Yep. On 8chan in the gg sub-board, they're currently: trawling the internet for ammunition to attack someone, talking about trying to get on FOX News, complaining about the new Borderlands, setting up an ambush of Anita Sarkeesian at a speaking engagement, praising hotwheels for "scaring off" Quinn, and bitching about Huffingtonpost.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Dead Early
Banned
Without getting into the politics of that specific case, do you really feel that miniature opinion pieces like that have a place in what's supposed to be an informative review?
Riposte
Member
But is there anything to say they are affiliated with or the discussion was related to GamerGate? Is there actually a meaningful contingent of GamerGate when they can't be named (or pointed out)? You could be right, but it just seems you are using this space to be passive aggressive about GAF members you don't agree with. In other words, you should "substantiate your claims", no?
I love this one.
Yes, I doubt the HuffingtonPost wants some random imageboard's representatives to waste their time. Don't talk to the people being harrassed, talk to the voted representative of the people doing the harassing who will try and deny the harassment!
Yes, though I think opinion pieces about said things are better separated from the game review as it gives the topic potency, rather than it being a reflection of the standard 5 checkboxes that reviewers have to hit when talking about games. Everyone knows Bayonetta is a great game mechanically, but talking about it's tone and nature are still interesting conversations to have when divorced how the game plays.
Abso-bloody-lutely. Otherwise it's not a review if they don't actually critique what's in the game.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
To be fair....4chan isn't involved anymore, as all GG discussion is banned on /v/. The closest group activity /v/ has going on right now is asking out /x/ to the Winter Ball.
....Yeah. It looks like the most extreme GGers are at 8chan now.
Giving names and examples is a better idea that slapping the gamergate label on other GAF member's whose posts you disagreed with another thread. That way we can judge for ourselves.
Neoriceisgood
Member
That's why I corrected it into 8chan.
I don't know if you can strike text on gaf or I would've made it more clear.
Do you read "reviews" for literally every other artistic medium? Of course there is always room for politics.
They're being culled.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
You worded this perfectly. I hold no malice for much of the pro-GGers. They are simply ignorant to what they're truly standing behind and have become its vocal mouthpieces. Many may actually believe they are standing up for journalistic integrity and fighting corruption in the gaming community but they are doing so with the polluted ideas gained to them by others. Ideas that are wrong but carefully disguised. If they truly cared for what they claim they care about then they wouldn't be separating themselves from people like Jim Sterling who is vocal in his criticism on corruption in the gaming industry. I say this as a individual who was at one point just as ignorant. Maybe not during this whole gamergate fiasco, but times before. It took a lot of experiences and growing up before I realized how wrong my worldview was, and I'm cautiously optimistic that many of the pro-GG crowd will eventually wake up and see the silliness behind their words and actions.
Now those who make or excuse rape/death threats are another story. Those individuals I wouldn't label as simply ignorant. I'd more likely call them criminal.
Using claims that someone slept their way to positive reviews when there were no reviews, and only a passing mention of the game before a relationship at best. attacking her instead of any of the guys supposedly involved. Completely missing the point of Alexander's article assuming they read beyond the headline. Attacking Alexander and consistently using her as an example instead of any of the guys who wrote similar articles before or after hers. Saying their argument is about journalistic ethics while ignoring and derailing ongoing ethical discussion. Claiming it's about journalistic ethics while simultaneously running operations attempting to silence criticism they don't want to hear.
Saying the movement is ignorant is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they really believe in the misinformation they're touting while remaining ignorant of the facts. If not ignorant, than hypocritical.
Dead Early
Banned
The purpose of a review, as it is known in most gaming publications, is assist consumers in making an informed decision. Do you really think something as subjective as someone's feelings on the sexual nature of a character is worth denoting the game as objectively worse?
"The literal definition of the word" was exactly what I was looking for, I just didn't get it.
That's why I corrected it into 8chan.
I don't know if you can strike text on gaf or I would've made it more clear.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
That's why I corrected it into 8chan.
I don't know if you can strike text on gaf or I would've made it more clear.
I thought you could? I've definitely seen it before on here.
Mhm. GG started out as being...a stupid front for harassing someone, and now it's evolved into....an even more stupid front.
LaserBuddha
Member
Ive merely said that some of the arguments echo those of gamergate, specifically the hysteria about oppression of gamers in threads that had already shitted up by said hysteria before I commented. I didnt actually accuse anyone of being an actual member.
