Support NeoGAF

[JackDT]

I've always thought it wasn't so much of male gamers not wanting women to be in the scene, as much as it is the women(not exclusively) in the scene demonizing games catering to the males.

It's even worse because they effect the overall metacritic score as well, gamers want to know the quality of a game, not if it a game like Akiba's Trip is the next sinister woman objectifying game. Or a review of dragon crown starting with "I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments", these don't do anything other than demonize the dev team and the people who buy these games.

Gaming should be more inclusive, it'd be awesome to see more games made with everyone in mind. Though it shouldn't come at the cost of stripping away the creative freedom of developers and/or shunning their target demograph.

"I didn't like the art style" is not attack on the dev team and the people or the the people who buy games. It's how the reviewer felt. Expressing an opinion is not "stripping away the creative freedom of developers".

 

[bishopcruz]

I've always thought it wasn't so much of male gamers not wanting women to be in the scene, as much as it is the women(not exclusively) in the scene demonizing games catering to the males.

It's even worse because they effect the overall metacritic score as well, gamers want to know the quality of a game, not if it a game like Akiba's Trip is the next sinister woman objectifying game. Or a review of dragon crown starting with "I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments", these don't do anything other than demonize the dev team and the people who buy these games.

Gaming should be more inclusive, it'd be awesome to see more games made with everyone in mind. Though it shouldn't come at the cost of stripping away the creative freedom of developers and/or shunning their target demograph.

I think you are overgeneralizing in your statements, by a ton. And I hope you survive this. When you say THE women in the industry you are making an assumption that they all agree that games like Dragon's Crown shouldn't exist, and even making an assumption that those who were critiquing the art style assume it shouldn't exist.

Personally I found a ton of the critique of the style lacked a hell of a lot of context, others disagree.

I do think I see the point that you are getting at, which would be that you believe that there is a feeling that if you like a certain type of game or art, there is something wrong with you that does come across in a lot of the articles criticizing Dragon's Crown, and I do think that that is part of the problem. Then again, people feel what they feel when it comes to games.

Remember that Women in the industry aren't some monolithic entity, they are people who have differing points of view on the subject. Again that isn't to say that INDIVIDUALS don't have sometimes poorly constructed arguments, but attack the argument, not the monolithic "women"

 

[Cosmonaut X]

I've always thought it wasn't so much of male gamers not wanting women to be in the scene, as much as it is the women(not exclusively) in the scene demonizing games catering to the males.

It's even worse because they effect the overall metacritic score as well, gamers want to know the quality of a game, not if it a game like Akiba's Trip is the next sinister woman objectifying game. Or a review of dragon crown starting with "I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments", these don't do anything other than demonize the dev team and the people who buy these games.

Gaming should be more inclusive, it'd be awesome to see more games made with everyone in mind. Though it shouldn't come at the cost of stripping away the creative freedom of developers and/or shunning their target demograph.

But that's how legitimate criticism in any other field works!

I think a big part of the issue with game reviews is that there is a push for cultural legitimacy from the audience ("Does it pack an emotional punch?" "Does it tell a story in a clever way?" "Look, games are just as adult and complex as movies/books/whatever!") but a simultaneous demand for what is essentially a product review ("I don't care about portrayal of women or weird militaristic fetishism - how many levels does it have? How long is it? Is it 60fps? Does it have FXAA?").

You can have both, of course, but you (as in the wider audience, not you particularly) can't ask for games to be treated like any other media and expect not to have the content, themes and depictions challenged and found wanting in many cases.

As for Metacritic... Well, I think it's poisonous nonsense and players should be looking to the content of the reviews (which are, hopefully, thoughtfully and critically written) rather than percentages and MC scores, but that model seems firmly entrenched, sadly.

 

[HighResTomato]

Found this an interesting read. Gaming Journalism Is Over(SLATE) "The gaming press declares that gamers are dead. But they are the ones who are becoming obsolete."

 

[ultron87]

What I find awkward about the reviews/criticisms of Japanese games is that fairly often the western games that feature the same problems tend to get ignored. I mean, GTA5 has Trevor basically murder a woman for being a "ball buster", but it's the greatest game ever in the history of video games.

GTA V reviews absolutely did mention these issues.

Polygon: "While most of Grand Theft Auto 5 feels like an evolution of the blockbuster video game, its treatment of women is a relic from the current generation, which is too often fixated on bald men and big breasts. In terms of landscape and architecture, San Andreas is the most realistic virtual world I've visited, but the population is aggressively, comically, distractingly male. I cannot think of any piece of media more fascinated with the male phallus."

Gamespot: "Characters constantly spout lines that glorify male sexuality while demeaning women, and the billboards and radio stations of the world reinforce this misogyny, with ads that equate manhood with sleek sports cars while encouraging women to purchase a fragrance that will make them “smell like a bitch.” Yes, these are exaggerations of misogynistic undercurrents in our own society, but not satirical ones. With nothing in the narrative to underscore how insane and wrong this is, all the game does is reinforce and celebrate sexism. The beauty of cruising in the sun-kissed Los Santos hills while listening to “Higher Love” by Steve Winwood turns sour really quick when a voice comes on the radio that talks about using a woman as a urinal."

Naturally there was backlash over reviewers daring to mention such trivial concerns in a review. Especially towards the Gamespot one, which only gave it a 9/10 and happened to be written by a woman.

 

[mnz]

I've always thought it wasn't so much of male gamers not wanting women to be in the scene, as much as it is the women(not exclusively) in the scene demonizing games catering to the males.

It's even worse because they effect the overall metacritic score as well, gamers want to know the quality of a game, not if it a game like Akiba's Trip is the next sinister woman objectifying game. Or a review of dragon crown starting with "I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments", these don't do anything other than demonize the dev team and the people who buy these games.

Gaming should be more inclusive, it'd be awesome to see more games made with everyone in mind. Though it shouldn't come at the cost of stripping away the creative freedom of developers and/or shunning their target demograph.

I don't get this stance at all. These are all just opinions that should be part of a real review. Games depicting characters with stories are making statements that have to be critiqued, obviously.
What do you want then and why is it a problem if some reviews dislike or even "demonize" a game that you like? It's a medium with millions of consumers, not all are like you. Why can't a (even extremely) different opinion exist?

 

[jordisok]

That's not editorial. Editorial does not go to advertising and say, "get non-gaming ads". Advertising at most outlets exists alone for the very reasons people are worrying about corruption.

Hmm I think I'm misunderstanding something here :|. Personally I have no issue with gaming ads on gaming sites and I don't worry about corruption in the slightest. I'm also not advocating putting writers in charge or influence over it, advertising existing separately is obviously a good thing. I understand for instance that Eurogamer (or whoever is in charge of their advertising) handle RPS, and so leads to occasionally hilarious ads surrounding less than positive reviews of said game.

I was just saying that people wouldn't have to defend themselves from these accusations if the advertising wasn't related to gaming (or wasn't always). This is probably a really stupid point, and any insight is welcome I don't know much at all about advertising.

