How gamergate ruined games

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

You can't debate about content anymore. OK mean you can it's just not all that enjoyable/useful anymore because any debate about a games content seems to evolve/devolve into a debate about if your allowed to have that kind of debate. When gamergate poped as a backlash to feminism/sjws/whatever they didn't really take the position that feminism was wrong. OK some did, but feminism is cancer was never going to gain traction as a mainstream view. What did get traction was the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to criticize games at all. It's the idea that you shouldn't try to influence or pressure games in anyway because that is wrong. Something something self censorship. (Now that I am thinking about this I don't know if I have read an argument to why it is wrong to put pressure on a game to have it changed. If anyone has one just toss it out.)

I have the view that it is perfectly OK to criticize, influence or pressure games to change them into something you like, and that it is also OK for other people to do the same thing. This doesn't mean I agree with everyone though, I just simply draw my lines around what your trying to push a game into. Want to push the new metro into a more open world structure, I agree. Want to push every game to being multiplayer focused, I do not agree. It's about what your trying to change not that you are trying to change.

Criticizing games for the sake of gaming is great, criticizing games as a method of affecting wider societal changes in the culture even if it harms games or uses them as a tool, is frowned upon and with good reason.

Something that I always thought, which made me be sympathetic to the people against SJWs more so than opposed to them, was that the people who want to criticize gaming from a feminist or whatever angle, do so not out of a love of gaming, but to push their not-gaming-related agenda. They use games as a tool for their separate-from-gaming goals. That is just inexcusable and no amount of ire is enough for the people who did that. You don't get to use people's passions as a means to an end and expect to do so without people being against you for doing so.

Relatively recently, I believe even Anita herself admitted that "it was never about videogames but more about our culture as a whole", which was both depressing since I am a hopeless optimist who wishes to believe in the authenticity of people and at the same time was vindicating since I knew then that the intuition I based by actions on up to that point was not wrong.

So, yes, pressure games to change into something you prefer, if you ACTUALLY think and TRULY believe it'll be better for the game, and not for some stupid cause you believe in that this change can serve to further. If you do that and are credible enough in your explanation, no reasonable person will try to silence you.

It only ruined it for people who were anti-GG because their meal tickets dried up. There's no point publishing 'This game is amazing' articles anymore because most sites would require them to admit they're being paid by the game devs to say that.

But to everyone else, hardly. I love playing games. And I can debate them endlessly. For example: I think the Dawn of War 3 depiction of Gabriel Angelos was ridiculous compared to his parts in Dawn of War, and Dawn of War 2. Leaping around in Terminator armor, while being as agile as a bird was ridiculous. Thoughts? Oh, and I supported Gamergate.

See?

Dreiko:
Relatively recently, I believe even Anita herself admitted that "it was never about videogames but more about our culture as a whole", which was both depressing since I am a hopeless optimist who wishes to believe in the authenticity of people and at the same time was vindicating since I knew then that the intuition I based by actions on up to that point was not wrong.

Didn't she cause a shit-storm recently for cornering Boogie at VidCon and calling him a piece of shit and just going off on him for getting the last word on a panel?

Dreiko:
Criticizing games for the sake of gaming is great, criticizing games as a method of affecting wider societal changes in the culture even if it harms games or uses them as a tool, is frowned upon and with good reason.

You're going to have to do a better job qualifying these statements, because applying them as is to any other medium is absolute bullshit. By your logic, the protest songs of the 60's and 70's from groups like CSNY, Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young and Bob Dylan are all bad for music. Things Fall Apart and Beloved ruined black literature. Gundam OO is bad for animation. Like I said, you're going to have to qualify this.

Something that I always thought, which made me be sympathetic to the people against SJWs more so than opposed to them, was that the people who want to criticize gaming from a feminist or whatever angle, do so not out of a love of gaming, but to push their not-gaming-related agenda. They use games as a tool for their separate-from-gaming goals. That is just inexcusable and no amount of ire is enough for the people who did that. You don't get to use people's passions as a means to an end and expect to do so without people being against you for doing so.

A hobby and opinions are not mutually exclusive.

Relatively recently, I believe even Anita herself admitted that "it was never about videogames but more about our culture as a whole", which was both depressing since I am a hopeless optimist who wishes to believe in the authenticity of people and at the same time was vindicating since I knew then that the intuition I based by actions on up to that point was not wrong.

Link?

If you do that and are credible enough in your explanation, no reasonable person will try to silence you.

That is absolute pigshit and I think you know that. There is not a single criticism on the planet that someone will not try to silence.

Silentpony:
But to everyone else, hardly. I love playing games. And I can debate them endlessly. For example: I think the Dawn of War 3 depiction of Gabriel Angelos was ridiculous compared to his parts in Dawn of War, and Dawn of War 2. Leaping around in Terminator armor, while being as agile as a bird was ridiculous. Thoughts? Oh, and I supported Gamergate.

Truly, that is some hard-hitting intellectual criticism right there.

Didn't she cause a shit-storm recently for cornering Boogie at VidCon and calling him a piece of shit and just going off on him for getting the last word on a panel?

