Well that's they key problem, innit?

All too many people are all too willing to make that differentiation, pro or anti.

It's incredibly depressing that for every instance of harassment, there's a hundred people lining up to make that differentiation. Harassment's existence is a concrete problem you can fight against, and a sad reality that no sane person is willing to dismiss. How the fuck do you fight against someone's complete conviction that it's justified or somehow irrelevant because they disagree with the victim on whatever issue?

This was the thing that disturbed the fuck out of me about the Jack Thompson-versus-gaming thing, and it disturbs the fuck out of me now. I'm honestly not sure you can fight against something like that; it's a disease of the public mind.

 

I guess for me right now is that I'm still firmly in the middle. I've seen so much evidence on all sides regarding the actions of both sides, I've heard both sides of the coin, I've seen the shit done by and to both sides, and frankly, I get the feeling there could be a real conversation here.

But the question then comes to be what those topics of conversation are. The anti-GG side has it pretty firmly established - they want gaming journalism/criticism to evolve to the point where political/social issues are at least considered, and they don't want women/minority groups driven out by what is perceived as gamer culture. And as a critic in a different medium, I'm entirely behind this: more viewpoints lead to more interesting games, not diversity quotas. You're going to get extreme people from that viewpoint who raise a bitchfit whenever there's not politically correct language used and who need to discover what proper framing and context is, but that's an education process.

So when it comes to GamerGate... see, for as much as GamerGate is supposedly about journalistic ethics and advocating for the consumer, I don't see how the current campaign regarding Gamasutra and Gawker is helping. The ad pull on Gamasutra was targeted because of Leigh Alexander's editorial about how the old definition of 'gamers' are dead to reflect a more diverse viewpoint... and that doesn't seem to reflect any sort of ethics at all. It's an opinion piece not tied to any reviews and would likely have no sway in the industry, independent or otherwise - yeah, it's crass to talk down to your audience, but have you ever been on Pitchfork or The Dissolve? High brow film snobs and pretentious music critics talk down about a less-discriminating audience all the time, and the audience ignores them completely. They shouldn't - and at the end of the day don't need to - get offended.

As for the Gawker side of things... okay, there's a little more weight here, as the site did write that asinine bullying comment, but once again, this is not about journalistic ethics with regards to video games. This is in regards to a dumbass who makes snide remarks about bullying and should have been rightly reprimanded - and yet GamerGate is so enraged by the perceived slander that they write emails to Gawker's sponsors, and try to get Adobe and Intel to pull ads? You realize you're doing the exact opposite of promoting journalistic ethics, in that you're silencing journalists?

And here's one thing that really annoys the piss out of me: putting aside the real harassment that GamerGate swears is not representative of their movement; putting aside the fact that GamerGate claims to be leaderless and yet their biggest spokesmen come across as conspiracy theorists hunting for ways to be offended (and they say they don't have anything in common with 'social justice warriors'...) or outright misogynist assholes (whose names I won't reprint here because they've attacked me directly in other media on other issues and I don't want DLP dragged into that); putting aside that their method of preserving gaming journalistic ethics doesn't involve engaging with the author's argument so much as it involves trying to silence the author by any means possible.

No, my issue with GamerGate is the supposed end goal, because from what I've seen, it's preserving a status quo where political/social issues are left out of games writing entirely, and the journalists write only for their audience. Hate to break it to you, but that's not how journalism and especially not how editorials work. If we want gaming to be seen as art, social/cultural/political/philosophical issues will inevitably be addressed, and we can't dive under a security blanket whenever we hear something we don't want to hear. If a gaming journalist marks GTA V down for not having any female characters beyond badly sketched stereotypes, that's his call as a critic, which is ultimately subjective. It's a review score, it's a subjective number, and it should be ultimately irrelevant at the end of the day.

Now of course, we have legitimate issues where gaming companies base their employee's bonuses and future game projects off of Metacritic scores and will put pressure on games journalists through advertisement to make sure they get the scores and reviews they want, or you get shit like the Shadows of Mordor bullshit for YouTubers to get early copies, or you get actual evidence of critics being bought off or 'endorsed' by companies to give positive reviews, or the refusal to hand out prerelease copies unless they get a good review. These are real consumer advocacy positions I raised earlier in this thread about ethics in games journalism, something that's real and tangible and affects both journalistic ethics and the industry at large...

And yet GamerGate wants to go after Gamasutra and Gawker? Really?

 

That we can agree on, we need more people blogging about this stuff, and I've been seeing more blogs pop up, but not many.

Also...

https://twitter.com/thebattleangel

This is a link to the abuse archive for GG on Twitter, it's not very pretty.

http://www.breitba******/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/25/While-the-Media-Slanders-Gamers-as-Terrorists-GamerGate-Is-Hunting-Trolls-and-Abusers

This Breitbart article that Milo wrote focuses on the harassment and what GG has been doing so far to stop it. I know not many here like Breitbart, but there it is.

