Support NeoGAF

[Mesoian]

But then why label the article as saying "gamers are over?" That's a gross generalization if she intended to just target a specific sub-section of the readerbase. I don't say "Islamic people are over" when I'm talking about extremist like ISIS.



Even if it is a great agenda, it's still an agenda. Agenda isn't a negative word.

Islamic people are condemning ISIS.

A lot of these gamergate people are supporting the people making these threats against these people, the loudest are claiming that the victims are lying and deserve further abuse and the quietest are simplying ignoring it.

It's not the same thing at all.

 

[MHWilliams]

But gamers are basically their entire audience. Who else exactly are they writing for?

Again, Gamasutra's audience is developers, not gamers.

The full article title: 'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over.

It's obvious who it's aimed at.

 

[benicillin]

It's not bullshit. While we're talking about ethics as a whole, the two subjects I'm debating here are why op-ed writers should be distinguished from objective news writers. The other subject was about how I was perfectly fine with her piece because it as an editorial. I may not agree with her opinion but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

If you want objective news then read the press release. We shouldn't have to distinguish op-ed writers from "news" writers because writing op-eds and writing news isn't mutually exclusive. At least in my life, any news I actually like to read is from people whose work I am familiar with relaying the facts but also helping to contextualize and flesh it out within their own viewpoint. That's why you find writers that you trust and follow their work.

 

[SirPainsalot]

You're not distinguishing between writers. You don't reference writers when you make your arguments -- you mention entire sites -- Kotaku, Gamasutra, etc and compare them to Cigar Aficionado.

I didn't feel the need to list specific examples because it's all over the game journalism industry. For example, I just googled "Kotaku Reviews" and in a few seconds I clicked on a link to see what a random writer's worked on, and it's already proven my point of having one writer overlap between op-ed pieces (reviews, previews), and news coverage.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Either the people in question see no problem with GerstmannGate or they think it's okay to exploit the capitalistic premises of video game news sites when it's about them controlling what type of opinions get publicized. One could then surmise from such a position that freedom of speech is apparently only applicable when it comes to arguments against women and feminists, c.f. Sarkeesian & the cries of censorship.

Right?
I don't know how you could justify this while claiming to be anti-censorship and pro-expression without coming off as completely irrational.

Leigh's article has been discussed ad nauseum. I support the general message, disagree with the way it was delivered, and support her right to write it. You may interpret it as being offensive due to certain inflammatory phrasing, but this is not a proper response.

 

[faceless007]

But gamers are basically their entire audience. Who else exactly are they writing for?

Oh FFS, the audience of Gamasutra isn't gamers, it's developers. Do you really think articles like The craft of writing for branching dialogue systems or Snowkit: A collection of libraries and tools for the Haxe toolkit or Synchronizing Gameplay and Animation with Music--that's just from the front page today-- are of interest to more than a handful of game consumers? It's as targeted to gamers as American Cinematographer is targeted to the average moviegoing public . It's a trade publication targeted to people in the trade. Most consumers don't care how the sausage gets made.

Between not understanding that professional email lists are normal, not understanding that LinkedIn connections are normal, not understanding that professional networking is normal, and now not even understanding what the audience of a trade publication is, it's hard not to reach the conclusion that GamerGaters don't have the slightest bit of experience in a professional capacity for anything.

Even if it is a great agenda, it's still an agenda. Agenda isn't a negative word.

You earlier:

You don't see them pushing agendas or writing articles about "smokers are over", they just write about cigars and sports which is the entire point of their enthusiast press magazine.

You're going to pretend you weren't criticizing the inherent act of having an agenda with that?

 

[tranciful]

I didn't feel the need to list specific examples because it's all over the game journalism industry. For example, I just googled "Kotaku Reviews" and in a few seconds I clicked on a link to see what a random writer's worked on, and it's already proven my point of having one writer overlap between op-ed pieces (reviews, previews), and news coverage.

Can you point to problematic news coverage there?

 

[vcc]

But then why label the article as saying "gamers are over?" That's a gross generalization if she intended to just target a specific sub-section of the readerbase. I don't say "Islamic people are over" when I'm talking about extremist like ISIS.
.

It's like you expect your point of view to be universal, it's clearly not. Your outrage is strange.

The article was a trivial nothing; in context she was being harassed by members of you group and she lashed out in frustration with a silly trivial article. Then your group blew up like she committed some great evil deed. She did nothing but air her frustration but you guys reacted like she killed your dog.

You realize what ever actual point you guys might have wanted to convey gets drowned out about how badly you react to trivial things.

The part I hate is you've justified every negative stereo type of gamers and your agenda's and tactics are extremely transparent. Everyone see's right through you and all you've done is made the rest of us gamers look bad by association.

 

[kitschykitty]

But then why label the article as saying "gamers are over?" That's a gross generalization if she intended to just target a specific sub-section of the readerbase. I don't say "Islamic people are over" when I'm talking about extremist like ISIS.



Even if it is a great agenda, it's still an agenda. Agenda isn't a negative word.

