Support NeoGAF

[Vlade]

To give people here a better understanding about what is triggering Gamergate. Fact is Zoe Quinn could have been a male and there probably wouldn't be that much of a difference in the treatement she/he'll get. Misogyny is playing a much smaller part in the saga than what many think.

Not at all true. like at all.

She was targeted initially for "using her vagina to gain favor" as accused by a jilted lover. It had nothing to do with anything she did in terms of what GG has dreamed up as a revision of history. In fact she was targeted completely and only because she is a woman.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

You need to stop accusing GamerGate supporters of hating women because they have women who stand with them. They do not support harassing anyone. Go to a GamerGate thread on 8chan and see for yourself. Engage in conversation. They are not hiding, it is a public site. I went and they absolutely do not support anyone who wants to threaten or harass anyone. They even have a mother figure in Sommers, and daughter in Vivian, along with many female developers whom they respect. You need to stop making this about gender.

Wow, this is gold. And then the same people love to scream on Twitter that Neogaf members are the ones in an echochamber. This is unbelievable. If only this was a huge joke, I wouldn't be so discouraged...

 

[SwissLion]

People trying to argue against making sweeping statements in this thread actually make me feel more okay about making sweeping statements.

I still think it's worth knowing how things got to this point, which unfortunately means attempting to understand people's twisted motivations.

But yes it's quickly approaching the same kind of point as people who say they're not feminists. You've either been misled as to what that means, are wilfully ignorant of what it means, or you're kind of an asshole.

 

[partyphone]

That Verge article is an embarrassment, and the fact that Will Smith of all people is using it to push the Intel thing as "an astroturf campaign from protectionist gamers" just makes me sad.

how is it embarrassing? everything here seems accurate.

 

[thesolidshark]

The Death of Adulthood in American Culture

Against YA (Young Adult Fiction)

Comic Book Movie Fans Are Ruining Comic Book Movies

Literally "the death of", "generalized swath of people ruining", or "this is bad from a critical perspective" articles have been done to death for tons of other media. You all need to broaden your horizons and read more than just video game journalism. Some of these linked ones are far more inflammatory and dismissive to groups than Leigh's piece to boot. The backlash wasn't nearly as bad.

I would think a lot of people/gamers are aware of other facets of media and journalism using the bolded and don't agree with it whenever or however it's used, including when gamers became the target.

And there could be a few elements that set apart why LA got so much backlash while others might not have. Gamers could be more passionate, it could be part of build-up of other times when gamers have been condescended to or worse ("entitled" gamer, for example), that LA's article was based on recent controversy, who she chose to blame, etc. Hell, "Gamers are Over" is a stronger title than "Gamers are Ruining Gaming" or "Against Gamers."

 

[MHWilliams]

Wasn't the whole Gerstmann being fired from Gamespot a similar story? A company pulling advertising because they didn't like his review, if I remember correctly.

Isn't journalism supposed to have some sort of wall between the writers and the advertisers so this sorta thing can't be abused?

Most outlets do, which is why the best story we have is one from 2007.

Rab Florence (casualty of the Doritosgate / Wainwright / Eurogamer fiasco) has written an excellent open letter regarding this. Should be required reading for everyone involved.

A lot more amazing stuff at the link. http://www.amusementarcade.org/2014/10/02/a-letter-to-some-dude-on-gamergate/

Good stuff from Rab as usual.

This is very condescending and offensive. How is this line of reasoning any different than someone justifying their racism by saying "I didn't mean you, I meant other black people. We cool bro?".

Our cultural identity based on consumption is not equal to my racial identity.

I'm saying if you were a bigoted troll you could seize upon the actions of a few horrible people to make insulting generalizations about a large group of people who never had anything to do with it and no way to stop them.

We generally recognize this as wrong.

You have a way to stop and minimize them. Instead of attacking the same people they are attacking, you speak out directly against them, repeatedly and consistently.

Again that's not my opinion, but lots of people in 4chan were seriously upset when it was announced that Depression Quest will be free after Robbie Williams's death.

It was always free. It was released on the web in 2013 and it was always free or pay what you want.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I still think it's worth knowing how things got to this point, which unfortunately means attempting to understand people's twisted motivations.

But yes it's quickly approaching the same kind of point as people who say they're not feminists. You've either been misled as to what that means, are wilfully ignorant of what it means, or you're kind of an asshole.

I mostly pay attention to stuff like #GG because I care about writing realistic villains in my comic.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Let's say that Zoe legitimately was trying to capitalize on Robin Williams' death

Can you find me all of the complaints about Sony having a Robin Williams sale on PSN after his death?

 

[tonysidaway]

Those of us arguing that game culture is sick are only aided and proven correct when we face attempts to dismiss the serious harm done as the work of a few. Those people clearly couldn't get away with it if they were denounced and told to stop in as clear a voice and by as many people as are now denouncing game journalists for having the temerity to point out that the culture that allows this to go on is sick.

