying yourself as a "gamer" in the posited definition of the post - i.e. the category Nanashrew is referring to is decidedly different than what you are referring to.

 

[marrec]

This reminds me of how global warming deniers treat CO2 charts.

I love it. Anything to justify their impotent rage.

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

You're not understanding the post correctly if you're identifying yourself as a "gamer" in the posited definition of the post - i.e. the category Nanashrew is referring to is decidedly different than what you are referring to.

Since when was the definition of a word up for being redefined by journalists? It has a definition in the Oxford Dictionary for crying out loud.

Gamer - A person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.

If people want to rebrand the word they should get in touch with the people responsible for the definitions inside the Dictionary, then get back to us when they've successfully convinced them that terms such as misogynist and racist belong under that definition instead. I'll sit and wait while they iron out the details.

 

[Keyu]

Its funny watching people straw man #notyourshield in this thread. Especially since that seems to be the point of the #.

Trying to misrepresent people who disagree with you really doesn't help your argument. Especially when its so easy to look up.

 

[Vlade]

You know what? I'm fucking done. This industry hates their damn audience. I am utterly disappointed and completely disillusioned. I really want to know if they are pushing their customers away. I wonder why their companies/advertisers are allowing them to speak that kind of shit.

Do they just want our money and then kick us out? What the fuck is it that they want? Why all this hate?

There could be a point here, pulled apart from... things.

Gamers aren't all that well organized in a way in which they represent themselves. Critics and Games Journalism have been giving them their public face (game culture comics do not reach what i would call public), and it has entirely been criticism. Unfortunately that criticism has been reinforced lately making it pretty damned untimely to be thinking about writing anything that says "gaming with the family" or "how gaming helps you in school" or something that paints gamers well (I understand the words 'gamer' and 'gaming' are pretty tainted).

I've never felt that Kotaku (edit: as an example, not singled out) defines me, but I could see how gamers could be turned off when they see themselves defined as toilet people on twitter.

I also, of course, think that companies should get busy attracting a diverse audience. That doesn't mean no tits and cod, but the industry segment needs to have a diverse audience as a whole. We've (almost?) survived poisoning the well and losing Nintendo, we probably shouldn't do it again by defining gamers by their flaws making the whole space unattractive to outsiders.

 

[Intheflorsh]

I love it. Anything to justify their impotent rage.

I guess they didn't look at the Alexa page for IGN or Game Spot or any of the other major gaming sites.

 

[The Adder]

You're not understanding the post correctly if you're identifying yourself as a "gamer" in the posited definition of the post - i.e. the category Nanashrew is referring to is decidedly different than what you are referring to.

I'm understanding the post just fine. My point is that no, no one gets to move on in and redefine a term that has never meant anything beyond one who plays games enthusiatically and then lash out at anyone who would dare still apply such a tainted term to themselves. And no one gets to define to whom the term applies (i.e. biggoted white males are gamers, everyone else is some nebulous thing for which we have not yet created a term. But rest assured when we say gamer, we don't mean you).

No one gets to redefine a piece of my identity because it makes for a nifty talking point.

 

[jordisok]

RPS is one of the major gaming sites now? Dope.

 

[marrec]

Since when was the definition of a word up for being redefined by journalists? It has a definition in the Oxford Dictionary for crying out loud.

Gamer - A person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.

If people want to rebrand the word they should get in touch with the people responsible for the definitions inside the Dictionary, then get back to us when they've successfully convinced them that terms such as misogynist and racist belong under that definition instead. I'll sit and wait while they iron out the details.

How this for a bit of clarity or context:

I identify myself as a gamer. I have since I was a wee lad. I also understand that the traditional understanding of the gaming demographic has emerged from it's marketing driven stereotype of socially awkward nerds into a much larger and inclusive demographic that can cater to all types of both players and marketers.

That's what the recent "death of a gamer" articles are about. It's not about how gamers are all assholes. It's about how gamers are a new emergent force in the 21st century and traditional, maybe even stereotypical, gamers who've cherished their niche entertainment aren't in control of it anymore and never will be.

