• 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: a discussion without internet-murdering each other about it

It was never about politics in gaming. Almost every game has poltical plots in there. Especially JRPGs which also feature a ton of religion in it. No one cared if a game was used to spread some political opinion or view. IT was about using these ideologies to change gaming instead of use these views to expand on genres, topics issues. When Anita bought these videos it was all about handpicked negativity she never cared about the tons of great female characters gaming had to over she only cared about the points she could us for her agenda. And for that she even stole Lets play videos in which people did stupid shit. Like in Hitman for example which was the absolute worst reflection I have seen from her.

And gaming journlism jumped into it and wrote these terrible gamers are over articles. That was the point for me to look into all this stuff and I found it was way moe grey than these people made it to be. It was never about hate against women it was about changing a subculture which was bulied up by people who were already bullied out of society. No one cared if you were a women, trans person a guy or black, asian etc.. And you also could clearly see this in the supporters of Gamergate it was all about your tone. If you came into gaming to experiment with new stuff like bringing in feministic themes in games it was totally fine. And that never wsa the issue.

The issue was that these people stigmatized other groups because of what they loved to play. Example stupid fanservice games and they wanted to change these games instead of creating new games or IPs that would fit into their ideology. They tried to change gaming and that why the people who once were already bullied out of society became mad and defend their subculture. Anita even admitted that she never really cared about games probably not until she could make money from it.

That said I never engaged with anyone on gamergate who has threaten other people in any form. Quite the opposite. I even took part in massing reports of people who doxxed and has threaten other people.

As for comics: What I really dislike it the absolute lazyness to just gender switch well known characters or just give them another race etc instead of creating original great new superheroes. This kind of forced diversity was always stupid to me. Same in gaming. Like the whole Link debate for example. This is just lazy and Indy games do it a lot better in this regard.

I also accept that gaming changes when it gets bigger. But these people went for absolute Niche games which were sold like 20k worldwide which then has lead to asian developers not even releasing some games anymore since they fear a huge backlash.

tenor.gif


1. Anita Sarkeesian has, at several points, talked about female characters that she likes, such as Jade and Samus.

2. Your talk of how people are okay with politics because politics exist is not doing anything to debunk the notion of people in GG being against "politics in games." It just shows the double standard of complaining about political themes in one game and ignoring it in another. Also, citing politics that touch upon religion isn't really the best example anyway since there was a nontrivial number of atheists in the movement.

3. Anita's videos weren't handpicking negativity, they were squarely advertised as pointing out examples of certain tropes. All she was doing was being a subcategory of TV Tropes that touches upon female tropes in games.

4. You argue that the tone is the issue, towit I ask what Gone Home's tone problem was. It was rather offensive to a fairly large number of people for being an agenda-driven game, and if your contention is that it is not merely themes but the way these themes are applied, I guess I would just ask what Gone Home did wrong to attract so much negativity.

5. The GamerGate timeline begins with a female game developer being harassed. The "Gamers are Over" articles were a response to the frankly shitty behavior of some of the most "core gamers." You talk of people taking up gamer as an identity in response to being bullied, and I reply that the behavior against Zoe Quinn et al. was bullying. I have sympathy for victims of bullying, but not when they go on to externalize their bullying by bullying others in turn.

6. I would respectfully disagree that the identity of a person is irrelevant to GamerGate's targets when one considers that Zoe Quinn is significantly more well-known and targeted than Nathan Grayson ever was, despite the fact that a group that is concerned with corruption in games journalism should probably be most concerned with a games journalist.

7. Anita did not admit to not caring about games. The video you refer to is Anita talking about how, for a period of time, she lost interest in games, but she also talked about the interest she had before that period and the interest that she has now.

8. Let's look at this list.

Dick Grayson
Jason Todd
Tim Drake
Stephanie Brown
Damian Wayne
Bruce Wayne

All of these characters have been Robin in at least one point. With one exception, everyone of these characters is a white guy. If you have an issue with, say, female Thor or black female Iron Man or black Captain America, your issue is not with diversity being awkwardly put into comics, your issue is that superhero comics tend to give other people a crack at established roles. I mean, look at this list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incarnations_of_Captain_America

Sam Wilson is but one of 13 different characters. Why are we only now caring about the Captain America role being given to people other than Steve Rogers? Why only when he's black is it an issue that popular characters in comics change the identity of the person assuming the role?

9. Who are these people going after niche games? I mean, remember when Anita Sarkeesian was talking about how she'd like to work with EA in an advisory role, and how that got everyone pretty upset? Generally, these niche fanservice games were a blip on the radar. And even then, there was no attempt to ban them or censor them, just criticize them. Bayonetta 2, a game that is both very good and in my opinion an example of sexuality rather than sexualization, got a 7/10 from a Polygon reviewer, who enjoyed the gameplay but found that the presentation and sexuality of Bayonetta made him unable to enjoy it as much as he would have liked. This got people who associate with GamerGate in a bit of a tizzy. It's not just a matter of people who allegedly are trying to censor games, it's also about people who go against the grain in these respects.
 
And to be clear, Zoe Quinn did not sleep with Nathan Grayson in exchange for a review. Nathan Grayson's only coverage of her game, Depression Quest, was in passing as part of coverage of a Game Jam. To date, there is no evidence to suggest that anything unethical happened between Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson.
 

Moneal

Member
I think often in this conversation we get wrapped round talking about semantics instead of what actually happens. I've used the term earlier, but it feels like framing. They Attack vs we criticize is an example of that.

"they attack, meaning that they produce public outrage, demand change, call for firings." First off there are members of every group within gaming who do the above.

Produce public outrage- if enough people talk about anything it produces public outrage. I don't see how that's a specifically bad act.

demand change- I don't see anything wrong with asking for things to be different. A part of critique is offering ways for the art to be different.

call for firings- this is the only truly awful thing, and for me personally, I rarely see people actually do that.

If the Kingdom Come dude had a lick of empathy and professionalism, then this would have never blown up because he would have calmly commented on it once and then went on with his life.

He told them it was historical, and they linked the moors. I would have been a bit of an asshole to something like that. Most of those tweets were people that had no idea of the history of the area the game takes, but were still trying to tell him all about his country's history. How do you think the conversation would be if the races were reversed. A bunch of americans telling an egyptian developer that they needed to add white people to their game about the old kingdom. The egyptian dev wouldn't even need to say anything, and the internet would instantly label those people racists and not knowing history.
 
He told them it was historical, and they linked the moors. I would have been a bit of an asshole to something like that. Most of those tweets were people that had no idea of the history of the area the game takes, but were still trying to tell him all about his country's history. How do you think the conversation would be if the races were reversed. A bunch of americans telling an egyptian developer that they needed to add white people to their game about the old kingdom. The egyptian dev wouldn't even need to say anything, and the internet would instantly label those people racists and not knowing history.

The notion that the developer is correct is far from being an obvious truth. A country's residents are not immune from making up a more ideal history for their country. I mean, should we not call the death camps in Poland circa WWII 'Polish death camps' because people from Poland object to it? Of course not, that's the history of it. Similarly, we should not ignore the presence of non-white individuals in that country just because someone (and this someone follows several Twitter accounts such as Breitbart News that engage fairly frequently with articles that have a nationalist bend to them) says that they had no such presence. Ignorance of your country's history I would reckon is the default state, not just a given. It doesn't take much effort to know more about a country's history than a native of said country who doesn't do any research of their own.
 
Last edited:
You can have all the politics you want in a game. It has to make sense in the context of the game though. People get mad when it ruins a series they love because it gets pigeonholed in. Forcing an agenda and telling a story are two different things. I don't go watch Transformers for nuanced political commentary, nor would I go watch Lady Bird for it's gripping action scenes.

If the issue is that some political themes in games feel out of place, then that's okay to say. We can also debate that. I think it's important to say that if you're not used to a particular theme you might think it's out of place. That has to be noted. We've just got to keep that same energy with everything, which we don't. There are loads of video game stories which are huge mashups of different themes, people just don't seem to talk about this stuff until it's a political theme they don't like.

For the last three years, Ms. Sarkeesian (Perhaps you've heard of her) has published surveys on the prevalence of violent games at E3. Every year, she repeats that she wants video games to be more than what they are now, and if I'm understanding her right, combat mechanics in games block that progress:



The above is pushing an agenda. If she had just said: I wish there were more games that didn't focus on combat, that'd be fine, but then she claims that developers who don't listen to her and keep developing violent games are limiting the medium.

Sexualization in games is another example. Many people dislike it. Xenoblade 2 is a recent example, with people criticizing its female character designs. As always, the argument ends up being: "We don't want to take away your anime boobs, but they are reinforcing harmful stereotypes, and the people who enjoy them are creepy virgin pedophiles anyway, so they really should go."

Either you listen to them, or you're a bad person. I object to that. I'm totally fine with the devs adding alternate costumes, or even a toggle option in the menu to remove fanservice in its entirety, but you can't stop others from enjoying these kinds of elements, and yet you'll often find people advocating just that.
A lot of what you just said applies to this, actually:

And my answer to that final question is quite simple: Games should be whatever gamers (IE the people paying and playing) want it to be. And if that includes games aimed at minorities and progressives, that's fine. As long as the stuff that made the medium great in the first place isn't forced out.

