A Civil Discussion with Garwulf on Gamergate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Gethsemani:

StatusNil:
Yeah, the posh bigots in that stupid comic were indeed irrationally hating on the random sea creature in the privilege of their lordly mansion. But here's the thing: the Internet, whatever it may be, is emphatically not your mansion. It's one of the most mindboggling, unbelievable things I've ever encountered that so many people who use services like Twitter are acting as if they have no real understanding of what the damn thing does as its Unique Selling Point, despite the theory not being particularly difficult to grasp in principle.

In the comic the Lady drops the comment while in a vehicle in the streets. The equivalence to Twitter is pretty apt, the streets are common areas, but the vehicle itself is shared by only the Lady and the Gentleman. The Sea Lion appears from nearby, we presume, much like someone following the popular feed or looking for certain keywords on Twitter. The Sea Lion initiates conversation, as is its' right in a free society. This far, the third box, I don't think anyone would say the Sea Lion is being obnoxious or out of place, it has, after all, heard someone disparage its' species.

The obnoxious part starts in box four, where the Sea Lion still accosts the Lady during dinner and intensifies in box five and six, where it supposedly stays the night in the Lady's bedroom while demanding a conversation takes place and then continues to demand such during breakfast.

The problem with the Sea Lion is that it demands to have a conversation with someone who obviously does not want to and insists on the conversation taking place, long after the other party made it clear they are not interested. This bears a striking similarity to how many GamerGaters forcefully inserted themselves into conversations on Twitter, Facebook and other social media and then acted as victims of oppression (or as if their detractors were dishonest) when the people initially in the conversations made it plain that they were only venting among friends or people of similar mind. Just look at how Runic Knight went at Phasmal in this very thread to see Sea Lioning in action, even after Phasmal made it clear that she had no interest in a prolonged discussion with Runic.

Is the Sea Lion or the Lady in the wrong? Are both? Depends on your perspective obviously, but to suggest that the comic didn't hit the mark in terms of how GamerGaters behaved (and still do, as Runic demonstrated) is fallacious.

Comment made in public getting reply is ok. Chasing someone into private is not.

Gamergaters replying to comments made in public is not, even if they are replying to you.

You need kinda to pick one.

Reread what you just said here. Lets ignore that with gamergate it was often replying to open accusations and demonization of people even. Lets just concentrate on the fact that it is replies to statements people are making to the rest of the world. As I mentioned before, the comparison to the comic fails when you realize all those people replying are replying to publicly made comments, ones that keep occurring and being repeated in public, while still in the public spaces they are being made in in the first place. This is opposed to chasing them into their homes. Facebook, twitter, the discussion boards, they are all public. Your attempts to paint gamergates and my replies the same as that fails on two accounts. First is theirs and other poster's intentional and continued engaging of people trying to get the last word. When you reply to someone, address some of what they said, then go "but I don't want to talk about this anymore" that doesn't mean you don't want to talk, that means you want them to shut up after you said what you wanted to say. If you didn't reply at all, the conversation dies after all, so replying and trying to put on airs of superiority in order to try to claim an end of the discussion, especially after starting it with generalities, or in the case of gamergate, often dishonest misrepresentations, accusations and demonizations, is farcical. This isn't gradeschool, you can't complain just because the other person didn't respect your "no backsies" rule after making claims they are part of a harassment campaign and they replied to correct the lie. That is exactly what I called it before, a silencing and shaming attempt. The second is what I already stated, that it isn't a private area being invaded, it is a public one, with comments intentionally made to reach the public, now crying fowl because the public that heard it wants to reply in kind. That goes strongly back to the gamergate topic itself, as rather than discuss the topic, many opponents to gamergate instead used such entitlement in order to kill discussion by deflection and distraction.

You know what, let me be uncharictaristically concise on this one.

Sealioning definition. "How dare you reply to me, I'm not talking to you, I am talking about you."

Ah, sorry. this was suppose to be an edit to the previous post, not its own. My bad. Here, I'll make use of this space for my reply to wrex at least.

Wrex Brogan:

runic knight:

I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt that someone replying does so to engage another person and not just to hear their own words. What should I assume about someone replying to my posts in a forum built around discussion if not that they want to engage in a conversation.

Then the 'replying to me in an attempt to shame me' was a typo, yeah?

Hmm? I think so? Not quite sure what you are meaning here. All I think replying to me is, is an attempt to, well, talk with me. That itself isn't trying to shame someone.

...I didn't ignore it. I just said I didn't care. VERY big difference. One of my major issues with Gamergate (lots of those, honestly) was the idea of 'with us or against us' - by not signing up with Gamergate, you were suddenly pro-Games Media. Which is a bald-face lie, I've been shit-talking them for years before GG got the brass-balls to give it a go.
My issues with the antis is an entirely separate thread all-together.

You mean like how if you didn't instantly hate on gamergate, you were often thrown into the pit with the rest of them? Hell, probably the only reason it got any big name youtubers like Boogie or Biscuit into it was because by not simply nodding along with the story that gamergate was the devil incarnate, many were treated like shit and called gamergate anyways.

That is not to say I don't believe you. I know a lot of people were unhappy with the situation, and the bunker mentality did grow quickly, especially in light of reveals confirming suspected collusion making it harder to trust anyone claiming they were coming into the story neutrally. However there is a big difference between the "with us or against us" mentality that was rampant in those opposed to gamergate and the attitude gamergate in general had towards those who were not supportive of them. It ties into the points I raised before, that of discussion itself. In short, while I don't disagree that you would have gamergaters calling people shills for not calling out the media's blatant dishonesty in portraying the controversy, you could still talk with those people, argue with them, and even if colorful, be able to actually make a case. People in gamergate were still trying to reach out and have conversations time and again and that includes even leading voices. While the total whole is hard to tell if they sided more for encouraging discussion, or just arguing for the sake of it, that pendulum at least existed and a decent portion even if not the entirety of it certainly tried to talk things through. I saw nothing like that from those opposed to gamergate, their leading voices unanimous in their opinion about anyone not condemning the enemy, and countless examples of attempts to kill any and all efforts to mediate.