That "Gamer" is dead, love live the gamer.

 

[Vlade]

Since when was the definition of a word up for being redefined by journalists? It has a definition in the Oxford Dictionary for crying out loud.

Gamer - A person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.

If people want to rebrand the word they should get in touch with the people responsible for the definitions inside the Dictionary, then get back to us when they've successfully convinced them that terms such as misogynist and racist belong under that definition instead. I'll sit and wait while they iron out the details.

Word meanings are always defined in the media. Always. what people mean and what people understand is what is important, people are not computers, words change in their meaning.

even new science terms come from journals (media). dictionaries only seek to capture these meanings as they move, not create them.

 

[RadarScope1]

How this for a bit of clarity or context:

I identify myself as a gamer. I have since I was a wee lad. I also understand that the traditional understanding of the gaming demographic has emerged from it's marketing driven stereotype of socially awkward nerds into a much larger and inclusive demographic that can cater to all types of both players and marketers.

That's what the recent "death of a gamer" articles are about. It's not about how gamers are all assholes. It's about how gamers are a new emergent force in the 21st century and traditional, maybe even stereotypical, gamers who've cherished their niche entertainment aren't in control of it anymore and never will be.

That "Gamer" is dead, love live the gamer.

That's exactly how I read and understand those articles as well. It's really just Part 2 of the same row we had about casual gamers a few years ago.

Its funny watching people straw man #notyourshield in this thread. Especially since that seems to be the point of the #.

Trying to misrepresent people who disagree with you really doesn't help your argument. Especially when its so easy to look up.

If you're referring to my post, then please help me out and enlighten me. As I said - and sincerely meant - I am having a hard time keeping up here.

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

Word meanings are always defined in the media. Always. what people mean and what people understand is what is important, people are not computers, words change in their meaning.

even new science terms come from journals (media). dictionaries only seek to capture these meanings as they move, not create them.

How this for a bit of clarity or context:

I identify myself as a gamer. I have since I was a wee lad. I also understand that the traditional understanding of the gaming demographic has emerged from it's marketing driven stereotype of socially awkward nerds into a much larger and inclusive demographic that can cater to all types of both players and marketers.

That's what the recent "death of a gamer" articles are about. It's not about how gamers are all assholes. It's about how gamers are a new emergent force in the 21st century and traditional, maybe even stereotypical, gamers who've cherished their niche entertainment aren't in control of it anymore and never will be.

That "Gamer" is dead, love live the gamer.

I understand and respect your views but I feel this is a place where we can't agree. I feel that as long as words are ok to be defined on a whim and it's then up to the reader to interpret what the writer intends blurs the lines of ethics when writing. I don't want to argue with anyone either as I don't really like heated debate as it gets close to conflict, plus I want to hit my membership at GAF eventually and not be banned so I'll show myself the door and respectfully agree to disagree. I do understand your points though.

 

[Darkfield]

Just because you may have had your head buried in the sand doesn't mean the rest of us have. Some of us are active pro-civil rights activists. Some of us spend our weekends marching in demonstrations. Some of us donate fairly large sums, given their meager paycheck, to causes worth fighting for. And a lot of us spend heaping helpings of what spare time we DO have arguing with racist, sexist, homophobic assholes on the internet. Those of us do these things, you can understand, may not appreciate having a term that has been a part of our personal identity for a decade or more of our lives dragged through the god damned mud because some asshole wants to make a point and holds a position in aprofession that allows them to create a narrative that others follow.

Fuck that.

I'm a gamer, and I'm willing to bet I've done more good in my life than half the people who would give me shit for saying that.

 

[Vlade]

I understand and respect your views but I feel this is a place where we can't agree. I feel that as long as words are ok to be defined on a whim and it's then up to the reader to interpret what the writer intends blurs the lines of ethics when writing. I don't want to argue with anyone either as I don't really like heated debate as it gets close to conflict, plus I want to hit my membership at GAF eventually and not be banned so I'll show myself the door and respectfully agree to disagree. I do understand your points though.