 

[MHWilliams]

I've always thought it wasn't so much of male gamers not wanting women to be in the scene, as much as it is the women(not exclusively) in the scene demonizing games catering to the males.

It's even worse because they effect the overall metacritic score as well, gamers want to know the quality of a game, not if it a game like Akiba's Trip is the next sinister woman objectifying game. Or a review of dragon crown starting with "I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments", these don't do anything other than demonize the dev team and the people who buy these games.

Gaming should be more inclusive, it'd be awesome to see more games made with everyone in mind. Though it shouldn't come at the cost of stripping away the creative freedom of developers and/or shunning their target demograph.

These ideas oppose each other at times. If Creator A is doing what they know and that's not inclusive, you can't get to that endgame without either nudging Creator A towards it or adding Creator B and offering them support.

The realization you should have is this: no game, unless it's made by a single creator is truly 100 percent of a creator's vision. It just happens so rarely. I wrote a whole thing about it:

So, I asked a number of lead developers about the nature of creative vision within the industry and how their specific visions have been changed by various forces within and outside of internal development. Obsidian Entertainment creative director and co-founder Chris Avellone (formerly of Interplay), Hinterland Games creative director and co-founder Raphael van Lierop (formerly of Relic Entertainment and Ubisoft Montreal), and Carbine Studios art director Matt Mocarski were kind enough to talk to me.

All three developers have been involved with the industry for some time now, and all three have seen ideas and concepts fall by the wayside. During development of any game, the vision is constantly being compromised for various reasons.

"We wanted this group of female sky pirates as an enemy faction. We did a ton of concepts. They had a pink motif with striped socks and one of the girls had a tooth knocked out," answers Mocarski, whose studio just launched the MMO WildStar. "This was early in the development process and we were still finding our voice. Our Senior Producer disliked it and we reluctantly took it out."

"Funny thing is, I feel like we could easily get that into the present game. That's sometimes the trick with developing a new IP: everyone has their own idea in their head of what it should be. Knowing what I know now, I should have stuck to my guns, but sometimes you need to choose your battles. It's possible that because I agreed to pull the pirates that the Chua got approved as a player race. Who knows, maybe you'll see the pink pirates show up in a future patch!"

Van Lierop attempted to bring Far Cry and its sequels together in a single cohesive narrative. Unfortunately, he left Ubisoft Montreal in the early stages of Far Cry 3's development and the game took a different direction afterward.

"During the pre-production phase of Far Cry 3, I invested significant time in crafting a narrative direction and overall IP flavor that would reconcile all previous Far Cry games into a coherent setting and also set the tone for the new Far Cry game to carry on the mature aesthetic introduced in Far Cry 2, which was a fantastic game," he explains. "This work involved generating ideas for new settings, a new protagonist, and an overarching narrative framework for the franchise. After I left the development, Ubisoft decided to take the game in another direction, which is 100 percent appropriate but was still disappointing given the personal investment."

...

"I feel that the Far Cry franchise took a weird turn with Far Cry 3 and Blood Dragon, and now has become synonymous with oddball antagonists and brash spin-offs," Van Lierop says of the series' current direction. "Perhaps this has made it a more profitable venture. In my case, I have no interest in playing Far Cry anymore."

...

"There was an attempt in Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer to create a bisexual character, although that was not accepted by the franchise holders," says Avellone. "We made attempts to persuade them that we would handle it properly, but that was not a direction they wished to go. With the arrival of the next editions of D&D and Pathfinder, however, as well as the progress with romances from BioWare, I think this would be a moot discussion today, and for that, I'm grateful. Discriminating based on sexual preference seems backward now, a move that even the franchise holder has stepped back on."

According to Avellone, outside forces haven't dictated too much of the content of Obsidian's games, despite the fact that the studio has worked on franchises like Star Wars, Fallout, and South Park. Most cuts were due to publishers explicitly veto-ing certain additions, like power armor prototypes and Forced Evolutionary Virus variations in Fallout: New Vegas' DLC, Old World Blues.

"LucasArts were comfortable with the story in Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords (they had six comments on it), and when it came to Fallout: New Vegas, there was little we weren't allowed to do, but I credit the smooth discussions there because the publishers understood empowerment, and our development teams had shown evidence that we understood the franchise we were designing for," he adds.

These discussions are so difficult because most games are commercial art. They are creative products meant to be sold. The art runs the risk of being compromised trying to improve the chances of selling a final product. It's a constant balancing act that developers have to keep in mind. For Van Lierop, the side you favor as a developer tends to come down to who holds the purse strings.

"Balance becomes harder to strike the more of someone else's money you have to spend to deliver your 'vision'. The artist who wants to purely pursue their vision, commercial realities be damned, has to be willing to have their work sit in an empty room, unseen," he tells me. "For me, it's important to create 'art' that expresses some specific sense of creative values and particularly those that are personal to me. But, it needs an audience to matter. With The Long Dark, for example, we're not only creating a game, but we're also creating an experience that will hopefully be thought-provoking on many levels. The more people we can engage in this dialogue, the more of an impact we can have on people's lives. I think we derive a lot of meaning from that."

I wrote that article because of sentiments like that. Art is not sacrosanct. Criticism is not censorship.

I was just saying that people wouldn't have to defend themselves from these accusations if the advertising wasn't related to gaming (or wasn't always). This is probably a really stupid point, and any insight is welcome I don't know much at all about advertising.

I get what you're saying, I'm just relating that that is up to the ad people and what they can sell. I can imagine that something like a non-gaming ad is a harder sell. Why would Speed Stick put ads on a smaller gaming site, when they have the Huff Post? Many sites just run Google Ads.

 

[Myggen]

GTA V reviews absolutely did mention these issues.

Polygon: "While most of Grand Theft Auto 5 feels like an evolution of the blockbuster video game, its treatment of women is a relic from the current generation, which is too often fixated on bald men and big breasts. In terms of landscape and architecture, San Andreas is the most realistic virtual world I've visited, but the population is aggressively, comically, distractingly male. I cannot think of any piece of media more fascinated with the male phallus."

Gamespot: "Characters constantly spout lines that glorify male sexuality while demeaning women, and the billboards and radio stations of the world reinforce this misogyny, with ads that equate manhood with sleek sports cars while encouraging women to purchase a fragrance that will make them “smell like a bitch.” Yes, these are exaggerations of misogynistic undercurrents in our own society, but not satirical ones. With nothing in the narrative to underscore how insane and wrong this is, all the game does is reinforce and celebrate sexism. The beauty of cruising in the sun-kissed Los Santos hills while listening to “Higher Love” by Steve Winwood turns sour really quick when a voice comes on the radio that talks about using a woman as a urinal."

Naturally there was backlash over reviewers daring to mention such trivial concerns in a review. Especially towards the Gamespot one, which only gave it a 9/10 and happened to be written by a woman.

The comment section under the GS review is one of the vilest comment sections I've ever read on the internet, and lead to a host of changes to GS' moderation policy to not let it happen again (which hasn't worked). So yeah, "backlash" is an understatement. And GS gave it a fucking 9!

