"Gamers" Are Still Dead, Y'all

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Smithnikov:

Schadrach:

Right, every now and then they get to praise a teen lesbian coming out story as the greatest game EVER. Actually thinking about it, it's almost always teen lesbians, isn't it...The Last of Us, Gone Home, Life is Strange...it might just be that people who like denouncing sex in games just have a particular fetish. =p

Well, it would explain why you people were praising Haydee so much...

Hadn't heard of Haydee until today, at first I was like "Well, it couldn't be that bad, it's got mostly positive reviews", then realized most of those were about fapping (and the rather absurd number of nude mods on the workshop) rather than actual gameplay.

Smithnikov:

Thing is, our glorious Gatekeepers now demand we embrace the former simply because they aren't the left wing feminists. Right wing bullshit became acceptable, even demanded. That doesn't fly with those of us who have working memories.

The Last Night got so much shit over its cyberpunk dystopia being a lefty cyberpunk dystopia rather than the usual that one of the leads had to give a public apology.

Original Sin had the studio being sent threats over an exposed midriff on the cover art, which they of course changed because of the threats.

It was you I asked for examples of this coming from the other side in that other thread, wasn't it? As I recall the best you had was some knob writing an article from Roosh V's gaming site (the one that closed after a rather absurdly short life) and no evidence of it having any further reach and Far Cry 5 not being entirely white (with two different users giving wildly different explanations as to why that was).

So, c'mon, show me the demands for right-wing bullshit, the developers threatened until they changed their work because it didn't comply to right-wing preferences, or a big, visible social media campaign to do that sort of thing. There are more than a few from the other side.

Satinavian:

So yes, i would not expect to see a significant number of black people in the Witcher.
And similar things are true for a lot of other fantasy-counterpart-Europe settings. Especcially when the games actually are from Europe where the US history with blacks simply does not exist.

The Witcher does have minorities and discrimination. As do the books. Not surprisingly a lot seems modelled on Polish medieval minorities, especcially jews.

But Europe gets a whole other bunch of people instead. Spain was controlled by the Almohavids, who were descendents of the Moors, the North African arabs, for a long time and the Reconquista to drive them out didn't end until the 15th century, but even then a lot of people in central and southern Spain were still of Moorish descent. On Sicily you had a weird mix of Norse and Arab culture, as both controlled the island at different points. In Southern France and Italy North African and Arab traders were a common sight and the Balkans and modern day Turkey had sizable populations of Arabs, Turks and other people of darker skin complexion that lived and operated within the Byzantine empire.

Further, there are accounts of regular Moorish traders visiting northern France, England, present day Belgium and Netherlands and going as far as Denmark and Norway (and traders going in the opposite direction). There are also accounts of Arab traders taking the viking routes of going north from Constantinople up across the Black Sea and using the large rivers of Ukraine and Belarus to reach the Baltic Sea and even visiting modern day Sweden.

My point being that, while they were not exactly commonplace or daily, people of non-Caucasian ethnicities most certainly appeared in Europe during the middle ages (there are accounts of Chinese people in the Levant too), even in Poland. As far as I am concerned the appearance of the Ofieri merchant and runemsith in Hearts of Stone in the Witcher 3 got that base covered. But we should not fall into the common fallacy of imagining the medieval era as an era of closed borders and little international exchange, because there was a massive flux of people moving about medieval Europe, many of them coming from North Africa and the Middle East... And then there was a bunch of dudes that came from Mongolia and came within a few hundred miles of the Polish border, while controlling most of modern day Russia and Ukraine, the Far East and large parts of the Middle East.

The average Polish farmer might not have met an Arab or a Seljuk or a Mongol (or even anyone not Polish, apart from invaders stealing their stuff), but in the major trading cities (real life Gdansk, Witcher's Novigrad) they were quite likely to make an appearance.

Jesus christ.

"Look guys, we've been beating around the bush long enough, but sexy equals sexist, gamers as an universal whole are toxic and bad, women just can't into gaming because of all the rampaging sexism, and left-wing ideologues with a chip on their shoulder were utterly right to attack games culture 3 years ago. And everything I said is right because I have a soapbox and I'm speaking like an authority figure."

How about this: I'll acknowledge your opinion as being your subjective view on things and we both agree that now that you've gotten it out of your system you'll never try to push this preachy nonsense again. Deal?

Gethsemani:
But Europe gets a whole other bunch of people instead. Spain was controlled by the Almohavids, who were descendents of the Moors, the North African arabs, for a long time and the Reconquista to drive them out didn't end until the 15th century, but even then a lot of people in central and southern Spain were still of Moorish descent. On Sicily you had a weird mix of Norse and Arab culture, as both controlled the island at different points. In Southern France and Italy North African and Arab traders were a common sight and the Balkans and modern day Turkey had sizable populations of Arabs, Turks and other people of darker skin complexion that lived and operated within the Byzantine empire.

True.

But Arabs are white. You won't recognice any Moorish descent in Spaniards, Sizilians don't look any different than other Italians.
Basically for millenia people moved around the Mediterranian and the result it is extremely hard to recognize any physical differences between the peoples living at the coast. A similar thing is true for Turks who tend to look no different to Greeks nowadays and not at all like the original central Asian Seljuk Turk tribesmen. You also won't find a big difference in average look between Bulgarians and Romanians even if their history and origin is completely different, you won't see the nomadic heritage in Hungarians and you won't recognice blond Parthian descendents in modern Iran.

Overall, yes, there was a lot of mixing all the time but because of that, all of those instances are not visible minorities. All those people look white. You can include all of them and still get a product that has only white persons in them.

To be a visible and recognizable minority in Europe you would need to have either very dark skin (significantly darker then a typical arab let alone Persian) or look recognizable eastern Asian. Everyone else can pass as regular white European.

