• 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

Personally, I do not predicate whether I trust someone or not based on whether they share my opinions on media.

I do not predicate whether I trust someone or not based on whether they share my opinions on media, I do however predicate whether I trust someone or not based on a shared interest and understanding of gaming and the mechanics involved in creating interesting and involving gameplay.

The games ‘journalism’ world’s overwhelming praise of Gone Home made me realize the kind of people in games journalism these days would be better suited writing reviews for niche indie movies that no one watches.
 

ThisGuy

Member
I'm not trying to be a dick. But is there a good run down of what GG is about? I completely ignored everything surrounding it. What happened and all that? If it was already posted I missed it.
 

Moneal

Member
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.

She says in one twee that was not happy with the violence of Doom, a game everyone knew before it was shown would be very violent considering the past versions. In the same tweet she then says that expecting that level of violence from Doom is the problem. Don't know about you, but when I say something is the problem I want it stopped or definitely reduced.
 
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
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 did. I just see it as her expressing her opinion. Is she doing things like organizing mass boycotts, harassing developers, lobbying for Congress to ban violent games, etc? That's the type of behavior I would expect from someone actively trying to "reduce the amount of violent games being made".

But even then, ultimately I wouldn't call it a "problem" since it's her right to free speech. I might not like it or agree with it, but I'm not going to throw a fit about it (not saying you're doing that, just outlining the spectrum of potential reactions/responses to what she said).

She says in one twee that was not happy with the violence of Doom, a game everyone knew before it was shown would be very violent considering the past versions. In the same tweet she then says that expecting that level of violence from Doom is the problem. Don't know about you, but when I say something is the problem I want it stopped or definitely reduced.

See above. Also, if I don't like something and think it's a problem, my default reaction is to just avoid it. I don't go out and try to rid the world of it. That would take some serious passion, time and energy. That investment on her part is not apparent to me based on those tweets.

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.

I'm just not convinced that I've been denied a gaming experience that I would've loved based on the actions of SJWs or whatever more mild term you might want to use.

And even if I was, I'd never know since I'm not following the play-by-play.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Moneal

Member
See above. Also, if I don't like something and think it's a problem, my default reaction is to just avoid it. I don't go out and try to rid the world of it. That would take some serious passion, time and energy. That investment on her part is not apparent to me based on those tweets.

If I am saying something is a problem I try to reduce it. If i see it as a problem I avoid it and I don't tell others its a problem. Saying something is a problem means for me its something I can't avoid. If my kids don't clean their room I say thats a problem and tell them to clean it.
 
I do not predicate whether I trust someone or not based on whether they share my opinions on media, I do however predicate whether I trust someone or not based on a shared interest and understanding of gaming and the mechanics involved in creating interesting and involving gameplay.

The games ‘journalism’ world’s overwhelming praise of Gone Home made me realize the kind of people in games journalism these days would be better suited writing reviews for niche indie movies that no one watches.

If I had to guess, the most popular thing about the Gone Home thing is the Polygon review of it by Danielle Riendeau. With that being the case, let's look at the games that she enjoyed from 2017.

https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/d347q7/danielle-riendeaus-top-ten-games-2017

There are certainly games similar to Gone Home (most notably Tacoma, which is made by the Gone Home dev), but we also have games such as Prey, Breath of the Wild, Dishonored: Death of the Outsider, Pyre, Super Mario Odyssey, and Mario + Rabbids. Basing your view of a person's opinion because they like a game you didn't is a bit silly.
 

Cybrwzrd

Banned
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."

I have no problem with the inclusion of trans characters. Writing an NPC in to be trans but not even be realistic is my issue. Why would a trans person who left their past behind to start a new life, just open up to someone they hardly know with the name they had before they transitioned. Its tokenism. It added nothing to the story.

Also, if you somehow missed this whole debacle in your readings of kotakuinaction, Manveer Heir isn't exactly shy in his hatred of white people.