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Hmm I think I'm misunderstanding something here :|. Personally I have no issue with gaming ads on gaming sites and I don't worry about corruption in the slightest. I'm also not advocating putting writers in charge or influence over it, advertising existing separately is obviously a good thing. I understand for instance that Eurogamer (or whoever is in charge of their advertising) handle RPS, and so leads to occasionally hilarious ads surrounding less than positive reviews of said game.

I was just saying that people wouldn't have to defend themselves from these accusations if the advertising wasn't related to gaming (or wasn't always). This is probably a really stupid point, and any insight is welcome I don't know much at all about advertising.

I think you'll find it's pretty difficult to persuade companies with unrelated products/services to advertise with specialist media. It's the nature of the beast that you'll get advertising related to X in a magazine/website dedicated to X.

The important thing is to have an ad department firmly separated from editorial so that there are no (or far fewer) concerns about the potential for undue influence from advertisers on the content.

 

[bishopcruz]

But that's how legitimate criticism in any other field works!

I think a big part of the issue with game reviews is that there is a push for cultural legitimacy from the audience ("Does it pack an emotional punch?" "Does it tell a story in a clever way?" "Look, games are just as adult and complex as movies/books/whatever!") but a simultaneous demand for what is essentially a product review ("I don't care about portrayal of women or weird militaristic fetishism - how many levels does it have? How long is it? Is it 60fps? Does it have FXAA?").

You can have both, of course, but you (as in the wider audience, not you particularly) can't ask for games to be treated like any other media and expect not to have the content, themes and depictions challenged and found wanting in many cases.

As for Metacritic... Well, I think it's poisonous nonsense and players should be looking to the content of the reviews (which are, hopefully, thoughtfully and critically written) rather than percentages and MC scores, but that model seems firmly entrenched, sadly.

More or less, and with that you can decide what reviews are worth your time as well. And I also agree that Metacritic is fucking horrible for the industry as a whole.

On the bright side, I guess this means that Videogames are in a better cultural space as we get reviewers pretentiously crapping on genres or styles they don't like, Roger Ebert did it for years, and you learned to like his reviews, or not.

I do think part of the problem is that we really don't have big names that are tied to reviews. Yes there is the by-line but at the end of the day it is the 'Kotaku', 'Gamespot', or 'IGN' review, so as it is in a way speaking for the site as a whole, I suppose the argument could be made that there is less room for individual bias, but that again that seems problematic.

I do think it is one of the reasons that Giant Bomb is successful, you know the guys, and you know how their tastes line up to yours. I mean, Gerstman is a fun dude, but his taste in games is often HORRIBLE.

 

[Shingro]

I don't buy this for a second. These people don't care about some woman giving a game a bad review score because it shows too much T&A, they just don't want "others" playing their games. And what if it was true, what if the reason why these guys hated women was because some women criticized a game for having too much T&A? That doesn't make the harassment any better or justifiable, it just shows you that these guys can't take any criticism. Feminist criticism has been a part of every entertainment medium, and it's the harassers who has to take all the blame here, not the women who dare to say that a game might have too much T&A.

I think they mean more that the most visible events of gaming feminism have been reductive rather then additive. (Kotaku dragon crown piece, Anita, etc.) People saying "This isn't acceptable anymore." As anyone who has been around

I do believe that if third wave made the first waves with "How rad is bayonetta for being sexually confident and in control? Lets make more of that" instead of the slut shaming of digital women for power suit high heels, breasts, etc. There's be a fraction of the anger out there and it'd be way easier to isolate the extreme misogynist.

A lot of people just saw this as the "Video games create violence" 2.0 with eventually lawsuit or content control to follow.

I do think there's been way too much "If you disagree with this you're probably a terrible person" going on. That sort of "If you're not with us you're against us." tends to be incredibly bad for rational discussion.

 

[Myggen]

I think you'll find it's pretty difficult to persuade companies with unrelated products/services to advertise with specialist media. It's the nature of the beast that you'll get advertising related to X in a magazine/website dedicated to X.

The important thing is to have an ad department firmly separated from editorial so that there are no (or far fewer) concerns about the potential for undue influence from advertisers on the content.

Yup. Movie sites usually have movie ads, TV sites TV ads etc. It's the nature of the beast and not unique to gaming sites.

I think they mean more that the most visible events of gaming feminism have been reductive rather then additive. (Kotaku dragon crown piece, Anita, etc.) People saying "This isn't acceptable anymore." As anyone who has been around

I do believe that if third wave made the first waves with "How rad is bayonetta for being sexually confident and in control? Lets make more of that" instead of the slut shaming of digital women for power suit high heels, breasts, etc. There's be a fraction of the anger out there and it'd be way easier to isolate the extreme misogynist.

A lot of people just saw this as the "Video games create violence" 2.0 with eventually lawsuit or content control to follow.

I do think there's been way too much "If you disagree with this you're probably a terrible person" going on. That sort of "If you're not with us you're against us." tends to be incredibly bad for rational discussion.

Meh, I don't see how that's any difference than feminist criticism of any media, really. You might disagree with the Fem Freq. videos, but I would find it hard to argue that they're "reductive" or does any harm whatsoever to anyone. I have no time for people who put the blame for mostly men harassing women on the women because some other women put forth some harmless criticism of games (not directed at you). No time at all.

 

[ieptbarakat]

Yeah, I'm sorry for the over-generalization in my post. It's just frustrating to see how the whole thing turned out, honestly. I dislike the current games journalist landscape, and believe me when I say that people shouldn't base their opinions of a game on a metacritic score.

These things has been too heated for it's own good and I hope they can calm down soon.

 

[Curufinwe]

Found this an interesting read. Gaming Journalism Is Over(SLATE) "The gaming press declares that gamers are dead. But they are the ones who are becoming obsolete."

He has a very interesting perspective on the whole debacle.

The attacks on the press have ranged from well-reasoned to offensive to paranoid, but the gaming journalists unwisely decided to respond to the growing, nebulous anger by declaring that “gamers” were dead. Such articles appeared concurrently in Gamasutra (“ ‘Gamers’ are over” and “A guide to ending ‘gamers’ &#8221, Destructoid (“There are gamers at the gate, but they may already be dead&#8221, Kotaku (“We might be witnessing the ‘death of an identity’ &#8221 and Rock, Paper, Shotgun (“Gamers are over&#8221, as well as Ars Technica (“The death of the ‘gamers’ &#8221, Vice (“Killing the gamer identity&#8221 and BuzzFeed (“Gaming is leaving ‘gamers’ behind&#8221.

These articles share some traits in common besides their theses: They are unconvincing, lacking in hard evidence, and big on wishful thinking.