As far as traders and travellers go, well, those should exist and obviously should be recognized as foreign. But that is not really what the diversity demands is about. Instead it is about regular inhabitants with the same language and culture, living in the place for many generations already who look distincly non white. And that would be pretty stupid.

Dalsyne:
Jesus christ.

"Look guys, we've been beating around the bush long enough, but sexy equals sexist, gamers as an universal whole are toxic and bad, women just can't into gaming because of all the rampaging sexism, and left-wing ideologues with a chip on their shoulder were utterly right to attack games culture 3 years ago. And everything I said is right because I have a soapbox and I'm speaking like an authority figure."

How about this: I'll acknowledge your opinion as being your subjective view on things and we both agree that now that you've gotten it out of your system you'll never try to push this preachy nonsense again. Deal?

But he was right about all that though.

Crash Laobi:
Taylor Hidalgo's "Writing" Career is Still Dead Y'all? (apparently it was never alive, no need for lamentations!)

Did I just accidentally click a Kotaku click bait link? No, it's the Escapist, but wait, it's only the "freelance" "writer" Taylor Hidalgo! Of course taking the briefest of glances at Taylor's history as a "writer", we just know there's going to be some attempt to try stir up some controversy surrounding gaming and gamers. If some very fragile ideologues hadn't got all in a twist about the hobby, gamers wouldn't have clung to the tag so tenaciously. It was yet another moral crusade, it was the establishment vs punk in the 70s, the religious right vs metal in the 80s and rap in the 90s, Jack Thompson vs gaming in the naughties. The premise was identical, some fringe elements of society were upset by something they didn't understand, so they railed against it and those who enjoyed it. Taylor seems to forget that Gamer is an identity based around a single hobby - gaming, neither colour, religion, sex, nor sexuality come into it.

Has anyone seen Taylor's Patreon? A lonely place where out of either embarrassment or the shame of supporting such unoriginality The only 2 supporters have posted absolutely nothing, but somehow continue to throw $32 a month (thanks Mr. & Mrs. Hidalgo - I'm sorry that expensive education seems to have been wasted, let's hope there are promising siblings). It states that "writing" is Taylor's dream, I suggest Taylor find a more realistic career (Starbucks are hiring, they love "writers", and mine's an espresso).

On Monday afternoon Taylor obviously had too many craft beers, woke at 8:14pm, looked at the clock and for the briefest of moments that it took to commit this stream of unoriginal unconsciousness to keyboard managed to somehow assume that the numbers on the clock referred to the year (2014). It's nice to dream, however, it's wrong to conflate dreaming with "writing". One dreams while one sleeps, but if one sleeps while one "writes" then we are left with the lazy carbon copy of a circa 2014 Gawker hit piece. Wake the hell up, Taylor, you're not a "writer"! Mine's an espresso and my gay best friend who's also a gamer is having an americano! Chop Chop, we haven't got all day!

Why are you stalking the writer? That seems like a pretty shitty thing to do.

[/quote]Why are you stalking the "writer"? That seems like a pretty shitty thing to do.[/quote]

So, in your book, attempting to look up one or two other articles by a "writer", so as not to come to an unfair conclusion based on 1 "article" is stalking? Unfortunately the web begging site Patreon is the first thing that comes up when you Google the name. It seems very fragile and reactionary of you to refer to the above as stalking.

Satinavian:

But Arabs are white. You won't recognice any Moorish descent in Spaniards, Sizilians don't look any different than other Italians.
Basically for millenia people moved around the Mediterranian and the result it is extremely hard to recognize any physical differences between the peoples living at the coast. A similar thing is true for Turks who tend to look no different to Greeks nowadays and not at all like the original central Asian Seljuk Turk tribesmen. You also won't find a big difference in average look between Bulgarians and Romanians even if their history and origin is completely different, you won't see the nomadic heritage in Hungarians and you won't recognice blond Parthian descendents in modern Iran.

Today, yes. During the middle ages? Not so much. The Moors of the day were visibly distinct from the caucasian Spaniards, at least if contemporary sources are correct, the same was true for the Seljuks, Greeks and Sicilians (who, as far as I get it, were more Arabic in appearance with their ruling class being blond and blue eyed due to their nordic heritage). As you say, time and people sexing it up has erased most of the differences, creating the stereotypical "Mediterranean look".

But as for Iranians, you absolutely do still see their Parthian heritage in some people there. It is the reason why some Iranians have blue and green eyes.

Satinavian:
To be a visible and recognizable minority in Europe you would need to have either very dark skin (significantly darker then a typical arab let alone Persian) or look recognizable eastern Asian. Everyone else can pass as regular white European.

Trust me, as a Swede, when I say that northern Europeans have nowhere near an olive complexion. An Italian or Spaniard stands out, not to talk about people from the Middle East. Poles and Arabs would be pretty much the same, you see the difference.

Satinavian:
As far as traders and travellers go, well, those should exist and obviously should be recognized as foreign. But that is not really what the diversity demands is about. Instead it is about regular inhabitants with the same language and culture, living in the place for many generations already who look distincly non white. And that would be pretty stupid.

I don't know. Asking for a black person to be a farmer in the Witcher is stupid, but as far as I've read (which is not much, admittedly), the criticism was more that there was no person of color at all in the base game, not specifically how they should have been there. The logical way to insert a few, at least to me, would be to have them as foreign traders or mercenaries or similar. CDPR apparently felt the same way, as it was how they did it in Hearts of Stone.

I don't have much of a beef with vanilla TW3 and its lack of PoC. My beef lies more with the "whitewashing" of history when people claim it is totally legit to not have PoC in TW3 because no people of color were present in medieval Europe, which is patently false and really bad historiography.