Imagine that, instead of denouncing journalists for making unpalatable but important statements, Gamergate denounced misogynists for threatening human lives or for condoning or enabling such threats.

In short, if there were really some secret conspiracy to make gaming a safer space for female developers and gamers, they would look on Gamergate as an unexpected treat.

Each time a Gamergate supporter shows more concern for the reputation of gamers than the lives and safety of women under serious threat by anyone in the name of gaming, that cements the feminist narrative of a sick and misogynistic game culture more firmly in the public mind. It's not "evil feminists" or "social justice warriors" doing that, it's Gamergate.

 

[SwissLion]

And there could be a few elements that set apart why LA got so much backlash while others might not have. Gamers could be more passionate, it could be part of build-up of other times when gamers have been condescended to or worse ("entitled" gamer, for example), that LA's article was based on recent controversy, who she chose to blame, etc. Hell, "Gamers are Over" is a stronger title than "Gamers are Ruining Gaming" or "Against Gamers."

Gonna go ahead with the actual reason: She is an outspoken woman, who writes from a feminist perspective about games.

Like, Kotaku as a target of some ire I understand, they do tend towards the clickbait more often than I really appreciate, I wouldn't characterise their inclusiveness-based articles that way but they do have a reputation otherwise.

I've really never seen much from Leigh Alexander that wasn't insightful and/or funny.

 

[RicoTheMad]

When you stand beside the evil monster people are wont to assume you agree with it.

Also WB are slimy asshats for the whole SoM campaign regardless of the quality of the software. The point of even raising SoM is that this is an example of paid promotion kept on the down low until revealed by TB. Yet GG has no problem with this because it's a standard violent empowerment fantasy where you play generi-dude who kills shit from a huge corporation. But allegations that have been proven false again and again about undue prominence being afforded to an indie game about depression just will not fucking die though.

You are on NeoGAF. Is it ok for people to hold you responsible for what everyone on the site says at any time?

Generalizations are the root of racism, misogyny, and all of the things people claim to be fighting in this thing. Yet I see people using them to attack their opposition on both sides of the fence. The problem being, you can't claim to be for a movement, when you are no better than the people you claim to be fighting if you're saying things like "all gamers are X".

People seem awfully quick to forget that a civil rights movement is the fight for equality and individualism. That applies for everyone, including the people you don't like, despite how much you may dislike them.


Regarding your comments about the game: Sorry, but last time I checked, you, like everyone else, are free to play the games you want to play (except on consoles, where Sex is a big no-no apparently). Just like you can have your art games, others can have their violent games that are just for fun. If you choose to belittle games you don't feel are "artsy enough" like you do, then perhaps consider that you are being very hypocritical considering art has many types of art and facets to it, just like video games.

You have paintings that's depictions of battles. Images of strong warriors decked in combat gear or regalia. You have paintings of nude men and women, you have abstract art, etc.

So Shadows Of Mordor is arguably just as much art as Depression Quest. So what's your beef with it, exactly? If it isn't your cup of tea leave it be, it's pointless to slander a game the developers clearly put good thought and design into, not to mention years of their life (which is quite a bit more than a game like Depression Quest takes to make) just to try to further whatever flimsy point you're trying to make about games being art.

Games are art. Who cares if someone doesn't believe you? Will that stop them from being art all of the sudden?

On the other hand, I do care about people belittling other types of games that focus on fun and gameplay because they don't fit their personal definition of "art" to further their own silly agendas.

 

[Oersted]

Gonna go ahead with the actual reason: She is an outspoken woman, who writes from a feminist perspective about games.

Like, Kotaku as a target of some ire I understand, they do tend towards the clickbait more often than I really appreciate, I wouldn't characterise their inclusiveness-based articles that way but they do have a reputation otherwise.

I've really never seen much from Leigh Alexander that wasn't insightful and/or funny.

Funny thing is, we have never seen such a backlash for the blatant sexist crap Kotaku once posted.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Since GamerGate is toxic at its core, a better comparison would be Stormfront

Don't post on Stormfront

 

[RicoTheMad]

I think this is actually a bad way to argue this since men do get attacked(see the CoD guy who got death threats because they changed shotguns). The difference is in the volume and intensity of the harassment. on average women see it way more frequently and in much lager numbers then men.

I'm curious to see things about volume and intensity, since that implies there are numbers to back that up. I'm anti harassment of anyone, period, but I dislike the idea of people playing the "I'm a bigger victim than you, pity me more!" card without actual numbers to back it.

Are there any studies, or situations you can point to, that show this is the case?

I'm inclined to believe that we hear more about women getting harassed because the media is making that more visible than the thousands of hate mails male devs get and just ignore. It gets more clicks. Period.

I know *I* personally have been attacked for no reason many times on my game's Steam page, and I've been intentionally keeping my own game on the quiet front for now. I've cleaned such vitriol out of my game's page like you've never seen before.

It's fairly common that when you put yourself and your work out there, people will be jerks to you. Because there's a higher number of jerks than there are good people in the world, it seems. Or more likely, the good people are quieter.