Its nice that you're tracking my posts though. Flattering. Now that thats done, look up what "witch hunt" actually means.
Yep.
robovanburen
Member
Man, they really fucked up that whole "get the politics out of games" mission, didn't they?
Neoriceisgood
Member
... Yes actually. I have quite a number of friends who are far more interested in hearing reviewers' opinions on stuff like story quality, unpleasant tropes and portrayal/content they're not fond of than "oh this games graphics are nice".
Yes, absolutely. Much in the same way that the violent nature of a game would be worth denoting as making the game objectively worse. Or, in a related example, much in the same way that a short game devoid of any violence would be worth denoting the game as objectively better or worse. You put it out there and let the reader make their own decision.
Someone is using this whole thing to try and get famous. I don't know who, but someone really wants to become the Alex Jones of video games and sees this as a great gateway to do it.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I'm not tracking your posts. I post in here and was posting in the thread you started talking about GamerGate in. It wasn't much of a stretch to check my sub to see in here if you'd posted about it and sure enough you did. It'd be nice if other, unrelated threads could remain GG free.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Yes? A review IS an opinion piece, whether you talk about the controls or the themes of the story...
Others have responded already, but I wanted to chime in:
I absolutely do. If it's something that contributed to how someone felt about a game, then I really want to hear about it. It's additional information that helps flesh out their review and makes it interesting. I may agree or disagree with their assessment. It might not even really matter to me, but I appreciate their perspective.
I'll ask the same question I asked earlier...
Because it sure doesn't seem like you do.
robovanburen
Member
Oh yeah, this whole thing just feels like open mic night for crappy games pundits.
Riposte
Member
Well, you only said that you felt that they were the local contingent and expressed that feeling in a thread about the activities of GamerGate. I'm still a little confused about what the point is then, but whatever.
LaserBuddha
Member
I simply said it feels that way, considering the dearth of #gg rhetoric in this thread, vs a lot of comments in other threads that sound like the arguments that used to be put forth in this thread. And i think it is so because the counterarguments here are well organized and clear, and its been a losing proposition to argue about it here. It would be good of you to accept what I said at face value instead of accusing me of labelling people when i labelled no one, and furthermore refused to label when I was asked to label individual posters. The suspicions Ive laid out are inherently not able to be substantiated because people wont wear the #gg label proudly around here, so im just making observations about the debate kind of shifting out of this thread and into others. I freely invite you to read those threads and draw your own conclusions, instead of just assuminf im full of shit and trying to smear people i disagree with. There are plenty of people in those threads i disagree with that sound nothing at all like GG people.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
So the GamerGate people are boycotting B:TPS because of a one-off line and the fact that they don't like the opinions of one of dozens of staffers? WTF?
Seriously, there are products and industries that have a lot more heinous shit going into their products and this is what they boycott. Talk about effed up priorities...
Seriously, there are products and industries that have a lot more heinous shit going into their products and this is what they boycott. Talk about effed up priorities...
Devolution
Member
SJWs gonna take games away.
They boycotting a game yet?
Oh wait what GG is?
hmmmm...
They boycotting a game yet?
Oh wait what GG is?
hmmmm...
TheBryanJZX90
Member
If a thread about Bayonetta or Toadette is filled with the same kinds of arguments as GG supporters give, is it really "GG free" just because it doesn't use a hashtag?
Roger Ebert put is personal opinion into every single one of his reviews and was one of the most respected film critics out there. Book reviews often discuss the social themes of the material.
What is the difference between the subjective feeling about the portrayal of the sexual nature of a character bothering the reviewer than how the camera angle is used in the game or any of the other subjective qualities that are reviewed? If it's consumer focus, if it bothers the reviewer isn't there a chance it might bother someone else playing and therefore in the best interest of the potential consumer to be made aware of such?
MrSaturn99
Member
If it's not too much trouble, is there some form of condensed analysis/narrative of the past six weeks? As someone who potentially has a future in game journalism this is definitely something I should be paying attention to, but as a college student it's rather daunting to wade through.
I'd like to gradually learn more about it, but something I can use as a springboard would be much appreciated.
I'd like to gradually learn more about it, but something I can use as a springboard would be much appreciated.
Well and there was a couple of forum an heroes that requested a ban and made a statement about NeoGAF being moderated by people pandering to the SJW crowd.