It's actually kinda crazy, I don't think I've ever consumed a full piece of Ms. Sarkeesian's content. I personally don't really recognise her as a major social progressive voice within games, especially compared to the people at Waypoint.

I also think "when violence is seen as a core component of game design, it limits our sense of what is possible and of the kinds of stories that can be told." does not mean "developers who don't listen to her and keep developing violent games are limiting the medium." Your interpretation is that she is attacking developers and saying that developing violent video games is limiting the medium, but what she appears to say to me is that the fact that almost all video games must include violence is limiting the medium. There's a difference between criticising a creative choice and criticising a trend. If I said "when open world is seen as a core component of game design, it limits our sense of what is possible and of the kinds of stories that can be told." would that be seen as preachy or pushing a specific agenda?

I'm playing xenoblade 2 right now, and if people's arguments are "We don't want to take away your anime boobs, but they are reinforcing harmful stereotypes, and the people who enjoy them are creepy virgin pedophiles anyway, so they really should go." that's dumb. My personal beef with it is that it's stupid and breaks my feeling of immersion within the game, and the designs often aren't even cool they're just really really sexual in a way that's a complete non-sequitur to the rest of the world they're creating. It's also kinda sexist to have all the women blades (that I've seen so far) in your world be jiggle boob people. This isn't me criticizing you if you like that, I just think it's kinda lame.

Also I totally agree with your final answer there.
 

KevinKeene

Banned
EDITED BT MR. GRUMPY - Feel free to voice your opinions and back them up when questioned by other members but please don't resort to insulting other members.
The notion that the developer is correct is far from being an obvious truth. A country's residents are not immune from making up a more ideal history for their country. I mean, should we not call the death camps in Poland circa WWII 'Polish death camps' because people from Poland object to it? Of course not, that's the history of it. Similarly, we should not ignore the presence of non-white individuals in that country just because someone (and this someone follows several Twitter accounts such as Breitbart News that engage fairly frequently with articles that have a nationalist bend to them) says that they had no such presence. Ignorance of your country's history I would reckon is the default state, not just a given. It doesn't take much effort to know more about a country's history than a native of said country who doesn't do any research of their own.

There was no widespread black population in Bohemia during the time depicted in Kingdom Come (problably not even today ...). Source: I live close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To that same answer however, I again bring up Gone Home. Gone Home was not radical in any capacity. Its story was unusual for games media, but nothing in it was controversial. It was not made by people who, say, wanted to ban other games of its type, nor did it really disparage games unlike it. And despite all of that, it nonetheless drew ire. Not necessarily from you, but from enough people that it calls into question the general idea that gamers merely want to "be left alone" as opposed to actively, ironically, wanting certain games to not exist.

There was no widespread black population in Bohemia during the time depicted in Kingdom Come (problably not even today ...). Source: I live close.

I am in a position to talk about it because I'm engaging in factual arguments. Or as the kids say, "facts over feelings nerd." As for Era, no, I'm not banned. I just got linked to this thread and decided that it might be an entertaining discussion to have.

Also, you kind of miss the point of my post. Living near Bohemia doesn't answer the question of what the population of Bohemia was like before you existed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NahaNago

Member
As I explained, that's the problem. The mainstream media blindly follows the hateful self-interpretation of GamerGate that people like Anita created. Meanwhile you'd have to go to GG-communities to see what it's really like, but you don't want to because what the former told you makes these communities look so bad that you do your best to stay away. And thus, nobody ever gets any wiser - and anti-GG activists reached their goal. It's awful.

That's incredible that no one in the mainstream media covered this I was sure that the gamergate movement had been completely taken over and corrupted. Does mainstream media cover the majority of gaming websites or are there any niche gaming sites that still cover it.
 
As I explained, that's the problem. The mainstream media blindly follows the hateful self-interpretation of GamerGate that people like Anita created. Meanwhile you'd have to go to GG-communities to see what it's really like, but you don't want to because what the former told you makes these communities look so bad that you do your best to stay away. And thus, nobody ever gets any wiser - and anti-GG activists reached their goal. It's awful.

I read KotakuInAction quite a bit, actually. I would encourage people to go there and read many of the threads that are posted there.
 
Last edited:
He told them it was historical, and they linked the moors. I would have been a bit of an asshole to something like that. Most of those tweets were people that had no idea of the history of the area the game takes, but were still trying to tell him all about his country's history. How do you think the conversation would be if the races were reversed. A bunch of americans telling an egyptian developer that they needed to add white people to their game about the old kingdom. The egyptian dev wouldn't even need to say anything, and the internet would instantly label those people racists and not knowing history.

He's a professional, so I hold him to a higher standard than me or you. In a universe where Nioh just came out and where a bunch of this setting game come out and commit to no historical accuracy except race, people have a right to ask. This game (according to them) appears to be a super historically accurate project so I have no beef with them.
 

Moneal

Member
The notion that the developer is correct is far from being an obvious truth. A country's residents are not immune from making up a more ideal history for their country. I mean, should we not call the death camps in Poland circa WWII 'Polish death camps' because people from Poland object to it? Of course not, that's the history of it. Similarly, we should not ignore the presence of non-white individuals in that country just because someone (and this someone follows several Twitter accounts such as Breitbart News that engage fairly frequently with articles that have a nationalist bend to them) says that they had no such presence. Ignorance of your country's history I would reckon is the default state, not just a given. It doesn't take much effort to know more about a country's history than a native of said country who doesn't do any research of their own.

Well the dev also hired one full time historian for the project, and others consulted. you would think one of them might have pointed it out.
 

Mr. Grumpy

Grumpy see, Grumpy do.
I know this is always going to be a difficult topic to discuss but it isn't going to get any easier if people are accusing each other doing certain things in the past. If you have a point to make about the topic at hand, make that point in the best way that you're able to and be prepared to back up your opinions if and when other members question them.

If you believe that something that has been posted is inappropriate then please report that post rather than joining in with sidetracking the topic. It's a valid topic and in the past it may well have been locked by now but there is only real value in leaving a thread open if the topic at hand is what's being discussed, if we get away from that then the thread will have lost all value.

Thank you.
 
I don't consider myself a GamerGater, but I don't think they are the monsters that game journalists and other opinion-makers want us make-believe. It largely serves as the go to boogeyman for all the general failures of mainstream gaming journalism. In physics, every reaction has an opposite and equal reaction. GG was a reaction to the radical politicization of the gaming community that was driven by fanatical ideologues and puritans striving on division and outrage. Instead of engaging with the criticism in a constructive manner, the media outlets decided to sidestep the issue by simply declaring all gamers misogynists, hastily burying it all and banning all discussion. But the discussion did not go away, essentially creating a very polarized 'us vs. them' situation that only made it much worse.

1. Politics, politicization and propaganda

As Benjamin Constant once said, part of the individual needs to be independent from politics and collective power, "our freedom must consist of peaceful enjoyment and private independence". Many people consider gaming a hobby, a form of entertainment they enjoy in their private life, nothing more and nothing less. While it is fine to discuss political aspects of certain games and gaming culture, it is only understandable that people react strongly against any kind of politicization of their hobby as a whole.

There is a certain subset of games journalists and opinion-makers who demand that certain games must not only adhere to their political views, but also actively convey them (i.e. propaganda). When political views are creeping that deeply into something you enjoy privately as entertainment, people react. Politics is a highly divisive matter, and most hobbyists don't want that kind of rupture in their community. They want their common interest to be the one thing that unites them instead of riling everybody up against each other. Gaming as an interest is something that gives most gamers a sense of belonging, an interest they can share with other fellow gamers, no matter who they are. That's why they don't want their games to dictate their political beliefs and vice versa.

Coming from an outside perspective, the us vs. them mentality that's being cultivated in the gaming community is blatantly ridiculous. It's gotten to the point where if you don't agree with certain talking points, you are immediately labeled as 'far-right' or accused of being an 'SJW'. That's the american two-party system seeping into an overly politicized gaming community, leaving no wiggle room for the moderate people in between.

2. Gamers, sexism and social authoritarianism

GG is not 'alt-right', it happened as a push-back against leftist authoritarianism. In fact, many GamerGaters consider themselves liberal. Remember what happened, when Jack Thompson tried to infer that video games make people violent? Thompson is to the authoritarian right, what Anita and her politically charged ilk is to the authoritarian left. Co-opting a form of entertainment in order to spread the radical feminist message that "all games are sexist", inferring that games make you a misogynist. Suddenly she is revered by the gaming press like the second coming of Jesus and those critical of her were quickly labeled 'misogynistic basement-dwelling neck-beards', aka. gamers. Soon after, a flurry of 'gamers are dead' articles were published, mostly by journalists sharing the same political circles as Anita.

The problem was not that some people dared discuss the representation of women in video games. As with violence in video games, that's a good discussion to have. The problem was that her criticism was defective by nature and designed in such a way as to rile people up in order to gain notoriety. Much like Thompson, who worked his way backwards in order to prove that games cause violence, Anita critiqued games under the pre-established assumption that "everything is sexist". While Thompson was ridiculed, Anita was lauded simply because she had good ties to certain game journalists who swallowed her bait, hook, line and sinker. Valid criticism was quickly brushed aside as evidence that the gaming community was sexist, never-mind the fact that her point of view was quite radical and prone to hasty generalizations.

