Support NeoGAF

[TheBryanJZX90]

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.

Well, being an English major, at least I was able to attend classes that dealt with issues of feminist perspectives and critical theory without trench warfare going on...

 

[Wereroku]

Well, being an English major, at least I was able to attend classes that dealt with issues of feminist perspectives and critical theory without trench warfare going on...

Were those electives or required for your program? I think requiring classes like that for every degree would do a lot for changing views.

Edit: Sorry meant to add that if they were elective then the people attending are a self selected group more likely to be open to the views you were studying. This can make a huge difference when it comes to civil discussions.

Edit2: As a business major this was not ever really discussed in any class even the ones with female professors. I don't know if it is discouraged in some programs or its a conspiracy but the only time we even discussed feminism was an elective law course I took that discussed business ethics.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Were those electives or required for your program? I think requiring classes like that for every degree would do a lot for changing views.

Critical theory yes. I never took a class specifically about feminism, it just naturally comes up in any kind of well rounded class.

 

[Das Mookid]

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

Holy crap, I hope this is sarcasm. STEM in the US is in enough trouble without letting the social 'science' clowns a turn on the podium to speak lol.

 

[Branduil]

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?

Well, I would say that merely not broadly generalizing and insulting people I disagree with is more effective than doing so, even if you don't say anything at all. It's counter-productive.

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.

This kind of dichotomous thinking is counter-productive, the with-us-or-against-us rhetoric. I don't care for or agree with #GamerGate, and obviously people who commit crimes in its name should be charged to the fullest extent possible, but it shouldn't be assumed that everyone within the movement is a 100% dyed-in-the-wool misogynist. There are likely a large number of people who can be reasoned with and convinced, if done in an empathetic way. I believe Boogie was one of those earlier.

https://twitter.com/pixiejenni

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

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.

Thanks for that article, I think it's helpful.

 

[LiegeWaffle]

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

[...]

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

Rab Florence is amazing, as usual.

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

That title reminds me of Jim Sterling's 100% objective review. I don't want game journalists to reproduce press releases, I can read those myself.

 

[frequency]

This kind of dichotomous thinking is counter-productive, the with-us-or-against-us rhetoric. I don't care for or agree with #GamerGate, but it shouldn't be assumed that everyone within the movement is a 100% dyed-in-the-wool misogynist. There are likely a large number of people who can be reasoned with and convinced, if done in an empathetic way. I believe Boogie was one of those earlier.

It's not meant as "with us or against us". Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought what you were saying is that the article is so tonally offensive that it pushed people away from the cause. But how can a single article, not even directed at you, by a historically emotional and offensive person drive you away from a cause if you truly believed in it?

Insulting people who would otherwise be on your side tends not to be a very effective rallying tactic

Maybe I misunderstood you.

And I am NOT CALLING ANYONE A MISOGYNIST. I said to examine your faction, if you chose one, and ask yourself whether that's what you want to be associated with.

 

[Griss]

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.

Make no mistake, I am much angrier at those other people. I'm not 'angry' at Leigh at all. Just not happy with what she wrote. As I said, all I'm doing is pointing out that someone on 'our' side wrote a shitty article.

The idea that this means I'm more angry at Leigh than the horde of people dragging gaming through the dirt, actually causing serious harm to others and creating all this tiresome drama is farcical.

 

[Branduil]

It's not meant as "with us or against us". Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought what you were saying is that the article is so tonally offensive that it pushed people away from the cause. But how can a single article, not even directed at you, by a historically emotional and offensive person drive you away from a cause if you truly believed in it?

Maybe I misunderstood you.

And I am NOT CALLING ANYONE A MISOGYNIST. I said to examine your faction, if you chose one, and ask yourself whether that's what you want to be associated with.

I'm saying there are people who can be persuaded through proper appeals to empathy and reason, but if you immediately attack what they feel is their identity, they're going to close their minds to you.

 

[Anjin M]

I fear that I'm courting account suicide by even weighing into this thread, but here I go.