 

[FoneBone]

That Verge article is an embarrassment, and the fact that Will Smith of all people is using it to push the Intel thing as "an astroturf campaign from protectionist gamers" just makes me sad.

a. Why do you think it's "an embarrassment"?
b. Why do you think that Smith's characterization of GamerGate is wrong?

(Also, I thought you meant actor/Fresh Prince Will Smith... ha.)

 

[andymcc]

Gonna go ahead with the actual reason: She is an outspoken woman, who writes from a feminist perspective about games.

Like, look at the YA article I linked. It's way more inflammatory, condescending and insulting to fans of YA fiction than Leigh's article. It's on a site that receives way more monthly visitors than Gamasutra. While it was circulated on the net quite a bit (even here on GAF), there wasn't a concerted effort to get advertisers to pull ads from Slate because of it. Why didn't she receive gendered insults and sexual harassment that these women get for being loud and opinionated?

Spoiler

Gamers?

 

[Deleted member 126221]

You are on NeoGAF. Is it ok for people to hold you responsible for what everyone on the site says at any time?

That comparison doesn't work at all. Neogaf isn't a "movement" with "goals", "enemies", etc. If Neogaf was full of hate, gratuitous attacks, misogyny and conspiracy theories, then yeah I guess posting on it would be a stupid idea if you don't want to be associated with these people...

 

[MHWilliams]

You are on NeoGAF. Is it ok for people to hold you responsible for what everyone on the site says at any time?

Generalizations are the root of racism, misogyny, and all of the things people claim to be fighting in this thing. Yet I see people using them to attack their opposition on both sides of the fence. The problem being, you can't claim to be for a movement, when you are no better than the people you claim to be fighting if you're saying things like "all gamers are X".

People seem awfully quick to forget that a civil rights movement is the fight for equality and individualism. That applies for everyone, including the people you don't like, despite how much you may dislike them.


Regarding your comments about the game: Sorry, but last time I checked, you, like everyone else, are free to play the games you want to play (except on consoles, where Sex is a big no-no apparently). Just like you can have your art games, others can have their violent games that are just for fun. If you choose to belittle games you don't feel are "artsy enough" like you do, then perhaps consider that you are being very hypocritical considering art has many types of art and facets to it, just like video games.

You have paintings that's depictions of battles. Images of strong warriors decked in combat gear or regalia. You have paintings of nude men and women, you have abstract art, etc.

So Shadows Of Mordor is arguably just as much art as Depression Quest. So what's your beef with it, exactly? If it isn't your cup of tea leave it be, it's pointless to slander a game the developers clearly put good thought and design into, not to mention years of their life (which is quite a bit more than a game like Depression Quest takes to make) just to try to further whatever flimsy point you're trying to make about games being art.

Games are art. Who cares if someone doesn't believe you? Will that stop them from being art all of the sudden?

On the other hand, I do care about people belittling other types of games that focus on fun and gameplay because they don't fit their personal definition of "art" to further their own silly agendas.

You realize most of this argument - If it isn't your cup of tea leave it be - can be used on the work of the games media, right?

 

[kick51]

That Verge article is an embarrassment, and the fact that Will Smith of all people is using it to push the Intel thing as "an astroturf campaign from protectionist gamers" just makes me sad.

Spoiler

why is it always anime avatars with the shitty replies

 

[Foggy]

That Verge article is an embarrassment, and the fact that Will Smith of all people is using it to push the Intel thing as "an astroturf campaign from protectionist gamers" just makes me sad.

Her piece argued that the games industry has now ballooned so large that it had outgrown its niche origins, making the concept of the "gamer" a thing of the past. Alexander admitted that change would be difficult for those who still self-identified as a gamer, whose "identity depends on the ageing cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex medium," but her message was triumphant. "We're creating culture now. We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating."...But the piece quickly drew flak from those who saw the acknowledgement of video gaming's depth and breadth in 2014 as a personal attack on their very own identity

It's pretty clear that people who hate the piece and who love the piece are on entirely different planets of interpretation.

 

[Zombie James]

how is it embarrassing? everything here seems accurate.

The first sentence alone is a big crock of shit:

Intel has pulled an advertising campaign from video gaming website Gamasutra after it reportedly received a number of complaints from self-identified gamers upset that the site was championing fair gender representation in video games.

I'm one of those people that absolutely hated the anti-gamer word-vomit that came out of Gamasutra and it had nothing to do with fair gender representation.

 

[tonysidaway]

You are on NeoGAF. Is it ok for people to hold you responsible for what everyone on the site says at any time?

Speaking for myself, yes, in the broadest sense. I am capable of condemning harmful behaviour, and like any other responsible human being I know that when I see serious harm but do not condemn it immediately I may be held to account for that and it will harm my reputation. I use NeoGAF because it has a good reputation for moderated, civilised discussion, and I'm comfortable with that.

This is why we are winning hearts and minds while Gamergate has even been kicked off 4chan. An ungoverned rabble lashing out at the world does not earn much of a reputation.

