The thing is that I don't see them fighting for bans or anything that'll actually impact a consumer purchase beyond a review score - and really, there's a wide enough spectrum of critics that one score from one outlet shouldn't mean shit if you have a view of the critic's personal biases - which, let's face it, we all have them.

Because to be blunt, I don't see feminists or games journalists or even "SJWs" fighting to have these games removed or banned or censored - I see them wanting to have a conversation or at least open up the possibility. And considering I'm behind seeing games as art - be they high art or low, 'pop' art (and there's nothing wrong with making and acknowledging that distinction) - I don't mind having that conversation and I don't mind journalists starting that conversation. If they get preachy, take shit out of context, or are talking out of their ass, they'll get called on it - just like in any criticism of modern art, be they movies, TV, or music.

And if you don't want the conversation, it's really quite easy to ignore - hell, if the trolls hadn't given Sarkeesian all the attention, FeministFrequency would be dying or catering to its own tiny niche on the internet where all the rest of the political stuff goes to rot. The issue that I feel both sides have struggled here is in shutting down that conversation - GamerGate doesn't like that journalists and bloggers want to bring up social issues so they try to silence them, and anti-GG doesn't like that collusion or bad reasoning or sheer ideological preachiness can infect parts of their writing, so they try to silence their critics there.

In other words, I just want a reasoned discussion, and I'm okay that there are gamers who don't want to have it and just enjoy their games. There's multiple ways to enjoy and appreciate art, and games are no different. And the key thing as journalists and GamerGate need to remember is that those levels of distinctive game discussion - different but equal, because at the end of the day it's all reasoned opinion - and then know their audience.

EDIT: in other words, this is the same defense I make whenever I talk about pop music or exploitation movies - know your audience and understand the artistic purpose behind the work.

 

No, I just see them publicly shaming people with buzzwords that don't actually apply for whatever perceived offense they've made to the point that whatever they attempt is buried under accusations of misogyny and rape. And I don't see it as "one score from one outlet"-- this is a bias that's been creeping systematically across review scores and especially op-ed articles for a long while now.

Actually being exposed to a variety of biases would be a good thing. I don't see that, anymore.

And I see them shutting down conversations with buzzwords, personal attacks, and outright misinformation and lies. See: Zoe Quinn and the whole Wizardchan debacle.

Unlike you, I don't *care* if games are art these days. I just want *good games*: If that means they are used as or contain art, okay, I have no problem with that. But acting like games must or even "should" be art is disingenuous. The moment a game being "art" interferes with it being a game, I consider it a failure.

Furthermore-- Games *don't* get called out on being preachy or overbearing or simplistic. They're just applauded at "containing emotional content" or some crap like that. Now, granted, opening up the discussion would definitely help with this issue, but I think there's also strong classist associations with gaming to overcome first, as well as the obvious historical problems in calling games art.

You are really oversimplifying things by saying "GamerGate doesn't like that journalists and bloggers want to bring up social issues so they try to silence them" to the point that it's an outright lie.

First off, GG is at this point a hugeass multifaceted protest against games journalism at large by this point. But moreover-- The main thrust isn't silencing journalists and bloggers talking about social issues, it's attacking them for using those social issues as a weapon to shut down dissenting voices while still not seeking a meaningful solution.

Please, please, please explain Zoe Quinn's actions regarding TFYC. Or the many and varied attacks against /v/ for the whole Vivian James thing. I'll fucking wait, because I want to see how that fits in your narrative.

Your first sentence is very telling of your attitude, no matter how you try to hide it. You can have people who are pro-GG and want a reasoned discussion, but are still fucking sick of corruption and pretension and would rather play their games than listen to the bullshit being shoveled into their face.

Moreover-- "Different but equal" doesn't work. Hierarchies come from separation.

 

So I discovered this little story...

http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/post/99995431621/i-got-doxxed-and-sent-some-really-gross-threats

http://hokuto-ju-no-ken.tumblr.com/post/99774092444/well-that-was-a-surprisingly-real-phonecall

http://hokuto-ju-no-ken.tumblr.com/post/101219150529/a-follow-up

TL'DR: Pro GG Blogger got doxxed and gets in contact with the doxxer, it's mildly disturbing.