I speak with no malice, I'm sorry if I sound otherwise;

but we can not hide the effect of public speach behind a dictionary. It's not about who gets authority over language, it's about who already has it.

 

[The Adder]

How this for a bit of clarity or context:

I identify myself as a gamer. I have since I was a wee lad. I also understand that the traditional understanding of the gaming demographic has emerged from it's marketing driven stereotype of socially awkward nerds into a much larger and inclusive demographic that can cater to all types of both players and marketers.

That's what the recent "death of a gamer" articles are about. It's not about how gamers are all assholes. It's about how gamers are a new emergent force in the 21st century and traditional, maybe even stereotypical, gamers who've cherished their niche entertainment aren't in control of it anymore and never will be.

That "Gamer" is dead, love live the gamer.

That's fine if you read those articles that way. But if you and I were in the same rooma and, with a straight face, you claimed that that is how the actual conversation has been presented, that that's what's actually being written in the trench warfare of stupidity that is Twitter (which is, you cannot deny, where most people who get any awareness of this will be drawing it from), then I would call you a bald faced liar.

 

[Keyu]

If you're referring to my post, then please help me out and enlighten me. As I said - and sincerely meant - I am having a hard time keeping up here.

Nope wasn't referring to you
Was referring to the people trying to dismiss it as some mra thing.

Pretty clear by reading through it that's its full of people with diverse backgrounds saying 'please stop stereotyping us'.

Just thought it was funny seeing people ignore that and stereotype them anyways.

Spoiler

I'm sure there are some not so nice people in there as well. It is twitter after all. Just pointing out that the majority of those posts so far seem pretty great.

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

I speak with no malice, I'm sorry if I sound otherwise;

but we can not hide the effect of public speach behind a dictionary. It's not about who gets authority over language, it's about who already has it.

Not at all I'm just trying to keep from delving too far into debate on the topic as I've witnessed it devolve into much worse, so am genuinely a little bit uneasy participating in the debate. In all honesty it may have been better had I not posted at all since I feel this isn't my discussion to be having considering how little involvement I've had with gaming communities for many years until just recently.

I do see how the term has evolved over many years and the community has grown to include people from various walks of life, and how that has implications to the meaning of the word. I guess for me though I've always considered it to be a very black and white term of what constitutes a gamer, which may well be a short sighted opinion on my behalf due to a lack of involvement with such communities over the years as it grew.

 

[Gormless Noodle]

I speak with no malice, I'm sorry if I sound otherwise;

but we can not hide the effect of public speach behind a dictionary. It's not about who gets authority over language, it's about who already has it.

I don't really understand this. You seem to know a lot more about the subject than I do, so feel free to enlighten me, but how does the media dictate the meaning of words? I can see how they can reaffirm it and perhaps spread it to more people, but I would think society itself dictates the meaning.

 

[The Adder]

I don't really understand this. You seem to know a lot more about the subject than I do, so feel free to enlighten me, but how does the media dictate the meaning of words? I can see how they can reaffirm it and perhaps spread it to more people, but I would think society itself dictates the meaning.

1984

 

[Gormless Noodle]

1984

Stop killing my spleen.

 

[BBboy20]

Max Scoville and others are talking about their beginnings that involve making little-to-nothing on Twitter.

 

[RadarScope1]

Nope wasn't referring to you
Was referring to the people trying to dismiss it as some mra thing.

Pretty clear by reading through it that's its full of people with diverse backgrounds saying 'please stop stereotyping us'.

Just thought it was funny seeing people ignore that and stereotype them anyways.

Spoiler

I'm sure there are some not so nice people in there as well. It is twitter after all. Just pointing out that the majority of those posts so far seem pretty great.

Thanks. Can someone help me out on MRA?

 

[Vlade]

I don't really understand this. You seem to know a lot more about the subject than I do, so feel free to enlighten me, but how does the media dictate the meaning of words? I can see how they can reaffirm it and perhaps spread it to more people, but I would think society itself dictates the meaning.

I wouldn't say dictate, but it's a place where few people can influence many in terms of how a word is used. Can, it's not done garauntee or anything. Look at meme images, we now can express ourselves directly with moments in tv and movies. It's just a common reference. Same thing with words.