Crash Laobi:

Why are you stalking the "writer"? That seems like a pretty shitty thing to do.

So, in your book, attempting to look up one or two other articles by a "writer", so as not to come to an unfair conclusion based on 1 "article" is stalking? Unfortunately the web begging site Patreon is the first thing that comes up when you Google the name. It seems very fragile and reactionary of you to refer to the above as stalking.

I mean, that is an interesting defense of stalking. There was no reason to bring up the patreon, other than to needlessly insult the writer. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to refer to critics of your post as "fragile".

BreakfastMan:

But he was right about all that though.

Obviously some people will agree with him. It wouldn't be controversial if they wouldn't.

It's quite the narrow-minded perspective though, from where I'm standing.

[/quote] I mean, that is an interesting defense of stalking. There was no reason to bring up the patreon, other than to needlessly insult the writer. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to refer to critics of your post as "fragile".[/quote]

So checking a previous article and mentioning the first thing that appears in the search is stalking? That's really your definition? So, I presume when you hear a song you like by a singer you've never heard of you refrain from Googling them because it's stalking. Or, what happens when a politician you've never heard of says something awful? Do you refrain from using Google because in your mind that's stalking? If you re-read my post you will see that I didn't call you fragile, I stated that it was very fragile of you to hold up a quick Google search as an example of stalking. Unless of course you equate saying "seems very fragile of you" with calling someone fragile. In that case when you said "seems like a very shitty thing to do", were you attempting to call me shitty? Answer honestly, I don't mind, I've been called worse and am in no way fragile.

Dalsyne:

BreakfastMan:

But he was right about all that though.

Obviously some people will agree with him. It wouldn't be controversial if they wouldn't.

It's quite the narrow-minded perspective though, from where I'm standing.

I think it is quite narrow-minded to not critically examine the opinions of others and instead dismiss them out of hand.

Arean:
Maybe, just MAYBE the reason why the public at large (if this claim is actually true) views gaming as a hostile space where all these horrible things run rampant is because their main looking glass into the subculture (read: the video game press) is so obsessed with "proving" their biases right.

Or maybe its because when a person gets a new console and the new, big game and go to play on line the first thing that happens is that they get called a faggot by an eleven year old teabagging their digital corpse.

Now I normally wouldn't bother with concern about that but in a bizarre twist of fate ever since Gamergate I'm been seeing some free speech warriors professing extreme concern about what happens if we start reporting and banning users for being harassing.

*First they come for the toddlers screaming the n word, next they come for the people trying to send dick pics and when they came for me yelling faggot at a camper there was nobody left to speak up for me.*

A little dramatic but that's the general sentiment I've seen and its certainly growing. Its going to be a huge sentiment now since PewDiePie yell the n word at another player in a livestream and people are so concerned with defending the poor, fragile, oppressed multi-million dollar ego of a Youtuber they like to say that people shouldn't express their right to call other people that slur. WE're reaching the point where a fairly robust amount of people active in the gaming community are going to be defending the the ability for these CoD kiddies to howl like bigoted baboons on Xbox Live without facing consequences.

More and more everyday it seems that Nintendo was right to never introduce voice chat.

Thaluikhain:
And...if you are trying to argue that the gaming community isn't exclusive, that seems not a great way of doing it.

On the previous page I pointed out a user that said that one of the most popular games from just two years ago, a AAA hit, was too old to be considered a valid representation of games or the gaming community. Even without the expensive tech there's a big issue worth addressing that nobody ever seems to think about.

undeadsuitor:
The Great Wall wasn't an american production, at least not 100%. Doesn't change that fact that white people have no problem inserting themselves into everything, but then tense up and claim "accuracy and realism" when non-white people want in on it

People want the idea of historical accuracy but not true historical accuracy. That's why you don't get dysentery in Skyrim and why potatoes exist in The Witcher even though, if they're really so insist about the setting's accuracy to reality, they would be out of place.

Crash Laobi:

I mean, that is an interesting defense of stalking. There was no reason to bring up the patreon, other than to needlessly insult the writer. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to refer to critics of your post as "fragile".

So checking a previous article and mentioning the first thing that appears in the search is stalking? That's really your definition? So, I presume when you hear a song you like by a singer you've never heard of you refrain from Googling them because it's stalking. Or, what happens when a politician you've never heard of says something awful? Do you refrain from using Google because in your mind that's stalking? If you re-read my post you will see that I didn't call you fragile, I stated that it was very fragile of you to hold up a quick Google search as an example of stalking. Unless of course you equate saying "seems very fragile of you" with calling someone fragile. In that case when you said "seems like a very shitty thing to do", were you attempting to call me shitty? Answer honestly, I don't mind, I've been called worse and am in no way fragile.

I think googling things about a person so you can insult them with it is indeed light stalking, yes. And it seems you did that after you created your account for the specific purpose of posting on this article.

BreakfastMan:

I think it is quite narrow-minded to not critically examine the opinions of others and instead dismiss them out of hand.

You assume too much. I assure you, I've critically examined the shit out of opinions like his. I have found them lacking not because I wanted to, but because they are.

Dalsyne:

BreakfastMan:

I think it is quite narrow-minded to not critically examine the opinions of others and instead dismiss them out of hand.

You assume too much. I assure you, I've critically examined the shit out of opinions like his. I have found them lacking not because I wanted to, but because they are.

"Opinions like his" is not "his opinion"

BreakfastMan:

Crash Laobi:

I mean, that is an interesting defense of stalking. There was no reason to bring up the patreon, other than to needlessly insult the writer. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to refer to critics of your post as "fragile".