 

[balohna]

So the thing about Intel pulling ad support is... they probably do want to advertise to gamers. If the website is actively saying "Gamers don't matter anymore" then I can see them not wanting to advertise on that website.

Still, the motivations for such a campaign are hardly admirable.

 

[benicillin]

So the thing about Intel pulling ad support is... they probably do want to advertise to gamers. If the website is actively saying "Gamers don't matter anymore" then I can see them not wanting to advertise on that website.

Still, the motivations for such a campaign are hardly admirable.

Intel pulling an ad campaign isn't in support of one side or the other, it's a reaction to a large number of complaints they received about one of their ad partners. Implying that they support GG (or "gamers") because they pulled the ad campaign is kinda silly.

 

[tranciful]

I'm curious to see things about volume and intensity, since that implies there are numbers to back that up. I'm anti harassment of anyone, period, but I dislike the idea of people playing the "I'm a bigger victim than you, pity me more!" card without actual numbers to back it.

Are there any studies, or situations you can point to, that show this is the case?

I'm inclined to believe that we hear more about women getting harassed because the media is making that more visible than the thousands of hate mails male devs get and just ignore. It gets more clicks. Period.

I know *I* personally have been attacked for no reason many times on my game's Steam page, and I've been intentionally keeping my own game on the quiet front for now. I've cleaned such vitriol out of my game's page like you've never seen before.

It's fairly common that when you put yourself and your work out there, people will be jerks to you. Because there's a higher number of jerks than there are good people in the world, it seems. Or more likely, the good people are quieter.

a few pages back:

• Study – 63% of women polled report being harassed while gaming online: http://blog.pricecharting.com/2012/09/emilyami-sexism-in-video-games-study.html
• There’s No Comparing Male and Female Harassment Online: http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/
• Race-swap: http://www.onthemedia.org/story/31-race-swap-experiment/
• For women on the Internet, it doesn't get better: http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/it-doesnt-get-better-women-internet/
• Reactions to a woman’s voice in an FPS game: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/WaiY...eactions_to_a_womans_voice_in_an_FPS_game.php
• Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/
• The Celebrity Nude Photo Leak Is Just Another Form of Online Harassment of Women: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/nude-celeb-leak-online-harassment-of-women.html

 

[FoneBone]

You are on NeoGAF. Is it ok for people to hold you responsible for what everyone on the site says at any time?

Generalizations are the root of racism, misogyny, and all of the things people claim to be fighting in this thing. Yet I see people using them to attack their opposition on both sides of the fence. The problem being, you can't claim to be for a movement, when you are no better than the people you claim to be fighting if you're saying things like "all gamers are X".

People seem awfully quick to forget that a civil rights movement is the fight for equality and individualism. That applies for everyone, including the people you don't like, despite how much you may dislike them.


Regarding your comments about the game: Sorry, but last time I checked, you, like everyone else, are free to play the games you want to play (except on consoles, where Sex is a big no-no apparently). Just like you can have your art games, others can have their violent games that are just for fun. If you choose to belittle games you don't feel are "artsy enough" like you do, then perhaps consider that you are being very hypocritical considering art has many types of art and facets to it, just like video games.

You have paintings that's depictions of battles. Images of strong warriors decked in combat gear or regalia. You have paintings of nude men and women, you have abstract art, etc.

So Shadows Of Mordor is arguably just as much art as Depression Quest. So what's your beef with it, exactly? If it isn't your cup of tea leave it be, it's pointless to slander a game the developers clearly put good thought and design into, not to mention years of their life (which is quite a bit more than a game like Depression Quest takes to make) just to try to further whatever flimsy point you're trying to make about games being art.

Games are art. Who cares if someone doesn't believe you? Will that stop them from being art all of the sudden?

On the other hand, I do care about people belittling other types of games that focus on fun and gameplay because they don't fit their personal definition of "art" to further their own silly agendas.

Asserting that people who criticize depictions of gender/race/sexuality/violence in games are saying that said games aren't "artsy enough" is one hell of a strawman. And if you're opposed to the existence of such criticism, you're the one who doesn't respect gaming as an artistic medium.

 

[partyphone]

The first sentence alone is a big crock of shit:



I'm one of those people that absolutely hated the anti-gamer word-vomit that came out of Gamasutra and it had nothing to do with fair gender representation.

I'm not familiar with any anti-gamer article posted on gamasutra.

 

[Visualante2]

I think some posters need to appreciate that this decision doesn't have to be as black and white as whether Intel has the "right" to remove ads (of course they do). Instead the discussion should probably focus on more what it says about Intel's agenda and reasoning behind the move. To me it seems strange and almost incongruous to the Intel that I know of. If it were nvidia or razer then I could understand.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I'm curious to see things about volume and intensity, since that implies there are numbers to back that up. I'm anti harassment of anyone, period, but I dislike the idea of people playing the "I'm a bigger victim than you, pity me more!" card without actual numbers to back it.