Edit: Also it turns out that Ezra Klien, the person who made the Journolist that Gamejournopros was based on, is EiC of Vox, the guys who own Polygon, and Policy Analyst for MSNBC...

https://twitter.com/GitGudGG/status/527417272856756224

So...ya.

Edit 2: Also, Kelloggs have pulled out.

Edit 3: Totalbiscut decided to smack Salon for an article he found extremly stupid.

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/in-which-we-expose-how-little-saloncom-bothered-to-research-its-latest-hit-piece

I bring it up because TB goes into the SoM thing and clears up what was happening with that.

 

Long-ass post responding to Coyote -

Firstly, in a lot of this we’re talking op-ed – it’s not exactly surprising that you get games journalists coming from more progressive-leaning backgrounds (that’s typically what you find in arts-related journalism, look at music and film). And while I agree it’s a bias, I’d have a hard time arguing it’s entirely a bias that’s without merit. I’m not exactly opposed to a progressive viewpoint if it’s argued well – the problem you and I seem to have both seen is when people realize they’ve got no point and resort to attacks in order to make a point (see: Zoe Quinn and her Content ID shit – I’ve got enough double-confirmation from RL contacts of mine that shows she’s a genuinely shitty person – although I will say there are also people I’ve interacted with IRL from GamerGate who I’d describe in similar terms (none are from DLP, thankfully, we’re still sane)). What I think immediately becomes frustrating is when those figures try to become representative of the whole movement, because it misses the larger, overall point for the figurehead. Although I’d definitely agree I’d like to see a broader selection of viewpoints, if only because it’s necessary for good conversation.

The point I’m making is I’ve seen so much of this on both sides that it’s kind of incredible – from someone mostly on the outside, there’s no innocents here. From GamerGate I get people dismissing all of social sciences and literary theory as ‘Marxist’ and using that as blunt condemnation and on the other ‘side’ I’ve been called racist and sexist for criticizing the real problems in Beyonce’s feminist themes (I’m drawing more on my music critic background here, I’ve avoided talking about GamerGate anywhere except here). And like you, I completely agree that I don’t have a lot of time for when games start going more on the artsy side against actual gameplay – the same way I have a hard time sitting through albums by The Knife or Terrance Mallick movies or playing ‘Dear Esther’, it’s the same principle. Hell, I’d go a step further and say that the whole indie dev community needs to take a look at themselves and focus more on the games not the artistic content – indie game development is about games, not the lifestyle or high-school melodrama.

And for your point on ‘containing emotional content’ – okay, that’s a problem with the critics and journalists, and it’s a measureable issue of bad writing. But it reminds me a lot of when I covered ‘Paula’ by Robin Thicke and said there’s a huge difference between being a misogynist and a moron (and of course the SJW crowd lost their shit) – in other words, intent matters. It’s interesting to think that a lot of games journalists and critics probably came from at least a passing familiarity with arts journalism, where the nature of their material has been considered art for years. Gaming hasn’t really had that outright conversion yet in popular discourse, which makes things very complicated. Now personally I’ve always considered games as art with gameplay as an important piece of that picture to be considered – they might have started more in the realms of pop art, but so did Andy Warhol, and that’s no less relevant. I am curious by the ‘classist associations with gaming’ – care to elaborate?

As for my ‘gross oversimplification’, you could make the argument that GamerGate’s doing something very similar in some places, at least through its main thrust: using accusations of 'corruption' as a weapon to shut down dissenting voices while not actually seeking a meaningful solution or really targeting anyone outside of indie game devs and journalists. And while you definitely have people who are standing up and making extremely strong cases to the contrary (TotalBiscuit being one that I appreciate, and I do like he's working his ass off to brand GamerGate properly from the larger perceptions of mainstream media - if he was the 'figurehead' of the group instead of some of the others, I'd definitely have more reason to support it), it's a problem you get when GamerGate becomes such a huge-ass multifaceted protest: the many, many valid points get lost in the shuffle and the loudest (and dumbest) are the ones who unfortunately get heard the most. And that’s true of all social movements – including that of ‘SJWs’, btw – and here I’m honestly reminded a bit of Occupy Wall Street or The Tea Party. The movement doesn’t have a clear motive, and thus gets boiled down by onlookers by its worst actors – and at this point, I’m a little amazed the tactic is to buckle down instead of opt for something new.