So checking a previous article and mentioning the first thing that appears in the search is stalking? That's really your definition? So, I presume when you hear a song you like by a singer you've never heard of you refrain from Googling them because it's stalking. Or, what happens when a politician you've never heard of says something awful? Do you refrain from using Google because in your mind that's stalking? If you re-read my post you will see that I didn't call you fragile, I stated that it was very fragile of you to hold up a quick Google search as an example of stalking. Unless of course you equate saying "seems very fragile of you" with calling someone fragile. In that case when you said "seems like a very shitty thing to do", were you attempting to call me shitty? Answer honestly, I don't mind, I've been called worse and am in no way fragile.

I think googling things about a person so you can insult them with it is indeed light stalking, yes. And it seems you did that after you created your account for the specific purpose of posting on this article.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Interesting how now it's been denigrated to "light stalking", lucky I only clicked on the Patreon link and not any of the others, I presume the Cyber Police will go easy on me. Been meaning to create an account here for a while (Only ever watch ZP & Judging By the Cover on this site) just got around to it now. Logged in and this was the first article that came up in on the page feed. However, I suppose everything's a conspiracy for you, so no point explaining. When anyone smears a large group of people with the same brush, they are opening themselves up for robust critique. If a "writer" produces a largely unoriginal click bait piece, it's fair to call them a bad writer and question their career choice, if a cop singles out one group to enforce the law upon and ignores the rules for others, it's fair to call them a bad cop and call for their firing. You looked up my post count???? Stop stalking me!

Crash Laobi:

BreakfastMan:

Crash Laobi:

So checking a previous article and mentioning the first thing that appears in the search is stalking? That's really your definition? So, I presume when you hear a song you like by a singer you've never heard of you refrain from Googling them because it's stalking. Or, what happens when a politician you've never heard of says something awful? Do you refrain from using Google because in your mind that's stalking? If you re-read my post you will see that I didn't call you fragile, I stated that it was very fragile of you to hold up a quick Google search as an example of stalking. Unless of course you equate saying "seems very fragile of you" with calling someone fragile. In that case when you said "seems like a very shitty thing to do", were you attempting to call me shitty? Answer honestly, I don't mind, I've been called worse and am in no way fragile.

I think googling things about a person so you can insult them with it is indeed light stalking, yes. And it seems you did that after you created your account for the specific purpose of posting on this article.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Interesting how now it's been denigrated to "light stalking", lucky I only clicked on the Patreon link and not any of the others, I presume the Cyber Police will go easy on me. Been meaning to create an account here for a while (Only ever watch ZP & Judging By the Cover on this site) just got around to it now. Logged in and this was the first article that came up in on the page feed. However, I suppose everything's a conspiracy for you, so no point explaining. When anyone smears a large group of people with the same brush, they are opening themselves up for robust critique. If a "writer" produces a largely unoriginal click bait piece, it's fair to call them a bad writer and question their career choice, if a cop singles out one group to enforce the law upon and ignores the rules for others, it's fair to call them a bad cop and call for their firing. You looked up my post count???? Stop stalking me!

Light stalking is still stalking. Will be interesting to see if you stick around for more than a week.

DeffoNotAnAltAccount:
...

Have you even read my post for more than 3 lines? I said, in TL;DR form, that assholes exist pretty much everywhere. As in also, but not limited to, female assholes as an example. Or, as an example, females behaving --------- exactly ------------ like assholes who play video games decryed in this article.

And this is indicative for the problem lying way deeper than in weak, old-ass stereo-types depicted here.

BreakfastMan:
"Opinions like his" is not "his opinion"

His point of view is not unique and his opinion coincides with many others'. I've heard it all before. As supported by the title and theme of the article itself.

BreakfastMan:

Crash Laobi:

BreakfastMan:

I think googling things about a person so you can insult them with it is indeed light stalking, yes. And it seems you did that after you created your account for the specific purpose of posting on this article.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Interesting how now it's been denigrated to "light stalking", lucky I only clicked on the Patreon link and not any of the others, I presume the Cyber Police will go easy on me. Been meaning to create an account here for a while (Only ever watch ZP & Judging By the Cover on this site) just got around to it now. Logged in and this was the first article that came up in on the page feed. However, I suppose everything's a conspiracy for you, so no point explaining. When anyone smears a large group of people with the same brush, they are opening themselves up for robust critique. If a "writer" produces a largely unoriginal click bait piece, it's fair to call them a bad writer and question their career choice, if a cop singles out one group to enforce the law upon and ignores the rules for others, it's fair to call them a bad cop and call for their firing. You looked up my post count???? Stop stalking me!

Light stalking is still stalking. Will be interesting to see if you stick around for more than a week.

I post infrequently in many places, busy enjoying life usually, just happened to post here tonight. As much as I would love to explore what other completely irrational and delusional opinions you hold with you, I am not your therapist and have grown weary of triggering someone who uses a juggalo pic as their avatar. Until next time, while breakfast is important, don't forget lunch, but skip desert, wouldn't want you ending up like poor Mr. Sterling, bet you were in tears when they fired him.

Thaluikhain:
I'm also not sure why we should pretend that Poland is the sole medieval setting and discount many more diverse places.

For 2 reasons:

First is the fact 90% of the complaints about this issue stem from the Witcher series (while the other 10% are the other fantasy settings that are based on part of Europe that reflect the fact that outside of an exceptionally few Arab merchants in port cities there where basically no non-whites outside of the Balkans before the industrial era).

Second is the fact that even the most diverse places in Europe at the time where, outside of the Balkans, over 95% of the local ethnicity and had basically no noteworthy number of non-whites at all. Hell even today France is noteworthy for having only just gone under 90% ethnic French and still being almost entirely white, and it's the diverse one of the whole continent if you ignore the lone power-keg that is Bosnia. And this is after decades of mass immigration (by European standards).