Are there any studies, or situations you can point to, that show this is the case?

I'm inclined to believe that we hear more about women getting harassed because the media is making that more visible than the thousands of hate mails male devs get and just ignore. It gets more clicks. Period.

I know *I* personally have been attacked for no reason many times on my game's Steam page, and I've been intentionally keeping my own game on the quiet front for now. I've cleaned such vitriol out of my game's page like you've never seen before.

It's fairly common that when you put yourself and your work out there, people will be jerks to you. Because there's a higher number of jerks than there are good people in the world, it seems. Or more likely, the good people are quieter.

Are you serious?

Just with a quick google search, first result: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/WaiY...eactions_to_a_womans_voice_in_an_FPS_game.php

Or try presenting yourself as a woman when playing an online game. Or look at who gamergate is targeting. Or look at the comments on any article vaguely related to feminism on a gaming website. Or compare the twitter account of a female dev and a male one.

If you seriously believe women in gaming don't get more harassment, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[kick51]

When you stand beside the evil monster people are wont to assume you agree with it.

Also WB are slimy asshats for the whole SoM campaign regardless of the quality of the software. The point of even raising SoM is that this is an example of paid promotion kept on the down low until revealed by TB. Yet GG has no problem with this because it's a standard violent empowerment fantasy where you play generi-dude who kills shit from a huge corporation. But allegations that have been proven false again and again about undue prominence being afforded to an indie game about depression just will not fucking die though.

They're more likely to latch on to Senran Kagura, which is likely to incite some critical articles when it releases in a couple weeks. The reaction to those articles will plainly lay out the #GG machine in action (trying to silence all criticism under the guise of saving whatever the fuck it is they think they're saving)

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I'm curious to see things about volume and intensity, since that implies there are numbers to back that up. I'm anti harassment of anyone, period, but I dislike the idea of people playing the "I'm a bigger victim than you, pity me more!" card without actual numbers to back it.

Usually when people talk about a lot of visible harassment of women, the "what about the menz" arguments are there to derail the subject rather than aid to the discussion. (they're often paired with "well I get rape threats and I don't care, so neither should you")

A good source for studies is usually looking for keywords on google scholar to see what research pops up, but in general studies are only reliable if they're confined to very specific cases to avoid non-gender factors playing the determining role.

Regardless of if it's worse or not there is a lot of documentation that's non-research (e.g. http://fatuglyorslutty.com/ ) that documents perpetual and sexually/gender-charged harassment of women.

 

[thesolidshark]

Gonna go ahead with the actual reason: She is an outspoken woman, who writes from a feminist perspective about games.

Like, Kotaku as a target of some ire I understand, they do tend towards the clickbait more often than I really appreciate, I wouldn't characterise their inclusiveness-based articles that way but they do have a reputation otherwise.

I've really never seen much from Leigh Alexander that wasn't insightful and/or funny.

Do you think the reaction to LA would've been as numerous if she titled it "(Some) Gamers Can Do Bad Things" and then proceed to specifically talk about whomever did the bad things and how bad the effects were? I could agree with the "actual reason" making her the target of more severe ire or worse by a few individuals, but what she did make made for a much bigger target in my opinion.

And assuming you follow her work often, does a lot of her work resemble the Gamers are Over article?

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Do you think the reaction to LA would've been as numerous if she titled it "(Some) Gamers Can Do Bad Things" and then proceed to specifically talk about whomever did the bad things and how bad the effects were? I could agree with the "actual reason" making her the target of more severe ire or worse by a few individuals, but what she did make made for a much bigger target in my opinion.

And assuming you follow her work often, does a lot of her work resemble the Gamers are Over article?

No offense, but I don't think you'd make a very good writer.

This whole circus around that editorial is ridiculous. It's not her fault if people have poor reading comprehension or only see what they want to see.

 

[Canucked]

If all the innocent non-misogynist gamergaters really have nothing to do with the trolling and feel like there's a legitimate force in #GG then they need to spend some time cleaning up their own back yard and start publicly denouncing trolls. And "gather together" to help their point. Because passing the blame may be valid but it's doing nothing for your cause. Why even continue to use the rotten tag is beyond me. "I'm not a misogynist. Someone else is a troll. I'm the victim of anti gamer articles." Means nothing. If you wanna use that tag then you take what comes with it. It's voluntary involvement.

 

[Vlade]

Do you think the reaction to LA would've been as numerous if she titled it "(Some) Gamers Can Do Bad Things" and then proceed to specifically talk about whomever did the bad things and how bad the effects were? I could agree with the "actual reason" making her the target of more severe ire or worse by a few individuals, but what she did make made for a much bigger target in my opinion.

And assuming you follow her work often, does a lot of her work resemble the Gamers are Over article?

She is not the one who did something illegal and it would be shameful if she censored herself out of fear. Why focus on what makes the victim culpable, especially while stroking the offenders at the same time by discussing the point you think they are making?

edit:
also, she is not culpable, I meant to say your whole premise is disturbing.