I'm no expert, i just have an interest in it. I noticed things, read more on it.

I don't disagree with the way you phrased it, i just think it's important to be mindful that it's not an automatic process. People can select and flavor ideas and words as they are spread.

 

[Curufinwe]

Max Scoville and others are talking about their beginnings that involve making little-to-nothing on Twitter.

I don't understand.

 

[Keyu]

Thanks. Can someone help me out on MRA?

Men's Rights Advocate. I'm probably not the best to explain it since I mostly disagree with them. But they're pretty much the opposite side of the 'social justice warriors'.
They're both probably similar in that at their core they probably have some kind of legitimate argument somewhere, but the way they go about it is usually not great.

mra and sjw get bandied about a lot when you want to frame the person you disagree with as an extremist.

Some one else will probably have more time to explain it better though since I'm running out the door right now.

 

[Jarate]

Thanks. Can someone help me out on MRA?

MRA stands for Men's Rights Activist, they are people who focus on issues of mens rights.

The term has had a reverse SJW effect, where people intially called themselves MRA's but then it became an insult due to varying reasons, mostly due to the fact that Reddit has many boards that are horrendously misogynistic but claim to be MRA's, dragging said idea through the mud.

MRA is pretty much the anti-SJW in this regard. It's a false tag given to a group that is meant to generalize an extreme form of said ideals.

 

[RadarScope1]

^ No, that's a great explanation thanks. Just had no idea on the acronym even.

 

[marrec]

I understand and respect your views but I feel this is a place where we can't agree. I feel that as long as words are ok to be defined on a whim and it's then up to the reader to interpret what the writer intends blurs the lines of ethics when writing. I don't want to argue with anyone either as I don't really like heated debate as it gets close to conflict, plus I want to hit my membership at GAF eventually and not be banned so I'll show myself the door and respectfully agree to disagree. I do understand your points though.

With respect to your GAF membership:

Respectful disagreeing is part and parcel with discussions on GAF. An actual discussion of the matter is what's important and you've been nothing but reasonable in your discourse. So don't worry about losing your GAF membership. Unless, of course, you veer off into the weeds of "5 Guys" or something of the sort.

That's fine if you read those articles that way. But if you and I were in the same rooma and, with a straight face, you claimed that that is how the actual conversation has been presented, that that's what's actually being written in the trench warfare of stupidity that is Twitter (which is, you cannot deny, where most people who get any awareness of this will be drawing it from), then I would call you a bald faced liar.

There's really little room for interpretation. The problem, I think, stems from the tone of some pieces and especially Leigh Alexander's piece. She's fiery and rhetorical in her condemnation of what she describes in the very article people are upset by as a Stereotype. She never once claims that self-identified gamers are all wastes of human life and space as she herself would likely identify, or would have at one point, as a Gamer.

She writes:

This is what the rest of the world knows about your industry -- this, and headlines about billion-dollar war simulators or those junkies with the touchscreen candies. That’s it. You should absolutely be better than this.

Again, she's calling out a caricature. The presentation of "gamer". How the world sees "gamer" through the looking glass of marketing and culture and most especially the internet. And she's not wrong, as Twitter has been so quick to prove.

The irony of her piece is that it has drawn, like a magnet, the exact reaction you would expect if she was 100% correct. Almost as if she were predicting a theory from some standard model of gaming.

Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.

The above paragraph is true of gaming a year ago and it's never been proven more true of gaming than in the last 2 weeks. Our community has a rotten appendage, that's undeniable. The quicker we remove that appendage the better off for the community. Luckily for all of us gamers our "body" has grown massively in the last decade so that the rotten part that is most vocal and most vile has become small and insignificant.

So, "gamer" is no longer needed. Nobody needs to market to the media driven ideal of 13-35 year old male socially downtrodden nerd. And all the better for it.

At least, that's how I read it.

Of course, as Alexander pointed out, Twitter is going to be shitty no matter. So if you're getting the narrative in 140 character chapters, then you're missing gigantic pieces of important context.