 
Last edited:

Velius

Banned
The aim of Gamergate is to allow developers to create the games they want to make. Gamergate does not call for the exclusion or cessation of any genre or specific game. Most of the leaders of those who oppose Gamergate call for the opposite- for any software that conflicts or even doesn't converge with their ideology to be deleted.
 
The aim of Gamergate is to allow developers to create the games they want to make. Gamergate does not call for the exclusion or cessation of any genre or specific game. Most of the leaders of those who oppose Gamergate call for the opposite- for any software that conflicts or even doesn't converge with their ideology to be deleted.

Who are these people who want games to be "deleted"?

I have no problem with the inclusion of trans characters. Writing an NPC in to be trans but not even be realistic is my issue. Why would a trans person who left their past behind to start a new life, just open up to someone they hardly know with the name they had before they transitioned. Its tokenism. It added nothing to the story.

Also, if you somehow missed this whole debacle in your readings of kotakuinaction, Manveer Heir isn't exactly shy in his hatred of white people.



I mean, I don't really care about white tears jokes, particularly because such a thing is usually a response to something rather than the initial comment.

I am well aware too that they wrote the trans character poorly - my point is that tokenism is thrown around willy nilly.
 
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
If I am saying something is a problem I try to reduce it. If i see it as a problem I avoid it and I don't tell others its a problem.

Ok, so we've established that people respond differently and have different intentions when they express their views about things they view as problematic on Twitter.

We don't know her true intent, but let's say she truly wants to get rid of your favorite violent games. What can she actually do? Is she doing things like organizing mass boycotts, harassing developers, lobbying for Congress to ban violent games, etc? If not, then what are you worried about? What direct influence does she actually have?

Saying something is a problem means for me its something I can't avoid.

Well that doesn't really apply here does it? It's pretty easy for her to avoid a video game. So that can't be what she meant.

If my kids don't clean their room I say thats a problem and tell them to clean it.

Not a great analogy:

1) You don't complain about your kids not cleaning their rooms on Twitter. You tell them directly. If you only complained on Twitter and didn't actually approach them, would you expect them to respond at all, or change their behavior?

2) You have a position of power and authority over your children. You can punish them for not cleaning their rooms. You can set rules and enforce them. None of those apply to her situation. She can't send game developers to their rooms or ground them. They have no obligation to listen to her.
 
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.

This is a really great post. Thank you for taking the time to express yourself so coherently and in an informed manner. I saw this thread and wanted to compose something very similar but I decided that my time was better spent coding video games as that's what I'm best at :p.
 
Last edited:

KevinKeene

Banned
There are still people entering this thread and claiming 'every game is political' with either trying to understand why that's wrong or at least reading the thread where this has been explained in detail.

It is, again, frustrating to have to repeat the same explanations ad nauseum, as if quality of discussion didn't matter and it's all just an endurance marathon to see he falters first. This thread isn't too big to read it whole.

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.

One of the best postings in this thread and nobody reacted to it, so let me quote it for some more attention.

Edit: Noooo, Koala, just when i posted :D Good job.
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
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.
Well said.

Diversity for the sake of diversity sucks. Also, Anita clearly has an agenda, which is make money.
 

Moneal

Member
Not a great analogy:

1) You don't complain about your kids not cleaning their rooms on Twitter. You tell them directly. If you only complained on Twitter and didn't actually approach them, would you expect them to respond at all, or change their behavior?

2) You have a position of power and authority over your children. You can punish them for not cleaning their rooms. You can set rules and enforce them. None of those apply to her situation. She can't send game developers to their rooms or ground them. They have no obligation to listen to her.

1) Her stating it on twitter is like her saying it directly. devs have interacted with her and other people through twitter. We even had an an example in this thread.

2) No she doesn't have a position of power over the devs but she does have a position of influence with them. I know Neil Druckmann of Naughty Dog has mentioned her work influencing his writing.
 
Last edited:

RafterXL

Member
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.

So much truth in one post. Well said.

The entire GG debacle, aside from being a massively overblown boogeyman, wasn't about left vs. right, it was about the rise of authoritarians on the left and the pushback against them.
 