Given the rate at which gamers lie about anyone they disagree with, pics or it didn't happen.

I don't think Gamergate ruined games.

They would have had to actually had a palpable effect on games to have 'ruined' them. They would have had to have an effect on ANYTHING. Because looking back for all their leg kicking and fit having they accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things.

ya can't ruin everything if you did nothing. *taps forehead*

Dreiko:
Criticizing games for the sake of gaming is great, criticizing games as a method of affecting wider societal changes in the culture even if it harms games or uses them as a tool, is frowned upon and with good reason.

Something that I always thought, which made me be sympathetic to the people against SJWs more so than opposed to them, was that the people who want to criticize gaming from a feminist or whatever angle, do so not out of a love of gaming, but to push their not-gaming-related agenda. They use games as a tool for their separate-from-gaming goals. That is just inexcusable and no amount of ire is enough for the people who did that. You don't get to use people's passions as a means to an end and expect to do so without people being against you for doing so.

Relatively recently, I believe even Anita herself admitted that "it was never about videogames but more about our culture as a whole", which was both depressing since I am a hopeless optimist who wishes to believe in the authenticity of people and at the same time was vindicating since I knew then that the intuition I based by actions on up to that point was not wrong.

So, yes, pressure games to change into something you prefer, if you ACTUALLY think and TRULY believe it'll be better for the game, and not for some stupid cause you believe in that this change can serve to further. If you do that and are credible enough in your explanation, no reasonable person will try to silence you.

That is a fairish point, but I don't like it because like because, just like the argument I talked about, it doesn't address the arguments being made. It is a way to avoid or reflect. (Not to mention how it relies on ascribing motivations to people that honestly don't know.)

undeadsuitor:
I don't think Gamergate ruined games.

They would have had to actually had a palpable effect on games to have 'ruined' them. They would have had to have an effect on ANYTHING. Because looking back for all their leg kicking and fit having they accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things.

ya can't ruin everything if you did nothing. *taps forehead*

I don't really buy into the idea that they had no impact. I think it is more of wishful thinking then reality. I have noticed fewer people willing to point out of bring up different topics because you get way more flack now then you use to. At the very least I know I talk about it a lot less, or I know to moderate things and present them in a way that I think will get less flack.

nomotog:

undeadsuitor:
I don't think Gamergate ruined games.

They would have had to actually had a palpable effect on games to have 'ruined' them. They would have had to have an effect on ANYTHING. Because looking back for all their leg kicking and fit having they accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things.

ya can't ruin everything if you did nothing. *taps forehead*

I don't really buy into the idea that they had no impact. I think it is more of wishful thinking then reality. I have noticed fewer people willing to point out of bring up different topics because you get way more flack now then you use to. At the very least I know I talk about it a lot less, or I know to moderate things and present them in a way that I think will get less flack.

there's always been the "dont think about it" guys on the internet. hell, the whole

gamers: we want games to be art so we can feel better about playing them

sjws: can we place the same critical lens on games that we do on art then

gamers: NO. GAMES ARE FOR FUN

was a running joke a LONG time before gg came around. Besides, I'm operating on what gg'ers say their movement was about. Ethics in gaming journalism. And in THAT they did nothing.

Silentpony:

Didn't she cause a shit-storm recently for cornering Boogie at VidCon and calling him a piece of shit and just going off on him for getting the last word on a panel?

That was Sargon she called a shithead, boogie was just...there, trembling like a sofa-sized leaf afraid of incurring her wrath, lol.

BeetleManiac:

You're going to have to do a better job qualifying these statements, because applying them as is to any other medium is absolute bullshit. By your logic, the protest songs of the 60's and 70's from groups like CSNY, Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young and Bob Dylan are all bad for music. Things Fall Apart and Beloved ruined black literature. Gundam OO is bad for animation. Like I said, you're going to have to qualify this.

See, art with a message is fine since you are both creating something and using your talent for your goals. It's not the same as merely using what other people created, often maligning it, for the sake of a goal that the art was actually not intended to serve. Criticism of art is not in itself art, nor should it be. It isn't expression, either, it's just that; criticism. A tool we use to make the already existing art better. Using game criticism to push social justice is both an abuse of games and of the concept of criticism in itself.

A hobby and opinions are not mutually exclusive.

Lying about having a hobby to couch your opinion in unearned credibility will be irksome to the actual hobbyists.

Link?

Here:

http://mashable.com/2017/04/27/anita-sakeesian-end-of-tropes-vs-women-video-games/#bvuZ1Q5MLiqw

That is absolute pigshit and I think you know that. There is not a single criticism on the planet that someone will not try to silence.

Umm, you did see me say that no "reasonable" person would try to silence them, right? By definition, I'm calling all those you refer to unreasonable, hence fine to ignore without problem while focusing on constructive discussion.

nomotog:

Dreiko:
Criticizing games for the sake of gaming is great, criticizing games as a method of affecting wider societal changes in the culture even if it harms games or uses them as a tool, is frowned upon and with good reason.