 

I love how y'all keep calling it "gaming news" or "gaming journalism" and act like this is a scandal. These institutions have always been marketing arms of publishers, either directly or indirectly.

(Who here grew up reading Nintendo Power as a kid?)

And on that note, Silens-- I honestly think a step in the right direction would be finding a way to move a lot of games criticism and reviews out of hobbyist magazines and websites and into general media. As it stands, everything's a little too incestuous, muddled, angry, and above all else profitable clickbait for there to be a useful conversation. Part of the vitriol on the GG side comes from most of the largest venues of online discussion shutting down on the topic entirely.

(Re: Zoe Quinn, marketing makes people a way bigger slut than takin' a cock or two, but she's probably still a terrible person 'cos of the crap she pulled relating to that charity. Also, Vivian James is my new waifu. Unf.)

 

So, Brianna went on David Pakman's show. Check it out, this is how she handles a more ethical display of interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAss

---------- Post automerged at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

Sombody sent King of Pol another present...

https://twitter.com/Kingofpol/status/526919362780073986

And you thought the knife in the mail was bad.

 

That's not just a Gamergate issue, though. That's an issue really out there. I disagree that you can fight harassment's existence. You can only fight against harassment if you can get to the people perpetuating it. And since online identities aren't tied together, a man who commits the crime of harassing a feminist in one place can write a blog about advocating peace and human rights in another; simply because there is no link between those identities. This is not an argument within the scope of Gamergate, and one with which the internet has been having for a while now.

The gaming community is a different beast to the musical one. Music critics have never been seen as "one of us". They come from an era where connecting with one's audience was quite difficult, and reviewers were generally seen as far off, highbrow gentlemen. That perception hasn't really gone anywhere for anything which has been reviewed since the pre-internet days.

Gaming journalism, on the other hand, has been much more closely related to their target audience. Since gaming is more niche than music, and gaming journalism really took off after the rise of the internet, gaming journalists have a different connection to their audience. They're more often seen as "one of us", rather than some highbrow sitting in a far-off place. It's quite difficult to see someone you consider a friend attacking the group the two of you have been part of for quite a while in order to become a corporate sellout.

Regarding the art thing, it is my belief that gamergate is a response to games being thought of as a source of escapism, escape from the real world that is, and the attempt of gaming journalists to bring it kicking and screaming back. Traditional gamers don't want that. They don't want issues of gender equality, feminism etc. coming into gaming, for gaming is their sole escape from the real world where these issues are being discussed left, right and centre.

 

I do want that.
I consider myself a traditional gamer and I want critics to consider these issues.
I want them to call out games for having multiple playable characters and none of them are women. For using tired, old, sexist tropes for no good reason. For having the camera in cut-scenes constantly focus on the leather-clad behinds of female characters. For having female characters dress in completely inappropriate (for the situation) clothing, like Chainmail Bikinis. For being able to choose the Flirt-option 3 times and getting a sex scene and 1/20 progress in the getting-laid achievement.

Obviously those kinds of games shouldn't be banned or anything like that, but they shouldn't get a free pass either.

Ideally, you choose the critic/publication that reviews games the way you like and just ignore those that don't. That's what I generally do. There's no reason to get mad about it.

I am aware that there is a high-octane-fueled version of Social Justice that gets triggered by extremely minor issues and often descends into a bullying frenzy itself. I'm not on their side. A bad statistic on tumblr is reblogged 100,000 times before you can even write the rebuttal.

On the other hand, there are those gamers that will loudly and vehemently complain, just because a minor NPC happens to mention that he has a husband. Who get enraged because for once, not just girls, but also guys in the game world will flirt with the main character.
I don't want some kind of Very Special Episode occurring during the plot of a game either, but if you get triggered by the mere mention of the existence of gays in a game, you might have a problem.

(obvious) Disclaimer: Bullying and Harassment are wrong and it doesn't matter which side does it. It's sad that some trolls can derail a discussion to this extent.
Zoe Quinn seems to have been the abuser in that relationship and I don't like how everyone on the Anti-GG side circled the wagons around her. But this isn't really about her anymore, so I'm not sure how useful it is to keep discussing it.

 

Deleted, tired of arguing this point.

 

Spot the new review score metric.

"Graphics", "Sound", "Gameplay", "Replayability", "Social Justice".

 

If I'm rolling my eyes like I'm demonically possessed while playing a game, it should be scored down.

Didn't you read what I wrote above, how everyone should find critics or publications they like? Just look for one that ignores sexism then.

 

I don't care either way if video games reuse the very old female armor trope.

What I would care about is if the plot of the game is 'social justice', and that the game itself is just 'exploring some aspect of social justice' or whatever that cares more about getting its message across then being a good game.

If the only indy games that are getting good reviews are the ones that force you to address social issues rather then enjoy fun gameplay, then yeah, theres a problem. And as far as I can tell, thats what Gamejournopro or whatever its called is trying to do, why they defend to the death horrible games becuase their friends want to make money while spreading their personal views via a 'game' that isn't even remotely fun.