But perhaps that is simply my own limited experience talking. Refresh my mind, when were people like Angry Joe, our own Yahtzee, or other loud and well-respected voices who chose to remain neutral strung up by gamergate for being against them? I don't mean people like Bob Chipman or Jim Sterling who claimed neutrality while being anything but in action and behavior, I mean people who legitimately were trying to keep the peace and not be dragged in. I don't recall that occurring. I do recall a number of people claiming to be neutral while protesting the complaints about journalism with deflections and regurgitating the same hateful rhetoric and dishonest claims against gamergate as those unapologetically opposed to it. Actually the notion of "well there are problems but you can't solve them by being a hate mob harassment campaign" seemed to be an interesting one early on. Attempts to start new hashtags to have that discussion either being resoundingly demonized as just being more gamergate (into the pit with you), or hilariously backed by the people in the media currently trying to cover their asses by inplying or outright saying that gamergate was a harassment campaign, thereby undermining the intentions of such efforts and instead resembling more an attempt to divide than to actually address concerns. Efforts to start a new hashtag and discussion died the first time it occurred, as the fledgling gamergate hashtag was instantly demonized as the "quinspiracy" one before it was. Not surprised people didn't trust the honest intentions of tags like #journalismethics or #gameethics, especially when the cries for such a discussion were met with mocking retorts and accusations that they were only codewords. Attempted meme's of "its really about ethics in games journalism" showcase a great reason why such things were distrusted.

And in defense of the sealion term (a... strange sentence), it was a term coined far later in the life of GG when things got a little... out of hand. Battle lines had been drawn, bunkers set in and nobody was interested in budging anytime soon, with anyone on the anti side seeking civil discussion receiving the same treatment as Boogie and TB did. As said, I don't know what circles of GG you ran with (and as you've alluded too repeatedly, the movement certainly fractured an awful lot) but from personal experience it was a... painfully accurate term for many a fellow I encountered. A misapplied term (like many in the dumpsterfire, *cough* SJW *cough*), certainly, but one coined from what I could see had some very real interactions behind it.

Alright, I will give you this one. While I hate the term for what it became, and utterly loath it for the underlying intention to stiffle discussion outright that it was used for, I will grant that the nature of the term to apply to people coming out of the woodwork in response to things said would be more accurate when applied to later in the GG lifecycle. After the initial burst of articles condemning people and gamergate itself (shortly after the initial gamers are dead backlash), a counterpoint to the wave of articles all saying the same misrepresentation was people popping into comment sections and other places to call it out. Does go hand in hand with things like this after all.

that said, because of the nature of the replies being to very publicly made articles and statements, I still see the use of the term as trying to shame people who were being talked about for daring to respond.

...I feel we're coming at this from two completely opposite kinds of experience, since, as said, it certainly did still apply to an uncomfortably large number of people barking on the Gamergate side from my experience. And, as said again, there is still a limit to what you do, even when within a public space - even when it comes to internet forums. You may have a right to respond to publicly made comments, but a right does not make the response civil or reasonable. Certainly used as a silencing tactic, that we can agree on (though, what wasn't by the end of the day - Gamergate had just as many as their opposition), but from many of the responses I saw to these public posts, not something that was flung out into a vacuum. A LOT of GGers had a lot of pent-up hostility towards their opposition, which they took out a lot onto these public posts and responses - either through harassment and insults (i.e. 'SJW') or through more... verbose methods (i.e. Sealioning; there's a lot of very lengthy and polite-sounding ways you can tell someone to go fuck themselves), which did a lot to harm any attempts to hold civil discussion anyway, since you never knew if your most innocuous of posts was going to suddenly get dogpiled by a bunch of people spitting curses or throwing essays at you. Then throw in all the non-public responses to all these public messages and, well...

Still, annoying that it was abused so often - I already lost SJW to this stupid dumpsterfire, I didn't want to lose another useful short-hand term for the internet. It's hard enough to find ones that are succinct and sound good as is, it doesn't help that jackasses looking for cheap weaponry start throwing around willy-nilly.

You are right, the use of labels and intellectual shorthands was common on both sides. It was something I actively tried to fight multiple times, and I ran across my own share of people calling me shill and claiming I was tone-policing and so on. In a forums that no longer exists anymore, I lost a lot of respect for one individual for so quickly devolving into that over a dispute about boycotting. And as the fight went on and the bunker mentality set in, they became more frequently used. Twitter I think made it far worse, as you had to internet shorthand your own shorthands, resulting in, well, the very reasons I described my preference for longform. Too easy to misunderstand, too easy to intentionally misrepresent, and too hard to properly sum up a massively complicated web of events and ideas into about 150+ characters.

Still, I think we are making some headway here in understanding one another, even if not agreeing. And that is something valuable I think.

Smithnikov:

gyrobot:

When Japan can show that they don't need to pander to SJWs and do whatever they like yet it seems like anyone who has balls in the US Game Dev industry is an extinct breed, it is no surprise that we take it as a form of dogma.

Are you seriously saying that JP games never have women in military or combat roles? I hope not. I REALLY hope not.

JP games have done things with female antagonists that would make GamerGate rage like wolverines if that's so.

I can't tell what gyrobot meant as having balls. Did he mean not minding negative feedback? I'd dare to think that feedback from those who the gaming industry consider their mainstream audience would had a more negative impact than from the so called SJWs. Which one buys more games in the first place?

runic knight:
You know what, let me be uncharictaristically concise on this one.

Sealioning definition. "How dare you reply to me, I'm not talking to you, I am talking about you."

Honestly considering the average argument with a gamergate chat bot takes six days and seven nights of going around in circles, I don't blame people for wanting to avoid that.