A good number of them link to an obscure blog post by academic Dan Golding, “The End of Gamers,” which argues, again without evidence, that “the gamer identity has been broken” and that the current unrest “is an attempt to retain hegemony.” Kotaku writer Nathan Grayson linked to a similarly obtuse piece of academic argot (“ ‘Gamer’ is selfish ... conservative ... tribalistic&#8221, which in Grayson’s words “breaks down the difference between ‘gamer’ as a manufactured identity versus loving games on multiple levels.” I’ve written essays comparing games to the work of artist Kurt Schwitters and poet Kenneth Rexroth, and even I can’t muster this level of vacuous self-importance on the subject.

It is understandable that online gaming journalists would be uncomfortable in this situation. The antagonism of the gaming press toward its audience stems partly from justified outrage at the horrible behavior of a small subset of it, but also from helpless resentment toward the entirety of the press’s shrinking audience—hence the self-defeating attempt to generalize the former into the latter. Rather than stressing that the vast majority of gamers are reasonable people who don’t harass women, hold reactionary, protectionist views, or start vitriolic online campaigns against the press, the websites trashed the entire term “gamer” and, to no one’s surprise, earned 10 times the enmity overnight.

 

[RockTurtle]

Look, the gamergate hashtag is a lost cause. it's gone. it had a high and now its in rapid descent. to deny it has been invaded by putrid thoughts and people is ignorance, but i'm not going to deny there's 2 sides to the vitriol. i specifically remember journos and their friends tagging the hashtag only to write demeaning stuff right from day 1. nobody has clean hands.

as for the reason for the outburst? like i mentioned before, it's a combination of many things in my opinion.

it's the concept of paid reviews. the concept of big name titles from big name companies being given top scores and then public buys the product expecting a high quality item, only to find a broken mess. it's the putdown of the technical knowledge of the public when they claim "30 fps is fine, something is wrong with you".

it was the firing of gerstman basically giving credit to the idea that publishers have a hand in the workings of the "supposed independent" media. silly i know. that's early 2000s-2008ish. The things start getting more extreme. it's sony preventing kotaku from releasing info. it was the console war flames being pushed forward by websites with countdowns of sales and release dates as metrics for who is going to win in the end. It's the pushing of casual gamers over the hardcore with the release of the wii and how hardcore games are passee. it was the rise of horse armor dlc packs, and full experiences being broken away for monetary gain in the future. it was the introduction of first-day DLC and on disk content that you had to pay extra for. and all throughout journalists just gleefully portraying the accepting gamer and portraying "this is the way of the future".

it was the introduction of Digital only and the push by the media as "better soon than later" to people who were still loving the physical. And through all of this, this was just tame. benign. but then things started taking a turn. and anyone who disagreed was behind the times and should just bend over.

First it was the fact that resident evil had you shoot black zombies. the game was racist. Then it was this japanese title had bikini armor. the creators are sexist. and then grand theft auto released. and suddenly, it was theaudience who were sexist for playing it. and the rhetoric in gaming press changed with it. suddenly, something was wrong with gamers.

mass effect 3 released. the 3 endings were badly received and gamers complained. and suddenly a new word appeared to describe gamers. ENTITLED. ENTITLED gamers demanded satisfying ending. ENTITLED gamers were also homophobic for not liking mass effect 3 said EA, since that was the reason for the backlask. not the bad endings. it MUST have been homophobes. homophobes were the ones critiquing dragon age 2.

ENTITLED gamers were not welcoming microsoft's xbox one digital only, 24 hour check in wants. ENTITLED gamers were the ones complaining about the diablo 3 issues. ENTITLED gamers didn't accept 720p/30 fps on their PCs. and people complained, but they had no visibility aside from the comments box under an article. but all this was just practice towards the abusive, and ratings worthy, dismissive articles.

suddenly,everything was grounds for attacking people for their tastes. liked dragon's crown? you are a sexist and misogynist juvenile. you like fighting games? you are a sexist and racist if you belong to the scene. you like assassin's creed? you are a sexist and don't want women to be in your games.

and if you say "hold on, those are some strong accusations for people just wanting to play a game", then you get hit with a "UNLESS YOU ARE FOR PROGRESS YOU ARE AGAINST IT". i won't even dwell into the "white male" backlash if you dared dissent. or the empathy™ discussion stopper. because if you aren't in this group, you obviously must be in the MRA group.

and through it all, i always imagine my little brother or any 12-15 year old kid playing games and going to his first website. a kid that loves gran theft auto just for the gameplay. a kid who likes anime and watching naruto and playing anime games. a kid who is just going about his day and games provide an escape. because he might be a loner. he might lack social skils. and the only identity he can muster is a gamer, because it allows him to connect with others doing something he likes. he's not athletic. he's not academically gifted. he looks online for a review of a game he likes, and he's met with a label he hasn't seen before. he is being labeled a sexist racist homophobe for playing a game that he likes. i can imagine him being confused. and when push comes to shove, i can see him joining the ranks of those who fights against people who use those words towards him because they want to speak for him things he knows are not true.

when i first heard the word misogynist, it was when i used to look for serial killer info out of morbid curiosity in my young age. i learned about true, seething hate. physical hate. when i thought of misogyny, i thought of Ed Gein or Ted Bundy. When i thought of misogyny, i thought of husbands who beat their wives or men with psychological violent tendencies and would balk at the sight of a woman.when i thought of misogyny, i thought of a man sleeping with 6 women who didn't know each other, because he didn't respect any of them. Not a word thrown around when you wanted to play a game with characters showing cleavage.

so when you have gamers who complain about being labeled such things, gamers like myself who i know are not sexist because i love the women in my family and friends too much, not racist because i'm a minority myself and don't have the luxury to be, or homophobic whose own father is gay. are you really surprised at the backlash? yes, the things anita and zoe and jenn have gone through are horrible and nobody should go through that. don't get confused.

but to the gaming media i say. you stayed quiet when Jack Thompson was getting lambasted. even joined in. when politicians said videogames turn you violent. you fought vehemently against that along with gamers. you posted journals and scientific findings. you shouted from the top of your lungs that no videogames don't turn you violent. you fed the flames of standing up to people accusing you of things you know don't affect you. and suddenly you claim some cleavage, a white bald space marine, and heterosexual main character will suddenly make you into a woman hating racist?

are you REALLY that surprised?

so me, personally, while i lament the direction gamergate took and is heading in, i at least hope that both sides learn that extreme of ANY kinds are not good. that a feminist EXTREMIST is not good just because of what side they stand. I hope that journalists think twice about using loaded words like misogyny or racists. and that while social progress is a noble cause, to not use the concept or the people who benefit from that as a be all end all end to any argument or critique. and that's all i gotta say about that.

 

[firehawk12]

GTA V reviews absolutely did mention these issues.

Polygon: "While most of Grand Theft Auto 5 feels like an evolution of the blockbuster video game, its treatment of women is a relic from the current generation, which is too often fixated on bald men and big breasts. In terms of landscape and architecture, San Andreas is the most realistic virtual world I've visited, but the population is aggressively, comically, distractingly male. I cannot think of any piece of media more fascinated with the male phallus."