Blood Borne

Member
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.
Wow. Beautiful post. Well done.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
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.

You can't just skip "random twitter rants" since it's the #1 platform for "public" pressure.

Subnautica being a good recent example of the power of hate mob minorities however.

What's your proof of this?

Halo with Halo 4

Gears of War with Judgement

CoD with Advanced Warfare I think it was, but what ever one added the jetpacks and rubbish.

There would doubtless be more examples but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

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.

It's undeniable how much of a joke Halo became after it changed the core formula. There is a reason that a console exclusive went from holding the #1 spot for players for 2 years dropped down to not even holding top 20 with Halo 5.
 

Dunki

Member
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.



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 will answer this one now and the other later since I have to go to work. However. If you want to see what people mean with token character the best example would have been Baldurs Gate 2 remaster. In this game you can meet a trader who says Hello I am a trans person and who tells you her whole live story without even asking about it. This whole character is only there for this reason only. She was not a character or human being she was a Trans Person. Just like many people in Bioware games these days are just the gay person, the strong female character. The Trans person. Outside of this they seem to have NONE personality.

Let me give you now a very positive example of a gay character and that is Bill from the Last of us. He does not tell you he is gay it is not his trait at all. You learn more and more about him in Letter and in the conversations with him. In the end Ellie finds reads this "playgirl" like magazine and when you not have noticed the letters he wrote and got then you finally realize that he is gay. And you thought. Oh interesting, Bill was actually treated like an actual Person. I like that.

As for the rest I will answer after Work if that is ok.
 
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.

The top game on that list is a war game set during the biggest geopolitical event of the last 200 years. That's pretty political to me.

Show me where they're adding token things just to pander to people, you're adding this negative cynical intent to an action when you simply don't know if that's the case.

Andromeda was bad because it was bad. It's political message had nothing to do with all the bugs and horrible writing.

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


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

I feel like I can disagree with those tweets, and yet still agree with the point you showed me earlier. We're not voting Ms. Sarkeesian for president, we're just discussing an idea she had. Agreeing with somebody isn't agreeing to everything they've ever said. It doesn't look like the idea you posted earlier is her saying that in bad faith. She's not trying to trick us into getting rid of video games.

What should the "normal" game be is a pretty interesting discussion though? Off topic, but interesting.
 

Palantir

Banned
For me, and I think many others, it morphed into more of a "rallying cry" against numerous issues, annoyances, and outright hostilities from various angles than what it had originally started as. (I should add in that at no point do I ever feel like personally harassing anyone is appropriate, especially in some of the horrible ways that some "GGers" did. However, those few bad apples do not represent the movement as a whole.)

GamerGate became less a specific movement and more just a general intellectual space where you could find other reasonable, rational opinions, and these seemed so rare than GG became a very attractive banner to hold.

I do feel like it was beneficial to the industry as a whole, because there definitely needed to be a bulwark against the leftist groupthink that dominated the public gaming sphere.
 

KevinKeene

Banned
For me, and I think many others, it morphed into more of a "rallying cry" against numerous issues, annoyances, and outright hostilities from various angles than what it had originally started as. (I should add in that at no point do I ever feel like personally harassing anyone is appropriate, especially in some of the horrible ways that some "GGers" did. However, those few bad apples do not represent the movement as a whole.)

GamerGate became less a specific movement and more just a general intellectual space where you could find other reasonable, rational opinions, and these seemed so rare than GG became a very attractive banner to hold.

I do feel like it was beneficial to the industry as a whole, because there definitely needed to be a bulwark against the leftist groupthink that dominated the public gaming sphere.

Against left-authoritarian.

That's important to note. GG is not a politically right movement. It's anti-authoritarian. Hence myself being left-libertarian.
 

Giant Robo

Neo Member
He literally brings up "cultural marxism". That's a Nazi Germany conspiracy theory about Jews controlling us all. He is also constantly defending the alt-right no matter what. He's pretty much all in on it.