 

[lefantome]

How this for a bit of clarity or context:

I identify myself as a gamer. I have since I was a wee lad. I also understand that the traditional understanding of the gaming demographic has emerged from it's marketing driven stereotype of socially awkward nerds into a much larger and inclusive demographic that can cater to all types of both players and marketers.

That's what the recent "death of a gamer" articles are about. It's not about how gamers are all assholes. It's about how gamers are a new emergent force in the 21st century and traditional, maybe even stereotypical, gamers who've cherished their niche entertainment aren't in control of it anymore and never will be.

That "Gamer" is dead, love live the gamer.

Well if it's pretty clear what most of the journalists really thought when they wrote these articles if you give a look at their twitter.

Nobody is complaining to the demographic becoming larger, this is not the point. Also gamers are people who share a passion for videogames not all the people who play videogames.
These are the people who are protesting and they already are a large and inclusive demographic.

By the way gamers are still in control, ask Microsoft.

 

[APF]

I don't think anyone is actually having a conversation on Twitter; those hashtags just appear to be a firehose of trolling.

 

[The Adder]

At least, that's how I read it.

Of course, as Alexander pointed out, Twitter is going to be shitty no matter. So if you're getting the narrative in 140 character chapters, then you're missing gigantic pieces of important context.

I'm gonna respond to the rest of your post later, I can't now as I am at work, but I'd like to address this last bit.

That's the point I am making with regards to my last post. How do you think the vast majority of people are getting any kind of information regarding this whole shit show?

And the tone there, the words used there, or even on the far less limited Facebook do not match your interpretation of what these articles are about and that's what bothers me on the north east quadrant of the plane (what bothers me on the north west quadrant of the plane goes without saying.)*

*Plane being used because there aren't two sides to this whole thing. South to north in this mental construct indicating polite discourse vs vitriolic assholishness and east to west indicating gaming media v. gaming consumer.

 

[silentQ]

Maybe its just ignorance or I am just not caught up with the latest crop of game writers but I don't see why people are getting all upset about random journalists writing pieces about the Death of the Gamer. Who the heck is Leigh Alexander for that matter who is any of these bloggers writing these pieces?

If somebody of the EGM ilk or Giant Bomb a respected games person in the community was writing the articles maybe I would care more but I just don't think everyone should be so alarmed by this. Its all just Jack Thompsonesq and honestly it doesn't bother me.

 

[marrec]

Well if it's pretty clear what most of the journalists really thought when they wrote these articles if you give a look at their twitter.

Nobody is complaining to the demographic becoming larger, this is not the point. Also gamers are people who share a passion for videogames not all the people who play videogames.
These are the people who are protesting and they already are a large and inclusive demographic.

By the way gamers are still in control, ask Microsoft.

A couple of points:

Leigh Alexander's twitter is full of what one should perceive as her passion for gaming. There's no denying that she plays and loves video games. The same could be said for any of the journalists you're referencing. They wouldn't be writing about games if they didn't love them one some level. The Developers too. All 2000+ devs who signed that open letter love video games and the people who buy and play their video games.

If there's one thing that the people on both sides of this divide share, it's a passion for playing games.

People like Anita Sarkisian are mostly exempt from having to love games as they're strictly presenting themselves as a cultural critic, not a journalist or enthusiast.

What the journalists and devs don't share is a need for vindication in regards to corruption charges. The accusations of nepotism, especially those surrounding Zoe Quinn, are something totally separate from articles proclaiming the death of "gamers". Sure, Alexander's article was in response to the disgusting shit being vocally expressed by some gamers and how visibility of that disgusting shit is actually bad for gaming... but people falsely claiming that she hates all gamers would do well to keep the corruption side of the #GamerGate debate away from the press vilification side.

My second point is on whether or not "gamers" are in control.

It's cannot be argued that "gamers" as it would have been defined in 1999 are in control of their market anymore. The PS4 has, of course, released to rip-roaring sales in western markets. Unfortunately for "gamers" and for your argument, the Japanese market is clear as to who's in control. Some of the most profitable gaming companies are those that illicit sneers from stereotypical "gamers". Gung-Ho and Supercell and King have massive coffers that were filled by people who play video games. The fringes of "gaming" have more marketing power because they have larger numbers and more money.