I'm not entirely convinced you read anything in the article past the title. It makes its argument pretty clear that her complaint is that gaming has grown to a much larger market and the stereotype of the "gamer" isn't really applicable anymore instead we need to embrace the broader demographics of people who want to play games and move past the way gamers were traditionally portrayed and catered towards.

 

[The Librarian]

Even if it is a great agenda, it's still an agenda. Agenda isn't a negative word.

So why use it negatively here? You said something about cigar magazines or whatever and how they don't push agendas but just talk about cigars.

Gaming journalists should write about sexism. And racism. And female representation.

 

[SirPainsalot]

Again, Gamasutra's audience is developers, not gamers.

The full article title: 'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over.

It's obvious who it's aimed at.

What about all those other sites who wrote similar pieces like arstechnica. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the audience of game websites are gamers themselves.

 

[jstripes]

Intel should have gone the JCPenney route, rather than caving to the man-babies.

JCPenney had an ad with a gay couple. Right wing idiots bitched and complained. So JCPenney put out another ad, this time with a lesbian couple.

 

[zeldablue]

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

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

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

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

You actually have people trying to do that. Mundanematt and the others have said they need to fix their image more and stop there own harassers. Unfortunately denying harassment and saying "We don't condone it" doesn't get rid of the problem...it just makes them more blind to their own vices.

I know people from Gamergate are reading this, so I want to make it clear that if we look like we're all trying to criminalize you...that is not the case. I really want to carry this through without anyone being harassed, talked down to, blamed or shamed. I honestly hate seeing "antiGG" talk down and demean people, and I'm seeing it very often. I'd like it to stop, and be called out when I do it too. I believe both sides have clearly done awful, awful things and many people in real life have suffered because of it. This makes me more upset than you could possibly imagine.

If you want to make a change, don't just try to clean your image...truly commit to stopping harassment. See yourself in the people you blame. Trust is not based on logic or reason, in fact it is a very instinctual feeling tied to perceptions that comes from empathy and personal understanding. If you want people to listen and love you, then you have to understand this. We literally can't hear you through the hurt and anger that we're feeling and that I believe you are all feeling as well.

Will you screen grab this, too? :C

 

[SirPainsalot]

So why use it negatively here? You said something about cigar magazines or whatever and how they don't push agendas but just talk about cigars.

Gaming journalists should write about sexism. And racism. And female representation.

I never used it negatively, or at least I never intentionally did so.

Anyway, I gotta run for a hour or so. Appreciate having this discussion with you all.

 

[tranciful]

These drive-by posters are a waste of time.

 

[vcc]

Between not understanding that professional email lists are normal, not understanding that LinkedIn connections are normal, not understanding that professional networking is normal, and now not even understanding what the audience of a trade publication is, it's hard not to reach the conclusion that GamerGaters don't have the slightest bit of experience in a professional capacity for anything.

Have you also noticed that the 'movement' has lost a lot of steam now that school has started?

 

[Teremap]

Intel should have gone the JCPenney route, rather than caving to the man-babies.

JCPenney had an ad with a gay couple. Right wing idiots bitched and complained. So JCPenney put out another ad, this time with a lesbian couple.

Beautiful. Love it.

That being said, pretty sure Intel's ads themselves had nothing to do with anything ideological. Kind of hard to do so, when you're just selling computer hardware. Heh.

 

[voodoopanda]

I wonder how many people originally discovered Leigh Alexander's article because of Gamergate spreading it around. Before reading it, if ever reading the whole thing at all, but first reading that it was an attack on gamers, that it was about the death of gamers, seeing certain out of context sentences as evidence of how it is an attack on everyone who plays games. That's how the article seems to mostly be shared, this deliberate framing of it as, "here is an article that is hate speech about gamers." Most people probably got to the article after first getting through all that. A group was able to characterize an article in a specific way, so people's minds were in a certain place when they did eventually look at the article. Not to mention the accusations of it all being part of a conspiracy against gamers that the majority of the gaming media planned behind the scenes to distract from whats really going on.

So there's all this baggage, all this stuff people had to wade through that put the article in a very specific light, but then if people try to explain the context of the article, why it was written, what it was written in response to, who the audience was supposed to be, the rhetorical methods used, that all has become evidence of "if you have to explain it, it's badly written," and none of the explanations matter because look at how all these people took it. It's entirely the articles fault that they feel this way, not at all how it was framed and shared and discussed all over the internet. Having to explain what the article "really" means is just more proof.

It's really interesting.

 

[SirPainsalot]

These drive-by posters are a waste of time.

One last thing: Are you referring to me? Because if so, I fail to see your logic. I debated my points in fairly responsible conversation over the course of an hour or so. It's not like I just posted some dismissive/condescending reply and left the thread without ever coming back to debate.

 

[The Librarian]

I never used it negatively, or at least I never intentionally did so.

Anyway, I gotta run for a hour or so. Appreciate having this discussion with you all.

yes you did.

 

[tranciful]

The Medium article covers it, but maybe it'd be helpful to illustrate exactly how gaming news usually works.