 

Video games are not social commentary.

They can be, just like everything else. But fundamentally, they are not.

If you find yourself rolling your eyes like a man possessed, then it proves nothing but that the game in question is probably not for you. Which is, in all honestly, something you should have been able to figure out from a trailer, or a couple screenshots, or even the box art. Possibly even a vague plot summery.

Personally, I've yet to find a game filled with cringe inducing fanservice that wasn't also shitty for a ton of other reasons, none of them having anything to do with social issues.

And if there's anything the world needs less of, it's bad PSAs. Maybe that's irrelevant, I'm tired, but damned if it isn't true.

 

I don't know why you're surprised. AH has been leaning from centre to hard left to SJW idiocy for years now. The owner is a complete beta-male asshole who doesn't brook challenges to his authority and has actively driven enough people off the site that they formed their own site to discuss stuff (actually, I think it's happened a couple of times).

I asked for a ban from one of the administrators after he got rid of a online acquaintance on general bullshit and I haven't really looked back.

 

The funny thing? I want that too! So I can buy the fucking game.

Less of the shrill outrage would be nice, though. It's a video game. Even if my pecker's hard from playing it-- And really, who even gets a boner from a nice vidya ass these days-- well, where's the fuckin' harm in that?

Fuck apologizing for what I like. I am so *fucking* sick of that. No. Tell me what's in the game! Sure! Even tell me your opinions-- But I'd love to see a wider range of opinions represented in gaming media, ideally. Not just, y'know, *your specific* opinions.

EDIT: Y'know the words that come to mind? "Moralist censorship." Or, worse, moralist crusaders causing strict self-censorship within the industry. At their worst, the anti-GG crowd reminds me of fucking Jack Thompson. Take that as you will.

 

Yeah, I gave up on that place after the owner rated cop-killing as morally equivalent to flag-burning.

Truth. Cringe-inducing levels of fanservice usually seem to crop up when the game knows that selling to the "lolbewbs" crowd is its only hope of making back its budget.

And getting preached at rarely works well in any form of entertainment. I don't need a long, drawn out presentation of "Sexism and objectification are bad." That's been a problem with the handling of women in pretty much all media. The alternative to sex object-dom is the writers shoving a "This woman is strong and independent" message down your throat at every opportunity. And then still making her a distressed damsel love interest more often than not.

If you want a social justice message, do it in an understated way. I'd say the original Metroid game is one of the best examples. You have fun game of shooting evil aliens as a badass power-armored bounty-hunter, who just happens to be a woman.

 

I recall a lot of things about Ian The Admin that are questionable.

- He made insulting My Little Pony a bannable offense.
- He admitted to having read private messages among other members.
- He recently compared GamerGate to the KKK and said that GamerGate is worse.

 

This reads weirdly, but Slate has been pretty anti-GG for a long while now. Maybe they're actually turning around?

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...mergate_a_divide_and_conquer_plan.single.html

The article starts out weird, but read it through. I actually think that this might be one of the better articles GG can claim to be on their side.

 

So you mean to tell me that the way to kill GG is to give them what they originally wanted? Who would have thought that would have worked! Course his tone is still that of a condecending jackass, but if GG could actually get the things it wanted out of articles like this I wouldn't care too much.

It's also funny to watch this back peddling now that we are starting to enter the holidays and they're starting to realize this could keep going.

 

"...if GG could actually get the things it wanted out of articles like this I wouldn't care too much."

See, the tone of this article is a wonderful showpiece of what I want from GG. I want sneering, condescending jackasses like this to be unemployed. I do not want to be talked down to about fucking videogames of all things, or about liking tits in my videogames, at that. I could sit here and write some lengthy intellectual defense of liking big fat tats in my videogames, but why the fuck should I have to do that in the first place?

GG, to me, is partly a rebellion against the sheer fucking preachiness of the gaming press. It's a rebellion against "moral pundits", because moral pundits have tried so many times to ruin gaming in the past. And it's a rebellion against people who think they're better than us-- We have been trained well by right-wing attack dogs in the past not to take that shit. Why should we take it from the left? Why should feminists succeed where Jack Thompson failed?

(Seriously, why was Yahtzee popular? He rambles off topic, he's angry, and he talks solely about the bad points of videogames. But he doesn't sound like everyone the fuck else, he discusses mechanics instead of politics, and he rarely talks down to his audience.)

The more I look into this, the more I see a relatively small and insular community acting to defend each other in the gaming press. So, in that, I agree with the article. Cut these fucks out, and it's a good first step towards reconciliation. But there's deeper problems than that. The branding and framing done on the GG crowd was... frankly amazing. Having to clear accusations of misogyny before I even open my mouth is a hell of a trick, and I'd be impressed if I wasn't the target.

Which leads to me shitting all over the "amnesty" idea. You don't progress forward honestly by ignoring the parts of the past that make you uncomfortable, you fuck. The word needs to remain and the dialogue needs to happen. People need to get hurt, because the alternative is letting this shit fester and crop up again in a few years.