 

[RicoTheMad]

Our cultural identity based on consumption is not equal to my racial identity.

Sorry, but this is extremely wrong.

As a Hispanic born and raised in South America who moved to the US, who has most definitely experienced discrimination right to my face, I very much completely disagree with the idea that racial identity is somehow not equatable to cultural identity.

It is *not* ok to attack people for their individual beliefs or religion, culture, hobbies, skin color, sex, or any of the above. Live and let live. There is no Totem Pole or pyramid with different levels of discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, period. It is the applying of generalizations to a broad group of individuals, usually with a negative connotation.

You do not push other people down to raise yourself up.

You realize most of this argument - If it isn't your cup of tea leave it be - can be used on the work of the games media, right?

And I disagreed with this in what manner? Did I personally do anything against Gamasutra, a gamedev site that I, as a developer, use? I really don't see your point, you must be attaching someone else's actions to me, for reasons unknown to me.

 

[Oersted]

It is funny that one overreaction ( Alexanders article), needs more discussion than the thing it was reacting to, a weeks long harassment campaign that pushes women out of the game industry.

 

[Oidisco]

So today I've seen Zoe mention on Twitter that she's still getting awful phone calls. Some assholes claim she's faking it, so she uploads a recording of one of these calls and they still claim that it's fake. These same people want her to prove it by posting the phone number for everyone to see, despite this particular phone call coming from a kid.
I've seen FilmCrit Hulk of all people consider leaving Twitter because gamergate is depressingly toxic. He honestly believes that gamergate is one of the most toxic discussions he's ever engaged in online, and I find myself agreeing with him.

And in this thread, I've been seeing the same damn points being brought up again and again (Why the fuck are we still talking about Leigh Alexander's article!?), with "facts" being regurgitated that never had any basis in reality over a month ago.

I think I'm done reading about gamergate or participating in gamergate stuff (not that I posted here too much in the first place). It's just become far too frustrating, exhausting and anxiety inducing for me at this point,although I doubt I'll be able to completely avoid reading about it since a lot of people I follow on Twitter are pretty vocal about it.
At the very least, I did get some benefit from gamergate. It's a bit ironic, but this whole mess has actually lead me to having greater respect for a large number of game journalists. I even discovered a couple of writers that I had never heard of before thanks to this (MHWilliams, for example).

It also finally convinced me to play Depression Quest, which did help me out a bit.

But yea for now, I'm done reading/participating in gamergate discussions.

 

[RicoTheMad]

Asserting that people who criticize depictions of gender/race/sexuality/violence in games are saying that said games aren't "artsy enough" is one hell of a strawman. And if you're opposed to the existence of such criticism, you're the one who doesn't respect gaming as an artistic medium.

Your logic does not make any sense. Please re-read my post and check it again please, as you clearly are reading another post entirely. I will respond to you again once I have seen you actually read and understood mine

 

[Deleted member 126221]

So today I've seen Zoe mention on Twitter that she's still getting awful phone calls. Some assholes claim she's faking it, so she uploads a recording of one of these calls and they still claim that it's fake. These same people want her to prove it by posting the phone number for everyone to see, despite this particular phone call coming from a kid.
I've seen FilmCrit Hulk of all people consider leaving Twitter because gamergate is depressingly toxic. He honestly believes that gamergate is one of the most toxic discussions he's ever engaged in online, and I find myself agreeing with him.

And in this thread, I've been seeing the same damn points being brought up again and again (Why the fuck are we still talking about Leigh Alexander's article!?), with "facts" being regurgitated that never had any basis in reality over a month ago.

I think I'm done reading about gamergate or participating in gamergate stuff (not that I posted here too much in the first place). It's just become far too frustrating, exhausting and anxiety inducing for me at this point,although I doubt I'll be able to completely avoid reading about it since a lot of people I follow on Twitter are pretty vocal about it.
At the very least, I did get some benefit from gamergate. It's a bit ironic, but this whole mess has actually lead me to having greater respect for a large number of game journalists. I even discovered a couple of writers that I had never heard of before thanks to this (MHWilliams, for example).

It also finally convinced me to play Depression Quest, which did help me out a bit.

But yea for now, I'm done reading/participating in gamergate discussions.

I completely agree. I should also take a few steps away from that subject. It's depressing, and it's going nowhere. It's always the same craziness: "not all men", "I'm offended someone used the word gamer in a negative way", "it's not about gender, it just happens that all our targets are female", "it's conspiracy because people in the industry talk to each other", etc.

It's sad, because there are a lot of legitimate problems in the game industry and the gaming press, but this clusterfuck blocked intelligent discussion for a long time. Hope they're proud.

At least, like you, I have newly found respect for many game writers (I never expected to gain a lot of respect for Kotaku, ahah!), and I'll make sure to give Depression Quest a try, as I wasn't aware that game existed before.

 

[SwissLion]

Do you think the reaction to LA would've been as numerous if she titled it "(Some) Gamers Can Do Bad Things" and then proceed to specifically talk about whomever did the bad things and how bad the effects were? I could agree with the "actual reason" making her the target of more severe ire or worse by a few individuals, but what she did make made for a much bigger target in my opinion.