I thought that Leigh's follow up article on Time.com read like a 2.0 version of her Gamasutra piece. Once all of the chaff was pared away (which had even offended me even though I'm a big fan of her work), I could see the argument she had originally intended. So although tone policing is deplorable, I really think she did more ill than good in her editorial.

But that's all so dumb. Rab Florence is as right now as he was a couple of years ago. The real corruption is found by following the money trail. That GG spends all its time going after women and SJWs reveals its true intentions.

 

[frequency]

I'm saying there are people who can be persuaded through proper appeals to empathy and reason, but if you immediately attack what they feel is their identity, they're going to close their minds to you.

Okay, I think I did misunderstand then because I agree with that.

I feel that her article had hurt the cause and I said as much in an earlier post.

 

[JackDT]

People are consider Leigh's editorial to be inflammatory enough to warrant a campaign against GamaSutra itself. How did you feel about this article written Aug 14, 2014, right before GamerGate:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...ng-raped-by-dorky-weirdos-on-Grand-Theft-Auto

GTA, which rewards players with in-game currency for having sex with prostitutes, then killing them, is already a bit disturbed. You can't help but feel it's a game for frustrated beta males who can't kill or shag anything in real life, so get their kicks doing it on a computer screen.

There's no doubt violent games play a part in the deeds of some wackos, such as Elliot "killer virgin" Rodger. Rodger didn't kill because the video games made violent, but the games did help to shape his violent fantasies. They provided a framework through which his online bloodlust turned into real-world slaughter.

It's that brazen, sociopathic, adolescent attitude from Rockstar – founded in Scotland – that most people will find grating, together with a reckless lack of care about games that depict violent, public rape in quite granular detail.

Personally, I don't understand grown men wasting their lives playing computer games. It seems a bit sad to me. I mean, we've all been sucked in to a few rounds of Candy Crush, but if you want to shoot a gun, why not go to a rifle range? I suspect most people who play these games have never held a firearm in real life.

I'm more relaxed about violent video games than most, because it seems unlikely that they alone make people act out in real life. So what if they're the last resort of the frustrated beta male? It's not for me to legislate what weirdos in yellowing underpants get up to in their spare time.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Make no mistake, I am much angrier at those other people. I'm not 'angry' at Leigh at all. Just not happy with what she wrote. As I said, all I'm doing is pointing out that someone on 'our' side wrote a shitty article.

Good. But like I asked Branduil before, why not take the energy spent expressing your disapproval of how Leigh expressed her message, and instead try to do what apparently she couldn't, and make her argument in a better way without those generalizations?

 

[Moon_frogger]

Good. But like I asked Branduil before, why not take the energy spent expressing your disapproval of how Leigh expressed her message, and instead try to do what apparently she couldn't, and make her argument in a better way without those generalizations?

Because her argument, even without the generalizations sucks. Games may be more things to more people, but the current indie boom is going to die, hard and the other side of it is the mobile rush, which is just as tough for the smaller, interesting developers and overrun by big companies trying to fleece you as the big budget AAA console market she's so contemptuous of.

In short, we aren't heading towards some diverse gaming utopia, we're headed into a wasteland where well over 90 percent of these small, diverse developers are going to die. Everybody wants a piece of the pie but there's only so much pie to be had. Your artsy puzzle platformer with a message doesn't stand a chance.

 

[jstripes]

Because her argument, even without the generalizations sucks. Games may be more things to more people, but the current indie boom is going to die, hard and the other side of it is the mobile rush, which is just as tough for the smaller, interesting developers and overrun by big companies trying to fleece you as the big budget AAA console market she's so contemptuous of.

In short, we aren't heading towards some diverse gaming utopia, we're headed into a wasteland where well over 90 percent of these small, diverse developers are going to die. Everybody wants a piece of the pie but there's only so much pie to be had. Your artsy puzzle platformer with a message doesn't stand a chance.

Indie gaming won't die simply because people are in it for the passion of making games.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Indie gaming won't die simply because people are in it for the passion of making games.