I hope it will be GG free because I don't want to read GamerGate arguments and accusations on GAF outside this thread, thats my point. By bringing it up outside you bring the arguments there. If talking about sexualisation in games is now going to be equated to being a gamergater then we might as well shut the whole forum down.
Dead Early
Banned
Neoriceisgood
Member
As someone who would be considered an extreme SJW by many, I'd say at least 3 mods pander to me.
Are you just gonna call people who disagree with your narrow definition selfish?
Because that borders on an ad hominem.
Actually no, it literally is one. <3
You read a review for a persons opinion about a game. All parts of the game. If you are only looking only for information, read a press release or watch a trailer.
I'm so sick of this garbage.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
There are tons of condensed narratives of the past six weeks. However if you want to form the best unbiased opinion possible then you're going to need to dive into the deep end and see things with your own eyes. What you're asking for is going to give you a very biased insight into something that's very much complicated. If journalism is in your future then this is going to need to be something you'll willingly indulge yourself upon.
Devolution
Member
Get used to it. Because that's where games journalism is headed. Away from objective bulletpoints of what works and what doesn't into a realm of, arguably more traditional, personality based reviews that are more about how a game made them feel than how it actually runs.
There's room for both, but as normal games journalism continues to shrink and be replaced by youtube and twitch personalities, one is going to outweigh the other very very soon.
Which is another reason why the call to end "journalistic corruption" in a medium that is based around ad sales is stupid.
LOL.
I'd say requesting a reviewer to censor a personal opinion in a review that might be of use to others reading because you don't like such things, is the selfish view here. If I don't like the way someone writes reviews I don't tell them they have to change for me, I either try and leave constructive feedback or I go elsewhere.
RicoTheMad
Banned
I don't believe placing people into neatly labeled buckets is a good thing.
If only people were that simple, that we could simply place all the "bad people" into a bucket and throw them away. Labels don't help people, the only time I ever see them used is when someone wants to ignore someone's voice.
"Oh you're just a dumb a liberal/conservative/whatever"
Not saying you meant to do this, I just think the minute the apply a label to someone, you signal that you have stopped listening, because you think you've figured out who they are and what they are after.
I'm a firm believer that if you truly want to change people's views, you need to communicate with them. That often means trying (however hard that may be) to find some common ground that you can build on.
I've personally had good success steering people away from sexism with this approach, even in such cultures as South America, where its a common and sadly accepted practice.
Just saying, you catch more flies with honey. The world doesn't need more labeling and hate, that's what got us to where we are.
I think the thing with Bayonetta 2 is that, well. first, it's Bayonetta *2* so the author should have had some expectation of those elements being there because the first game was not shy on sexual content.
Second, generally speaking reviewers tend to review media that is for their demographic so that they can provide their audience with a good idea of how much they may enjoy/hate said media.
For example, I have heard great things about the Lego series of video games. Whenever someone asks me what I think of them, I say "I've heard they're great games for the people who enjoy that type of game, check them out!". I could have instead said "They have shallow mechanics, unappealing art styles, and little in terms of story and character development. They are also incredibly childish. I give them 1/5"
Games, much like all other media (books, movies, art, music) are made for diverse audiences. Diversity doesn't mean carefully curated content as dictated by SomeGuyOrGirlOntheNet, it means just that, diversity. The existence of a raunchy video game does not harm feminism any more than the existence of a raunchy Romance novels depicting hunky men harms men.
My thoughts are that you can have a crappy review of a game if you have someone who is clearly not in the target audience review it. As it was in this case. It is very much akin to me trying to review a Lego video game when I know they are simply not my cup of tea, but are very much enjoyed by many others.
No, it's just acknowledging that there's no such thing as objectivity in video game reviews. A "review" with no opinion is a list of features and tech specs.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
What?
LaserBuddha
Member
We are talking about threads where, before I even posted, people were harping on SJWs trying to ruin gaming and eliminate all skin from games, shit like that, and all it took to set it off was for anyone to dare say that objectification bothered them personally. If you think the thread was then only shitted up with #GG bullshit once I mentioned that such rhetoric sounds like gamergate, then I don't think you're viewing the situation clearly.
MrSaturn99
Member
Gotcha, thanks. Luckily I have an extended vacation this week so I guess I'll start digging around shortly.
How is it centered? Wouldn't that be limiting reviews to a specific structure?
Devolution
Member
Would be nice to just point out how a game's portrayal or representation of women blows without people blowing fuses.
- Status