To put it bluntly, only an American could be surprised that something set in an all-white setting would be all-white. American cultural imperialism needs to be stopped.

undeadsuitor:

It's funny. It's apparently easier to put white people in a non-white setting, than the other way around. Why is one direction flexible and the other a hard edge?

I'd like to point out that the first example was done by the Chinese company who did it for marketing reasons (and that the "traveller from the West" has been a character archetype in China ever since they made contact with Rome) since Matt Damon is big in China, while the second is (while very liberal in its depiction of events) based on an actual event with real people whose race was accurately reflected in the movie (which was probably one of the few things they actually got right).

Silvanus:
How can it be a strawman, when it doesn't accuse anybody of anything? How can it be an ad hominem if it doesn't address any specific individuals?

It describes as set of behaviours. If somebody does not engage in those behaviours, they are not the intended subject. That's simply not an ad hominem.

That's not how it works. Fallacies in arguments still exist even if no specific identifiable person is being addressed by them. He is attacking a position, but one that is a caricature of the real position, and also seeking to discredit that position through association. It was the same with the original "Gamers are Dead" pieces. Nothing being described represents an accurate version of any segment of the gaming community and this false portrayal is part of a smear against the people who hold positions opposed to the ones advocated for by the author.

StatusNil:
More than a nice change, I'd say. The only chance to salvage something of positive value out of this sorry fumble. So The Escapist, whoever is in charge, needs to reach out to someone who both understands and actually approves of games, rather than using them as fodder for ideological posturing, to provide a response. Here's one candidate, veteran game developer Troy Leavitt, offering some thoughts:

There are others who could do the job out there too. Hell, many on here could do a job more than worthy of the original piece. Many of the comments in this thread are far more sound in reasoning than the article. So just ask someone for suggestions if you don't know any gamers in this "gaming media" racket.

Huh, it feels wrong to call this piece "original", even in context.

I offered myself to write something, albeit under my pen name.

In less than a day, this thread has spiraled into the kind of chaos I genuinely can't keep track of any more, as all large threads seems to. So I'm going to hit a couple of highlights, I might answer folks if they address me directly, but largely let the discussions already happening here resolve themselves as best they can.

  • I find it fascinating that in creating an article the discusses hostility in the gaming community, I've almost exclusively gotten very hostile responses. No threats, at least that I've seen, but most everyone responding has done so very aggressively, with the apparent intent to make me feel bad or try to convince me to change my behavior by doing the text equivalent of screaming at me. For those saying I'm terribly off-base, you've done a lot of confirming that there is an unfortunate toxicity to the community, and it's kneejerk reaction to being told this is to be toxic.
  • A fair amount of people have told me, as a result of this piece, that my writing work is unwanted and that I'm a bad writer. Yet, in the three years I've been writing almost non-stop, and the nine years since my first professionally edited piece has appeared on this very site, this is the piece people are responding to. This article has more than twice the comments of literally everything I've otherwise written combined. In the past two days, my website has gotten more traffic than it had in the previous two months. If the goal of all the people trying to tear me down is implying I should "Do better work to be better read" or at least write things worth writing about, clearly the actual result is articles people are angry at are better for writers than articles people "want." These past two days have sucked for me, but on paper, my engagement rate has never been better.
  • Even people who have largely agreed with my article have been, in this very thread and elsewhere, using terms like "fight" or even "this war" in regard to the discussions that have come from it. If there's any worthwhile take away for me from having written this, it's that this article may feel like it's old news, but it still has relevance in the way we're discussing games and games' culture right now.
  • And finally, I said something on Twitter that I think summarizes this article better than the people who have read into it that I want to kill all white men or that boobs are morally reprehensible. In fact, were I to want to rewrite this piece, I think I would phrase it as such: "I am not saying all gamers are toxic, but it's easy to find toxicity in gaming. It doesn't have to be this way." As an addendum, I think I'll also add: The best way to ease the toxicity is to be honest about when we see it, and dissuade it where we can.
  • Thanks to everyone who's been chill, conversational, and polite. For those of you who haven't or refuse to, why not?

    TDA WP:

    That's not how it works. Fallacies in arguments still exist even if no specific identifiable person is being addressed by them. He is attacking a position, but one that is a caricature of the real position, and also seeking to discredit that position through association.

    Some fallacies target the proposition; others target the speaker specifically. Ad hominem is one of them. If no speaker is specified, and no insult is levelled at at individual-- if only a behaviour or proposition is described, without a specified originator-- then there is no ad hominem. There might be a different fallacy, but not an ad hominem.

    "Ad hominem" has become a popular buzzphrase in internet argument, with little proper understanding of its use or meaning. It's pure sophistry.

    TDA WP:

    It was the same with the original "Gamers are Dead" pieces. Nothing being described represents an accurate version of any segment of the gaming community and this false portrayal is part of a smear against the people who hold positions opposed to the ones advocated for by the author.

    Really? I've seen the behaviour described numerous times. Very frequently, in fact. It's not representative, and nobody is saying it is, but it exists and has a damaging impact. Hostility and elitism exist within most enthusiast spheres; it's bizarre that a further segment would choose to be quite so defensive, or to pretend it does not exist.

    And, no, there is simply no smear against "the people who hold positions opposed to the ones advocated for by the author". The author specifies exactly the behaviours he is talking about, and does not extend the criticism to anybody else by definition. That's bollocks; taking offence where it's frankly obvious that none can rationally be taken.

    NewClassic:
    In less than a day, this thread has spiraled into the kind of chaos I genuinely can't keep track of any more, as all large threads seems to. So I'm going to hit a couple of highlights, I might answer folks if they address me directly, but largely let the discussions already happening here resolve themselves as best they can.