People have to eat. Where do you think all these Devs came from? They quit their jobs working for the big wigs so they could make that passion project. Indie gaming blew up In the last few years. People in their spare time became millionaires and now EVERBODY is following suit. Have you seen stream green light lately, or these bundles where you can buy like 10 games for a dollar? You think that's sustainable? You think these people have any hope of getting noticed in sea of mediocrity outside of sheer luck and happenstance?

I'm not saying indie gaming will die, it Won't. It'll be around forever. But it is definetly going to get way, way smaller. And guess what? Those little passion projects? Those great games with a message that try to do something different with the medium. They've ALWAYS been here. People have been doing this since the 80's. To read leigh alexanders piece you'd think it all started in 2009. She honestly doesn't know what she's on about and that's the real problem with her writing, it's So incredibly insular, so very ignorant of years and years worth of amazing gaming culture and history. All she knows is what's in front of her. Which is fine. I don't like her writing, I'll read someone I do like. Someone. with a lot more nuanced understanding of gaming culture and history, for sure.

 

[Canucked]

Because her argument, even without the generalizations sucks. Games may be more things to more people, but the current indie boom is going to die, hard and the other side of it is the mobile rush, which is just as tough for the smaller, interesting developers and overrun by big companies trying to fleece you as the big budget AAA console market she's so contemptuous of.

In short, we aren't heading towards some diverse gaming utopia, we're headed into a wasteland where well over 90 percent of these small, diverse developers are going to die. Everybody wants a piece of the pie but there's only so much pie to be had. Your artsy puzzle platformer with a message doesn't stand a chance.

There will be independent everything (games, comics, movies, even toys) for all time. The scope and audience and motivations will change and morph but it's field by passion, art and for a lot of game makers: challenge of programming.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Dear lord, I'm starting to see why alexanders article was so misunderstood I should write one and title it 'the death of indie developers'
Or maybe 'indie Devs are over' yeah, that sounds good.
I DIDNT SAY INDIE GAMING WAS GOING TO DIE.

 

[JackDT]

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.

Specifically against feminism or are they caught up with the other issues in gamergate? If it's the former that is disheartening.

For people that just get caught up in conspiracies and not just using it as an way to push back against feminism, this does a pretty decent job debunking the Anita Sarkeesian stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D4l0izPVM0

 

[Lime]

I'm saying there are people who can be persuaded through proper appeals to empathy and reason, but if you immediately attack what they feel is their identity, they're going to close their minds to you.

I seriously don't see how anyone would identify as the marketing-created stereotypical "basement-dwelling mountain dew & doritos misogynerd who define their identity by what they consume" as their primary identity.

All people around the world are much more than that and I don't see why someone would furiously cling to such an identity. People should have enough introspection and security about themselves to know what kind of people Alexander is referring to and how they (should) distance themselves from such a stereotype.

 

[Oersted]

People are consider Leigh's editorial to be inflammatory enough to warrant a campaign against GamaSutra itself. How did you feel about this article written Aug 14, 2014, right before GamerGate:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...ng-raped-by-dorky-weirdos-on-Grand-Theft-Auto

You might see some tiny outrage if Milo gets good enough for Fox-News.

 

[Corpekata]

I love that he sources Kotaku in that article.

 

[voodoopanda]

She honestly doesn't know what she's on about and that's the real problem with her writing, it's So incredibly insular, so very ignorant of years and years worth of amazing gaming culture and history. All she knows is what's in front of her. Which is fine. I don't like her writing, I'll read someone I do like. Someone. with a lot more nuanced understanding of gaming culture and history, for sure.

This is a weird criticism of Leigh Alexander because she writes/does a ton of stuff about old games. She's even doing a Let's Play series about Apple II games from the 80's at the moment. The vast majority of her work has nothing to do with social justice issues or controversial subjects, it's just those things get attacked and blown up so people see them.

 

[Lime]

Meanwhile on May 15, 2013, Brandon Sheffield wrote this on the very same site that Alexander submitted her article to

Let's retire the word 'gamer'
The word "gamer" has fully infiltrated the game developer lexicon. It's the adjective we use for our customers, for ourselves, and even for our lifestyle. But should we really be letting this one word define us?