Wrong on so many accounts, if you've even been remotely following his live stream debates/conversations the last couple of months, he's done with the alt-right as in he won't debate any of them anymore because he thinks they're irrelevant and that their line of thinking will lead to individual rights being violated(people getting rounded up and killed). He's come off looking worse after a couple of debates which has caught him a lot of criticism too.
 

Reyben

Member
Wrong on so many accounts, if you've even been remotely following his live stream debates/conversations the last couple of months, he's done with the alt-right as in he won't debate any of them anymore because he thinks they're irrelevant and that their line of thinking will lead to individual rights being violated(people getting rounded up and killed). He's come off looking worse after a couple of debates which has caught him a lot of criticism too.

I mean it's not like Sargon has debated Spencer and Anglin in the last few weeks alone and the alt-right has been bombing his comment sections and downvoting his videos for months now...
 

Giant Robo

Neo Member
I mean it's not like Sargon has debated Spencer and Anglin in the last few weeks alone and the alt-right has been bombing his comment sections and downvoting his videos for months now...

And in the Anglin one he said it was the last alt-right debate he's doing in the foreseeable future because of reasons I mentioned earlier, come on dude.
 

Alx

Member
I'm not trying to be a dick. But is there a good run down of what GG is about? I completely ignored everything surrounding it. What happened and all that? If it was already posted I missed it.

I was like you just a few days ago. From what I gathered from this topic, and checking with some wikipedia sources for details, here's what I gathered, mostly chronologically :
- on August 16th 2014, through some social network discussions, someone mentioned that a game developer (Zoe Quinn), had intimate relationships with a game journalist, who happened to mention her games with a positive light on his website.
- people from 4chan and youtube get upset about that, saying that it's not ethical. They start making some noise about it, some only complaining, others having sexist and insulting behaviour targeted at Quinn. Other cases of not too clear interaction between journalists and the industry get included in the "discussion".
- on August 28th, several gaming sites publish similar articles, claiming there's something rotten in the world of gaming, gamers are polluted by sexism etc. The reception of those articles seems very bad by all gamergaters, including from those denying being sexists.
- after that people kept joining one "side" or the "other", blaming the opposite camp of all sorts of things, and sometimes with harassment on both sides. Hardcore feminists supported the anti-gamergate side, and some alt-right personalities the gamergate one, which clearly didn't help. Things quickly slided from "ethics in journalism" to "sexism and progressiveness in games", so completely different topics but with the same division : on one side feminists saying "down with macho dudebro games", and on the other people saying either "leave my games as they are" or hateful misogynist stuff for the less tolerant.

Honestly I still wonder why it's still a thing more than three years later. The ethical journalism part is a joke, gaming journalism has always been (barely) hidden advertising more than anything, and isn't discussed any more. The sexist/progressive discussion seems more tense than it should be, considering that all the real changes that came from such topics are anecdotal; there are still dudebro games with bikini babes but also new games trying to be more progressive (some more subtle than others), so everybody should be happy. Some games are censored on western market or not distributed at all, but that has always been the case and is less of an issue with today's open market and region free consoles. But people keep shouting, insulting and harassing each other on the internet for some reason.
 
Last edited:

Reyben

Member
And in the Anglin one he said it was the last alt-right debate he's doing in the foreseeable future because of reasons I mentioned earlier, come on dude.

I was agreeing with you, but whatever. What i mean is: if you're actually fighting the alt-right (which is more than the left is doing btw) you're not alt-right. That's seems pretty straightforward but apparently it's not.
This reminds me also of stuff like "Milo is a nazi white supremacist!". Then you go to an actual alt-right community and the first thing you read is "kill Milo that degenerate f***** kike!"
Things don't add up.
 

nowhat

Member
Yeah. If you honestly believe a single person can be attributed to even the facial animations (her status has very much been disputed, despite whatever her Twitter account says) I have a bridge to sell you. And that doesn't still account for the animations, and the bugs, in general.

And what does this have to do with "SJWs"? The fact she's female?
 