In that kotaku link he posted, the most recent result is probably an example of what someone would considers news (new products announced).

http://kotaku.com/the-steelseries-siberia-headset-line-is-all-new-relati-1641395822

Go to their website, find the press release: http://steelseries.com/us/blog/press/steelseries-introduces-the-new-siberia-headset-family

This is what most gaming news is. Steelseries PR team probably emailed Kotaku and other sites trying to get coverage. The sites check out the press release and decide if they want to cover it. If they cover it, they just format the press release in a way that's more interesting to their readers.

Is that what gamers want? Is doing the bidding of publishers and other companies what they consider ethical journalism?

 

[Griss]

No, I'm not. I'm talking about what the article is actually about.

As SwissLion already pointed out quite well here, you're ignoring a considerable amount of the content in the article if you focus only on the descriptions of the more negative or stereotyped elements of gaming.

By saying that people could perhaps read the article and feel inspired to do and be better, I am not engaging in "what-aboutery." I am quite literally talking about the actual content of what was said in the article.

Sure, people could feel inspired to do better by that article. I wasn't. I was pissed off by the stereotypical garbage she wrote, which I felt wasn't at all qualified properly by some other quotes people are tossing around in her defence. Let's deal with the post you quoted...

To people trying to present isolated quotes, demonstrating Leigh Alexander's assessment of the perception of games culture, or a more or less accurate analysis of the main demographic make-up of early gaming technology, or an apt description of those who had been flinging abuse at her friends and colleagues for two weeks straight (and indeed for years before then) as some kind of evidence of her decrying everyone who plays games or identifies as a gamer...

Please very carefully actually read the rest of the article around those quotes.

It's not an article defining an entire industry and culture (that she is a deeply embedded part of, by the way) by its worst elements, it's an impassioned call to action to encourage the creators and space-makers to refuse to let it be defined that way for much longer.

And to those arguing from a point of tone, saying that a response to the two straight weeks of absolutely disgusting, paranoid, deeply sexist behaviour, and the culture that let it happen, should have been more calm and reasoned? Or that it should have been ignored all together? No, fuck that. Quietly accepting or expecting that element as part of our culture, and it has been for too long, is what got us to this point.

No this isn't an issue that is solely the problem of games. Games are only one corner of the greater culture that has many of the same problems, often worse ones. But they're all related, and if the people who are most passionate about our corner of the culture aren't supposed to be expected to try and heal it, who the fuck can?

The fact that you think 'a generation of lonely basement dewllers' is a 'more or less accurate analysis of the main demographic make-up of gaming technology' tells me that you're as easy with stereotyping as Leigh, and thus I'm not surprised you support her.

Sure, you're right that it's an impassioned call to creators to do better and curate their spaces, but it is ALSO an exceedingly clumsy, angry, ignorant and offensive stereotyping of the entire culture and people who identify as gamers. You can't handwave the quotes I presented as anything else. In any case, her quote of 'this is what the rest of the world knows about your industry' - that sentence was in relation to her previous sentence linking 4 articles regarding gamergate, rather than qualifying her personal opinions on game culture throughout the article, which were uniformly negative and based on stereotype.

And anyway, you don't get to spew bile, and then qualify it as 'This is the perception of the world rather than my opinion, guys, I'm just saying...' That's a transparent way of shielding your own unpleasant opinion. 'We have a problem with minority X. The perception is that they're aggressive and lazy and xyz. Not my opinion, but it's the perception...' Sorry, it doesn't fly.

As for tone, I never find answering aggressive language or behaviour with other aggressive language or behaviour acceptable. It's lowering yourself to their level, it's childish and regressive. The whole idea is to be above that, especially if you're a respected professional. I have every right to criticise her tone, which I found did not come close to meeting the standard of a professional writer in an industry publication.

There's this idea in this thread that everyone who dislikes Leigh's article must not have read it carefully or must not have understood it or deliberately misunderstood it. That's nonsense. Just because the overarching aim of the article is a good one: 'Hey creators, let's make gaming a more inclusive space by not accepting antisocial harassing behavior' doesn't give her free reign to say what she did about gamers in general and game culture without experiencing criticism of people who identify under that label or as part of that culture.

 

[MHWilliams]

What about all those other sites who wrote similar pieces like arstechnica. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the audience of game websites are gamers themselves.

All those other sites?

Sigh. Again.

8/28:
The End of Gamers by Dan Golding (Personal Tumblr)

This is on his personal Tumblr, not a website.

'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over by Leigh Alexander (Gamasutra)

The one everyone cites. Not surprising coming from Alexander.

The death of the “gamers” and the women who “killed” them by Casey Johnston (Ars Technica)

An also-ran response, citing Golding and Alexander's articles. Also, not that bad.

For gaming to be taken seriously as an art form, it needs to be able to stand up to cultural critiques, and gamers need to be able to separate a developer's personal life from her work. But it especially holds the medium back when these situations not only fail to play out in a civilized way, but become opportunistic embroiling of women in the "problems" of gaming culture, creation, and coverage.

It is, on a sad meta level, a real-life version of what Sarkeesian discusses in "Women As Background Decoration Part 2": women being treated as less-than, harassed and harangued out of the conversation, in service to a different, "bigger" problem. And every time it happens, it advances the goals of the most poisonous "gamers," while regressing everything else.