CaitSeith:

Smithnikov:

gyrobot:

When Japan can show that they don't need to pander to SJWs and do whatever they like yet it seems like anyone who has balls in the US Game Dev industry is an extinct breed, it is no surprise that we take it as a form of dogma.

Are you seriously saying that JP games never have women in military or combat roles? I hope not. I REALLY hope not.

JP games have done things with female antagonists that would make GamerGate rage like wolverines if that's so.

I can't tell what gyrobot meant as having balls. Did he mean not minding negative feedback? I'd dare to think that feedback from those who the gaming industry consider their mainstream audience would had a more negative impact than from the so called SJWs. Which one buys more games in the first place?

Exactly. The reason why Japanese Game Devs hasnt drawn the ire of the mainstream majority of people who actually buys games is exactly because they do what they want. Not listen to someone who isnt a consumer but still post their unpopulars opinion and demands you follow them.

gyrobot:

CaitSeith:

Smithnikov:

Are you seriously saying that JP games never have women in military or combat roles? I hope not. I REALLY hope not.

JP games have done things with female antagonists that would make GamerGate rage like wolverines if that's so.

I can't tell what gyrobot meant as having balls. Did he mean not minding negative feedback? I'd dare to think that feedback from those who the gaming industry consider their mainstream audience would had a more negative impact than from the so called SJWs. Which one buys more games in the first place?

Exactly. The reason why Japanese Game Devs hasnt drawn the ire of the mainstream majority of people who actually buys games is exactly because they do what they want. Not listen to someone who isnt a consumer but still post their unpopulars opinion and demands you follow them.

Then the Devs with the bigger balls would be the ones who don't mind negative feedback from the mainstream majority and do what they want, even if it reduce sales.

And unfortunately I cant think of one from the US who has enough pull in the industry who basically said "No, we are not going to what you critics want, no we are not gonna create less attractive female characters and will make chicks with balloon tits and dressed provacatively and assume sexual poses and no we wont inject anything in demand for diversity.". Sure you have a lot of nobody devs telling the pro social critics they aint bending the knee but the big devs in the West like Bioware, Obsidian, Gearbox, nayghty dog and EA has decided to cater to the nonbuyers directly.

gyrobot:
And unfortunately I cant think of one from the US who has enough pull in the industry who basically said "No, we are not going to what you critics want, no we are not gonna create less attractive female characters and will make chicks with balloon tits and dressed provacatively and assume sexual poses and no we wont inject anything in demand for diversity.". Sure you have a lot of nobody devs telling the pro social critics they aint bending the knee but the big devs in the West like Bioware, Obsidian, Gearbox, nayghty dog and EA has decided to cater to the nonbuyers directly.

And yet, the games from those big publishers sell as hotcakes to the mainstream audience. That's not exactly what I call negative reaction from the mainstream audience.

gyrobot:
but the big devs in the West like Bioware, Obsidian, Gearbox, nayghty dog and EA has decided to cater to the nonbuyers directly.

...I very much doubt this to be true. Can you give me actual specific examples from each of the listed developers of them catering directly to "nonbuyers?" That makes no economic sense at all: and I can't think of any time that this has actually happened.

gyrobot:
And unfortunately I cant think of one from the US who has enough pull in the industry who basically said "No, we are not going to what you critics want, no we are not gonna create less attractive female characters and will make chicks with balloon tits and dressed provacatively and assume sexual poses and no we wont inject anything in demand for diversity.". Sure you have a lot of nobody devs telling the pro social critics they aint bending the knee but the big devs in the West like Bioware, Obsidian, Gearbox, nayghty dog and EA has decided to cater to the nonbuyers directly.

Except that Bioware, Obsidian, Gearbox and Naughty Dog literally changed nothing. They always had diverse casts in games?

I mean, those companies have been pretty level with their diversity for awhile now...but then again GG has always had a problem seeing the trees for the forest, or was it the other way around..

runic knight:
Comment made in public getting reply is ok. Chasing someone into private is not.

Gamergaters replying to comments made in public is not, even if they are replying to you.

You need kinda to pick one.

Neither is what I said. What I said is that you have the right to reply, but you don't have the right to demand someone engage with you. If they refuse conversation or ask you to leave them alone, the decent thing is to do so, no matter what your persuasion is.

Gethsemani:

runic knight:
Comment made in public getting reply is ok. Chasing someone into private is not.

Gamergaters replying to comments made in public is not, even if they are replying to you.

You need kinda to pick one.

Neither is what I said. What I said is that you have the right to reply, but you don't have the right to demand someone engage with you. If they refuse conversation or ask you to leave them alone, the decent thing is to do so, no matter what your persuasion is.

Wouldn't the decent thing to do be not talking about someone publicly in such a fashion in the first place, thereby not enticing them to reply to correct slander and lies about them? That's the flaw, as publicly making statements that aren't very nice in the first place, sort of kneecaps the complaints that the person reply isn't being nice in not respecting your desire to not defend your not-very-nice-but-incredibly-incorrect statements.

If you want to talk about it privately, why do it publicly in the first place?

runic knight:
Wouldn't the decent thing to do be not talking about someone publicly in such a fashion in the first place, thereby not enticing them to reply to correct slander and lies about them? That's the flaw, as publicly making statements that aren't very nice in the first place, sort of kneecaps the complaints that the person reply isn't being nice in not respecting your desire to not defend your not-very-nice-but-incredibly-incorrect statements.

If you want to talk about it privately, why do it publicly in the first place?

Except, why should you care what some stranger on the internet thinks about GamerGate? It is not like GG only inserted itself into the most vitriolic discussions about it, you guys literally did it whenever anyone brought it up. Someone could say something like "I don't think GG have a point" and there'd be a bunch of Gaters there, ready to explain, with much insistence, why GG does have a point.

I agree with the idea that one should not be making statements that aren't very nice in the first place, but that was not was GG was going after, you went after anyone not agreeing with you. It is also extremely hypocritical of GG to say that others aren't being nice to them, considering their treatment of Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn and a bunch of other people that GG didn't like. Rocks, glasshouses and all that.