Gamespot: "Characters constantly spout lines that glorify male sexuality while demeaning women, and the billboards and radio stations of the world reinforce this misogyny, with ads that equate manhood with sleek sports cars while encouraging women to purchase a fragrance that will make them “smell like a bitch.” Yes, these are exaggerations of misogynistic undercurrents in our own society, but not satirical ones. With nothing in the narrative to underscore how insane and wrong this is, all the game does is reinforce and celebrate sexism. The beauty of cruising in the sun-kissed Los Santos hills while listening to “Higher Love” by Steve Winwood turns sour really quick when a voice comes on the radio that talks about using a woman as a urinal."

Naturally there was backlash over reviewers daring to mention such trivial concerns in a review. Especially towards the Gamespot one, which only gave it a 9/10 and happened to be written by a woman.

Well, I think Carolyn Petit is an exception because she reviews games from both America and Japan with an even eye and will raise issues of representation regardless of the game in mind. For one, she was one of the few people who brought up the fact that you are trading in sex workers in Saints Row 3 anyway.

I can't speak for Plante/Polyon though, as I don't read their reviews, but more often than not people who review Japanese games treat it as a form of punishment.

 

[jordisok]

I get what you're saying, I'm just relating that that is up to the ad people and what they can sell. I can imagine that something like a non-gaming ad is a harder sell. Why would Speed Stick put ads on a smaller gaming site, when they have the Huff Post? Many sites just run Google Ads.

I think you'll find it's pretty difficult to persuade companies with unrelated products/services to advertise with specialist media. It's the nature of the beast that you'll get advertising related to X in a magazine/website dedicated to X.

The important thing is to have an ad department firmly separated from editorial so that there are no (or far fewer) concerns about the potential for undue influence from advertisers on the content.

Ah ok, thanks! Yeah I can see how it wouldn't work in practice, guess they'll always be some people who see BIG GAME A advertised next to BIG GAME A +VE REVIEW and assume relation and that's a shame though.

 

[Deitus]

I've always thought it wasn't so much of male gamers not wanting women to be in the scene, as much as it is the women(not exclusively) in the scene demonizing games catering to the males.

It's even worse because they effect the overall metacritic score as well, gamers want to know the quality of a game, not if it a game like Akiba's Trip is the next sinister woman objectifying game. Or a review of dragon crown starting with "I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments", these don't do anything other than demonize the dev team and the people who buy these games.

Gaming should be more inclusive, it'd be awesome to see more games made with everyone in mind. Though it shouldn't come at the cost of stripping away the creative freedom of developers and/or shunning their target demograph.

I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong here. It is absolutely valid to criticize a game for it's message, or for its inclusiveness, just as it is valid to criticize books or films for these things. You don't have to agree with the criticism, but you don't get to silence it either.

In the case of the Dragon's Crown review you mentioned (I'm assuming you are referring to the one written by Danielle of Polygon, as that was by far the most controversial), I argued against several of the points in that review here on GAF, and there several others more informed than me who raised even more interesting counter points against her article (there was also a lot of interesting discussion in support of her article to be fair).

But ultimately there is nothing wrong with her writing that review that she chose to write, because the things that were a priority for her in her assessment of the game are likely important to others in the audience (including many females), and it wouldn't be fair to them to not be able to read her thoughts. If you don't think the review is particularly useful to you, you are free to say so, and you are also free to look elswhere for a review that is more appealing to you. And you are free to critique her review and point out inaccuracies, or holes in logic. But you don't get to tell her that her review should not exist, for many of the same reasons why you wouldn't want people to say that Dragon's Crown shouldn't exist.

Edit: I guess I'm really late in my response here, so sorry for dogpiling when you have already backed away from this. I'll leave my post as is though, because I feel strongly about what I've said, even if it's not directed at you.

 

[mnz]

VERY LONG POST

I'm sorry, but your post is full of generalisations. Almost all of those things you mention and that apparently deeply upset you where only some opinions on some sites. Barely ever the mainstream consensus.
Maybe the bikini armor is sexist to some people, maybe the design of KoF characters is sexist to other people. These are opinions. Opinions about parts of a medium that should get all kinds of feedback. Why do you feel so insecure and singled out, that the pure existence of articles like that is so bad?

If anything we, as consumers of this medium, should be fighting for more opinions, heavier criticism and louder voices. We should be happy we are not a single entity blob anymore.

 

[Shingro]

Yup. Movie sites usually have movie ads, TV sites TV ads etc. It's the nature of the beast and not unique to gaming sites.



Meh, I don't see how that's any difference than feminist criticism of any media, really. You might disagree with the Fem Freq. videos, but I would find it hard to argue that they're "reductive" or does any harm whatsoever to anyone. I have no time for people who put the blame for mostly men harassing women on the women because some other women put forth some harmless criticism of games (not directed at you). No time at all.

I appreciate the parenthetical.

I will say that gamers should be more capable of accepting criticism of their genre/hobby/etc. By and large we do tend to be VERY BAD at accepting that other people have different taste in anything (Consoles/Games/Etc) However, I will say that criticism is one thing, and criticism that implies that anyone who likes it is a morally deficient individual is a bit of another. Even if someone disagrees with that. I'd find hard to argue it's helping.

The questioner has some responsibility for how they contextualize the conversation to follow, just as much as the responder has responsibility for how they reply. I think Jason of kotaku fame would admit that framing the conversation with "The designer of dragon's crown is an immature teenage boy" Was probably counterproductive to anyone talking rationally.

No one (important to the discussion) is going to defend people who harass/insult/hurt women, but you can't say "because my cause is good, I'm absolved of any responsibility (moral or otherwise)" either.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Ah ok, thanks! Yeah I can see how it wouldn't work in practice, guess they'll always be some people who see BIG GAME A advertised next to BIG GAME A +VE REVIEW and assume relation and that's a shame though.

Yeah, it's an issue. The publication just has to earn the trust of its readers and keep what should be separate separate. I think it would help if there was more transparency on issues like advertising, as it would help rebuild that trust with readers - even just a prominent "Our Advertising Policy" link at the top of every page would be enough - but having seen the reaction to Kotaku's attempt to be more transparent this past week... :-/

 

[Myggen]

I appreciate the parenthetical.

I will say that gamers should be more capable of accepting criticism of their genre/hobby/etc. By and large we do tend to be VERY BAD at accepting that other people have different taste in anything (Consoles/Games/Etc) However, I will say that criticism is one thing, and criticism that implies that anyone who likes it is a morally deficient individual is a bit of another. Even if someone disagrees with that. I'd find hard to argue it's helping.

The questioner has some responsibility for how they contextualize the conversation to follow, just as much as the responder has responsibility for how they reply. I think Jason of kotaku fame would admit that framing the conversation with "The designer of dragon's crown is an immature teenage boy" Was probably counterproductive to anyone talking rationally.

No one's going to defend people who harass/insult/hurt women, but you can't say "because my cause is good, I'm absolved of any responsibility (moral or otherwise)" either.

As for your last point, there's been people in this thread who haven't exactly put the blame on these women, but who has framed their argument in a "harassment is bad, but..." kinda way, and that's mostly what I'm responding to. I can have a discussion about the gaming media's quality of criticism of games all day, but for me this is mostly about #gamergate and all that shit right now. The other stuff can come when this all calms down a bit.