And assuming you follow her work often, does a lot of her work resemble the Gamers are Over article?

That wasn't really the point of her article at all though. Like "Some Gamers do Bad Things" is a nothing article. It's nothing we didn't already know and it would presumably offer no new thought into the discussion.

The actual point of her article was an examination of how we got to the point that this small, entitled, abusive subset has been allowed to define our culture, on a low level, for so long, and right on the surface for over a month now. And why and how it's changing for the better. I didn't find it insulting to me. Because even though we don't have basements in this country I've spent my fair share of time dwelling in a side room grinding away at Dark Souls, and I knew she wasn't talking about me.

I'm not 'over' as a person. We don't have to give up our enthusiasm for our hobby. We're just becoming a still-growing but smaller part of an ever expanding whole. It's not about us as much as it used to be, and I'm fine with that, because I've watched it expand personally, through people I know, drawing them into the fold. And I'm incredibly proud, but also incredibly disappointed in the response that kind of expansion has garnered from people. And so was she, I feel, because there was a lot of justified anger behind her words. But it wasn't directed at me, you, or I'd wager, anyone in this thread, or even people who hate what she wrote.

And the fact is that the men writing very similar articles simply haven't gotten the same level of "attention". You can put it down to her being the first one among the supposedly DEEPLY COLLUSIONARY GROUP to post her article, but I don't buy it.

And I'm sure you were getting at a different kind of resemblance when you asked about the rest of her work, but honestly no. A lot of her writing shares a similar mix of sardonic confrontational language and hopeful optimism, and she does often cover uncomfortable truths, but the anger was greater behind this one. But the anger wasn't directed at me, or you, or even the people here who hate what she wrote. It was directed at the worst element of our culture that had been making many people's lives a living hell.

 

[FoneBone]

Your logic does not make any sense. Please re-read my post and check it again please, as you clearly are reading another post entirely. I will respond to you again once I have seen you actually read and understood mine

Um, did you read your own post? You were dismissing someone who (accurately) called Shadows of Mordor "a standard violent empowerment fantasy where you play generi-dude who kills shit," saying that said criticism is irrelevant because the game is "just for fun"

 

[Noaloha]

I very much completely disagree with the idea that racial identity is somehow not equatable to cultural identity.

Not 'cultural identity', 'cultural identity based on consumption'. You misread Williams' post, so: you misunderstood it, and: resultingly, you had a problem with it.

Kinda funny how the above misunderstanding effectively holds up a tiny mirror that wholly reflects the entire palaver around the Alexander article.

 

[FoneBone]

Not 'cultural identity', 'cultural identity based on consumption'. You misread Williams' post, so: you misunderstood it, and: resultingly, you had a problem with it.

Also said "cultural identity" being one that is adopted entirely voluntarily, and one that in no way faces institutional discrimination (unlike race/gender/religion/sexual orientation).

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Just popping in to say that the harassment one of my friends is dealing with daily from people using the gamergate/ethics tags has started to make her physically ill

Thanks for all of your hard work exposing corruption

 

[SwissLion]

So today I've seen Zoe mention on Twitter that she's still getting awful phone calls. Some assholes claim she's faking it, so she uploads a recording of one of these calls and they still claim that it's fake. These same people want her to prove it by posting the phone number for everyone to see, despite this particular phone call coming from a kid.
I've seen FilmCrit Hulk of all people consider leaving Twitter because gamergate is depressingly toxic. He honestly believes that gamergate is one of the most toxic discussions he's ever engaged in online, and I find myself agreeing with him.

And in this thread, I've been seeing the same damn points being brought up again and again (Why the fuck are we still talking about Leigh Alexander's article!?), with "facts" being regurgitated that never had any basis in reality over a month ago.

I think I'm done reading about gamergate or participating in gamergate stuff (not that I posted here too much in the first place). It's just become far too frustrating, exhausting and anxiety inducing for me at this point,although I doubt I'll be able to completely avoid reading about it since a lot of people I follow on Twitter are pretty vocal about it.
At the very least, I did get some benefit from gamergate. It's a bit ironic, but this whole mess has actually lead me to having greater respect for a large number of game journalists. I even discovered a couple of writers that I had never heard of before thanks to this (MHWilliams, for example).

It also finally convinced me to play Depression Quest, which did help me out a bit.

But yea for now, I'm done reading/participating in gamergate discussions.

Tonight, as I was typing an email to Intel informing them of my objection to their pulling of Ads (I encourage people do do something similar, politely), someone nicked the delicious medium rare steak I had cooked myself for dinner.

I should probably take it as a sign that I should stop subjecting myself to this stuff (I stopped checking in on the Escapist thread at least).

 

[FoneBone]

I'm sure #GamerGate will turn on Milo any day now.

 

[Vlade]

I'm sure #GamerGate will turn on Milo any day now.