And I don’t have a narrative when it comes to this mess, or an agenda – hell, for most of this, I just want to make sense of it all. I’m not justifying Zoe Quinn’s actions (genuinely shitty person, multiple confirmations from RL friends who know her, I’ll restate that), and as for Vivian James… well, honestly for the most part, I’ve liked that. I appreciate someone calling out the SJW movement for the blind and chronic feeling of victimization that goes on there. That said, it’s a little troubling that the Vivian James avatar is the sort of gamer that has no real identity beyond just being a female gamer, who is defined by her lack of opinions on anything and just wants to game. It might be accurate, but to me it can ring as a little creepy.

And look, maybe it’s all coming from an outsider perspective. Even though I’ve been gaming for nearly twenty years, I’m not as much of a traditional gamer as I once was – and believe it or not, I’m not dismissive of the desire to ignore the artsy side and just have a blast with the game (hell, outside of gaming, I’m the guy who defends exploitation and hair metal – same principle). But I do follow a lot of the gaming press (and have for nearly a decade now) and I’m not seeing the huge influx of ‘shit shoved down our throats’, especially not from major publications and especially not in comparison to everything else major companies discuss and publish. The more GamerGate protests the lying by omission many major journalism outlets do when it comes to shady disclosure and business deals to influence scores, I'm completely behind it, but when it comes to the shutting down of the artistic conversation... yeah, that concerns me.

PS: point regarding levels is basically an expansion on what Film Critic Hulk wrote on multiple levels of experiencing media. A long read, but definitely a good one: http://badassdigest.com/2013/06/05/...poilers-and-the-4-levels-of-how-we-consume-a/

@Cruentus – yeah, that doesn’t surprise me. The sad thing is, once again, it’s a both sides thing – you get young teenagers who are easily led by both agendas, and they’re probably the ones saying the worst shit and they have no goddamn clue what they’re talking about, let alone treating the other side like human beings. People are very easy to manipulate, and it’s a little scummy how much some people have engaged in it. One reason I have a really hard time supporting anyone in this, one way or the other, even despite strong incentives.

 

I assume this is the shit peddling Coyote is referencing, because these discussions tend to dominate the narrative, especially if you listen to games related podcasts.

 

Been observing the whole thing neutrally for awhile now. I will admit I'm biased towards gamergate as I've never been a huge fan of the SJW movement which I won't argue here.

But on the topic of games as games/games as art, I think it really comes down to how I view actors/celebrities. I have no desire to learn about a celebrities political leanings because it might tinge my view of a movie and therefore lessen my entertainment. For example knowing that Tom Cruise donates money to scientology makes me hesitant to see his movies because I know then that I am funding something I disagree with. Which is why I avoid learning about celebrities political views so I can just enjoy the entertainment.

In much the same way, the instant a game becomes a social commentary (whether for or against my own personal views) it is no longer entertainment for me, but rather a platform for a certain cause. And I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with, is when a group paints all games as platforms for certain causes. "Your game has a gay character in it, your whole company supports gay rights and I hate your company." Or: "Your game doesn't have a black person in it; your company is racist and I hate your company." Or more closely related, "Your game has women with big boobs, you're a misogynist."

Sometimes games are just there for entertainment. To demand that all games conform to being 'political correct social platforms' is ridiculous and no better than when the whole Fox news went after Mass effect for their sex scene.

Let entertainment be entertainment.

 

Well TB has finally gotten somebody to talk to him.

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

He's got an interview with Stephen Totilo himself. It's a long one, so you might want to get something to eat while you listen.

 

And Anita Sarkeesian is going to be on Colbert: https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/527601124992638976

Oh boy...

 

From the website:

Stephen points his investigative eye toward Gamergate, 11:30/10:30c.

....I need a drink.

 

When is this?

Edit: nvm, tonight apparently.

 

Tonight.

/10char

 

Fuck it, I didn't need my liver anyway.

 

Eeeeh how bad can it be?

 

And suddenly I do to. On one hand his politics say he'll go one way, but then I hear Anita was part of CancelColbert. He might also stay neutral, either way I gotta bottle of Tequila that I think I'll indulge in for this.