Microsoft made the mistake of trying to sell a traditional games console under the auspicious of media entertainment. They failed miserably. Sony sold the PS4 as a machine that plays games. Very importantly they've cultivated a garden of independent games on their machine that would otherwise have been unavailable to console gamers so that even without the power of traditional "AAA" franchises they've been able to sell over 10 million consoles.

So you see, Microsoft didn't lose because it failed to target "gamers". It lost because it failed to target the new gamer that has replaced the old.

 

[APF]

If somebody of the EGM ilk or Giant Bomb a respected games person in the community was writing the articles

I suggested this earlier in the thread, and I say this as a fan of theirs, but I think it bears repeating that if the chief complaints of pro-gamergate people are nepotism and closeness-to-developers within game journalism, Giant Bomb should be the main target of their ire. And yet it's rarely mentioned.

 

[marrec]

I suggested this earlier in the thread, and I say this as a fan of theirs, but I think it bears repeating that if the chief complaints of pro-gamergate people are nepotism and closeness-to-developers within game journalism, Giant Bomb should be the main target of their ire. And yet it's rarely mentioned.

There's one BIIIIIIG difference between Greg Kasavin and Zoe Quinn.

 

[APF]

There's one BIIIIIIG difference between Greg Kasavin and Zoe Quinn.

Hmmm....

 

[Geek]

Here's a link to the video itself.

This is maybe the most misleading, out of touch, willfully dishonest, ignorant and paranoid video I've seen from the entire debacle yet! I thought it was parody for the first five minutes.

 

[Abelian75]

Personally, at this point I barely even care about the journalistic integrity stuff. I'd settle for "not being explicitly hated".

 

[CuckFupertino]

... I also said such games [games with good female leads] should be requested in addition to already existing content and that games, particularly from Japanese developers, shouldn't be attacked nor should their audiences be demonized. Yet that's exactly what happened with a lot of that content, press writing about how Dragon's Crown was for 14 year old boys and actually deducting from their review scores on that basis. Some defended it but the game didn't lie about its art direction. It hid nothing, so having a member of your staff review content that they will so clearly have a bias against is no different than running CinemaBlend and shoving somebody who hates violence in media on the review of the latest horror film. It's entirely disingenuous, disrespectful to the artists who created the content and soapboxing for your own political views in favor of actually informing the audience who would be interested.

I've cut this paragraph of text from your post, but I didn't want to take it completely out of context. In brackets I've pasted a line of text from your earlier paragraph, so anyone reading it out of context can know what you mean by "such games." If I've read incorrectly however feel free to respond and let me know.

How "political" am I for thinking this is out of control?

I don't understand your argument that Japanese developers should not be attacked for producing games with content like the above picture. Your thesis seems to be that since the game is up-front about its intended audience, disinterested parties shouldn't take offense. Whether or not the developer is marketing its game to an intended demographic "honestly" is irrelevant. The attacks, or criticism, on the game's portrayal of women is for the sake of the medium as a whole. Whether or not you're interested in this game doesn't matter - you still stand to benefit from an industry that takes itself more seriously, and doesn't green light infantile images like the above. What's at stake is not necessarily the way a game is marketed, or whether or not it is "honest" in its representation, but rather the quality of its content. In this case, that content is a grotesque over-sexualization of its characters. It's trash, plain and simple, and deserves to be criticized for it.

Your second argument, about website's letting "biased" staff members write about the game, also doesn't hold water. Recognizing when something is over-exaggerated to the point of becoming a self-parody is part of being a critic. You're just as "biased" for pointing that out as you are "biased" against Superman 64 for being hot garbage. Criticism is inherently subjective, and one hopes to read criticism which aligns with your personal values and interests. It's often useful to read criticism from the other side of the fence as well, but hopefully a good critic is able to acknowledge all arguments and objections regardless of their personal preference.