TannerDemoz

Member
videogames are about fantasy. they are not about realism. the sooner vg companies get that the better. we all saw what happened when SJBS got into Andromeda..

Mate, are you serious? Video games can be whatever they want to be about. They don't have to be about 'fantasy'. They can tackle real-world themes too. Games aren't some inclusive medium where you can only create something to guidelines – that's the exact opposite of creativity and it's limiting.

From reading through your posts on here it just sounds like you're gutted because Andromeda was a bad game. Put that on EA and how they handled the issues.
 

Giant Robo

Neo Member
I was agreeing with you, but whatever.

:eek:

What i mean is: if you're actually fighting the alt-right (which is more than the left is doing btw) you're not alt-right. That's seems pretty straightforward but apparently it's not.
This reminds me also of stuff like "Milo is a nazi white supremacist!". Then you go to an actual alt-right community and the first thing you read is "kill Milo that degenerate f***** kike!"
Things don't add up.

Indeed, here's a clip of Sargon saying the alt-right is his enemy in a somewhat petty squabble with someone else around 2m20:

 
Mate, are you serious? Video games can be whatever they want to be about. They don't have to be about 'fantasy'. They can tackle real-world themes too. Games aren't some inclusive medium where you can only create something to guidelines – that's the exact opposite of creativity and it's limiting.

From reading through your posts on here it just sounds like you're gutted because Andromeda was a bad game. Put that on EA and how they handled the issues.

yes Bioware tackled real life problems by making every female character ugly...
 

I assume that you've had a job before. Therefore, you'd understand that how well somebody does their job can completely be reliant on the constraints their company puts on them. Constraints that we actually have evidence for via investigative reporting. Pointing at one person in a team of hundreds and claiming that they ruined a game is literally insane. You have no idea why what happened, happened. You're just groundlessly speculating based on your own internal biases.
 

TannerDemoz

Member
yes Bioware tackled real life problems by making every female character ugly...

Were you expecting soft porn? I don't get why you're hung-up on the game, nor did I equate animation problems to ugly female characters – although if that is why you're upset with the game that's incredibly hilarious. There's plenty of reading out there describing what went wrong with the game and how many Bioware members wanted to try and work hard to rectify issues caused by the engine but couldn't. Google is your friend.
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
I'm not trying to be a dick. But is there a good run down of what GG is about? I completely ignored everything surrounding it. What happened and all that? If it was already posted I missed it.
This. GG has been dead for almost a year. Or more.
 

KevinKeene

Banned
A resounding yes to this. Twitter ruined the planet.

The worst part about Twitter ist that its leadership favors social justice activists and bans people without ever giving a reason and no way to appeal the decision.

As a matter of fact, Twitter has become a basic everyday tool like a phone, tv or the internet itself. Unless the government forbids you from using it, a private company shouldn't have the right to ban users lightly.
 

InterMusketeer

Gold Member
I feel like I can disagree with those tweets, and yet still agree with the point you showed me earlier. We're not voting Ms. Sarkeesian for president, we're just discussing an idea she had. Agreeing with somebody isn't agreeing to everything they've ever said. It doesn't look like the idea you posted earlier is her saying that in bad faith. She's not trying to trick us into getting rid of video games.
I think there's a clear connection between her keeping score of how many violent games are shown at E3 (a rather specific thing to keep track of) and her statements on what she thinks of violent games. Ms. Sarkeesian's arguments and videos were covered widely by websites and newspapers, she was brought on TV-shows to talk about her work and she was even on Time's 2015 list of 100 most influential people. We're not talking about just some lady posting her opinions on youtube. She was given a platform by journalists who, as already stated in this thread, seem to hate their audience.