Anyways, I'm off this topic for tonight. Off to watch 4 hours of Giant Bomb live streams!

 

[Clear]

Thanks to whoever first highlighted that Slate piece. An excellent read.

 

[BobbyRobby]

I've always thought it wasn't so much of male gamers not wanting women to be in the scene, as much as it is the women(not exclusively) in the scene demonizing games catering to the males.

Gaming should be more inclusive, it'd be awesome to see more games made with everyone in mind. Though it shouldn't come at the cost of stripping away the creative freedom of developers and/or shunning their target demograph.

Yeah, I think a lot of push back is coming from this.

If you went to a Twilight fan community and said the males is those books/movies are sexualized and shallow, you'd get a ton of push back from those people as well.

If you attack something, people who like said thing will get upset.

I'm sorry, but your post is full of generalisations. Almost all of those things you mention and that apparently deeply upset you where only some opinions on some sites. Barely ever the mainstream consensus.
Maybe the bikini armor is sexist to some people, maybe the design of KoF characters is sexist to other people. These are opinions. Opinions about parts of a medium that should get all kinds of feedback. Why do you feel so insecure and singled out, that the pure existence of articles like that is so bad?

If anything we, as consumers of this medium, should be fighting for more opinions, heavier criticism and louder voices. We should be happy we are not a single entity blob anymore.

Why do the reviewers feel singled out and attacked by bikini armor, that the existence of sexualized females is bad?

Yes they're free to have those opinions, and the fans are free to have opinions about them.

The question is, what is accomplished by going on the offensive in either case? Just ignore the games and journalists you don't like.

 

[MHWilliams]

Look, the gamergate hashtag is a lost cause. it's gone. it had a high and now its in rapid descent. to deny it has been invaded by putrid thoughts and people is ignorance, but i'm not going to deny there's 2 sides to the vitriol. i specifically remember journos and their friends tagging the hashtag only to write demeaning stuff right from day 1. nobody has clean hands.

as for the reason for the outburst? like i mentioned before, it's a combination of many things in my opinion.

it's the concept of paid reviews. the concept of big name titles from big name companies being given top scores and then public buys the product expecting a high quality item, only to find a broken mess. it's the putdown of the technical knowledge of the public when they claim "30 fps is fine, something is wrong with you".

Who does paid reviews? And in both of the latter cases, why do you assume the reviewer didn't actually enjoy the game? Why do you assume they aren't fine with 30fps, as some on GAF are?

it was the firing of gerstman basically giving credit to the idea that publishers have a hand in the workings of the "supposed independent" media.

Gerstmann's situation is so notable and brought up so much because it's rare.

it's sony preventing kotaku from releasing info.

Which you found out from Kotaku.

it was the console war flames being pushed forward by websites with countdowns of sales and release dates as metrics for who is going to win in the end.

Look towards the frontpage on the gaming section of GAF or Reddit and you'll see the same. That sadly, is what people want to read. That's why we've moved away from news at USgamer.

It's the pushing of casual gamers over the hardcore with the release of the wii and how hardcore games are passee.

Huh? Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Assassin's Creed still run the airwaves. This is more of a fear than an actual thing happening.

it was the rise of horse armor dlc packs, and full experiences being broken away for monetary gain in the future. it was the introduction of first-day DLC and on disk content that you had to pay extra for. and all throughout journalists just gleefully portraying the accepting gamer and portraying "this is the way of the future".

What's there to portray? People bought it. Publishers and developers did it, and the numbers came back and said it was profitable. It was profitable not because journalists said so, it was profitable because people bought it.

Actually... I was going to go through this whole thing point-bypoint, but it boils down to this "people are angry". Not all of those situations are related to games journalism, but they are things that happened in the industry, so... games journalism?

As I've said before, if games journalism is a lockstep force in full agreement with each other and you can paint the entire thing with the actions of a few, then you are pretty much doing the same thing as those who paint all gamers the same. You accuse and decry accusations of the same against you. If that's your position, you're welcome it, but then there's not much discussion to be had.

 

[mnz]

Why do the reviewers feel singled out and attacked by bikini armor, that the existence of sexualized females is bad?

Yes they're free to have those opinions, and the fans are free to have opinions about them.

The question is, what is accomplished by going on the offensive in either case? Just ignore the games and journalists you don't like.

What does that mean? If they review a game, then it's their job to have an opinion.
And the rest of your post is exactly my point. Get used to articles about games not being meant for you or agreeing with you and move on. The person I quoted was obviously still angry about very specific articles and painted it like some sort of mainstream opinion, which is just strange to me.

 

[Croyles]

Look, the gamergate hashtag is a lost cause. it's gone. it had a high and now its in rapid descent. to deny it has been invaded by putrid thoughts and people is ignorance, but i'm not going to deny there's 2 sides to the vitriol. i specifically remember journos and their friends tagging the hashtag only to write demeaning stuff right from day 1. nobody has clean hands.

as for the reason for the outburst? like i mentioned before, it's a combination of many things in my opinion.

I shortened the quote so I don't take up too much space in the chat, but god damn that was an amazing post. Exactly how I feel on the matter.

I don't support this #gamergate thing at all, am hardly interested in whether gaming journalism has too much nepotism (my line of work is worse), but what I absolutely hate is that we are all seemingly being lumped into one big pot and the narrative is suddenly against all of us.

It makes me angry at the bad apples and at the journalists all the same.

The whole "Dragon's Dogma is sexist" thing is totally ridiculous to me, but i wrote about that a few pages back.

 

[BobbyRobby]

What does that mean? If they review a game, then it's their job to have an opinion.
And the rest of your post is exactly my point. Get used to articles about games not being meant for you or agreeing with you and move on. The person I quoted was obviously still angry about very specific articles and painted it like some sort of mainstream opinion, which is just strange to me.

"This game has sexualized female designs that some may find off-putting."

You can communicate information without heaping shame on fans. You don't need to build a narrative that people who enjoy said games are basement dwelling neckbeards.

Yes, it is their job to have opinions, and the proponents of gamergate are saying they are doing a poor job.

 

[RockTurtle]

As I've said before, if games journalism is a lockstep force in full agreement with each other and you can paint the entire thing with the actions of a few, then you are pretty much doing the same thing as those who paint all gamers the same. You accuse and decry accusations of the same against you. If that's your position, you're welcome it, but then there's not much discussion to be had.

I layed the groundwork for different aspects of the backlash and how i related to it. from multiple angles. the many aspects of the accusations. trying to be as multidimensional as possible from memory.

do i think EVERY single journo does this? no i do not. perhaps my language was a bit too abrupt. i spoke as a general feeling throughout the years and trends. i think twitter is the main culprit, where as journalists would have centralized opinions, now it feels like one topic jettisons itself across multiple instances of sites.

i've been reading gaming related content for years. i don't represent all gamers. but i can and do differentiate when i can. the only constant is love for the medium.

and while this backlash is only a few years old, the rhetoric has, in my mind, not been as raw as it is now

do i take it personal? no, not always. but you can only take so many guilty by association responses before you respond. and don't get me wrong, i'm not AGAINST game journos.

i was with kotaku when they got the scoop on the ps3. i was with adam sessler and morgan webb and praying G4 wouldn't go under and give these people a job. but things have changed. and i don't know if its for the better.