Something that I always thought, which made me be sympathetic to the people against SJWs more so than opposed to them, was that the people who want to criticize gaming from a feminist or whatever angle, do so not out of a love of gaming, but to push their not-gaming-related agenda. They use games as a tool for their separate-from-gaming goals. That is just inexcusable and no amount of ire is enough for the people who did that. You don't get to use people's passions as a means to an end and expect to do so without people being against you for doing so.

Relatively recently, I believe even Anita herself admitted that "it was never about videogames but more about our culture as a whole", which was both depressing since I am a hopeless optimist who wishes to believe in the authenticity of people and at the same time was vindicating since I knew then that the intuition I based by actions on up to that point was not wrong.

So, yes, pressure games to change into something you prefer, if you ACTUALLY think and TRULY believe it'll be better for the game, and not for some stupid cause you believe in that this change can serve to further. If you do that and are credible enough in your explanation, no reasonable person will try to silence you.

That is a fairish point, but I don't like it because like because, just like the argument I talked about, it doesn't address the arguments being made. It is a way to avoid or reflect. (Not to mention how it relies on ascribing motivations to people that honestly don't know.)

I'm not avoiding anything, I'm telling you how you can achieve your intended goal of having actual constructive criticism be a thing that we can discuss; do so from a place of care for games as a medium and don't come off like you're trying to use games or the culture for random irrelevant BS (not saying you specifically do that, but in general, that's how its done).

The 'hardcore', 'passionate' and most importantly 'true' gaming audience has a lot of growing up to do as evidenced by the entire spectacle. I think too much focus on gaming kinda shriveled world perspectives, social cohesion and empathy for many which can't handle certain types of criticism without taking it all far too personally. I'm glad everybody's past all that now though. Right?

Dreiko:

Silentpony:

Didn't she cause a shit-storm recently for cornering Boogie at VidCon and calling him a piece of shit and just going off on him for getting the last word on a panel?

That was Sargon she called a shithead, boogie was just...there, trembling like a sofa-sized leaf afraid of incurring her wrath, lol.

Considering boogie doesn't think it's a big deal, it's somewhat amazing the number of people incensed on his behalf.

EDIT: Actually, that's evidence for this thread's point, now that I think about it: a faction of gamers are bashing Sarkeesian over an anecdote provided by someone who doesn't want it made to be a big deal, complete with people misrepresenting the entire situation.

How the hell are gamers supposed to have a reasonable discussion about...anything when this kind of blow-up can happen over a nothing-burger?

undeadsuitor:
Besides, I'm operating on what gg'ers say their movement was about. Ethics in gaming journalism. And in THAT they did nothing.

Yea, that was the original idea. But then the feminist backlash happened and GG devolved into just a whole lot of gamers complaining about stuff they didn't like. Kinda sad really.

As for GG stifling all criticism as is implied by the OP, that's just not true. GG is against criticism with hidden agendas. Like feminists complaining about a game being anti woman, while 90% of them will probably never even play the game to begin with. Criticising a game because you want the game to be better is a different thing. Sure people will still go against you, but that has nothing to do with GG and everything to do with differing opinions from just other people.

BeetleManiac:
You're going to have to do a better job qualifying these statements, because applying them as is to any other medium is absolute bullshit. By your logic, the protest songs of the 60's and 70's from groups like CSNY, Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young and Bob Dylan are all bad for music. Things Fall Apart and Beloved ruined black literature. Gundam OO is bad for animation. Like I said, you're going to have to qualify this.

There's a difference between creating something that's criticising something, like those protest songs. (freedom of speech and all that) And criticising/trying to silence someone else's work because you don't like the social implications of it.

sanquin:

As for GG stifling all criticism as is implied by the OP, that's just not true. GG is against criticism with hidden agendas. Like feminists complaining about a game being anti woman, while 90% of them will probably never even play the game to begin with. Criticising a game because you want the game to be better is a different thing. Sure people will still go against you, but that has nothing to do with GG and everything to do with differing opinions from just other people.

[bolded part]And how could they possible know that? Remember, most of the people GG got mad at were Game developers, game critics, and game journalists. Hell, unless you did all the way back to the Jack Thompson era, they got nobody who fits the "most of them won't even play the game" schtick.

I mean, I've been gaming for almost 30 years now. Kinda surprised to hear I'm just a feminist invader to the hobby. And I got told that a lot.

There's a difference between creating something that's criticising something, like those protest songs. (freedom of speech and all that) And criticising/trying to silence someone else's work because you don't like the social implications of it.

What, like a video series showing common tropes video games use?

I have to disagree. Mainly because if GG likes to think that it managed to have any kind of impact on anything, then, as far as I'm concerned, GG stands for GIT GUD because the "changes" they imposed were nothing short of pathetic.

btdubs: the clothing in Fire Emblem Fates is still utterly stupid and sexist (I guess the game would've just fallen the fuck apart if we couldn't see Fem!Corrin's crotch and ass crack, but we don't want to show off M!Corrin's ass) games with female main characters can sell (a statement that I made that was really fucking controversial for some reason. People seemed to think I was saying that a female main character causes the game to sell when I was just saying that a female main character wasn't a detriment) and while Persona 5 was an excellent game that otherwise had really great writing for its female characters, having the humor about Ann, who was nearly the victim of sexual assault, being forced to show off her body in situations she clearly isn't comfortable with was nothing short of fucking tone deaf.