The problem was that her criticism was not constructive, but destructive. Unfortunately it was that kind of criticism that drove a wedge into the gaming community, bringing her fame and financial success. Her criticism was not designed to make the gaming community a more inclusive place, but to cultivate a fanatic fellowship willing to join her crusade for 'the grater good' by throwing money at her. Fast forward a couple of years later, and most people have grown sick and tired of her babbling and seen through her shtick. But the damage was done. Other people are trying to copy her methods or seek out other hobbies ripe for the taking.

3. GamerGate and the 'alt-right'

I'm a leftist, I value progressive and liberal ideals, but I've long stopped counting the times I've been called an 'alt-right Nazi bigot' every time I participated in a discussion like this. For those of you painting GamerGate with the same broad brush, have you considered how many people your narrow-mindedness has falsely attributed to the right? It's almost as if you need an enemy to defend your cause.

Let me tell you that I don't particularly like some of the more prominent GamerGate talking-heads, but those were the only ones willing to listen. What were people supposed to do, after being banned and ostracized by the political puritans and all the gaming journalists who simply refused to listen? I don't deny the sad fact, that some of them fell into the hands of the 'alt-right', but many of them still resisted the call of the pied piper, despite your contempt. Because gamers know better than to simply give up their values for somebody trying to capitalize on the current situation.

Years later, I see once striving multi-pluralistic gaming communities that were co-opted by these radical, political ideologues in nothing but shambles. It didn't take GAF very long to collapse under its own ideological weight and the sad state of affairs of the authoritarian left communities (like ResetERA and GamerGhazi) is proof in the pudding that any kind of political puritanism is far from the ideological utopia that people were hoping for.

I don't consider myself a GamerGater, but if I perceive someone being treated unfairly, I defend them, not matter if I agree or disagree with their opinions. The cause doesn't justify the means and I vehemently reject the assertion that "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets".

4. Harassment, victimization and criticism

Let me preface the following by stating the obvious, I do not condone harassment just like the vast majority of gamers and other people out there. The internet is a mind-boggingly vast place and the single user but a tiny speck in this immense network of interconnected people. Now imagine you're at the center of a vast internet controversy involving thousands upon thousands of people. Now if only 1% of all the people involved would be stupid dimwits, you would still receive hundreds of harassing messages. From your point of view it would seems as if the whole world would have turned against you. Now imagine that you would not only count violent messages as harassment, but also any kind of criticism and ridicule.

I don't deny that Anita and Co. received hateful messages, but to induce that all GamerGaters are violent misogynists is just plain wrong. Especially considering that the FBI closed its investigation into GamerGate stating that "no additional subjects or actionable leads were developed as the result of the investigation." The conclusion of the FBI report was evidently unsatisfactory to the political ideologues capitalizing on their victim status. While I do not wish to belittle any form of harassment, it is equally true that victimization not only garners sympathy, but indirectly validates your narrative by making an appeal to emotion. As a victim, you don't need to engage with valid criticism, which is a classical logical fallacy that most would describe nowadays as "facts over feelings". We are talking about a person who demands a 20.000$ speaking fee and started out as a frikkin' telemarketer for a guy touting the slogan "purpose... passion... profits".

5. Journalism, gamers and death

When you are young, it must be pretty cool to become a gaming journalist, essentially making a living out of your passion. But as you grow older, you seek meaning and slowly come to the realization that you spent 20 years writing about what is essentially a form of entertainment. When gaming becomes a burden you turn to a good cause, trying to make the world a better place, trying to educate other people. I don't think that game journalists are bad people, they've grown old and tired and fell for some kind of political snake-oil that gave their work purpose. Doesn't help that the written word is falling out of fashion, while a crop of fresh new reviewers are showing up on youtube.

Maybe it's just me, but over the course of the years, I've witnessed the writing of many game journalists become sour and bitter. The same people who used to hold up their gaming community and defended gamers, openly hate their customers nowadays. While I pity them, I must hold them responsible for the growing divide and mutual hostilities in the gaming community. They could have easily avoided GamerGate by simply listening to the pluralistic voices in their community, but no. By elevating themselves to arbiters of morality, they declared one part of the gaming community as good, while ostracizing the other part. I think many of them realize by now how much damage they have done to the community as a whole, but it's too late now, the only way forward is to stick your head into the sand and to double down.

I would have stood with you, I would have defended a worthwhile cause, but then you decided to paint my community with a broad brush, accusing me of all the evils under the sun, calling me a socially challenged basement dwelling neck-beard and worst of all, pronouncing me dead! Listen up you fools, my gamer friends and me are productive members of society, most of us have become caring parents, we have our heads on straight, we strive to be tolerant to people from all walks of life and everybody is welcomed to share our passion of gaming. We don't need some washed up gaming journalist to tell us the obvious, that discrimination/sexism/racism/harassment is bad. We don't need you to tell us what to think, who to vote for, what to like and how to behave. The gaming community is one of the most tolerant, liberal and accepting hobbyist community I've ever encountered and you do not get to drag us through the mud. Did you honestly expect the gaming community to bow down and take it to the chin after accusing and judging us all guilty?

6. "We don't want to take your games away"

There is a fine line between constructive criticism, fear-mongering and censorship. By now it should be evidently clear, that all those power-tripping political keyboard-warriors weaponize public pressure in order to make every developer bow to their narrow worldview. This has nothing to do with constructive criticism, but a culture war about the hegemony of your mind. Witcher 3, Yooka-Laylee, A Hat in Time, Kingdom Come, Subnautica... how many more incidents sparked by tribalism and public outrage do you need in order to recognize the authoritarian nature of their so-called 'criticism'?

They may use 'positive words' but their methods and goals are not much different from the religious, puritanical, conservative authoritarian right. Some of you are too young, but I still remember the times when AD&D was considered satanical and when Frank Zappa was accused of perverting the youth. Man, I love Zappa's music and it saddens me greatly that in our current climate, provoking content like that would be impossible without some crazy community or media outlet creating another shitstorm for clicks and notoriety.

7. Women, minorities and gaming

The moral crusaders of today tout themselves to represent all women and minorities, when in fact they are in no such position of authority at all. Those who disagree are simply ignored, like all those women speaking out in favor of Nolan Bushnell. Daniel Vavra, is a white supremacist, despite having suffered Nazi and communist occupation. All white people are privileged, all men are sexist, all minorities are oppressed, cultural appropriation is wrong... One of my gripes with all that nonsense is the purely americocentric view on the world. It's almost as if the American media discovered the existence of women and minorities in the last decade or so and most ideological activists are more preoccupied with recruiting these social groups for their own political reasons.

Has any of these moral crusaders ever taken the time to ask these people if they want to be politicized to such a degree? They gay people in my gaming community certainly do not wish to be reduced to their sexual orientation as their one single defining trait. The women in my community do not want to be reduced to their womanhood and the ethical minorities certainly do not wish to be reduced to the color of their skin. They want to be treated like everybody else, nothing more and nothing less. In the same vein, ComicGate is not about the rejection of diversity, it's about how women and minorities are reduced to a single trait in order to convey a political message.

The politicization of entertainment has gone too far. It's gotten to a point where a movie/game/book is automatically lauded for merely portraying a black/female/gay/whatever protagonist, and if you dare not like it, you're called a bigot. I grew up reading Hannah Arendt, watching Ripley shred aliens and listening to Tracy Chapman. If I end up not liking something, it's because I think it's shit, not because it features the flavor of the month minority.

8. Final words

The infamous words of Sam Biddle still ring in my ears "nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission". As a somewhat nerdish gamer I'm used to being socially stigmatized, but let me remind you that women and minorities were always part of the community. Heck, back in the days, before gaming became mainstream, we would have been ecstatic if even more women were willing to share our passion. Back then, nobody gave a shit about your sexual orientation, the color of your skin or your gender, the only thing that mattered was your interest in the hobby.

Gaming allowed me to forge bonds with people from all walks of life and from all the different corners of the world. I love appropriating other cultures, engaging with their traditions, cooking exotic meals, listening to their music, sharing their views on the world, discussing their moral values. It made my own life richer and allowed me to take different perspectives on the world. Maybe, just maybe, it would be high time to celebrate that aspect of gaming and leave the moral crusaders trying to drive a wedge through the gaming community out in the dust, moping in their own little dark corner.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
To that same answer however, I again bring up Gone Home. Gone Home was not radical in any capacity. Its story was unusual for games media, but nothing in it was controversial. It was not made by people who, say, wanted to ban other games of its type, nor did it really disparage games unlike it. And despite all of that, it nonetheless drew ire. Not necessarily from you, but from enough people that it calls into question the general idea that gamers merely want to "be left alone" as opposed to actively, ironically, wanting certain games to not exist.
My recollection is that Gone Home became a lightning rod because it was a walking simulator, which was treated by some as a revolutionary masterpiece of a game. Others, though, thought it was a boring as hell walking simulator and mocked it. Rather than just acknowledge it was a game without any real mechanics or ignoring the people who mocked it, the people who felt it was a masterpiece branded anyone who thought it sucked as bigots. And then those people fought back until they were purged from the discussion, often thanks to snitches.
 