 

[Nanashrew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate

Makes sense.

Reading that all I learned is that people involved in gamergate are people who think girls are icky and want them outed from the industry and market. This only reinforces the stereotype that's been around since gaming began.

It's kind of funny since many I have seen kept saying things like "it feels like journalists and people taking their side still see gamers as the same stereotype from the SNES era"

 

[Deitus]

"This game has sexualized female designs that some may find off-putting."

You can communicate information without heaping shame on fans. You don't need to build a narrative that people who enjoy said games are basement dwelling neckbeards.

Realistically, it should be more like "This game has sexualized female designs that I find off-putting," being that reviews should be about the writer's opinions and experiences, not trying to guess how people who are not them feel about it.

But you are right that there generally isn't any reason to lower themselves to insulting their audience or the people who make games in order to convey that message.

Yes, it is their job to have opinions, and the proponents of gamergate are saying they are doing a poor job.

It's far past the time where there is any merit in entertaining the motives of gamergate. They lost the right to have their arguments heard when they engaged in a terror campaign.

That's not to say there aren't people out there with valid concerns, but they would be wise to distance themselves from the gamergate campaign if they want any chance of people taking them seriously.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

I'm sorry, but your post is full of generalisations. Almost all of those things you mention and that apparently deeply upset you where only some opinions on some sites. Barely ever the mainstream consensus.
Maybe the bikini armor is sexist to some people, maybe the design of KoF characters is sexist to other people. These are opinions. Opinions about parts of a medium that should get all kinds of feedback. Why do you feel so insecure and singled out, that the pure existence of articles like that is so bad?

If anything we, as consumers of this medium, should be fighting for more opinions, heavier criticism and louder voices. We should be happy we are not a single entity blob anymore.

To me I'm like "haha fuck it. Don't care. Still playing". You can be offended and high brow all you want but I just wanna play my games. As long as the game/form of media isn't making a statement, then I don't feel the need to be offended. That being said, anyone who is offended has the right to be as long as it doesn't change or alter the art.

Really couldn't care for the generalisations I get.

 

[APF]

If you went to a Twilight fan community and said the males is those books/movies are sexualized and shallow, you'd get a ton of push back from those people as well.

Exactly, this is why the Rifftrax guys were, for months, inundated with rape threats, fled their homes, and sought police protection because they were worried about their families and themselves facing violent retribution by crazed fans.

#notanytwilightfans

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

So some of yall keep going on about how gamergate is completely overrun by misogyny and is a lost cause. are you really thinking through the implications of this? you're saying that there is a sizable contingent of your hobby that is utterly repugnant and they're numerous enough to carry on a half month long twitter fight. if that is as you say, then i think it time to get out of the hobby because it doesn't seem like people posting in support of gamergate are on the downturn

you're getting into the trap of labeling your opponents loathsome enough to make clear the moral superiority of your cause yet fierce enough to be an existential threat. i highly doubt that's true and i know for a fact that's not a useful attitude to take.

 

[Corpekata]

Not sure casting yourself as similar to the Twilight fandom is doing your side any favors.

 

[backstep]

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...sts_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html

Gamers are not the problem, game journalism is the problem.

That article was an interesting read. I'm not sure I agree that journalism alone is the problem. I think there's been an enmity from both gamers and games press toward each other for some time, and it boils over easily. You only have to look back to the Mass Effect 3 debacle, where wagons were circled and overly-broad condemnations were plentiful.

I think it was a poor decision for the gaming press to aim these recent reproachful articles and tweets at 'gamers' so bluntly. They were obviously referring to the gamer marketing demographic that they're familiar with, and all it's negative connotations (the "CoD kiddies" who move so many units, and that seem almost universally disliked in the wider gaming community).

The mistake, in my opinion, is that to people who read those articles, 'gamers' aren't a demographic, they're just people who play games. Neogaf is a gaming forum, it's no huge leap to say it's populated by gamers. You can debate the semantics of the word, but that's just the commonly held meaning to those not fluent in marketing speak. I've seen my 70 year old father point to his laptop and say he's a "bit of a gamer". He plays bejeweled and football manager sims.

Perhaps instead if games media came out more specifically against this hateful subset of the gaming community, admitted themselves part of the rest of this wider community (rather than above it), then their condemnations would be much less misconstrued. I do not understand why the press offers either silence or scattershot contempt, when they could just as easily appeal to the better nature of their own readership, and unite with them to precisely target this small vile element. While social media and youtube has eroded their role, games media can still influence when it attempts to connect. I won't go on, but this isn't the first community to be hijacked by extremists on the fringe, just look at how football (aka soccer) has combated hooliganism and racism by working with the fans, rather than damning the lot of them.

Incidentally, I searched the thread for "guardian" and couldn't find this linked previously, but yesterday the Guardian writer who commissioned Jenn Frank's earlier article has written his own piece about the current situation. It's worth a read for his fuller opinion, but even he is now advocating a more nuanced approach:

I have found a lot of the actions of self-confessed hardcore gamers horrendous, upsetting and unjustifiable over the past two weeks. I have mocked and criticised the excesses – and I was happy to commission Jenn Frank’s piece on the disgusting excesses of anti-social behaviour in some quarters of the games community. But I have come to understand that the gamers suspicious of the games press cannot be classed together in one homogenous group – just as games journalists cannot. Objectification is never the answer. Which is why #gamergate has become so problematic.

 

[Andrew J.]

Not sure casting yourself as similar to the Twilight fandom is doing your side any favors.

That was sarcasm; the point was that Twilight fans don't actually do anything like that.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Wow frank cifaldi is awesome when he gets mad. More of this, please.

 

[psylah]

I like video games.

 

[Gotchaye]

So some of yall keep going on about how gamergate is completely overrun by misogyny and is a lost cause. are you really thinking through the implications of this? you're saying that there is a sizable contingent of your hobby that is utterly repugnant and they're numerous enough to carry on a half month long twitter fight. if that is as you say, then i think it time to get out of the hobby because it doesn't seem like people posting in support of gamergate are on the downturn

you're getting into the trap of labeling your opponents loathsome enough to make clear the moral superiority of your cause yet fierce enough to be an existential threat. i highly doubt that's true and i know for a fact that's not a useful attitude to take.

I'm not following. I don't think I've seen anyone at all saying that the #gamergate crowd show that videogames are totally unsuitable as a hobby for decent people. Why would they? Terrible people like lots of things that decent people also like.

At most there's a sense that the label "gamer" is toxic, but obviously only a small minority of people who game as a hobby identify as "gamers", and I haven't even seen much of this except as a straw man from people complaining that others are trying to render the label toxic in order to destroy gaming or whatever.