I say absolutely not, which is why the word was banned from Game Developer magazine (as was "gaming," because that has been a synonym for gambling for years before video games were around).

"Gamer" is a marketing term used to put you in a box. If you agree with that, maybe you can stop reading right here and never use the word again. But let's continue for the rest of us.

[...]

But that impression of the game player as a do-nothing, thoughtless drone persists to this day. And that impression is perfectly encapsulated in the word "gamer." That is the word marketing people created to target and describe the basement-dwelling manboy. The person who just wants to play games and cares about nothing else. That person who only exists to shriek with horror and offense on internet forums about something he or she absolutely loves. And yet we have embraced this word with open arms, and proudly display it on our twitter tags. Microsoft even has its Gamer Points.

A "gamer," if we follow the rules of English, should be a person who plays games to the exclusion of all else. If you use a word that fully defines you, leaving no room for extra interests or hobbies, what does it say about you? It immediately becomes something to defend, or qualify. You can say "I'm a gamer, but I also read books." That's a bit forced, and doesn't it sound strange? Why the need to define oneself by one's hobby anyway? In what context could one naturally use the word, except derisively? And the news media does exactly that. "Gamers are lined up to get their hands on the new Call of Duty video game." Interviews with over-excited youths with far-away stares ensue, encouraging every mother watching to say, "I'm glad that's not my baby out there."

The word "gamer" is regressive. It accepts the portrait of us painted by the mainstream news media, and every time I hear it or read it it actually makes me feel a little sick. I believe in this art form, and I believe in the people who make it. That's why I am so hard on this industry, because I believe that as great as it sometimes is, it can get better.

So play games, of course, but don't let the playing of games define you. Why would you ever really need to describe yourself as someone who plays games, anyway? Do you walk up to people and say "Yeah, I watch movies." Well, of course you do, everyone watches movies. If games are to become part of culture, shouldn't it be assumed that you play games? Shouldn't it be presumed that we all do? In first world nations, isn't the person who doesn't play games in the greater minority, when you factor in Facebook, Angry Birds, and the like? The folks who play these more casual games don't consider themselves gamers, because they don't think of playing games as a thing that defines them. They're just casually consuming entertainment. And frankly, they're right. They see "gamer" as a term that describes someone else - they just happen to play games, it doesn't define them. And in their way, they're being more progressive than we are, as a result.

If you want to call yourself a gamer, fine. I can't tell you what to do. But if you want to start changing the public perception of the game playing public, so that the definition includes everyone who plays games, I say it's time to retire the word "gamer."

Wow, there are so many similarities in arguments and notions on the Gamer identity and consumer audience to Alexander's piece. Even the "waiting in line for a product" and "basement dwellers" and "created by marketing" are used similarly. Yet no one paid attention back then. Maybe because it wasn't the Antichrist of Gaming that Alexander has been persecuted to be for speaking up and being passionate and direct about issues pertaining to oppression of her and our peers.

Lucky for Brandon Sheffield that he has a Y chromosome, I guess.

 

[Moon_frogger]

This is a weird criticism of Leigh Alexander because she writes/does a ton of stuff about old games. She's even doing a Let's Play series about Apple II games from the 80's at the moment. The vast majority of her work has nothing to do with social justice issues or controversial subjects, it's just those things get attacked and blown up so people see them.

Because she does some lets plays she's now well versed In game history?
And as far as schffields piece, I remember reading it and thinking it was needless idealism getting all worked up about semantics. Also, read the comments he was rightly criticized for these exact reasons BY HIS OWN PEERS. Anyway.

 

[voodoopanda]

Because she does some lets plays she's now well versed In game history?

That's just one example of many, she's been writing about video games for nearly a decade now. You said she only pays attention to what's in front of her, doing a series of articles + videos about games from the 80s seems to disagree with that, at the very least.

 

[Orayn]

Because she does some lets plays she's now well versed In game history?
And as far as schffields piece, I remember reading it and thinking it was needless idealism getting all worked up about semantics. Also, read the comments he was rightly criticized for these exact reasons BY HIS OWN PEERS. Anyway.