Gethsemani:

Except, why should you care what some stranger on the internet thinks about GamerGate? It is not like GG only inserted itself into the most vitriolic discussions about it, you guys literally did it whenever anyone brought it up. Someone could say something like "I don't think GG have a point" and there'd be a bunch of Gaters there, ready to explain, with much insistence, why GG does have a point.

I agree with the idea that one should not be making statements that aren't very nice in the first place, but that was not was GG was going after, you went after anyone not agreeing with you. It is also extremely hypocritical of GG to say that others aren't being nice to them, considering their treatment of Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn and a bunch of other people that GG didn't like. Rocks, glasshouses and all that.

Runic Knight and who guys "literally" did what now? It's a grass roots protest, people individually react to what they see without a Central Committee giving them their marching orders. Which, as I understand it, was generally people re-broadcasting mis- and disinformation claiming that anyone who had a problem with the press was part of a "misogynist hate group". Surely it's a serious enough accusation to warrant a denial, instead of silence that could be construed as tacit assent? Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's not Fake News being spread.

And it's indeed Fake News to claim that there is a "coordinated harassment movement" called "Gamergate" that is behind whatever inappropriate treatment the political figures you mentioned have received. Public campaigners are obviously subject to public criticism in an open society, and I myself have on occasion engaged in such criticism on these very forums. But there is a firm line between criticism and sending someone threats of violence (a line Ms. Sarkeesian herself has attempted to blur repeatedly, not least by appearing at the UN to state that questioning the truth of her pronouncements qualifies as "harassment" to be combated), whatever the actual extent of the latter these individuals have been subjected to. It appears you're being deliberately unclear on which exactly of these treatments you are attributing to this "GG" entity that you believe Runic Knight is somehow responsible for.

If you are insinuating that it's the threats, perhaps you need a reminder that an extended FBI investigation doesn't seem to have uncovered any traces of such "GG" coordination of threats as is routinely alleged by media mythographers, with the closest example being that several of the people investigated frequented "the Something Awful website" (hardly a "GG" staging ground, more associated with Quinn's social circle). Also, there was some teenager who made "40-50" harassing phone calls to one of the complainants. So, it appears to have been largely a case of harassment by the exact kind of third-party trolls legitimate protesters always suggested it must be, with the teenager perhaps being a sad example of copycat behavior of a widely (mis)reported phenomenon.

Uh, guys, about Japanese developers having balls for making big boobs, it's not what you imagine.

First of all, for many smaller Japanese developers, the Japanese market is their prime market. Their first and foremost goal is making a game that sells in Japan, anything that sells outside of it is just a bonus. On top of that, many of these smaller developers aim specifically for otaku markets and they do keep up with current trends. All those cute girls with bouncy boobs aren't just there because the dev team happened to like them, they're there because cute girls are an easy way to sell copies. Sex sells in Japan, to the point were some developers add sex scenes in fear of their game not selling otherwise. Popular franchises like Fate/Stay Night started out as eroge. In Japan, having balls mean releasing an original title that's not in some way about sexy cute girls.

Also, Japanese developers do listen to female players. For instance, the Tales series always makes sure to include plenty of cute guys. Sometimes is goes beyond that. Has anyone seen the bonus alternative ending of Tales of Xillia 2? basically, it's a hot springs ending. On the female side you don't see much more than bare shoulders. The male side however is, eh, rather steamy in features someone pulling something that NOT a big zipper. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

As for female characters, they tend to be of varieties female games find cute/cool as well. One big difference is that showing a lot of skin is something many Japanese girls consider cute, partly because it's exotic and not something they think they can/should do. If you look at actual Japanese fashion, girls and women tend to wear a lot of fabric. No low necklines, lots of layers. Showing as much skin as the average female game character in reallife is considered slutty. Not to mention that sexual harassment is a big issue in Japan. To take an example from an otaku corner of the country: Comiket had such a problem with people sneaking upskirt shots cosplayers, they made it a rule that photos need to be taken from a standing position.

It's not as simple as devs making semi-porn games because they don't give a fuck about whiny women. Japanese developers do take users seriously, to the point where they add more sex just to please the audience and sell more games.

NPC009:
Uh, guys, about Japanese developers having balls for making big boobs, it's not what you imagine.

First of all, for many smaller Japanese developers, the Japanese market is their prime market. Their first and foremost goal is making a game that sells in Japan, anything that sells outside of it is just a bonus. On top of that, many of these smaller developers aim specifically for otaku markets and they do keep up with current trends. All those cute girls with bouncy boobs aren't just there because the dev team happened to like them, they're there because cute girls are an easy way to sell copies. Sex sells in Japan, to the point were some developers add sex scenes in fear of their game not selling otherwise. Popular franchises like Fate/Stay Night started out as eroge. In Japan, having balls mean releasing an original title that's not in some way about sexy cute girls.

Also, Japanese developers do listen to female players. For instance, the Tales series always makes sure to include plenty of cute guys. Sometimes is goes beyond that. Has anyone seen the bonus alternative ending of Tales of Xillia 2? basically, it's a hot springs ending. On the female side you don't see much more than bare shoulders. The male side however is, eh, rather steamy in features someone pulling something that NOT a big zipper. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

As for female characters, they tend to be of varieties female games find cute/cool as well. One big difference is that showing a lot of skin is something many Japanese girls consider cute, partly because it's exotic and not something they think they can/should do. If you look at actual Japanese fashion, girls and women tend to wear a lot of fabric. No low necklines, lots of layers. Showing as much skin as the average female game character in reallife is considered slutty. Not to mention that sexual harassment is a big issue in Japan. To take an example from an otaku corner of the country: Comiket had such a problem with people sneaking upskirt shots cosplayers, they made it a rule that photos need to be taken from a standing position.

It's not as simple as devs making semi-porn games because they don't give a fuck about whiny women. Japanese developers do take users seriously, to the point where they add more sex just to please the audience and sell more games.