Gaming Is Leaving “Gamers” Behind by Joseph Bernstein (BuzzFeed)

Cites Golding.

What Golding is getting at, and what hope I made clear with my long-winded analogy, is that video games are in the process of shedding the assumptions larded on them by their history. They are becoming simply another medium—one with no inherent bias towards any group. In twenty years, it may sound as old-fashioned to call someone a “gamer” as it is to call someone a “moviegoer”. And we may well look back at these few weeks in 2014 as the moment when the medium finally separated from the limitations put on it from outside, and from within.

We Might Be Witnessing The 'Death of An Identity' by Luke Plunkett (Kotaku)

That last one is merely links to Alexander and Golding's article with a few words.

8/29:

THIS GUY'S EMBARRASSING RELATIONSHIP DRAMA IS KILLING THE 'GAMER' IDENTITY by Mike Pearl (Vice)

Again, cites Alexander's article. Probably as incendiary as that article, because Vice stepped in it when they wrote an article about the /v/ mascot.

Why so apocalyptic? Game discourse has become a fucking mess. An all-out, screaming shitfit that never stops.

On Wednesday, gamer punching bag Anita Sarkeesian got harassed and threatened for the umpteenth time by gamers who were angry about being called out for their misogyny. This time, she was driven out of her house by death threats. Her ongoing YouTube series isn’t always perfect, but it has never once done anything to merit a two-year campaign of anonymous threats.

Then last night, while that was in the news, I edited and published a short article by Allegra Ringo about Vivian James, a new mascot created by 4chan to thwart proponents of social justice in gaming. When I woke up the following afternoon, gamers were harassing her en masse on Twitter.

The rest of the article is basically an interview with Eron Gjoni.

An awful week to care about video games by Chris Plante

EDIT: A new addition that I missed before, which talks about all the saddening events that happened in that week. Plante never says "gamers" directly, but some of his words mirror those stated in the other articles.

This week, it should be clear to this community that games are at a cultural turning point. No longer are games designed, marketed and sold to a niche group of young men. Games are now ubiquitous; their ability to provide a safe space for experimentation and empathic experiences serves a population that, in a time as economically and politically bleak as this one, needs them desperately. More games are being created by more people for more people than ever before.

Two groups are at opposite ends of this moment:

One side has folded its arms, slumped its shoulders while pouting like an obstinate child that has learned they are getting a little brother or sister but wants to remain the singular focus of their parents' affection.

The other side has opened its arms, unable to contain its love and compassion, because they understand they are no longer alone.

This week, the obstinate child threw a temper tantrum, and the industry was stuck in the metaphorical grocery store as everyone was forced to suffer through it together. But unlike a child, the people behind these temper tantrums are hurting others. It's time to grow up. Let's not wait until next week to start.

8/31:
Why does the term 'gamer' feel important? by Jonathan Holmes

Maybe I should give up immedietely and get back to the purported point of this ding dang post -- the importance of the term "gamer". I know a lot of people who don't want to use it anymore. They don't want to be associated with it anymore in any way. It's because a lot of people who take pride in being "gamers", be they game developers, jouranlists, or players, use the term as a way to elevate themselves above others. Gamer used to mean "a former nerd who is now proud of their love of games", but now a lot of people take it to mean "I'm cooler than you other try-hards, because videogames".

"Gamer" was a way to to take back "videogame nerd" and remove the social stigma, and now it's being used as a pedestal to stigmitize others. So we're going to have to take it back again, this time from the bullies that use it to devalue other people for not having the same type of interests, priorities, and goals as they do.

Certainly not as hard as people would make out.

9/1:

The Monday Papers by Graham Smith

Again, simple links to the Alexander and Golding articles alongside their normal writing collections.

A personal Tumblr, a site for developers, a site for general tech, BuzzFeed, and Vice. Of the gaming websites, Kotaku's was merely a link to Alexander's article and Destructoid's was completely different in tone.

So where are all these sites touting gamer is dead?

 

[Griss]

I wonder how many people originally discovered Leigh Alexander's article because of Gamergate spreading it around. Before reading it, if ever reading the whole thing at all, but first reading that it was an attack on gamers, that it was about the death of gamers, seeing certain out of context sentences as evidence of how it is an attack on everyone who plays games. That's how the article seems to mostly be shared, this deliberate framing of it as, "here is an article that is hate speech about gamers." Most people probably got to the article after first getting through all that. A group was able to characterize an article in a specific way, so people's minds were in a certain place when they did eventually look at the article. Not to mention the accusations of it all being part of a conspiracy against gamers that the majority of the gaming media planned behind the scenes to distract from whats really going on.

So there's all this baggage, all this stuff people had to wade through that put the article in a very specific light, but then if people try to explain the context of the article, why it was written, what it was written in response to, who the audience was supposed to be, the rhetorical methods used, that all has become evidence of "if you have to explain it, it's badly written," and none of the explanations matter because look at how all these people took it. It's entirely the articles fault that they feel this way, not at all how it was framed and shared and discussed all over the internet. Having to explain what the article "really" means is just more proof.

It's really interesting.