Cybrwzrd

Banned
If the issue is that some political themes in games feel out of place, then that's okay to say. We can also debate that. I think it's important to say that if you're not used to a particular theme you might think it's out of place. That has to be noted. We've just got to keep that same energy with everything, which we don't. There are loads of video game stories which are huge mashups of different themes, people just don't seem to talk about this stuff until it's a political theme they don't like..

That isn't what I said. What I said was that some political themes feel out of place in certain games. If Nomura shipped a sexual relationship between Sephiroth and Cloud in the FFVII remake people would be up in arms because it would have no place in the story.

99% of games aren't Hemingway or Solzhenitsyn caliber storytelling with deep elements and layer upon layer of allegory and commentary on life and the world. Most games just need to exist to be solely entertainment.
 
My recollection is that Gone Home became a lightning rod because it was a walking simulator, which was treated by some as a revolutionary masterpiece of a game. Others, though, thought it was a boring as hell walking simulator and mocked it. Rather than just acknowledge it was a game without any real mechanics or ignoring the people who mocked it, the people who felt it was a masterpiece branded anyone who thought it sucked as bigots. And then those people fought back until they were purged from the discussion, often thanks to snitches.

The response was not simply the genre, but also the content. The fact that there are lesbian characters in it was also a lightning rod for these people as well. There have been worse "walking simulators" (I prefer interactive stories myself) that didn't get as strong a reaction - mainly because the themes those games explored weren't as much of an issue for many as they were with Gone Home.

Well the dev also hired one full time historian for the project, and others consulted. you would think one of them might have pointed it out.

I honestly have not followed Kingdom Come much (I'm not getting it because even if the dev is correct, his politics are rather unappealing). My reply was clarifying that geography should not be an adequate argument as to why he or anyone else knows better.
 

F0rneus

Tears in the rain
That isn't what I said. What I said was that some political themes feel out of place in certain games. If Nomura shipped a sexual relationship between Sephiroth and Cloud in the FFVII remake people would be up in arms because it would have no place in the story.

99% of games aren't Hemingway or Solzhenitsyn caliber storytelling with deep elements and layer upon layer of allegory and commentary on life and the world. Most games just need to exist to be solely entertainment.

Tag isn't checking out. Error?
 
It's actually kinda crazy, I don't think I've ever consumed a full piece of Ms. Sarkeesian's content. I personally don't really recognise her as a major social progressive voice within games, especially compared to the people at Waypoint.
Most of the examples in my previous post were actually referencing things Ms. Sarkeesian said, because I figured most people would be somewhat familiair with her work, and it's easy to look up stuff she said. Go figure.

I also think "when violence is seen as a core component of game design, it limits our sense of what is possible and of the kinds of stories that can be told." does not mean "developers who don't listen to her and keep developing violent games are limiting the medium." Your interpretation is that she is attacking developers and saying that developing violent video games is limiting the medium, but what she appears to say to me is that the fact that almost all video games must include violence is limiting the medium. There's a difference between criticising a creative choice and criticising a trend. If I said "when open world is seen as a core component of game design, it limits our sense of what is possible and of the kinds of stories that can be told." would that be seen as preachy or pushing a specific agenda?
It's not that line the bothers me, but rather: "it’s necessary that the industry put more effort into exploring new mechanics and storytelling techniques rather than continuing to rely so heavily on established norms if the medium is ever going to achieve that potential."

Why is this necessary? If gamers are fine with video games just being violence simulators, then who is she to say it's necessary that they do something else? Besides, we all know the gaming industry is not unified. All these companies operate independently from each other, so the only way to ensure the progress Ms. Sarkeesian talked about is made, is to have individual studios step up to make those types of games. She's calling upon studios to start development on non-violent games to evolve the medium, which you'd obviously want right, so if you don't you're part of the problem.

It's also kinda sexist to have all the women blades (that I've seen so far) in your world be jiggle boob people.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and it's certainly not sexist.
 

Dunki

Member
tenor.gif


1. Anita Sarkeesian has, at several points, talked about female characters that she likes, such as Jade and Samus.

2. Your talk of how people are okay with politics because politics exist is not doing anything to debunk the notion of people in GG being against "politics in games." It just shows the double standard of complaining about political themes in one game and ignoring it in another. Also, citing politics that touch upon religion isn't really the best example anyway since there was a nontrivial number of atheists in the movement.

3. Anita's videos weren't handpicking negativity, they were squarely advertised as pointing out examples of certain tropes. All she was doing was being a subcategory of TV Tropes that touches upon female tropes in games.

4. You argue that the tone is the issue, towit I ask what Gone Home's tone problem was. It was rather offensive to a fairly large number of people for being an agenda-driven game, and if your contention is that it is not merely themes but the way these themes are applied, I guess I would just ask what Gone Home did wrong to attract so much negativity.

5. The GamerGate timeline begins with a female game developer being harassed. The "Gamers are Over" articles were a response to the frankly shitty behavior of some of the most "core gamers." You talk of people taking up gamer as an identity in response to being bullied, and I reply that the behavior against Zoe Quinn et al. was bullying. I have sympathy for victims of bullying, but not when they go on to externalize their bullying by bullying others in turn.

6. I would respectfully disagree that the identity of a person is irrelevant to GamerGate's targets when one considers that Zoe Quinn is significantly more well-known and targeted than Nathan Grayson ever was, despite the fact that a group that is concerned with corruption in games journalism should probably be most concerned with a games journalist.

7. Anita did not admit to not caring about games. The video you refer to is Anita talking about how, for a period of time, she lost interest in games, but she also talked about the interest she had before that period and the interest that she has now.

8. Let's look at this list.

Dick Grayson
Jason Todd
Tim Drake
Stephanie Brown
Damian Wayne
Bruce Wayne

All of these characters have been Robin in at least one point. With one exception, everyone of these characters is a white guy. If you have an issue with, say, female Thor or black female Iron Man or black Captain America, your issue is not with diversity being awkwardly put into comics, your issue is that superhero comics tend to give other people a crack at established roles. I mean, look at this list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incarnations_of_Captain_America

Sam Wilson is but one of 13 different characters. Why are we only now caring about the Captain America role being given to people other than Steve Rogers? Why only when he's black is it an issue that popular characters in comics change the identity of the person assuming the role?

9. Who are these people going after niche games? I mean, remember when Anita Sarkeesian was talking about how she'd like to work with EA in an advisory role, and how that got everyone pretty upset? Generally, these niche fanservice games were a blip on the radar. And even then, there was no attempt to ban them or censor them, just criticize them. Bayonetta 2, a game that is both very good and in my opinion an example of sexuality rather than sexualization, got a 7/10 from a Polygon reviewer, who enjoyed the gameplay but found that the presentation and sexuality of Bayonetta made him unable to enjoy it as much as he would have liked. This got people who associate with GamerGate in a bit of a tizzy. It's not just a matter of people who allegedly are trying to censor games, it's also about people who go against the grain in these respects.
Ok lets do this...

1. In her, I do not know 13? videos she had 1/2 video with positive examples in which she even slandered some of their designs as well. In the other half she showed an example of a "positive" game which was not only full of common tropes but also Prince of Persia with a women. IT was a piss poor job. And all her negativity bought her many critics. She even called anyone who disagrees with her in front of the UN women meeting as harassment which by the way was so embarrassing that the N deleted the report and video about this whole farce.

2. No one really cared about politics in gaming people cared about the politicization of games in "journalism" Politics in games were already very common and normal at this point.. And since I love JRPGS there are always tons of political themes in there including religion.

3. Of course she did. The worst one was her Hitman example. Not only did she steal footage from various lets plays without even giving credit to these people no she showed scnes of stupid video which were fucking around with the game and made it look llike they are he mainroute and main part of the game. She did not even mention that you could do the same with male characters. This was the point for me when I completly stopped watching ANYTHING from her. The only thing after I saw was that her so called non profit organisation made yearly approx 500k because of donations, that she lied about being invited by Notch back then when he still was important for some people. And her MAd Max Furry review.

4. Gone Home as game was not the problem. Again it was what these "journalists" made of it. The game itself is a boring adventure game that lasts 90 minutes for 20$. And while tones of journalists in previous games often complained about length and prices THIS one was suddenndly totally fine and the SO great ending was also pretty dissapointing to be honest. It was GOTY for many of these people because of the ending which was ridiculous to me and many other people. And yes because of these journalists the developer also got backlash but the cause were these articles and reviews.

5. Lets totally ignore the whole sex part it was already unethical that you wrote positive articles or reviews for subjects your friends have made. Without even mentioning it. And After Gamer gate this at leat also changed. Lets take Giantbomb for example: After Gamergate they mention that they are firends with these developers before they talk about a game. After Gamegate you had notes and info textss about their relationship etc. This all was because of Gamergate. And let me be clear here. Most of Gamer Gate people did not even participate in hateful comments. on The first page I showed statistics about gamergate and in there only 0.66% of accounts related to gamergate were hateful.