Like I said; GamerGaters would go full Adamantium Rage if they knew more about JP games and the thought processes behind them :) I find it hilarious they think that Japanese game companies were great harbors of rebellious "FUCK DA MAN AND DA LIBERAL SJW CUCKS!" mentalities.

Smithnikov:

Like I said; GamerGaters would go full Adamantium Rage if they knew more about JP games and the thought processes behind them :) I find it hilarious they think that Japanese game companies were great harbors of rebellious "FUCK DA MAN AND DA LIBERAL SJW CUCKS!" mentalities.

Yeah... All the times I've had to explain how localisation actually works... Oh well. It is hilarious, I won't deny that. Yet at the same time, it's also kind of sad. Like the time people were tricked into thinking they were supporting an important cause by importing DOAX3 (the actual cause being PlayAsia's wallet).

starbear:

gyrobot:
but the big devs in the West like Bioware, Obsidian, Gearbox, nayghty dog and EA has decided to cater to the nonbuyers directly.

...I very much doubt this to be true. Can you give me actual specific examples from each of the listed developers of them catering directly to "nonbuyers?" That makes no economic sense at all: and I can't think of any time that this has actually happened.

IIRC

Bioware put a trans man in Inquisition, and changed the Qun from a blatant sexist traditional fantasy culture into an egalitarian ant colony culture.

Obsidian put a trans woman in a game and had the audacity of having her talk about it if you asked her about it.

Gearbox put some gay and poc characters in borderlands plus I think gg just finds Anthony Burch annoying becuase he's progressive

Naughty dog made the villain of the last uncharted game a black woman

And I don't know what EA did

But as you can see its mostly just passing and moaning cause women, poc, and transforms characters exist cause they totally aren't sexist racist and transphobic. It's just ethics.

NPC009:

Smithnikov:

Like I said; GamerGaters would go full Adamantium Rage if they knew more about JP games and the thought processes behind them :) I find it hilarious they think that Japanese game companies were great harbors of rebellious "FUCK DA MAN AND DA LIBERAL SJW CUCKS!" mentalities.

Yeah... All the times I've had to explain how localisation actually works... Oh well. It is hilarious, I won't deny that. Yet at the same time, it's also kind of sad. Like the time people were tricked into thinking they were supporting an important cause by importing DOAX3 (the actual cause being PlayAsia's wallet).

Who's to say there is a conflict between supporting an important cause and PlayAsia's wallet? Caring Capitalism FTW!

And Smithnikov, seriously where do you get these bizarre notions about "GamerGaters", with the implausible rage triggers and all? It's like you have a VR grade caricature before you to reference at all times. For my part, even if I never took any oath to any alleged cybercycle gang, I find the inclusion of crowd-pleasing elements in works of entertainment much preferable to the idiot-level parapolitical indoctrination called for by the Western games journolister. Uncompromising art is yet another thing entirely, but please don't ask me to paraphrase renowned Cultural Marxist Theodor Adorno on the subject yet again. I've done it way too many times here, people are gonna think I didn't read two books in my life instead of just the one.

undeadsuitor:

Obsidian put a trans woman in a game and had the audacity of having her talk about it if you asked her about it.

Methinks you're confusing Obsidian with those Beamdog people exploiting past BioWare glories. Obsidian, I believe, annoyed people by leaping into removing a backer-written comic limerick because someone complained about it being "transphobic".

As for the other cases, I don't think you're giving an entirely objective account there. And EA, well, they were EA. But they said it was OK to be EA, since they love themselves some "inclusivity".

StatusNil:

Who's to say there is a conflict between supporting an important cause and PlayAsia's wallet? Caring Capitalism FTW!

Yet I don't recall people agressively supporting sexy Japanese games Koei Tecmo did publish in English, like Ar nosurge and Nights of Azure, despite those games actually being decent games instead of shitty DLC-driven minigame collections. I thought atleast part of Gamergate was supposed to be about rebelling against bad company practices, yet the same people ended up actively supporting exactly that.

NPC009:

StatusNil:

Who's to say there is a conflict between supporting an important cause and PlayAsia's wallet? Caring Capitalism FTW!

Yet I don't recall people agressively supporting sexy Japanese games Koei Tecmo did publish in English, like Ar nosurge and Nights of Azure, despite those games actually being decent games instead of shitty DLC-driven minigame collections. I thought atleast part of Gamergate was supposed to be about rebelling against bad company practices, yet the same people ended up actively supporting exactly that.

Rebelling against bad company practices is just good sense for a gamer, "GamerGate" was and is (an ongoing) media scandal that elicited a protest. So not an organization with a full party platform. People were specifically supporting DOAX3 because it was a target of a seemingly concerted media attack, so as to reject its dictates.

If those other games are good (DOAX3 apparently wasn't, can't say I've played it), I hope they do well on their merits. I hear Nights of Azure is coming to Steam soon, maybe I'll keep an eye out for it.

StatusNil:

NPC009:

StatusNil:

Who's to say there is a conflict between supporting an important cause and PlayAsia's wallet? Caring Capitalism FTW!

Yet I don't recall people agressively supporting sexy Japanese games Koei Tecmo did publish in English, like Ar nosurge and Nights of Azure, despite those games actually being decent games instead of shitty DLC-driven minigame collections. I thought atleast part of Gamergate was supposed to be about rebelling against bad company practices, yet the same people ended up actively supporting exactly that.

Rebelling against bad company practices is just good sense for a gamer, "GamerGate" was and is (an ongoing) media scandal that elicited a protest. So not an organization with a full party platform. People were specifically supporting DOAX3 because it was a target of a seemingly concerted media attack, so as to reject its dictates.