I... I think....


I think I really like what he has been doing lately

 

[thesolidshark]

No offense, but I don't think you'd make a very good writer.

This whole circus around that editorial is ridiculous. It's not her fault if people have poor reading comprehension or only see what they want to see.

Well, I don't doubt that Leigh's title grabbed a lot more people than mine would, but it's hard for me to see that as good writing, depending on who's definition you're using. I'd rather not write something I'd have to apologize for later.

And I do feel like the "see what they want to see" works both ways.

She is not the one who did something illegal and it would be shameful if she censored herself out of fear. Why focus on what makes the victim culpable, especially while stroking the offenders at the same time by discussing the point you think they are making?

edit:
also, she is not culpable, I meant to say your whole premise is disturbing.

I was going to say "I don't think she should've censored herself," but I don't fully believe that given some of the result, mainly because I can't see myself writing like she does, even if I'm pissed off. She vented emotionally, maybe spontaneously, got stuff off her chest, spoke strongly, and people reacted for better or for worse.

I can feel for her in what she received outside of criticism, but I don't think she's in the clear with the statements she made. Individuals were bad for harassing her and worse, and she was bad for how she chose to vent in my opinion. If that's the premise of mine you find disturbing, ok.

That wasn't really the point of her article at all though. Like "Some Gamers do Bad Things" is a nothing article. It's nothing we didn't already know and it would presumably offer no new thought into the discussion.

The actual point of her article was an examination of how we got to the point that this small, entitled, abusive subset has been allowed to define our culture, on a low level, for so long, and right on the surface for over a month now. And why and how it's changing for the better. I didn't find it insulting to me. Because even though we don't have basements in this country I've spent my fair share of time dwelling in a side room grinding away at Dark Souls, and I knew she wasn't talking about me.

I'm not 'over' as a person. We don't have to give up our enthusiasm for our hobby. We're just becoming a still-growing but smaller part of an ever expanding whole. It's not about us as much as it used to be, and I'm fine with that, because I've watched it expand personally, through people I know, drawing them into the fold. And I'm incredibly proud, but also incredibly disappointed in the response that kind of expansion has garnered from people. And so was she, I feel, because there was a lot of justified anger behind her words. But it wasn't directed at me, you, or I'd wager, anyone in this thread, or even people who hate what she wrote.

And the fact is that the men writing very similar articles simply haven't gotten the same level of "attention". You can put it down to her being the first one among the supposedly DEEPLY COLLUSIONARY GROUP to post her article, but I don't buy it.

And I'm sure you were getting at a different kind of resemblance when you asked about the rest of her work, but honestly no. A lot of her writing shares a similar mix of sardonic confrontational language and hopeful optimism, and she does often cover uncomfortable truths, but the anger was greater behind this one. But the anger wasn't directed at me, or you, or even the people here who hate what she wrote. It was directed at the worst element of our culture that had been making many people's lives a living hell.

I appreciate your thorough answer to my question, even if we might disagree with points of the article. Thank you.

 

[tranciful]

Maybe because WB has very little reason to hide Shadow Of Mordor because it's actually a freaking amazingly made game that came out of nowhere? Maybe WB is behind the times on youtubers and is overzealous in trying to protect a huge IP like LOTR?

What sort of conspiracies could you drum up with that, exactly? The game is well reviewed and is a quality piece of work. Why do people insist on acting like GG is made up entirely of ridiculous individuals (who are apparently the devil incarnate)? There's plenty of crazies on both sides of the fence, generalizations do not help anyone's argument.

Things on the internet would go so much better if people didn't just assume everyone they're talking to is just some huge evil monster.

The quality of the game is irrelevant. There's no claims of conspiracy here. We're talking about a publisher only allowing pre-release access to journalists that agree to not talk negatively about the game.

To quote TotalBiscuit:

Reading a few forums (yeah I know my mistake) about this whole Shadow of Mordor brand deal thing boggles my mind. There are literally people saying "I don't know what he's complaining about, if he wants it early he has to give something in return". Ermm, the problem is that you can't review, first impressions, critique or whatever this game on PC prior to launch or even on launch (unless you weaseled your way in as we did) if you don't take a deal that specifically says "you can't say bad things". You don't see a problem with that? It is the worst case scenario in which a company withholds review copies to maximise potential exposure while keeping critique at bay, it's about as anti-consumer as it gets. I guess some people are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Of course I can buy it and cover it on release, by which point a bunch of people have already purchased it. Not only do we lose relevance the longer we have to wait but more importantly, consumers end up with less information. We live in a world where some consumers actually want less information it seems and are entirely ok with the first pieces of information to come out being bought and paid for. Heh, I sometimes think the biggest enemy in the battle to protect consumers, are consumers.

If #GG is about journalist corruption, these brand deals are a lot more relevant to that concern than the bullshit #GG has been obsessing over. It highlights that #GG has been incredibly disingenuous about what their concerns and goals are. They intentionally try to mislead people into thinking it's about corruption when it is plainly about other things.