6. Zoe Quinn was more of a target because she attacked Gamergate she provoked and insulted people Grayson was totally silent. Maybe thats why. You can not expect to insult people on the internet especially not people from 4chan and co. She was picking with a large stick into a hornets nest mobilizing tons of trolls who were not even related to Gamergate. And let us not forget there were tons of victims on both sides, who were threaten, who reciened dangerous packtets at home, who were doxxed etc. But the press did not care about the other side at all.

7. Anita is someone who buys like 1 game a year. She was never a gamer she was a causal player. She HAD no idea about games. She did not know the context of these scenes she stole from lets plays and the rest of youtube. And she did not even care about it at all. Even worst her writer for these episodes (forgot his name) was a real nutcase. Later they fired him but he was responsible for more than half of these videos. Anita was just the face behind it.

8. I will never understand this anyway. I come from Anime/Manga and when people die in there they are usually dead and get replaced by other people. This whole a dozen of spiderman and multiple universes is so confusing for new people. And DC is the same. At one point I tried to read all of batman in a chronological order but this shit was fucking confusing that I gave up. And yes I call this also lazy. The gender/race witching is jsut another part of this laziness. Example: To me Spiderman will always be Peter Parker no one else. while Miles will always stay in the shadow of Peter. Instead of creating an own identity a own superhero they gave him this outfit. But digress sicne I am not really into comics but more into Manga/anime.

9 As for Bayonetta2 . Gies is nown for hating everything Japanese. In this regardI would call him a xenophobe and racist IMO. Wasnt gies also the one who compared IS to Gamergate? Or was that Sessler? Sorry I forgot already. And you can see it every day. The latest is SNK and the gameinformer interview in which the only topic is the exualisation of these characters and the devolper having to explain himself. IT was ridiculous IMO.

Here is the thing. I would have loved to talk about more diversity in Games But . Anita's videos and negativity, her attacks and the combination of these journalists attacking everything they do not like has caused such a toxic atmosphere that it is impossible now. And its prob impossible for many yers to come.

edit: If you want sources for anything I say please say so but since its already 1 o clock in the morning it could take a while for me to answer back.
 
Last edited:
It's necessary because more kinds of games are better than fewer kinds of games. It's not a comment about wanting one kind of game to go away, it's a comment about wanting to see a greater diversity of concepts.
 
That isn't what I said. What I said was that some political themes feel out of place in certain games. If Nomura shipped a sexual relationship between Sephiroth and Cloud in the FFVII remake people would be up in arms because it would have no place in the story.

99% of games aren't Hemingway or Solzhenitsyn caliber storytelling with deep elements and layer upon layer of allegory and commentary on life and the world. Most games just need to exist to be solely entertainment.

If Nomura shipped a sexual relationship between Sephiroth and Cloud in the FFVII remake people would be up in arms because it didn't happen in the original story... I'm sorry, I'm missing your point.

Most games just need to exist to be solely entertainment, that's such bullshit. Especially when a lot of the most popular games in our medium right now are way more than just pure entertainment. Game stories don't have to be Hemingway to be worthwhile.
 

Moneal

Member
3. Of course she did. The worst one was her Hitman example. Not only did she steal footage from various lets plays without even giving credit to these people no she showed scnes of stupid video which were fucking around with the game and made it look llike they are he mainroute and main part of the game. She did not even mention that you could do the same with male characters. This was the point for me when I completly stopped watching ANYTHING from her. The only thing after I saw was that her so called non profit organisation made yearly approx 500k because of donations, that she lied about being invited by Notch back then when he still was important for some people. And her MAd Max Furry review.

The worst part of the hitman one was her complaining that it incentivized the killing women, when the player actually lost points for killing them.
 
games are about whatever the creator of the game wants them to be about

any "movement" that cannot accept that is trash


if a developer wants to censor their game, that's up to them.
if a developer wants to diversify its cast, that's up to them.
if a developer wants to make a political statement through their game, that's up to them.
if a developer wants to make a violent & sexist game, that's up to them.
 

Dunki

Member
It's necessary because more kinds of games are better than fewer kinds of games. It's not a comment about wanting one kind of game to go away, it's a comment about wanting to see a greater diversity of concepts.
No one in gamergate would have argued aginst it. But because of the very negative tone the journalists calling everyone who likes stuff like Quiet misogynistic etc showed a complete different picture. I was banned from Polygon because I argued that Quiet is not a misogynistic wetdream like these people argued. They did not even attack the games they attacked the developer and the people liking these games.
 
Last edited:
Apologies if this was already mentioned, but this is a terrible argument and needs to be called out. You can't take a list of people that is designed to be overzealous in who it includes (meaning it has way more names than it probably should) and then use that to show that only a small proportion of them are bad. It's a bad argument for a bunch of other reasons too (tiny sample size, pretending that an enormous amount of harassment isn't from burner accounts, etc.), but just the image itself is so blatantly unfair and wrong that it seems like a deliberate troll. Sadly I think you might be serious?

Anyway: Gamergate. I understand a lot of people early on got tricked and I don't blame them for that, but the movement from its very inception was designed as a weapon to attack women with. It's rotten to its very core, and no amount of revisionist history will ever change that for me. There's no real excuse today for anybody suggesting they are a Gator. You can use all the code words you want, but they're transparent and have been for years. We all know what the group is about, and some extracurricular side interests in art criticism can't change that.

So while these questions aren't what the movement was founded for, I'll pretend too for the sake of argument.

1. Games are about fun, not political agenda
All art is political. I don't know what else to say, this is basic understanding-the-world stuff. (Stupid simple example: in Super Mario Bros. you're rescuing a princess, which is inherently a political stance regarding royalty.) I wish GGers would spend some of their time with learning shit.

2. Facts over feelings
"The facts" actually make it clear we make decisions based on our emotions. We make nearly all decisions before the rational parts of our brain are even consulted. This is fundamental human biology. I understand a lot of those child-raping women-haters back in Classical Greece really loved their logic, and that can be a useful tool, but let's not pretend human brains work in a way they literally can't. (Here's an easy gateway read on the subject, if you're curious. EDIT: I might be thinking of another book. Gah, sorry. Still a fun book if I'm wrong.) You might be able to fool yourself into thinking you're following facts instead of your feelings, but sorry, you'd be wrong. The facts are just buttressing whatever you already decided with your feelings.

3. Censorship is always bad
Criticism isn't censorship, and is in fact something to celebrate. (Too many GGers get easily confused here.) People debating film, games, literature is awesome, and a lot of art is deliberately intended to provoke criticism from people experiencing it. (Put insanely simply, some art is intended to make you sad or angry.)

If you're referencing "self-censorship", welcome to the act of creation itself, baby. Almost any creator is going to change their art based on hundreds of possible factors, including how their assumed audience might respond to it. Revision and editing are par for the course in most forms of art, always have been, particularly when we're talking about the sort of thing that is created by dozens of people working together, like games. And limitations when creating art often lead to a stronger result. I'll give an easy example: would all of those anime fanservice games so beloved by GG really be superior if their underage girls were naked all of the time? Isn't it actually a little sexier that they are wearing torn outfits or goofy microskirts or whatever? Limitations are fundamentally structure, and structure can be extremely useful when creating a desired response.

I agree that government censorship is bad, but that doesn't exist with video games where I live (which is incidentally also the country where Gamergate was founded). So yeah, I'll complain about that if it ever happens, but not seeing any signs of that coming soon. Sucks for all of you in countries which do censor your games, but when that's the case they undoubtedly also censor other art like film and books. If you really cared about censorship you would be joining movements to fight all of it. Choosing instead to belong to a little, widely-hated club revolving solely around video games (and hating women) is the worst approach possible.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
The response was not simply the genre, but also the content. The fact that there are lesbian characters in it was also a lightning rod for these people as well.

My recollection allows me to agree with the first sentence, but not the second sentence. My memory is that the only reason the content contributed to it becoming a lightning rod was because of the people who basically alleged that anyone who thought the game sucked was really a closeted bigot. There absolutely were some people who were in fact against anything to do with same sex relationships and would have hated the game for that reason alone - I'll give you that. But most reasonable people ignore them, unlike those who claim to be progressive yet act horribly bigoted against diversity of thought and label anyone they disagree with as bigots. And they were the cause of the drama - hysterical people throwing inflammatory labels at any criticism. Had they not gone bonkers, the drama would never have started.
 
Ok lets do this...

1. In her, I do not know 13? videos she had 1/2 video with positive examples in which she even slandered some of their designs as well. In the other half she showed an example of a "positive" game which was not only full of common tropes but also Prince of Persia with a women. IT was a pisspoor job. And all her negativity bought her many critics she even called in front of the UN women meeting as harassment which by the way was so embarrassing that the N deleted the report and video about this whole farce.

2. No one really cared about politics in gaming people cared about the politicization of games in "journalism" Politics in games were already very common and normal at this point.. And since I love JRPGS there are always tons of political themes in there including religion.