Would you say she's not a Real Gamer™?

 

[Canucked]

Dear lord, I'm starting to see why alexanders article was so misunderstood I should write one and title it 'the death of indie developers'
Or maybe 'indie Devs are over' yeah, that sounds good.
I DIDNT SAY INDIE GAMING WAS GOING TO DIE.

You also said the artsy games "won't stand a chance" and some are merely saying they will.

 

[tonysidaway]

Some people just think it's a terrible article.

Leigh Alexander's article could be the worst journalism ever, but while women are hiding to save their lives it is not even in the top 100 worst things happening in gaming. Seriously, if you're upset at Leigh Alexander's editorial but weren't upset at the chronic harassment of women in the name of gaming, shame on you.

 

[Moon_frogger]

That's just one example of many, she's been writing about video games for nearly a decade now. You said she only pays attention to what's in front of her, doing a series of articles + videos about games from the 80s seems to disagree with that, at the very least.

She's more well known for her final fantasy vii letters than anything else. And doing videos on a bunch of old games does not mean that you know anything at all about game history. Her sonic the hedgehog piece where she talked about the 'polygons' in sonic 2 was actually a pretty clear indication about the value of her opinions on anything older than 2004. But yeah ok, I'm willing to agree to disagree here. I'm well aware that she's been writing about games for a decade. That doesn't mean she's been writing anything worthwhile

 

[Oersted]

What actually stands in Alexanders article

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1scc3mf

 

[Lime]

Dear lord, I'm starting to see why alexanders article was so misunderstood I should write one and title it 'the death of indie developers'
Or maybe 'indie Devs are over' yeah, that sounds good.
I DIDNT SAY INDIE GAMING WAS GOING TO DIE.

uh yeah you could definitely write such an article and people with a developed sense of reading comprehension and argumentation and interpretation of opinion pieces would know that you're not actually stating that indie devs is going to die.

It's a rhetorical device, simple as that.

Because she does some lets plays she's now well versed In game history?.

Definitely not a true gamer!

And as far as schffields piece, I remember reading it and thinking it was needless idealism getting all worked up about semantics. Also, read the comments he was rightly criticized for these exact reasons BY HIS OWN PEERS. Anyway

I didn't remember Sheffield's piece being used as an excuse and justification for a crusade against "corruption and ethics in games journalism" (read: get those pesky women and stop criticizing the status quo by talking about social issues and political aspects of our luxury hobby catering solely to us!)

 

[partyphone]

what's a good example of studied and nuanced games writing? a tim rogers review?

 

[Moon_frogger]

You also said the artsy games "won't stand a chance" and some are merely saying they will.

I said 'your artsy game' as in I was generalizing about the hordes of indie developers scrambling to get noticed, recognized and YES payed before they fade into obscurity.

I also said specifically that these types of games have been around long before the current indie craze and will be long after the current indie boom is dead and buried. It's awfully hard to have a discussion when I have to keep repeating myself and correcting people for things I didn't actually say at all.

 

[Oersted]

Why are we discussing if indie games will survive again? This is getting absurd. Or remaining, for that matter.

She's more well known for her final fantasy vii letters than anything else. And doing videos on a bunch of old games does not mean that you know anything at all about game history. Her sonic the hedgehog piece where she talked about the 'polygons' in sonic 2 was actually a pretty clear indication about the value of her opinions on anything older than 2004. But yeah ok, I'm willing to agree to disagree here. I'm well aware that she's been writing about games for a decade. That doesn't mean she's been writing anything worthwhile

That is anything, but a worthwhile attempt on a snide. Just leave it out.

 

[Lime]

what's a good example of studied and nuanced games writing? a tim rogers review?

This guy right here. Evidence of a true alpha:

And that’s my other question: why are these video games so saturated with sex, drugs and violence? Yes, I know TV and the movies have been going that way for ages, but video games are on another level entirely. I confess I’ve never spent much time in front of the computer screen zapping aliens, but the games I did briefly poke my nose into as a kid - Doom, Hexen and Wolfenstein 3D - were already way out there, which is why so many parents banned them once they actually realised how bloody they were.