Come at me.

Dreiko:
That was Sargon she called a shithead, boogie was just...there, trembling like a sofa-sized leaf afraid of incurring her wrath, lol.

She called him a "garbage human being." Because he is. Regarding Boogie, pics or it didn't happen.

It isn't expression, either, it's just that; criticism.

Bullshit. Why should criticism not be considered expression?

A tool we use to make the already existing art better. Using game criticism to push social justice is both an abuse of games and of the concept of criticism in itself.

So the other arts and the criticism thereof have never been used to push an agenda? Are you serious? And why should I take your demands of what criticism entails seriously? To me you're just another dude on the internet with some canned opinions I've heard a million times before and they weren't convincing then, either.

Lying about having a hobby to couch your opinion in unearned credibility will be irksome to the actual hobbyists.

When it's your job it's not a hobby anymore.

Link?

Here:

http://mashable.com/2017/04/27/anita-sakeesian-end-of-tropes-vs-women-video-games/#bvuZ1Q5MLiqw

And this means that she's a bad person and nothing she says has any critical merit?

Umm, you did see me say that no "reasonable" person would try to silence them, right?

Yeah, it was an asinine qualifier that does not actually change the naivete of the statement.

I'm not avoiding anything, I'm telling you how you can achieve your intended goal of having actual constructive criticism be a thing that we can discuss; do so from a place of care for games as a medium and don't come off like you're trying to use games or the culture for random irrelevant BS (not saying you specifically do that, but in general, that's how its done).

Exactly, you're evading the criticism and not addressing the substance of it because you have a problem with the person it comes from.

sanquin:
There's a difference between creating something that's criticising something, like those protest songs. (freedom of speech and all that) And criticising/trying to silence someone else's work because you don't like the social implications of it.

You mean like how Anita's hate-club have made it a full-time job trying to ruin her career for the crime of having opinions? Come back when you have something other than 3-year-old talking points.

altnameJag:

Dreiko:

Silentpony:

Didn't she cause a shit-storm recently for cornering Boogie at VidCon and calling him a piece of shit and just going off on him for getting the last word on a panel?

That was Sargon she called a shithead, boogie was just...there, trembling like a sofa-sized leaf afraid of incurring her wrath, lol.

Considering boogie doesn't think it's a big deal, it's somewhat amazing the number of people incensed on his behalf.

EDIT: Actually, that's evidence for this thread's point, now that I think about it: a faction of gamers are bashing Sarkeesian over an anecdote provided by someone who doesn't want it made to be a big deal, complete with people misrepresenting the entire situation.

How the hell are gamers supposed to have a reasonable discussion about...anything when this kind of blow-up can happen over a nothing-burger?

But Boggie himself made a video about how yes, she cornered him, yes she yelled out him, yes he felt threatened and intimidated, and yes he really should apologize to her for getting her so mad.
And that just sounds like being bullied into silence, and apologizing for angering the bully.
Anita shouldn't get a pass on bad behavior just 'cause she's not popular on the interwebs.

sanquin:

undeadsuitor:
Besides, I'm operating on what gg'ers say their movement was about. Ethics in gaming journalism. And in THAT they did nothing.

Yea, that was the original idea. But then the feminist backlash happened and GG devolved into just a whole lot of gamers complaining about stuff they didn't like. Kinda sad really.

I wouldn't say devolved, GG was always about women in gaming getting 'undeserved' attention. It was built off the back of the Quinnspiricy, a whole hubbabaloo about a girl getting good reviews by sleeping with men (men who never reviewed her game because logic). Hell, the whole gamergate name was coined by Adam Baldwin referring to the Quinnspriciy.

the 'ethics in gaming journalism' was just what they came up with when pressed for a legitimate grievance. It never devolved into bashing feminism. it just stopped pretending to be better than it actually is

Silentpony:
But Boggie himself made a video about how yes, she cornered him, yes she yelled out him, yes he felt threatened and intimidated, and yes he really should apologize to her for getting her so mad.
And that just sounds like being bullied into silence, and apologizing for angering the bully.
Anita shouldn't get a pass on bad behavior just 'cause she's not popular on the interwebs.

Then you should have no problem linking the video to us.

BeetleManiac:

She called him a "garbage human being." Because he is. Regarding Boogie, pics or it didn't happen.

I heard the shithead part, the garbage human being sounds funnier. Ah well, I don't think it's a big deal either way. It's just funny when it's the person who is supposedly all weak and unable to deal with mean words online the one doing it.

Bullshit. Why should criticism not be considered expression?

That's deceptive, that's why. If you wish to opine, do so, but saying it's "criticism" lets you get away with saying things that you'd normally get called out for. It's abusing the system of criticism which exists to point out faults in something with the aim of improving it when you don't actually care about the thing you're supposed to be desiring the improvement of. It's dishonest to its core. If you don't understand that, we will never see eye to eye so you should stop responding to me lol.