It is not disrespectful or disingenuous to any artist to criticize their work. That's part of producing any content that is made available publicly. Furthermore, arguing that the characters in Dragon's Crown are over-sexualized to the point of absurdity is hardly a "political" stance. They look ridiculous to the point that it detracts from the game. Personally, if I put the game on the TV with the Sorceress as my character, my girlfriend walks out of the room. The sight of it disgusts her. I thank any game critic for pointing that out, because I do not want to buy a video game as unfit for public consumption as this one.

 

[silentQ]

I suggested this earlier in the thread, and I say this as a fan of theirs, but I think it bears repeating that if the chief complaints of pro-gamergate people are nepotism and closeness-to-developers within game journalism, Giant Bomb should be the main target of their ire. And yet it's rarely mentioned.

I believe Patrick is the only one that has addressed this stuff since he was in the line of fire with it. We haven't heard anybody else at Giant Bomb reference any of the Zoe Quinn Drama or the Death to the Gamers stuff so I would say maybe thats best left that way and it shows there professionalism as well since really Giant Bombs only connection is some panel at PAX.

 

[Curufinwe]

There's one BIIIIIIG difference between Greg Kasavin and Zoe Quinn.

Namely that's he's shipped two critically acclaimed and successful independent games in addition to previously being a developer for EA and the Editor of one of the biggest videogames websites in the world.

 

[Iva Demilcol]

My point is that there's too much hate spilling from all sides. But I expected more out from the industry, since you know, we are the ones who made their living (this QA guy is not the only one from the gaming industry who acts like this). So fuck it, I quit. Let them do whatever they want.

All I know is, from now on I will be much, much more selective about which games I will be getting (and from whom). Needless to say I'll also change my vg sites visiting habits.

That's the same conclusion I made yesterday.

I'll avoid some websites like the plague, specially those who have shown theses days that they don't disclose information regarding how their writers clearly push the games of their friends. It may not change a thing, but we don't now that yet. The journalists that clearly hate the audience they are writing for by associated them with a few bad apples and then saying something like "we don't mean all of you guys but FUCK YOU ALL!"?, well, someday they'll repent of what they did, and I hope that by that time they realize how the world out of their bubble really sees them and how far of the reality they live.

I'll double check who are the people that fight over my money the next time that I feel like buying an Indie title. Again, it may not change anything at all, but let's see what happens when they run out of "cups of coffee".

I realize that this all sounds bitter and hyperbolic but I'm a guy that can live without what I think is toxic for the industry, after all I've survived years and years without buying stuff from publishers like EA, Activision and all the others who try to push for the implementation of anti-consumer policies, I just have to add to the list a small circle of indie devs now.

 

[marrec]

Personally, at this point I barely even care about the journalistic integrity stuff. I'd settle for "not being explicitly hated".

Are you actively attacking female developers and journalists simply because they're female? Then you've got your wish.

Nobody hates gamers. People hate a small segment of vocal assholes who self-identify as "gamers" who just so happen to also be some of the worst people on the internet.

Namely that's he's shipped two critically acclaimed and successful independent games in addition to previously being a developer for EA and the Editor of one of the biggest videogames websites in the world.

Nah, Zoe Quinn shipped a critically acclaimed and successful independant game too. I guess she's too busy being threatened out of her home to be working on game #2 right now.

There's something else... can't put my finger on it...... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Karkador]

I suggested this earlier in the thread, and I say this as a fan of theirs, but I think it bears repeating that if the chief complaints of pro-gamergate people are nepotism and closeness-to-developers within game journalism, Giant Bomb should be the main target of their ire. And yet it's rarely mentioned.

I've been thinking the same thing, although GB got some flak a few months ago for their new hires that remained within their circle of friends, basically. Weird how differently that discussion panned out on GAF.

 

[Marsyas]

Anita's critiques aren't good. They aren't very well presented, sometimes not particularly well-researched, often ineffective, and wouldn't pass muster in a more developed field like art criticism, film, or academia. Reading Camille Paglia or Edward Said, and hearing Judith Butler speak: all of that opened me to a ton of interesting new ideas and really made me reevaluate my views, and Anita's critiques are going to have a hard time reaching anyone that isn't already of the same disposition. However, requiring someone to be a critic on the level of a Butler or a Said to be able to start a conversation is in itself problematic, so here we are.