I understand the Grand Theft Auto franchise proudly boasts “hooker killing” as a fan favourite feature. (It’s not that I’m sad for the digital prostitutes: I just find it all so icky.)

And here comes the gold nugget:

won’t lie: Grand Theft Auto V sounds spectacularly exciting, but it’s not for me. It’s too complicated, it’s too much effort, and it’s too blood-soaked to give me any sort of vicarious thrill. In a real world of terrorism, child grooming gangs and sex changes, nothing the video game people can come up with can compete with the pages of The Sun. I can only conclude that the yellow underpants brigade – teens and man-children addicted to these immersive video games – aren’t getting enough stimulation in real life.

I understand why young people might get the odd thrill from beating up a bad guy, or catching a glimpse of a nipple or two. But there’s something a bit tragic, isn’t there, about men in their thirties hunched over a controller whacking a helmeted extraterrestrial? I’m in my late twenties, and even I find it sad. And yet there are so many of them – enough to support a multi-billion dollar video games industry. That’s an awful lot of unemployed saddos living in their parents’ basements.

Is it that these games provide a bit of macho reinforcement to the terminally beta? It is hard to escape that conclusion. Might I suggest that if you want to feel like more of a man, you should head down to the gym or the football pitch. buff up and then bang a few birds “IRL”?

You gotta hand it to this guy. He is demonstratively the vanguard of Gamergate! (seriously, it can't get any more ridiculous and insane that gamers are championing him for the movement)

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Y-yellow underpants brigade? EWWWW.

 

[Arkage]

what's a good example of studied and nuanced games writing? a tim rogers review?

http://grantland.com/features/line-explores-reasons-why-play-shooter-games/

Pretty much anything written by him is worth reading. Light years beyond anything Leigh or most other writers can muster up.

 

[Oersted]

http://grantland.com/features/line-explores-reasons-why-play-shooter-games/

Pretty much anything written by him is worth reading. Light years beyond anything Leigh or most other writers can muster up.

Beyond? What do you mean?

 

[Moon_frogger]

Why are we discussing if indie games will survive again?

Because the entire crux of the gamers are over piece is based on the recent indie boom being some sort of diversity utopia that is eclipsing big budget games. It's not. It's a whole lot of small developers seeing a couple of their peers becoming multi millionaires and thinking they can have the next minecraft. Nothing more. This is the very heart of her peice, that traditional gaming is sloughing off in favor of this indie Renaissance.

She wrote

'"Traditional 'gaming' is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug."

And that Is exactly what is happening with the indie boom. Gamers may not have to be your audience but most of these games can't even reach an audience because there are too many damn games!

I'm trying to say I disagree with the crux of her article, not her sentiment that abusers and harasses should piss off and die. About that she is very, very correct.

I mean neogaf is a safe space for me to discuss her writing and why I don't like it right? I'm not following her around on Twitter telling her to die or stop writing about games or whatever? Why the sarcasm? Why the hostility?

Does anybody want to actually have a fair discussion about her article? It's pretty telling that I'm haven't even said a word about the her inflammatory language or her misunderstood generalizations and I'm still getting dog piled on. At this point I don't even think anybody is even interested in discussion her actual main points.

I guess I can understand that though, when some of you have been defending her for her 'tone' page after page. I actually have no problem with her tone. If I received even a fraction of the abuse she does on a daily basis I would be angry too.

 

[jstripes]

Meanwhile on May 15, 2013, Brandon Sheffield wrote this on the very same site that Alexander submitted her article to





Wow, there are so many similarities in arguments and notions on the Gamer identity and consumer audience to Alexander's piece. Even the "waiting in line for a product" and "basement dwellers" and "created by marketing" are used similarly. Yet no one paid attention back then. Maybe because it wasn't the Antichrist of Gaming that Alexander has been persecuted to be for speaking up and being passionate and direct about issues pertaining to oppression of her and our peers.

Lucky for Brandon Sheffield that he has a Y chromosome, I guess.