I read Eurogamer, GamesIndustryBiz and Gamasutra regularly and thus came across the article that way. I thought it was terrible upon first reading, even in the context of the horrible storm of abuse that was engulfing the industry at that time, and without any prior negative context given to me by any pro or anti-gamer gate person.

Some people just think it's a terrible article.

 

[Silexx]

yes you did.

I've been following the discussion on the side lines and the further it goes on, the more I get the feeling that SirPainsalot is being disingenuous as all hell.

 

[voodoopanda]

Leigh Alexanders article makes a lot of sense in the context of when it was written. There had just been a couple weeks of harassment against a female gamedev and a female game critic, scaring them from their own homes. There was this call that "real gamers" aren't interested in "non-games" like Depression Quest and didn't want to hear all this "SJW nonsense" in their gaming media. "We are gamers, and this is what we want."

So gaming journalists and gaming developers had a choice to make. Do they doubledown on the MtnDew and sexy ladies and try to appeal to this demographic who was lashing out at women? Is that who gaming is for, and therefore the industry should do what they can to make these people happy?

Alexander's article was a loud, "No!" She had witnessed not just the recent attacks and harassment, but the continuous harassment women faced whenever they talked about feminist issues. And she wrote an article about how you don't have to appease these people, that the people who play games are much more varied, that the medium is more mainstream than this. This idea that gamers are basement dwelling nerds who lash out as women is old fashioned, no longer the audience you should be going after. Don't write articles thinking someone like that is your main demographic, gamers are better than that. These loud voices are a minority that is only continuing to shrink. The article was about how awesome gamers actually are, that these stereotypes no longer define the medium, and so gamedevs and game journalists shouldn't feel trapped in having to appeal to that ugly stereotype anymore.

The explosion of Gamergate and their arguments against "SJWs" and the continued harassment done in the name of being "gamers" and what "gamers really are" since the article just shows that she wasn't that off base.

 

[Prax]

So disappointing that this thing is still going on.

I think the more this goes on and the more stupid stuff happens with people being apologists are trying to "explain how hurt gamers felt", the more it intersects with social issues in culture in general. People don't want to feel "guilty" or "complicit" in doing "bad things" no matter how tangential they may be to causing actual harm or not. They start screaming (or "logically" writing with "unbiased objective truth") "Well that's not me! It's not my fault! Stop trying to make me feel bad!!!! You LIARSS!" and the more they whine the more tired I get of their pouting. You will notice this with areas of racism, feminism, classicism.. pretty much any area of social critique, there's a contingent of people who are so afraid of losing the status quo that they become frothing disingenuous mental gymnasts or there are those who are tricked/guided into fighting against their best interests because they latch onto a couple of misleading sockpuppet shows or sound bites.
And then there are the opportunistic trolls and tin foil hatters, who should outrightly be ignored or dismissed.

I've lost most of my sympathy--if I had any to begin with--for any GamerGate supporters. My only feelings are probably pity and disgusted dismissiveness.

If anything, this whole sideshow just proves how much the gamer identity as it is (a bunch of reactionary whiners too self-involved to see the bigger picture) needs to die or hit rock bottom so it can go into rehab to become something better.
I'm hoping it leads to some kind of reform and the wheezy people pissing and moaning about "SJW"s ruining everything can go home crying foul and never come back out for all I care. lol

 

[tonysidaway]

Wanting women to be treated with respect (and not wanting to see them harassed), and wanting more women in the videogame field, isn't pushing an agenda.

Actually it is. If by "pushing an agenda" you mean "expressing an opinion you expect people to take seriously because you think it's very important." As far as I'm aware, that's what people mean when they use that ominous word. And of course, having an inclusionary agenda in writing is a very good thing. We absolutely should all be for this agenda, and all the gamer press and the developers should have inclusion on their masthead and action policies to achieve it. Just like nearly every other industry or commercial operation in the civilised world.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Holy shit, to all those of you saying gaming press "should only serve gamers", "shouldn't talk about social issues", "should read just like a cigar magazine", "shouldn't include opinions in their news"... You can directly read the companies' press releases. They are available on Gamasutra. They are available for you to read directly, no need for all websites to only copy-paste them. Thank you.

Stop mixing corruption, ethics, conflict of interest and personal insults with "opinions I don't agree with". This is getting really ridiculous.

 

[DragonSworne]

Holy shit, to all those of you saying gaming press "should only serve gamers", "shouldn't talk about social issues", "should read just like a cigar magazine", "shouldn't include opinions in their news"... You can directly read the companies' press releases. They are available on Gamasutra. They are available for you to read directly, no need for all websites to only copy-paste them. Thank you.

Stop mixing corruption, ethics, conflict of interest and personal insults with "opinions I don't agree with". This is getting really ridiculous.

I don't read any gaming media outlet. I haven't since 2003.

 

[alstein]

Holy shit, to all those of you saying gaming press "should only serve gamers", "shouldn't talk about social issues", "should read just like a cigar magazine", "shouldn't include opinions in their news"... You can directly read the companies' press releases. They are available on Gamasutra. They are available for you to read directly, no need for all websites to only copy-paste them. Thank you.

Stop mixing corruption, ethics, conflict of interest and personal insults with "opinions I don't agree with". This is getting really ridiculous.