3. Of course she did. The worst one was her Hitman example. Not only did she steal footage from various lets plays without even giving credit to these people no she showed scnes of stupid video which were fucking around with the game and made it look llike they are he mainroute and main part of the game. She did not even mention that you could do the same with male characters. This was the point for me when I completly stopped watching ANYTHING from her. The only thing after I saw was that her so called non profit organisation made yearly approx 500k because of donations, that she lied about being invited by Notch back then when he still was important for some people. And her MAd Max Furry review.

4. Gone Home as game was not the problem. Again it was what these "journalists" made of it. The game itself is a boring adventure game that lasts 90 minutes for 20$. And while tones of journalists in previous games often complained about length and prices THIS one was suddenndly totally fine and the SO great ending was also pretty dissapointing to be honest. It was GOTY for many of these people because of the ending which was ridiculous to me and many other people. And yes because of these journalists the developer also got backlash but the cause were these articles and reviews.

5. Lets totally ignore the whole sex part it was already unethical that you wrote positive articles or reviews for subjects your friends have made. Without even mentioning it. And After Gamer gate this at leat also changed. Lets take Giantbomb for example: After Gamergate they mention that they are firends with these developers before they talk about a game. After Gamegate you had notes and info textss about their relationship etc. This all was because of Gamergate. And let me be clear here. Most of Gamer Gate people did not even participate in hateful comments. on The first page I showed statistics about gamergate and in there only 0.66% of accounts related to gamergate were hateful.

6. Zoe Quinn was more of a target because she attacked Gamergate she provoked and insulted people Grayson was totally silent. Maybe thats why. You can not expect to insult people on the internet especially not people from 4chan and co. She was picking with a large stick into a hornets nest mobilizing tons of trolls who were not even related to Gamergate. And let us not forget there were tons of victims on both sides, who were threaten, who reciened dangerous packtets at home, who were doxxed etc. But the press did not care about the other side at all.

7. Anita is someone who buys like 1 game a year. She was never a gamer she was a causal player. She HAD no idea about games. She did not know the context of these scenes she stole from lets plays and the rest of youtube. And she did not even care about it at all. Even worst her writer for these episodes (forgot his name) was a real nutcase. Later they fired him but he was responsible for more than half of these videos. Anita was just the face behind it.

8. I will never understand this anyway. I come from Anime/Manga and when people die in there they are usually dead and get replaced by other people. This whole a dozen of spiderman and multiple universes is so confusing for new people. And DC is the same. At one point I tried to read all of batman in a chronological order but this shit was fucking confusing that I gave up. And yes I call this also lazy. The gender/race witching is jsut another part of this laziness. Example: To me Spiderman will always be Peter Parker no one else. while Miles will always stay in the shadow of Peter. Instead of creating an own identity a own superhero they gave him this outfit. But digress sicne I am not really into comics but more into Manga/anime.

9 As for Bayonetta2 . Gies is nown for hating everything Japanese. In this regardI would call him a xenophobe and racist IMO. Wasnt gies also the one who compared IS to Gamergate? Or was that Sessler? Sorry I forgot already. And you can see it every day. The latest is SNK and the gameinformer interview in which the only topic is the exualisation of these characters and the devolper having to explain himself. IT was ridiculous IMO.

Here is the thing. I would have loved to talk about more diversity in Games But . Anita's videos and negativity, her attacks and the combination of these journalists attacking everything they do not like has caused such a toxic atmosphere that it is impossible now. And its prob impossible for many yers to come.

1. She has done a number of videos pointing out positive designs and aspects in the industry with respect to female characters and how they are presented. In fact, she often accompanies her critical videos with examples to the contrary.

2. I have seen numerous examples of people who associate with GamerGate being bothered by left-leaning politics and diversity. You can't exactly prove a negative.

3. I have a Bingo sheet, and every spot is "Hitman." I am not one to argue that Anita Sarkeesian has not been wrong in the past or that I have never disagreed with her, but it's a recurring theme: Anita Sarkeesian is alleged to be frequently incorrect, and "watch her Hitman video" is always the example used. For something so frequent, you would think there would be more variety in the examples, eh?

4. Just to be clear, you are arguing that people in GamerGate attacked the game merely because people liked it more than they did? That seems a bit silly, and having an excuse to complain about lesbians etc. in games doesn't change that you're complaining about lesbians etc. in games.

5. Nathan Grayson did not make any positive comments on Depression Quest in the capacity of a journalist, nor did he even review it. He briefly mentioned it in an article where he was talking about an event that Zoe Quinn participated in. He acknowledged the existence of it. That is not controversial in any capacity, and if it were, it would preclude many games journalists from even uttering the names of many games. As far as the fact that doxxing occurred against people on both sides, there was less coverage of one side because that side was an organized campaign to harass a woman in the industry.

6. Nathan Grayson did not talk about GamerGate as much because the harassment against him was less than it was against Zoe Quinn.

7. These seem like statements that cannot be accepted just on face value. I'm inclined to believe that you're either making claims of Anita's behavior based on what you think she is (or what you think she represents), or you have proper evidence. If the latter, I'm more than happy to review it.

8. You misunderstood my point. You took issue with female Thor, Miles Morales, black Cap, etc. as a matter of them using this to increase diversity, but you ignored that the practice had been in place for decades before now, but without it being used for diversity's sake. The reason why we are seeing non-white people, women, etc. given the roles of Cap, Thor, etc. is for the same reason we are seeing brand new female/non-white characters - there is a greater level of willingness to feature such a person in a major role.

9. I don't really care about what Gies' behavior was outside of Bayonetta 2, but rather the complaints people made against him for his review and the reasoning thereof. As far as the SNK stuff goes, well yeah, the SNK game is pretty silly and thus people noticed it. It's the news, so the developers were asked about that.
 
Most of the examples in my previous post were actually referencing things Ms. Sarkeesian said, because I figured most people would be somewhat familiair with her work, and it's easy to look up stuff she said. Go figure.


It's not that line the bothers me, but rather: "it’s necessary that the industry put more effort into exploring new mechanics and storytelling techniques rather than continuing to rely so heavily on established norms if the medium is ever going to achieve that potential."

Why is this necessary? If gamers are fine with video games just being violence simulators, then who is she to say it's necessary that they do something else? Besides, we all know the gaming industry is not unified. All these companies operate independently from each other, so the only way to ensure the progress Ms. Sarkeesian talked about is made, is to have individual studios step up to make those types of games. She's calling upon studios to start development on non-violent games to evolve the medium, which you'd obviously want right, so if you don't you're part of the problem.


I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and it's certainly not sexist.

That just seems like a weird thing to get worked up about. I thought it was pretty common that one of the reasons we're all interested in new games is the potential for new mechanics and storytelling methods. Do you want games to be the same for forever? Games can be better, I didn't think that was a controversial statement. Nowhere in what you've presented me does she imply that all games need to change. "so if you don't you're part of the problem." Saying that we need more of something isn't a shot at other people's creative choices. If I said "it is necessary that we need more rock albums so we can have a better music industry" that isn't a shot at people making hip hop records. It feels like you're framing this in a way that is way more aggressive than it appears, at least to me.
 
No one in gamergate would have argued aginst it. But because of the very negative tone the journalists calling everyone who likes stuff like Quiet misogynistic etc showed a complete different picture. I was banned from Polygon because I argued that Quiet is not a misogynistic wetdream like these people argued. They did not even attack the games they attacked the developer and the people liking these games.

Again, I'll say what I have said to you in the past. Dunki, the last time I asked for a source on a claim you made, I found that the source did not say what it did. So with respect, I would appreciate if you could link me to that comment.

As far as Quiet goes, I'm happy to attack Kojima because he's dishonest about why Quiet looks like she does. The issue with Quiet is not that she is sexy, is it how it is framed. It just looks like eyecandy. There's a reason why I like Bayonetta and Juliet Starling and not her.

My recollection allows me to agree with the first sentence, but not the second sentence. My memory is that the only reason the content contributed to it becoming a lightning rod was because of the people who basically alleged that anyone who thought the game sucked was really a closeted bigot. There absolutely were some people who were in fact against anything to do with same sex relationships and would have hated the game for that reason alone - I'll give you that. But most reasonable people ignore them, unlike those who claim to be progressive yet act horribly bigoted against diversity of thought and label anyone they disagree with as bigots. And they were the cause of the drama - hysterical people throwing inflammatory labels at any criticism. Had they not gone bonkers, the drama would never have started.

Diversity of thought does not inherently give value to shitty thought. After all, people are not entitled to be heard or respected for what they say.
 

Cybrwzrd

Banned
If Nomura shipped a sexual relationship between Sephiroth and Cloud in the FFVII remake people would be up in arms because it didn't happen in the original story... I'm sorry, I'm missing your point.

Most games just need to exist to be solely entertainment, that's such bullshit. Especially when a lot of the most popular games in our medium right now are way more than just pure entertainment. Game stories don't have to be Hemingway to be worthwhile.

My point is adding token things to games purely to pander to certain groups when it isn't important to the story being told ruins games.