The term "gamer", and the identity it carries, has been a subject of discussion since the '90s.

 

[zeldablue]

Specifically against feminism or are they caught up with the other issues in gamergate? If it's the former that is disheartening.

For people that just get caught up in conspiracies and not just using it as an way to push back against feminism, this does a pretty decent job debunking the Anita Sarkeesian stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D4l0izPVM0

I dunno. But the past 2 or so years of watching the Anita and sexual harassment stuff come up...It always gets a controversial backlash. With a lot of people feeling as though their opinion doesn't matter or isn't heard. Most of them feel as though Anita's videos are harmful or disagreeable and most of them deny that women ever get harassed in the industry. Or severely downplay it as a non-issue.

All of this is just them finally feeling as though they need to speak. They want to be listened to despite all the harassment being there already.

For me, I don't think critique can ever be harmful. And I think disagreeing with a critical eye is fine, as long as you actually listen and consider what stereotypes do to people and the implications of certain stereotypes... I feel bad that they don't feel like they can be heard, but the vast majority of their voices are driven by deep internalized, socially repressed anger about the other gender.

EDIT: I was working on a game at school when Anita's Kickstarter happened. I saw the real world reaction from the group of student devs I was with. They were infuriated...but I was just curious because I always loved the idea of a psychologist, art critic or culture critic look at games in a critical way. The idea of a non-gamer professionally giving an analysis sounded awesome. I was really disappointed by the backlash and...well, here we are.

 

[Orayn]

The term "gamer", and the identity it carries, has been a subject of discussion since the '90s.

I think Lime is questioning why the gates of hell didn't open when Sheffield wrote an article with much the same message as Leigh Alexnader's.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

I believe it's because the older article's timing and author didn't fit with the SJW OUTSIDERS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY US AND OUR HOBBY FOR NO REASON narrative that the goobers insist on.

 

[Moon_frogger]

I think Lime is questioning why the gates of hell didn't open when Sheffield wrote an article with much the same message as Leigh Alexnader's.

And he's absolutely right to. It's clearly because she's a woman, and that's all kinds of sad and wrong. Still, that doesn't make hers of sheffields piece any more worthwhile.

 

[P.H. Perinax]

Dear lord, I'm starting to see why alexanders article was so misunderstood I should write one and title it 'the death of indie developers'
Or maybe 'indie Devs are over' yeah, that sounds good.
I DIDNT SAY INDIE GAMING WAS GOING TO DIE.

I think the problem has more to do with current trends in online journalism in general than in this case in particular.

I mean the absolutist, hyperbolic, outrage porn http://betabeat.com/2014/02/outrage-porn-how-the-need-for-perpetual-indignation-manufactures-phony-offense/ that is meant to generate anger in one way or the other.

I can write about the current issue thus:

"The controversy can be seen as an unfortunate side-effect of the success of games becoming mainstream and gaining a wider audience. This new audience, understandably, wishes to be catered to more due to now being apart of the gaming scene. The older audience can feel threatened by this, perhaps feeling that they will somehow be pushed aside in favor of ideas that they don't understand or feel threatened by. Hopefully, in time, the older audience will realize that this change is not something to fear, that there is room for everyone, and that conflicts like this have happened for years and with issues with far greater stakes."

See how I didn't make assumptions about if gamer's lived in their parent's basements, or use inflammatory acronyms about the people involved like SJW or MRA? That type of writing isn't going to make people say, "I agree" or "I disagree", It is meant to get a reaction of "HELL YES!" or "FUCK YOU!" Because emotions get page clicks and negative emotions get the most page clicks of all. It doesn't even matter if the writer fully believes what they write, just as long as it gets attention. It's twitter drama writ large and it is feeds on the worst of human behavior.

So yes, your intentions in your writing do matter, but if you want to write effectively and persuasively you might want to cut out language warning about the "death" of something.

 

[Arkage]

Beyond? What do you mean?

I mean he writes nuanced articles with complex themes. Not articles that are essentially rants with light sprinklings of meaningful content.