Yet, ironically, they ended up being manipulated by companies using social media, supporting a game based on the message it (was assumed) to send instead of its actual quality. Isn't that exactly what the other side was constantly accused of participating in? I'm all for rebelling, but that was a poorly chosen battle and wasted effort (and money) that could have been put towards something more worthwhile. I mean, even if you were in it just for the boobies appreciation cause, the 60+ bucks an import DOAX3 cost could have bought you two or more sexy visual novels/dating sims from companies like JAST.

If those other games are good (DOAX3 apparently wasn't, can't say I've played it), I hope they do well on their merits. I hear Nights of Azure is coming to Steam soon, maybe I'll keep an eye out for it.

Yeah, Koei Tecmo is putting more effort into Gust games, and I'm really happy they're starting to port things to PC. I recommend keeping an eye out for Atelier Sophie as well. If you liked, say, Recettear, you'll likely enjoy the Atelier series as well. (This is, of course, assuming they don't screw up the ports...)

StatusNil:

undeadsuitor:

Obsidian put a trans woman in a game and had the audacity of having her talk about it if you asked her about it.

Methinks you're confusing Obsidian with those Beamdog people exploiting past BioWare glories. Obsidian, I believe, annoyed people by leaping into removing a backer-written comic limerick because someone complained about it being "transphobic".

As for the other cases, I don't think you're giving an entirely objective account there. And EA, well, they were EA. But they said it was OK to be EA, since they love themselves some "inclusivity".

You're right, I'm getting my rpgs mixed up. The point still stands though.

And last time I checked, Obsidian worked with the backer in question to make a new quote, which is far and away from "jumped on censoring it". They weighed their options, consider what as artists they wanted in their work (a lot of them were family men that didn't want to spread hate in their kids generation) and took a soft handed approach at fixing the problem they found in their own artwork.

I'm not seeing the problem.

undeadsuitor:

You're right, I'm getting my rpgs mixed up. The point still stands though.

I don't believe it does, though, seeing as how it wasn't the fact that said character was transgendered, but the entirely hamfisted way it was handled, plus the writer for the character in question proudly going around and stating in interviews she makes a point of pushing her politics in her work as much as possible.

I mean, let's consider for a moment the possibilities of a transgendered character in a D&D setting; such a person would have magical means available to change their gender; make one such a character - say, a woman - ask you to bring something to her parents, only for them to say something to the effect of "I don't have no daughter", and you'd have an entire questline to develop right there, with the possibility of reconciling them, being a complete dick and making it worse for both parties, or anything in between.

Instead, we get

NPC:
Hi, I'm a transgendered shopkeep.

PC:
1. You're awesome.
2. You're awesome. Can I see your wares?
3. You're awesome. Goodbye.

Two very different scenarios there, methinks, and only one of them objected to by them horrible, bigoted, soggy-kneed gamers.

StatusNil:
Runic Knight and who guys "literally" did what now? It's a grass roots protest, people individually react to what they see without a Central Committee giving them their marching orders. Which, as I understand it, was generally people re-broadcasting mis- and disinformation claiming that anyone who had a problem with the press was part of a "misogynist hate group". Surely it's a serious enough accusation to warrant a denial, instead of silence that could be construed as tacit assent? Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's not Fake News being spread.

It is good to see that the old "Individuals did it!"-argument is still being trotted out when bad things are made in the name of GG, but GG as a collective can take credit for the good things. It was swell talking to you, but this is the point where I no longer want to re-thread 2 years old circles of argumentation.

Gethsemani:

It is good to see that the old "Individuals did it!"-argument is still being trotted out when bad things are made in the name of GG, but GG as a collective can take credit for the good things. It was swell talking to you, but this is the point where I no longer want to re-thread 2 years old circles of argumentation.

Well, if the theory that individuals do things and are responsible for them is a bridge too far for you, all I can say is sometimes a pleasure. Happy holidays!

Ogoid:

undeadsuitor:

You're right, I'm getting my rpgs mixed up. The point still stands though.

I don't believe it does, though, seeing as how it wasn't the fact that said character was transgendered, but the entirely hamfisted way it was handled, plus the writer for the character in question proudly going around and stating in interviews she makes a point of pushing her politics in her work as much as possible.

I mean, let's consider for a moment the possibilities of a transgendered character in a D&D setting; such a person would have magical means available to change their gender; make one such a character - say, a woman - ask you to bring something to her parents, only for them to say something to the effect of "I don't have no daughter", and you'd have an entire questline to develop right there, with the possibility of reconciling them, being a complete dick and making it worse for both parties, or anything in between.

Instead, we get

NPC:
Hi, I'm a transgendered shopkeep.

PC:
1. You're awesome.
2. You're awesome. Can I see your wares?
3. You're awesome. Goodbye.

Two very different scenarios there, methinks, and only one of them objected to by them horrible, bigoted, soggy-kneed gamers.

Honestly, I don't disagree that it was badly written (most non main story npcs are) mainly the following overreaction to it. I mean, how can you criticize Obsidian for caving to an angry mob, when the reaction to beamdog was just another angry mob that caused the creators to cave to them?

It seems to me that the fight between whether or not an artist is allowed to express their opinions, or create for the consumers, seems to entirely fall on what they're creating. Surely you can see why gamergate gets such a bad rap when the far majority of their ire is directed at artists introducing diversity right? Regardless of their intentions it just looks bad.

Here's my advice. Let creators push diversity. Let them brag about having X characters. Because it's temporary. Eventually they won't be able to get undue praise for simply having a trans character. Why? because we'll have more than one. Let games become diverse and eventually all this "look at this diverse indie darling game" will lose pretty much all meaning due to the fact the industry will be already diverse. Which is what you want right? Reviewers to rate games on their quality not their content? Take that rug from them by erasing the idea that diversity is special.

Becuase if everything is diverse then it's not special anymore.

StatusNil:

Gethsemani:

It is good to see that the old "Individuals did it!"-argument is still being trotted out when bad things are made in the name of GG, but GG as a collective can take credit for the good things. It was swell talking to you, but this is the point where I no longer want to re-thread 2 years old circles of argumentation.