  • I find it fascinating that in creating an article the discusses hostility in the gaming community, I've almost exclusively gotten very hostile responses. No threats, at least that I've seen, but most everyone responding has done so very aggressively, with the apparent intent to make me feel bad or try to convince me to change my behavior by doing the text equivalent of screaming at me. For those saying I'm terribly off-base, you've done a lot of confirming that there is an unfortunate toxicity to the community, and it's kneejerk reaction to being told this is to be toxic.
  • A fair amount of people have told me, as a result of this piece, that my writing work is unwanted and that I'm a bad writer. Yet, in the three years I've been writing almost non-stop, and the nine years since my first professionally edited piece has appeared on this very site, this is the piece people are responding to. This article has more than twice the comments of literally everything I've otherwise written combined. In the past two days, my website has gotten more traffic than it had in the previous two months. If the goal of all the people trying to tear me down is implying I should "Do better work to be better read" or at least write things worth writing about, clearly the actual result is articles people are angry at are better for writers than articles people "want." These past two days have sucked for me, but on paper, my engagement rate has never been better.
  • Even people who have largely agreed with my article have been, in this very thread and elsewhere, using terms like "fight" or even "this war" in regard to the discussions that have come from it. If there's any worthwhile take away for me from having written this, it's that this article may feel like it's old news, but it still has relevance in the way we're discussing games and games' culture right now.
  • And finally, I said something on Twitter that I think summarizes this article better than the people who have read into it that I want to kill all white men or that boobs are morally reprehensible. In fact, were I to want to rewrite this piece, I think I would phrase it as such: "I am not saying all gamers are toxic, but it's easy to find toxicity in gaming. It doesn't have to be this way." As an addendum, I think I'll also add: The best way to ease the toxicity is to be honest about when we see it, and dissuade it where we can.
  • Thanks to everyone who's been chill, conversational, and polite. For those of you who haven't or refuse to, why not?

    Oh hey look, a fresh strawman

    Crash Laobi:

    BreakfastMan:

    Crash Laobi:

    We'll have to agree to disagree. Interesting how now it's been denigrated to "light stalking", lucky I only clicked on the Patreon link and not any of the others, I presume the Cyber Police will go easy on me. Been meaning to create an account here for a while (Only ever watch ZP & Judging By the Cover on this site) just got around to it now. Logged in and this was the first article that came up in on the page feed. However, I suppose everything's a conspiracy for you, so no point explaining. When anyone smears a large group of people with the same brush, they are opening themselves up for robust critique. If a "writer" produces a largely unoriginal click bait piece, it's fair to call them a bad writer and question their career choice, if a cop singles out one group to enforce the law upon and ignores the rules for others, it's fair to call them a bad cop and call for their firing. You looked up my post count???? Stop stalking me!

    Light stalking is still stalking. Will be interesting to see if you stick around for more than a week.

    I post infrequently in many places, busy enjoying life usually, just happened to post here tonight. As much as I would love to explore what other completely irrational and delusional opinions you hold with you, I am not your therapist and have grown weary of triggering someone who uses a juggalo pic as their avatar. Until next time, while breakfast is important, don't forget lunch, but skip desert, wouldn't want you ending up like poor Mr. Sterling, bet you were in tears when they fired him.

    Ah, the ol' "I have a life, I don't have time for your bullshit!" defense. Absolutely convinces everyone all the time.

    Dalsyne:

    BreakfastMan:
    "Opinions like his" is not "his opinion"

    His point of view is not unique and his opinion coincides with many others'. I've heard it all before. As supported by the title and theme of the article itself.

    That doesn't mean you shouldn't still engage critically with it. No one's opinion is 100% the same as everyone else's, even if they are functionally similar.

    NewClassic:
    In less than a day, this thread has spiraled into the kind of chaos I genuinely can't keep track of any more, as all large threads seems to. So I'm going to hit a couple of highlights, I might answer folks if they address me directly, but largely let the discussions already happening here resolve themselves as best they can.

  • I find it fascinating that in creating an article the discusses hostility in the gaming community, I've almost exclusively gotten very hostile responses. No threats, at least that I've seen, but most everyone responding has done so very aggressively, with the apparent intent to make me feel bad or try to convince me to change my behavior by doing the text equivalent of screaming at me. For those saying I'm terribly off-base, you've done a lot of confirming that there is an unfortunate toxicity to the community, and it's kneejerk reaction to being told this is to be toxic.
  • A fair amount of people have told me, as a result of this piece, that my writing work is unwanted and that I'm a bad writer. Yet, in the three years I've been writing almost non-stop, and the nine years since my first professionally edited piece has appeared on this very site, this is the piece people are responding to. This article has more than twice the comments of literally everything I've otherwise written combined. In the past two days, my website has gotten more traffic than it had in the previous two months. If the goal of all the people trying to tear me down is implying I should "Do better work to be better read" or at least write things worth writing about, clearly the actual result is articles people are angry at are better for writers than articles people "want." These past two days have sucked for me, but on paper, my engagement rate has never been better.
  • Even people who have largely agreed with my article have been, in this very thread and elsewhere, using terms like "fight" or even "this war" in regard to the discussions that have come from it. If there's any worthwhile take away for me from having written this, it's that this article may feel like it's old news, but it still has relevance in the way we're discussing games and games' culture right now.
  • And finally, I said something on Twitter that I think summarizes this article better than the people who have read into it that I want to kill all white men or that boobs are morally reprehensible. In fact, were I to want to rewrite this piece, I think I would phrase it as such: "I am not saying all gamers are toxic, but it's easy to find toxicity in gaming. It doesn't have to be this way." As an addendum, I think I'll also add: The best way to ease the toxicity is to be honest about when we see it, and dissuade it where we can.
  • Thanks to everyone who's been chill, conversational, and polite. For those of you who haven't or refuse to, why not?

    So it hasn't crossed your mind that people might find you toxic?