 

[Lime]

Because the entire crux of the gamers are over piece is based on the recent indie boom being some sort of diversity utopia that is eclipsing big budget games. It's not. It's a whole lot of small developers seeing a couple of their peers becoming multi millionaires and thinking they can have the next minecraft. Nothing more. This is the very heart of her peice, that traditional gaming is sloughing off in favor of this indie Renaissance.

She wrote

'"Traditional 'gaming' is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug."

And that Is exactly what is happening with the indie boom. Gamers may not have to be your audience but most of these games can't even reach an audience because there are too many damn games!

I'm trying to say I disagree with the crux of her article, not her sentiment that abusers and harasses should piss off and die. About that she is very, very correct.

I mean neogaf is a safe space for me to discuss her writing and why I don't like it right? I'm not following her around on Twitter telling her to die or stop writing about games or whatever? Why the sarcasm? Why the hostility?

Does anybody want to actually have a fair discussion about her article? It's pretty telling that I'm haven't even said a word about the her inflammatory language or her misunderstood generalizations and I'm still getting dog piled on. At this point I don't even think anybody is even interested in discussion her actual main points.

I guess I can understand that though, when some of you have been defending her for her 'tone' page after page. I actually have no problem with her tone. If I received even a fraction of the abuse she does on a daily basis I would be angry too.

It's totally fine to discuss the arguments on where consumers are going and who to appeal to and so on, but when you're framing such a discussion within the context of a thread about Gamergate and its obvious misogynistic connotations, your argument unfortunately run the very high risk of being interpreted as criticizing Alexander's piece in the same way as how it is operationalized in the Gamergate discussion. Meaning that this is why you experience "getting piled on".

I think discussing the future of consumer and diversity demand is another topic that should be brought up in another thread and it would help me and possibly others understand your position much, much better.

EDIT: this is simple side-note, but not everyone is saying that indie games are some diversity utopia. Far from it. A lot of voices have criticized indie games for just being yet another copycat of the mainstream video game culture with a lack of innovation and experimentation and driven by safe video game design and containing the same nepotistic tendencies and structural exclusion that the mainstream video games industry suffer from. Read this as an example of such criticism

I think Lime is questioning why the gates of hell didn't open when Sheffield wrote an article with much the same message as Leigh Alexnader's.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

I believe it's because the older article's timing and author didn't fit with the SJW OUTSIDERS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY US AND OUR HOBBY FOR NO REASON narrative that the goobers insist on.

That would be my more honest and serious guess as well and certainly not as simple as "she's a woman, he's a man!".

Interesting to note is that I guess that Alexander receives much more criticism than Daniel Golding who wrote an incredibly similar article at the same time as her. I guess it is because of some gamers seeing Alexander as the Antichrist of video games because of past and current passionate behavior and criticisms of people, whereas Golding is comparably unknown (I remember him doing a good criticism of Bioshock Infinite).

 

[Oersted]

snip

I agree with you that we could discuss the article (and yeah, I disagree with your other points), but the irony is, the way this discussion played out, her actual points are offtopic. What she said didn't matter for Gamergate.

 

[Moon_frogger]

what's a good example of studied and nuanced games writing? a tim rogers review?

Actually yeah he has written some pretty damn good stuff, without even really trying that hard

 

[Moon_frogger]

It's totally fine to discuss the arguments on where consumers are going and who to appeal to and so on, but when you're framing such a discussion within the context of a thread about Gamergate and its obvious misogynistic connotations, your argument unfortunately run the very high risk of being interpreted as criticizing Alexander's piece in the same way as how it is operationalized in the Gamergate discussion. Meaning that this is why you experience "getting piled on".

I think discussing the future of consumer and diversity demand is another topic that should be brought up in another thread and it would help me and possibly others understand your position much, much better.

Ok that's fine. I'm only replying to others posts in this thread about the 'gamers are over' piece. I didn't initiate the discussion. I agree it's virtually impossible to critique it without being lumped in with gamergate. For the record, I agree that gamergate is about punishing women has nothing to do with 'journalism ethics. I'd like to think we're on the same side here. Maybe I'm wrong.