That's already happened - the folks who support GG don't give a damn about the gaming "media" and probably just wish it would go away. To them, the gaming media and the SJWs are the trolls.

 

[jstripes]

So disappointing that this thing is still going on.

I think the more this goes on and the more stupid stuff happens with people being apologists are trying to "explain how hurt gamers felt", the more it intersects with social issues in culture in general. People don't want to feel "guilty" or "complicit" in doing "bad things" no matter how tangential they may be to causing actual harm or not. They start screaming (or "logically" writing with "unbiased objective truth") "Well that's not me! It's not my fault! Stop trying to make me feel bad!!!! You LIARSS!" and the more they whine the more tired I get of their pouting. You will notice this with areas of racism, feminism, classicism.. pretty much any area of social critique, there's a contingent of people who are so afraid of losing the status quo that they become frothing disingenuous mental gymnasts or there are those who are tricked/guided into fighting against their best interests because they latch onto a couple of misleading sockpuppet shows or sound bites.
And then there are the opportunistic trolls and tin foil hatters, who should outrightly be ignored or dismissed.

I've lost most of my sympathy--if I had any to begin with--for any GamerGate supporters. My only feelings are probably pity and disgusted dismissiveness.

If anything, this whole sideshow just proves how much the gamer identity as it is (a bunch of reactionary whiners too self-involved to see the bigger picture) needs to die or hit rock bottom so it can go into rehab to become something better.
I'm hoping it leads to some kind of reform and the wheezy people pissing and moaning about "SJW"s ruining everything can go home crying foul and never come back out for all I care. lol

Spot on.

I get all worked up about it sometimes, and then I remember I have plenty of stuff other than games going on in my life. I just feel awful for the people whose lives were directly affected.

 

[zeldablue]

Holy shit, to all those of you saying gaming press "should only serve gamers", "shouldn't talk about social issues", "should read just like a cigar magazine", "shouldn't include opinions in their news"... You can directly read the companies' press releases. They are available on Gamasutra. They are available for you to read directly, no need for all websites to only copy-paste them. Thank you.

Stop mixing corruption, ethics, conflict of interest and personal insults with "opinions I don't agree with". This is getting really ridiculous.

This whole thing has been about "opinion I don't agree with." That's all its ever been and that's all it ever will be about aside from the harassment. :S

I wonder how Gamergate feels about gaming schools putting cultural studies and gender studies into the mandatory section. A lot of their crying has caused more of what they hate to be that much more important. My game dev professors have followed along this discussion for years...and this hate parade had solidified that there is a deep seated problem with the people who are going to make the next generation of games.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

This whole thing has been about "opinion I don't agree with." That's all its ever been and that's all it ever will be about aside from the harassment. :S

I wonder how Gamergate feels about gaming schools putting cultural studies and gender studies into the mandatory section. A lot of their crying has caused more of what they hate to be that much more important. My game dev professors have followed along this discussion for years...and this hate parade had solidified that there is a deep seated problem with the people who are going to make the next generation of games.

I can't imagine those pushing #gamergate bullshit are the same folks who are going to be making games. They would have to understand how to solve complex problems which seems out of the realm of simpletons.

 

[atrossity]

One last thing: Are you referring to me? Because if so, I fail to see your logic. I debated my points in fairly responsible conversation over the course of an hour or so. It's not like I just posted some dismissive/condescending reply and left the thread without ever coming back to debate.

You can't reason with these people man. I appreciate your well thought out and interesting arguments, but they don't.

You can't disagree with them. Any attempt to disagree is, in their mind, you being a sexist, or white privileged, or conservative scum. They can't imagine that their are other opinions so anything you day will just be dismissed. I applaud your effort though.

 

[The Librarian]

You can't reason with these people man. I appreciate your well thought out and interesting arguments, but they don't.

You can't disagree with them. Any attempt to disagree is, in their mind, you being a sexist, or white privileged, or conservative scum. They can't imagine that their are other opinions so anything you day will just be dismissed. I applaud your effort though.

You shouldn't do that.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

You can't reason with these people man. I appreciate your well thought out and interesting arguments, but they don't.

You can't disagree with them. Any attempt to disagree is, in their mind, you being a sexist, or white privileged, or conservative scum. They can't imagine that their are other opinions so anything you day will just be dismissed. I applaud your effort though.

Uh, what thread were you reading?

 

[TxdoHawk]

If anything, this whole sideshow just proves how much the gamer identity as it is (a bunch of reactionary whiners too self-involved to see the bigger picture) needs to die or hit rock bottom so it can go into rehab to become something better. I'm hoping it leads to some kind of reform...

This bit pretty much sums up my feelings better than I ever could. If the "gamer" as an identity truly is dying, thank goodness. I've grown up and spent a majority of my life with video games, started on an Atari 2600 over two decades ago...but the people who are hoisting that identity on their back with this movement make me seriously reconsider publicly admitting that this is a hobby I enjoy.

 

[faceless007]

You can't reason with these people man. I appreciate your well thought out and interesting arguments, but they don't.