The top 10 best selling games of last year:

  1. Call of Duty: WWII
  2. NBA 2K18
  3. Destiny 2^
  4. Madden NFL 18
  5. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
  6. Grand Theft Auto V
  7. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands
  8. Star Wars: Battlefront II 2017^
  9. Super Mario Odyssey**
  10. Mario Kart 8**
Most of those games are pure entertainment - arguably all of them exist for that purpose only.

Games can tell a great story and have a good political message if it fits the content. Andromeda fell flat on it's face because it tried message over substance. HZD on the other hand was a well received game because it put substance before message.
 
If I said "it is necessary that we need more rock albums so we can have a better music industry" that isn't a shot at people making hip hop records. It feels like you're framing this in a way that is way more aggressive than it appears, at least to me.
If you said: "80% of all music albums released this year are hip hop and that's bad because there's only so much you can do with hip hop. The music industry can't keep relying on hip hop albums, they should instead invest in rock albums to improve the music industry." then yes, I think that's absolutely taking a shot at hip hop artists. I would also say that if people just want hip hop albums, why is that a problem? Eventually there will be a demand for other types of music as well, and then those new albums will get made. I just don't see the issue.

It's also the way she phrases it. She could've just said "I would really like to see game developers experiment more with non-violent mechanics" and the vast majority of people here would probably agree. I certainly would. But the way she frames this opinion of hers, with surveys of the amount of violent games, putting it in graphs, stating how disappointed she is that there isn't much improvement compared to last year, and then saying game developers are basically lazy to rely on that same old violence, just rubs me the wrong way.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Banned
What was the message of Andromeda?

Shitty character design (including unattractive female characters, weird facial animations etc) from inexperienced artists, trite storytelling and an incredibly racist gameplay designer? The message was less in the game but in its development. You couldn’t even make a fair skinned asian or white person in the game at release- cause you know onboard a spaceship people are going to stay an nice bronze tan in absence of sunlight. It even had a token transgender character that missed the mark and pissed off that community too. I’m sure others can list even more stupid failures that game has that can attributed to the culture that dev team cultivated.
 
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
If you said: "80% of all music albums released this year are hip hop and that's bad because there's only so much you can do with hip hop. The music industry can't keep relying on hip hop albums, they should instead invest in rock albums to improve the music industry." then yes, I think that's absolutely taking a shot at hip hop artists.

The entertainment industry isn't a zero-sum game. I'm struggling to see what's controversial about saying something obvious: the greater the diversity of media options explored, experimented with and offered, the broader the reach and the higher the potential for profit/success/fame/etc. The original quote is: " if the medium is ever going to achieve that potential.", right?

An entertainment medium would be inherently limiting itself if it keeps its scope narrow. There's nothing wrong with that if everybody is happy with the status quo, but everything we've seen over the past several decades in terms of the direction the video game industry has been moving runs counter to that idea.

I would also say that if people just want hip hop albums, why is that a problem? Eventually there will be a demand for other types of music as well, and then those new albums will get made.

That demand already exists, though. Why not serve all audiences?

Shitty character design (including unattractive female characters

...what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

swit

Member
The notion that the developer is correct is far from being an obvious truth. A country's residents are not immune from making up a more ideal history for their country. I mean, should we not call the death camps in Poland circa WWII 'Polish death camps' because people from Poland object to it? Of course not, that's the history of it. Similarly, we should not ignore the presence of non-white individuals in that country just because someone (and this someone follows several Twitter accounts such as Breitbart News that engage fairly frequently with articles that have a nationalist bend to them) says that they had no such presence. Ignorance of your country's history I would reckon is the default state, not just a given. It doesn't take much effort to know more about a country's history than a native of said country who doesn't do any research of their own.

Not sure if I understand the part about WWII 'Polish death camps' correctly, but if you mean that Poland tries to disclaim thier presence than that's nonsense. The biggest concentration camp, Auschwitz Birkenau, is a state museum since 1947, where everybody is welcome to visit and learn about Holocaust. Poland is one of the countries most visited by Holocaust tourists due to the number of death camps. What (some) people are afraid of is using the term 'Polish death camps' instead of 'Nazi death camps in Poland' in foreign media - a phrase that may suggest that Poland rather than Nazi Germany had perpetrated the Holocaus and is resposible for extermination of over 3 million Polish Jews (prior to World War II, Poland had the largest Jewish community in Europe, of which over 90% have been murdered).

edit: Apologies for sidetracking the topic.

Now I get what you're referring to. I wasn't aware about the silly campaign that Polish politicians started about this recently.
 
Last edited:
If you said: "80% of all music albums released this year are hip hop and that's bad because there's only so much you can do with hip hop. The music industry can't keep relying on hip hop albums, they should instead invest in rock albums to improve the music industry." then yes, I think that's absolutely taking a shot at hip hop artists. I would also say that if people just want hip hop albums, why is that a problem? Eventually there will be a demand for other types of music as well, and then those new albums will get made. I just don't see the issue.

It's also the way she phrases it. She could've just said "I would really like to see game developers experiment more with non-violent mechanics" and the vast majority of people here would probably agree. I certainly would. But the way she frames this opinion of hers, with surveys of the amount of violent games, putting it in graphs, stating how disappointed she is that there isn't much improvement compared to last year, and then saying game developers are basically lazy to rely on that same old violence, just rubs me the wrong way.

"There's only so much you can do with hip hop. The music industry can't keep relying on hip hop albums," there isn't an equivalent statement to this in what she said. These are all things which you're inferring. If your problem is mostly with the phrasing not the sentiment, then aren't you being a little pedantic about this issue? At least in regards to your original point which was that this is some huge piece of agenda pushing aka it's an example of what people shouldn't say. Again with "game developers are basically lazy to rely on that same old violence" you're imagining these slights which simply aren't being said. The lack of diversity appears to be the thing she's complaining about, not that violent video games are some primitive form of art.

The entertainment industry isn't a zero-sum game. I'm struggling to see what's controversial about saying something obvious: the greater the diversity of media options explored, experimented with and offered, the broader the reach and the higher the potential for profit/success/fame/etc. The original quote is: " if the medium is ever going to achieve that potential.", right?

An entertainment medium would be inherently limiting itself if it keeps its scope narrow. There's nothing wrong with that if everybody is happy with the status quo, but everything we've seen over the past several decades in terms of the direction the video game industry has been moving runs counter to that idea.



That demand already exists, though. Why not serve all audiences?



...what?
What this person said.
 
That demand already exists, though. Why not serve all audiences?
If that demand existed, companies would be all over that I imagine. They're not though, probably because the demand actually isn't there.

The lack of diversity appears to be the thing she's complaining about, not that violent video games are some primitive form of art.
Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much. I'll admit, that's my own interpretation of her arguments. But it's based on other stuff Ms. Sarkeesian has said, such as the tweets below.

tumblr_npysuuAubk1r5x7c3o1_1280.png
 
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
If that demand existed, companies would be all over that I imagine. They're not though, probably because the demand actually isn't there.

But in your hypothetical, only 80% of albums released are hip-hop. So there's obviously demand for non hip-hop albums to cater to the 20%. On top of that, there's the untapped market who hasn't bought any albums at all yet, but the size of that is unknown.

Also, companies are making efforts. There's all sorts of discussion in this thread complaining about those efforts. They're not always going to get it right the first time or every time, but it's disingenuous to say there's no demand for exploring new mechanics and storytelling techniques.

Again, it's not a zero-sum game. Just because companies aren't shifting all of their dev resources to experimental stuff doesn't mean there's "no demand" and that companies aren't doing anything at all.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
The entertainment industry isn't a zero-sum game. I'm struggling to see what's controversial about saying something obvious: the greater the diversity of media options explored, experimented with and offered, the broader the reach and the higher the potential for profit/success/fame/etc. The original quote is: " if the medium is ever going to achieve that potential.", right?

So there fore we must force the situation by changing already existing media instead of creating new fresh ideas?

If there is a demand for something, it will exist. Changing something on the assumption of demand leads to poor results for existing customers and the supposed demanding ones (See: 343 industries)

An entertainment medium would be inherently limiting itself if it keeps its scope narrow. There's nothing wrong with that if everybody is happy with the status quo, but everything we've seen over the past several decades in terms of the direction the video game industry has been moving runs counter to that idea.

No one would have any issue with new genres or new i.p's that appeal to new and growing subsets of gamers.

That demand already exists, though. Why not serve all audiences?

Again, no one is saying we shouldn't. What people are saying is to not change existing i.p to appease new assumed subsets of gamers.


Are you suggesting it's not possible for a Female to be unattractive?
 
Just because companies aren't shifting all of their dev resources to experimental stuff doesn't mean there's "no demand" and that companies aren't doing anything at all.
I didn't mean there's literally no demand. I mean there's little demand. And that demand is probably already being met with the 20% of non-violent AAA games that are being made. And it probably doesn't make sense for companies to put even more resources into those games when they just don't sell that well. These are all assumptions I'm making because I don't own or work at a publishing company. It makes sense though, in a free market economy.
 
4. Gone Home as game was not the problem. Again it was what these "journalists" made of it. The game itself is a boring adventure game that lasts 90 minutes for 20$. And while tones of journalists in previous games often complained about length and prices THIS one was suddenndly totally fine and the SO great ending was also pretty dissapointing to be honest. It was GOTY for many of these people because of the ending which was ridiculous to me and many other people. And yes because of these journalists the developer also got backlash but the cause were these articles and reviews.