So the other arts and the criticism thereof have never been used to push an agenda? Are you serious? And why should I take your demands of what criticism entails seriously? To me you're just another dude on the internet with some canned opinions I've heard a million times before and they weren't convincing then, either.

Surely they have, and that was wrong too, and I'm against that too. It's not my "demands", it's the concept of criticism in society. I didn't make it up.

According to the dictionary, criticism is: "the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work."

This means you judge the thing as it pertains to its literary value, not to it's advancement of social justice value. If you don't do this but still call your work criticism, you're deceitful.

When it's your job it's not a hobby anymore.

The point is that it never was a hobby.

And this means that she's a bad person and nothing she says has any critical merit?

This justifies disregarding her opinions if they are presented from the perspective of someone who is trying to improve games, as they clearly don't want to do that. Also, you just asked me for a link and I gave it to you, you shouldn't put words in my mouth lol. I never said she's a bad person, just a dishonest one. I think it's hard to tell if anyone's a good or bad person from all this online drama BS.

Yeah, it was an asinine qualifier that does not actually change the naivete of the statement.

Exactly, you're evading the criticism and not addressing the substance of it because you have a problem with the person it comes from.

It's not honest criticism from a good place. It's worthless, hell, it's not even criticism, it's soapboxing masquerading as criticism from someone who is masquerading to be a gamer. There's nothing valid to address, and there's nothing about this to "like" or "dislike", it's just intellectually bankrupt and a waste of time. It doesn't even enter the part where I spend enough energy on it to feel anything about it.

Dreiko:
It's just funny when it's the person who is supposedly all weak and unable to deal with mean words online the one doing it.

Oh, you mean the woman who has continued doing her thing even when people threatened her life for it?

That's deceptive, that's why. If you wish to opine, do so, but saying it's "criticism" lets you get away with saying things that you'd normally get called out for. It's abusing the system of criticism which exists to point out faults in something with the aim of improving it when you don't actually care about the thing you're supposed to be desiring the improvement of. It's dishonest to its core. If you don't understand that, we will never see eye to eye so you should stop responding to me lol.

I understand it. It's just bullshit. You don't actually know the motives of the critics you attack and you've never addressed the content of their message meaningfully so you can't even claim to have read between the lines. From where I'm sitting, you just don't want to have to hear opinions you don't like.

Surely they have, and that was wrong too, and I'm against that too. It's not my "demands", it's the concept of criticism in society. I didn't make it up.

No, you're absolutely making this up as you go.

According to the dictionary, criticism is: "the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work."

This means you judge the thing as it pertains to its literary value, not to it's advancement of social justice value. If you don't do this but still call your work criticism, you're deceitful.

So art exists in a vacuum? It is in no way influenced by the circumstances of the creator? The culture that produced it? It doesn't say anything about us as a society and never can?

The point is that it never was a hobby.

Wait, what? You just described gamers as hobbyists in an earlier post, now it's not a hobby?

This justifies disregarding her opinions if they are presented from the perspective of someone who is trying to improve games, as they clearly don't want to do that. Also, you just asked me for a link and I gave it to you, you shouldn't put words in my mouth lol. I never said she's a bad person, just a dishonest one. I think it's hard to tell if anyone's a good or bad person from all this online drama BS.

Clearly? How do you mean? How is it clear? Bad person, dishonest person, same fucking thing.

It's not honest criticism from a good place. It's worthless, hell, it's not even criticism, it's soapboxing masquerading as criticism from someone who is masquerading to be a gamer.

Gamergate have been incredibly dishonest in their criticisms and rhetoric, yet you continue to defend them. I should take you seriously when you say this shit because...?

There's nothing valid to address, and there's nothing about this to "like" or "dislike", it's just intellectually bankrupt and a waste of time. It doesn't even enter the part where I spend enough energy on it to feel anything about it.

You've never actually watched her videos, so how would you know?

I don't think it ruined gaming itself or, for that matter, had any impact on game development or journalism at all.

It did make the world a little worse place to be a gamer. In fact, I stopped using that term to describe myself entirely because of gamergate. Now I use the more wordy 'guy who likes video games'.

Honestly, GG was a real eye opener, showed just how much I have grown up since the days of Jack Thompson and how little other people have.

BeetleManiac:

Silentpony:
But Boggie himself made a video about how yes, she cornered him, yes she yelled out him, yes he felt threatened and intimidated, and yes he really should apologize to her for getting her so mad.
And that just sounds like being bullied into silence, and apologizing for angering the bully.
Anita shouldn't get a pass on bad behavior just 'cause she's not popular on the interwebs.

Then you should have no problem linking the video to us.

Sure

BeetleManiac:

Dreiko:
It's just funny when it's the person who is supposedly all weak and unable to deal with mean words online the one doing it.

Oh, you mean the woman who has continued doing her thing even when people threatened her life for it?

Yep, she's clearly not quite as fragile or unable to cope with mean words online as her pleas for change suggest.

I understand it. It's just bullshit. You don't actually know the motives of the critics you attack and you've never addressed the content of their message meaningfully so you can't even claim to have read between the lines. From where I'm sitting, you just don't want to have to hear opinions you don't like.

The link I gave you states the motive. The motive is furthering of social justice. What else do I need to know.