    Also, sure, in the short term you get clicks, in the long term people get sick of you really quickly and you cease to have a career. I wouldn't learn the wrong lessons from this if I were you. Which is not to support the sort of dickery another user posted.

    Surely you understand how weak a cylical argument of "the comments to my article prove my article right". Maybe your article is just really really bad? Seems to be what you are mostly being told. People don't have much reason to lie to you.

    It's a bad article, you make the same bad arguments that have been made a 1000 times, give the same misrepresentations of those articles that we've seen from sycophants on the Forums tons of times and quite frankly, you've also clearly misjudged you audience, unless this really is just a cynical grab for clicks, in which case, bravo. Tell me how that's been working out for Cracked lately.

    And since you've mentioned that you'd want to answer more direct responses, I nsk, under what reasoning is all criticism valid? Because that, as a concept, is utterly laughible to me as presented.

    Blazing Hero:
    Now this article is a desperate attempt to drive outrage clicks and traffic back to the site. Sound about right?

    That or nobody gives a damn anymore about the consequences of what is posted so they'll just post whatever they want. I mean, what is the worst that could happen, they boycott the site and stop reading the weekly articles? Sorry, wait, weekly *article.* Honestly I figure its the latter since the owner's of the site have clearly given up and even if this did attract a lot of attention to the site there would be no retention rate since there is no content to keep anybody here.

    Naldan:
    I said, in TL;DR form, that assholes exist pretty much everywhere.

    Oh no, people are douchebags everywhere. Better call it in law enforcement. You had a good run but since people are still gonna commit crimes despite your work there just isn't any point to your existence.

    As in also, but not limited to, female assholes as an example. Or, as an example, females behaving --------- exactly ------------ like assholes who play video games decryed in this article.

    Last year there was a woman who commited a mass shooting in the United States. The existence of her actions don't override the fact that mass shootings are overwhelmingly[1] committed by men and teenage boys. Its not generalization to say "mass shootings are typically committed by men", its a fact.

    Also I didn't make any statements about the nature of the toxicity, just pointing out the toxicity in general. I don't quite think that we even could create a solution that accounts for the victims and how often they're targets. Doesn't mean we can't create a method that helps deal with the folks creating that toxicity.

    Just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean that there isn't a solution.

    And this is indicative for the problem lying way deeper than in weak, old-ass stereo-types depicted here.

    The fact that people are so casual about the fact that "die of AIDS you faggot!" is a typical thing to hear in an online game but are offended at the suggestion of changes to how online interactions are handed shows that there are indeed problems deeper than just a bunch of CoD squeakers. Now if you don't want to do anything about it then don't do anything about it but don't get offended when somebody tries to deal with a problem that no reasonable person would say is not a problem.

    You know gaming culture is bizarre because it'll throw a fit over, say, Nintendo getting rid of a mini-game where you get to rub the chest of a thirteen year old girl when localizing a game, something that obviously has a lot of potential to piss off media watchdog groups that could have long-lasting legal consequences for videogaming in the entire region if it went to court. People will say that they, as customers, are being cheated by not getting a legally questionable mini-game when people getting the Japanese version of the game are. These same will will then not expect that online interactions in a multiplayer game they paid $60 for that uses an online subscription they pay $6 a month for to have anything that reasonably controls the quality of online interactions. People are cheated for not getting a mini-game that could not unreasonably be considered pedophilic in the court of law but expect little if anything from the people hosting a multiplayer game to deter others from screaming obscenities and threats in their ear for an entire match. Either you like the toxicity or you're just not willing to stand up for yourself to be treated with a baseline of respect due to a paying customer.

    [1] As in literally 99% of mass shootings.

    Fischgopf:

    So it hasn't crossed your mind that people might find you toxic?

    On the basis of this article? It shouldn't have crossed anyone's mind, because it's bloody nonsense. "Toxic" is term devalued by its application to anything people find disagreeable.

    In fact, it's pretty damn horrible to make such a severe and hurtful accusation on such a flimsy basis.

    Fischgopf:
    So it hasn't crossed your mind that people might find you toxic?

    Nope, I'm very sure that's the case. However, I don't think these two things correlate. People may find my opinions objectionable, and apparently actionable, but that doesn't make me as a person toxic. The things I do with my opinions are part of an ongoing discussion.

    I think an important thing to recognize is that no one looks at articles like these, says "That's right, gamers are monsters. Let's murder them." or "Let's fire them." or anything like that. In terms of long-term damage, articles like these have a fantastically minimal shelf life in popular culture, and are often forgotten within months. Whatever toxicity things like this bring have a short tail, but the points being made are important to talk about. Ditto for articles like Dear Internet whose purposes aren't to change public opinion by themselves, but get individuals to change behaviors that inform how public opinion forms in the first place.

    Also, sure, in the short term you get clicks, in the long term people get sick of you really quickly and you cease to have a career. I wouldn't learn the wrong lessons from this if I were you. Which is not to support the sort of dickery another user posted.

    See, I think you and I are drawing different lessons from this. People hadn't heard of me, no one had any idea who I was. Most of them still don't, though that doesn't stop them from finding me on Twitter to tell me who I am. However, the thing I was remarking on is that people say they want something, but when something is provided to them, they support it systemically while vocally arguing against it.

    This isn't the first article I've written in this vein, nor will it likely be the last. That said, I've written about 125 other articles on completely different topics. I will continue to discuss all kinds of stuff, but the idea that this one article will bury me because a bunch of people saw it specifically because it was anger-shared seems like it misunderstands what my take away was. I don't think this almost any of this has been good, but on paper, it looks like it has.

    EDIT - To make it more clear what I'm driving at here, the lesson I intended to be taken from this is that people can support things in ways they don't intend to. I hold no illusions that this article is "good" for me. I'm just hoping it's good for gaming.