I don't want to keep bringing up Ms. Sarkeesian, because this thread's not about her. She's just a well-known example of a feminist critiquing games with very obvious ulterior motives. I guess you don't see that, and there's not much I can do about that. If you're truly interested, you should look her up yourself. I think most people in this thread would agree however, that what she's doing is definitely pushing an agenda. A feminist, social justice agenda that aims for equity.
 

nowhat

Member
As a matter of fact, Twitter has become a basic everyday tool like a phone, tv or the internet itself. Unless the government forbids you from using it, a private company shouldn't have the right to ban users lightly.
That's not how freedom of speech works, it's only about how the government cannot limit speech. Private companies have absolutely the right to ban users if they are so inclined. Nothing is preventing one from coming up with a Twitter clone (with blackjack! and hookers!) with a different moderation policy.
 

KevinKeene

Banned
That's not how freedom of speech works, it's only about how the government cannot limit speech. Private companies have absolutely the right to ban users if they are so inclined. Nothing is preventing one from coming up with a Twitter clone (with blackjack! and hookers!) with a different moderation policy.

This is a dishonest reply. Twitter has become big beyond a company's rights. In Germany the trains are owned by the private company Deutsche Bahn. Would it be fair to ban people from using it because of dumb stuff they said? That'd be banning them from traveling elsewhere. That's how significant Twitter has become. You can ban actual criminals, that's it
 

nowhat

Member
This is a dishonest reply. Twitter has become big beyond a company's rights. In Germany the trains are owned by the private company Deutsche Bahn. Would it be fair to ban people from using it because of dumb stuff they said? That'd be banning them from traveling elsewhere. That's how significant Twitter has become. You can ban actual criminals, that's it
Deutsche Bahn AG (abbreviated as DB, DB AG or DBAG) is a German railway company. Headquartered in Berlin, it is a private joint-stock company (AG), with the Federal Republic of Germany being its single shareholder.
 

Dunki

Member
Deutsche Bahn AG (abbreviated as DB, DB AG or DBAG) is a German railway company. Headquartered in Berlin, it is a private joint-stock company (AG), with the Federal Republic of Germany being its single shareholder.
The NordWestBahn GmbH is a private railway company providing regional train services on several routes in northern and western Germany. It is a joint venture of Stadtwerke Osnabrück AG, Verkehr und Wasser GmbH in Oldenburg and Transdev Germany GmbH, Berlin. The head office of the company is in Osnabrück. NWB claims to be Germany's largest regional railway company.
 
D

Deleted member 12837

Unconfirmed Member
You can't just skip "random twitter rants" since it's the #1 platform for "public" pressure.

If you believe that gaming companies are making strategic decisions and changing the contents of their games and their original plans based on some angry gamers on Twitter, who they fundamentally disagree with but feel like their hands are tied over, then I suppose we just have to agree to disagree.

Subnautica being a good recent example of the power of hate mob minorities however.

I had to look this one up. It's certainly not unique to the gaming industry or some "new" occurrence. If you post insensitive/inappropriate/controversial stuff on Twitter, especially in relation to your job, then of course you run the risk of being fired.

Halo with Halo 4

Gears of War with Judgement

CoD with Advanced Warfare I think it was, but what ever one added the jetpacks and rubbish.

There would doubtless be more examples but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

It's undeniable how much of a joke Halo became after it changed the core formula. There is a reason that a console exclusive went from holding the #1 spot for players for 2 years dropped down to not even holding top 20 with Halo 5.

1) I'd think you would be able to come up with more than 3 examples if you're trying to make the argument that companies changing the formula of a franchise usually results in failure

2) Halo 4 and 5 were commercial successes and have a 87.61% and 84.21% on GameRankings. They slipped a bit from previous installments, but the score has been slightly lower for each successive game. That's not uncommon for big franchises. It's not like they're dropping down to the 60%-70% or lower range. CoD: Advanced Warfare was the top-selling game of 2014 and has scores of 83.50% and 82.88% on GameRankings for PS4 and Xbox One, respectively.

3) To get back closer to the original topic: how exactly can the changes that made those games "bad" in your eyes be traced back to SJWs and pressure campaigns on Twitter? I think a far more likely explanation is that the devs are running out of ideas and things are just getting stale.
 
Top Bottom