So art exists in a vacuum? It is in no way influenced by the circumstances of the creator? The culture that produced it? It doesn't say anything about us as a society and never can?

That's how one should judge art if one is trying to be fair and offer useful critique that will improve it and so that other people reading the critique can take away from it useful information. If someone is reading the critique expecting it to be in a vacuum as it should but what they're consuming is influenced by a bunch of irrelevant factors that infect it, the reader will be turned off by that. This is part of why there was such negative reaction; people were looking for a vanilla review and they were getting social justice flavor instead.

Wait, what? You just described gamers as hobbyists in an earlier post, now it's not a hobby?

I'm referring to the person you were referring to when you mentioned it being their job. It has become their job but it never was their hobby, it was just a useful tool.

Clearly? How do you mean? How is it clear? Bad person, dishonest person, same fucking thing.

A critique of games has to be about games, obviously. If you're critiquing games with the goal of creating a perfect society and using games as a tool for that then you will not hesitate to critique them in ways that will be destructive to games if they are favorable for your actual goal. Clearly that is the wrong mindset to have. Dishonest people who think they're doing good have a tendency to rationalize their dishonesty and explain it away with breaking a few eggs to make an omelet. See, when I'm trying to be fair you don't want to let me do that so that you can claim I'm being overly harsh, that's not very nice lol.

Gamergate have been incredibly dishonest in their criticisms and rhetoric, yet you continue to defend them. I should take you seriously when you say this shit because...?

Because I haven't actually defended any specific dishonest criticisms and don't plan to. I'm only addressing the stuff I find to have merit.

You've never actually watched her videos, so how would you know?

Nah, I saw them all actually. They were not that bad and not worth the kerfuffle over them, that's for sure lol. I have a habit of watching stuff I disagree with because I find it amusing to see people be wrong. This is part of why I posted above that hearing that they indeed were not about gaming after all was disappointing, cause it's one thing to just disagree with someone who is an honest actor and just sees things differently and it's another to be talking to someone who is not genuine but has an ulterior motive they're aiming for.

Silentpony:
Sure

So a nothing burger, yet again. Did you watch the video?

Dreiko:
Oh, you mean the woman who has continued doing her thing even when people threatened her life for it?

Yep, she's clearly not quite as fragile or unable to cope with mean words online as her pleas for change suggest.

So she's not acting in the way you expect victims to act, therefore she must be faking it?

The link I gave you states the motive. The motive is furthering of social justice. What else do I need to know.

A lot, as it turns out.

That's how one should judge art if one is trying to be fair and offer useful critique that will improve it and so that other people reading the critique can take away from it useful information. If someone is reading the critique expecting it to be in a vacuum as it should but what they're consuming is influenced by a bunch of irrelevant factors that infect it, the reader will be turned off by that. This is part of why there was such negative reaction; people were looking for a vanilla review and they were getting social justice flavor instead.

So, yes you do believe that art exists in a vacuum. Okay.

The French New Wave filmmakers say that they were influenced to innovate by the stale nature of French cinema in the 50's and 60's and that their works were informed by what it meant to grow up in France in the mid-20th century, the young French experience. You appear to argue that information is wholly irrelevant and should have absolutely no place in cinematic analysis or critique of French New Wave.

Similarly, you acknowledge the protest songs of the 60's had a message, but you don't want me to talk about the political climate that informed those protests. And we certainly should never discuss the cultural mythology that Kurosawa's samurai films sought to challenge.

The idea that culture, politics, audience and industry do not have an influence on the artists that they directly affect is just silly. The idea that those influences must remain separate from critical theory is even more absurd. How can art exist in a vacuum when it's made by people?

I'm referring to the person you were referring to when you mentioned it being their job. It has become their job but it never was their hobby, it was just a useful tool.

Ah, the same logic of climate deniers. "I don't trust these people because it's their job and not their hobby."

A critique of games has to be about games, obviously. If you're critiquing games with the goal of creating a perfect society and using games as a tool for that then you will not hesitate to critique them in ways that will be destructive to games if they are favorable for your actual goal. Clearly that is the wrong mindset to have. Dishonest people who think they're doing good have a tendency to rationalize their dishonesty and explain it away with breaking a few eggs to make an omelet. See, when I'm trying to be fair you don't want to let me do that so that you can claim I'm being overly harsh, that's not very nice lol.

Oh, I'm sure you believe your arguments to the pinnacle of rationality and objectivity. But thinking something does not make it so. People are not obligated to shut up just because you can claim objectivity. Instead, you're giving me the image of someone who inherently distrusts educated people.

Because I haven't actually defended any specific dishonest criticisms and don't plan to. I'm only addressing the stuff I find to have merit.

Your arguments thus far aren't holding up too well either.

I have a habit of watching stuff I disagree with because I find it amusing to see people be wrong.

That implies some very unflattering things about you. Would you like to qualify that?

This is part of why I posted above that hearing that they indeed were not about gaming after all was disappointing, cause it's one thing to just disagree with someone who is an honest actor and just sees things differently and it's another to be talking to someone who is not genuine but has an ulterior motive they're aiming for.