 

Fully agreed! I mean, I have an investment, but my "side" has done some pretty deplorable shit, often unprovoked. (As a complete side note, I love Silent Shout as a track but hate the album. Artistic intent is overrated compared to the thing itself in my viewpoint, though, so that's one of those things to be expected.)

Sure. While unsupported, I don't think it's too controversial a statement. Gaming is typically seen as lowbrow entertainment, almost to a comical extreme. Consider first the low barrier to entry in developed countries-- With craigslist, I can spend $160 or "half a minimum wage paycheck for a week, working full-time" and play modern games on an almost-new system, and that's conservatively speaking-- and combine it with the associated nerdy ass activites stereotypical of the 80's, which gaming is rooted in. Namely, they all happened in a fucking garage.

This is true! I would ask quickly, however, who should be "targeted" rather than game developers and journalists. (Note: I do heartily disagree that it's just "indie" game developers in the crosshairs, and that the people in question should even be called "journalists" in the first place. They are sockpuppet stooges of the AAA industry-- and this bit is more or less proven, given their favoritism of AAA titles and proven financial associations-- so how fucking *dare* they talk down to us, is part of the issue. We barely even expect professionalism, but we sure as the motherfuck do not expect downright condescension. The fact that indie developers are involved in this seems... almost tangential to me, aside from the narratives inherent in certain specific games.)

All I can say is-- I'm really glad it's not "real journalists". They'd have bent us over and fucked us proper by now. *grin*

My apologies, then. When one speaks honestly from their background... Well, it can seem like other things are going on. Perhaps, too, there was a bit too much projection going on there-- After all, I've certainly been following this long enough to have Opinions.

Distaff counterpart of the male moderate of the whole issue. Surely you have met women who look at the general social justice dialouge happening online and who only can respond with a puzzled and vaguely angry "...What the fuck?"

It turns out that these days, some of 'em play video games and hate everyone in the first place...

Now, mind you, I do actually agree that the heart of the concept's a little creepy, as far as the very core of any archetype is creepy. But the idea that the "female gamer" archetype should just be vaguely annoyed and vaguely obsessive-- exactly like the male archetype is, but without most of the sexual baggage, mind you-- well, it's not that horrible at its heart to me.

Shit, probably more than me, lately. I grew up doing it, but I've been striken by Hilarious Poverty lately, so it ain't been happening in practical terms outside of pokemon ROMs. Point is, I have no intention to get into a dickwaving competition here about "real gamers," because that is beyond fucking stupid.

I'm me. You're you. We both play videogames. We both find said media interesting. If any of those statements aren't true during this discussion, someone needs to be stabbed.

Okay. I'm really not meaning to be a dick and dissect your post, but I have to ask-- What do you consider "major publications" in the context of gaming news? Because the loose sphere of influence of the Gawker/Kotaku network makes up a large chunk of that, as far as I'm concerned, and they're prime culrpits. B-list gaming media like RPGamer has skated by unscathed.

---

Hugplx-- I would respond that this does compromise a part of it, yes. Some games do rely on that kind of understanding. But on a different note from what Sesc is pointing out, I would say that gaming as a whole needs a further examination.

Is an unabashedly visual and male-sexism dominated work any "worse" than the future videogame equivalent of 50 Shades of Grey? When housewife porn reaches the PS5, which it fucking *will*, should we judge it any differently from the jiggle physics of DOA Beach Volleyball?

I don't think so. Granted, I don't see the evil in either, because I really like fuckin'. But you'd think I'm advocating fisting kittens when I point that out in most venues of discussion.

(I am not advocating fisting kittens.)

 

Also worth noting is the main guest and actual summery/title of tonight's show, Jill Lepore, specifically talking about her book, "The Secret History of Wonder Woman."

So, regardless of his personal stance, it's almost certainly going to be about how gamergate is a misogynist movement. Or at least the feminist implications of it.

I can't think of another reason gamergate would be mentioned, though admittedly his topics aren't always related.

 

Ya, I checked and the TV description has somebody else.

 

I've only seen bits and pieces of Colbert so don't really know his leaning. What are the chances of gamergate getting a fair report from him?

 

Unknown, which is what's scary.

---------- Post automerged at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

Well, that was painful.