You can't disagree with them. Any attempt to disagree is, in their mind, you being a sexist, or white privileged, or conservative scum. They can't imagine that their are other opinions so anything you day will just be dismissed. I applaud your effort though.

Except that no one in thread accused SirPainsalot of being any of those things. They did accuse SirPainsalot of being disingenuous, contradictory, unrealistic, and having a poor understanding of how enthusiast media works. Because he/she evidently does. And yet for some reason you read something completely different and much more inflammatory from that.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

This bit pretty much sums up my feelings better than I ever could. If the "gamer" as an identity truly is dying, thank goodness. I've grown up and spent a majority of my life with video games, started on an Atari 2600 over two decades ago...but the people who are hoisting that identity on their back with this movement make me seriously reconsider publicly admitting that this is a hobby I enjoy.

Yup. Which is why people like Griss should be much angrier at the gross parts of gaming culture than they are at Leigh Alexander for pointing at those gross parts.

 

[jstripes]

I can't imagine those pushing #gamergate bullshit are the same folks who are going to be making games. They would have to understand how to solve complex problems which seems out of the realm of simpletons.

Ya, but the people pushing #GamerGate can get the home phone numbers of the people who are going to be making games and scare them out of it.

 

[ViviOggi]

You can't reason with these people man. I appreciate your well thought out and interesting arguments, but they don't.

You can't disagree with them. Any attempt to disagree is, in their mind, you being a sexist, or white privileged, or conservative scum. They can't imagine that their are other opinions so anything you day will just be dismissed. I applaud your effort though.

Persecution complex much?

 

[Branduil]

Yup. Which is why people like Griss should be much angrier at the gross parts of gaming culture than they are at Leigh Alexander for pointing at those gross parts.

The problem is, whether intentionally or not, she grossly generalized a large number of people who aren't involved. Insulting people who would otherwise be on your side tends not to be a very effective rallying tactic, weirdly enough. It was a poorly written article.

 

[zeldablue]

I can't imagine those pushing #gamergate bullshit are the same folks who are going to be making games. They would have to understand how to solve complex problems which seems out of the realm of simpletons.

Uhhhhh...

A lot of people in my college studying game design are in gamergate or they're defending it on Facebook. The minority are very loudly in the SJW category. But most are extremely against feminism. Anytime an Anita video is posted there are over 300 posts of people yelling at each other. It has been a s*** storm every time I look at the Facebook page because of Gamergate. Alumni and professors have had to come in to try to moderate and offer help. A lot of them are being harassed and some of them left home. They've had info taken and have been called with screaming harassment. They're on both sides of the fence going to classes together...

This is VERY relevant to the people who will be making games in 5-10 years. The schools have to bring this discussion to the forefront now. :\

 

[JackDT]

https://twitter.com/pixiejenni

Sorry the large post, it's all pretty much one string from the poster:

Here's the thing: I think much of GG is harmful, shitty + misinformed. But that doesn't mean there's NOTHING valid being said there.

I mean, I don't think it's the stuff that we're hearing most vocally! But there is a problem with alienation: http://ellaguro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/on-gamers-and-identity.html

There is a problem with how the West treats Japanese games, or how some of anti-GG have been erasing people, all of that.

There's not some bullshit ~conspiracy~ and I *hate* the targets they're choosing (mostly women, surprise suprise).

But that doesn't mean you get to say there are no actual feminists/minorities/etc who support it. That's fucking awful of you, and I don't support that.

I think #GamerGate is a fucked-up movement with no clear goals, a terrible origin + a bunch of bad people making use of it,

But quite frankly, if you can't see how some of your views are alienating and giving #GamerGate a reason to keep clinging on? Fuck you.

And again, recommended reading for pro and anti-#GamerGate types: http://ellaguro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/on-gamers-and-identity.html

Right. This is a topic I haven't wanted to tackle. But for those of you wondering why feminist-types might be pro-GG? I'll explain.

Too often, articles referring to the spark of this - the post about ZQ gloss over things as a 'jilted ex' kind of story. I don't know them.

I do not want to comment on my thoughts to two strangers relationships. But many people felt betrayed by the complete lack of willingness-

-to even consider that emotional abuse may have occurred. People who themselves have been abused. Can you see why this would be upsetting?

The whole thing got out of hand and the fact it ended up on SA/4chan is awful and I do not condone how that happened, etc. But the fact is-

-refusing to consider that maybe some people feel betrayed by SJ/feminist types not being willing to address that concern is awful. Again, I don't know her.

I don't know enough about her/the situation to have commented. But this is what's upsetting some people. Understand?

@PixieJenni I know some people who did believe the original accusations against Quinn. However, they were somewhat undermined over time by-

@PixieJenni -the ex himself. His original blog-post said '4chan, keep out of this. I don't want to see her punished' - but it turns out he-

@PixieJenni -was running the initial hate campaign from within 4chan's raid channels. He smokescreened well and planned it as an attack.

As I said, I think behavior of parties in this is complex + I don't know anyone well enough to suggest validity of anyone's concerns.

What I do know is that people were hurt by others ignoring what they read as something similar to their own experiences.

And it's therefore perhaps not surprising that some of these voices have sided with GG.