How is that not "seeing things differently?"

erttheking:
I have to disagree. Mainly because if GG likes to think that it managed to have any kind of impact on anything, then, as far as I'm concerned, GG stands for GIT GUD because the "changes" they imposed were nothing short of pathetic.

btdubs: the clothing in Fire Emblem Fates is still utterly stupid and sexist (I guess the game would've just fallen the fuck apart if we couldn't see Fem!Corrin's crotch and ass crack, but we don't want to show off M!Corrin's ass) games with female main characters can sell (a statement that I made that was really fucking controversial for some reason. People seemed to think I was saying that a female main character causes the game to sell when I was just saying that a female main character wasn't a detriment) and while Persona 5 was an excellent game that otherwise had really great writing for its female characters, having the humor about Ann, who was nearly the victim of sexual assault, being forced to show off her body in situations she clearly isn't comfortable with was nothing short of fucking tone deaf.

Come at me.

Some of us like fanservice. What a big surprise and the one ones that dont are being paid to say so. What a big surprise, the entire journalist industry has become widely hostile to any form of midriff, bikini or revealing armor.

Its funny, I grown a pair an realized I am a functional human being and need to listen to my inner voice saying "Its hot." Instead of being all sexually repressed like Klepek when he was talking about Yakuza 0.

And quite frankly for the guy who who says reviewers cant enjoy games can thank Yahtzee for their debbie downer attitude that eventually turned to Annie Thatcher to stoke their misery with something self righteous

gyrobot:

Some of us like fanservice. What a big surprise and the one ones that dont are being paid to say so. What a big surprise, the entire journalist industry has become widely hostile to any form of midriff, bikini or revealing armor.

Its funny, I grown a pair an realized I am a functional human being and need to listen to my inner voice saying "Its hot." Instead of being all sexually repressed like Klepek when he was talking about Yakuza 0.

Good for you?

Some of us have "grown a pair" and realized that we really find having softcore porn in our video games to be kind of obnoxious and distracting. And no, we're not being "paid to say so".

altnameJag:

I mean, I've been gaming for almost 30 years now. Kinda surprised to hear I'm just a feminist invader to the hobby. And I got told that a lot.

And you're far from the only one. Same thing happens when they shout about how all of us "SJW invaders" should just make our own games; when we actually do, we get accused of all sorts of ridiculous things as well. It's almost like we can't win, because the goalposts constantly keep moving so that we can be told we're not "real" gamers.

Silentpony:

Didn't she cause a shit-storm recently for cornering Boogie at VidCon and calling him a piece of shit and just going off on him for getting the last word on a panel?

It was Sargon of Akkad and a bunch of his anti-SJW pals (including Boogie from what I understand) had taken all the seats in the two (or three, depending on who you ask) front rows of her panel. She recognized he was there and when the first question was about why feminism in games and online was a topic worth speaking about she said:

Anita Sarkeesian:
"If you Google my name on YouTube you get shitheads like this dude [Sargon] who are making these dumb-assed videos. They just say the same shit over and over again. I hate to give you attention because you're a garbage human. These dudes just making endless videos that go after every feminist over and over again is a part of the issue of why we have to have these conversations."

So I am not sure any cornering went on, but if there was it was most certainly Sargon of Akkad and the bunch that tried to intimidate Sarkeesian with their presence. Considering what Carl Benjamin has said about Sarkeesian in the past, I am thinking she showed some world class restraint.

gyrobot:

erttheking:
I have to disagree. Mainly because if GG likes to think that it managed to have any kind of impact on anything, then, as far as I'm concerned, GG stands for GIT GUD because the "changes" they imposed were nothing short of pathetic.

btdubs: the clothing in Fire Emblem Fates is still utterly stupid and sexist (I guess the game would've just fallen the fuck apart if we couldn't see Fem!Corrin's crotch and ass crack, but we don't want to show off M!Corrin's ass) games with female main characters can sell (a statement that I made that was really fucking controversial for some reason. People seemed to think I was saying that a female main character causes the game to sell when I was just saying that a female main character wasn't a detriment) and while Persona 5 was an excellent game that otherwise had really great writing for its female characters, having the humor about Ann, who was nearly the victim of sexual assault, being forced to show off her body in situations she clearly isn't comfortable with was nothing short of fucking tone deaf.

Come at me.

Some of us like fanservice. What a big surprise and the one ones that dont are being paid to say so. What a big surprise, the entire journalist industry has become widely hostile to any form of midriff, bikini or revealing armor.

Its funny, I grown a pair an realized I am a functional human being and need to listen to my inner voice saying "Its hot." Instead of being all sexually repressed like Klepek when he was talking about Yakuza 0.