Well, if the theory that individuals do things and are responsible for them is a bridge too far for you, all I can say is sometimes a pleasure. Happy holidays!

It's less about the individuals and more about GG disassociating themselves from people who do malicious acts on behalf of the cause. There is no display of good will when refuting these accusations. That not only makes it look like GG don't mind people misusing their tag; it makes the perpetrators feel validated. I'm not saying that the other side has never made the same mistake. I'm saying that discussions won't go anywhere if none of the parts takes responsibility, while demanding it from the other side.

Gethsemani:

runic knight:
Wouldn't the decent thing to do be not talking about someone publicly in such a fashion in the first place, thereby not enticing them to reply to correct slander and lies about them? That's the flaw, as publicly making statements that aren't very nice in the first place, sort of kneecaps the complaints that the person reply isn't being nice in not respecting your desire to not defend your not-very-nice-but-incredibly-incorrect statements.

If you want to talk about it privately, why do it publicly in the first place?

Except, why should you care what some stranger on the internet thinks about GamerGate? It is not like GG only inserted itself into the most vitriolic discussions about it, you guys literally did it whenever anyone brought it up. Someone could say something like "I don't think GG have a point" and there'd be a bunch of Gaters there, ready to explain, with much insistence, why GG does have a point.

I agree with the idea that one should not be making statements that aren't very nice in the first place, but that was not was GG was going after, you went after anyone not agreeing with you. It is also extremely hypocritical of GG to say that others aren't being nice to them, considering their treatment of Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn and a bunch of other people that GG didn't like. Rocks, glasshouses and all that.

You care when they are spreading lies and accusations against you because other people may believe those lies and accusations and it may affect your life. Things like righteous jackasses wanting to stick it to those evil gamergaters and trying to get them fired. Or making bomb threats because they all dared to have a party at a bar. Or concocting fake reasons in order to justify expelling and banning people from conventions. Or how it might be used to justify grossly over-reaching legislature to combat the phantom menace of the gamergate boogieman. Or trying to claim they are worse then actual terrorist organizations and thus deserving of hate and punishment.

Seriously, there is every reason in the world to pipe up and publicly correct someone spreading misinformation, or even outright intentionally misrepresenting and demonizing. Hell, the tactic of "why do you always have to say something" was one I saw used back in the early youtube atheism days as a means to try to get people to shut up, often just so they could proselytize their faith without having to be honest as they lied about science, other religious beliefs, and their critics.

The largest criticism and complaint against gamergate was the demonstrably false claim it was a harassment group. The treatment Sarkesian and others got does not in any way, shape or form excuse such lies about an entire group of people until and unless you can demonstrate it is relevant to those people. What you just did, the implied responsibility and tacit implication that the claims gamergate is a harassment campaign is true is exactly the sort of thing that had to be addressed when the media was constantly pushing that gamergate was behind it all (even those individuals like Anita had been dealing with trolls for longer than gamergate existed, and the sole reason anyone cared about her at all was her own manufactured outrage about having trolls in her comment section and her constant playing the damsel in distress about the occurrence that every youtuber in existence has to deal with). The way the media promoted her blindly and clearly did so to push their political views, on top of her manipulation and manufacturing of outrage in an identical method used by Quinn by hiding behind her gender while crying sexism, is probably the extent of why anyone in gamergate cared about her, least until her attempt to request the UN to censor the internet to protect her from criticism. Or her partner's public displays of insanity becoming a meme all his own. As for others, such as Wu, after she was found actively faking her own "harassment" on steam, I simply have no trust whatsoever toward any of her claims. Same applies to Quinn who has repeatedly been caught lying to cover her ass, so the idea either would lie to maintain their support or deflect their responsibility by playing victim is not only plausible, but now increasingly more likely. Such behavior being suspect, and often found good reason to be suspect, was often meet with replies that gamergate should just "listen and believe" what was being claimed, another echo of the "shut up and don't disagree" theme seem in multiple facets of the media and its supporters against gamergate.

Furthermore, to counter the idea of the last reply, gamergate from the start called out harassment behavior, reported their own and the trolls, and actively maintained efforts to stop the behavior that was bad. From the harassment patrol, to weird simply things like the anti-bully poster on twitter, to constant messages reaffirming that it didn't support harassment, threats or the like, gamergate did everything it could to distance itself. This was one of the earliest examples, and an example I have had to bring up countless times in these threads.
image

Not surprisingly for a group that was trying to deflect actual concerns by lying about the motivations of those behind them, such actions were ignored so they could keep claiming harassment was gamergate's fault as a collective whole instead of individuals acting against the intentions and desires of the majority of the group. Also not surprisingly, leading voices of those opposed to gamergate actively encouraged harassment and negative behavior ranging from threats, doxing, public shaming, to attempts to get people fired, making death threats, bomb threats and so on. They had a man claiming that any tactic as alright as long as it was against the right people, and he was lauded and echoed and supported for it.

runic knight:
You care when they are spreading lies and accusations against you because other people may believe those lies and accusations and it may affect your life. ...

They aren't spreading "lies and accusations" against you though, they are spreading them against "gamergate", which is just a Twitter hashtag.

undeadsuitor:

Honestly, I don't disagree that it was badly written (most non main story npcs are) mainly the following overreaction to it. I mean, how can you criticize Obsidian for caving to an angry mob, when the reaction to beamdog was just another angry mob that caused the creators to cave to them?

Because the latter mob wasn't really trying to get them to change anything, nor accusing them of anything their writers weren't publicly, specifically stating they go out of their ways to do. Obsidian caved to an angry mob over a limerick a Kickstarter backer paid to have included in the game, and which was only offensive if you were actively looking to be offended.

It seems to me that the fight between whether or not an artist is allowed to express their opinions, or create for the consumers, seems to entirely fall on what they're creating. Surely you can see why gamergate gets such a bad rap when the far majority of their ire is directed at artists introducing diversity right? Regardless of their intentions it just looks bad.