 

[SenorArdilla]

That was sarcasm; the point was that Twilight fans don't actually do anything like that.

If anything, it's more like the MLP fanbase.

 

[APF]

So some of yall keep going on about how gamergate is completely overrun by misogyny and is a lost cause. are you really thinking through the implications of this? you're saying that there is a sizable contingent of your hobby that is utterly repugnant and they're numerous enough to carry on a half month long twitter fight. if that is as you say, then i think it time to get out of the hobby because it doesn't seem like people posting in support of gamergate are on the downturn

People are doing exactly this! I think this is exactly why so many people jumped on the idea of "gamers are dead," because they see what is such a loud voice in their community and they're both disgusted and afraid.

Edit: https://twitter.com/hashtag/stillhere?f=realtime&src=hash

 

[Cybit]

Gonna make just one comment here

As someone to whom gaming is a part, but not the main part of my hobbies (sports & being a hippie liberal tree hugger); I'm a little appalled at how misogyny and racism (and bigotry) are thrown around. While on a technical level the words might be correct, those using them are using them with the explicit purpose of their historical baggage (slavery, Jim Crow, genital mutilation, etc) to try to make what is going on in the industry the same level as that.

Frankly, that's disingenuous and also harmful to those who deal with the real life consequences of these terms on a daily basis. It takes a special kind of narcissist to harm millions of people who are literally beaten on a daily basis by these forces just because you want to win an argument on the internet.

Also, as a sports fan; the vitriol that is being thrown around is pretty par for the internet; regardless of specific medium. This isn't a gaming issue, this is a people issue. The fact that gamers are actually outraged about this tells me that they have more folks of conscience in the industry than in most other forms of entertainment. Easily.

While the RiffTrax guys might not be getting that level of hate; you should go read the tweets sent to say, LeBron James on a daily basis. Or any kind of remotely famous (even in a small pond) person who does something controversial. There's a reason athletes / celebrities are notorious for never stating strong opinions.

 

[silvermember]

So some of yall keep going on about how gamergate is completely overrun by misogyny and is a lost cause. are you really thinking through the implications of this? you're saying that there is a sizable contingent of your hobby that is utterly repugnant and they're numerous enough to carry on a half month long twitter fight. if that is as you say, then i think it time to get out of the hobby because it doesn't seem like people posting gamergate are going to be extinguished

you're getting into the trap of labeling your opponents loathsome enough to make clear the moral superiority of your cause yet fierce enough to be an existential threat. i highly doubt that's true and i know for a fact that's not a useful attitude to take.

There are no implications whatsoever, unless your self worth is linked to your hobby. The guys being misogynist doesn't describe me as a person, it doesn't say anything about me. If you want to let others who share your hobby describe who you are, then that's a personal problem. I watch tv, but is someone mocks people who watch TV, I don't get all bent out of shape about it because it doesn't say anything about me.

you can be a misogynist without ever holding a controller so worrying about some imaginary self imposed implication is a personal problem. We should be fighting Misogynist in everywhere not just gaming because it is not a gaming exclusive problems.

added: The problem with the word "gamer" is that a lot of people have shown in this thread that their indentity and self worth is linked to it. So they get defensive whenever they feel the word "gamer" is being dragged in the mud so intent of focusing on the real problem, they get defensive trying to reclaim a stupid word "gamer".

 

[Croyles]

I won't go on, but this isn't the first community to be hijacked by extremists on the fringe, just look at how football (aka soccer) has combated hooliganism and racism by working with the fans, rather than damning the lot of them.

Very true. While FIFA, UEFA and the various national football governing bodies get a LOT of criticism for it's lack of handling racism etc in Football, a lot of it justified, the narrative is at least many times more nuanced and inclusive than what we see here.

Football against Racism > Gamers are sexist, dead.

One narrative reads like trying to garner support of it's fans to combat it's problems, the other narrative reads like you shouldn't ever associate yourself with the hobby.

Imagine if you couldn't call yourself a sports fan anymore.

There are no implications whatsoever, unless your self worth is linked to your hobby. The guys being misogynist doesn't describe me as a person, it doesn't say anything about me. If you want to let your hobby describe who you are, then that's a personal problem. I watch tv, but is someone mocks people who watch TV, I don't get all bent out of shape about it because it doesn't say anything about me.

you can be a misogynist without ever holding a controller so worrying about some imaginary self imposed implication is a personal problem.

I understand this point you and many others are trying to make, but what exactly is healthy to identify ourselves with then?
If for example you identify yourself as a father, mother or family person, how would you react if one of those are condemned by media at large. While you may think, correctly, that it doesn't target you because you know for a fact that are a good family person, the narrative is still there however intentional or unintentional the non inclusive nature of it may be.
Look, my self worth doesn't come from the tag "gamer" by itself, that's only part of it.
But it's STILL a part of it.

Words, and by association labels are important. We use language.
While it unhealthy to see yourself as SOLELY a label of anything, it is still something that every person on this earth uses to identify themselves as, even if they don't admit it.
If you have ever sat in your room as a struggling teenager with an identity crisis and thought "who exactly am i", chances are you have used words in your head, i.e. labels to identify yourself.

 

[Corpekata]

That was sarcasm; the point was that Twilight fans don't actually do anything like that.

I meant to the original person that brought it up.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

People are doing exactly this! I think this is exactly why so many people jumped on the idea of "gamers are dead," because they see what is such a loud voice in their community and they're both disgusted and afraid.

but dont you see how that attitude is self-defeating? if the 'gamer' label is beyond repair then how is rebranding it going to help? presumably the super shitty people are going to follow you into whatever you take as a new name, since all these labels are referring to the same activity of 'playing video games.'

its a huge leap to assume that this is true, and even if it were true, taking this attitude is forfeiting before the game starts.

words

i'm sorry the gist of this has totally gone over my head. mind restating it in terms for stupid people?

even more words

just to be clear i agree with your attitude to this whole thing. i'm just trying to draw attention to the pointlessness of giving up on 'gamer' due to the repugnant opinions that other 'gamers' possess

 

[Verger]

Erik Kain from Forbes just wrote a huuuuge article on this. I'm still trying to read through it all. It looks like a summary of events I think so there is a lot.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

 

[APF]

but dont you see how that attitude is self-defeating?

So, I'm upset about the treatment Jenn Frank received due to a complete fuckup of oppo-research by assholes who don't know anything about anything. I thought a good way to show this might be to post (via twitter) a comment in support of her, but then I saw that people doing this were getting harassed themselves, and I don't want that on my account because I use my real name there. So then I thought, well the least I could do would be to support her on Patreon, and I still plan on doing this sometime, but I'm afraid if I do so now it again will lead to me being harassed by people who can find a lot of self-identifying information about me. Fuck. So the only thing I feel even remotely comfortable about (and not that comfortable, really) is posting here, about how fucked I feel about this whole thing, and honestly a lot of me just wants out.

So no, I don't see how that attitude is self-defeating.