And quite frankly for the guy who who says reviewers cant enjoy games can thank Yahtzee for their debbie downer attitude that eventually turned to Annie Thatcher to stoke their misery with something self righteous

Point out where I said fanservice was bad. There's plenty of fanservice in Fates that I didn't criticize. I actually like the dark mages, partially because it's actually equal for men and women and doesn't feel like a jarring tone clash when you go from one to the other. That and the game wasn't stupid enough to stick dark mages in big dramatic moments. But still, I find it very hard to understand how it's fair that Male!Corrin gets a fully functional set of armor while Fem!Corrin gets that stupid looking crap. Why don't we see Male!Corrin's thong clad ass and crotch? The answer is that it'd be stupid and not fit with the character, not that that stops it from happening to Fem!Corrin It kind of directly clashes with her character of being naive, idealistic from a fault and isolated from the world. Also, I don't recall many journalists having a problem with 2B in Nier. Even Polygon was making jokes about it. The closest I found to criticism of it was one article that said that Nier didn't do ENOUGH! That, in a game about human love, it was just cheap titillation and not any lust or passion between two people.

Buddy, let me tell you something. I love porn. I FUCKING love it. I doubly love porn about pre-existing characters in gaming. But when I'm playing the games themselves I'm usually doing it to enjoy a story, and when the tone of fanservice, doubly so if it's slapped on only women so that I can tell that the rules of the universe are being bent purely for the sake of T&A, clashes with the tone of that story, I'm going to call it out. And I'm not being paid to say that, thank you very fucking much.

And I have no idea what the hell you're talking about with that last point.

gyrobot:
Some of us like fanservice. What a big surprise and the one ones that dont are being paid to say so. What a big surprise, the entire journalist industry has become widely hostile to any form of midriff, bikini or revealing armor.

I like fanservice in the same way I like junk food: in moderation. I don't need to have it at every sitting.

And if I'm being paid to not agree with you, where the fuck is my check?

Gethsemani:

So I am not sure any cornering went on, but if there was it was most certainly Sargon of Akkad and the bunch that tried to intimidate Sarkeesian with their presence.

Oh yeah, sitting in a chair, the most intimidating action everyone ever did. The nazis were well known in their sitting technique.

At worst, Sargon baited Anita and she took the bait without any thought, pretty much showing she is just as toxic as any of them (which surprised no one).

inu-kun:

Gethsemani:

So I am not sure any cornering went on, but if there was it was most certainly Sargon of Akkad and the bunch that tried to intimidate Sarkeesian with their presence.

Oh yeah, sitting in a chair, the most intimidating action everyone ever did. The nazis were well known in their sitting technique.

At worst, Sargon baited Anita and she took the bait without any thought, pretty much showing she is just as toxic as any of them (which surprised no one).

If they just wanted to bait, they could have done so from rows further in the back.

I've had gamergaters in the audiences of my panels and lectures about game journalism, but most of the time I barely noticed they were there. They'd just quietly send out the occassional tweet. Some might have asked a question. I also had no prior history with them. They were just members of the audience.

That's very different from when people who have made you their target online pointedly seek out seats as close to you as possible to make sure you know they are there. Especially if they moved in a group.

gyrobot:

erttheking:
I have to disagree. Mainly because if GG likes to think that it managed to have any kind of impact on anything, then, as far as I'm concerned, GG stands for GIT GUD because the "changes" they imposed were nothing short of pathetic.

btdubs: the clothing in Fire Emblem Fates is still utterly stupid and sexist (I guess the game would've just fallen the fuck apart if we couldn't see Fem!Corrin's crotch and ass crack, but we don't want to show off M!Corrin's ass) games with female main characters can sell (a statement that I made that was really fucking controversial for some reason. People seemed to think I was saying that a female main character causes the game to sell when I was just saying that a female main character wasn't a detriment) and while Persona 5 was an excellent game that otherwise had really great writing for its female characters, having the humor about Ann, who was nearly the victim of sexual assault, being forced to show off her body in situations she clearly isn't comfortable with was nothing short of fucking tone deaf.

Come at me.

Some of us like fanservice. What a big surprise and the one ones that dont are being paid to say so. What a big surprise, the entire journalist industry has become widely hostile to any form of midriff, bikini or revealing armor.

Its funny, I grown a pair an realized I am a functional human being and need to listen to my inner voice saying "Its hot." Instead of being all sexually repressed like Klepek when he was talking about Yakuza 0.

And quite frankly for the guy who who says reviewers cant enjoy games can thank Yahtzee for their debbie downer attitude that eventually turned to Annie Thatcher to stoke their misery with something self righteous

I could have made a thread on this sentiment alone, but I don't really know anything to say about it. There are tons of people who complain about fanservice, without being paid. Then there are also tons of people who complain about people complaint about fan service who also get paid. (It's kind of funny how the people who hate on anita can some times appear to make more money then she dose, but I never stopped to do all the math.) However saying you do it to isn't really much of an argument because dose it really matter? It saddles along closely with the idea that you have to love games to talk about games. It's not really an argument, it is just something you bring up to avoid the argument.

BeetleManiac:

Silentpony:
Sure

So a nothing burger, yet again. Did you watch the video?

yes. It's about how boogie ended a panel on cyber bullying on how he's received threats and it's not just women how are bullied, and Anita cornering him to tell him to shut up and how she doesn't appreciate his point of view or listening to him.
And then boogie agrees with her because he doesn't want a fight, implying she would fight if he didn't agree.
It's obvious boogie is scared. You can hear it in his voice.

 Pages 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