You're comparison is a bit unfair. Anita Sarkeesian's videos serve a different purpose and a very different audience than (e.g.) a book by Judith Butler. Her intention is to "examine the plot devices and patterns most often associated with female characters in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective". That's it. It's just an introduction (in a mostly descriptive way) for "regular" people interested in the topic. The philosophers/academics you list are more interested in (feminist) theory itself and in advancing this theory. Their audiences are (often) other academics who already know a lot about feminism. The more layered and sophisticated criticism for video games you ask for actually exists (e.g. here), but these texts are usually a bit too complicated/too niche for people who aren't familiar with the jargon (unlike an Anita Sarkeesian video).

A fairer question would be "are her videos good enough for the intended purpose?" And the answer to that is, imho: "Yes, they are." She can break down an issue and present it properly for her intended audience. They are good enough to introduce people to the field and they can start a proper discussion. Of course they could be better, but the quality is already well above similar videos by other people.

And I agree that we need more and better critics; one for "othering," one for racism and one for masculinities etc. But in light of the things that are currently happening, I wouldn't count on people stepping forward to expose themselves.

Microsoft made the mistake of trying to sell a traditional games console under the auspicious of media entertainment. They failed miserably. Sony sold the PS4 as a machine that plays games. Very importantly they've cultivated a garden of independent games on their machine that would otherwise have been unavailable to console gamers so that even without the power of traditional "AAA" franchises they've been able to sell over 10 million consoles.

So you see, Microsoft didn't lose because it failed to target "gamers". It lost because it failed to target the new gamer that has replaced the old.

I hope you're not serious. It isn't Hohokum that sells consols, it's FIFA, CoD, Destiny, NBA, AC, Watch_Dogs, Battlefield...

 

[The Adder]

Are you actively attacking female developers and journalists simply because they're female? Then you've got your wish.

Nobody hates gamers. People hate a small segment of vocal assholes who self-identify as "gamers" who just so happen to also be some of the worst people on the internet.

*Based on your interpretation of articles members of the general population who have caught wind of this will almost ceartainly not have read.

 

[Deitus]

The arguments that "the death of the gamer" articles should not be taken personally would hold a lot more water if they weren't immediately followed by the authors of the articles taking to twitter to stereotype and insult gamers. Especially when the #describeagamerin4words was making its rounds and many of the journalists joined in or at best said nothing. If that was all just people misinterpreting their words, and they really wanted to inform people that the audience is bigger and more diverse than ever, they should have absolutely been trying to push back against that movement.

Instead, it was just free reign for people to hurl out insults and stereotypes against people they look down on. Whatever their original intentions may have been, it has been tarnished by what it turned into. If "gamers" are guilty by association with hateful bigots in their ranks, than the death of a gamer movement is completely tarnished by those who used it to spread hate.

I suggested this earlier in the thread, and I say this as a fan of theirs, but I think it bears repeating that if the chief complaints of pro-gamergate people are nepotism and closeness-to-developers within game journalism, Giant Bomb should be the main target of their ire. And yet it's rarely mentioned.

Giant Bomb is a weird thing, but they (outside of maybe Patrick) are not considered to be journalists, and they do not present themselves as such. They are a personality driven site. It would be unrealistic to hold them to the same standard as Polygon or Kotaku. And aside from that, the fact that they have content where they and a bunch of developers sit around drinking beer and shooting the shit is very entertaining, and it's good that something like that can exist (much better than having them compete with gaming news sites by doing the same thing as anyone else).

They could probably do more to separate themselves from the traditional games media though, like not doing reviews. But I don't consider what they are doing corruption, because they are not trying to present it as anything other than what it is.

There's one BIIIIIIG difference between Greg Kasavin and Zoe Quinn.

There are a ton of differences between the two. They aren't really comparable outside of being indie devs.