    Surely you understand how weak a cylical argument of "the comments to my article prove my article right". Maybe your article is just really really bad? Seems to be what you are mostly being told. People don't have much reason to lie to you.

    Fine, I welcome the discussion. In fact, I've even engaged with some of it earlier in the comments.

    This article asserts "These behaviors are bad for gaming," and the response has been "You as a person are bad." I don't suspect they are lying, I do genuinely believe they don't like me based on who they think I am, but I don't think they're engaging the article in good faith. I think they're engaging the person they think I am in bad faith.

    It's a bad article, you make the same bad arguments that have been made a 1000 times, give the same misrepresentations of those articles that we've seen from sycophants on the Forums tons of times and quite frankly, you've also clearly misjudged you audience, unless this really is just a cynical grab for clicks, in which case, bravo. Tell me how that's been working out for Cracked lately.

    I really don't think I've misrepresented videogames or the community. The article talks about how there is an image of the "sort of person who plays games" that exists in wider collective consciousness, and there are traits of that image which are harmful. These traits are assumed to be accurate, and watching things like Twitch streams and playing games online will indeed confirm insults are tinted with racial slurs or sexist commentary. So it's not unnatural for people to conclude that gamers are indeed aggressive as well as racist or sexist.

    This article only mentions "gamers" as the label, and asks that people who play games need to resist continuing to appear overly aggressive or sexist and racist if they want the image attached to that label to go away.

    Whenever Big Bang Theory stops being the most watched non-football show on American television, I'll believe it's worked. Until that time, it's clear that people still have harmful opinions about gamers. And the people genuinely give gaming the benefit of the doubt and wade into the shallow end do still appear on places like Reddit with horror stories of bad, racist, or sexist treatment that made them quit and not want to try again.

    That is a problem. This article says as much. The comments that have followed it have implied that it wasn't off-base. Because countless people have called me names, told me to quit, and that I'm not wanted here. That's toxic, whether you genuinely believe I've earned it or not.

    Toxicity doesn't become nontoxic just because you think I deserve it.

    And since you've mentioned that you'd want to answer more direct responses, I nsk, under what reasoning is all criticism valid? Because that, as a concept, is utterly laughible to me as presented.

    I'll phrase it a different way.

    I bet if you polled everyone in these comments section as to what each passage of my article meant, they would probably have slightly different answers. The little differences all add up to a surprising amount of nuance. Maybe my example of Lollipop Chainsaw struck someone as misunderstanding the game. For someone else, Bayonetta was a stupid choice because Bayonetta herself was a female-designed power fantasy for women. Maybe it was a word choice that someone quibbled with and it ruined the whole argument. Maybe someone had read something I had said here, but better, and had a critical nuance I lacked.

    No matter what intention or style I went into this article with, even if I feel like everyone who's argued with me misunderstands me, their opinions and perspectives are valid. The things that inform why they feel that way are real, at minimum to them, and they're real for a reason. Those criticisms all serve a purpose, even if that purpose is of no use to me. Even if it's of no purpose to you. It's all valid, because they aren't wrong to feel a certain way. How they got there is still valid and potentially valuable.

    Any of the interactions that followed reading my criticism, and presenting me with counterpoints could have changed my opinion, or altered the way I consider thinking about this topic in the future. That potential, and the fact that people have often good reasons for coming to the conclusions they do, means that there is validity in those conclusions. That's what I mean when I say all criticism is valid.

    What they do with those opinions is different. If someone decides to, say, tell me to "Go home, fuckhead." then obviously they aren't doing anything valuable with their criticism, but that belief is still valid to the fifteen or so people who found me on Twitter shortly after to belittle me.

    NewClassic:

    What they do with those opinions is different. If someone decides to, say, tell me to "Go home, fuckhead." then obviously they aren't doing anything valuable with their criticism, but that belief is still valid to the fifteen or so people who found me on Twitter shortly after to belittle me.

    Our little Nuke getting the attention of the Ant-man himself? Looks like someone is moving up in the world!

    DeffoNotAnAltAccount:
    ...

    Mass shootings is something I hear about mostly from the US. Care to make another example? ... Are mass shootings not simply a US thing?

    Also, what's the ratio of gun-owners gender-wise? The probability could be higher for a gender when they have more often guns than other genders.

    And it's funny to me that because I point out that there are a lot of assholes out there, that this number is increasing, that this is the problem caused by another source instead of this cop out makes (people like) you automatically incredibly defensive while setting up straw men left and right.

    I never said that this is not a problem. I said that the author and the developers are too sensitive, the developer cited not even mentioning screaming kiddies in matches that apparently get you real good and easily.

    Let me spell it out, though: You won't change this by, and I say it the last time, clinging to old stereo-types that rarely are the case anymore, insulting everyone that isn't on your side and spew arrogance like there is no tomorrow, and on top of that by being simply wrong and ignoring the fact that the causes lay elsewhere then with the stereotypical masculinity.

    And only because I point this out it doesn't mean that I don't care. Your points, or the single claim you essentially make, is flawed. That's it. Only because you in your bubble only see women act decently doesn't make it more true in the grander scheme of things known as reality. Society as a whole in every spectrum slowly goes down the shitter, less liberal, ruthless, radical. Humanism, liberalism and enlightenment slowly get abolished and people like you, who divert attention to false flags and giving liberalism the bad rep it has are one of the key problems when acting like this. It's like if the last 300 years didn't exist.

     Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

    Reply to Thread

    Log in or Register to Comment
    Have an account? Login below:
    With Facebook:Login With Facebook
    or
    Username:  
    Password:  
      
    Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
    Register With Facebook
    Register With Facebook
    or
    Register for a free account here