Without following the thread too closely this point you brought up was so spot on. Gone Home was the point in which I never trusted games 'journalism' again.. What a joke of a game.
 
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
So there fore we must force the situation by changing already existing media instead of creating new fresh ideas?

Who's forcing the situation? There's no coercion here.

Changing something on the assumption of demand leads to poor results for existing customers and the supposed demanding ones (See: 343 industries)

It's a risk. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't.

No one would have any issue with new genres or new i.p's that appeal to new and growing subsets of gamers.

Again, no one is saying we shouldn't. What people are saying is to not change existing i.p to appease new assumed subsets of gamers.

What's so special about existing IP that it's off-limits? Companies have experimented with existing IP for as long as gaming has existed. Why is it only a problem now? Just because you don't like it?

I thought this thread was offering the argument that "real" GG was in favor of sticking to criticism rather than outright demanding what companies can and can't do with their existing franchises?

Are you suggesting it's not possible for a Female to be unattractive?

What? No, I'm suggesting the exact opposite. Cybrwzrd gave "unattractive female characters" as an example of "shitty character design".

I didn't mean there's literally no demand. I mean there's little demand. And that demand is probably already being met with the 20% of non-violent AAA games that are being made. And it probably doesn't make sense for companies to put even more resources into those games when they just don't sell that well. These are all assumptions I'm making because I don't own or work at a publishing company. It makes sense though, in a free market economy.

Exactly. All we can really do is make assumptions.

So even if you're right, what's the harm in seeking to increase that 20%? It's not going to magically go up on its own if no one is vocal about what type of gaming experiences they're interested in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lupingosei

Banned
When the gaming press started to berate its readership, and when a notable member of said press uttered that “gamers are over” line, the camel’s back was broken. Gaming press ultimately chose to defend the industry it covers, and chastised those who criticized it.

I still recall the Mass Effect 3 debacle, when I read op-ed pieces shouting down video game players and those who were angry about the ending. Members of the gaming press took to Twitter to dogpile on game players.

Yes, this is a very, very important factor. Gamergate would have never got that much momentum if the whole Mass Effect 3 thing would not have happened. Later inside sources even revealed that the whole ending was a rush job by two people. But even then the gaming press almost in one voice told players to shut up and don't be so "entitled".

The whole thing was mind-blowing. One of the biggest gaming franchises during that time came to a conclusion. For years people were told all your decisions matter, everything you have done is important and the grand finale was the total opposite, the developers took over and nothing mattered. It was maybe one of the biggest lies and disappointments in gaming history and the gaming press just told people the should shut up. Fandom does matter. You can not sell people stuff build up a fanbase and then pretty much tell them to f-off. This will always create bad blood.

And you can not have both, the hype the sales and the fans but in the end, do not care about them. Lord of the Rings was maybe one of the best examples how fan culture and industry can work together. Fans were involved from the beginning, in getting information first to the end, actors staying at the Oscar fan party. Imagine what would happen if Peter Jackson would have changed the ending of the Return of the King into; it was just a dream while Frodo was really dying because Shelob was eating him alive. People would have been furious and imagine now if the whole press would tell the fans to shut up.
 
On the subject of ME3 being a sparking point for games journalism being criticized for being shitty to people who didn't like ME3's ending, I don't know that I agree with that. I have not really seen much in the way of games journalists doing such. Indeed, I actually see the opposite, including two articles from Kotaku. If there were any critiques of the response, it was likely made against the ferocity and extent of the response. I mean, I don't think there is anyone with any sense who would say that the anger over ME3 was proportionate.

Shitty character design (including unattractive female characters, weird facial animations etc) from inexperienced artists, trite storytelling and an incredibly racist gameplay designer? The message was less in the game but in its development. You couldn’t even make a fair skinned asian or white person in the game at release- cause you know onboard a spaceship people are going to stay an nice bronze tan in absence of sunlight. It even had a token transgender character that missed the mark and pissed off that community too. I’m sure others can list even more stupid failures that game has that can attributed to the culture that dev team cultivated.

As a trans person, I'll say that just because the character was poorly written does not entail that the character is token. People shouldn't overuse that word to the point that the presence of a character of that type in a game constitutes tokenism.

I'm also not sure who you're referring to when you say an "incredibly racist gameplay designer."

Without following the thread too closely this point you brought up was so spot on. Gone Home was the point in which I never trusted games 'journalism' again.. What a joke of a game.

Personally, I do not predicate whether I trust someone or not based on whether they share my opinions on media.
 
So even if you're right, what's the harm in seeking to increase that 20%? It's not going to magically go up on its own if no one is vocal about what type of gaming experiences they're interested in.
The problem is that she's obviously trying to reduce the amount of violent games being made because she doesn't like them. She's said this multiple times. For example in that video where she says "I would love to play video games but I don't want to shoot people and rip off their heads, it's gross" or those tweets I linked before.

Like I said already: It's fine if she was just honest about this and just says: "Hey, I don't like violent video games, I want developers to make more non-violent games" that's her opinion, and no one can go against that. But when you start framing the existence of other products that don't cater to you as problematic, in other words: they shouldn't exist (as much) that's when we're gonna run into some issues.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Who's forcing the situation? There's no coercion here.

Coercion was attempted, it failed. KCD appears to be reigniting the fire but on a different front (diversity instead of sexism) and there are a great many attempts at coercion but they too appear to be failing.

It's a risk. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't.

*usually it doesn't

What's so special about existing IP that it's off-limits? Companies have experimented with existing IP for as long as gaming has existed. Why is it only a problem now? Just because you don't like it?

I, like the vast majority of people, buy sequels to experience a game much the same as it's predecessor with improvements and an expanded or continued story, not to play call of duty in space, see again 343 industries and it's abysmal failure to maintain the Halo franchise after taking over all because "change". This is the example that is closest to me that echos the wider "gamergate" argument. The difference being 343's changes are due to pathetic incompetence and gamergate proposed changes are due to politically correct, feminazi SJWs and their twitter hashtags.

I thought this thread was offering the argument that "real" GG was in favor of sticking to criticism rather than outright demanding what companies can and can't do with their existing franchises?

Journalistic integrity is just one facet of GG among others.

And it is worth noting, that at the end of the day, developers are indeed working for us "gamers". We are the ones who ultimately have to part with our hard earned money, exchanging it for their product.

What? No, I'm suggesting the exact opposite. Cybrwzrd gave "unattractive female characters" as an example of "shitty character design".

Simple misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
The problem is that she's obviously trying to reduce the amount of violent games being made because she doesn't like them. She's said this multiple times. For example in that video where she says "I would love to play video games but I don't want to shoot people and rip off their heads, it's gross" or those tweets I linked before.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything related to "reducing the amount of violent games" in that quote. No agenda to try to get companies to stop making them. She's just expressing her opinion, that she finds them "gross". Do you have any other specific quotes/examples?

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about her intent, just that that particular quote doesn't back up your argument.

I'm not super familiar with GG. I don't really follow gaming media, I just like playing video games. I don't really understand this idea that the opinions of other journalists or gamers can affect one's enjoyment of a game. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
 
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
Coercion was attempted, it failed. KCD appears to be reigniting the fire but on a different front (diversity instead of sexism) and there are a great many attempts at coercion but they too appear to be failing.

Could you provide some examples? Let's skip the random Twitter rants and flames and trolls. There's ugliness on all sides on social media. I'm talking about real, credible threats that would force developers to do something against their will.

*usually it doesn't

What's your proof of this?

I, like the vast majority of people, buy sequels to experience a game much the same as it's predecessor with improvements and an expanded or continued story

I'm sensing a pattern...

It's best not to just assume that your personal experience and preferences represents the majority. Also keep in mind that "improvements" and an "expanded" story are extremely subjective, and aren't always going to align with your expectations. For any example you come up with of a company failing miserably by deviating from their successful "formula", I bet I can come up with a counterexample.

And it is worth noting, that at the end of the day, developers are indeed working for us "gamers". We are the ones who ultimately have to part with our hard earned money, exchanging it for their product.

Agreed. They want to serve their audience as best as they can while also staying true to their own artistic vision. Sometimes those align, sometimes it's a bit of a balancing act. Some companies have the luxury of taking bigger risks, others need to answer heavily to shareholders and have to play it rather safe.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything related to "reducing the amount of violent games" in that quote. No agenda to try to get companies to stop making them. She's just expressing her opinion, that she finds them "gross". Do you have any other specific quotes/examples?
Did you read the tweets I refered to? You don't think her saying the wall to wall glorification of violence in just the first 5 minutes of an E3 conference, and people's reaction to that is troubling, and that that kind of violence should not be viewed as normal is saying anything about how prevalent violence in games should be?

I don't really understand this idea that the opinions of other journalists or gamers can affect one's enjoyment of a game. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
That's a very reductive way of putting it. I don't care about other people's opinions on games. I do care however, when their opinions are presented as facts by game media, and when they start having an influence on game development, potentially for the worse.
 
Top Bottom