@PixieJenni I think the issue with blaming journos for not looking at it is that game journos don't feel like it was for them to cover.

I definitely agree on this. I don't think it should have been covered. I don't think it should have spiraled like this. Just - @gcn940

-hoping to point out one reason why there are some SJ/feminist voices in GG, and what their concerns have been. @gcn940

But I hope I've shown why some people feel like there's been a cover-up

and why they may personally feel belittled and upset for it.

@gcn940 @PixieJenni I think that's shown pretty well in the first journalist leak, they just felt it wasn't something they should cover.

Don't think any of that justifies GamerGate as it is now. At all. Just wanted to offer why some fem/SJ types might be in GG.

I just wanted to offer up some points that have been made to me about why some people are wary of games journos, etc, and are pro-GG.

Quick last note though: I don't believe any of the points I've just made make GG justified. I still think it's shit.

Just wanted to give voice to some concerns people I've spoken to had. I don't feel it's my place to discuss + GG is still shit in my eyes.

I think there's some definitely something to: "people were hurt by others ignoring what they read as something similar to their own experiences." That it turned into #gamergate is still kind of baffling though.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Uhhhhh...

A lot of people in my college studying game design are in gamergate or they're defending it on Facebook. The other half is very loudly in the SJW category. Anytime an Anita video is posted there are over 300 posts of people yelling at each other. It has been a s*** storm every time I look at the Facebook page because of Gamergate. Alumni and professors have had to come in to try to moderate and offer help. A lot of them are being harassed and some of them left home. They've had info taken and have been called with screaming harassment. They're on both sides of the fence going to classes together...

This is VERY relevant to the people who will be making games in 5-10 years. The schools has to bring this discussion to the forefront now. :\

Your college sounds like it's filled with nutjobs.

I say that adding social science classes to any major program is a positive thing.

 

[Vlade]

Leigh Alexanders article makes a lot of sense in the context of when it was written. There had just been a couple weeks of harassment against a female gamedev and a female game critic, scaring them from their own homes. There was this call that "real gamers" aren't interested in "non-games" like Depression Quest and didn't want to hear all this "SJW nonsense" in their gaming media. "We are gamers, and this is what we want."

So gaming journalists and gaming developers had a choice to make. Do they doubledown on the MtnDew and sexy ladies and try to appeal to this demographic who was lashing out at women? Is that who gaming is for, and therefore the industry should do what they can to make these people happy?

Alexander's article was a loud, "No!" She had witnessed not just the recent attacks and harassment, but the continuous harassment women faced whenever they talked about feminist issues. And she wrote an article about how you don't have to appease these people, that the people who play games are much more varied, that the medium is more mainstream than this. This idea that gamers are basement dwelling nerds who lash out as women is old fashioned, no longer the audience you should be going after. Don't write articles thinking someone like that is your main demographic, gamers are better than that. These loud voices are a minority that is only continuing to shrink. The article was about how awesome gamers actually are, that these stereotypes no longer define the medium, and so gamedevs and game journalists shouldn't feel trapped in having to appeal to that ugly stereotype anymore.

The explosion of Gamergate and their arguments against "SJWs" and the continued harassment done in the name of being "gamers" and what "gamers really are" since the article just shows that she wasn't that off base.

Do you see this GG people? Critics don't gain the way you think they do. They very often have something to say on a topic they are interested in.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

The problem is, whether intentionally or not, she grossly generalized a large number of people who aren't involved. Insulting people who would otherwise be on your side tends not to be a very effective rallying tactic, weirdly enough. It was a poorly written article.

Forget about tone and word choice and generalizations for a minute. What do you, personally, think about her underlying message? Do you agree with it? If yes, how much effort have you put into arguing for that underlying message in an effective way, since Leigh apparently couldn't? If you don't agree with the underlying message, why do you avoid tackling that message directly and instead focus only on the surface of the article?

 

[frequency]

The problem is, whether intentionally or not, she grossly generalized a large number of people who aren't involved. Insulting people who would otherwise be on your side tends not to be a very effective rallying tactic, weirdly enough. It was a poorly written article.

If people can't look passed an article by a historically angry person to see the cause she is arguing for, which is way bigger than she is, then those people don't believe in the cause in the first place.

I don't like her article (I don't like super aggressive tones in general so Leigh Alexander is not the voice I want representing my views) but it's just one thing by one person. I don't know why it's such a huge deal that it somehow justifies everything that has happened after it. Or how people can denounce the entire cause and join a movement that is actively working against it because of a single article by a single person... Unless, of course, those people were looking for a reason.

I would say if you were so offended by the article that you have decided to take up the gamergate banner, go read what the article is actually saying. I understand if you can't read the article itself because it is so tonally disagreeable but read other summaries about what it is really saying. And ask yourself why you have decided to brand these people "sjw" and why you're fighting against their cause while championing a movement built on disrespect, harassment, and censorship.

 

[zeldablue]

Your college sounds like it's filled with nutjobs.

I say that adding social science classes to any major program is a positive thing.

Hey now.

People who love games go on to college to make games. "Gamers" make up the entirety of the game design program. I'm a gamer too.