To be blunt, I don't much care how it looks. I don't like political posturing or condescending moralizing in my fiction, full stop, and I won't pull my punches because of which side of the political spectrum said posturing and/or moralizing leans toward, nor because of the skin color or set of genitals of the people doing it. Doing the latter, in fact, would be treating them differently because of said characteristics, and that, as far as I'm concerned, is the very definition of discrimination.

Here's my advice. Let creators push diversity. Let them brag about having X characters. Because it's temporary. Eventually they won't be able to get undue praise for simply having a trans character. Why? because we'll have more than one. Let games become diverse and eventually all this "look at this diverse indie darling game" will lose pretty much all meaning due to the fact the industry will be already diverse. Which is what you want right? Reviewers to rate games on their quality not their content? Take that rug from them by erasing the idea that diversity is special.

Becuase if everything is diverse then it's not special anymore.

I don't care if developers push diversity as long as they can make a compelling story and/or an enjoyable experience out of it (even though in my experience, putting agenda over craftsmanship leads to such an outcome in nearly 0% of all cases).

What I do object to is a gaming press that's ideologically homogeneous in pretty much its entirety deciding that said ideology is the singular yardstick by which all games should be judged, and, say - as long as we're on this particular subject - equating criticism of demonstrably terrible writing with being a bigoted, prejudiced and just generally terrible person.

inmunitas:

runic knight:
You care when they are spreading lies and accusations against you because other people may believe those lies and accusations and it may affect your life. ...

They aren't spreading "lies and accusations" against you though, they are spreading them against "gamergate", which is just a Twitter hashtag.

As well as a name for a group of people, a label towards those who publicly disagree with the gaming media, and the name of a controversy itself. Going to take a shot in the dark here though, that when it is called a harassment campaign, they aren't talking about the hashtag itself doing the harassment, but rather the people who use and support it. As such, the lies about the group apply to the people who are part of the group (voluntarily and those just tossed into the pit with them) and the entirety of my point remains.

This is like saying "all muslims are terrorists" is just talking about the religion and not the people who support and follow it. It comes off as being a grossly disingenuous rebuttal.

undeadsuitor:

starbear:

gyrobot:
but the big devs in the West like Bioware, Obsidian, Gearbox, nayghty dog and EA has decided to cater to the nonbuyers directly.

...I very much doubt this to be true. Can you give me actual specific examples from each of the listed developers of them catering directly to "nonbuyers?" That makes no economic sense at all: and I can't think of any time that this has actually happened.

IIRC

Bioware put a trans man in Inquisition, and changed the Qun from a blatant sexist traditional fantasy culture into an egalitarian ant colony culture.

Obsidian put a trans woman in a game and had the audacity of having her talk about it if you asked her about it.

Gearbox put some gay and poc characters in borderlands plus I think gg just finds Anthony Burch annoying becuase he's progressive

Naughty dog made the villain of the last uncharted game a black woman

And I don't know what EA did

But as you can see its mostly just passing and moaning cause women, poc, and transforms characters exist cause they totally aren't sexist racist and transphobic. It's just ethics.

Oh those things? I'm a buyer of games: and those things appeal to me. My mere existence proves gyrobot to be incorrect. I am much more likely to buy a game with characters like this.

runic knight:

inmunitas:

runic knight:
You care when they are spreading lies and accusations against you because other people may believe those lies and accusations and it may affect your life. ...

They aren't spreading "lies and accusations" against you though, they are spreading them against "gamergate", which is just a Twitter hashtag.

As well as a name for a group of people, a label towards those who publicly disagree with the gaming media, and the name of a controversy itself.

What is this group you speak of and what qualifies someone as a member of it? Are referring to simply anyone who has used the hashtag?

Going to take a shot in the dark here though, that when it is called a harassment campaign, they aren't talking about the hashtag itself doing the harassment, but rather the people who use and support it. As such, the lies about the group apply to the people who are part of the group (voluntarily and those just tossed into the pit with them) and the entirety of my point remains.

This is like saying "all muslims are terrorists" is just talking about the religion and not the people who support and follow it. It comes off as being a grossly disingenuous rebuttal.

I'm almost certain that the "harassment campaign" was one of those "fake news" stories, I've never seen anything that would suggest such a campaign actually existed, and thus solely exists in one's imagination. You also seem to be claiming that multiple things share this common name, so what makes you assume they are referring to the same group you speak of?

undeadsuitor:

starbear:

gyrobot:
but the big devs in the West like Bioware, Obsidian, Gearbox, nayghty dog and EA has decided to cater to the nonbuyers directly.

...I very much doubt this to be true. Can you give me actual specific examples from each of the listed developers of them catering directly to "nonbuyers?" That makes no economic sense at all: and I can't think of any time that this has actually happened.

IIRC

Bioware put a trans man in Inquisition, and changed the Qun from a blatant sexist traditional fantasy culture into an egalitarian ant colony culture.

Obsidian put a trans woman in a game and had the audacity of having her talk about it if you asked her about it.

Gearbox put some gay and poc characters in borderlands plus I think gg just finds Anthony Burch annoying becuase he's progressive

Naughty dog made the villain of the last uncharted game a black woman

And I don't know what EA did

But as you can see its mostly just passing and moaning cause women, poc, and transforms characters exist cause they totally aren't sexist racist and transphobic. It's just ethics.

Naughty Dog's Last of Us was in general rather preachy, ticking off everything on the SJW checklist for what they want in their dream game.

Gearbox was responsible for one of the many problems involving Battleborn design wise which was as SJW preachy as hell as well. Sure it can use ironic humor to hide it isn't preachy, but Pritchard's actions speaks pretty loudly about what Battleborn tried to do.

Meanwhile Japan keeps doing what they do best, having directors who doesn't give a shit about the politically sensitive climate so they can make a game about LBT (Sorry, not many men exist in Takaki's works) turning into weapons and fightin until their clothes explode.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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